Love is Strange

New Yorkers Ben and George have been together nearly 40 years, when they marry during a joyous gathering of friends and relatives. Unfortunately, George works for a Catholic school, and he is quickly dismissed when news of his recent nuptials reaches the Church hierarchy. The aging couple can no longer afford their condo and, forced to sell, face difficulties finding a reasonable apartment. Thus, Ben and George separate temporarily to live with relatives, and the expected problems ensue.

"Love is Strange" has many things going for it, primarily in the performances of John Lithgow as Ben, Alfred Molina as George, and Marisa Tomei as Kate, the wife of Ben's nephew. Lithgow and Molina capture the familiarity and tenderness of a long-married couple, while the always-engaging Tomei is excellent as a writer, whose work is constantly interrupted by Uncle Ben's well-meaning, but intrusive conversation. Unfortunately, the shaggy-dog script by Ira Sachs and Mauricio Zacharias does not serve the talented cast well. The screenplay shuffles some significant events off screen and leaves enough threads dangling to weave a carpet. Random coincidence resolves one plot point, while others are just left unanswered. Sachs also directs, and his long takes seem self-consciously arty. The film appears to be ending several times before it actually does.

While the credits roll, question after question will rise in viewers' minds. After nearly 40 years together, why did George and Ben have no savings? George signed an agreement when he was hired and knew the consequences, why did he not keep his marriage quiet? Why was George so clueless about the costs of selling the condo? What was the big deal about moving to Poughkeepsie temporarily? Why was the friend, Honey, dismissed from a conversation with a sharp "you're not family?" Why did the relatives discuss the couple's living situation behind their backs and not openly with them? Perhaps an intended longer version was chopped down, although, at 94 minutes, "Love is Strange" is relatively short. Whatever the reason, the film is a botched opportunity that squanders some talented performers and an intriguing premise.

This Ira Sachs' follow-up of his strained relationship chronicle KEEP THE LIGHTS ON (2012) revolves around a senior gay couple in Manhattan, New York, Ben (Lithgow), an obscure painter and George (Molina), a music teacher in a Catholic school, after gay-marriage has been legalised, they finally tie the knot after 39 years together, their love has been blessed by friends and family, but the segueing repercussions cost George his post due to the obvious prejudice among those religious conservatives, and the unforeseen financial plight forces them to sell the apartment and live with their relatives and friends, yet as none of them have extra rooms for both, so they have to spend the transitional time separately.

The story unwinds with both encounter difficulties in their provisional homes, Ben is living with his nephew Elliot (Burrows), a photographer, his writer wife Kate (Tomei) and their teenage son Joey (Tahan), his inconvenient intrusion already ruffles Joey's feathers as they have to share a same room with a double bunk, moreover, the co-existence slowly but surely also tests the limitation of Kate's patience. In another side, George becomes a couch-surfer in their friends Ted (Jackson) and Roberto (Perez)'s apartment, however, the unashamed cliché is they are frequent home-party throwers, even when they have a friend sleeping on their couch.

Their situations are not too rosy, but admirably Sachs doesn't plunge the usual melodrama between them, after being each other's soul-mate and life-partners for such a long time, they reach the mutual coordination of understanding, respect and support, the story itself transcends the gay setting and sublimates into a hymn to universal love which only those very few can actually acquire in reality. Thanks to Lithgow and Molina's unforced but extremely moving performances, which potently fuels the final revelation with utter poignancy, and pretty unusually, in an extraordinary way. Rather than a tearjerker, the film more inclines to be a worshipper of love and respect even when in the time of loss, through a subplot of Joey's own wayward pubertal rebellion, we have the chance to glance at the real problem inside straight people's gay-friendly facade, the fight for equality and against discrimination is a protracted battle and there is no time for slackening.

I should also name-check Tomei for her brilliant turn as Kate, gallantly runs the full gamut from the one who gifts them an affecting ode about how Ben and George are exemplars of love for her and Elliot, to her final scene of a hysterical flare-up to vent her frustration and dissatisfaction, she is truly amazing.

Under the pervasion of classical music pieces, LOVE IS STRANGE is alternately heart- warming, heart-touching and heart-rending, Ira Sachs perfects his narrative strategy with more self-control and less on-the-nose intensity, and it turns out to be an unheralded gem not just from the viewpoint of LGBT genre, but a brutally honest take on senility and appeals for an authentic mutual esteem among each and every soul on the earth.

