fringe: the will to be

The year is 1962. The place, an office in the English department of Melbourne University.

In that office is a man, William O'Halloran, played so beautifully and specifically by writer, co-producer and performer Mark Salvestro. And he just received a letter that will change his life.

This is the story of two Williams, O'Halloran and Shakespeare. And how the love of the bard led to our English professor finding love with Henry, one of his students, and then being fired as a result.

It was a complete accident that we saw this on the same night as Mardi Gras, but it definitely felt appropriate.

Salvestro is amazing. There is so much lightness and deftness to his performance, and so much specificity. From his continued eye contact with the audience at specific moments, to his use of a slight stammer to indicate the abject terror of this man whose life has begun to unravel before his eyes thanks to the dismissal letter from the university. His mannerisms as he tells his story just captured my heart, and I had the overwhelming urge to tell William that everything would work out okay eventually and that there was nothing wrong with him.

There is also the way that Salvestro weaves in passages from Shakespeare into his writing without it seeming jarring or glaringly obvious. In fact there were several times when I only realised he'd switched to Shakespeare when we were already mid way down the rabbit hole or a line I recognised came up (I know there was some Romeo and Juliet, some Hamlet, and then I think there were a lot of the Henrys and possibly some of the Richards). And it wasn't just the strength of his performance, it was also the strength of his writing, allowing his prose to stand up against extracts from Shakespeare.

At the same time, his description of that first forbidden kiss, that first new touch, the insecurity melting away under the warmth of action and emotion that just feel right, that make you feel alive, felt painfully real. And all the more painful given the background of the times, where homosexuality wouldn't be decriminalised until 1980 in Victoria and that the prevailing emotion for most men in William's position in his time was to feel deep shame and disgust about themselves and about their perfectly natural wants and desires.

Without spoiling the ending, I was afraid things would take a tragic turn for our William, but I was genuinely pleased that his story went in a different direction, one where he was in control of his own story. So much so that it left me wanting to know what happened next, always a good sign.

yani's rating: 5 unbuttoned shirts out of 5

fringe: you and i

Three years ago I saw Jesse Scott and Lachie MacAulay from Casus Circus in Tolu and was incredibly impressed... so when they returned with You & I, a show about "the loving relationship between two circus artists", I knew I had to see it.

And it was so beautiful.

Not since 2015's Bromance have I been this moved by a circus show... in fact, much like that show, I was brought almost to tears on multiple occasions.

Given the description of the show, I assume Scott and MacAulay are in a relationship... and this show is a sweet, simple, funny and moving look into that relationship.

And they're able to draw the audience into their world.

It made me so happy to see a gay relationship presented so matter-of-factually within a circus show, it wasn't subtext, it was just the text of the show.

From the sweet tumbling routine that opens the show to Scott's hula hoop routine, their hilarious attempts at playing dress-ups to two-person chair balancing, culminating in an amazing trapeze routine that drew gasps from the audience, everything about this show serves the narrative of their relationship.

But the part of the show that really struck me was when MacAulay disappears from the stage, leaving Scott alone, and the ways he deals (or doesn't) with the loneliness. It was more than a little heartbreaking even if his solo trapeze work was exceptional, but when MacAulay returns and "heals" Scott made my heart swell.

There are moments when it might feel the tiniest little voyeuristic (the flashlight sequence for example), but just because of how sweet they are together and how much in love they seem to be.

I'm so glad that they let us into their world, and I hope we see more shows like this from them in the years to come.

yani's rating: 5 chairs out of 5

fringe: the measure of a man

The Measure of a Man was not the show I was expecting.

Or not exactly anyway.

I also didn't realise when I picked the show that I'd seen Gavin Roach six years ago in his Confessions of a Grindr Addict show.

Like it's predecessor, Measure feels like an incredibly autobiographical show, but unlike it, there is no line between persona and performer, which makes the whole thing have an extra level to it that is incredibly raw and personal and revealing. Maybe not revealing... maybe exposed is a better word.

Doubly so when Roach spends the majority of the show in nothing but a hat, a denim jacket and a pair of briefs that put his "package" right out on display and at a lot of the audience's eye level.

Roach presents a show that talks about his penis, his relationship to it and sexual dysfunction in a confronting, amusing, frank, unabashed and frankly sad way. And there's an additional layer of confrontation given that he's discussing sexual dysfunction within the gay community, or perhaps just within gay relationships.

As gay men sex is "supposed" to be vital to who we are, how we relate to other men, how other men see us. So to approach the issue of a gay man who isn't the biggest, the thickest, the hardest, the most virile and what that does to him and how he sees the world is an interesting approach to a show. And one that made me more than a little sad and annoyed at the behaviour of the men he was describing.

Roach is an engaging performer who seems to effortlessly capture the attention of an audience, even when the themes got a little heavy.

yani's rating: 4 flops out of 5

movies: call me by your name

It's been a while since I've been as blown away by a movie as I was by Call Me By Your Name.

Everything about this movie is just beautiful and perfect. It's not big or flashy... if anything, it's an incredibly sensual and languid movie, taking it's time with it's 132 minute run time.

It also avoided a lot of the tropes I'm used to from this kind of story... and I don't think it qualifies as spoilers if I say that there's no great manufactured conflict and resolution, there's no exposure/outing, there's no villain. These are people, not plot points.

Between them director Luca Guadagnino, writer James Ivory (he of Merchant Ivory fame, and adapting the novel by André Aciman) and cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom have constructed a film that all feels incredibly real, and grounded, and amazing.

Armie Hammer as Oliver and Timothée Chalamet as Elio both do amazing work as the leads, but it's Chalamet who absolutely blew my mind. In every scene you can see the character feeling something, be it jealousy, passion, sadness, contempt, fear... he puts it all on his face and in the way he moves.

The camera is absolutely in love with him as well, between the cinematography and the lighting and the (often lack of) costuming, there is definitely a focus on his body in ways that there aren't with Hammer as the object of his affection/obsession. I wasn't sure if I was just imagining it until a scene about half way through where there's a discussion of ancient statues and Elio's father says that they're "daring you to desire them"... which is what I think the movie is doing with Chalamet as Elio.

Or that's just me.

Hammer has been fantastic in everything I've seen him in and he continues to be here, although much more of an enigmatic character since the story and camera is most often focused on Elio.

I also have to give a giant shout out to Michael Stuhlbarg (most recently seen in The Shape of Water as the scientist) in the role of Elio's father. There's an amazing speech that he gives at the end of the movie that just totally wrecked me, not just for the words, but also for what it means in the 1983 world of the movie.

What I'm also incredibly glad about is that I now have the novel sitting on my bedside table, waiting for me to start it, so I can immerse myself back into the world of Call Me By Your Name.

yani's rating: 5 peaches out of 5

fringe: intoxication

Christopher Bryant's show, Intoxication, is a very intimate show. Especially when it's his last show and there are only ten people in the audience. And it's a very small room.

