One thing must be made clear straight off. Though it contains a certain amount of explicit sexual content, this is not a film version of the classical Indian how-to sex manual. Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love really only uses the Indian text as inspiration and as a jumping off point for its own fictional concerns. And the story it tells is surprisingly soap opera-like in quality.

Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love chronicles the personal travails of two women who have been friends since childhood: Maya (Indira Varma) a servant in the Royal Court, and Tara (Sarita Choudhury), a noble princess. Opposites in matters beyond just social class, their rivalry culminates in a single act which will forever change the course of their lives. On the eve of Tara's marriage to King Raj Singh (Naveen Andrews), Maya slips into his tent and sleeps with him first. Maya is consequently banished from the Kingdom, and in her wanderings, she meets Jai Kumar (Ramon Tikaram), a young sculptor who promptly falls in love with her. He introduces Maya to the wise and serene Rasa Devi, former courtesan at the Court of Raj Singh's father, who teaches Maya the ways of the Kama Sutra. Jai, newly inspired, has sculpted a statue in Maya's likeness and when the King (whose marriage to Tara has gone from bad to worse) sees it, he ecstatically brings Jai back to Court with him. Maya, now a bona fide courtesan, follows separately. You can imagine what hell breaks loose when all four lovers are together again within the same Palace walls. It's definitely Melrose Place on the Ganges, circa 16th century.

Salaam Bombay! was gritty without ever sacrificing a certain visual and tonal poetry. The present film is merely melodramatic. Ms. Nair has described clearly and intelligently what she was after; an open and honest look at sexuality and eroticism that would include a spiritual dimension. On paper, it sounds quite interesting, but unfortunately, the finished film ends up being chock full of maddening contradictions in tone. On one hand, Ms. Nair is after a modern sensibility, and on the other hand, she sets her film in the 16th century, which, by definition, must have a very specific look and feel. She has said that she was after a kind of "anti-exotic" film, but how could these gorgeous settings, costumes and art direction come off as anything but exotic? Possibly the most disastrous choice of all was the decision to make the film in English. Much of the dialogue sounds silly, and though the actors give it their all, they are never entirely convincing. The director told me that her decision to make the film in English was borne not of commercial considerations, but rather, as an aesthetic experiment. How curious then, to add a moment later that she ended up preferring the Hindi-dubbed version for Indian release, because of that language's poetic complexities not found in English.

Ms. Nair's intelligence, imagination and first-rate craftsmanship make her ideally suited to a film about the seemingly inevitable Westernization of an ancient Eastern culture. But her story and setting must be appropriate for these concerns. That is why I am eagerly awaiting her next film, which is purportedly a contemporary story about a modern Indian actress who dubs Baywatch. Now that sounds intriguing.