Grande École

a love triangle. social references. the fight to be honest with yourself. friendship, family, appearances, dialogues - in French cinema style- about different themes, frontal male nudity and the temptation, a scene in locker room who could be the axis of film, a wise manner to present the sex scenes, a long trip of the lead character for define, in right manner, his feelings. a film who not gives many surprises. only a new perspective for few scenes without dialogue, in which the look and the tension are really great for suggest desires and the essence of a sexual orientation. and the great thing is the status of pieces from near reality for each scene. the decent performances, the relationships as subtle mix between lights and shadows, the science to use the story for a refreshing message. this does Grande ecole a good movie.

Credit the director with getting a cast of unknowns to give very credible performances--an ensemble of attractive young people who have certainly put themselves into these roles. The relationships seem real and all of the main actors acquit themselves well. The story basically follows the lives of five students and a construction worker as they explore truths about each other in a situation ruled by a strong-willed girl who decides to play a game of entrapment when she suspects her boyfriend is sexually interested in his roommate.

But the script is a talky one and goes in all directions trying to steer us into thinking homosexuality is clearly a question of choice or that a simple homoerotic experience for a man can change his whole perspective on life. It's a muddy theory that the author/director are striving to execute on film, but they end up with a story of unrequited passions that goes nowhere in the end.

A scene of sexual fulfillment between two men is artfully presented and tastefully photographed. But there is an artificial air whenever the sexual themes are being explored. The only exception is the shower room scene where the hero tries to hide his interest in the showering athletes.

The picture is actually one long-winded mind game that it plays upon the protagonist (and the audience) and nothing memorable or strong enough happens to give it a high recommendation.

You have to wonder who the target audience is for a film of this type which seems to be sending mixed messages.

The production values aren't the best in this film, but one rarely expects better of a film festival entry. Seeing beyond that is what festival fare is all about, in my opinion.

Tha said, I was easily taken in by Paul and his emotional struggle. At first, I was put off by the ambivalent and quirky behavior of Paul and the others, but I began to recognize that this was a representation of the nuances of real life, as opposed to the packaged fare that Hollywood usually dishes out. What another reviewer found confusing to me was an invitation to get inside the heads of characters who, like real people, weren't exactly sure what they wanted or who they were trying to be.

The relationships were complex and yes, frustrating to figure out at times. But the acting was good--complexity is mush harder to convey than the broad-brush emotion that Hollywood paints larger than life. I loved Mecir--superbly acted--his earnestness nearly brought me to tears. I thought the ultimate outcome of Paul's relationship with him (and with Agnes) mirrored real life as well. And just when I thought Arnault was a shallow caricature, the character surprised me with intelligence (if cynical) and depth.

I agree that the third roommate (name?) disappeared mysteriously in the middle of the film; it had seemed he would play a greater role at the outset. The peripheral characters were neither well developed nor exceptionally acted, but are no reason to dis the film.

The film was marred for me by the extremely self-conscious and forced 3-minute conversation near the end about class struggle, corporate greed, etc. I liked these themes in the film, but this Cliff-Notes style summation was so artificial that I--and the audience I was with--laughed out loud at every pontification, each more hysterical than the last. My immediate comment was "it's like a French parody of the French!" Profound thoughts and deep convictions, spewed with piercing emotion--ultimately lasting as long as a cigarette and washed away with a glass of Bordeaux.

Except for that camp exchange, I very much enjoyed the movie and would see it again.

Paul (Gregori Baquet) is attending a prestigious university in France. He has a girlfriend named Agnes (Alice Taglioni) who is puzzled why he won't live with her. Paul becomes sexually attracted to handsome roommate Louis-Arnault (Jocelyn Quivrin) but won't admit it, while handsome Arab Mecir (Salim Kerchrouche) makes it clear that he loves Paul. What is Paul to do?

Has its moments. When it sticks to Paul, Mecir and Louis-Arnault and the sexual aspect it's absolutely fascinating. But they continuously keep throwing in long boring speeches about business and politics that bring things to a screeching halt. Also (with the sole exception of Mecir) most of the characters are very unlikable and cruel. Paul's girlfriend especially comes across badly and Paul himself is whiny. It ends in a very muddled way with an unsatisfying ending.

The acting is all pretty good. Baquet is a bit too whiny but Quivrin and especially Kerchrouch are very good. The one sex scene is done very tastefully and there is quite a bit of casual female and male nudity (this would get an NC-17 if it had been rated). All in all not too good but some bright moments and acting make it worth a look. I give it a 7.

From reading other reviews this may be one of those movies that seems to be about whatever is most important to the viewer. To some it is mostly about capitalism and class / social castes. To others it is more a love story. To me the love story seemed central, with it feeling like a movie by gay men for gay men. We start with two decent looking guy roommates, one of which clearly is into the other, who seems to return friendship only. Both men are dating women. A working class love interest Mécir, played by Salim Kechiouche, comes into the life of the obviously conflicted gay lead, Paul. Paul is torn between apparently unreturned love for his male roommate, his sociality acceptable relationship with a woman, and an openly gay lover who doesn't easily fit into the life he feels expected to lead.

Being a French movie, English speakers must be prepared for subtitles. There is a fair amount of frontal male nudity in the film, and being a French film, yes the men are naturally uncircumcised. The nudity is always incidental and mostly in a single locker room scene, a scene which perfectly captured the discomfort I felt in gym class myself as a gay teen. The fear of being caught looking at the other guys contrasted against the potential delight of being surrounded by dozens of fit nude peers. It is tough to understand people being uncomfortable with the frontal nudity when it isn't used in a sexual way. Still, if frontal male nudity bothers you, perhaps you shouldn't watch. There is minimal female nudity. Since questions are raised about what is the perversion, homosexuality, or the insistence on fitting into societal norms despite one's feelings, it seems strange to find reviewers debating something as basic as casual nudity.

Stories of unrequited love and love triangles have been told many times before, and probably told better. But as a gay man, the conflicts Paul felt were very familiar and real to me, and the story took me back to an early time in my life. I could certainly sympathize with his situation. It was easy to be drawn to the character of Mécir. Not only is he a feast for the eyes, I also found myself trying to will Paul to wake up and realize that Mécir was the only choice of the three with a likelihood for long-term happiness. As in life though, nothing is quite so simple. If you want to know more, you might well enjoy the movie. Feedback on this review is welcome.