tevanson Reviews

Ryan's Life (2004)

Superb comedic short about the struggle to find one's self

[10/10 · 23 October 2005]

The key to "Ryan's Life" is newcomer Alex Pakzad. His comedic timing is impeccable, his vocal skills are superb, his acting is Disney Channel perfect and he's cute to boot.

This short film, which is being developed into a series for the gay cable channel here! TV, follows Ryan as he makes a video diary about his struggle to learn whether or not he's gay. It's a trite little device, but it's sincerely done and used fairly rarely throughout the film.

Ryan's life is filled with easy-going characters: His cool best (heterosexual) friend whom he lusts after, his cool older jock brother, his cool older sister who manages bands full of hot guys, his cool interior-decorator mom and cool psychologist father. And he has the cool requisite hip grandmother (who seems to know more about Ryan's sexuality than she should). There's even the super-hunky boy Ryan likes (who is also gay).

Ryan's life is free of any real homophobia. He lives in Los Angeles on the border of West Hollywood, a pretty accepting place for a teenager who's not sure if he's gay or not.

In some regards, "Ryan's Life" is more like a Nickelodeon version of "Queer As Folk." It has the same vibes as "Saved By the Bell," "Drake & Josh," "Ned's Declassified Guide..." and others. There's just a touch of adult (but non-sexual) humor, the kind that will make knowing gay adults roar with laughter.

The film has numerous nice touches. For example, Ryan's "gaydar screen" (which looks like a rocket targeting system) is sure to get laughs.

But the key to the film is the luminous and talented Alex Pakzad. He's the heart of the film, on screen for nearly every single minute. He has comic timing and grace while never quite spilling over into that too-knowing cynicism and worldliness that can taint a short like this and turn it into a sordid attempt to sexualize children.

"Ryan's Life" is simply superb.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Superb panic-flick

[8/10 · 1 July 2005]

Superb special effects lead the way in this film! The eerie, terrifying early sequence in which the lightning storm occurs will scare the pants off you! The scene where panic-stricken New Yorkers nearly car-jack Cruise's family is superb in how it depicts the utter collapse of human society in mere moments.

Best of all are the Martians, and the Heat Ray in particular. Although the way the Ray vaporizes people while leaving their clothes intact is a cool effect, it makes little sense (it seems to cut through metal and wood easily, but not fabric?).

You could drop any actors in this film, and it would be just as good. "War of the Worlds" is not about Ray Ferrier and his family, nor is it about any character in the film. It's a tale of invasion and extermination, told through the story of one family's flight (not even struggle for survival; this is mere flight).

The finale is weak. The scene with the fleeing Lexingtonians seems tacked-on and ill-though out. The military's attack on the ill Martian seems to contradict the film's theme that mankind is utterly helpless in the face of such superior forces. But unlike others, I felt the film's final moments were an apt depiction of the complete and utter weakness of humankind. This is not a movie where human being beat the aliens (a la "Independece Day" or the "Terminator" films). This is a movie about panic, despair, extermination and futility. And the film manages to get that across in the last few moments.

Bet stunda nák (2003)

Excellent skewering of ethnocentrism and American Christianity

[10/10 · 9 January 2005]

A hysterical documentary about two American evangelists working in Latvia.

Erik is a super-pious moralist. But Daniel is a super-consumerist who preaches the gospel of wealth. Their arguments and battles are laugh-out-loud funny as they attempt to convert the heathen (who smile and look on in pure amusement). Daniel insists that they both wear Pierre Cardin suits, because "the Lord wants us to look good while we are among the people." Daniel also plays the slots in Riga's notorious riverboat casinos, praying for God to help him win money so he and Erik can continue their missionary work.

The title of the film is taken from a superbly (and unintentionally) funny rap song that Daniel and Erik compose to sing to the unwashed of Latvia. They enter a local song competition and sing it on the stage, thinking they can fool the locals into listening to God's Word as they "compete" for the prize. Only, the song is so silly and stupid, they win the contest.

Just an amazing documentary about the insane stupidity of missionaries, ethnocentrism (Latvia is nearly 100 percent Orthodox Christian), moral superiority and materialism.

House of the Tiger King (2004)

It seems like a fake, but it's real

[9 January 2005]

A documentary? Or fiction? You choose. Ostensibly, it is a documentary about explorer Tahir Shah. The young explorer (who looks like Dave Attell from Comedy Central's "Insomniac") has discovered a number of abandoned cities, ancient temples and lost tombs around the world. Now he heads for Peru to find "The House of the Tiger King," a lost Incan city of gold. Along the way, he hires a lying guide named Pancho, lazy porters, a bunch of argumentative white explorers to help him out, and more.

You being to suspect this is all fake; no one would be so inept! Except that this is real. They really do go into the bush, climb mountains, lose their food, get off track, and get bitten by snakes and piranhas and alligators. Monkeys do "do their business" on their heads.

Part black comedy, part documentary, part history film. Shah is such a verbose, prolix-prose type that you can't help but think he's a idiot. When will we find out it's all a joke? Only, it's not. And then they begin to find a stone road...

In truth, this is how expeditions really turn out. Inter-cultural miscommunication is common. Problems with porters do happen, often. Local myth and superstition do play big roles in communication, location and exploration. It's not "Indiana Jones," this is real life. The film is rather trying at times, because the explorers seem to be so obnoxious. But the camera work and editing are terrific, and the film manages to bring out some intriguing and subtle truths about the way the world works.

Straight-Jacket (2004)

Cheap jokes, off-the-mark satire and a confused plot

[3/10 · 24 October 2004]

This film tries to skewer the studio era in Hollywood and the morals of the 1950s. Guy Stone is intended to be a Rock Hudson type, but both the script and actor Matt Letscher end up channeling a smarmy, cruel, baritone-voiced version of George Hamilton instead, which makes for an unpleasant character.

Guy Stone is such a reprehensible human being that the audience has trouble liking this waste of human skin. Unlike Hudson, who was sweetly promiscuous, Stone is a hateful person who knowingly uses and then throws away the sweet, handsome young men who share his bed every few hours.

Veronica Cartwright is Jerry, Stone's celibate lesbian manager. Cartwright is very good, but the director doesn't quite know what to do with her. The fault lies in the dialogue, which is a bit clumsy, and the film suffers for it.

Carrie Preston's Sally owes more to Ellen Greene in "The Little Shop of Horrors". As written, Preston's Sally is good for a laugh but little else. Newcomer Adam Greer is lost in this movie. He cannot act, and seems to have been cast for his hot body and good looks.

Like many recent films, "Straight-Jacket" is a "dramedy" -- a comedy film which switches messily to a drama about two-thirds of the way through the film. And, like almost all dramedies, "Straight-Jacket" fails miserably.

Despite the expensive services of Skywalker Sound, the sound quality of the film leaves a lot of be desired. The over-use of the musical soundtrack creates a distracting amount of cues as well.

The film really doesn't managed to satirize anything about the 1950s. Unlike "Singin' in the Rain," which perfectly captures Hollywood's ambivalence about the advent of sound as well as the studio mentality about formula films, "Straight-Jacket" doesn't manage to depict Hollywood in the 1950s at all well. The dialogue, sets and behavior of the key characters are nondescript rather than dead-on stereotypes of the 1950s Hollywood. The same can be said for the lampooning of the general mores, social trends and fads of the 1950s as a whole. Compare the transformation of Guy's home to the dead-on satire of the 1950s home in "Little Shop of Horrors". There is no comparison; "Little Shop" hits the nail on the head, while "Straight-Jacket" doesn't even know there is a nail.

Motivations, too, seem haphazard. Rick Foster is supposed to be a principled liberal, yet he falls almost immediately for a materialistic schmuck like Guy Stone. Rick is fine with Guy's closeted status for many months. But when it comes time to go to Italy, he becomes conflicted for reasons that are completely unclear. And even though Sally appears to fall in love with Freddie during the party, this plot point simply disappears a few minutes later without comment. Rick comes off like a gay man from the 1990s, not a gay author of the 1950s. Indeed, modern morality suffuses this film -- which it shouldn't, if it were really a satirical look at homophobia in 1950s Hollywood.

