Overall Quality 4.5 / 5.0
Gay Inclusive? Very – an engaging and moving story of the gay rights movement and one of its heroes
Gay Positive? Very – although a tragic tale, it is fiercely empowering

This is the movie I wish Brokeback Mountain had been.

Don’t get me wrong – Brokeback Mountain was a masterpiece of film-making, and it was robbed of its rightful Academy Award. But I have a love-hate relationship with such movies – beautiful, moving, and important stories that are horribly tragic and unhappy. I’m glad that a gay love story finally hit the mainstream with Brokeback Mountain, but it did nothing to dispel myths like gay-love-is-doomed and bad-things-will-happen-to-you-if-you’re-gay.

Milk also brings a tragic story to the big screen: the assassination of gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk. Yet Milk is empowering in a way Brokeback Mountain was not. Instead of vaguely feeling bad about being gay, I felt inspired, charged up and ready to fight for my rights. Milk also brings to the big screen the struggle not just for equal rights but also for freedom from the physical and emotional violence that gay people have long endured.

Just this week, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee claimed on The View that gay rights are not civil rights because gay people have not been subjected to a history of violence like black people. Such a willfully ignorant statement is nothing short of appalling; and yet, it is representative of a surprisingly large swath of the population. Many do not acknowledge or do not care about the persecution of gays in Nazi Germany; the institutionalized violence against gay people by police in previous decades and by religious organizations (like the Mormons using electro-shock therapy to “cure” homosexuality); and individual hate crimes that have claimed the lives of people like Matthew Shepherd.

Thank God for Milk, and what a timely film it is. The movie dramatizes Milk’s move to San Francisco and his subsequent rise to the position of City Supervisor (after several failed attempts). Once in the position, a significant portion of the movie details his fight against Proposition 6, which would have enabled the state of California to fire any teacher known to be gay along with any teacher who supported them.

Fast forward 30 years, and Californians once again vote on a proposition of concern to gay rights – Proposition 8, which successfully banned gay marriage (after the California Supreme Court legalized it).

My only criticism of the film falls on the editing, and I’m not sure what the Gus van Sant could have done differently. He’s just covering so much territory in the space of a couple of hours that much of the story gets told in fast-forward. Nevertheless, the movie was engrossing from start to finish, and the phenomenal acting from all quarters – both Sean Penn and Josh Brolin deserve extra mention – imbues the story with life.

Please see this movie. Please take your friends and family to see it. Particularly in the aftermath of Proposition 8’s passage, a lot of people seem to dismiss the gay community’s reaction as sore losers throwing a tantrum because they didn’t get their way. They do not – perhaps because they are not willing to – recognize how a group of people have been systematically oppressed throughout even the history of a country that espouses the values of equality and the separation of church and state.

Milk is a sad tale, but one encoupled with hope. I walked out of the theater both devastated and determined. One thing can be said of Harvey Milk: his hope lives on in those of us who are willing to embrace it.

“If a bullet should go through my head, let that bullet go through every closet door”

- Harvey Milk

Overall Quality 3.5 / 5.0
Gay Content 5.0 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 4.0 / 5.0

Homosexuality has a largely unhappy history in Western civilization. Thank God for men like Magus Hirschfeld (1868 – 1935), who stood up against prevailing conventional “wisdom,” and used science and basic respect to advance the cause of gay rights. Hirschfeld studied homosexuality scientifically; although we might disagree with some of his conclusions (he felt homosexuals were an “intermediate” sex), he dedicated his efforts to advocate on behalf of gay people.

The Einstein of Sex is a biopic which explores Hirschfeld’s life and work. The film is surprisingly engrossing. It’s fast-paced and well-acted, and it’s fascinating to watch the tension between Hirschfeld’s tireless work on behalf of other gay people with his inability to process his own homosexuality in a healthy way.

The props, set design, and cinematography also deserve special mention, especially considering the film is a low-budget independent feature. Each component contributes significantly to the film’s interest and success, and many scenes look like recreated photos from that era.

The film contains quite a bit of male nudity, but it never feels out of place. In a couple of scenes it comes close to gratuitousness, but it never crosses the line.

Unfortunately, the narrative structure undercuts the movie’s effectiveness. It’s choppy, rambling, and disjointed. “The Einstein of Sex” tries to cover too much territory:

• a biography spanning Hirschfeld’s entire personal life
• an ode to Hirscfeld’s work on behalf of gay rights
• a pseudo-documentary on the state of gay rights during that era

But this is a single movie, not a mini-series. As a result, everything gets underserved.

