Food of Love

I enjoyed the movie, but it seems to me it is mistitled. The only love in the movie was between Paul and his mother, who seemed to suffer from some emotional problems, but their love at least seemed genuine. Basically this is a story about a talented young cute kid who gets in over his head. Paul is used by Kennington, who is Paul's idol. Then Paul gets used by Kennington's manager/lover. Paul does have a relationship with another older man but we don't get to see much about that relationship, but again it seems he is being used as a boy toy. Being that Paul is very young I can only hope he learned from these bad experiences, and pursues his real dreams.

Like so many movies, the trailer made this look much better than it was. It's a real dud, starting with a weak and unfocused script. Someone should have decided up front whether they were making a soap opera, a French farce or soft-core porn.

The acting is largely amateurish. Kevin Bishop is relentlessly bland and evokes no sympathy. Even his butt gets boring before long. Paul Rhys has a few good moments, but his make-up distracted me from them. Even the usually sublime Juliet Stevenson can't pull this off.

I'll see pretty much any gay-themed movie that comes out. If you do too, go ahead and see it. But don't expect much.

I guess I was fooled by the classical music setting into thinking this would be a `sensitive' or `classy' portrayal of a young gay artist's coming of age. But I realized halfway into the first ham-handed seduction scene (`Hello, nice to see you again.what's your name? Would you like a backrub?') that it was just another case of prostituting the `gay theme' with a half-baked story that meshes the worst aspects of porn and soap opera without offering any payback in sentiment or even titillation.and then throws in a gratuitous round of `bash on the clueless mother'. I generally love m/m romance and drama and I forgive a lot of weakness in terms of plot and character development, but this was so badly drawn on so many levels, from the incongruous actions of the characters to the unimaginative and obvious plot mechanisms. Maybe it's because I watched this back-to-back with Roger Dodger, an excellent film that leaves you sympathetic with an extreme jerk because his character is so brilliantly defined. In contrast, Food of Love left me annoyed and unsympathetic with every single character by the end, even the tender, confused young protagonist, who I really wanted to like. What is the denouement supposed to mean? Talented young pianist quits Julliard because he can't stand being ignored? Mother and son come to a mutual understanding that life goes on, even after your ideals are shattered? Love and enchantment are fleeting things, so take it one day at a time and always wear a condom? These are far too prosaic outcomes to be arrived at in such a heavy-handed sequence of contrived scenes played by characters so devoid of either depth or charm. Richard the pianist was a despicable ogre-okay, he seduces a barely-legal young man who worships him, I could deal with that. Then drops him like a hot coal. No, sorry, that's where he lost me. But what really sends this guy to Hell in a handbasket is how he ignores his life partner, who tries for days, in great personal distress, to reach him while he is pursuing his affair with Paul. Not that I liked Richard's letchy old man much. And the way the two of them turned against Paul in the end to save themselves from a little honesty in their own relationship was disgusting. Obviously the scenes of Richard ignoring his lover's frantic messages were mindfully included to make us realize that Richard was a self-absorbed jerk and Paul's obsession with him was setting Paul up for a big fall. But why? Was the point to set the artistic aspirations of the young man against the gauntlet of sexual awakening and see if the art survives? I guess I was EXTREMELY disappointed that Paul's art did not survive the challenge, and I was left wondering who he really was and why I should care. I know that's probably the point of the movie-that's what he was struggling with too, but the movie never answered the question, as phrased by his mother, of whether that awful Richard Kensington had something to do with his desire to quit. It is said that good dramatic action is like a roller coaster-ups and downs-but for Paul and his mom it's all downs. Jeez, this filmmaker could have done anything he wanted here, so why not open up some kind of window for young Paul at the end? Okay, Ventura, naturalism is all well and good, but the audience WANTS the protagonist to be exceptional-if you set him up as an aspiring pianist and then you take that away, then give us something else. And the mother was so stupid and hysterical it was an outright insult to all women. Her attempted seduction of Richard was unbearable, as was the support group. Wake up, Ventura-women, even mothers, are now aware of gays and likely to recognize them well before the point of becoming the laughing stock of a humiliating party scene. Just a depressing outing all around.

I enjoyed this movie to an extent, but I felt that I was cheated at the end. I really did not know why, but after seeing the casts interviews,I understood. All of these actors were British struggling with American accents. I recognized the actress,Juliet Stevenson, who played Pamela, Paul's mother, in some other movie, but I could not place where. She never developed the character as much as I hoped. I finally realized she was in Bend it Like Beckham, in which she was quite good as the mother fearing her teenage daughter's lesbian tendencies.

Kevin Bishop, who also is British, did a better job earlier in the film, when he didn't have to talk much, but he became quite annoying as his character became more self-centered and selfish.

I did enjoy the relationship between Paul and Richard. It was quite believable, and the chemistry between the two was the best part of the film. Unfortunately, it did not last very long. Paul Rhys, who played Richard, was quite good in his portrayal of a gay man, who would use his celebrity status, to lure the innocent and naive young Paul into his web.

My biggest question is, if all of their actors are mostly British, why wouldn't they change the setting of the film from New York/California to something like London? They changed the title of the film from the novella. It would of made the film more enjoyable to watch, with the actors being in their natural surroundings.

`Food Of Love' marks the debut of Ventura Pons first English language film and is based on the novel, `The Page Turner' by David Leavitt. As the film began I thought to myself, `This is going to be one of the best gay films I've seen in recent memory', and although I really enjoyed it, what began as a really good coming of age love story, midway through it took a completely different direction and became an after school special, centered around a mother dealing with her son's homosexuality. Having not read the book I can't say how it compares, but as a movie, it left me hungry for more. All the performances are great although the mother (Juliet Stevenson) at times seemed too over the top and almost cartoonish. Kevin Bishop who plays Paul, is a cute, blue-eyed, blonde that showed a wide range of emotions throughout the film, from his first sexual encounter, to his disappointments with school, and frustrations with his mom, and so forth. Paul Rhys also gives a wonderful performance and appears sensitive, intimate and charming towards towards the boy and his mom.

It begins in San Francisco as 18 year old Paul Portfield (Kevin Bishop), an aspiring piano player and soon to be Juliard student, gets a job as a page turner for his idol Richard Kennington (Paul Rhys), a renowned concert pianist. During the concert as Paul reaches to turn the pages as Richard plays feverishly, you get the beginning glimpses of the sexual sparks between them. After the concert, Richard invites Paul out for a drink only to be interrupted and taken home by his overprotective and at times manic mother (Juliet Stevenson).

After finding out his dad has left his mother for another woman, Paul and his mom venture off to Spain on vacation. While wandering the streets Paul spots a concert poster featuring Richard and he sets out to find him. Paul tracks him down and drops by his hotel room where he's soon seduced by the pianist in an intimate and gentle way. Paul becomes totally infatuated with Richard and after a week long fling Paul and his mom are off to Granada while Richard, unbeknownst to Paul, returns home to New York and his manager/lover Joseph Mansourian (Allan Corduner). Months go by and Paul is now attending Juliard, seeing an older man, and trying to get over Richard. It's a rollercoaster of a ride especially when a classmate of Paul's gets signed by Mansourian while Mansourian wants Paul to be a page turner yet again at a dinner party. In the midst off all this Paul's mom is trying to cope with divorce and, after finding a porn magazine in Paul's suitcase, her son's homosexuality. This is where the story takes a turn that was not completely satisfying. The mother attends a `mom's with gay sons' meeting and it just seemed totally misplaced and campy. Also, while attending school Paul seems to always be in the company of older men. I considered maybe that was his way of looking to a father figure or something but why wasn't he going out with guys his own age? His roommate looked cute enough. Also the portrayal of the older guys seemed to suggest they preyed on younger men. Those are just a couple of the issues I had with the story and I was a bit disappointed that it didn't stay focused on his relationship with Richard.

Events unfold and secrets are revealed, but many questions are still left unanswered at the end. Overall I would recommend it but still wish the story had centered more around Paul and his relationships than that of his mother and her issues. I'd love to see a sequel that's for sure! The acting is fine and the locales and direction I thought were great. There are a number of scenes with brief nudity and homoerotic touches that give this picture an `R' rating. The picture quality of the DVD is crisp and clear and so is the audio. It also features extras that include interviews with the cast members, the director Ventura Pons and even David Leavitt, author of the novel. Numerous trailers of other features from TLA Releasing as well.