There is only one thing I didn't like about this film: the title. It's so bland. And it doesn't even have anything to do with what this film is about. It's not about a strange love affair, but about a very normal one.

Apart from that, I liked everything about 'Love is Strange'. It is a film about how people live, love, talk, help each other out, appreciate each other and sometimes work on each other's nerves. Maybe that doesn't sound too exciting, but it's enough to keep on watching, and be moved by what you see.

The film tells the story of an older couple, who are forced to leave their Manhattan apartment after one of them is fired from his teaching position. They temporarily move in with relatives and neighbours, until they have found a new place of their own. The film shows the interaction between civilized and polite people who are all perfectly willing to help each other, but nevertheless are increasingly annoyed by the uneasy situations caused by the arrangement.

Some scenes are funny in an understated way, and make you softly chuckle in your seat. Others are emotional, but never melodramatic. I think the word that best describes the general mood of the picture is 'heartfelt'. The director does a perfect job in balancing the emotions. Some scenes are very elongated and show little action, which gives an intense effect in combination with the wonderful and very prominent soundtrack consisting of piano pieces by Chopin. The music has a special meaning, because it is the music that one of the lead characters teaches his piano pupils.

The couple is gay, but that doesn't really matter. The film could just as well have been about a straight couple, with some minor script changes. But the couple fits in perfectly in the liberal, open minded, intellectual New York circles where the movie is set. (The sort of people who think it's almost impossible to survive in Poughkeepsie when you're used to Manhattan). In fact, those are exactly the same circles Woody Allen prefers for his films, and sometimes 'Love is Strange' reminded me of Allen's best films, like 'Blue Jasmine', minus the usual neurotic behaviour by the lead characters.

My partner and I were really looking forward to this movie - a story about a loving mature gay couple dealing with some harsh realities, played by some wonderful actors. While I found the acting to be generally good, the writing and direction were uneven and confusing. First the good: the two leads are wonderful and understated playing the gay couple who've been together for 39 years, now facing the realities of being temporarily homeless, and separated from each other. Now the bad: the whole premise of the movie, that this couple found it necessary to each find separate temporary living arrangements while trying to find a new apartment, stretched all credibility. I found this unbelievable, especially when they had the option to live together with a relative outside the city. For some reason, they felt it imperative to live separately in the city even though neither was now employed. The whole movie seems so contrived that it seems the writers chose almost any situation to advance the film so that it got to the ending that they had written, whether it made sense or not. The idea of two late 60s/early 70s men with no apparent savings/pension/income to be able to maintain their condo for at least a little while also stretched credibility - instead they selfishly share their predicament with relatives and friends and crash separately with them. The writers/director have created a story with so many holes and illogical story paths that I found myself annoyed and angry with the characters. John Lithgow's character seems oblivious to the fact that he is becoming an imposition to his nephew's family, especially to his nephew's young 15 year old son with whom he is sharing bunk beds. While I hardly expect everything in a movie to be sewn up neatly by the end, the writers introduced characters and story lines that the viewer was lead to believe mattered- but were dropped and never resolved. Who was the young boy's friend Vlad? What was behind the tension between the nephew and his wife? Why did Vlad and the young boy steal French lit books? What's up with the disco/party cops? Why the extended sob scene of the boy in the stairwell at the end? Has the movie become about him? A considerable time is spent on each of these items in the movie and yet there are no answers, and they don't seem relevant to what the story should have been about. A different director, one who was not also the writer, might have helped make this a better movie. I also couldn't help but think that this was a 2 hour movie that was cut to 90 minutes and the answers were left on the floor somewhere.

It doesn't say in the title, but it's not "only" love that is depicted here. And while many issues would have been similar, we get treated to gay love and what that means to the people (friends, family & other relatives or people connected somehow) to our two main characters in this one.

Lithgow and Molina also are elderly. It's not like they play something they are not and it's rich roles they get here. But everyone in the supporting cast is phenomenal too. Most of the things are understated, things are not always spoken or said in a dialog. The acting is so good, that looks are more than sufficient to tell us the story. And even when the dialog does not tell us the what the character is feeling exactly, we always know.

Great script and great drama of married life in a big city. The question is, if you're interested in a story like that ... if you are, you'll love this movie. If not, don't bother watching