So while this film hasn’t earned a top-shelf slot in my DVD collection, I definitely recommend it for at least one viewing. It’s an entertaining slice of important homo-history that’s undertold.

The Gay Positivity score reflects that this movie covers a lot of negative territory ranging from gay-shame to gay-hate, but the central focus in on telling the story of someone who worked positively for gay rights with a tone of hopefulness for the future.

———————

For more information about Magnus Hirschfeld:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld
http://www.stonewallsociety.com/famouspeople/magnus.htm

Overall 2.0 / 5.0
Gay Content 5.0 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 4.5 / 5.0

The series has hit a new low in Season 3.

The events at the end of Season 2 opened the door for the House of Shadows to return to Dante’s Cove and wreck havoc. Meanwhile, Griffen (Jensen Atwood), a representative of the “council of Tresum,” shows up to throw a wrench into everything by taking Diana’s (Thea Gill) power. Kevin (Gregory Michael) is still Ambrosius Vallin’s (AKA Bro, William Gregory Lee) sex slave, but he is desperately conniving to escape and get back to Toby (Charlie David), who in the meantime is being seduced by straight-boy-turned-gay Adam (Jon Fleming).

After the first season, Here! TV started billing Dante’s Cove as a “guilty pleasure.” I’d say Season 2 was reasonably successful in that vein. Season 3 is just bad, however. Not so bad it’s good, just bad.

Awful, cringe-worthy writing. Check. Lame special effects. Oh, yeah. (Season 2 had much better effects, for some reason). Questionable directorial choices. Yup. Clunky, wooden acting. You know it.

Even the sex and nakedness irritated me! They had a sex scene every ten to fifteen minutes. It bothers me that they used it as a substitute for story-telling. If I want to watch porn, I’ll watch real porn. Full-frontal nudity appeared even more often than the sex. Unfortunately, they really only included one “type” of guy – muscle-bound – and I didn’t really find many of the naked guys that appealing.

To tell you the truth, though, the thing that hurts the show the most: there’s no one to root for. Grace (Tracy Scoggins), previously a villain, became my favorite character this season. Thea Gill was wasted, and they didn’t reveal whether Griffen was a villain or hero until last episode or two. Everyone else turned evil, selfish, or stupid; or they were new, and I didn’t have a chance to develop an emotional investment in their character.

I understand that this is a soap opera, and it’s intended to be over-the-top. They’re aiming for so-bad-it’s-good, but they made some poor choices, and overshot.

On the plus side, Grace’s character gets the royal treatment: she has the best, most evocative storyline. Scoggins takes full advantage of it. Atwood brings a much needed low-key performance to the show. It also remains refreshingly gay-positive.

Here’s my wish-list for Season 4 of Dante’s Cove. The writers of Supernatural take over, and Dean (Jensen Ackles) and Sam (Jared Padalecki) roll into town. Can you imagine the possibilities? I can… Mmmmm.

A gratuitous picture of Sam and Dean from the CW’s Supernatural:

Overall Quality 5.0 / 5.0 (excellent)
Gay Content 1.0 / 5.0 (nothing explicit in the movie, but possibly one gay crewmember)
Gay Positivity 1.5 / 5.0

Following an abysmal Star Trek movie (Generations) and succeeded by two more not-so-great ones (Insurrection and Nemesis), First Contact stands out as one of the highlights of the Star Trek film franchise, and the singular best effort by the Next Generation crew.

Inevitably, considering their success as arch-villains, the Borg make their big screen debut. A Borg cube is heading toward the Earth with the intent of assimilating humanity into the Borg collective consciousness and subjecting our species to an eternity of chafing under cybernetic implants. A Starfleet armada, under the command of Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart), manages to destroy the cube.

Unfortunately, a Borg sphere escapes from within the cube and travels back in time to prevent first contact (when humanity meets an alien race for the first time, following humanity’s first successful warp flight). The Enterprise follows, only to find itself boarded by the Borg.

The situation forces Captain Picard to confront his own hatred and fear of the Borg from the time when the Borg assimilated him (”The Best of Both Worlds, Parts I and II” on the TV series).