But mostly because Bryant gives a lot of eye contact, regularly, and throughout the show.

Intoxication is the result of a traumatic accident and an addiction and finding a way out of bad relationships.

According to Bryant's prologue the show is pieced together from numerous bits of writing he did while recovering from the accident and the addiction. It's part stream of consciousness, part yell into the void, railing against those parts of the modern world that make us closer and further apart at the same time and part break-up letter to a self involved asshole boyfriend.

And there's a lot of great writing and performing from Bryant, but I think that the thing that really pulls the whole thing together into a consistent whole is that sense of intimacy. Because it's hard not to really hear what someone is saying while they're looking you straight in the eye and you're looking back.

There is also a lot of the show that is as relevant to a 20-something self confessed millennial like Bryant as to a 40-something like me and I found myself wanting to nod in agreement at a number of the things he said as he made eye contact with me.

While some of the things he talks about come from a specifically gay sensibility, others are just about people trying to work out what love is and why is it so hard.

If this hadn't been the last show I would be urging people to go and see it right now... but if you run across the show anywhere else, go and see it.

yani's rating: 5 sequinned jackets out of 5

fringe: the chemsex monologues

I didn't really know exactly what to expect from Dragonflies Theatre's production of The Chemsex Monologues. It sounded interesting, and while it was definitely gay themed, it's a world I (thankfully) know nothing about . So I took a chance.

That chance paid off, and I got one of the most amazing pieces of theatre I've seen this Fringe.

I laughed, I welled up, I got mad both at and for the characters and most of all I felt for these four people as they tell us about the way their lives slide across each other and intersect the world of gay sex on drugs.

As the name suggests, the show is four (well five technically) monologues... the narrator (Richard Watkins) begins and ends the show, Nameless (​Damien Killeen, pictured above) is the boy everybody wants, Cath (Remy Moynes) is a co-dependant fag hag... and then there's nerdy sexual health worker Daniel (Richard Unwin).

Of these, it was Watkins' second performance that I found the most moving... as he takes us through his desire to help Nameless to his frustration with him, from loving him to hurting him and back again, there was something in his eyes that really grounded him in the moment and brought me to the brink of tears.

But there were moments in each of the monologues that touched me... Killeen's Nameless being so desperate for a connection and relaxing into the embrace of a new love, Moynes' Cath realising how far away her best friend has gone from her and Unwin's Daniel being so completely out of his depth but yet still holding out his hand to someone in need... they're all beautifully performed and each monologue is amazingly written.

In fact, the text of the play by Patrick Cash is so beautiful that I bought myself a copy of it at the end of the performance, and then had the cast sign it like the giant nerd that I am.

It's also at times genuinely funny... more so Cath and Daniel's stories, but there are moments of humour throughout that made me laugh.

I also loved that in weaving these stories in and out of each other, there's opportunities for each of the actors to either impersonate the other characters, or to give their own interpretation of the never-seen character of Mother Meth, the American host of the chillouts. The moments when they take on another character felt to me very much like showing that how others view us and how we view ourselves are two completely different things.

In a lot of ways it reminded me of the show I saw five years ago, Shadows of Angels... four stories, each one picking up the thread of the previous one, and amazingly strong performances throughout.

And weirdly, stepping outside the world of the play for a second, when Daniel asks "why do so many gay men want to be outside themselves?", I instantly thought of an article I read earlier this week about gay men and loneliness as it deals with some of the same questions.

It's a subject that needs to be discussed, and a piece as beautifully crafted as this is a good place to start.

Current Mood:

fringe: panti bliss - life in high heels

Panti Bliss is a National Fucking Treasure™ of Ireland but also exactly the kind of drag queen that you want to invite to pop off her clogs, make a nice cup of tea for and setting in for a good old chinwag.

Not that she's not glamour personified, because she damn well is (hello red sparkling dress, nude fishnets, nude stilettos and hair with more than a hint of Farrah Fawcett about it), but there's something about her manner and her presence that just puts you at ease. From the beginning of the show where she comes down off stage and says hello to various people and shakes their hand (I was one of the lucky few), to the point in the show where she just comes and sits on the edge of the stage to chat with the crowd, Panti just makes you feel at home.

It may just be that honeyed Irish voice of hers, it may be the wicked storytelling, or it may just be that she is in all respects a National Fucking Treasure™.

I'll admit, I didn't know anything about Dr Bliss before the show, but, like most of the comedians that I love, she's a natural story teller and shares the story of how she became the aforementioned National Fucking Treasure™. But she also just makes a lot of fucking sense, and some of the things she says about drag and why she does it are things that I've heard other queens say, but never quite that succinctly and eloquently.

Panti is without doubt a queen well worth your time, although given that tonight was her last show, you'll need to either catch her in Perth or Sydney or wait until the next time she wings her way back to Adelaide.

Current Mood:

fringe: briefs

This is the second year running I've been to see Briefs (the third time overall), and both times I've walked out of the tent at the end of the show infinitely happier than when I went in, considerably hoarser from screaming my lungs out, lacking much of the feeling in my hands from continuous clapping and at least 90% hornier.

And like last year, Fez Fa'anana and the boys of Briefs didn't disappoint.

I would have sworn that the show didn't actually go for 90 minutes because the time just flew... it seemed like no sooner had they started than we were screaming and hollering along with the finale (I realise now that last year's show was 2 hours long, so it was actually shorter than I thought it should have been).

Unlike last year where I was sitting off to the side, I had a prime seat, essentially sitting at the end of the catwalk/stage, so I had a perfect view of everything.

There were also some changes to the line-up this year... Captain Kidd has just come back after injury, so his solo segments had been swapped out for other pieces... and Dallas Dellaforce has been, to quote Fez, "voted off the island", in her place was an equally blonde and fishy queen whose name I didn't catch (something beginning with J I think)... but she was suitably fierce.

Evil Hate Monkey, Thomas Worrell and my personal favourite, Louis Biggs, all return doing that voodoo that they do so well.

As much as my heart belongs to Louis, I'm also more than a little in love with Fez. You don't ever fuck with Fez though... as one gentleman, who was fiddling with his phone after Fez gave explicit instructions to put phones away, found out to his chagrin. But Fez is a brilliant, funny, warm and naughty diva... and his (I honestly keep wanting to refer to Fez as a she, like you do with drag queens, even the ones with beards, so my pronouns might slip a little) magic act is adorable and has brilliant comic timing and no small amount of skill.

But as I said... my heart (and parts further south) belong to Louis (that's him just to the right of Fez in the photo)... from the moment I bought a ton of raffle tickets off him (and didn't win the opportunity to do a tequila shot of his well stuffed underwear clad body... #jealous), to his schoolboy routine with the Rubix cube, yoyo and crocheted surprise to his turn as one of the tumbling dogs, to the new act with, I think, Lachlan as skipping, tumbling bogans... all the way through to the finale and the backless/thong sequinned number that he wears oh so well. But beyond the body... and it's an impressive body, it's his naughty, bubbly, exuberant personality that won my heart yet again.

