Love is Strange

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.

OK. We have Ben & George, two gay men in their late 60s/early 70s,who have been together for almost 40 years. So far, so good. Finally they get married and as a result, George is fired and they find themselves having financial trouble, which forces them to sell their apartment and to move in with some friends (George) and some relatives (Ben).

The acting was OK, Ben and George really came across as a devoted couple, genuinely loving each other, and devoted to each other.

The rest was a bunch of nonsense.

Ben and George have been living together for almost 40 years. They do not seem to live the high life, or to be extremely extravagant. They have a nice apartment, comfortable, but not overly luxurious. Even their own wedding party is fairly simple: they did not even order a cab to the ceremony, but tried to find one on the streets. They did not throw a big party, or even have dinner with their friend and family in a restaurant, they just had some drinks at their own home. OK, they went on an expensive honeymoon, but if that is the only extravaganza they allowed themselves over all the years they were together, it is not over the top.

So all in all, they come across like people who have a simple lifestyle, do not overspend and are content with simple things.

Yet, when George is fired, they do not have a penny in the bank. Really? No savings, no insurances, nothing? That seems totally out of character.

But pennyless, they have to resort to moving in with friends/relatives. They do not seem to do any effort to stay together, if even in a single room. Just like that, after 40 years together, they decide to separate. George moves in with some neighbors (young gays), Ben goes to live with relatives (a young couple with a teenage son), where he has to share the room with this boy. Really?

Where did they leave all their stuff, their furniture, the paintings, the books? Did they just sell it all, or what?

Ben lives with those relatives, who seem wealthy enough (he is a businessman, she is a novelist), they have a maid, but they are still living in an apartment the size of a shoebox. Somehow, the only son has bunk beds in his room (why?), where Ben has to sleep. This son also has a friend, Vlad, with whom he spends hours and hours in his room. Why? Nobody knows.

Somehow, Ben, who is a painter, decides to make a picture of this Vlad on the roof top of the building. Why? He does not know this boy, he hardly has spoken to this boy, but somehow this boy Vlad agrees to pose for him. Does this make sense? No. Wouldn't it have made more sense for Ben to paint a picture of his nephew Joey on that roof top, which he than could have presented to the parents as a small "thank you" for taking him in?

In the mean time, George is living with this young gay couple, who are partying all the time, and meets a young guy. They get along very well, and somehow they end up having dinner together and looking at his apartment, which is for rent, as he is leaving for Mexico. Although they seem to have some sort of connection, no sexual attempts are made (really?) while they are alone in that apartment. It is mentioned that the rent is 1400 dollars a month, and somehow George suddenly has the means to pay that amount of money (earlier in the movie, George and Ben where house hunting and could not even afford 600 dollars...).

Than there is that whole issue about Joey and Vlad having stolen French literature books from the library. Really? Teen boys stealing Cyrano de Bergerac and other books like that? It is never explained why or how that ends, so what is the meaning of that?

And there are more issues that made this movie in itself a strange thing, the love between the two main characters was the most logic thing in the whole movie... SO no "Love is strange" here. But the rest was strange as hell.

LOVE IS STRANGE is an interesting film, and one that will probably turn off a lot of viewers once they know what the concept is, but I thought it was a sweet portrayal of an aging couple who just happen to be gay. Alfred Molina and John Lithgow play Ben and George, a recently married couple who have been partners for 39 years. However, once Ben's employer finds out about his marriage (he is the music teacher at a Catholic school), he loses his job and the couple are forced to sell their apartment because they can't afford it anymore. In the meantime while they look for a new apartment, they have to live separately with family and friends. And therein lies the trouble: they haven't been apart in all those years of living together, and the film explores how it affects them emotionally as well as the people they stay with.

While watching this I tried to keep the title at the front of my mind at all times, but I still don't know quite how it might strictly apply. The closest thing I can come up with is George's nephew's family, who George ends up staying with. On the one hand, you have this aging couple who haven't been apart a day in their lives together who are now forced to be apart through circumstance; but then you have George's nephew and his wife who live in the same house with their son, and yet each of them feels separated from the other by the way they live their lives. George's nephew is a film producer who has long days away from home, while his wife (played by Marisa Tomei) is a writer who spends most of her time at home trying to write. And on top of that, their son keeps to himself a lot and spends most of his time with Vlad, his only friend at school. The general sense, or message, I got from the film is that it takes losing something to appreciate its true value.

Still, whatever it was all supposed to add up to I thought that the performances were excellent. I haven't seen John Lithgow and Alfred Molina this good in years, and they were very believable as a couple who had been together for so long. Marisa Tomei also did great work as George's nephew's wife. I should also mention the soundtrack composed mostly of Chopin, which I really loved. My favorite piece was the "Raindrop" prelude which plays a few times during the film, and my favorite use of it was during a private piano lesson that Ben gives to one of his students. I also appreciated the nods to Ben's religious faith, which never came into conflict with his personal life. Last, but not least, the cinematography and cityscape shots were extremely beautiful.

Still, there is one thing which lessens the film's impact in my opinion, and it has to do with the film's ending (of which I won't spoil the details). All I will say is that it feels more like an epilogue in the sense that there is a time jump (and something else) which came completely out of nowhere. It almost felt like they weren't quite sure how to wrap up the film, so they jumped ahead in an effort to give the story some closure. I didn't hate the ending, but I felt that maybe a different ending would have been just as good, possibly better. Still, I liked the film overall. It was a sweet indie drama that felt like a slice of life. On a side note, it kind of makes me never want to live in New York.

My wife and I were both moved and touched by this sweet sad drama of romance near the end of life's long and winding road. When a couple really complete each other's life it is a joy even when things turn rougher because that very important someone is there, next to you to divide the sorrows and multiply the joys.

But when circumstances beyond their control force them to separate briefly friends and families who offered to help become tested, tried and like most of us will fail at some point.

We are big fans of John Lithgow (we grew up near his home town and he's a local legend) and the great Alfred Molina and Marisa Tomei. The script, direction and performances were all like the music and art used in the film – wonderfully filling in all the colors of life.

As for it being a remake, the great comedy director Leo McCarey (Laurel & Hardy films, the Cary Grant screwball comedy The Awful Truth, An Affair To Remember, etc.) wanted to make a film about the problems of old age. Here is the plot description of Make Way For Tomorrow (1937), "At a family reunion, the Cooper clan find that their parents' home is being foreclosed. "Temporarily," Ma moves in with son George's family, Pa with daughter Cora. But the parents are like sand in the gears of their middle-aged children's well regulated households. As the days become weeks and then months, everyone gets stretched until they must except being separated permanently and go out for one last fling before saying goodbye forever."

Both films are wonderful dramas that ask us to treat each other with more compassion and civility – and to be prepared for the end.

Leo McCarey was nominated for an Oscar eight times and when he won Best Director in 1937 for The Awful Truth in his acceptance speech he said thank you but it was for the wrong film (meaning he thought he should have won for the more important feature Make Way For Tomorrow.)

I recommend seeing them both and then go and hug everyone you know and cherish while you can.

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.