Overall 0.5 / 5.0 (don’t bother)
Gay Inclusve? Very – mostly gay, some hetero secondary characters
Gay Positive? No – I don’t think they meant to be homophobic, but jeez…

Wow. I actually watched the whole thing, and in hindsight, how did I manage that? I feel like Superman now, able to watch awful movies in their entirety.

Here is the most positive thing I can say about this movie: the performances seem very earnest and enthusiastic, so kudos to the cast for bringing that energy to the show.

Unfortunately, it is far, far… far… from enough to save the film from its choppy editing, godawful camera shots, and aimless plot.

In theory, the movie is supposed to be a satire of a gay man (Jaime, played by Brian Campbell) looking for love and self-understanding via a search for a “straight lover who will be gay just for me.” The movie’s own blurb states, “In the end, Jaime is amazed to discover the one person he never thought he would – himself!”

That’s a stretch. Jaime comes from a background of casual, anonymous sexual encounters in the back of an adult bookstore. One gets the sense he’s never had a real relationship based on commitment and intimacy.

Meanwhile, at his job at an auto shop, he’s closeted. He develops a “bromance” with a (straight) fellow employee (Ray, played by Matt Edwards) who turns out to be a homophobe who tries to get Jaime into deep trouble in a completely contrived plot twist.

Somewhere along the course of the movie, the self-loathing Jaime tries to convince a peer from his backroom sexcapades to move to the suburbs with him and a pair of lesbians to pose as straight couples, so they can try to seduce married straight men. They detour on the way, however, with a series of bathroom encounters with gas station attendants. The film also includes an odd subplot involving a young man (Monty, Michael Gonring) with a self-professed fetish for “trolls” (older gay men). Monty is engaged to be married, and he leaves at the end of the movie for his bride.

I think I’m so disappointed in the movie because its foundational ideas are actually interesting to me. The fetish for straight men (and certainly for straight-acting) is prevalent throughout the gay community, so a satire about a gay man looking for a straight man who will be gay only for him suggests the possibility of both a lot of comedy and a lot of insight. Similarly, youth is highly fetishized in the gay community, so Monty’s subplot could have been woven into the story to enhance and reflect the main story’s theme. Alas. The script is a mishmash of barely coherent scenes and nonstarter plot threads.

My recommendation: Skip it.

Overall Quality 2.0 / 5.0 (a lot of potential, but hobbled by inconsistent storytelling)
Gay Inclusive? Very – one of the two main characters is gay, and the other is at least bicurious
Gay Positive? Mixed – these people have a lot of growing up to do, and they don’t do it in this film

An odd movie. In some ways, filmmaker Damion Dietz displays remarkable talent. The story continually defies expectation, he manages to draw some fine scenes out of his acting talent, and the script successfully forces the viewer to think about the story being told.

Weak-willed (but very handsome) Nate has recently enlisted in the army at the urging of his critical mother and self-involved girlfriend. He decides to seek out his biological father for the first time before he leaves for Iraq. Meanwhile, gay emo boy Andy is reeling from the death of his marine lover and struggling with his responsibilities as a young father (he is gay; apparently the conception was lubricated with tequila).

But. The movie is riddled with plot contrivances, the characterization relies far too much on stock clichés and still manages to be inconsistent, and the ending simply fails to satisfy.

As a result, I cannot recommend the movie without qualifications. It’s above average among independent gay films, thanks to a deep story and fair-to-good acting. It’s also a very sexy film. At the same time, all of that is faint praise – most independent gay films suck, and handsome man-flesh only compensates so much.

Regarding the gay positivity of the film, I’m puzzled by its mixed messages, which are the result of terrible and inconsistent characterization.

Andy is easily the most inconsistent character, sometimes mournfully deep, other times shockingly immature and irresponsible. He’s pining for a marine lover who died (recently, by implication); he was alternately distant and clinging with newly enlisted Nate, but rarely displayed the emotion that made sense at the time.

Nate, meanwhile, is a straight guy who enjoys one night of passion with Andy. It was hard to buy into – I never understood Nate’s journey in this film. I had no sense that either Andy or Nate had really grown as people by the end of the film.

The ending. It’s not a matter of how the relationship between Andy and Nate changes at the end. I kind of like that it defies expectation. But the conclusion doesn’t answer any questions, nor does it manage to capitalize on any of the film’s themes in a meaningful way. I get the sense the film ends the way it does because Dietz doesn’t know how to end it otherwise.

Teaser:

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 3.75 / 5.0
Gay Content 4.5 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 3.0 / 5.0

“Edge of Seventeen” is one of the better coming-out-and-coming-of-age tales. It is less saccharine and more poignant than many, and it benefits from a thoughtful script and a fantastic cast. Eric (Chris Stafford) is a high school junior who gets a summer job at an eatery at a local amusement park. There he meets Rod (Andrew Gabrych), with whom Eric shares his first romantic and sexual experience. The rest of the film follows Eric through his confused, convoluted path to greater self-awareness as he navigates the treacherous waters of sex and romance, friendship, and familial relationships.

The camera’s eye never flinches from Eric’s emotional roller-coaster, and his painful naïveté is completely engrossing. Stafford’s performance is spot-on, especially his nonverbal acting. He expresses hopefulness and devastation, cluelessness and realization, ecstasy and pain with amazing clarity and potency.

On the other hand, several sequences felt forced, particularly when he comes out to his mother. Yes, it’s powerful and affecting, but that scene derails the film from character-driven to plot-driven, which proves disconcerting enough that I disengaged from the characters.

The other actors also shine. Lea DeLaria, in particular, steals every scene. Her portrayal of Angie (the Wise Lesbian) borders on over-the-top, but the sheer energy and enthusiasm she brings to the role eclipses the other actors.

Tina Holmes’ performance as Eric’s best friend and sometime girlfriend Maggie is much more subdued and yet just as moving. It’s heart-breaking to watch Eric’s and Maggie’s relationship evolve through the twists and turns. Eric get so wrapped up in his own pain and fear, so desperately craving acceptance and affection, that he doesn’t see how every word tortures poor Maggie.

On my first viewing, several years ago, I identified so much more with Eric that, although I felt bad for Maggie, the tragedy of her situation didn’t really penetrate. She is an innocent victim of Eric’s confused identity, and Eric himself a victim of society’s inability to love its members unconditionally. The movie offers a subtle indictment of a culture that represses a subpopulation it doesn’t understand and fears to accept. Eric and Maggie are both victims to the same victimizer: socially ingrained, accepted homophobia.

As for the gay negativity, an awful lot of the drama proceeds from coming-out woes and, as mentioned, society’s homophobia. Other drama comes from some of the less savory elements of the gay community. My question is not so much whether Eric has emotionally matured by the end of the movie, but whether he’s been co-opted by the culture that sometimes causes as many problems as it answers. He finds a second home at a local gay bar run by Angie, but will he end up like one of the regulars, drunk and alone at the bar when last call is announced, eternally hoping for Mr. Right or at least Mr. Right Now? Will he manage to find the maturity and intimacy that Rod and another random trick (Jeff Fryer) were incapable of?

Angie is a figure who, while firmly enmeshed in the gay culture (she owns a local gay bar and serves the underage Eric alcohol), also manages to exceed the limitations of that culture in order to find enough wisdom to counsel Eric. She is part of the culture, but not a slave to it, and perhaps that’s the difference.

When I score for gay positivity, I ask myself if I consider the characters to be a inspiration for me, if I would like to have their lives as my own. Is the portrayal hopeful or melancholy? A story like Edge of Seventeen is powerful and meaningful. It contributes significantly to the gay film canon by memorializing what it’s like to grow up gay in a certain era and culture. But to answer my own questions, you couldn’t pay me to step into these characters’ lives (although I’d love to have Angie’s house). The ending is ambiguous regarding its positivity, but given the context of the rest of the film, I would tend to say it’s on the melancholy side.

As a side-note, I don’t feel much nostalgia for the ’80s, which is a little before my time. Nevertheless, the soundtrack perfectly complemented the movie and helped to create a gestalt effect that evoked the era more strongly than the clothing or hairstyles.

“Ja Zuster! Nee Zuster!”

Overall Quality 3.5 / 5.0 (campy good fun)
Gay Content 2.0 / 5.0 (significant gay character and subplot)
Gay Positivity 3.0 / 5.0 (still a few lingering, though mostly insignificant, issues)

A quirky (to put it mildly) Dutch musical based on a Dutch TV series from the 1960s about a rest home run by firm but kind Nurse Klivia (Loes Luca), and her confrontations with her mean-spirited and high-strung landlord, Mr. Boordevol (Paul Kooij).

