How woeful it is when a film that is striving to show a new tolerance in civil society ratchets downwards into a feeble film where few triumph. Let me tell you about it and how I found it: Two gay partners- having lived with each other for thirty-nine years-- decide to wed-- thanks to new law permitting it-- and look ahead to the remainder of their lives in romantic matrimony. (Why a guy seventy-one and a guy ten years his junior do this... bless them!) But soon after the day's event becomes public, the Catholic Archdiocese --for whom the younger man works as music teacher-- sends down word to the head priest of the church-- where he's taught for years-- that he is now "fired".
He is George, who's played by Alfred Molina; and even though everyone there knows he and Ben (played by John Lithgow) have been cohabiting many years, the fact that they were now wed made George guilty of disobeying a church contract he once signed--which had to do with Church Doctrine-- permitting only a marriage between man and woman.
So here comes the problem: George no longer earns the money to make ends meet. Ben is retired-- on a pension. He's an artist, but is not bringing in any fresh income from his painting sales. They can't afford to keep the apartment they own, and with none that's available-- from the high of their new marriage they drop down to the low of their splitting up and living separately with family or friends.
This could have been a mighty chance to grow their characters, but instead it's a soap opera drama of their living with people who are not at all interested in creating something worthwhile. I see no reason to praise a movie that shows me only the weakest sequence of interactions with folks who are not at all in sync with the others' life style. For instance, George lives with two gay cops who have all forms of parties that George cannot relate to in the least. And while he is chatting with a detached young gay fellow and is asked why he's there, George says, "We're sitting on my couch"-I.e. ('I'm waiting for folks to leave so I can lie down on my bed and get a night's rest.') It does happen that this young man reveals the key for George and Ben to once again live together... but another twist must keep that from happening.
Ben, on the side of family assistance, is able to stay with his nephew Elliot (who's played by Darren Burrows); wife Kate (played by Marisa Tomei) and nephew Joey (Played by Charlie Tahan). Here dwells one stressed combination of folks-- hardly helpful with a houseguest: the wife's an author who is trying to write-while Ben wants to talk; and the husband is a film producer who's hardly ever home; and Joey is Ben's great nephew, who sprouts angry wings of self-determination and disdains his uncle's presence. Yet one redeeming chat between Joey and Ben sticks in my mind-- as a touching initiation towards Joey claiming manhood; and in the end... brings Joey to a scene that is as fine as any in the film. Not to give too much away: a question comes from Ben, who's bunking on the lower berth of the bed-- looking up towards Joey who is on top (trying to get some sleep): "Have you ever fallen in love?" After hemming a bit, Joey tells Ben of a girl he saw on vacation, whom he was afraid to meet, yet who lives in New York. Ben says, "Well you should get in touch." As far as I could see, that was the farthest stretch this movie made towards something grand. Everything else kept things beneath radar's love beam.
What about love's gay radar beam? What is this thing about gay couples' marrying? Is this something we need to know? I'm all for gay people loving and sharing their lives together. As an abstract concept it's beautiful. It's no different from straights--loving with each other out there. Surely the world is more beautiful with any form of love from human beings. But do I need to see two gays getting out of bed or cuddling--getting in bed, particularly two older guys with whom I have to witness intimacy? Show me love with fine words and deeply felt thoughts and gracious gestures showing folks care. But do not call it love when two guys are kissing-- or sharing spoons in their kitchen.
A producer needs to lift his talents skywards before he plans a film like this. If he is serious about showing us LOVE, then delve deeper than the showy spectacle of "handzies" that does nothing for me. The producer of LOVE IS STRANGE was Ira Sachs; and he does seek to give us the slow moving scenes, which can play well as something profound is being brought to the screen. But when those slow moving scenes are just a way to convey impatience or anger, why not just come out and speak it?
The writers were Maurice Zacharias as well as Ira Sachs. Surely a film like this is a daunting venture to undertake. I mean, they are dealing with a public that not so long ago would have balked here. Much has advanced proudly of late with gay celebrations and vows, but this film tends to disparage the whole concept by bringing in the way real estate in New York presents a coarse challenge to Ben and George who find themselves wed; one becomes jobless, suffers income loss;and both are homeless for too long to solidify their love. Love wasn't the only thing that felt strange in this movie. I would love to sing its praise, but I can't. It gets a SIX
What My Grade Grants:
8.) "About as good as it could get."
7.) "Lacking that bit of excellence."
6.) "Somehow it just didn't work well."
5.) "I have to feel bad about it."
4.) "All that work and nothing to show."
Creator of "The Wizard's Outrageous Scheme For Stopping Smoking" Humbler Acts reports one film every week as relaxation from his speaking and writing on stopping smoking through dream use and Seven Forces. He's American, English-educated, residing in St. Louis, MO (USA). He can be reached: humbleracts@aol.com or telephone: 314-574-7681.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Humbler_Acts
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/8738624
Buy tv online at amazon
0 comments:
Post a Comment