Plot holes in this ragtag film also abound. Saul repeatedly says that he's going to turn Freddie Stevens over to the feds, but never does so -- allowing Freddie to out Guy. Jerry and Saul's plot to "in" Guy never makes any sense, nor does Sally's sudden decision to take the blame. And although Guy has admitted he is a homosexual, apparently it doesn't matter and he ends up a famous star and playwright anyway.

Unfortunately, none of the production values manage to save this film. The cinematography by Michael Pinkey is pedestrian. At times, the film almost looks like a filmed play rather than a motion picture (especially the scenes in Saul's office). Everything is restricted to medium shots, and the film has an incredibly static. The editing by Chris Conlee doesn't do the film any help, either. Long scenes which would benefit from the insertion of close-ups or shifts in point of view remain uncut. Whether this is due to lack of coverage or bad editing is not clear, but the overall effect is to create a sense of lethargy.

The film relies heavily on CGI effects of Guy's home, created by visual effect designer Thomas Dickens. But the CGI looks clumsy and hokey, and it is very noticeably amateurish.

My overall impression of this film is that the jokes are cheap and easy, the plot muddled, the characterizations wildly inconsistent and way off the mark, the satire nonexistent, the performances overbroad and off the mark, and the comic timing off. It's almost an amateurish film. It is as if someone took a high school production and threw $10 million at it.

Two Minutes After Midnight (2003)

Great sight-gags and editing make for fun but predictable film

[24 October 2004]

Directed by a Briton and filmed in Australia under the auspices of the UCLA Film, Theater and Television School, this film is a predictable if funny fairy-tale about an average young man who can't get the handsome muscle-boy of his dreams to do anything but spit invective at him. He flees to the bathroom, where he meets a guardian angel who gives him a magic ring. Twist it three times, and you'll turn into the guy your dreamboat wants most.

One, two, three -- and Our Hero has turned into a golden-haired god. But the muscleboy turns out to be a shallow narcissist. Our Hero spits invective at him. But, upon seeing yet another hot guy, Our Hero returns to the bathroom. One, two three -- and Our Hero turns into a woman! "Just like me to pick the only straight guy in the joint."

The film is pretty predictable from here on out. Our Hero turns into Mom, an old sugar-daddy, a leatherman, a rubber fetishist and even Adolf Hitler. Hours pass. With the final twist, Our Hero leaves the bathroom -- but looking just like himself. Oh no: It's two minutes past midnight! The ring has stopped working! Dejected, our hero leaves the club. As he walks past a handsome young man, the man turns to his friend and says, "He's perfect...but he never showed any interest in me."

The few verbal jokes are funny, and the editing works extremely well to present a fast and furious series of sight-gags at the crucial moment.

But the film's moralizing rankles. Is the film saying that handsome men are never nice? Or that fetishes are not attractive? Or that average guys must "stay in your league"? The film is trying to say "be true to yourself." But there are mixed messages here which I find unpalatable, and that diminishes the film after the series of effective sight-gags.

Also of note: Excellent cinematography and a terrific soundtrack.

What Grown-Ups Know (2004)

Deeply troubled characters and a terrific script

[24 October 2004]

Based on a short story written by the director's best friend, the film follows Roy (21-year-old, talented actor Stephen James King, who looks all of 15) and his slut of a mother, Elizabeth, on a cross-country flight from Roy's father.

Elizabeth (beautiful veteran actress Susie Lindeman, amazingly transformed into a consumptive, turkey-necked hag) is part hooker, part insecure psychotic, part drunk and very, very ill. Her teenage son, Roy, is a cute boy who has an Oedipal attachment to his mother. Just why they are on the road won't be explained until the film's final moments.

We first see the two as they flee a motel without paying the bill. They later take a break at a rest stop, where Roy's homosexual desires come flooding to the surface at the sight of sex-hungry, lonely, predatorial men cruising for fresh meat. Roy attempts to solicit sex from a man in a restroom stall, but his mother's calls force him to forego gratification. Roy and Elizabeth soon arrive at an almost-abandoned trailer park, where the park owner is the same man Roy almost had sex with earlier.

Elizabeth and Roy convince the man, Maurice (played with broken-down despair by the terrific Aussie TV and film actor Daniel Roberts), to let them stay so long as Roy remains at the trailer park during the day. It's Christmas, which Down Under means steaming hot weather. Elizabeth gets a job as a department store Santa, while Roy attempts to seduce Maurice. But Maurice is having none of it. Elizabeth's worsening illness threatens to cost her her job, and the money she needs to pay Maurice the rent on their broken-down trailer. So Elizabeth gives Maurice her wedding ring.

Losing the symbol of his parents' marriage is too much for Roy, who desperately wants the world to be perfect and secure. He finally seduces Maurice. Roy learns that Maurice, too, once had a family. But when his wife learned of his homosexuality, she accused him of molesting their young boy and divorced him. When Elizabeth, too, attempts to seduce Maurice, Roy cannot believe his eyes. But Maurice rejects her.

Elizabeth attempts to flee the trailer park in pride, and Roy tells her that he's seduced Maurice and finally found someone to love. Elizabeth spits back that no man will ever love Roy, just as Roy's father never loved her.

And then the awful truth comes out: Roy's father rejected Elizabeth when she became ill (with cancer? with HIV?). She took the pills, she did the treatments...and then her hair fell out and he kicked her out. Roy refuses to believe his mother. He flees to Maurice, who tells Roy that he cannot love him and that Roy should return to his mother. She's dying, and needs him. Devastated, Roy does the only thing he can: He returns to his mother and admits that he, too, has been rejected by a man. Comrades in arms once more, Elizabeth takes her son back.

This short film may, at first, seem luridly melodramatic: The rejected and ill mother, the teenaged son looking for a man's love to provide security in the world, the wrongly accused homosexual father who sees in a teenager a chance to regain the son he lost, the trailer parks, the illness, the two whores (mother and son). But it's not. The characterization is deft and detailed.

Elizabeth seems a caricature of a human being, but it is an act -- one she drops when she finally has to stop pretending and confront Roy with the truth about his father and her oncoming death. It is wrenching, watching a human being adopt the most deranged and fantastic behavior in order to cling to hope.

Stephen James King's performance as Roy, however, is the real centerpiece of the film. On screen in almost every scene, he portrays Roy as human but troubled. The depth of Roy's insecurity -- of his deep-rooted, almost insane, need for love -- only slowly becomes apparent in King's performance. As Roy reacts to Maurice's presence, his painful, aching need rises to the surface.

The film's climax is superbly well-written, and works beautifully to bring the pieces together sensibly and meaningfully. Elements of the film which seem incurably silly or unreal (particularly Elizabeth's baby-talk, nick-names for Roy, and obsessively slutty behavior) are transformed into powerfully moving characterizations. In some ways, I was reminded of the absurd characters in Eugene O'Neill's "The Iceman Cometh" -- cardboard caricatures at first, but later seen as deeply troubled, despairing human beings coping as best they can with a world which has torn them apart and left them hopeless.

This is really a terrific film.

Judas Kiss (2003)

Superb, pure cinema with a delicious soundtrack

[24 October 2004]

Filmed simultaneously with "Two Minutes After Midnight," "The Judas Kiss" picks up a background element of that film -- a lover's quarrel that we saw in the background of that comic short.

A handsome raven-haired stud kisses his boyfriend and goes off for beers. On his way back, he spots his blond, cute lover kissing a barechested, muscular black stud. What follows is a 10-minute sonic and visual meditation on betrayal.

As the "Scherza Infida" aria from Handel's opera, "Ariodante," plays (sung by countertenor David Daniels), the film attempts to portray the betrayal this kiss entails. Tongues are shown slipping in and out of mouths. The lovers' previous life together had its danger-signs (one was an intellectual and reader; the other a materialistic narcissist). The betrayed lover's eyes brim with tears. The betrayed lover reminisces about his beloved father, and how his father's death made him feel.

Over and over, melancholy images are shown -- rain, grey-granite buildings, meditative or longing looks. In slow motion, the lover confronts his cuckold. They break up in the club. The film ends in silence as the betrayed lover smokes a cigarette in bed, only the glowing ember on the tip remaining visible as the film fades to black.

It is a real tour-de-force of film-making. So often, sound film attempts to use musical cues to tell the audience how to feel. Over-cuing a film can be just as bad as having bad or no sound. "Forcing" the audience to feel through manipulative music can also destroy a film's impact.

But "The Judas Kiss" is different. It is a purely cinematic film, in that its use of music is upfront and intentional. Music is no background here; it is not intended to augment the visual. Rather, there are only two elements here -- the aural and the visual. And the aural is an integral part of the storytelling. Indeed, the film goes so far as to provide a subtitle translation of the Italian opera. In many ways, this film is almost an advertisement for opera, and the way that opera and operatic stories contain powerful emotions truths that are reflected even in non-operatic incidents, such as the break-up of two lovers in an Australian discotheque.

The visual elements in the film are also excellent. While eyes brimming with tears and longing looks out over rain-swept vistas are typical heartbreak images, there are other strong, inventive visuals here that provide new insight into the urban heart. I was particularly impressed with the use of cityscapes (notably, the courthouse building) to provide emotional cues about hardness of heart, justice, cold-heartedness and desolation that I've never seen before. The comparison of the lover's break-up to that of death is not new, but comparing it to the father-figure is. I'm not quite sure what to make of that, but it elicited a host of unique emotions from the audience (since it aroused different feelings in different viewers).

While not narratively effective, "The Judas Kiss" is a superb bit of film-making that deserves watching.

Short, White, Pleated (2003)

Interesting, with excellent acting from Sam Talbot

[24 October 2004]

Sam (very handsome and very talented newcomer Sam Talbot) is a lackluster squash player. His coach, Mark, only has eyes for Tamsin, a buxom, beautiful female student. It's your typical gay triangle as Sam is clumsy at sports and Tamsin looks down her nose at him while enjoying muscular, handsome Mark's attentions.

Then, one day, the women are forced to use the men's locker room. Tamsin leaves behind her short, white pleated skirt. Sam is enthralled, and puts it on. Mark catches him wearing it. But instead of ridiculing him, Mark is attracted to the man in the skirt.

Although Tamsin comes back for her skirt, Sam manages to obtain possession of it again by spilling soda on it. Pledging to get it dry-cleaned, Sam wears it for Mark. They make love in the showers while Sam wears it. Sam's fascination with the skirt is almost fetishistic, while Mark's lust for Sam in a skirt is powerful and overwhelming.

Tamsin's jealousy roars to the surface.

When Sam no longer has any excuse for obtaining the skirt, Mark unceremoniously dumps him. The bereft Sam is left alone in the showers.

At first, the film plays Sam's fascination with the skirt for laughs. Mark's sudden lust for a transvestite (Sam in the skirt) reverses this dynamic, and turns the film into a lusty sexual adventure instead. The change in tone is a bit abrupt, but it works nonetheless.

The best thing about the film, however, is Mark's sudden rejection of Sam once Sam is a "mere homosexual" again. It's so rare for a film to deal with the aftereffects of fetishism on relationships. Healthy fetishism doesn't objectify human beings. But when a straight man loves the fetish and not the person in it, there can be terrible emotional ramifications. It's the lot of many young gay men, who suddenly find that the other boy didn't like him for him, he liked him for the easy sex or the "humiliating" things he would do in bed or the other things (transvestitism, leather fetish, etc.) that the gay man brought to the relationship. It's a painful lesson, and a side of gay relationships rarely seen on film. It's far more common for films to simply depict shallow men having sex with sensitive lovers who end up with broken hearts. Yes, that happens. But the relationship between fetishists is much more complex, which is why this film is welcome. That it is so effective in depicting this relationship is even better.

Watch too for the simply terrific acting that Sam Talbot brings to the closeted gay character of Sam. His facial expressions are acting gold! His body language, especially in the final shower scene is heart-wrenching. Talbot is superb in this film. You want to watch it over and over, just to see more of his supremely detailed, subtle performance.

Cowboys & Angels (2003)

Funny and well-plotted, but full of holes and poor characterization SPOILERS

[23 October 2004]

It's almost unheard of to find a gay-themed movie out of Ireland. But here it is. Wunderkind David Gleeson wrote and directed this, his first feature-film (shot entirely in his native Limerick). 26-year-old Michael Legge (Older Frank in "Angela's Ashes", and having kept off the 30 pounds he lost for that film) plays Shane, a sweet and artistic but fearful young man who is a bit of a mama's boy and geek. Having lost his father in a DUI motor vehicle accident, 18-year-old Shane abandoned college for a secure civil service job. Now, a year later, Shane seeks to move out of his mother's house and into an apartment in the city. But apartments are expensive and not easy to come by.

Soon Shane hooks up with an old schoolmate, Vincent (adorable 23-year-old newcomer Allen Leech). Vincent graduated three years before Shane, and has been attending a local art college. The two move in together.

Vincent is the stereotypical homosexual -- flamboyant, well-dressed, stylish, a good dancer, popular, materialistic. Shane is almost the direct opposite, which tells you right away where this film is headed.

It's not long before Shane is homesick. Limerick is a violent, impersonal place. Shane knows no one. Vincent, however, is picking up tricks right and left (including a handsome older man). Shane's homesickness is worsened by the confessions of Jerry (played with quiet and gentle desperation by the terrific veteran actor Frank Kelly), a civil servant who shares Shane's cubicle. Jerry is on the verge of retirement. But Jerry never married, never had children, and never followed his life's dreams. Now, his life spent, Jerry is overwhelmed by regrets -- regrets which prey on Shane's loneliness.

Shane soon stumbles on a cache of drugs in his apartment building (the incident is not as cheesy or trite as it sounds). When some other tenants almost discover him with the drugs, Shane takes them so he won't be caught. But when Keith, the drug dealer, finds his stash missing, he knows it had to be someone in the building who took them. Keith finds Shane attempting to return the drugs, and decides to co-opt the insecure young man (an ugly and yet realistic twist in the plot).

Shane and Vincent eventually bond, with Shane admitting that he admires the way Vincent easily fits in. (It's a moment of dialogue that had a largely gay audience laughing out loud.) Vincent encourages Shane to try harder, and that means following your dreams and being yourself.

Following Vincent's advice, Shane decides to apply for art school. But the fees and cost of books are horrendously high. Shane makes a fateful decision, and agrees to be a "mule" for one of Keith's drug shipments in return for a large cash payment.

Shane travels to Dublin, where he meets two of Keith's drug buddies. They give him a shipment of drugs to take back to Limerick. But as the three joyride in a stolen car, they smash into another vehicle. Horrified (as his father died in a similar accident), Shane freezes. The two dealers, however, are not and they brutally beat one of the crash victims when he attempts to call for an ambulance for his injured female companion.

Back in Limerick, Shane makes his drop and is rewarded with 800 punts for his trouble. Shane swallows his fears and horror at what he's done, and asks Vincent to turn him into a stylish social butterfly. Vincent gleefully agrees.

Shane is transformed, and soon draws the attention of Vincent's beautiful blond female friend, Gemma. But needing more cash to fund his social experiment, Shane swallows his misgivings and starts helping Keith push drugs. Shane himself begins a downward spiral into drug use. When Vincent confronts him and Shane admits that he's been using drugs, Vincent storms out.

Vincent, however, remains unaware of Shane's larger troubles. He's struggling to complete his senior project -- a fashion show for which he has yet to complete any designs. Although Shane is aware of Vincent's need for assistance, he neglects his new friend as he continues to snort, smoke and drink his way through life.

Things come to a head one night in a club. Shane a pill which makes him loose control. Shane spies Vincent and Gemma dancing, and his drug-induced paranoia causes him to attack Vincent. Gemma punches him out, and Shane is thrown out of the club. That night, Keith takes Shane back to the apartment -- unaware that Gemma and Vincent are sleeping in Vincent's bedroom. Gemma tries to seduce Vincent, and Keith tries to seduce Shane. But both men reject these advances. It's a moment of truth for each, being true to themselves for once. The next day, Shane reconciles with Vincent and helps him with his senior project.

But events begin spiralling out of control. Shane attempts to destroy the drugs in his possession, but completes only half the task when the police burst into the apartment. Finding heroin, pot and crack cocaine, they arrest Shane and Vincent.