The other new act is the new drag queen, and while she was good, and from a distance a totally convincing woman... just like last time, it was kind of my least favourite part of the show. The number was visually interesting,

Monkey was as crazed and inappropriate as I remember... but I don't know if I realised last time how incredibly skilled he was, particularly when he's jumping up and down on pointe in ballet shoes. That takes some serious skill, and some tough feet.

I also ended up being his banana humping victim during the ballet number, which I suspected might happen, but the reality of watching the little, essentially naked, ball of fur and energy fix you with his gaze, stand on you and thrust his sequinned codpiece in your face is entirely something else.

The two most magical acts of the evening were both courtesy of Thomas... first he gave a breathtaking performance on the silks... not I've seen a lot of aerial work this year, but this is the first time it's actually been on silks... and it really is beautiful to watch, especially when it's as stunningly lit as this was and as expertly done. Then he returned at the end to do a routine on the aerial hoop... and put his contortionist skills to excellent use.

There's a particular move that he does where the hoop is spinning and he's spinning but had one foot on the floor... it's quite honestly my favourite move of the routine, if not the night... it's just amazing.

That's the thing about Briefs though, while they don't take the show as a whole seriously and feed that energy and sense of fun back to the audience in a big, bad way... everybody does everything as well as they possibly can. Everybody is at the top of their respective games and they make you WANT to hoot and holler and cheer and clap until your hands are still tingly over two hours after the show has finished.

Current Mood:

fringe: my life as a gay bum

In My Life as a Gay Bum, Peter Baecker performing under the pseudonym (or possibly Grindr/hookup app handle) nick42berlin, failed on three different fronts when doing a show about gay sex... he didn't make it funny, titillating or interesting.

I'd thankfully read a few reviews beforehand, so I not only knew what I was getting into, but I'd also made sure to go and see a much better show earlier in the night. But it really says something about a Fringe show when there are only five people in the audience and two of them walk out within the first ten minutes.

The only reason I stuck around was that sense of morbid curiosity to see not only whether or not he could chase off the other two straight folks, but also how bad it was going to get and where the hell he was going with this absolute self-involved train wreck of a show.

I also think that part of the reason Baecker chose to set the show in a literal "dark room" was so that he didn't see the looks of panic, pity or quizzical contempt the audience undoubtedly have on their faces at various points.

The show was supposed to cover "the many strange, funny and weird moments" (strange I'll give you, the other two, not so much) Baecker experienced in "darkrooms, parks, toilets, cars and 100 more places" (and by 100, I'm guessing he means about two, people's houses and sex clubs... in fact cars and toilets really weren't mentioned, at least not that I remember), but what it felt like at a certain point was the three remaining audience members were gratifying Baecker's fetish for talking about his sex life in a public arena and being paid for it. It was like we were part of a very XXX rated version of the TV show My Crazy Obsession, where the obsession in question was talking about all the cock you've sucked. But doing it in a way that isn't going to arouse anyone or make them the least bit interested in your story.

I'm not even sure that this show would work playing to a totally gay audience... more than once I found myself thinking, "yes, and... what's your point, we've all been slutty at one point or another".

This show seems like it was totally devised to first and foremostly pump up Baecker's ego, but other than that to both frighten a straight audience and show them how "dirty" the gays are. I'm not sure why exactly he thought that was a good idea, but it seemed fairly evident, and somewhat telling, given that he spent much more time directing his stories to the presumably straight guy and girl (mostly the girl) on the other side of the room, than to me, the solo male.

Baecker's Austrian origins also works against him... between his occasionally repetitious or unimaginative English vocabulary (I hope he's much more descriptive in his native language) and his accent (I'm sorry, but the Austrian/German accents are amongst the least sexy in Europe, even if the German people specifically are among the kinkiest), it just felt like we were either part of his sex addiction therapy or victims of a bizarre hijacking.

Actually, it felt like exactly what it was... really, really bad performance art, delivered by an uninteresting and unskilled performer.

There was so much potential here, and in the hands of somebody who can actually give the material life, it could have been funny or at the very least interesting, or better yet, touching... Baecker doesn't manage any of those things beyond eliciting the occasional uncomfortable or pitying chuckle.

It also didn't help that he chose to perform in an essentially black room wearing all black clothing, so the only thing you could see were his calves, his face depending on whether he moved into the meagre light (which, if you're going to do a "dark room" cut the light by at least 75% and do it properly) and the microphone power light (why the hell he even needed a microphone I have no idea, the room is small, the audience is close, just speak unplugged, or spring for an headset mike). You're in a "dark room", perform shirtless or in your underwear or in just a towel, or heaven forbid, even perform naked (although in no way did Baecker look anything like the photo he used in the poster) provided you warn the audience beforehand.

And speaking of his microphone, the person I feel sorriest for is his poor sound tech, who presumably has had to sit through this car accident over and over again. Once is definitely more than enough.

It's not the worst Fringe show I've ever seen, but it's definitely close.


Current Mood:

fringe: fag/stag

Let's get this out in the open right away... Fag/Stag from The Last Great Hunt is a brilliant piece of theatre.

And it's one I nearly missed. It had been on one of my early lists, but got cut somewhere down the line. Thankfully at the eleventh hour (literally their last show), I decided to take a punt and go see it.

I'm so glad that I did.

Written and performed by Jeffrey Jay Fowler (on the right, above) as Jimmy, the fag half of the title, and Chris Isaacs (on the left) as Corgan, the stag half, Fag/Stag takes on the idea that there are two sides to every story but the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It's presented as two parallel and overlapping monologues, told by switching between Fowler and Isaacs as they sit on either side of the stage and talk directly to the audience. Side by side, but separated, which sums up the show as a whole really.

The setting is simple, just two stools, two tables, two phones, two drinks and two video game controllers... and two characters who are so intensely real.

Both performers are incredibly talented and handle the dialogue and character with consummate skill. I did gravitate more towards Fowler as Jimmy, partly because he's so damn cute and as a fellow fag I identified a little more with his experiences.

It's especially apparent how skilfully they handle the material in those moments where they ramp things up to a heightened state of emotion... but they're great at the myriad of tiny, subtle moments too. It's totally worth watching the face of the other performer when one of them is talking to see those almost throw away moments of character, there never feels like a moment when they're not fully present. One of the most affecting scenes was one where Fowler just slowly starts to raise one arm while telling his story, and the movement has such incredible power because of what it represents it had me leaning forward to ensure I didn't miss a single moment.

And those moments when they lock eyes with audience members, not long enough to be uncomfortable but enough to really allow us to connect with both character and performer and draw us even further into the story.

