Dream Boy

People watch movies for different reasons. Some people like an elaborate, fast-paced plot. Others enjoy the visual and audio experience. I am the kind of movie watcher who enjoys a well executed and consistent tone and mood. In "Dream Boy," the mood is both melancholy and sweet and there is a constant, if not always apparent, hint of anxiety and apprehension that builds throughout the movie. Capturing a mood is very difficult, and it relies on a number of factors including acting, cinematography, and music. While the acting of the supporting cast in "Dream Boy" can be somewhat inconsistent, the acting of the two main characters, Roy (Max Roeg) and Nathan (Stephan Bender), is very strong. I was particularly impressed with Bender whose performance reminds me of Gabourey Sidibe in "Precious." While it is true that the awkward, inarticulate teenager is well-trod territory in gay cinema, I've never seen the role acted so flawlessly. I was completely convinced that Bender was Nathan. Here we have a rare example of the kind of role that doesn't seem "acted" at all; it's as if Bender embodies the character. Sadly, I think actors with roles that are over-the-top, histrionic, and melodramatic often get the most praise, but it seems equally if not more difficult to portray a shy, introverted character, and the actors who really nail these roles often don't get the recognition they deserve (re: Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain). I've read some criticism that Bender's performance was "wooden," and it strikes me that if you were not an awkward, inarticulate teenager you might not be able to identify with the performance, but if you were the kind of kid who stayed inside most of the day you will probably find the portrayal of your former self incredibly accurate and moving.

There is a lot of attention paid to subtle, non-verbal forms of communication - glances, stares, half-smiles, physical contact - all of which create a much more realistic depiction of young, gay love than the more chatty gay coming-of-age movies that I'm used to seeing. All of that being said, I understand the disappointment with the ambiguous denouement, but plots are relatively tangential for me. If the actors and director manage to depict a convincing mood, then that is all I need to be satisfied, and they have certainly done that with "Dream Boy."

Back in 1995 Jim Grimsley published DREAM BOY, the second novel of his continuing examination of the coming of age in the South and followed by the equally popular COMFORT AND JOY, BOULEVARD, FORGIVENESS, MY DROWNING etc. It took many years of for James Bolton ('Eban & Charley', 'The Graffiti Artist') to decide to adapt this story to the screen, and while Bolton elected to replace much of the lyricism of Grimsley's prose with extended periods of non-verbal communication in the screenplay, the story of two high school kids coming to grips with a mutual attraction in the dank repressive aura of the South manages to still come through intact.

Nathan (Stephen Bender) is a quiet, reclusive sophomore in high school who is settling in to yet another move by his alcoholic, Bible-pounding, abusive father (Thomas Jay Ryan) and his sympathetic mother (Diana Scarwid). Next door lives handsome jock Roy (Maximillian Roeg) who befriends Nathan, shares homework, and when he is not with his girlfriend, offers Nathan rides in the school bus he drives. Exchanges of glances and the growth of mutual attraction between the boys lead to a very private but sincere physical relationship: Nathan does not share with Roy that he has suffered sexual abuse from his father. Roy and his buddies - Burke (a very promising Randy Wayne) and Randy (Owen Beckman) - begin to join the boys on swimming gigs and finally a camping trip that includes visitation of an old deserted and possibly haunted plantation house. What happens in this mysterious place provides the climax of the story - a brutal surprise ending that then transports the film into another dimension - a region the viewer must decide is satisfying or not.

There are some fine moments in this little low budget movie and the presence of Maximillian Roeg, Diana Scarwid, and Randy Wayne lifts the cast to a higher level of competence. Whether or not the viewer is willing to go along with the ending will make the vote for or against the film. Bolton does have a fine touch with stories about the coming out of young men in his films and his ability to capture the Gothic atmosphere of the South is solid.

Grady Harp

Unfortunately, just before I watched this movie, I read a review here stating that the story was based on a "thin-as-paper, muddled plot." With that in mind and the somewhat awkward, uncomfortable interactions between the actors at the start, I almost gave it up. The timid, brittle interactions, however, were very true to the decidedly dysfunctional family of the main character rather than tentative acting.

Yes, the plot may have been overly ambitious in all that it attempted to include. Some of what takes place was a bit formulaic and stereotypical, but the events were still integral to the story development and it felt totally realistic if not ground-breaking. There is, after all, a fair amount of shared common experience in the coming-of-age saga of most young gay men. In fact, many of us are drawn to films like this because reliving some of those common experiences, distressing as they may have been when we were young, now contribute to a comforting feeling of connection to others.

The distant, confused, tender-brutal, hateful-loving relationship between father and son, I suspect, drove a great deal of this story although it wasn't the central focus. That tension and force was very effectively accomplished without belaboring the obvious.

The movie has its rough edges as quite often happens when a complex plot is carried from book to movie. Still, I found it well worth watching.

Shy teenager Nathan (Stephen Bender) moves into the deep South with his parents. Right next door to him is teenager Roy (Max Roeg) who is out-going and friendly. They form a friendship which quickly turns into a physical relationship. Naturally they can't tell anybody. Half way through things about Nathan become clearer--and more disturbing--and the movie gets dark.

I read the book years ago and loved it but I hated the ending cause it's so ambiguous. I bought this movie cautiously because I didn't think it could be as good as the book and I was curious HOW they would end it. Well the movie IS as good as the book. It's low-key but the book was too. Bender and Roeg perfectly play two teenage boys in love--you can see the confusion and passion in their faces. The sex scenes are very tastefully done (nothing remotely graphic) and these two are so obviously not teens it's not disturbing to watch. I also like how their kissing and having sex is treated so casually--as it should. It (sort of) retains the ambiguous ending of the book. Like I said I hated that ending but I'm glad the movie didn't change it. All the acting is good--Roeg especially. He has the wonderful actress Theresa Russell as his mom and obviously inherited her acting abilities. There's some beautiful cinematography and a good music score too. Low-key and somewhat disturbing but effective. I give it a 7.

I typically do not like the "traditional" gay cliché genre where all relationships have to end in tragedy. But I COULD have made an exception here had the writer/filmmaker decided to go in the direction of a ghost story...which was alluded to about mid-way. Meaning, there were many elements of horror/psychological thriller, beginning with the character of Nathan's family life. Then, we see the tension between Nathan and one of Roy's "alpha male" friends, foreshadowing some negative story line. But all in all, this is just too linear and has a very "made for TV" feel (the sound-track gets very annoying). And the ending seems to make this just too "cutesy" and negates the entire horror/ghost story direction (it's almost as if the writer got stuck and didn't know where to go and wanted to end on some "feel good" note...just lazy). Also, there were several instances where either the writer or the director didn't seem to understand the setting they were portraying (Baptists in the South would NEVER have a crucifix on the wall...let alone in a church...that's Catholicism). In other words, a) do your research b) pick your "mood" and where you want to go and c) be consistent. The acting was in fact superb and I think the best thing about this...so I wish all involved an excellent career.