Certain they will be indicted for drug dealing and possession, the two are hauled before a local Detective Inspector -- who, it turns out, is the same man Vincent had sex with a few weeks before. The closeted detective lets them go (a ludicrous turn of events).

Off they rush to Vincent's fashion show. It's a wild success -- and stars Shane as the super-model surrounded by hot women in tight clothes.

All's well that ends well: Shane surprises Vincent by using his remaining drug money to buy Vincent an open-ended ticket to New York City, the place Vincent has dreamt of going to pursue being a fashion designer. Shane decides to abandon his cushy civil service job in favor of art school, and the beautiful Gemma falls in love with him.

Shane's learned his lesson: Money and drugs don't make you fit in. Only being true to yourself will get you happiness and what you wish for.

The problems are pretty obvious in the film. Once more, a film tries to be a "dramedy" -- mixing comic laughs with serious drama in a mish-mash that's neither. The worst example of this is during the drug bust in the boys' apartment. It's supposed to be a serious moment, the devastation of all their dreams. Shane, in particular, is in deep trouble. He's been in a hit-and-run, obstructed justice by not reporting the crime, obstructed justice by not reporting the beating, engaged in drug possession and drug use and drug transportation and the sale of drugs, been guilty of assault and battery himself and he's guilty of destruction of evidence. Yet, the film tries to lighten the mood by cracking jokes. The audience really can't take any of the important things in the movie seriously (including the film's anti-drug and be-true-to-yourself messages) when it treats them so cavalierly.

But a deeper problem is the uneven characterization in the film. Shane is played by the extremely likable, decidedly cute -- and terribly talented -- Michael Legge. But there don't seem to be good reasons for what Shane does. Shane tells Vincent that the death of his father had a deep impact on him. Arguably, Shane should now be an anti-drunk driving advocate. (He appears to be: He refuses to go to pubs, despite Vincent's encouragement, and is upset by public drunkeness.) Yet, Shane almost casually tosses away his aversion toward inebriation in order to earn the money to go to art school. Shane's actions wouldn't seem so out of character had Shane's desperation, loneliness and despair seemed deeper and more soul-wrenching. Instead, Shane is depicted as merely being homesick. And why is Shane so deeply influenced by Vincent? After all, Shane barely knows him. Shane's despair is not so apparently awful that Shane should latch onto just any popular person he encountered...and yet, he does so. This would have made more sense had the film spent more time making Vincent into an impossibly powerful, respected, popular person. But, in fact, Vincent is depicted as a bit insecure, and not as personally influential or charismatic as he should be in order for Shane to respond to him as he does.

That exposes another problem in the film, which is the short shrift given the character of Vincent. Vincent is almost a stereoptyical homosexual, a caricature which does little to advance the plausibility of the main story. Indeed, while the heterosexual characters (primarily Shane) seem real and fleshed-out, Vincent remains a goody-two-shoes stereotype. He has no internal life to speak of, and his friendship with Shane remains inexplicable. Indeed, the film's big emotional moment comes when Shane attempts to reconcile with Vincent. Vincent just takes him back -- which implies that Vincent is either some sort of cardboard character who does what the author wants him to, or Vincent is a doormat of a human being who loves forgiving the abusive friends he has. Whichever, it doesn't make Vincent a very appealing or interesting character.

It's these sort of problems that the film stumbles over repeatedly. And although "Cowboys and Angels" is pleasant enough (and, thank god!, Irish), well-acted, funny and interesting, the film really doesn't hold together. By the time Shane and Vincent are released from jail (the coincidence of the inspector being Vincent's trick is just too implausible, and their release is farcical), the audience has largely given up on trying to make sense of things or caring about the characters. There's plenty of heart here, but the script needed re-thinking.

I look forward to David Gleeson's next film, however, and to more from Michael Legge and Allen Leech.

Cachorro (2004)

Honest and moving, with important issues raised *SPOILERS*

[23 October 2004]

Directed by the veteran gay indie filmmaker Luis Miguel Albaladejo and co-written by Luis Miguel Albaladejo and Salvador Garcia Ruiz, based on Albaladejo's 1996 short film of the same name, this motion picture is, at its heart, a pretty commonly-used story: A perpetual adolescent (Pedro) finds himself taking care of his sister's precocious son (Bernardo). Pedro has to make a number of adjustments in his life in order to be a good parent. There are the standard humorous scenes of Pedro being an arch-prude when it comes to drugs and sex, followed the standard humorous scenes of a too-adult Bernardo discussing drugs and sex. Soon, a nasty relative (Bernardo's fraternal grandmother) enters the picture, uncovers Pedro's nonconformist lifestyle, and threatens to have Bernardo taken away. Bernardo is removed from Pedro's life, Pedro and Bernardo suffer heavily, the grandmother realizes she's done something horrible, and by the end of the film Bernardo is back with Pedro.

Pretty standard stuff, eh? But sometimes the most standard plot elements can be transcended by terrific writing and acting.

One key to the film is Jose Luis Garcia Perez (Pedro), a 32-year-old relative newcomer to acting. On screen in almost every scene, he handles his gentle moments with Bernardo with emotion, empathy and naturalness. This is not to say that Garcia Perez is by any means perfect in the role. Pedro is written as a hothead, and Garcia Perez comes off cruel and unnecessarily vicious when he is required to be angry. Additionally, the script makes Pedro's change from sex-hungry, drug-taking libertine to responsible, loving adult seem relatively smooth and effortless.

The second key is David Castillo, the stunning young actor making his feature-film debut as the nine-year-old Bernardo. Castillo is given a difficult task: Bernardo cannot be the typical precocious American brain-child (e.g., Macaulay Culkin in "Home Alone" or Dakota Fanning in "Uptown Girls") who is too smarmy, too brainy, and too adult. It would blow the whole feel of the film. And he's not -- which is why this film works. Despite Bernardo's worldliness, he's still just a scared kid. His fear of leaving his mother (Violeta, played with breezy but superficial wackiness by Elvira Lindo) is palpable -- and a bit out of character, until the audience later realizes that Bernardo's father died from a drug overdose and that his mother is an addict as well. Watch closely: Throughout the film, Bernardo keeps touching the watch his mother gave him, almost as if it were a worry-bead.

It's this very delicate, subtle acting that really helps raise the film into the realm of good cinema.

The film has its comic moments (it is marketed as a comedy). But it is the underlying grim sub-theme of parenting vs. gay lifestyle that holds the film together. This isn't just a "modern twist on the old tale," either. In a lesser film, the gay elements would simply have been layered on top and never made an essential part of the plot. But in "Bear Cub (Cachorro)", these elements are key to the narrative, and this makes the film much more of a "message" picture than at first blush.

It is not simply that Pedro enjoys having three-ways (the film opens with a graphic sex scene that includes a shot of an erect penis), a daily doobie or that he haunts underpasses for public sex. The film directly challenges the audience's expectations that such behavior is normal and moral. When one of Pedro's friends rolls a joint in front of Bernardo, Pedro comically lashes out at him. Bernardo comically replies that he knows how to roll a joint because his mother taught him. It's funny, but a too-easy laugh. Later, however, the audience is confronted with the stark reality that drug use is grounds for losing custody of one's child. What is acceptable behavior in the gay community is not acceptable outside that community.

In another scene, Pedro is given a "night off" by his friends. He has sex in public with a stranger. Unfortunately, Bernardo's fraternal grandmother, Dona Teresa (played with lusty prudishness by the fantastic Empar Ferrer), has set a private detective on Pedro's tail. He photographs the men having sex, and Dona Teresa uses this against Pedro. Once more, the promiscuity admired and accepted in the gay community is shown to be in direct contravention of the larger society's moral -- and, more importantly, legal -- standards.

When even the incriminating photographs do not move Pedro to give up custody of Bernardo, Dona Teresa then obtains Pedro's medical records. We learn Pedro is HIV-positive, and that his lover, Eduardo, died of AIDS five years ago. Unfortunately, Pedro -- who is a doctor -- has never told his patients that he his HIV-positive. Dona Teresa threatens to disclose this fact unless she obtains primary custody of Bernardo. Once more, the audience must confront an ugly truth: HIV and AIDS are accepted as normal in the gay community. But outside that community, HIV is threatening and the source of fear-mongering. Pedro, for his part, knows this and hid the truth about his seroconversion status from his patients.