The story centers around the landlord’s attempts to evict Nurse Klivia and the oddballs living in her resthome. He apparently wants to set up luxury apartments or somesuch so he can rake in the dough. A subplot involving a thief (Gerrit) trying to overcome his larcenous ways interweaves the main story.

Another subplot introduces gay content to the film. It appears the villain is gay (yawn), but in an interesting twist, resuming his love affair with a long-lost boyfriend (Wouter, played by Paul de Leeuw) restores his good nature. Mr. Boordevol transforms from Mr. Scrooge (“Bah, humbug!”) into Tiny Tim (“God bless us, every one!”).

Although turning good when he gets some gay lovin’ is a refreshing twist, gay-man-as-villain is still woefully overdone. Also, a dark flip side: a gay man, when lonely, turns evil. That said, these issues pale before the cartoonish feel-good fun of this campy musical.

The filmmakers have done a great job of making the film feel like a 60s sitcom. The colors and visual set-up are reminiscent of a simpler, just-colorized era of film and television.

The music isn’t the stuff of classics, but it’s so silly and catchy it’s fun to watch. One must-see musical sequence involves Gerrit (the hunky Waldemar Torenstra) singing to a flock of pigeons on a rooftop wearing nothing but his tighty-whiteys.

The movie alternates from endearing to dumb and back again with lightning speed, but the energetic and enthusiastic cast help save the film from itself. I recommend the film as a pleasant diversion, especially if you’re in the mood for something different from the usual DVD fare.

Okay, I have to admit it. I watched this movie because Lee Rumohr, who plays protagonist Troy, is hot. Totally hot. That’s the only reason. And having seen it, there’s no other reason to bother with it. (And dammit! The most skin we see of Rumohr are a couple of scenes in his underwear).

The basic story is sound, but the execution is weak. Troy (Rumohr) is a gay man who’s fallen in love with his slacker friend, Merrick (Matt Austin). Mr. Merrick, meanwhile, is a total closet case who willingly sleeps with Troy but refuses to kiss him or acknowledge their relationship publicly. Unrequited love can make for a powerful and universal story.

At any rate, I think that’s what the film is about. What’s happening isn’t at all clear until a third or so into the movie. Between a messy script and confused direction, it’s hard to follow what’s going on. A good script lays out the conflict and then carefully builds the story, building tension inch by inch. This script meanders and can’t make up its mind what it’s trying to say.

Meanwhile, the director seems to give the same direction to the actors in every scene: “Lee, you’re so fed up you’re emotionally dead in this scene. Matt, you act like a jerk.” Particularly in Rumohr’s case, while I usually prefer understated performances, he seems almost absent in the role. Between the script and inept direction, the actor doesn’t have much to go on. It’s unfortunate: assuming any of the actors are capable of a breakout performance, the film’s other weaknesses hobble them.

As a side-note, Rumohr also played a gay man named Troy in several episodes of Showtime’s “Queer As Folk.” QAF Troy, however, is not nearly so sympathetic as our forlorn romantic in “Denied.”

Regarding the gay positivity, this film’s portrayal is hard to read. Rather than a single Gay Positivity Score, I almost want to offer a range. The unfocused script makes it unclear if Troy is a proud gay man (he doesn’t seem to have any issues being or admitting he’s gay), or a furtive one (at the same time, he’s apparently not out to his friends, although he seems unconcerned at the prospect of being outed later in the film). I’ll say, though, that Troy’s relative comfort with his sexuality gives the film a solid, fairly gay positive foundation. Merrick, on the other hand, clearly has issues with same-sex intimacy. Sex is fine as long as it stays secret. But full-on romance? That’s just wrong. Other characters react badly. Fowler (Matthew Finlason), a friend of Troy’s from high school, doesn’t even want Troy to touch him. The film’s conclusion is a mixed bag, positivity-wise: it ends predictably regarding Troy’s and Merrick’s relationship, but it’s arguably a healthy development.

Overall, if Rumohr and/or Austin someday become major stars, this movie might make an interesting footnote in their early careers. Otherwise, skip it.

Many modern gay-themed films seem to feel the need to disparage the gay film canon as portraying gay life in stereotypical and derogatory ways. They’re right. Then they succumb to the exact same problem.

The script of “AOTG” slams “In and Out” (the Kevin Kline vehicle) for presenting a stereotypical, self-hating gay man, and then proceeds to present a stereotypically self-destructive, promiscuous drunk (a hard-to-like Tom, played by the likable Richard Ruccolo). Tom meets Eli because their respective best friends are getting married. In theory, romance and hilarity ensue.

But the movie failed to make me believe in the romance between the two leads. Why did Eli (Dan Bucatinsky) keep trying after Tom was such an ass to him? Why would Tom keep pursuing someone who was so self-righteous and critical of him? Why would either character care about the other when the actors portraying them had so little chemistry?

The entire film is predicated on their on-again, off-again relationship, but I never understood why they kept trying. It doesn’t help that Tom is more caricature than character. I applaud Ruccolo for actually giving Tom some humanity (which helped the Gay Positivity score), because the script just presents him as Drunk-and-Unable-to-Commit Gay Guy.

Tom comes from an emotionally abusive background, raised by alcoholic parents, and now he himself is an alcoholic. The movie suggests his problems make him incapable of serious commitment. His best friend Jackie (Sasha Alexander, one of the highlights of the film) points out that he’s so self-hating he falls out of love with anyone who falls in love with him.

Meanwhile, the other problems that plague true alcoholics are absent or glossed over. Tom drinks throughout the film, but not only does the rest of his life seem unaffected, he still tends not to emote. He’s not an angry drunk, not a loving drunk, not a sweet drunk, not a quiet drunk. Wait! How do we even know he’s drunk? Oh, right, he’s in Alcoholics Anonymous, and he has a drink in his hand. Ergo, he’s a drunk.

In other words, his drinking is a plot device without the goods backing it up to make the drama believable or emotionally moving.

While I compliment Ruccolo for making an irritating character into an engaging role, the flip side is the character becomes less credible. I wanted to see some rage, which is hinted at, but the film never delves too deeply – being a comedy and all.

I wanted to see his life falling apart around him so that he would pull himself together, and then I could cheer for this basically good guy overcoming some serious personal problems. But at the end of the movie, the characters are more or less where they were at the beginning.

On the positive side, the movie does have its funny moments (mostly provided by Sasha Alexander and Adam Goldberg) and features some great acting talent. And yeah, it’s better than a lot of the trash that’s out there. It’s a good watch if you’ve exhausted the slim library of other gay romantic comedies. And while I won’t say this is a gay-positive movie, neither is it overtly gay-negative. Fortunately, there’s no “I’m gay, woe is me” subplot, no homophobia.

In the end, this movie irritates me because it could have been so much better. It’s a potentially credible drama posing as a romantic comedy. But the script’s uneven attempt to make light of something so serious bleaches the story of realism and impact. The result is a tepid and mediocre film.

On the whole, I like this movie. Despite its many flaws.

The film benefits from some great acting. Certainly, it enjoys a caliber of talent unusual for an independent feature. Jacqueline Bisset as Lila, despite the schlocky role, gives a performance that provides an emotional heart to the movie. Steve Sandvoss is pitch perfect as the sweet, conflicted, not-quite-naive Mormon (Aaron). Rebekah Johnson brings a feistiness that brings the stock fag-hag character (Julie) to life. Wes Ramsey as protagonist Christian does a good job as well, with the exception of a couple of overwrought monologues. But the monologues were written that way, so it’s hard to blame Ramsey too much. (Wait until he tells the story of getting left behind in the woods. You’ve got to be kidding me.)

The character of Christian irritates me. It’s like the writer (C. Jay Cox) said to himself, I want this person to be Gay Everyman. But his version of Gay Everyman happens to encompass a whole lot of stereotypical behavior. Meanwhile, the character of Aaron was very engaging: sweet, kind, and sincere. I really wanted Aaron to find happiness. Probably the filmmakers intended the central conflict to hinge on whether Aaron and Christian got together. But in watching the movie, I cared about that only insofar as it meant Aaron was able to exorcise his personal demons. Although I did appreciate Christian’s rather dramatic personal growth over the course of the film.

I have mixed emotions about the character of Keith (Erik Palladino), the gay man suffering from advanced AIDS. I always have mixed emotions about HIV/AIDS in gay-themed films: I tire of the association of disease, HIV/AIDS in particular, with the gay community, so I get frustrated easily when it seems like every other film throws in an HIV+ character for some kind of street cred.

On the other hand, HIV/AIDS is an important part of the history of the gay community, and remains a continuing concern. Especially since many young gay people nowadays don’t seem to take HIV/AIDS seriously.

But Keith’s role in the film is just over-the-top in a film already brimming with negative gay clichés. Christian finds meaning and depth by getting to know this gay man, who used to be like Christian, until AIDS enlightened him to the true meaning of Christmas.

That character is indicative of what’s fundamentally wrong with the movie. I can value having a guy in the movie who has AIDS, who has actually stopped and looked at the events of his life (including but not limited to the disease) and actually managed to squeeze out insight and wisdom. Consider the HIV+ character of Ben (Robert Gant) in “Queer as Folk.” But that’s not exactly how Keith’s character is portrayed; he’s too one-note, with too many one-liners, to have the depth needed for his role.

The movie is simply too heavy-handed without having the depth of character or thematic goods to back it up. One scene portrays an argument Christian has with some random trick that sleeping together is much more intimate than sex, and how the preference for the latter over the former is an unhealthy reversal of priorities in the gay community. That experience apparently helps Christian to appreciate the value of the depth and moral center that Aaron offers. It could have worked, had it been written and directed with any subtlety or nuance.

And then there’s the treatment of the Mormon Church.

In a lot of ways, “Latter Days” is an uncomfortable film. It benefits from an underlying sweetness, which mostly originates in the performances (especially Lila and Aaron). And the lead characters, unoriginal though they may be, are basically likeable – that helps a whole lot.

But the charm is undercut by a hateful edge: at the same time it’s trying to be a gay love story, the film is also attacking the Mormon Church (and, by extension, any organized religion which considers homosexuality sinful). The filmmakers have the right to make whatever kind of movie they want; and if they want to attack the Mormon Church, so be it. I’m not a fan of Mormonism, based upon what I know if it, so I have no argument with that. But using the medium of film to attack something lends a certain ugliness to the feel of the work. Trying to be a sweet love story and an assault on a particular group of people at the same time makes for a strange viewing experience. Even being unfamiliar with Mormon missionary work, I had the sense that certain facts were distorted or dramatized in order to highlight the condemnation of Mormonism. Ryder (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is too much a caricature of intolerant evangelism to really take seriously.

Consider the thoughts of reviewer and commentator Eric Snyder on this subject:

“Cox is allowed some poetic license, of course; he never claimed he was making a documentary. But I have to question his motives. As a former church member, Cox knows how missionaries really talk and act, and he knows how the church really operates. He is skewing the facts either A) because doing so helps his story progress, or B) because he wants viewers to dislike the church as much as he does. I hope it is option A, as that only makes him a bad filmmaker — good filmmakers use the facts of the world as they actually are to tell their stories, and don’t resort to making stuff up — while option B would make him something worse. Intentionally distorting the facts so your opponent looks more evil than he is smells like propaganda — which, again, is Cox’s right as a filmmaker, but which makes him seem like a guy with an ax to grind, not a guy with a story to tell” (1).

I did wonder myself about whether the filmmakers had an ax to grind, but I was equally confused by the mixed messages in the movie, because there’s just so much gay negativity.  And not just around the conflicted Mormon boy. Of course, Aaron is the most tortured of all the characters. Sometimes literally: wait until the scenes from the prison, er, hospital trying to “fix” him following Aaron’s attempt to “fix” himself, in a manner of speaking.

The film portrays a society which persecutes and literally tortures gay people because of unyielding, unthinking homophobia. Aaron persecutes and tortures himself because he has internalized that perspective. But what is the alternative presented, the other side of the story?

Is it someone like Gene Robinson or Mel White, well-known gay men committed to spiritual work in the world? No.

Or even someone like the aforementioned Ben from “Queer As Folk,” who certainly suffers from his own inner demons but is still a person of impressive depth and learning? No.

It’s a promiscuous (even when he’s pining for Aaron, he still brings tricks home!), theatrical, superficial flake who is held up in the film to represent openly gay life. What does that say? It’s an odd juxtaposition, at the least. Take the worst of the anti-gay world and the most clichéd of gay life, and throw them together!

As stated, I like this film. It benefits from a basic sweetness and an engaging exploration of the universal human longing for affection and understanding and the peeling away of the protective emotional layers we wrap around ourselves. Some of the scenes are fantastic. I especially enjoyed the penultimate scene, the emotional climax of the movie. Even if the plot that led us to that moment was contrived and forced, it’s still a great moment.

But keep your expectations low – the film suffers from a heavy-handed approach to theme and a cookie-cutter approach to characterization and plot that prevent the film from truly shining.

—————————

(1) Snyder, Eric. “Latter Days,” EricDSnider.com, March 2004, http://www.ericdsnider.com/movies/latter-days (17 August 2007)