Jeffrey

I first saw this film on TV, and was gobsmacked (a British expression!) at Patrick Stewart's performance- this is totally unlike anything else I have seen him in.

However, I soon discovered that there many more superb performances in Jeffrey... from the smallest roles (usually played by bigger names than you'd expect!) to the main roles entrusted to Stephen Weber & Michael Weiss. I managed to have a marvelous time just star spotting!

I found this so hilariously funny in some scenes, and yet full of pathos in others that I ended up laughing & crying at the same time. In the end I just had to buy it, so I can watch it as often as I want. Be broadminded, and give this film a go... it won't disappoint.

This takes place when AIDS was still killing guys left and right. Gay Jeffrey (Steven Weber) loves sex but is terrified that he'll get AIDS. So he decides to give up sex completely. Then he meets handsome, hunky Steve (Michael T. Weiss) and falls in love. Michael feels the same way...but he's HIV+. Can Jeffrey fight his fear?

First off, the play was better. Some of the humor that worked so well on stage fell flat on a movie screen. Second, Weber is miscast. He's handsome, muscular but he can't act. However, I give him credit for playing an openly gay man so easily. Third, the direction is really off. I don't recognize the director's name, but comedy is not his forte. His direction really destroyed some of the jokes. Other than that, this is an OK movie. Michael T. Weiss is beautiful (and hunky) and one hell of an actor. Patrick Stewart played a gay older man to perfection--I couldn't believe it when I found out he was straight. Also the scenes with Olympia Dukakis, Sigourney Weaver and Nathan Lane are great! Also a great romantic ending with a few nice, long kisses. So, worth seeing but no great movie. If only they had a better leading man and a better director it might have worked.

I watched "Jeffrey" with my Husband earlier tonight. I had meant to watch it for years, but it was a "gay" film, a genre which I love, but often eschew because these films always make me think--even "La Cage aux Folles" had a deep and abiding lesson or two hidden inside.) The themes often involve intolerance, and the traumatic impact of AIDS on the entire gay community; even if the film is a comedy, I find these themes fill me with empathic pain and frustration. I decided to brave those themes despite my female tear ducts this evening, and I was glad I did.

This film was silly. This film was witty. The dialogue is sparkling. All those things made it wonderful to watch. The characters we meet are intriguing, and though the 2-dimensional stereotypes are made for laughs, we get the feeling that we are laughing at the strange mix of truth and falsehood many of the stereotypes possess; we are laughing not at people who are "flaming" but at characters who are exuberant, joyous people, trying to squeeze every bit of joy and delight that they can out of every moment.

I won't spoil the journey through this story with any specifics, let's just say that Jeffrey doesn't quite get it. It is both painful and joyful at turns watching the character navigate through a turning point in his life. I laughed, I got choked up, and then I laughed again, and again ad infinitum. This is not a "gay" movie. It's a character driven story that we can all identify with, if our minds and hearts are open.

I like this movie-- I liked it when it came out and I still enjoy it today-- however, many people watching it nowadays have no idea it's been vandalized-- censored-- edited for "family" consumption.

I remember well the fantasy sequence at the "Hoedown for AIDS" benefit party when the "cowboys" and "indians" dance; it was a completely over-the-top burlesque romp with the square-dance caller announcing positively obscene moves. This blast of color and action was in counterpoint to the rather staid, boring benefit party and it was marvelously conceived and executed.

It is now a drab remnant of its former self with all its verve and hilarity removed-- as though someone had cut off parts of a man's anatomy.

Why?

We get fairly explicit material verbally during the movie-- like the hilarious fantasy phone call Jeffrey has with his parents-- but for some reason we no longer are allowed to see suggestions of gay sex-- even those presented in the spirit of fun and fantasy. This is wrong.

I just thought people should know.

This is one of those movies that I confidently predict will wind up being considered much better as time goes on than the critics said at its inception. It's especially funny (and biting on occasion) if you happened to have lived through the first rush of AIDS deaths and the fear that engendered. This whole movie is a send up of that, and revels in the idea that sex and life go on even in the aftermath of terror. The Hoe-down fantasy sequence with its overtones of Busby Berkley and Oklahoma is hysterically funny. As for the acting, it's purposely broad with Patrick Steward playing against type, both in his role of Picard and in his many Shakespearean ones. Steve Weber is a hoot and there is no doubt in my mind that the other actors had a blast working in this flick. Many of them appear to have that "look" you see when actors are performing for their peers and enjoying every moment of it. The Pink Panthers moment alone lets Stewart shine. Are there flaws in the movie. Yup! The dialogue is sometimes stilted and jokes occasionally are dumped in rather than flowing from the plot, but overall it's witty, biting, and downright rapier-like on more than one occasion. All in all, Jeffrey is fun and worth an hour or so of your life.