The writing is exceptionally sharp and funny and touching and just incredibly real. It covers so many touchstones about just being a guy, both good and bad. And about relationships between guys, but specifically about those singular relationships that gay men have with straight men and, at the end of the day, no matter how close we are, the fact that we all see the world through our own unique lens.

If I had any quibbles, it's a very minor one... I couldn't help feeling that the geographic references, which are uniquely Perth, may not resonate with audiences in other cities. I felt like there was additional weight to those locations that, as someone not familiar with the geography, I was missing out on. And maybe there's no getting around that... those locations may not have a parallel in other states.


However I think that was more about me wanting to wring every last possible ounce out of the exceptional experience that was Fag/Stag.

Current Mood:

fringe: adam richard - splitsecondism

I feel like I should thank Adam Richard for really opening the door to the Fringe for me... back in 2009, on a whim, I bought a ticket for his Driven show, had a fantastic time and the following year dived into the Fringe headfirst, which has led to my current 24 shows in 32 days experience in this year's Fringe.

I've seen him twice since, in 2011 as part of the live version of Talking Poofy and then two years ago in his Gaypocalypse show.

And I feel like his new show (as in brand new, still has that "new comedy smell" and a wet paint sign, new), Splitsecondism, is closest in tone to the Driven show. It's also fairly obvious that I'm an Adam Richard fan.

This is possibly also why I was the one person in the front row, and was thus able to, as Adam pointed out, "manspread" all over the place (the downside of sitting in the front row I guess)... not to mention laugh my big gay ass off.

Like I said, this show is still very new... so I think we segued off the prepared script more than was intended, but the detours weren't problematic in any way, and we wouldn't have even known we were off the beaten track had Adam not pointed it out.

The first half of the show there's an analogy to Facebook, which works but fizzles out in the latter half (it worked within the context of the material, Richard just seemed to give up on it at a certain point which is fine), some "true facts" that the audience gets to choose the order of, and the "controversial" part of the show... which, compared to Richard's Gaypocalypse show, barely caused a ripple.

As with all the previous shows, and any of the podcasts I've heard him on, it's when he gets to the storytelling that it really takes off. And also where I laughed the hardest.

The only real downside to this being the place where Richard tries out the material before taking it on the road is I don't remember him bringing the shows back to Adelaide when they've been around the block and are in the best shape of their lives (is that a mixed metaphor?).

Current Mood:

bulge

This is one of those TMI (Too Much Information) posts that I do from time to time... you have been warned.

I am officially worn the hell out. I'm not looking for any sympathy, it's all totally self inflicted and I had a good time doing it. And no, it's not what you're currently thinking.

I went out dancing last night. To a dance party, as the kids say. And danced for a little under six hours, non stop. In my underwear. With a group of large, predominately hairy men also in their underwear.

Now I haven't been out dancing in more than ten years. And never before in my life have I been dancing in my underwear.

After the initial moment of "what the fuck" wore off, it was liberating and less titillating overall, but it was easier to have a good perve on guys I thought were hot, especially those in jockstraps.

And weirdly because I chose something more... involved... than regular underwear I did feel a little like I was wearing a tuxedo to a barbecue for the first half hour or so. I also wish I'd decided on something else, just because as minimal as my garment was, I did end up working up quite a sweat.

Given that I danced pretty much continuously for six hours and sweated, there is an issue of inner thigh chaffing, which is going to be problematic and painful for the rest of the week.

Thank god I also have a chiro appointment tomorrow afternoon, because I'm pretty sure I've shaken everything loose and my shoulders are all kinds of big knots of muscle.

I did remember/realise a number of things during the evening though...

Firstly, thankfully there were less than a handful of guys I'd previously hooked up with in the room (four, possibly five, I can't actually remember now), which is always a danger.

Secondly the difference between an underwear dance party and a gay sauna is actually incredibly small, all things considered... and even less so given that fact that I know there was some hook-ups going on, although I didn't witness anything first hand.

Also, I remembered why dancing is an incredibly bad idea for me... it occupies my body but gives my mind free reign to over-think or obsess or fixate.

And because, despite what people may say or even think, all sections of the gay community (even, and sometimes especially, the sub-groups) are essentially like high schools (I'd say Mean Girls, but I've never actually seen the movie). Not quite so much that there are the "jocks" and "nerds" and "popular kids", more so that everyone makes snap judgements on who is on their level and who is beneath them.

For the purposes of this analogy, I'm Ally Sheedy's Alison from The Breakfast Club... I don't fit within the established groups and hierarchy, I'm the weird kid who doesn't speak and sits by themselves. Partly because I prefer that a lot of the time, but also because that's the role I get given.

Which, as a general rule, gets into my head and just makes me both mad and depressed. And it's not even that so much as, the more base and fundamental issue, that it would be nice to get hit on. And especially in that particular crowd.

Maybe it's the fact that I really never stopped dancing... maybe it's that even within the specialised niche of that crowd, I'm my own specialised niche... maybe it's the armour I generally clothe myself in for going out into the world, the "don't talk to me" wall I use on public transport and in shopping malls on those people who try to engage you in conversation as you walk through the mall.

Maybe it's a permutation of the line from the Buffy episode, Earshot...

Every single person down there is ignoring your pain because they're way too busy with their own. The beautiful ones, the popular ones, the guys that pick on you... everyone.

If you could hear what they're feeling - the confusion, the loneliness... It looks quiet down there. It's not. It's deafening.

Although maybe I'm over-reaching/thinking it.

There were a few things about last night that made it different from previous excursions.

I was one of the first people there... in fact when I walked into the room, I was literally the first person in there (there may have been one other, I'm not sure). A few people showed up gradually and I was checking out one particular guy as he walked from one side of the room to the other because in the dim lighting and without my glasses and given the colour of his skin/underwear, it honestly looked like he was naked.

And then he came and sat at the stupid wobbly little bar table with me. We sat in silence for a couple of minutes and then he asked me something inane, possibly about the fact that I didn't have a drink (which is a whole other conversation), and then we were pretty much off to the races, as they say, having an overly superficial but entertaining enough conversation. And it was slightly flirty with the added frisson of us both being mostly naked, but he'd mentioned his partner a couple of times, so I didn't push anything beyond harmless flirting.

Then he went to get another drink, I got bored with sitting around and went to dance and we drifted apart for a bit. While we'd be talking, he'd said some of his friends had told him about it and that he should introduce me to them when they got there. Which I took with a grain of salt, just because, you know, alcohol and whatever. But a little later I looked around and he was talking with his friends, and I knew a couple of them.

Because, you know, Adelaide.

He did come over and dance with me more than a few times (after initially saying he was more interested in the drinking than that dancing), and made general references to my awesomeness, which was sweet. But he did pike out relatively early.

So, yeah... it was good for the ego and I had a bit of a crush, but the main thing that amused was the friends thing.