Who knew Star Trek could find inspiration in Moby Dick? Picard and guest star Lily (Alfre Woodard) have amazing chemistry, and together provide an emotional core to the story. Lily is the no-nonsense assistant to Zefram Cochrane (James Cromwell), the architect of humanity’s first warp flight, but she ends up with Picard aboard the Enterprise. She also enjoys some of the movie’s best one-liners. My favorite: “Borg? Sounds Swedish.”

In truth, it’s a dark story. There’s a reason the Borg are so successful as villains, and they kill or assimilate (which amounts to the same thing) a lot of people. But frequent moments of humor, plus the more hopeful subplot of humanity’s first warp flight, offset the grim events aboard the Enterprise.

A great script keeps the pace moving along and never gets mired in too much technobabble or exposition. In fact, the story and script are so accessible and engaging, this film would probably make a good “point of entry” into the Star Trek universe for newbies.

Although I take issue with the direction of the Star Trek franchise under the leadership of Brannon Braga, Rick Berman, and Ron Moore, they hit the mark with this one. Kudos!

Well, with one exception.

While still in production, a rumor arose that a crewman named Lieutenant Hawk (Neal McDonough) would be gay in the film. Apparently an early draft of the screenplay did portray Lt. Hawk as gay, but the decision was changed for later drafts.[1]. In fact, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, based on information from Producer Rick Berman, released an Alert clarifying the issue: “According to Producer Rick Berman, there are actually no gay characters in a new film, or, for that matter, on any of the Star Trek shows scheduled to begin new seasons this fall”[2].

As an aside, it’s interesting to note that Rick Berman, who “inherited” the Star Trek franchise in part after Gene Roddenberry’s passing, felt compelled to specify that the film contained no gay characters. Any reference to Lt. Hawk’s sexuality was definitely omitted from the feature; the minor character had no scenes or dialogue to indicate his sexual orientation one way or the other. By default, most audiences would read the character as heterosexual. Those who read him as gay would probably fall into the category of “wishful thinking.” But if that’s what they want, why would Rick Berman feel the need to deprive them?

Especially considering that Lt. Hawk is gay in the Star Trek novel Section 31: Rogue, written by openly gay author Andy Mangels and gay-friendly co-author Michael Martin. Star Trek fiction is not considered canon (i.e., official). Nevertheless, all book projects must be vetted by Paramount. The Simon & Schuster website explains,

“All material is subject to the approval of Paramount Pictures, which owns all copyright to Star Trek in its various incarnations and is very concerned about maintaining the integrity of the characters and the Star Trek universe. To that end, we make a serious effort to see that the books line up with the episodes and films, though we recognize that absolute consistency is a practical impossibility. We do, however, expect every aspiring Star Trek author to approach the material with a thorough understanding of the Star Trek mythos, its characters, and its history. The best reference, of course, are the Star Trek episodes and films”[3].

As a result, in the absence of contradictory information in the canon source material, the book offers semi-official confirmation of Lt. Hawk’s gayness.

Please read my review of Section 31: Rogue for my information about that book’s gay content.

Returning to my comments on the film, even in the absence of any clear gay content, I decided under the circumstances to score the movie for its Gay Positivity. I take the fact that an ambiguous character’s sexuality was consciously and explicitly whitewashed as a smear against the gay community. I do not know why Mr. Berman felt compelled to categorically state that Lt. Hawk is heterosexual, especially since he’s portrayed as gay elsewhere in the Star Trek universe, but I find myself reminded of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s 2007 comment, “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals”[4].

*** Minor spoiler warning *** To further explain the Gay Positivity Score, I spoil one aspect of the movie. If you don’t want to know, please stop reading. For more posts on all things gay in the Star Trek universe, check out my Gay Star Trek Main Page.

I also note that, alas, things don’t turn out so well for poor Lt. Hawk (which actually makes Section 31: Rogue a rather bittersweet read). Unfortunately, from a Gay Positivity perspective, this film can’t win. Either Lt. Hawk is gay, and the portrayal contributes to the stereotype that things end badly for gay people. Or he’s not gay, and the Star Trek franchise is communicating that heterosexuality is superior to (rather than just different from) the alternative, and gay is not good enough for Starfleet.

Either way, the Gay Positivity score reflects the poor handling of the (possible) gay content.

————————

[1] “Trivia for Star Trek: First Contact,” imdb.com,http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117731/trivia (retrieved 9 June 2008).

