50 Ways of Saying Fabulous

Stewart Main's production is a coming-of-age story that bears little resemblance to other typical and predictable movies. 12 year-old Billy idly watches a TV show with his best friend, a rather tomboyish girl who excels at boys sports and acts a bit manly. Inspired by what he sees on TV, Billy wears a fake ponytail and pretends to be Lana, the heroine of the sci-fi series while Lou, the girl, poses as the male hero. They subvert traditional gender affiliated roles as part of a game, but they are also aware of a certain otherness, a certain counterpart that can exist only in private.

The figure of the double, largely described in fantastic literature, is usually developed when the main character fails to recognize his own-self, and starts experiencing a feeling of alienation. The double can adopt several forms, as for instance the form of the exact replica of the character, like in Dostoyevsky's "The double", or on the contrary, it can become the form of an absence of reflection in the mirror image, a horrifying 'presence' as in Maupassant's "Le Horla". Clearly Billy and his friend Lou find an ideal refugee in the form of fictional characters that supply that which they are lacking; Billy is a boy that wishes to be a girl, and Lou is a girl that wishes to be a boy.

In this scenario, two other characters will help develop the dynamic of the double. First of all is Roy, the new kid in the school, who soon becomes attracted to Billy. A most revealing moment takes place when Roy is picked on by kids that held him to the ground, as a consequence of all this roughhousing, the young boy exhibits an erection that soon makes the other lads lose interest in him. This moment is defined by the emergence of sexual excitation in Roy's penis, an irruption of the drive of the real in his body; such pulsations also exist in Billy who stays behind and accepts Roy's invitation to touch his "stiffy".

Do they experiment joy only through phallic exploration? The phallus has no image, the absence of representation in the visual field "signifies that in everything that is imaginary localization, the phallus appears in the form of a lack". As the days go by, Billy is not acquitted of guilt, but nonetheless he decides to join his friend Roy in a shack, wherein they mutually masturbate. But why does Billy seem uncomfortable after these sessions? Perhaps because if the phallus 'is characterized by a lack', then any image would only 'mask' that lack, evoking something which is absent, and in principle one can define that absence as something that pertains to our bodily existence in so far as what is missing in the virtual image is our real existence itself. In the same way Billy can never truly be Lana, from the TV show, he cannot envision his acts with Roy except in the darkness and secrecy of the shack. But what part of our anatomy permits the distinction between oneself and one's own image, including the multitude of others with whom we tend to identify? It is this distinction that seems to get distorted and somewhat effaced in the phenomenon of the double.

The second important character in the story is Jamie, a guy in his twenties. As soon as he enters into the scene, Billy seems to forget all about Roy. He now starts daydreaming about this guy, this strange adult that could eventually pay some attention to him. But before Billy can get closer to Jamie, he must first decide if he should adopt the male or the female position, which is basically the same decision Lou has to make. As the relationship with Roy deteriorates, new problems will arise. The double, again, could signal the coming of ominous events.

What could have been a great film was let down entirely by an appalling script that makes Shortland Street look Oscar worthy.

With a damn awful soundtrack (did they run out of money?), melodramatic silent screen era responses to unrealistic dialogue and a cast that looks the part but cant act to save themselves.....i struggled to make it to the end.

The saving grace of the film was the stunning NZ scenery and realistic visual atmosphere.

Unfortunately it just wasn't enough to save this incredibly disjointed film.

Not as true to the book as it could have been. Some of the more feminine moments in the book ended up on the cutting room floor. However congratulations to the young male actors for very brave performances. The golden colours appear too contrived at times and this was unnecessary because the landscape is awe inspiring anyway.

At screenings in Wanaka this last week I am told the audience is clapping at the conclusion of each screening. Well done to all involved particularly given the budget the film enjoyed.

This is another example of a New Zealand film that takes a universal theme (the complexities and confusions of adolescence and early sexual awareness)and puts it into a very traditional rural context and reminds us of the normality of it all.