Then later this skinny dude in, to be honest, the least interesting or seemingly appropriate underwear for an underwear dance party (it was pink, which is fine, but it didn't seem like it was his "best" or "getting lucky" underwear, it was a little too baggy and boxerbrief-y for that) started dancing not so much with me as at me.

And I was having one of those moments where the whole clique thing was getting to me and I was getting way to into my head about things... but he just managed to break through that and remind me that I was supposed to be having a good time. Sure I think he was, at the very least, three sheets to the wind, if not on additional mood altering substances, but he made me laugh.

Particularly because the best word I can think of to describe his dancing is "fierce"... he was a fierce drunk queen all over really... especially when he started putting his sunglasses on, at 2am, in the middle of a dark dance party (laser lighting notwithstanding).

Would I have gone there if offered the opportunity... oh fuck yes, in a hot minute... but other than one point where he hugged me and told me he loved me (and I'm pretty sure that was more in reference to my non-stop dancing than his desire to get into my... well, not pants, since I wasn't wearing any, but you know what I mean) but if he'd really been interested, he could definitely have danced in closer and I would have made a move. But, it didn't happen... which is fine, it was more important that he made me smile and knocked me out of my fugue than whether I got him out of his underwear.

Would I go again? Yeah, probably, although some serious thought about appropriate undergarments will have to be made between now and then. As well as reminding myself that more water is always the correct answer.

Current Mood:

fringe: adam richard's gaypocalypse

Let's start this review off with an admission... I'm a big fan of Adam Richard. I laughed my ass off during two previous shows, Driven and Talking Poofy, as well as receiving questionable looks on public transport while shaking with laughter listening to the audio version of the Talking Poofy Poofcast on my way to work.

So it was something of a no brainer to head off to see Adam's return to the Fringe in Gaypocalypse. And perhaps I had some very high expectations about laughing my head off for an hour straight.

It was the preview show for the run, so while not the absolute first airing for the show as a whole, it's all still a little raw and new and Adam clearly hasn't settled into the material as he naturally will once he's done it a couple of dozen more times. But there are some spots where the show feels like it loses all the momentum it's built up and became a teeny bit dour.

That may be in part due to the material... while there are parts that are hysterically funny, there's a lot of talk of death and politics and boat people that's handled seriously with only the occasional joke thrown in.

While it's not like it's a side of Adam I haven't encountered before... between all the rimming and glitter jokes in the Poofcast there were more than a few instances of serious conversations about serious issues. But it wasn't perhaps what I was expecting from this particular comedy show.

I don't tend to talk politics much, but while I didn't disagree with anything he said regarding letting The Gays get married and the particular government we have at the moment, it was just perhaps a little more political and earnest than I really like my comedy.

But like I mentioned, it's early days for the show and there were sections that were incredibly funny. It's also just possible that this isn't the Adam Richard show that's up my particular alley... and that's okay too.

Current Mood:

fringe: the sheds

The Sheds asks the question "What happens when an AFL player comes out?"...

Or at least that was how it was billed, but to be honest, the play isn't really about that... and for most of the hour running time, it doesn't especially feel like it's about much of anything.

We're introduced to the story by Liam, played by Ludwik Exposto... at first you assume it's going to be Liam's story about coming out, but that actually belongs to Darren, played by Pat Chirico. And essentially the coming out part is over within the first five minutes of the play.

Rounding out the trio of footballers/actors is Jimmy, played by Andii Mulders, who is the catalyst for moving the story along as much as it does.

It's also weird that Liam is the ongoing narrator... to me it would have made more sense for Darren to be telling the story, but we never get inside his head.

Of the three actors Exposto is the most built like the fantasy ideal of the AFL player (and to my eye the most attractive of the trio), but with his very deep voice and the faintest trace of some other accent I found him difficult to understand from time to time. Chirico looks more like what I think an AFL player traditionally looks, whereas Mulders looks more like the rookies in pre-season before they pack on 20kg of muscle.

I also felt a little bit at a distance from the actors (not literally, given that I was sitting in the front row), and there were only a couple of moments that really felt real to me, one of which was when Exposto had to reassemble part of the IKEA bench he'd thrown across the room in the previous room, and the other was both his and Chirico's reaction to an overly enthusiastic beer bottle.

What the play feels like it fails to do is really dig into the meat of what it would be like as the first out gay AFL player... it feels like it skirts the entire issue for the most part, other than using it as the set up at the beginning and uses it for the basis of the denouement at the end of the play.

I didn't need the character of Darren to become the Mardi Gras poster boy, but it feels like such a non-issue in the story that Darren may as well have been hiding dyslexia or illiteracy or something.

Mulders manages to portray the increasingly homophobic Jimmy in such a way that he quickly becomes far too real and representative of a certain section of the world. At the same time I didn't really feel like the play gave him enough motivation for the change in his character.

The resolution of Jimmy's character at the end wasn't anywhere near as surprising as I think it was supposed to be, and to be honest also felt like it was just thrown out a little too quickly in an almost "blink and you'll miss it" kind of way.

And as another review I read said, the three characters feel more like they'd fit into a suburban footy club rather than the big leagues and the play may have worked better if it had been relocated there.

Which isn't to say that it was all bad... I mean any play with full frontal male nudity always gets a few extra points in my book (and Exposto gets a couple of additional points on top of that... just because he looked so damn good naked... dat ass, to coin a phrase)...

And because the entire play is set within the confines of the locker room, all three characters seemed to be constantly in the process of dressing or undressing or packing or unpacking their sportsbags. Because it's always good when actors have something to do with their hands.

Plus there are some nice moments between Exposto and Chirico.

But all in all it feels like something that hasn't quite gelled yet, which is a shame, because it could have been something powerful.

Current Mood:

random wentworth hotness

This week's Random Hotness is former Prison Break (which I'll freely admit that I never watched) star Wentworth Miller.

Miller came out as a gay man today, but the more interesting part of the story is the fact that he chose to do so in a letter declining an invitation to a Russian film festival due to the treatment of gays and lesbians by the Russian government

These photos of Wentworth are from a 2007 edition of German GQ...

Current Mood:

fringe: confessions of a grindr addict

I think that Confessions of a Grindr Addict has a special distinction amongst all the Fringe shows I've seen over the last five years worth of Fringe shows.

It's the first time that I've had the thought after the show that I'd like to go for coffee or lunch or something with the performer, in this case Gavin Roach, and chat with him about the show and also about how much of it may or may not be strictly autobiographical.

And part of that is that the ideas the show brings up are endlessly fascinating, but also because Roach, as the character of Felix, seems to be the kind of guy you could do that with.

He's a little bit of a slob (as evidenced by the myriad of fast food detritus scattered around the stage), a bit of a general mess when it comes to everything else, but there's a definite sense of (somewhat burpy) charisma there, not to mention a sense a pathos towards the end of the performance... and he feels like a real person, not just some impossible gay stereotype.

The things about the show that feel the most real are also the things, for the most part, that are the funniest... or maybe it was just that I could relate to a whole bunch of them because he was "speaking my language".

And the intimate nature of the Bakehouse's Studio Theatre (not to mention the fact that I was in the front row) should have made it feel as though we were having a private one-on-one chat with Felix... which is possibly the only thing that bothered me about the whole show.  Either Roach mostly plays his performance to people further back in the theatre, or else over everybody's head, but eye contact was definitely missing, with the front row if nowhere else.

Felix is curled up on his couch and talking directly to the audience... but I didn't feel like he was connecting with us... with his words, yes... with his eyes, not so much.

Also, this definitely seems to be the year in which Fringe boys flash their undies during performances... in this case, the gay boys' favourite, Aussiebums.

All in all, it was a very pleasant end to my 2013 Adelaide Fringe.

Current Mood:

gaymoviefest 2012

It's roughly around that time of the year again (actually it's probably a little early, but what the hell) when I start publishing lists of things, and usually around this time I go through the gay movies I've seen during the year (see also 2011, 2010).

I do need to stop waiting until the end of the year to post these reviews though, since I watched all but the last two movies on this list during my enforced convalescence in May.

Unfortunately the list starts out with a stinker... but fortunately I did counteract that with the second movie on the list which was brilliant, and probably the best gay movie I saw this year.

I also realised again that I would really like something other than just relationship movies from my queer cinema viewing... I want some gay science fiction, some queer fantasy, some (more) bent horror, some homo thrillers...

If you know anything good that is more than just two guys in a room talking about their feelings, lemme know in the comments.

So... once again chronologically... welcome to GayMovieFest 2012...

The Brotherhood V - Alumni

Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

The plot makes NO sense, the dialogue is appalling, none of the actors can actually act worth a damn, it looks like a film student made it.

And even reasonably attractive young men taking off their clothes couldn't improve it.

This movie should be avoided like the plague... it's not even bad enough to be amusingly distracting or campy... it's just BAD!

Would I recommend it: No, no, no, no, no.

Private Romeo

This is truly beautiful! An all male retelling of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet without a word of dialogue altered.

It sounds like it shouldn't work, and there are a few moments early on with some minor framing dialogue that I wasn't sure about. And a couple of the actors were hard to keep track of (Tybalt and Mercutio particularly) but something about young men performing the very beautiful dialogue of Shakespeare's greatest romance is just gorgeous.

The way it's set up is interesting too... These eight young men are left behind at a military academy while everyone else is away and they're also reciting Romeo and Juliet in their English class... But then suddenly the dialogue just spills over into the real world without any warning.

It sounds clumsy but it's artfully done, especially of you're familiar with the story.

Other than the two leads, Seth Numrich as Sam Singleton (aka Romeo) and Matt Doyle as Glenn Mangan (aka Juliet), who perform the titular star crossed lovers (although I was a little fuzzy on why the two groups of young men were at odds with each other beyond the needs of the story) the two stand-outs were Sean Hudock as Gus Sanchez who takes on the role of Benvolio and Chris Bresky as Omar Madsen who does a fantastic job as Juliet's nurse.

Actually the names thing did bother me a little... more so that the cast list doesn't include their alternate roles (ie Madsen/Nurse or Singleton/Romeo)... there are a couple of instances where the supporting cast switch roles later on, but given that they use the Shakespearean names more than the military academy names during the movie, it would have been nice to be able to have a better clue who was who.

The only points in the movie that didn't really work for me were the two scenes where characters appear to be making YouTube videos miming the words to songs. The first time this happens it almost feels in character for the moment, if a little odd, but the second time just feels like it puts a full stop in the middle of a sentence.

Would I recommend it: Without question! Even if you only have a passing knowledge of the play, it's beautifully done and well worth a look!

Wilde

There is nobody on earth better equipped to play probably the most famous and possibly first publicly acknowledged homosexual, Oscar Wilde, than the redoubtable Mr Stephen Fry!

And yes, there is an element of my fan boy adoration for Mr Fry to that statement but it's also true. He's very much this century's answer to Wilde.

The movie itself is both heartbreaking as well as a wonderful demonstration of how far we've come in a little over a hundred years (and also that there are still people in 2012 that think like people in 1895).

The performances are wonderful and the movie is a cavalcade of English acting talent... Vanessa Redgrave, Zoë Wanamaker, Tom Wilkinson... not to mention the three objects of Wilde's affections... a young Michael Sheen, a Dorian Grey inspired Ioan Gruffudd and Jude Law playing the incredibly petulant yet beautiful Lord Alfred 'Bosie' Douglas (although honestly, if that's really what he was like, then why Wilde put up with him is beyond me).

Plus a very young and beautiful Orlando Bloom gets his first screen "blink and you'll miss it" role as a cheeky rentboy.

Would I recommend it: As a piece of gay history and as a window into another time, I certainly would. The fact that it contains a lot of Wilde's wonderful wit and genius is just icing on the cake.

Nico and Dani (aka Krámpack)

The original title of this movie baffles me a little... the word itself doesn't seem to have a translation anywhere I can find (beyond references to the movie itself), and it seems more of a German word than Spanish which is the language of the rest of the movie. From the context they use it in the movie it's clearly slang for either masturbating or being masturbated, but that would essentially mean that the movie is called "Wanking"...

Weird.

European filmmakers always seem to get this kind of coming out/coming of age/teenage boy type of movie better than any of the English speaking world... Summer Storm for example... and for the most part this is another good entry into the genre.

It did make me realise a couple of things though...

Firstly that as a gay teenager, you don't fall in love with your best friend because he's necessarily the most beautiful guy, you fall in love with him because he's... well, there. That is something of a generalisation, but there's that line that gets crossed between friendship and a one sided love, and it's at least partially because this guy is there, already in your life, and oftener than not, already in your bedroom or in situations where things get confusing.

And that resonates very strongly in this movie... only partly because the straight boy, Nico, very often looks like a lollipop (big fat head, skinny body).

And secondly, something that I don't know that I've ever though of before, or whether it was really brought to mind by the performance of the aforementioned lollypop, but the burden the straight half of these "messy" friendships have to bear isn't fair. That line that once crossed isn't easy to uncross without ruining the friendship.

Getting back to the movie itself though. As I mentioned Jordi Vilches as Nico puts in a fine performance... he's a little obnoxious at times, but he shines in the latter half of the movie as his friendship with Dani starts to weigh on his shoulders.

There's something slightly more desperate about Fernando Ramallo's performance as Dani (or possibly just about the character in general)... I couldn't help thinking that the character was pushing too hard in all directions, not only in his relationship with Nico but in his interactions with a couple of the other characters. In all three instances he pushes the sexual relationship to it's outer limit and seems either clueless or uncaring about the repercussions of doing so.

