Agrega una trama en tu idiomaTwo middle-aged Lesbians (Peters and Ward) find their lives complicated when one of them (Ward) takes in her ten-year-old nephew (Sangster).Two middle-aged Lesbians (Peters and Ward) find their lives complicated when one of them (Ward) takes in her ten-year-old nephew (Sangster).Two middle-aged Lesbians (Peters and Ward) find their lives complicated when one of them (Ward) takes in her ten-year-old nephew (Sangster).
- Premios
- 3 nominaciones en total
Thomas Brodie-Sangster
- Alan Langham
- (as Thomas Sangster)
Jer O'Leary
- Ralph
- (as Ger O'Leary)
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Argumento
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaWhen Bailey(Bernadette Peter's) shows Alan to his room she tells him to ignore the mess it's only reminders of her brilliant career and we are shown framed broadway playbills of Bailey, while these are not real playbills Bernadette peters has performed in many playbill Broadway productions
Opinión destacada
Overall this was an excellent film, but there was one odd scene at the very beginning that made me wonder if the rest of the film was going to be just as bizarre. It wasn't, and kudos should be given to the entire cast, most especially Thomas Sangster, a superb young actor who plays 10-year-old Alan. But that one scene still remains in my mind as one of the most strangely played I've ever observed. When even the sharpest critics failed to mention it, I was truly befuddled.
So what is the scene I'm objecting to? It is the moment when Bailey, played by Bernadette Peters, approaches Alan at his school and bluntly reports to him the death of his parents in a tragic auto accident. (The headmaster had chosen not to tell the boy what had happened, instead waiting for a family member -- in this case, Bailey -- to break the news.) After this sudden announcement, Alan looks only mildly surprised, glances toward the headmaster, then back to Bailey, and never sheds a tear (nor ever afterward in the film, except at the end, and not about his parents). Bailey, meanwhile, goes into some kind of odd comic shtick where she attempts to add detail. "There was a terrible accident," she says, then with a squeaky comic voice and mugging expression segues into "Ooo, it sounds like a mystery where people stand around saying, 'There's been a terrible accident, ooo, ooo....'" Immediately afterward, the film merrily bounces along as she takes the boy from the school, with hardly another mention of the tragedy that has just happened.
I couldn't believe what I was seeing. In an otherwise sensitive film of the highest quality, why did the director allow that early scene to be played that way? Wouldn't Alan have cried at the news? Wouldn't Bailey have hugged him to console him and perhaps even wept with him? I found the scene tasteless, and I thought the follow-on treatment of the accident (nearly no mention afterward) to be a convenience of the scriptwriters to get the plot moving along quickly (two lesbian lovers find themselves "mothers" to an orphaned child with resulting complications, both serious and funny). Am I the only one to have been disturbed by this scene? Or is there something I'm missing?
So what is the scene I'm objecting to? It is the moment when Bailey, played by Bernadette Peters, approaches Alan at his school and bluntly reports to him the death of his parents in a tragic auto accident. (The headmaster had chosen not to tell the boy what had happened, instead waiting for a family member -- in this case, Bailey -- to break the news.) After this sudden announcement, Alan looks only mildly surprised, glances toward the headmaster, then back to Bailey, and never sheds a tear (nor ever afterward in the film, except at the end, and not about his parents). Bailey, meanwhile, goes into some kind of odd comic shtick where she attempts to add detail. "There was a terrible accident," she says, then with a squeaky comic voice and mugging expression segues into "Ooo, it sounds like a mystery where people stand around saying, 'There's been a terrible accident, ooo, ooo....'" Immediately afterward, the film merrily bounces along as she takes the boy from the school, with hardly another mention of the tragedy that has just happened.
I couldn't believe what I was seeing. In an otherwise sensitive film of the highest quality, why did the director allow that early scene to be played that way? Wouldn't Alan have cried at the news? Wouldn't Bailey have hugged him to console him and perhaps even wept with him? I found the scene tasteless, and I thought the follow-on treatment of the accident (nearly no mention afterward) to be a convenience of the scriptwriters to get the plot moving along quickly (two lesbian lovers find themselves "mothers" to an orphaned child with resulting complications, both serious and funny). Am I the only one to have been disturbed by this scene? Or is there something I'm missing?
- newyorker_film_buff
- 22 mar 2003
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Donde habita el amor
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta