Bridges of Madison County, The Horse Whisperer, Tales of a Humpack Whale ...

What do all of these have in common? Marital affairs. All conducted by women. What do these women have in common? They're wives who feel neglected.  

I visited IMDb to learn more about The Lovers, a French movie - part of the New Wave era, after this popped up on my dashboard on tumblr. The comment below it reads (as quoted from the film's wiki page):

The film is important in American legal history as it resulted in a court case that questioned the definition of obscenity. A showing of the film in Cleveland Heights, Ohio's Coventry Village resulted in a criminal conviction of the theatre manager for public depiction of obscene material. He appealed his conviction to the United States Supreme Court, which reversed the conviction and ruled that the film was not obscene in its written opinion (Jacobellis v. Ohio). The case resulted in Justice Potter Stewart's famously subjective definition of hard-core pornography: "I know it when I see it." (Stewart did not consider the film to be such.)

When I first saw the post I thought to myself "Hmmm, let me see, an affair?" Sure enough it was. I then was curious to see what the viewers on IMDb said, and came up with this:

"Deserves 7 out of 10 because it is provocative and like all good art, subversive."

Granted the poster did say the movie was "insipid," so the narrative and characters within the film did not impress.

 Is all "good" art indeed subversive? Subversive to what? Who had the credibility to say that all "good" art is subversive? Is it a "I know it when I see it" sort of thing?  I remember reading a discussion between several people, one of them insisting, that art - as it always was - was about questioning the status quo ie traditional morals, societal norms. I question this.

Le Louvre houses many paintings from various time periods, reaching world wide in its collection, and many aren't considered "subversive," yet at the same time considered great works of art. Take for example, my favorite, Atala au tombeau (pictured below). I do not believe it was met with any serious backlash.

and a review entitled "Looking for real happiness" -

In 1959 this film was considered as something close to porno, but this is far enough from the reality. Jeanne Moreau was young, nice and attractive. She was the star of this film, which goes slowly as usual in French cinema's style. When you see this type of film you must become a psychologist to penetrate inside the brains of each hero and make some conclusions. Accordingly I concluded that life is not a straight line, suddenly something may happen in our lives that deviate completely this straight line. Formal ethics accepted by the society goes sometimes to extremes that does not enable the persons to behave and feel happy. What's wrong when the current life is disrupted to start a new one? At this point I advise you to see this old, and black and white film, which may compel you to think and to conclude something new, probably different to what I am saying here.

Whose "reality" is true? The man who filed a complaint that resulted in Jacobellis v. Ohio or the person who said it was far from a porno? Both? Does soft porn fall under the category "porno," or is only hardcore?

Let's take two people. One sees a traffic light, only seeing red and yellow, not green. He is colorblind. Is that reality the correct reality? How about the person who sees the same traffic light and sees red, yellow AND green? Is that person also correct in his reality? Does reality makes truth? Laws have established that red is stop, green is go, and yellow is "slow down." This is the language of traffic systems. If the light turns green and the person not seeing green does not move forward he'll get beeped, that is if someone is behind him. If no one is then he'll either sit there waiting for green or get frustrated and step on the gas pedal, no matter the color. He wants to go and he wants it now.

If one does not know language things can get difficult. Not knowing a language, when it is necessary, is a handicap.

"I know it when I see it."

A compelling line, "What's wrong when the current life is disrupted to start a new one?" unmasks the selfishness within. In The Lovers the bored housewife leaves her family for a young lover. She has a daughter. Was her neglecting husband abusive - verbal and/or physically? No. Though rich (due to her husband), she was not happy. Her daughter's life could not bring her enough happiness in order to stay. Within one night after the affair she chose the young man as her future.

A status quo of modernity - and modernity is the skin of today's entertainment world - is to not be judgmental, at least when it comes to sexuality (either keep silent, be indifferent or approve). Maybe, in this case, questioning the status quo should be done.