I watched The Buddha of Suburbia on television several years ago, and quite enjoyed it. I particularly remember the amusing juxtaposition of romanticised Indian culture and young suburban life. We saw something similar recently, with East is East. About three years ago I read uncomplimentary reviews of Intimacy. Kureishi was attacked for depicting a man who had left his wife and children and was spending his days - once a week, at least - in regular, mindless and casual sex.

In 2001 I saw Kureishi at one of his promotional readings, in Manchester. He read a delightful and unpublished short story about a couple who were recording the lives of their children on video camera, as a gift to them after their death. Intimacy was discussed everywhere for supposedly explicit sex. In the Times, Kerry Fox was interviewed about her feelings towards it. The main question seemed to be whether the sex was real or faked. It is significant that the film was passed by the censors, but the media gossip raises two concerns. The first is why there was so much fuss about the sex. It only happened because of an Anglo-Saxon culture that has never fully accepted normal sexuality. The second is: what about the rest of the film, and why focus so much on the sex when it appears for a relatively short time?

Intimacy is an incredibly dreary film - so I can partly understand why people talk about the sex so much; there's not much else to say about it. The lighting is mostly bleak London grey, and the living spaces are dirty, scruffy and grim. It reflects the tone of the film perfectly; the only contrast is the occasional brightness of city scenery like passing red buses, and the trendy bar where the man works. The weekly sexual liaisons become the basis for intense self-reflection, recognising the underlying misery that physical appetites no longer disguise. The man and woman are both - surprise, surprise - desperate and unfulfilled people. The most interesting character is probably the suffering and cuckolded husband who always supported his wife, even when he knew her efforts at acting would never be successful. All the prejudice about the 'man leaving the woman' is unfounded. Everyone is an adult, the sex is a mutual decision, and at least the main character is a single man, free to do as he wishes without betraying anyone. The problem here is giving women credit for having their own sexual needs, and recognising that women also cheat on men - and husbands.

I suppose the sex is explicit, by depicting a degree of male arousal. But it is not - how can you say this - the full degree. The fellatio moment is the visual climax - it is either genuine, or uses very clever modelling. But either way, who really cares? The film depicts emotionally impoverished people engage in mutually gratifying sex, who then start to question if there is anything more. It shows degraded human relationships, where sex is a graceless act that ultimately disappoints. Just like the film. I haven't read the book, and probably won't.