Although it is largely unremarked upon by the film, Pedro decides to protect himself by giving up Bernardo rather than seeing his medical practice destroyed and his patients sue him for distress.

But this is where "Bear Cub (Cachorro)" largely falls apart. Typically, Bernardo suffers heavily for his change in custody. His grandmother sends him off to a boarding school that teaches conservative social mores and English as a second language. There, Bernardo wilts -- lonely, depressed, abandoned. Pedro, too, enters a lengthy depression and seeks solace in greater amounts of meaningless sex (this is depicted as public sex, as if public sex was, essentially, meaningless -- a bit of moralizing the film could have done without). His depression causes health problems for Pedro, and he gets pneumonia. Dona Teresa tries to drive a wedge between Bernardo and Pedro by telling Bernardo that Pedro is dying.

The one redeeming quality of the final 20 minutes of the film is Bernardo's reaction to Dona Teresa's cruel lies. Bernardo angrily tells her that he already knew that Pedro had HIV. His mother had it, and his mother told him that Uncle Pedro had it. Indeed, Bernardo was born with the HIV antibody in his system and drugs and homeopathic medicine eliminated the antibody after a few years.

Dona Teresa is shocked. But, in a way, this scene represents the progressive, loving, life-affirming free-love community that Violeta and Pedro were part of striking back at the moralistic, prudish legalism represented by Dona Teresa. When no one has secrets, no one can be hurt. Bernardo sees Dona Teresa's cruelty for what it is, and he hates her for it. Dona Teresa loses Bernardo's love forever.

This scene is the only thing holding the final moments of the film together. It is almost as if the writers didn't know how to end the story. The typical "feel-good" conclusion would have Dona Teresa admitting her error (or dying), and Bernardo returning to the loving arms of his uncle Pedro. But in attempting to evade that trite trap, the writers don't seem to know where to go.

Part of their answer is to engage in a sudden bit of "lessons learned" that doesn't really fit in the film. There is a sudden shift in perspective that they use to accomplish this. Instead of a third-person perspective (which has been used for the previous 115 minutes), the filmmakers adopt a first-person narrative (each character talking to the camera, reading aloud letters they have written to other characters). The narrative shift is partly intended to make time pass more swiftly (three years pass in the final 15 minutes). It also permits each character to admit their faults (notably, Violeta -- who disappeared from 90 percent of the movie only to return, awkwardly, at the end).

Despite this shift, the film never quite manages to avoid the pat ending. Dona Teresa does die -- albeit after torturing Bernardo for four years. Bernardo weeps for his grandmother, whom he has finally come to love (although it's impossible to see how that happened). Pedro weeps for the child that might have been, for Bernardo has become less progressive in many ways (although, apparently, a bisexual). And off Bernardo and Pedro go...to where and to what is unclear. (Did Pedro win custody of Bernardo again?)

It is this unsatisfying conclusion to the film that is the picture;s largest fault. True, there are other problems. Dona Teresa obviously is a scheming bitch who will stop at nothing (including seducing an elementary school teacher to spy on Violeta's child, despite legal orders for Dona Teresa to keep away from him) to be with her grandson. Yet, Pedro seems ignorant of this and does not realize that Dona Teresa may well try to blackmail him in order to obtain custody of the boy. For all his awareness of how his HIV status could harm him, Pedro doesn't seem aware that his drug use and promiscuity could be used against him. And so much of the film's custody-battle could have been moot had Pedro simply obtained a custody agreement from his imprisoned sister.

However, these problems are obvious only in retrospect. The film does a superb job of crafting a believable world that makes sense, of sneaking important issues into the plot without being obvious or preachy about it, and in eliciting fine performances out of the key actors that create moving, honest portrayals of human beings in conflict.

I recommend it.

Spokane (2004)

Unremittingly long and poorly lit

[5/10 · 20 October 2004]

For want of a good editor...

This film is about a young man, David, who flies into Spokane, Wash., to attend his brother's wedding. There, he meets James. James knows David is gay, but James also doesn't fit well into the married brother's clique of friends. The two get to know each other, and then David suggests they go smoke some weed in James' car.

Under the influence, James inquires nervously about "how fags do it." The conversation is one almost any gay man has heard, and it provokes a lot of laughter from the audience. James' homo-curiosity is more than obvious, but he is unwilling to run with it.

David hijacks the poor schlub, and off they go to a local strip joint. After several hours fondling female strippers' boobs and pouring money down the drain, they head back to David's hotel. David is about to call it a night, when James hugs him friendly-like. Only, there's "a moment." They kiss. David takes James to his hotel room.

Here, the film finally falls apart. For more than 15 minutes, David gently and gradually seduces James by playing straight porn on his hotel room TV, getting the hunky straight stud drunk, kissing him, removing his shirt and pants, and then fellating him and putting a condom on him. James doesn't feel comfortable actually having sex, however, so the two men masturbate. The next morning, James sneaks out.

The lighting was so extremely poor throughout that it was nearly impossible to see anything going on in the truck or the hotel room. At one point, as the two naked men are getting it on, an audience member shouted, "Turn up the contrast!" No kidding: A filmmaker who teases the audience by purposefully keeping the lighting crappy so as to hide the nudity of his two actors is engaged in the worse kind of audience-manipulation. Either be honest and keep a strategically placed thigh or bedsheet over the genitalia, or be honest and show full-frontal nudity. Don't cheat.

But in the end, the real flaw with this movie is that there's no reason for it to exist. Is the movie saying something about closeted straight men? Or the nature of gay-straight hook-ups? Are we supposed to care about James, or David for that matter? Other than pure voyeurism, is there any reason why we should be watching this?

I don't think so, and for that reason the film fails pretty badly.

Stag Party (2004)

Funny, a little long, with good performances

[6/10 · 20 October 2004]

It's sort of the classic stag party joke: I got drunk and did it with my best male friend! That's pretty much it for this film.

Dan and Beth are about to be married. They host a wedding dinner in their home for friends and family. During the dinner, Beth takes the best man, Steven, out for a quick talk. Beth knows that Steven has had a long-time crush on Dan. She wants assurances that he's gotten it out of his system, and Steven admits he has. She also wants Steven to guarantee that Dan will have a good time at tonight's stag party, but that he won't get into any sexual hanky-panky with any stripper. Steven guarantees it.

The stag party is wild and woolly, with a Hawaiian stripper.

The next morning, Dan wakes up. After a few frantic moments when he believes he's had sex with the stripper, he realizes that he's really been with a naked Steven. Hilarity ensues as Dan suffers from repeated homo-panic attacks, and Steven -- still drunk, still sleepy -- tries to provide reassurance. Only, Steven is sure that he's had sex because he's sore in one...particular...place. As Dan casts about for a quick lie to tell his wife, in walks Dan's brother. Sure enough, little brother is gay. Dan didn't know that, but he's ecstatic that Steven had sex with him. Dan goes to put on some clothes -- and he finds the stripper in the closet, naked and curled up around a champagne bottle. Oh no! He slept with her anyway! Yuk, yuk, yuk.

The film has a bunch of very funny lines, including one really great zinger given to Elaine Hendrix, who plays Beth. The film as a whole is really funny. But in retrospect, I wonder what I was laughing at. After all, seven minutes of homo-panic comes very close to being anti-gay. And that's not funny. In many ways, I'm tired of seeing straight people freak out when they think they've had gay sex. Films never show gay people freaking out when they might have had straight sex. It's a self-loathing sort of humor that isn't funny upon reflection. I feel ashamed for having laughed.

W (2003)

Very cute, but with confusing narrative and editing

[7/10 · 20 October 2004]

Pity cute Tilo (the superb Boris Berthelot). His girlfriend, Karen, is sex-hungry and demanding. But Tilo prefers just being her friend. Karen pressures Tilo into having sex with her, but he's really not into it. Off the two head to a local bar. Tilo takes a p**s in the downstairs bathroom, but the next thing you know he's being felt up by the bar's transvestite bartender! Tilo can't get enough of the lusty older boy-gal, and visits her time and again while Karen remains blissfully unaware. Or is she? Next thing you know, Karen's sampling the TV's wares, too! A polyamorous relationship forms.

