Straightman

Here's a low budget movie that actually says something positive. We have two male leads, young and full of testosterone, one gay and one straight, who discover and reveal to one another how deep their "friendship" bond is. The dialogue, shots and settings seem very realistic as if the camera is merely a fly on the wall. The screenwriter had a great concept, but it could have been far better if the interior residential settings were not so low end....I actually thought the two leads could have been squatting in some abandoned building. Also, the use of the "f" word was way overdone. Does anyone other than the lower classes use that word that often? The gay lead was attractive, but the camera never shone on his face to highlight his male beauty. That needed corrected. Look at the movie "Weekend", filmed in a similar way. Yet, the director made sure there were a number of well lit, close ups of Tom Cullen's beautiful face. Acting was pretty good. I never felt like they were just reading lines with zero emotion. Would love to see this concept taken to a higher level.

Straightman is not without its merits, first and foremost the fact that it shows a kind of gay man not usually seen on the screen, a blue collar, scruffy, fashion-clueless everyman. It also depicts a friendship between a straight man and a gay man which doesn't unravel when the gay friend comes out, but is instead greeted with a matter-of-factness that hopefully happens more often in real life than movies would have you believe. Both Bens are well cast and the real life bond between them is obvious.

What I find hard to believe is that this film won the Best Screenplay award at Outfest, my "local" gay/lesbian film festival. Why? Because there is no screenplay, just I would guess a brief description of what each scene is to be about and the words: Improvise.

That improvisation is the same as real conversation is a huge fallacy. Improv sounds like improv, and is no substitute for well written dialog performed by talented actors who make the audience believe that their words are spontaneous.

Had the writers/director/stars used improvisation as a starting off point, and then written carefully thought out dialog, this film would have avoided the many boring and repetitive moments that others on this site have criticized.

Memo to filmmakers: Get a script, have your actors learn their lines, rehearse, and say the words. You'll end up with a much realer film than this one.

This hyper low-budget, rough edged study of a friendship between two men, one straight, one gay is unusual for the honesty with which it shows the layers that men place over their feelings, between each others and even within themselves. The need for love, the use of sex as a distancing device instead of a way of being closer, the confusion of vulnerability and weakness, the use of humor to mask deeper feelings, these traits are rarely examined with much honesty. The same could be said for how male friendship in general functions (and doesn't) as well.

Made in the rough edged, improvised tradition of Casavettes and Mike Leigh, this deserves points for trying. The difference is, both Casavettes and Leigh had access to some of the best actors of their respective days, and while the actors here are willing,they're simply not at that level of depth or talent, meaning that while this has some wonderful moments, there are also some repetitive, or even awkwardly 'acted' ones as well.

But I'd rather see a film that aims high and doesn't always make it, than one that tries for nothing and succeeds.

While browsing the Gay/Lesbian section of an online video site (TLA), I saw a listing for Straightman and gambled with a purchase. This video is a treats amongst the usual menu of Blockbusters. The cowriters costar as best friends, presented with (pardon the much-repeated cliche) warts and all. The script (or improvisation) combines with an acting style not found in films today: I could believe the people on the screen actually exist. There were awkward pauses, looks, and dialog interruptions: all these things contribute to an air of reality. Hollywood studio productions feature spritzed actors rather than perspiring actors; never is a strand of hair out of place; no one reaches for the "right" words. Such is not the case here. We need more films by Ben and Ben. I hope they do another very soon.

I have read comments and reviews that compare this to movies by John Cassavetes and Mike Leigh. It is, and by far, in a totally different league. I believe it takes incredible talent, even genius, to pull off near reality when you let your actors improvise. Cassavetes and Leigh have (had) such talent and I find many of their movies admirable.

Unfortunately, it is my opinion that neither the director, the writers nor the actors who gave birth to Straightman had what it takes to pull it off. The dialogs were painfully empty, incoherent and led nowhere. The characters were not developed, the ending a cop-out. I found the whole thing rather pretentious, posing as "rough trade chic".

Are the reviewers indulgent because of the gay theme? I'm gay and have seen many gay movies. In Straightman, the theme does not redeem the film. Maybe, as Liz Braun (reviewer, Toronto Sun) said: "Straightman is the sort of film people tend to either love or hate." Well, I hated it, except for a few moments, and gave it a 2/10.