Would I recommend it: I would probably recommend Summer Storm over this, as I feel like it's the better movie, but I think some of the themes in this will resonate with a lot of gay men.

Give Me Your Hand (Donne-moi la main)

A strange, quiet little film about 18 year old twins, played by Alexandre and Victor Carril, making their way from France to Spain to attend the funeral of a mother they've never met.

We're never told why they never met her... we're never told why they're hitching their way there. In fact we're never told very much. I think there was maybe three pages of dialogue in the whole movie if that.

There's also an animated prologue to the movie that doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense given the feel of the rest of the movie beyond the fact that one of the twins draws almost constantly in an animation/anime style.

And the twins are completely dysfunctional... they act more like they were 8 than 18... their both quite petulant at times, and seem to take turns in being unlikeable... plus their whole relationship seems to revolve around insulting each other, hitting each other and generally being horrible to one another.

Weirdly, taken separately, each of the Carril brothers is handsome enough... but there is just something about both of them together that's more than the sum of it's parts. The homoerotic power of twins I guess.

It's only once they stop on a farm to earn some money to catch a train that things take a decided turn for the worse when one of the twins discovers the other having sex with one of the farm hands...

This sets the whole third act of the movie into motion, which I won't give away any details to... although I did guess how it would all work out.

For all that it's occasionally awkward, the twins are often unsympathetic and there is often far too much left unspoken, the movie is gorgeously shot and intriguing.

Would I recommend it: Given how beautiful the movie is at times and the fact that it kept my attention that whole way through, I'd definitely say yes, although with the caveat that it's just weird at times. Plus, twins!

Howl

I'm not sure how much of a "gay movie" this actually is. Firstly because it feels more like a documentary a lot of the time, but also because while it's about a homosexual poet, I'm also not sure if the movie is really about him or about the fact that his poem was on trial for being obscene.

I will admit that I'm not a huge one for poetry... I much prefer reading prose, for the most part poetry, especially "modern" poetry, just leaves me cold. But there's something to the way the movie deals with what I'm guessing is pretty much the entire text of the poem that is actually captivating.

Partly I think because it's James Franco reading the words, and although I think he's taken on the real Ginsberg's manner of speaking, there becomes something hypnotic about the words. And added to that is the fact that the poem is illustrated by animation that is both metaphorical and full of sexual imagery.

What intrigues me most is the title card at the beginning of the movie that says that the movie is "composed from court records, interviews and Howl". That's what made it feel like I was watching a documentary... but there's that extra layer where you know you're watching, in essence, a recreation of an actual event. And whether that's Franco providing Ginsberg's answers in an interview, or the beautifully summation by the defence attorney, I wondered if it was all really real. Particularly the closing summation.

Franco is brilliant throughout the whole movie. I've only seen him in a couple of things (the James Dean TV movie where he again disappeared into another person... Milk, again a real person... plus the first two Spiderman movies, but we won't count those) but this was unlike anything else I'd seen him do.

The courtroom sections are also brilliant... David Strathairn, Jon Hamm and Bob Balaban as prosecution, defence and judge all turn in great performances, as do the range of actors playing "expert witnesses".

Would I recommend it: It's a little removed from the "gay movie" genre, but just as a movie in it's own right, yes, I would definitely recommend it for the performances alone.

From Beginning To End (Do Começo ao Fim)

Another movie about brothers although this one is just about two brothers in love (with each other).

I'm a little conflicted on this one... Not because the subject of gay incest bothers me but it's just the way the love story is portrayed.

The first half of the movie shows the two brothers (well, half brothers really) when they're kids... maybe 7 and 12 or something like that... and it's clear that they've always been this close... but there's just something uncomfortable about watching two young boys portray that kind of relationship. There aren't any sexual scenes when they're that young, but they feel like they're in love.

And then as soon as the movie jumps ahead fifteen years, there is a somewhat weirdly staged love scene (seriously, does anybody ever do that weird "I'll stand ten feet away from you and take my clothes off while you do the same" thing they do in movies... I know I never have) and suddenly these two brothers are naked and making out with each other.

It's a weird transition and made me feel a little awkward.

The other weird thing is that everybody seems to either know that they're both brothers and lovers and don't really care... or else be so incredibly clueless about it that it borders on the unbelievable.

And whereas there's real dialogue between people in the first half, as soon as it jumps forward in time to the grown-up brothers, it's all moody silences and silent caresses. Or at least it feels like that.

Which is not to say that it's not a beautiful movie... the two grown-up brothers are stunningly gorgeous, particularly João Gabriel Vasconcellos as Francisco, although Rafael Cardoso as Thomás is equally beautiful... and even with the aforementioned moody silences, it's a beautifully shot movie (although I imagine with actors that attractive it wouldn't be too hard to make a beautiful movie) and the love scenes are sweet.

It's really just that nothing really happens... there's some plot along the way, but it all feels a little superficial, as though the main point of the movie was to focus on this slightly obsessive and exclusive sexual relationship between two brothers.

Would I recommend it: Yes with a but... and the but is really just a warning that you may or may not experience a similarly uncomfortable feeling during parts of this movie.

Little Ashes

I honestly can't work out whether Robert Pattinson is completely brilliant in this movie and perfectly cast or a completely shithouse actor.

Given what I know of his other work, I think I'm still leaning towards the latter, but given that the character he's playing is at first socially incompetent and then painfully arrogant and pretty much unlikeable the whole way through, he's kind of a perfect fit.

His co-star Javier Beltran however, is brilliant... actually all the other actors are exceptionally good.

The script is a little vague in parts, owing most likely to the fact that it's a movie based on real people and real events.  And given what I've since read about Dali, it's very likely the whole "gay" subplot between Dali and Lorca is the invention of the writer.

There's also about half a subplot involving their friend, film maker Luis Bunuel that doesn't really go anywhere, and I'm not exactly sure what it's trying to say.

But, like Wilde and Howl before it, it did give me a window into a historical period I wasn't necessarily aware of (in this case Spain in the 20's and 30's) and an idea into the lives of gay men of the past. So it's interesting from that perspective.

And I suppose if you want to see Pattinson awkwardly kissing a man and then appearing to be repulsed by it (possibly only mostly in character), then there's that.

Would I recommend it: I'm going to err on the side of "not really" for this one... it's okay, but I found that I spent most of the movie watching Pattinson, looking for signs of bad acting and trying to pick apart his performance, so it wasn't overly enjoyable.

Steam: The Turkish Bath (Hamam)

Back in the early Jurassic period when I was a fresh young gay and got all of my gay related news from gay magazines, references to this movie were everywhere.

And now having seen it, I think that the people involved in those magazines hadn't actually seen the movie, they just saw one of the versions of this poster with two guys in towels and assumed that it was much gayer than it really is. Either that or there just wasn't much else available in the late 90's.

