Clapham Junction

When I watch a film I normally try to ignore what the critics have said and just focus on what the film does (or doesn't) do for me. However it was more a problem for me with Clapham Junction when it was shown as part of the Channel 4 series of films and programmes to mark the 40th anniversary since male homosexuality was legalised. Unwittingly I watched the panel discussion 40 Years Out before I saw this film, and the first part of the former was a group of commentators laying into the producer of the latter. I remember being quite entertained by this match-up but was wary to make up my mind for myself rather than just repeating what the likes of Matthew Parris et al had said.

Problem is though, they were bang on the money in what they said because Clapham Junction is a poor film and a very strange choice to show as part of this series of films. As a narrative it is basically an interweaving set of characters all of whom has some comment on the nature of being a male homosexual in this day and age. However, as a piece of writing it is surprisingly lacking. The characters are connected by coincidence and convenience, without any degree of respect for the viewer. This is a minor issue though because my main one was how negative the entire film was. I have no gay friends and have not a part to play in the modern gay experience but this film seemed to be harking back to the 1980's rather than the noughties. Nobody is cast in a good light – the film opens with the groom of a civil partnership couple cheating with a waiter during the reception before following on with queer bashing, cottaging, a 14 year old seducing (then f***ing) an older man etc etc. It is tiresome after a while and has little to say about what it means to be gay today. What little it does say of value is interesting (eg the loss of the thrill of being "dangerous" that modern acceptance has brought) but it is scattered far and wide across the film.

The cast do little with what little material they have. They deliver the characters asked of them but none can find the people inside – instead they are horny, camp, in the closet, in denial, on cocaine etc etc, whatever simple classification the script has given them. Shergold's direction is OK in terms of the shots he gets but in terms of helping the material or the actors, he doesn't seem able – although Elyot's script offers him little support either.

Overall then a poor film that wallows in negativity while presenting the modern gay experience. There is little debate or discussion – just endless "shocking" scenes (yeah – shocking 10 years ago) and negative images of homosexuality with no real justification. A sense of balance would have been welcome but a less simplistic script would have been a great starting point – sadly it had neither.

While I do agree with many of the comments and criticisms of fellow reviewers on this site that there is much cliché,a narrow, outdated and perplexing depiction of the gay experience today, and some offensiveness.I have to say that the interaction of the 14 year old boy with an older man is one of the most powerful, intense, moving and poetic moments I have seen on film in a very long time. Those scenes are well worth the price of admission. Even though their interaction is between two gay characters and two characters far apart in age it transcends those particulars to capture emotional human truths and longings relevant and recognizable to everyone. I was so moved by those scenes that it took my breath away and left me stunned and fulfilled . I do not say this lightly, see for yourself. Rarely do we get to glimpse a depiction of the inner workings of human desire, longing,loss, repression, redemption, salvation , inner struggle, despair, loneliness, joy and fear crammed into one spectacular moment. The two actors were incredibly focused, present and controlled. It was like watching a very intense dance number, with the pacing and movement timed just right to impart the perfect punch. Do not miss this. This is art.

This movie gets another mixed review from me.

I didn't mind the negative portrayals so much (unsympathetic people exist, after all, among straights and gays alike, as does hatred and hypocrisy, and the performances were mostly really good), but I didn't like that that's all we get in this film. I've read that the writer didn't intend to portray the full range of gay life, but I guess that was what I expected from an anniversary-type movie. All the depression, the violence, the negativity left me feeling rather bleak and unsatisfied, thinking "But that's not all there is!"

And, on a rather superficial note, as a big fan of 'Maurice' I did wish for more interaction between Wilby and Graves. :)

Comparing it to the other European heterosexual crap we get to see on TV, I would rate this gay one into the top league of good movies. As a gay man, I wonder why I like it. The message of this movie is that gays have ONLY bitchy sex, on public toilets and all of that in a violent way. To put this straight, gay life isn't that way! I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories but somehow, I hear all my alarm bells ringing. To make it short, the movie is good for people who are gay or who have at least experience with it. To all the newbies to that subject it's an anti gay movie. Please remember this story is fiction. 'Not a documentary!

I was disappointed. The final image did it for me. That is, it clinched my feeling about the film and it's ambitions. That final image is so pat, so cliched. Almost all of the gay characters are rather pitiful. Is that the point of the film?