[2] “Gay Trek Rumor Light Years Ahead of Reality,” GLAAD Alert Archive, GLAAD.org, 23 August 1996, http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_year.php?year=1996 (retrieved 5 May 2008).

[3] “Star Trek Novel Submission Guidelines,” SimonSays.com, the website of Simon & Schuster, Inc., December 2004, http://www.simonsays.com/content/feature.cfm?feature_id=439&tab=24 (retrieved 5 May 2008).

[4] The Associated Press, “Iran sites omit leader’s homosexuality remark,” MSNBC.com, 26 September 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999705/ (retrieved 5 May 2008).

Overall Quality 2.5 / 5.0 (Disappointing and inane)
Gay Content 1.5 / 5.0 (Important gay character)
Gay Positivity 2.0 / 5.0 (The character is positive; his fate is not)

How disappointing. Part I of the miniseries is promising, but Part II moves away from Part I’s strengths and emphasizes its weaknesses. Throw in a serious negative gay stereotype, and color me unimpressed.

A virulent pathogen infects a small town in Utah via a crashed satellite; a near 100% fatality rate ensues. The military puts the Wildfire Program into effect, gathering half a dozen top scientists at a secret laboratory to study the pathogen and create a response. Meanwhile, a reporter (Eric McCormack) tries to break the story, while other government and military personnel engage in some vague, never-fully-realized conspiracy.

Having never read The Andromeda Strain by Michael Crichton, I cannot say how closely the plot adheres to his original story. I suspect it diverges quite a bit.

Part I of the miniseries does a great job of maintaining and building tension and suspense, emphasizing the laboratory portion in a sort of Center for Disease Control-style CSI. The reporter and government conspiracy aspects come across as pure fluff from the very beginning. The bevy of false-start subplots doesn’t help. Unfortunately, Part II dwells more on the fluff than on the lab; and events in the lab take a definitive turn for both formulaic and speculative-in-the-extreme as the story winds to an eye-rolling conclusion.

The miniseries includes a gay character: one of the medical scientists, Major Bill Keane (Ricky Schroder). I am impressed with the inclusion and the way the script handles the inclusion. When discussing family relationship with another doctor, Keane comments, “If you don’t ask, I won’t tell.” The other doctor then opines that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is ridiculous.

His sexuality plays no role in the conflict. I have heard the inclusion criticized according to the “relevance” argument. Keane’s sexual orientation is not germane the plot, therefore, that exchange should not have been included. But that necessitates that any time a gay character shows up in TV or film, their sexuality has to become part of the drama. That’s overdone, and negative by implying that being gay is such a Big Awful Thing that it must cause tension. It’s refreshing to see a gay character included just for the sake of diversity.

*** Moderate Spoiler Warning – To explain the Gay Positivity Score, I have to divulge something that happens near the end. I do not spoil the resolution to the primary conflict. Please stop reading if you don’t want to know. ***

Major Keane dies at the end. Another character also dies, but only because he has to retrieve something from the Keane. I find no compelling reason in the plot why any of the scientists had to die. I was so irritated by the development I nearly stopped watching then and there.

Two overarching stereotypes appear over and over again in the portrayal of gay people. If you’re gay, either you are bad, or bad things will happen to you. Through sheer repetition, it associates “gay” with “bad,” and inculcates the attitude that gay is worse than straight, instead of just different.

The situation is improving as TV and film produce more diverse and balanced portrayals of gay people. But the negative stereotypes persist, thanks to efforts like The Andromeda Strain.

Overall Quality 3.0 / 5.0 (a good story with a couple of serious weaknesses)
Gay Content 2.0 / 5.0 (important gay character)
Gay Positivity 4.5 / 5.0 (would have been ideal but for one major cliché)

Closely tied to the film Star Trek: First Contact, the story opens with a brief prologue following the events of the film. The book’s main story, however, takes place as a flashback set shortly after the Enterprise-E is commissioned. (The Enterprise-D was destroyed in the movie Star Trek: Generations ).

Chiaros, a lone planet located in a desolate and empty section of space called the Geminus Gulf, has applied for Federation membership. However, the Romulans are also vying for possession of the planet and the Gulf. Social instability in the Chiaran civilization gives the Romulans ample opportunity to manipulate local politics and create a dangerous situation for the Federation. And no one can understand why: as far as anyone can tell, the Geminus Gulf is an absolutely worthless territory.

In the meantime, the Federation’s secret spy organization, Section 31, is conspiring with the Romulan Tal Shiar to effectively cede the planet to the Romulans in exchange for some tactical information. As part of their effort, Section 31 contacts Lt. Sean Hawk (played by Neal McDonough in First Contact) to recruit the young and promising (and gay!) officer (1).

Section 31 was created in the Federation charter, and has the ability (largely due to a complete lack of oversight) to take extraordinary, and otherwise illegal and immoral, actions in order to protect Federation interests. Deep Space Nine introduced the organization in “Inquisition” (Season Six, Episode No. 142).

I’ve never particularly cared for Section 31 as a source of drama. In Rogue, I have a couple of issues with it that detract from the reading experience.

First, the raison d’être for the organization rings hollow to me. Michelle Erica Green, writing for TrekNation, states the dilemma well:

“Unfortunately, it’s difficult to make any character sound intelligent while parroting Sloan’s explanations of the reasons for the group’s existence — basically, the argument runs that the Federation can’t maintain its existence under its own peaceful charter, so it needs a top-secret division to break all its rules in the name of saving it, even if that division’s actions (ranging from assassinations to stopping proto-warp civilizations from traveling into space) violate everything the Federation represents” (2).

Second, the two men who work for Section 31 in the novel just seem dumb to me. I mean seriously, how naive can you be to think that the Romulans are going to hand over tactically important information in exchange for possession of what seems to be a worthless world? Have these people never heard of the “too good to be true” principle? Do you think they might be suspicious and try to do a little due diligence before breaking Federation law?

This particular criticism leads me to my mixed feelings on the plot itself. Fundamentally, it’s a pretty good story: multi-layered, suspenseful, exciting, and thought-provoking. It probably would have made a superior movie to either Insurrection or Nemesis.

Mangels and Martin do an amazing job with the established Enterprise crew as well. Each of the characters sound distinct and exactly like they do on the shows, and Mangels and Martin manage to throw in a number of references to the movies (especially First Contact, of course) and the television shows that were a lot of fun to identify.

But Section 31’s foolishness undercut the story’s tension and distracted me from fully engaging with the plot. Also, the story takes too damn long to get going. By 100 or so pages in, I was hooked. But it took 100 pages! I probably would have stopped reading if I hadn’t been so interested in the gay content that is so rare for Star Trek.

And Mangels, who is openly gay, and Martin handle the gay content extremely well. A major negative cliché does rear its head. If you’ve seen First Contact, you know what I’m talking about, an unfortunate stereotype that the authors inherit from the movie. I suspect they would have happily opted for a different outcome for the gay character if they could have.

Instead, this book almost serves as a love letter to a character who may be the sole good gay person in semi-official Star Trek canon. They are pitch perfect in their portrayal of Lt. Hawk. They don’t even really comment on his gayness; it’s just part of the fabric of the story and of the social milieu of the Federation. It’s a total non-issue, and they mention Hawk’s partner Keru Ranul as a natural part of Hawk’s life. The authors present Hawk himself as a prodigy, unusually bright and skilled, and clearly possessing a thoughtful and moral nature. He makes an excellent hero.

I mention that Lt. Hawk may be the only good gay character in semi-official Star Trek canon, but I must emphasize the “may be.” It’s not exactly clear cut. For one thing, Star Trek novels do not count as “canon.” Paramount Pictures expects them to adhere as closely as possible to established Star Trek material, and Paramount must approve any Star Trek book project. The vetting process suggests that the books have at least semi-official status, particularly if nothing in the Star Trek canon (the movies and television series) directly contradicts them.

However, Andy Mangels

“admits there were some problems with the Paramount licensing and [he] worried the character’s sexuality might be edited. He goes on to say, ‘Paramount licensing was very quiet about the book’s contents, and made sure that Rick Berman and Brannon Braga (the Trek TV producers) did not see it before it went to press. There was some concern that the gay elements would be forcefully removed if Berman and Braga saw it. Once it was at the printer, it was given to their office. I never heard if there was fallout or not, but the book got publicity all around the world’” (3).

It’s worth noting that Rick Berman, who produced First Contact, released a statement in conjunction with the film specifying that Lt. Hawk is heterosexual (4).

Hawk’s sexuality is not even slightly ambiguous in Section 31: Rogue. He’s gay, happily partnered, and positively portrayed. Yay! Albeit with one pretty serious negative item. I scored a little higher on the Gay Positivity scale than I normally would given that negative issue, but I was so happy with the rest of the portrayal I decided to be a little more relaxed with the score.

Overall, it would probably take a pretty serious Star Trek fan to really get into this story. If that’s you, or if you’re interested in meeting a gay character in the Star Trek universe, I definitely recommend Section 31: Rogue.

—————————-

For more posts on all things gay in the Star Trek universe, check out my Gay Star Trek Main Page.

—————————-

(1) Does the story sound vaguely familiar? In fact, it’s loosely similar to “The Mind’s Eye,” Episode No. 91 of Star Trek: The Next Generation. In that episode, the Romulans supply forged Federation weaponry to the citizens of Krios in order to destabilize the Federation’s relationship with the Klingon Empire.

(2) Michelle Erica Green, “Section 31: Rogue and Shadow,” TrekNation.com, 19 May 2001, http://www.treknation.com/reviews/books/section_31_rogue_shadow.shtml (retrieved 5 May 2008)

(3) Michael Ricci, “Forbidden Gay Frontier: Where Star Trek Hasn’t Boldly Gone,” AfterElton.com, 20 April 2006, http://www.afterelton.com/archive/elton/TV/2006/4/startrek3.html (retrieved 30 May 2008).

(4) “Gay Trek Rumor Light Years Ahead of Reality,” GLAAD Alert (Archive), 23 August 1996, http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_year.php?year=1996 (retrieved 5 May 2008).

I liked Gregg Araki’s “The Living End” for the first three-quarters, after which it lost me because the style abruptly changed.

At first, it comes across as theater of the absurd. Luke’s (Mike Dytri) encounter with the gun-wielding lesbians, followed by the wife with a knife, suggested the filmmakers were making a movie about the sheer absurdity of the things that happen in life. So much about life doesn’t make sense; we pretend it does, but really, it doesn’t. That resonated with me, and so I responded to the film.

But then the movie turned nihilistic, painting a bleak picture. All that waits for us is death (and sometimes not even that). Not so much my kind of movie.

The two main characters, Luke and Jon (Craig Gilmore), are HIV+ during the Reagan era. Faced by fatal injustice and disdain, they stop caring and follow their anger. Which takes them on a road trip.

As for the gay positivity, without really knowing how to read the movie (is it nihilistic? absurdist? am I missing the point?) it’s hard to put the portrayal of the main characters in perspective. They’re hardly role models. In fact, they embody a number of stereotypes. But they’re also well-rounded enough to avoid any clichés.

They strike me as a fantasy born out of anger about the injustice gay people face. Gay people die because straight people don’t care enough to make it stop. There’s just enough truth in that statement to make me pay attention.

If you like dark, edgy, independent movies, you might give this one a shot.

On the plus side, the film is well-made, especially for a low budget piece. The direction and editing are sharp, and the acting high quality. All of the characters seemed very real without becoming caricatures.

But the script is woefully undercooked. I know what the movie’s about: an Israeli military unit in which two soldiers are having a secret love affair. But I don’t know what this movie is trying to say.

Some of the relationship drama feels forced, given the brevity of the movie, such as Ophir’s (Assi Cohen) anger and jealousy regarding Jagger (Yehuda Levi). But even more serious: what’s the freaking point of the film?

That we should appreciate what we have while we have it? (Yossi (Ohad Knoller) seems so bent on staying in the closet, he can only steal a few moments here and there with Jagger.) Or is that war is pointless, particularly on-going conflicts? (I don’t even know what they’re fighting about, except it’s the endless Middle Eastern conflict, and their ambush even turns into a battle without an enemy.) Maybe the film is exploring the harm done by the homophobia that forces gay soldiers into the closet? The final scene in the movie just cemented my confusion. I don’t expect movies to force-feed me theme, but I do expect more than a muddy thematic mess.

As for the gay content, I enjoyed watching the relationship unfold. Ohal Knoller (Yossi) and Yehuda Levi (Jagger) had good chemistry, and I found their relationship believable and their characters engaging. But I don’t know why the movie ended the way it did. Did it have to end that way? Without knowing the point of the movie, I can’t answer that question.

Overall, you may want to check it out if you really like low-budget indie gay romances, but don’t look for a fairy tale ending. If you want to watch a smart, moving, dark drama about a gay relationship in a foreign land (well, Canada), check out “Lilies” (1996) instead.