Which isn't to say that it's a bad movie... it's kind of an Italian/Turkish version of movies like Under The Tuscan Sun or just about any movie where the main character isn't happy in their current life, visits a new country, gets involved with the locals, falls in love with some old building or other and then with one of the aforementioned locals.

But usually the characters in those movies are women, so this was something different.

There really is only one "gay" scene, although there's a degree of homoerotica at certain points, and if you do go into this movie with that pre-existing notion about the main character, then it has more resonance for a gay audience I think.

However the end of this movie completely ruined it for me.  It reminded me of movies with gay characters from the 70's and 80's.  Given the Italian/Turkish co-production, it's probably not really surprising, but it was also totally unnecessary.

Yes, the idea of the ending is set up part way through, but it's the flimsiest of things and completely unrelated to the main thrust of the movie... it just feels spiteful and unfair.

Would I recommend it: Yes, I think I would... and I know I've said this before, but I'm going to be incredibly exact this time... watch the movie for 1 hour, 23 minutes 39 seconds and then shut it off.  You might be curious about how it ends, but just walk away, the ending will only disappoint you.

North Sea Texas (Noordzee, Texas)

If there's one general rule for young gay men in movies when they're discovering their sexuality, it's this...

DON'T FALL IN LOVE WITH YOUR STRAIGHT FRIEND.

Actually that advice pretty much goes for young gay men in the real world to.

I covered this idea in the review for Nico and Dani earlier... but it also applies here to a lesser degree.

There isn't a lot of set up or explanation to this movie. It's one of those ones where you just have to take a lot of things as they're presented and hope they're explained later on in the movie.

Some of them are, some not so much, but even with that I didn't feel particularly confused.

Pim (played at the start of the movie by Ben Van den Heuvel and then when he's older by Jelle Florizoone) has a mother who is more interested in herself and her accordion than she is in her child. So he spends a lot of time with another family. That's part of what's never really explained... they're not next door neighbours, in fact they seem to live some way away from Pim and his mother, so the basis of their relationship is never explained.

However, it's clear from the start that Pim is in love with Gino (Nathan Naenen and then Mathias Vergels).

And it also seems like Gino is the sexual instigator between the two of them.

Which did have me muttering at the screen a few times the aforementioned rule for gay characters.

And then there's Gino's sister, Sabrina (Nina Marie Kortekaas)... she's a weird one. As a character, she's almost pointless... I thought she was going to be "The Troublemaker", but even though she completes the first part of that role, there's no pay-off to that part of her story. So I can't quite work out what the point of her is.

Unless of course the story is more autobiographical than I'm aware, and she's just there because she was there.

For once though, this is a coming out/coming of age movie with an upbeat and positive ending. Technically it's largely left to the audience's own interpretation as to what happens after the credits role, but at least this movie allows you to make your own mind up about what happens and doesn't screw it all up in the last ten minutes.

Would I recommend it: Yes. The start is a little bumpy, and there are parts that feel kind of predictable, but the ending makes up for it and left me with a positive vibe.

Weekend

This movie kept getting mentioned last year... and everybody seemed to be saying good things about it.

Although other than a couple of people on my Twitter feed mentioning it, I honestly don't remember ever really reading a review, I just remember it as one of those movies that the gay press got their panties in a bunch about.

But having just watched it, I'm not sure I see what all the fuss was about.

Maybe it's that I've never in my entire life been in the situation that the two main characters find themselves in... maybe it's just that the older I get, the less tolerant (if that's even possible) I am with characters (and by extension people in general) who I find unlikeable.

That's actually been a complaint I've made about a number of movies and teevee shows in the last couple of years... that they were unlikeable in some way, and therefore I'm not really interested in following their story.

And as I said in, I think, the previous GayMovieFest review post, I'm also somewhat tired of stories of gay men going through a "stunted adolescence" (not being comfortable with your sexuality when you're a man in your mid to late twenties), which Russell (Tom Cullen) seems to be suffering from.

To be honest, it's possibly a better version of it than has been in previous movies I've seen, and it makes some degree of sense narratively... but I'm still mostly bored with those kinds of characters.

But it's really the character of Glen (Chris New) who I had no time for. While he doesn't suffer from the same kind of stunted adolescence, he's suffering from "pretentious wankerism"... he's the kind of guy who thinks he's edgy and unconventional and doesn't want to "buy into the hetronormative fantasy" (it's not a direct quote, but he does say something similar). He reminds me of the type of guy who gets involved in "queer politics" in Uni, but never quite moves past it after being out in the real world.

I will commend writer/director Andrew Haigh for making a movie that feels very real for the most part. There's no soundtrack other than when the characters are actually hearing music in the world, a lot of the footage feels almost like a documentary, or if not that, then it feels quite candid... but without a lot of useless shaky-cam action. And the dialogue is always delivered in a completely believable way. In fact there's a scene right at the beginning that I don't think I've ever seen in a movie before... everyone talking over everyone else and not hearing other people.

On the flip side of that, as I mentioned previously there is some slightly questionable dialogue. Not that it feels badly written, I don't think there really is a dud line, it's just that I was annoyed that either of the characters was spouting a particular piece of dialogue.

And whether it's because my own experiences, but the fact that the movie takes place over a single weekend, and some of the discussions the two main characters get into don't feel quite real. No, wait... scratch that... thinking back on it, I've had conversations that weren't as odd in the same way, but still pretty intense within a couple of days of meeting someone. I've just never done that with anyone I've then had sex with.

The other thing that just bothered me was the drug use. Yes, it might be realistic and a part of the world that Haigh comes from... but for me it was completely unnecessary within the story and didn't add anything to it. In fact I felt like it detracted if only because it became almost like a narrative crutch... that they were only having this deep and frank and slightly weird conversation because of the cocaine.

The sex scenes feel more graphic than they really are... it's all glimpses of things, raised thighs, heavy breathing and sucking sounds. And because I didn't really like Glen pretty much from the start, I didn't really care about the sex.

I do wish I could have liked this movie more... but I just didn't.

Would I recommend it: I'm on the fence with this one. For people who aren't me, then I think they may get something out of it, although I can't for the life of me think what that could be... but I think it's one of those ones that you'll have to make your own mind up about. But I'm neither going to recommend it, nor tell you not to see it.

Current Mood:

lego same sex couples

One thing I love about photographing Lego is making up my own stories...

And I realised I had a number of "same sex" couples from my last Lego photoshoot.

So I had to invent some details about their relationships....

Oh Mikii, you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind, hey Mikii!

This may be taking the idea of humour as an aphrodisiac a bit far

The first date between Montezuma and Cortes was a little bit awkward

The computational results of our relational equation is less than three

Goofy and Nollie find love on the half-pipe

Some relationships are just doomed from the start

Harry was only really interested in Oliver for his brains

Current Mood: