Un escritor y su pareja buscan exponer las pretensiones inmorales de un psicólogo que afirma curar la homosexualidad.Un escritor y su pareja buscan exponer las pretensiones inmorales de un psicólogo que afirma curar la homosexualidad.Un escritor y su pareja buscan exponer las pretensiones inmorales de un psicólogo que afirma curar la homosexualidad.
- Premios
- 1 premio ganado y 1 nominación en total
Tom Vitale
- Gym Patron
- (as Thomas Vitale)
Suzanne Gilad
- Additional Voices
- (voz)
- (as Sue Gilad)
Opiniones destacadas
I started watching this movie, not knowing what to expect. The whole issue of conversion therapy has been close to me ever since a friend of mine who's gay wanted to try and change his sexual orientation. That's why I approached this movie with both anticipation - for some possible answers - and dread.
Let me put it this way: if you want to understand why some gay men want to change their sexual orientation, you've come to the right place. The movie, through the characters of Frank and Dr. Apsey, raises many questions that aren't easily dismissed. The writing is good, the acting is good, and the way it all plays out is both engaging and plausible.
At the end of the day, however, I felt the problem was that too many of the questions raised weren't handled well enough, weren't addressed as they should have been, considering their enormity. Supposedly the movie gives both sides a chance to show their point of view. Supposedly you're given an answer at the end as to which "side" Frank chooses. But you're given no insight as to why he makes the choice that he does at the end (don't worry, I won't give it away) and you certainly not hearing a real discussion between the two opposing POVs, as one is more dominant in this movie, in a way that Considering the importance (even the urgent importance, that the movie itself refers to) of not leaving this discussion one-sided in those areas where there are answers to be offered to the questions raised here, I think there's still an issue of social responsibility pressing, that suggests those answers should have been supplied more than they have been.
Yet for all this, it does make you think. If you're willing to be a thinker, if you're willing to have a go and find the answers that truly balance things out yourself, you could indeed enjoy this movie.
Let me put it this way: if you want to understand why some gay men want to change their sexual orientation, you've come to the right place. The movie, through the characters of Frank and Dr. Apsey, raises many questions that aren't easily dismissed. The writing is good, the acting is good, and the way it all plays out is both engaging and plausible.
At the end of the day, however, I felt the problem was that too many of the questions raised weren't handled well enough, weren't addressed as they should have been, considering their enormity. Supposedly the movie gives both sides a chance to show their point of view. Supposedly you're given an answer at the end as to which "side" Frank chooses. But you're given no insight as to why he makes the choice that he does at the end (don't worry, I won't give it away) and you certainly not hearing a real discussion between the two opposing POVs, as one is more dominant in this movie, in a way that Considering the importance (even the urgent importance, that the movie itself refers to) of not leaving this discussion one-sided in those areas where there are answers to be offered to the questions raised here, I think there's still an issue of social responsibility pressing, that suggests those answers should have been supplied more than they have been.
Yet for all this, it does make you think. If you're willing to be a thinker, if you're willing to have a go and find the answers that truly balance things out yourself, you could indeed enjoy this movie.
My only regret about this movie is it is not yet available for purchase. I would love to watch it again.
Frank is a journalist who is living with his psychologist boyfriend. His boyfriend unethically sets him up to meet with a rival psychologist who works with making gay people straight. Frank battles with the psychologist, his boyfriend and, ultimately, himself. The ending is excellent, and leaves the viewer with even more questions about homosexuality.
It really made me think about whether or not gay people can be made straight. If they are born that way, what if they are very unhappy? Can or should they be allowed to change their sexual orientation? How much of this is because of the gay political climate? Is there really pressure to remain gay if someone wants to be stressed?
I highly recommend this movie, because it is intelligent and witty, and does not cater to one side of the debate, but leaves it to the viewer.
Frank is a journalist who is living with his psychologist boyfriend. His boyfriend unethically sets him up to meet with a rival psychologist who works with making gay people straight. Frank battles with the psychologist, his boyfriend and, ultimately, himself. The ending is excellent, and leaves the viewer with even more questions about homosexuality.
It really made me think about whether or not gay people can be made straight. If they are born that way, what if they are very unhappy? Can or should they be allowed to change their sexual orientation? How much of this is because of the gay political climate? Is there really pressure to remain gay if someone wants to be stressed?
I highly recommend this movie, because it is intelligent and witty, and does not cater to one side of the debate, but leaves it to the viewer.
10jvframe
On the topic of the validity and morality of offering psychological treatment for those unhappy with their same-sex attractions. As at July 2007 the APA's official attitude is that "ex-gay" therapy should not be promoted, because it is likely to do more harm than good - but they don't object to the members providing treatment if it is actually sought by the client. "Fixing Frank" plays devil's advocate in letting us decide whether this attitude is really acceptable.
Frank is a young journalist who is lacking in assertiveness and personal motivation. Frank's psychotherapist partner has a long standing loathing for a rival therapist whom he knows has been providing "ex-gay" treatments. He convinces Frank that there's a great opportunity for an expose feature by posing as a client seeking an ex-gay cure from this other therapist. The plan falls apart as we see how carefully chosen and passionately delivered rhetoric very effectively chips away at Franks self-confidence as a gay man.
It's a fine film for helping us to empathise with anyone who has sought ex-gay therapy - and is particularly interesting for allowing us to look through the eyes of the ex-gay therapist who passionately believes that he's doing the right thing.
The commentary track on the DVD is invaluable. The director and the actor playing the ex-gay therapist are both gay - but the other two actors are extremely convincing straight men (the cast are all great actors).
Frank is a young journalist who is lacking in assertiveness and personal motivation. Frank's psychotherapist partner has a long standing loathing for a rival therapist whom he knows has been providing "ex-gay" treatments. He convinces Frank that there's a great opportunity for an expose feature by posing as a client seeking an ex-gay cure from this other therapist. The plan falls apart as we see how carefully chosen and passionately delivered rhetoric very effectively chips away at Franks self-confidence as a gay man.
It's a fine film for helping us to empathise with anyone who has sought ex-gay therapy - and is particularly interesting for allowing us to look through the eyes of the ex-gay therapist who passionately believes that he's doing the right thing.
The commentary track on the DVD is invaluable. The director and the actor playing the ex-gay therapist are both gay - but the other two actors are extremely convincing straight men (the cast are all great actors).
I found this really interesting, not only because of sexual preference/identity issues, but also because of its universal theme of trying to figure out who you are apart from other people in your life whose opinions may sway you toward doing what you think they think you should. For me, watching this character try to unravel this tangle was inspiring. Also it was refreshing to me to face head-on some of the questions it raises. Even though the film takes a stand in the end, there's a lot of room to question and think about the issues, and I didn't come out of it with clarity, but more with thoughts about the questions, which is so much better than everything being wrapped up neat package. If I have one critique it's that maybe the film could have ended even more ambiguously (hence I gave it 9 instead of 10). This story is very layered and clever, if not always entirely subtle about it. Shot beautifully - another review listed as one of the negatives that it is mostly close-ups. I think this is a strength of the film, it is so much about internal dialog of the main character, and the other main characters are really in his space mentally so I think the way it was shot really reinforces what he's going through. The use of reflections and enclosed spaces whenever the shots are NOT close-ups also enhances this feeling of closeness and constriction. And the director's commentary is pretty good, which is so rarely the case... starts off on the wrong foot, but stick with it, they actually do discuss meaning and intent and ideas rather than the all-to-often string of production stories.
First of all, I have to admit that I am a sucker for movies that have a stage-feeling to them. 'Suicide Kings' is a great example and 'Fixing Frank' is another brilliant movie to add to the family.
Frank is a writer who is working on an article about a psychologist who is trying to 'cure' people from homosexuality. This, of course, is not Frank's own idea, but his boyfriend's; another psychologist who is more than involved with anything having to do with gay-rights. Trying to be the "good fag", Frank is on a mission to bring this psychologist down, but as time passes he begins to doubt himself as well as his relationship with his boyfriend.
Needless to say, the subject is delicate and the fact that the movie's standpoint is pretty much neutral will probably strike a sensitive nerve within a lot of people. Personally, I couldn't have seen the subject being approached in any other way. Because handling a political and ethical subject such as this without preaching is hard. I'd say they did a pretty damn good job.
Some people say that the main character, Frank, is plain, neutral and terribly underwritten and yes, it's all true. But I do believe that was intentional. Having a fully developed character would make it too personal which would somehow spoil the whole purpose because this is not really about this person we know as Frank; it could be about anyone.
I love the theatrical dialog and the actor playing the gay-curing psychologist is brilliant.
If you watch this movie, thinking it will be another gay-movie, you will probably be disappointed. Because even though it concerns a gay-issue, this is more of a movie debating what's ethical versus personal choice. And yes, it's highly recommended.
Frank is a writer who is working on an article about a psychologist who is trying to 'cure' people from homosexuality. This, of course, is not Frank's own idea, but his boyfriend's; another psychologist who is more than involved with anything having to do with gay-rights. Trying to be the "good fag", Frank is on a mission to bring this psychologist down, but as time passes he begins to doubt himself as well as his relationship with his boyfriend.
Needless to say, the subject is delicate and the fact that the movie's standpoint is pretty much neutral will probably strike a sensitive nerve within a lot of people. Personally, I couldn't have seen the subject being approached in any other way. Because handling a political and ethical subject such as this without preaching is hard. I'd say they did a pretty damn good job.
Some people say that the main character, Frank, is plain, neutral and terribly underwritten and yes, it's all true. But I do believe that was intentional. Having a fully developed character would make it too personal which would somehow spoil the whole purpose because this is not really about this person we know as Frank; it could be about anyone.
I love the theatrical dialog and the actor playing the gay-curing psychologist is brilliant.
If you watch this movie, thinking it will be another gay-movie, you will probably be disappointed. Because even though it concerns a gay-issue, this is more of a movie debating what's ethical versus personal choice. And yes, it's highly recommended.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe mailbox next to Frank's bears the name "Vito Russo". Vito Russo was a film scholar and historian who wrote 'The Celluloid Closet', a study of homosexuality in film that was adapted into a documentary film of the same name.
- ConexionesFeatured in 2006 Independent Spirit Awards (2006)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta