Brother to Brother

There is a strong and understandable tendency to over praise films dealing with or representing minority groups simply as a means of encouragement. It's all very well being supportive of a particular minority group, but biased criticism ultimately does nobody any good.

Countless of very mediocre gay themed movies have received disproportionate praise. With themes of being black as well as being gay, "Brother to Brother" is a perfect candidate for such slanted criticism.

Let me state clearly, that to my mind, "Brother to Brother" is in no way mediocre clearly having being made with much care and devotion. As others have pointed out, it's informative and educational in its depiction and discussions of the Harlem Renaissance about which not terribly much is known by the wider public. Rodney Evans proves himself a director and writer with a lot of promise.

However labelling this a "masterpiece" or "amazing" is to do a disservice to Evans. Hopefully he will go on to create masterpieces and amazing films but this is not it. "Brother to Brother" has much to recommend it. The performances are solid, the dialogue flows, the characters are interesting, and the cinematography is way above the average for a first time indie effort. For all this Rodney Evans certainly deserves praise.

With all the genuine will to encourage young black, (or gay) film makers, it's important to keep focus on the real quality of the work. "Brother to Brother" despite it merits doesn't quite make the grade.

I was thoroughly impressed w/ Rodney Evan's Brother to Brother. It was a refreshing coming of age story. To add a historic context was genius. This movie was bold in that it brought to light the homosexual subtext of the Harlem Renaissance. BTB was not laden w/ stereotypical imagery that often plagues Black cinema. The setting was simple, one of which we can relate. My favorite scene was the skit that included James Balwin whereby Baldwin had to defend why being gay does nothing to hinder 'the movement.' Although Evans had many concurrent themes, the movie was not over-bearing. From familial troubles to inter-racial relationships, we saw that Perry's character was multi-dimensional Kudos!

Brother to Brother was not the film that I thought I would see -- which I gladly welcomed. The film is promoted as being about gay artists in the Harlem

Renaissance. This is only a small portion of this story -- specifically seen

through the eyes of one character.

The film features the friendship of two artists from different eras. Both are black men, gay and self-confident. The script brilliantly weaves a narrative that

illustrates the personal and political struggles that each man addresses in the past and present. Most of the story is free of hackneyed predictable plot twists. Complex issues regarding interracial relationships and objectification are

introduced in a very delicate manner -- great food for thought. Characters such as the two leads are rarely seen in film -- commercial or indie. The

performances by the entire cast is very strong, particularly by the actor

portraying Bruce Nugent. Having been one of the few who saw Spike Lee's

"She Hate Me," I was pleasantly surprised to see Anthony Mackie in the lead

role also providing a very strong performance.

One pet-peave that was distracting: cinematography. Many scenes are shot out

of focus -- not good, particularly in a somewhat dramatic scene with Langston Hughes and the younger Bruce. Even with a shoestring budget, there is no

excuse for showing sloppy work. Aside from this minor flaw in the film, I found extremely refreshing and worth discussing.

I couldn't disagree more with the person who described the film as "dreadful."

I am no great critic of film but I saw this film at the Philadelphia International Gay & Lesbian Film Festival (PIGLFF) and enjoyed it and was ultimately moved by it.

I detected a moment of spotty acting in an early scene; otherwise, I found the film to be professional and polished. It deals with themes of parenting, maturation, relations across generations, race, friendship, sexuality, homophobia, perception, the life, role and integrity of an artist in one's culture.

It provides an interesting and enticing view into the Harlem Renaissance, a place and time I was not that familiar with.

It was well received by the audience I viewed it with, and I recommend it.

Unless I missed something in the screening I saw tonight, we had a college age kid get involved with a man who had to be at least 100 years old.

The premise was a young sensitive black and gay student who's going through his own angst happens to meet up with a survivor from the Harlem Renaissance era of the 1920s. Anthony Mackie as the student and Roger Robinson as the artist/survivor both give fine performances and I was deeply moved. A lot of issues that they talked about are as relevant today as during the 1920s, although God knows a whole lot of history has occurred in the intervening years.

After the film though I started thinking. Roger Robinson looks about 75 in the film, he was born in 1940 which would make him sixty five. But 105 would be a more appropriate age if we're to believe he was hanging out with Langston Hughes, Zora Hurston, etc. back in the day. I'm sure some other people had to realize that as well.

In order to make the film more plausible, the writer and director should have placed the modern story circa 1980. That would have been more believable with the players ages.

Still and all, it's a deeply moving film and one to be seen and treasured.

PS. After writing this review I looked up Richard Bruce Nugent and found that he was born in 1906, died in 1987 and that he died in Hoboken, New Jersey.