The experimentalist nature of the editing and the surrealist, almost symbolist nature of the cinematography, however, make for a confusing set-up and a fractured narrative. The film would have benefited from a more straight-forward narrative. There are long sequences in which Tilo and Karen prepare for bed and sex (there's a lot of skin here), but the shift in mood from the experimentalist introductory segments to the straight-forward bedroom scenes is jarring.

The film's fixation on Tilo induces the audience to believe that he might be a closeted homosexual. But he's bisexual. A more balanced look at the characters might have been helpful. True, a focus on Tilo helps set up the film's central gag (which comes about 60 seconds from the end). But I don't think the gag was essential to the film.

It's also not clear what the lengthy (and I mean, lengthy!) concluding shot means. We see Tilo running down a pier in his swimsuit for almost a full minute. What the hell is that supposed to mean?

L'ultima notte (2003)

Unclear in its outcome

[3/10 · 20 October 2004]

This almost dialogue-free film concerns a Quebecois couple, Tony (the gorgeous, talented Gregory Barco) and Chloe (the almost childlike Clemence Thioly). The moody Tony is playing with the guts of a wind-up music-box when Chloe enters their hotel room. She's brought Alliocha (ragingly handsome Adrien Laligue), a Russian immigrant and male prostitute, with her.

Although the film never comes out and says so, it's eventually clear that Chloe has pressured Tony into having a menage-a-trois. Tony, for his part, is extremely unhappy but has acquiesced nonetheless. Alliocha speaks no English, but the three start drinking. Soon the clothes come off. Chloe writes her name in magic-marker on Alliocha's chest. He writes his on Tony's chest, and Tony writes his on Alliocha's. The writing has symbolic significance that will be apparent by the end of the film.

Tony and Chloe begin to make out in front of Alliocha, who eventually joins in. Soon, the three are on the bed, Chloe in the middle. She thrusts her hands into each man's briefs, bringing them to full arousal. She lays back on the bed, and Alliocha begins making out with and making love to her. Tony is oddly reticent, but soon joins in. Smoothly and quickly, Alliocha begins making out with Tony, too. Eventually, Alliocha penetrates Tony from behind and makes love to him for a long time. Chloe, left out, watches in silence.

When it is over, Chloe and Alliocha head for the bathtub, where Chloe caresses and cuddles the Russian stud. But Tony angrily stalks into the bathroom, scrubs himself red and raw, soaps up and washes off. He spits on Alliocha, and strides back into the bedroom. Alliocha washes off the spittle and towels off. In the bedroom, Tony weeps inconsolably. Alliocha puts on his clothes, and does not comfort him. Chloe emerges from the bathroom and pays Alliocha his money. Alliocha leaves, and walks down the street. Later that night, Tony lies in bed...still, quiet, crying. Chloe sits on the edge of the bed. She dresses, and then she, too, begins to weep.

It's almost impossible to know what to make of this film. The set-up is so murky that it is not apparent whether Chloe and Tony are brother and sister, boyfriend and girlfriend, best friends, or john and hooker. What little of the stilted, limited dialogue there is does more to confuse matters than clear them up. The film settles down once the drinking begins, and things become clearer. But by then, the viewer is so emotionally confused (who do you feel for? who do you root for? do these people matter?) that it is difficult to feel any connection for the characters or what is about to happen.

The subsequent transformation of the straight soft-core porn film to two men kissing (there is no soft-core gay porn here) is fraught with complexity that never is resolved. Was Tony bisexual to begin with? Or was he straight? Was he closeted gay or bi? His transition to (at least) bisexuality seems smooth and unconcerned, so it is stretching credulity to think that he was closeted gay or bi, or straight. Alliocha certainly does not rape Tony. Was it that Alliocha had anal sex with Tony that has Tony so upset? Perhaps Tony simply cannot deal with non-monogamy.

The names on the chests appears to be a clue. Tony wants Alliocha, badly. It is as if he has fallen in love with him at first sight. For her part, Chloe only wants Tony. But Alliocha is bisexual, and will love (or at least have sex with) them both. Alliocha's infidelity (he has sex with Chloe, and is more emotionally attracted to her) seems to break Tony's heart.

But if the names on the chests really have meaning in this manner, there is little reason -- either in the narrative or performances -- to believe it other than this. In fact, the whole film collapses in a morass of "what ifs" and "but thens" and "supposes". I'm not sure what to read into the fact that Alliocha is Russian or a foreigner (Russians can't love?). Is it that hookers can't love? (That's nonsense.)

The director also pushes the actors into telegraphing their internal emotions (Tony's sulking while being stimulated , for example). But if the character of Tony had really sulked so obviously, no lover or girlfriend would have kept the sex act going. And what are we to make of Chloe's breakdown at the end? The audience has known, even from the moment Alliocha walked in the door, that Tony was unhappy and upset. If Chloe is in love with Tony, and cares so deeply about his feelings, why did she force him to petulantly partake in the menage-a-trois?

The redeeming feature of this film is the acting. Gregory Barco is superb as the heartbroken, homosexual Tony. The almost childlike, forlorn look on his face in the opening scene is acting gold. His emotional breakdown -- an extremely difficult scene for even an experienced, trained actor to pull off realistically -- is heart-rending and raw. There is such realism to his performance! I very much want to see him act again.

Adrien Laligue is a bit harder to read, for Alliocha is written to be a stoic, unfeeling robot of a human being. Yet, he has a fluidness to his movement that makes his transition from heterosexual stud putting it to Chloe to bisexual lover of Tony that makes this transition appear seamless, natural and real. That's a crucial point in the film, for any forcedness or straining by either male actor here -- any heterosexual actor's hesitation, for example -- would destroy the believability of the moment. But Laligue pulls it off beautifully. I want to see him act more, as well.

Clemence Thioly's performance is good, but she doesn't quite get a firm handle on the role. Chloe veers from being a strong-willed but somewhat unfeeling and unaware woman seeking sexual adventure to a confused, insecure girl. She is not aided well by the script, which forces her character to stay in the bathtub, pondering the moment and not reacting to the pitiful sobs of her lover in the other room. Thus, when it comes time for her own character to break down during the night, it's much tougher to believe it.

This could have been such a better film, but it's worthwhile to check out the two jaw-dropping, damn good performances of the two lead males.

Presents (2004)

Cute but a bit underpowered...

[20 October 2004]

Writer-director-actor Todd Bartoo says he pulled this script out of a pile of ideas when a gay friend asked if Bartoo had something he could act in. "Presents" is the result.

A cute little film with only three or four really good gags, it's all about a man who invites his boyfriend and his best female friend over for dinner. He gives the girl a present, but unfortunately it exposes a secret heterosexual love affair. The cheating lovers try to weasel their way out, but then the cuckold pulls out his surprise: He wants to watch. The boyfriend keels over, and then, oddly, so does the best friend. Shock? Maybe. Or maybe it was the rat poison in the spaghetti sauce.

It's got an extremely campy but effective performance by Ted Kozlowski as the cuckold, and a nice turn by producer-actress Gwen Copeland as the power-chick best friend, Liz. (Love those glasses!) But the jokes are a little thin on the ground. And while the sight-gag at the end is nice, the editing and camera work hold the image a bit too long. It's almost as if the film's comic timing were off.

Still, it's watchable.

Ritchie's Itch (2002)

Mildly amusing, but it drags and is confusing

[3/10 · 20 October 2004]

Too long by at least five minutes, this little comic short offers at least the possibility of being good:

Ritchie, a bear of a married man, keeps having a dream in which he's naked and has sex with a guy. He confesses his dream to co-worker Nick, an older guy with a nice body. Nick psycho-analyzes Ritchie all day, even going so far as to expose himself to Ritchie to see if Ritchie gets hard. He doesn't. That night, the dream occurs again -- only this time, to Nick...who wakes up happy that he's having homo-erotic dreams about Ritchie.

Sadly, the film never quite lives up to its premise. The dialogue rambles on for ages. A major plot point hinges on the idea that Ritchie's construction union is on his case for being late to work, but the point is barely introduced and is a flimsy rod on which to hang Ritchie's supposed anger. Nick's repeatedly anti-gay comments end up grating, and are not funny.

The plot hangs up, narratively, during the over-long discussion in the unfinished kitchen. When Nick exposes himself to Ritchie, the gag is not set up very well and is poorly acted by both performers. The twist ending is confusing rather than clear, almost like a joke you have to explain.

There are funny lines in the film, but overall it was a bit of a disappointment.

Tempting Fate (2004)

A human being, a choice and a great film

[10/10 · 19 October 2004]

A handsome but slightly insecure young man goes to a tarot card reader at a local Renaissance faire. (You know, at first, all I could think of was Lisa Simpson seeing her future via a tarot card reader in "Lisa's Wedding.") Biker-looking, brooding and defensive, he thinks the card-reading is hokey. The psychic is handsome, with huge liquid-brown eyes and long, flowing hair.

As the card-reading progresses, the cards reveal a markedly accurate picture of the young man's personality, past and possibly his future. Then the cards reveal that the two are destined to be lovers.

A pick-up line? Or the truth? Well, they do hook up. There is a funny visual moment there; "When the tent's a-rockin', don't come knockin'."

But when the handsome man attempts to leave, the psychic pursues him out the tent door. The film shifts gear here, turning into a series of surreal chases through discos, mansions, stairwells, hotel corridors and more. When the tables are turned on the psychic, he confronts a choice: Just how much of his future is predetermined?

In its final moments, the film is an interesting meditation on emotional baggage, personal history and the unconscious choices people make as they seek love and companionship.

The key to the film is writer-director-actor Lex Lindsay's performance as the tarot card reader. Lindsay effectively portrays the slightly campy psychic, but as a man playing a game with his clients. There's another set of emotions running under his character's surface, emotions you see in his eyes and the subtle movements of his face. Later, when the psychic has finished sleeping with the customer, there's a relaxation, a ease of movement, a less campy and more honest character that Lindsay permits to come to the surface. It's this human portrayal that makes the film work.

Paradisco (2002)

Message film-making at its best

[19 October 2004]

"Paradisco" is a welcome tonic to the "sex = death" neo-prudery that passes for gay sexuality today.

Francois (the handsome veteran French theater and film actor Jerome Pradon) has picked up a young stud, Nicolas (cute as a button newcomer Nicolas Larzul). The next morning, Francois' effeminate American friend (the almost unrecognizable Anthony Rapp ["Adventures in Babysitting," "Dazed and Confused," "Road Trip," "Cruise Control," "A Beautiful Mind"]) shows up and dishes over the delectable stud. "Skilled, long-lasting and eminently flexible" is the conclusion Francois draws.

But the stud is awake, and has overheard. Although not upset by the discussion of his sexual skills, Nicolas is dismissive of Francois' friend. He also notices that Francois is moving; Francois admits that it is time to move on. Although he's had some great disco parties in the house, it is time to let the past go. Nicolas chides Francois gently for his affection for disco music. But Francois tells Nicolas that the era of disco was special. Nicolas says that Francois is "old," but still looks wonderful despite his age. Francois tells Nicolas that back in the late 1970s, he looked even better... and back in time the two go, to New Year's Eve, 1979.

Francois' home is full of party-goers, dancing to disco music. But one by one, Francois points out all the friends who have died. It's sobering. Nicolas is appalled, and looks as if he is about to tell Francois that they should have known better. But Francois points out the people who have survived, too -- including the now-much-younger, handsome, sexy American who Nicolas had been so dismissive of a short time ago. As the dancers dance, they sing a song celebrating disco. It's a revolution, a way of expressing yourself, a way of being free, a way of finding yourself. New families are created on the dance floor, new ways of being and seeing and loving. Nicolas becomes enthralled.

Francois takes Nicolas to the bedroom, where they listen as Francois' best friend has sex behind the closed door. The song continues, with the dancers blissfully unaware of the epidemic of death and hatred that will cut most of them down in the next few years.

Finally, Nicolas asks to see this best friend. Francois gestures to the landing -- where we see that the best friend looks just like Nicolas. And then the dream ends. The startling similarity between the now-dead best friend and Nicolas has jerked Francois and Nicolas back to reality. His judgmentalism about sex, age, disco and free love washed away by the trip through time, Nicolas tells Francois that he very much wants to see him again. As Francois looks over his collection of disco memorabilia and memories, the film ends.

In some ways, "Paradisco" is probably one of the first post-AIDS films. It takes the "Austin Powers" approach to the era of free love: It was all about choices, baby. If we'd known what was coming, we'd have been more responsible; after all, it was all about choices.

That defense of the era of free love is not very convincing, for judgmental moralist would simply respond, "But I told you so." But in its way, "Paradisco" at least fumbles for a defense; many others have simply not tried, or actively condemned the era of free-love as being irresponsible, destructive and all about treating people as flesh-holes for sex rather than as individuals.

In regard to this final critique, "Paradisco" vociferously denies that the free-love era was in any way dehumanizing. To the contrary, it enabled people to find love, companionship and a sense of belonging without the constant cruising, tricking and hooking up that characterize the new millennium -- or which characterize the way Francois and Nicolas met. Indeed, the American's comments about Nicolas are more humiliating and regressive than anything which would ever have been uttered on the disco floor.

And that is perhaps the really terrific thing about "Paradisco": The film has so much to offer audiences, but it does so through song, performance, characterization, behavior and setting than it does through preachy dialogue. The film's effectiveness comes through only after you've thought and felt about it for a while, not because a character says so.

To me, that's the sign of good film-making.

Oedipe - [N+1] (2003)

Very high production values, but it telegraphs the plot

[19 October 2004]

Based on the novel by Jean-Jacques Nguyen, the film is set in the distant future where The Circle -- a new race of genetically- and mechanically-enhanced human beings -- have seized most of the world's resources for themselves and built magnificent cities. (Paris of the future is depicted several times in amazing matte paintings and CGI effects.)

We're introduced to Thomas Steiner, a handsome young man who died and has been brought back to life by his mother and the New Life Corporation. But from the get-go, Thomas remembers things that his mother claims never happened. Among these is Kazo, a handsome young gay man who is "outside the Circle" who appears to have been Thomas' lover. But Thomas' mother claims there was no Kazo, no gay lover or gay lifestyle -- and that, in fact, Thomas is engaged to a young woman.

Naturally, Thomas tries to recreate his old life, despite his mother's interference. Thomas even goes so far as to head out into the "Outer Circle" to find Kazo. Instead, he meets resistance at every turn: No one named Kazo, no Chinese restaurant where they used to hang out, no street where Kazo lived. Thomas is assaulted on the street and his hand cut off. It's not a big deal in this society, where severed limbs can be regrown in a day.

Despite the obvious conspiracy against him, Thomas seems blithely unaware that anything is wrong. He weirdly trusts his mother, even though the audience is given no reason to believe that his mother implanted a "trust element" into his head or that Thomas indeed trusts his implicitly. (Later in the film, we learn that the "old Thomas" intensely distrusted his mother.

The sudden change after Thomas' resurrection is unexplained.)

Thomas returns home to find that someone wants to meet him in a virtual reality bar. He goes there -- only to encounter himself! The conspiracy is exposed (as if we didn't see it coming a mile off): Thomas' mother hates Thomas' homosexuality and his gay lover, Louis. Knowing that Thomas' multi-millionaire mother would probably seek to have Thomas killed and then "reinstantiated" (brought back to life with altered memories), Thomas downloaded virtual copies of his own and Louis' personalities. The memory of Kazo was a ruse Thomas' mind constructed to distract her from the real lover, Louis. Sadly, it is too late. Mother has hired an assassin to break into Thomas' apartment with the severed hand. Thomas is murdered, and his mother attempts to recreate her son once more...this time, "better."

"Oedipe" has very high production values, with an exciting soundtrack, excellent set design, and direction and editing are far superior to almost anything you might expect from a short film.

The acting, too -- which relies heavily on French veteran Jalil Lespert -- is very good. But the script telegraphs Mme. Steiner's conspiracy far too much. A feature-length film might be better able to conceal and misdirect these elements so that Thomas' missing life seems less conspiratorial and more natural, and Mme. Steiner's complicity in the crime less obvious (or even concealed).

