Food of Love

Here is a story with obvious first and second acts, but no conclusion. Act I: the development of the relationship between Paul and Richard. Act II: Paul's move to NYC and his disillusionment (he also becomes a jerk). Act III: oh, wait it's not there. Right when the story begins to reach a climax, it ends. No resolution of any plot threads. A disappointment in an otherwise adequate feature.

Unlike the previous reviewer, I thought Juliet Stevenson and Paul Bishop did a great job with their American accents. I was surprised, since I knew Ms Stevenson was British -- I thought for a while that I was mistaken in that.

The sad thing is that none of the characters really learned anything about themselves. They simply learned that people lie and life sucks. I guess that's how life really goes, but I don't watch movies to see real life. Movies should transcend real life. There's not much to take away from the story without the glaringly missing third act.

I guess I was fooled by the classical music setting into thinking this would be a `sensitive' or `classy' portrayal of a young gay artist's coming of age. But I realized halfway into the first ham-handed seduction scene (`Hello, nice to see you again.what's your name? Would you like a backrub?') that it was just another case of prostituting the `gay theme' with a half-baked story that meshes the worst aspects of porn and soap opera without offering any payback in sentiment or even titillation.and then throws in a gratuitous round of `bash on the clueless mother'. I generally love m/m romance and drama and I forgive a lot of weakness in terms of plot and character development, but this was so badly drawn on so many levels, from the incongruous actions of the characters to the unimaginative and obvious plot mechanisms. Maybe it's because I watched this back-to-back with Roger Dodger, an excellent film that leaves you sympathetic with an extreme jerk because his character is so brilliantly defined. In contrast, Food of Love left me annoyed and unsympathetic with every single character by the end, even the tender, confused young protagonist, who I really wanted to like. What is the denouement supposed to mean? Talented young pianist quits Julliard because he can't stand being ignored? Mother and son come to a mutual understanding that life goes on, even after your ideals are shattered? Love and enchantment are fleeting things, so take it one day at a time and always wear a condom? These are far too prosaic outcomes to be arrived at in such a heavy-handed sequence of contrived scenes played by characters so devoid of either depth or charm. Richard the pianist was a despicable ogre-okay, he seduces a barely-legal young man who worships him, I could deal with that. Then drops him like a hot coal. No, sorry, that's where he lost me. But what really sends this guy to Hell in a handbasket is how he ignores his life partner, who tries for days, in great personal distress, to reach him while he is pursuing his affair with Paul. Not that I liked Richard's letchy old man much. And the way the two of them turned against Paul in the end to save themselves from a little honesty in their own relationship was disgusting. Obviously the scenes of Richard ignoring his lover's frantic messages were mindfully included to make us realize that Richard was a self-absorbed jerk and Paul's obsession with him was setting Paul up for a big fall. But why? Was the point to set the artistic aspirations of the young man against the gauntlet of sexual awakening and see if the art survives? I guess I was EXTREMELY disappointed that Paul's art did not survive the challenge, and I was left wondering who he really was and why I should care. I know that's probably the point of the movie-that's what he was struggling with too, but the movie never answered the question, as phrased by his mother, of whether that awful Richard Kensington had something to do with his desire to quit. It is said that good dramatic action is like a roller coaster-ups and downs-but for Paul and his mom it's all downs. Jeez, this filmmaker could have done anything he wanted here, so why not open up some kind of window for young Paul at the end? Okay, Ventura, naturalism is all well and good, but the audience WANTS the protagonist to be exceptional-if you set him up as an aspiring pianist and then you take that away, then give us something else. And the mother was so stupid and hysterical it was an outright insult to all women. Her attempted seduction of Richard was unbearable, as was the support group. Wake up, Ventura-women, even mothers, are now aware of gays and likely to recognize them well before the point of becoming the laughing stock of a humiliating party scene. Just a depressing outing all around.

I just saw this movie at the San Francisco International Lesbian & Gay Film Festival. It was a sold out screening and the director was present. While the performances were good (though sometimes overboard) and the production qualities were excellent (the style reminded me of Whit Stillman which was odd since some of this movie was shot in Barcelona and Stillman made a movie called "Barcelona"), this film was hampered by a terrible script. The first few scenes establishing the characters were passable but about 15 minutes into the movie, when Paul and Richard meet again in Richard's hotel room and Richard gives Paul a "massage", the dialogue started turning laughable. For the rest of the film, the audience was in a uproar, laughing during serious and sometimes sexual moments. In the end, the movie was fairly enjoyable as in "I don't believe what I'm seeing or hearing". That was too bad since the story itself is a compelling one.

I enjoyed this movie to an extent, but I felt that I was cheated at the end. I really did not know why, but after seeing the casts interviews,I understood. All of these actors were British struggling with American accents. I recognized the actress,Juliet Stevenson, who played Pamela, Paul's mother, in some other movie, but I could not place where. She never developed the character as much as I hoped. I finally realized she was in Bend it Like Beckham, in which she was quite good as the mother fearing her teenage daughter's lesbian tendencies.

Kevin Bishop, who also is British, did a better job earlier in the film, when he didn't have to talk much, but he became quite annoying as his character became more self-centered and selfish.

I did enjoy the relationship between Paul and Richard. It was quite believable, and the chemistry between the two was the best part of the film. Unfortunately, it did not last very long. Paul Rhys, who played Richard, was quite good in his portrayal of a gay man, who would use his celebrity status, to lure the innocent and naive young Paul into his web.

My biggest question is, if all of their actors are mostly British, why wouldn't they change the setting of the film from New York/California to something like London? They changed the title of the film from the novella. It would of made the film more enjoyable to watch, with the actors being in their natural surroundings.

I enjoyed the movie, but it seems to me it is mistitled. The only love in the movie was between Paul and his mother, who seemed to suffer from some emotional problems, but their love at least seemed genuine. Basically this is a story about a talented young cute kid who gets in over his head. Paul is used by Kennington, who is Paul's idol. Then Paul gets used by Kennington's manager/lover. Paul does have a relationship with another older man but we don't get to see much about that relationship, but again it seems he is being used as a boy toy. Being that Paul is very young I can only hope he learned from these bad experiences, and pursues his real dreams.