Frente al abismo

'I needed to make a movie that stayed with people emotionally and psychologically' says L.I.E. director Michael Cuesta. The result, his debut, bears all the hallmarks of a quietly assured, minor modern classic. As Brian Cox, who plays L.I.E's big-hearted pederast 'Big John' Harrigan, says, 'It's old-fashioned in many ways, a film that takes its time and doesn't suffer from MTV jump-cutting'. Such subtleties cut no slack with US censors, who saddled it with a damaging and unsuccessfully appealed NC-17 rating. A knee-jerk reaction, its distributors argued, 'to a small grab-bag of wholly misunderstood moments.infinitely less graphic and gratuitous than many dozens of other films given R ratings.' Despite its sole depiction of nudity being a three-second shot of a (rampantly heterosexual) male buttock, 17-year-old filmgoers were legally obliged to view this intricate study of suburban dislocation with their bemused guardians in tow - a dictate distributors optimistically steered to their advantage. L.I.E's searingly honest exploration of adolescence might now become 'a unique opportunity for a meaningful dialogue' between parents and teens. An unlikely occurrence in the main, given its fleeting, near-invisible cinematic outing.

L.I.E stands for Long Island Expressway, a commuter-crowded freeway running like a knife slash through an affluent New York suburb; for Cuesta 'a metaphor for a kid who's about to be sent into the scary world of adulthood regardless of whether he's ready or not'. A hazardous route then which, we learn, has already killed 'Cat's in the Cradle' singer/songwriter Harry Chapin, All the President's Men director Alan J Pakula - and the mother of L.I.E.'s 15-year-old Howie (a remarkable performance of put-on adolescent toughness, vulnerability and knowing from Paul Franklin Dano). The 'lie' of the title symbolising the myth of cosy suburbia but more pertinently, the casual or far-reaching deceits L.I.E.'s guilt-edged cast of slack-jawed wide boys, footloose rent boys, corrupt white-collar contractors and 'always ashamed' Chicken Hawks will visit on themselves and one another, emotionally hobbled, or shot-through with grief, every one.

If L.I.E initially drew comparisons with the work of Harmony Korine, Larry Clark - and Todd Solondz in particular, Cuesta's film contains a warmth and delicacy often lacking from these fellow chroniclers of suburban juvenile woe. The semi-autobiographical script, by Stephen M Ryder and Michael and Gerald Cuesta, is kinda different too - frank without being exploitative, and unexpectedly tender, with no pussyfooting at all. As Cox says, 'original, brave - kind of groundbreaking'. While that old stand-by of Indiedom, the roving hand-held is present and correct, if refreshingly unobtrusive, Romeo Tirone's exquisite cinematography further distinguishes L.I.E. from its sullen contemporaries, combining a stark, saturated quality (most effectively for the sterile look of soulless 1980s houses) with the smooth visual finish of a Michael Mann.

Perhaps its nearest equivalent is David O Russell's taboo-fest from 1994, Spanking the Monkey, another portrait of inter-generational relationships (plain old incest in this case) played out against the backdrop of suburban blitz - long a fertile slouching ground for independent filmmakers. As former photographer Cuesta, a Long Island native, whose boyhood memories brought a lot to bear on the film's innate truthfulness, says: 'Suburbs have their own cultures, rhythms, ethics, and morals.you have everyone from the Mafia to the artists to 9-5 commuters, and it's certainly true that there's a story behind every door and at the end of every driveway. A big part of making L.I.E. feel real had to do with the inherent realism that comes with shooting near a major highway. That constant hum of traffic permeates every neighbourhood - everyone deals with that sound.'

We first encounter Howie teetering on the brink of a burgeoning, ambivalent sexuality. Literally teetering, as the opening shot describes, balanced precariously on the edge of a flyover. Abandoned by everyone - his father, friends, and schoolboy crush Gary (a shimmeringly anarchic Billy Kay) the sensitive Howie finds emotional rescue with the mysterious 'Big John' Harrigan. An exuberant bear of a man, a curious Harrigan attempts to bewitch an amusedly reticent Howie with allusions to a thrillingly glamorous past, man and boy engaged in teasing, fumbling power play - until an unlikely, neo-parental alliance is at first grudgingly, then preciously forged.