What an enjoyable watch with a real sense of rural New Zealand in the 70's. There were some wonderful performances from the children & the audience embraced the gentle humour & story, especially it seemed, an older generation. It connected with an audience who either knew these characters or anyone who had grappled with the complications, the lows, the trivia & the joys of growing up. The landscape of Central Otago looked stunning & was transformed into an amazing moonscape in the day-for-night scenes - loved that moody twilight world.

The 'look' actually reminded me a lot of the genius & madness of Canadian Director Guy Madden's films. The 'zany' quality w/ camera zooms, fantasy sequences & OTT music worked fabulously together, but it's a rare beast that also has a sensitive, good looking and well told story - all bundled into one fab package. Well done I say!!

This coming-out story of 12-year-old Billy is set in rural New Zealand in 1975. Actually, it's more of a Bildungsroman, because it's no secret to anyone that Billy is gay. His family and friends accept him for who he is, but he's having problems at school.

We follow Billy as he shows us his home, family and childhood friends (mainly tomboy Lou) and his school life, where he is bullied and struggling with his dislike of rugby.

We follow him as he experiences his first relationship with fellow "pufter" Roy and his first crush on older and completely unobtainable Jamie (played by a sexy young Michael Dorman).

"50 Ways" has an incredibly strong sense of time and place. I can't remember any movie that so successfully reconstructs the 1970s. The clothes, the haircuts, the town scenes, the homes -- it was all spot on. There was even a fondue dinner. Am I imagining it, but did the cinematography somehow reproduce the quality and texture of photographs from the 1970s? Movie goers are also treated to almost two hours of beautiful New Zealand landscape.

Main seems to have directed this movie using a group of rural New Zealand children. The line between fiction and documentary is a thin one. The child actors in this movie appeared only in this movie and almost nowhere else. How often do you see real children acting out a graphic gay coming-of-age movie? How did Main accomplish this? I think this would have been unthinkable in puritan America, wouldn't it? For this reason alone, the film is remarkable.

The realism is astonishing. This is not a phony after-school special school. These are not American movie children. These are children without guile and sophistication, without internet, without MTV. Main shows us children and school life as they really were, with all its complexities, difficulties and awkwardness. Sure, the acting was occasionally amateurish, or the dialogue a little forced, but for the most part I felt like I was watching a real group of New Zealand children ca. 1975.

Andrew Paterson, Harriet Beattie and Jay Collins -- I'd like you to thank you for playing in this movie. You did a great job. Your characters will remain with me for a long time.

I found the film to be moving, engrossing, relevant. I thought the movie had good character development and a few interesting plot twists. The complex and problematic relationship between soft Billy and tough Lou was the core of the movie. We outgrow our childhood friends as we discover ourselves.

Main doesn't sugar coat what it's like to grow up gay. It's a rich and full look at every aspect. Billy's hopeless and awkward crush on Jamie felt true. I felt really sorry for hapless Roy. Billy's difficulties with Roy and Jamie reflect core relationship issues that reverberate throughout every gay man's life. The struggle with "rugby" (and what that represents) is also familiar. Adults play a very minor role in this movie. Isn't that also accurate for gay teenagers? What I particularly liked was the way that Main explored how we come to terms with those dreaded words ("pufter", "faggot", "queer", or whatever). "What does that really mean?" And "Yes, that is what I am." Dealing with those words is a big part of growing up.

At times the director introduces some whimsy, mostly based on the theme of Billy's imagined fantasies of a television show similar to Lost in Space. Billy identifies with Lana; Lou identifies with Brad. It's difficult to know what to make of such a deliberate and in-your-face use of cheese in a movie like this. I have to confess I was also into these shows when I was a kid. Or perhaps I have a high threshold for cheese. I think it's accurate to make a television show the centre of a boy's imagination in the 1970s.

I see the movie has not got a strong score on IMDb. However, I wouldn't let this dissuade you from seeing it. Gay movies tend to get inexplicably and undeservedly low scores. Worth seeing!