Straightman

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.

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.

Take two ordinary men who have no previous film credits for acting, directing, or writing, put them in charge of all three tasks, and the result is likely to be as shapeless and self-indulgent as "Straightman." This low-budget movie is a real disappointment -- so much so that I begin to suspect the glowing reviews were written by friends of the cast. It's a shame, too, because there is potential here for a good indie movie. It begins with a good premise, the working-class Chicago backdrop is interesting, and there is a sense that the film might be semi-autobiographical.

This film's main problem is that the director, who also co-stars, apparently has no distance from the material. An objective eye would have edited the tiresome and repetitious improvisation. As it is, the two men talk on and on and on. Scenes are too long, and footage that should have been cut is treated as sacrosanct. The drama goes from feeling fresh to feeling forced as each of the lead actors has to pile on dramatic moments. While the actors do not stink, they are not noticeably talented, either; so they cannot sustain the drama, and ultimately their time on screen feels undeserved.

Not recommended.

I don't usually skip ahead in movies, but had to do it with this one. Was thanking my dvd remote for that option! Not entirely bad, just overall boring. Ben Redgrave is white trash "eye candy". The homo sex scenes are very erotic. The straight sex scenes were like watching a Ron Jeremy movie. Yuck! A nice attempt for film production. Will be looking for more movies by this novice team. If they can pull it together, lot's of potential.

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.