The film contains a somewhat lengthy dialogue at the end about the true nature of reality which doesn't really fit with the rest of the film, either. Although originally part of the novel, this plot element appears and then disappears almost immediately. It is out of place here.

I should also say that film festival audience reaction to this motion picture was less than stellar. Many gay audiences attend gay film festivals in order to see positive portrayals of gay and lesbian characters, portrayals they cannot see elsewhere in cinema. Yet, this film depicted homosexuality as worthy of murder, conspiracy and manipulation. Thomas never has a chance against his wealthy, knowledgeable, psychotic mother. Thomas' second death is blithely accepted by the authorities, even though it is obviously murder. Audiences were happy with the film's sci-fi elements, but very condemnatory about its anti-gay (sic) theme.

Tomo (2004)

Excellent FX, but a disturbing portrayal of gay love

[7/10 · 19 October 2004]

An astronaut and his robotic companion are trapped on an ice-planet, where their relationship slowly unravels.

Astounding special effects -- far superior to almost anything we've seen come out of Hollywood (that is not an exaggeration) -- make this film work. The CGI of the robot, Tomo, is just jaw-dropping. It is clean, realistic and animated. It is far superior to almost anything seen in "A.I." or "I, Robot."

As the days pass, Tomo ("companion" in Japanese) becomes increasingly effeminate and campy as the days stretch into weeks. His relationship to his human master gradually deteriorates into abuse and cruelty; when the astronaut idly tosses pebbles at Tomo, Tomo ties him to the ground for a day. In flashback, the audience slowly comes to understand that the ship's crash is extremely mysterious and that the astronaut blames himself for causing the death of his co-pilot. Too, there are hints in the astronaut's log that perhaps Tomo's attraction to his human partner began much sooner than anyone realizes. The astronaut finally decides to head back to the ship to see if any rescue transmitters can be salvaged. But betrayal is all he finds: He realizes that Tomo caused the crash in order to strand the two of them together, alone. He realizes Tomo hid the rescue transmitter, in order to forestall any rescue that would separate them. And he realizes that Tomo loves him. But it's all too late. Tomo has destroyed the transmitter and slit his own hydraulic cables in despair.

For my money, "Tomo" is about 5 minutes too long. The character development is uneven and unclear, and the film's opening sequence doesn't really introduce the plot, characters or situation too clearly. It is also not exactly clear why Tomo does some of the things he does. Why does Tomo imitate the astronaut when he sees the human masturbating? Does Tomo want to be more human-like? Perhaps. But Tomo also seems to not care.

Other elements in the film -- such as the fishing sequence, with its grotesque poking of the fish's eye, and the opening and closing credits showing heterosexual robot-sex -- seem unnecessary. When all is said and done, "Tomo" draws rather heavily on "2001: A Space Odyssey" for its insane-robot theme. But more disturbing is "Tomo's" depiction of a gay robot as insane. The robot couldn't just be gay? The robot couldn't just have done one thing wrong (crashed the ship, or hidden the rescue beacon), it had to have done many psychotic, abusive things?

Had Tomo been a human being, I doubt this film would have been as well-received. And therein lies a big problem for the film, for its message is much more complex and disturbing than many audiences seem to realize.

Straight No Chaser (2003)

Funny but uneven

[18 October 2004]

This is an odd mish-mash of a film. Written by Bronson Pinchot and two others, this film follows the adventures of a comically wild straight man (played by Pinchot) who thinks he has inherited a beauty salon from his uncle. The "Beauty Bar" turns out to be a fantastically profitable gay bar with a hunk of a manager, porn star bartenders, a leather-queen doorman, flirtatious clientèle with musclebound and jealous lovers, an attitude-throwing Latino bar back and a fortune teller.

The lines, jokes and incidents are very funny. Or, they would be if the delivery were a bit clearer and less rushed. The film attempts a rapid-fire delivery of lines. But the actors are, for the most part, not up to the task and many of the jokes get lost in incomprehensibility. Too, many of the jokes tumble over one another, never giving the audience time to stop laughing at the previous joke. Three, four, five jokes go by as the audience is still reacting to the first one.

Many of the jokes (both visual and oral) are predicated on a sort of homo-panic as Pinchot is tossed (sometimes literally) from one outrageous queen to the next. For a gay-positive film, homo-panic is a little off-putting.

The film never quite really gets its feet underneath it, and then -- boom! -- the film slows down as Pinchot talks to the more sedate (relatively) bar manager. Pinchot dreams of turning the bar into a restaurant or lounge, but is dissuaded by the large amounts of cash flowing through the place. But if the patrons ever found out their new proprietor was straight, the bar would fail. So, in yet another change of pace for the film, the bar manager and Trini (the flamboyant Latino bar back) must teach him how to "act gay."

The film ends on a predictable, if funny and jerky, point.

Overall, it's funny and visually exciting. But there's something lacking here, a point of reference or a character to hold on to which the audience can empathize with.

Blessing (2003)

Heart-felt, honest and powerful

[18 October 2004]

Stephen Williams is a Mormon filmmaker from Utah. This is a tight, gentle little film based on an episode from his own life.

A gay son, David, comes home after his father's heart-attack. Estranged from his mother and straight-arrow brother, held at arm's length by his loving but distant father, and embraced by his adoring and liberal sister, his arrival is inopportune. But the kindly Mormon bishop is accepting of David's presence. But when David realizes that the bishop and his brother intend to anoint his father with healing oil in order to give him a blessing, David asks to be included. But since David is living in a "state of sin," he cannot participate. In the end, Mormonism is a patriarchal religion. And the decision to include David or not is going to be his father's...

The film is obviously heart-felt and real, although some of the dialogue is a bit stilted and awkward. The actress playing David's mother is a bit too stiff and unyielding to be real, but the bishop's role is played beautifully.

The nice thing about this film is that even non-Mormons will understand and appreciate the emotional content and message of the film. Anyone familiar with the Isaac-Jacob-Esau story in the Old Testament will find many parallels as well. But for those audience members who are deeply estranged from their families, the film tends to lack resonance. For some, blood-family may not be as important as the created-family that one creates on one's own.

But nevertheless, this is a great little film that not only has an element of reality, it has heart.

Blue Eyed Moon (2001)

A feast for the eyes! and ears!

[18 October 2004]

This animated Bulgarian film takes as its starting point Greek myths about women transforming into trees, animals and plants in order to escape the predations of men.

Beautifully drawn, the short morphs women into trees, tears into streams, faces into mountainsides. The gorgeous classical soundtrack is New Age, and creates a sensory impression of floating, dreamy night-scapes and gentle breezes in the trees.

What's most interesting about this short is that the film never really collapses into an anti-male screed (as many of the Greek myths it is based on do). Watch for the scene in which a sleeping woman is illuminated by gentle lightning (yes, gentle lightning!). A man's sleeping figure is combined with hers. It's little things like that which make this film a real delight -- intellectually, aurally and visually.

The Nearly Unadventurous Life of Zoe Cadwaulder (2004)

Rough in the beginning, but charming and delightful

[18 October 2004]

Pity the poor sad-sack: Zoe Cadwaulder was orphaned at a young age when a meteor fell on her parents as she ran to get her pet chicken, Red. Throughout her life, disaster and near-disaster has taken out almost everyone around her whom she ever loved. Even now, Zoe has to avoid falling chandeliers shaken loose by the sex-until-the-walls-shake heterosexual couple above her.

One day, Zoe decides to buy a bike helmet for protection. That's when she meets Red, a dyke with fluorescent red hair and a smile to die for. Will Zoe give up her addiction to disaster? Or will karma shake lose a little love for this love-lorn waif? Do you even need to ask?

Kellie Simpkins ("A League of Their Own," "The Laramie Project") is the luminous Red, and veteran TV and film actress Melanie Lynskey ("Heavenly Creatures," "But I'm A Cheerleader," "Coyote Ugly," "Sweet Home Alabama," "Two and a Half Men") is the dopey, sad but sweet Zoe.

The film has a terrific premise and the various disasters which befall Zoe and those around her are side-splittingly funny. The film opens with a montage of famous disasters...but the narration and editing are rough and awkward, making for a difficult to the present day and Zoe's current predicament. A little polishing, and this film would be a real gem.

The film's finale, however, is delightful!