'It was vital the audience could relate to Big John, even sympathize with him', says Cuesta. '(But) I tried very hard to make sure his intentions were constantly blurred'. For Cox, the role (one of his greatest performances) was 'potentially, a career-burying move. There were enormous dangers in it. But I weighed up the odds - and decided the whole point of not doing it were the very reasons to do it. I was really intrigued by how far one could take the character and make it work. The first trap an actor could fall into would be to play Big John as a man whose public façade disguised the fact he was a sexual predator. I took the opposite view: that he was this wonderfully open character, and actually a very nice man - who happened to be a pederast. And the range became so much bigger. It's a story of redemption, and that's what finally came through for me. It's a very responsible film.'

Over the past few years I've been making an effort to watch a number of movies released in the 21st century that I hadn't seen in all these years. Among these were "Hustle and Flow" and "Blue Jasmine". "L. I. E." is the latest.

Released when Brian Cox was known for occasional supporting roles and Paul Dano was pretty much unknown, Michael Cuesta's movie depicts a topic that movies are usually loath to cover: a relationship between a teenage boy and an older man. The very idea sounds questionable - especially after all the revelations from MeToo - but the movie shows that it's basically the healthiest relationship that either person has had. Mind you, the boy isn't immediately comfortable with it, but he doesn't see much else to do, considering how pitiful everything around him is.

I wouldn't go so far as to call the movie a masterpiece, but it deserves credit for being forthright in dealing with its subject matter and not reducing the characters to cliches. I recommend it. I don't know if it's available on any streaming service, so you might have to check a neighborhood video store.

It's shocking that this film was ever made. You don't often get characters this well written in American independent cinema, and you certainly don't get characters who are pedophiles portrayed with this much thought behind them. Todd Solondz's Happiness can only be partially counted, as that pedophilic character was played half as comedy (very daring in its way, as well). Brian Cox gives the performance of a lifetime with this character - you won't entirely understand how perfect he is or how perfectly written he is until you see it. Any expectation you can come up with will be quashed when you see the film.

But, aside from that, this film is about young Howie, also played brilliantly by newcomer Paul Franklin Dano. This is one of the best films about the status of high school students today. No, not all kids are like this, but these characters represent an important segment in the school population. This could have easily been one of those my-dad-is-too-busy-to-pay-attention-to-me-so-I'm-going-to-act-out movies, and, indeed, it is in a way, but the characters and situations are so well written - and the film's technique is amazing, as well - that they're entirely believable.

I praise the hell out of Michael Cuesta for making this film. He's an absolute daredevil. Almost every piece of the film is like a highwire act, and he only stumbles at the very end. It's just too abrupt and simplistic, as if some producer thought that these characters shouldn't be able to live their lives. I hope Cuesta will make more films in the future. He's one of the best to pop up in the last few years.

Big John is a 50 something ex US marine who lives with Scott, a youth of about 18 in a smart suburban villa somewhere in Oregon. He holds parties for middle aged folk at home and is nagged by his aged mum to look after his health. He was in love with girl when he was young but never married citing the reason that all women are 'maneaters'. Although Scott has his own room they sometimes sleep together and in his private moments Big John looks at internet pictures of young teen-aged boys.

Big John isn't strictly a pedophile as no prepubescent children are involved in his life but he certainly appears to be a pederast. He cruises the local pick up zone where teen-aged male prostitutes ply their trade offering blow jobs behind a road sign for a few bucks. And there he meets 16 year old Gary, a good looking local tearaway and hustler who also burgles houses with his school mates for extra cash.

Gary isn't necessarily gay but he uses his looks and charm to best advantage. Accordingly he is the object of adoration by 15 year old Howard, a gay school mate, who dreams of running off with Gary to a romantic life together in California.

But their plans and dreams must change when they decide to rob Big John of his prized antique revolvers - and the ex marine quickly discovers their guilt.

The subsequent drama is beautifully intense without being heavy. And most of all it raises essential questions about the true nature of pederasts and the boys they befriend. Who is exploiting who? Who is the real victim of this sadly common circumstance? Are pederasts always evil? What exactly are the real motives of Big John, Gary, Scott and Howard? And who is the villain? The film ends very suddenly with an emotional shock. And it is our personal feelings towards the characters after that shock which seems to be the whole point of the movie. Well recommended for all - and particularly for parents of teen-aged boys with crushes on other boys.

As a sexuality educator I was impressed by the straightforward, nonjudgmental nature of a rather difficult topic. I vacillated between giving this film an 8 or a 9 and decided on 9 because we need more films like this. This topic requires understanding, not acceptance mind you, but real honest understanding. The very fact that it was given an nc-17 rating is part of the problem with our society. There was about as much sex as I've seen in R or even PG-13 movies, the rating was obviously ONLY because of the uncomfortable subject matter. How can society solve a problem that it clearly does not even want to talk about, let alone understand?