Su otro amor

MAKING LOVE was dismissed as a rather routine melodrama despite its "controversial" subject. This is a pity, for this film is years ahead of its time in the frank and non-judgmental approach it takes to same-sex love. The on-screen kiss between Michael Ontkean and Harry Hamlin was in some ways the "shot heard round the world;" although not sexually explicit, this movie has clear and frank lovemaking scenes between the two men. This has yet to be duplicated in a mainstream Hollywood film; eleven years after MAKING LOVE, Hollywood gave us PHILADELPHIA, a "groundbreaking" film in which the lovers don't even kiss! This is progress?

Unappreciated in its time, MAKING LOVE has held up surprisingly well. Yes, it is a rather routine romance; except for the gender-switch, there isn't much here that is new or unusual. Yet, oddly, this is exactly what makes this film so appealing. Homosexuality is not seen as a problem except where it coincidentally creates one; the love triangle is handled in almost exactly the same way it would be if the husband had an affair with a woman. The stars are attractive and sympathetic and all give extremely appealing and deeply felt performances. If you saw it in 1982, it's worth a second (even third) look. If you've never seen it, it's a treat.

I love how people so eagerly show their prejudice by calling movies like this "gay propaganda." If anything, these folks do us a favor by exposing themselves so that those of us with brains in our heads can steer clear of them.

If the purpose of this movie was to send a message, then that message was obviously this: Trust what's in your heart, and be true to yourself and the ones you love.

Would love to see this little gem released onto DVD, maybe with some commentary. Playing a gay role in a motion picture required much more bravery from an actor in 1982 than it does today. It would be interesting to hear Michael Ontkean and Harry Hamlin give their perspective on this.

Saw this movie in 1982, and remember the gasps of the audience before half the theater left.

Saw it again 4/24/2001 on Fox Movie, and was amazed at how relevent this movie still is, and how it anticpated the sensitivity which we now take for granted in the portrayal of homoerotic themes.

My hats off to Barry Sandler and Arthur Hill for doing this way before it's time, and to Michael Otkean and Harry Hamlin for a willingness to take on the roles of two gay men way before the American public was ready to see it.

I saw this in its first limited release, in New York City with a group of gay friends, in February of 1982, on a Saturday night. The picture had been out for about a week, and everyone, I thought, knew what it was about. We saw it in a major East Side theater, the only one where it was being shown as I remember.

Well, I was mistaken about the "informed" audience! This mixed, supposedly knowledgeable New York audience nearly rioted at the first on-screen kiss, discreetly photographed, in a darkened, shadowy corner of a room, in a long shot! The gays (including my group) were cheering and applauding, the older, presumably straight folks were screaming things like "How revolting!" and "Oh, my God!" as they bolted from the theater. This only increased at the second kiss, in close-up, a few moments later. I was never more astonished in my life!

I just saw this again, after a long time. Dated though it is, I still felt the message was clear: be true to yourself. The final ironic shot says it all.

I saw this when it first came out. I was 20. I had never seen a film about gay men before - except Boys in the Band - on late nite TV. That film scared me. This one made me feel good and positive about myself. It is warm and sad and happy and realistic. (well if we were all successful LA tyes, anyway) Credit goes to Ontkean and Hamlin for taking on these roles at the time. Jackson is terrific. She has a scene in the phone with her estranged father that makes you realize why she was first choice for Joanna Kramer in Kramer vs Kramer. Wish this would come out on dvd.