Tout contre Léo

I loved this movie. First, because it is a family movie. Second, because it offers a refreshing take on dealing with the news of HIV in a family, with far less hysteria than what I have normally seen in the movies. The brothers are very close, yet are not judgmental. Their desire to protect the youngest brother is noble, but not needed in the end. I understand that Leo's choice on how to deal with his treatment may not have been the most popular one with people, but I believed it was the right choice for him. I can't believe that this was a french television programme. It had great production values. I gave this movie a ten, and I think you will too, once you have seen it.

A film about family relations. Simple, honest, touching, direct. Four brothers. A secret changing everything. And a connection who preserves the normality. A profound beautiful film, a profound convincing story. For the manner to use a not ordinary subject in precise and delicate manner. For portrait of Leo and Marcel. For beach, Paris and the talks defining the borders of a relation and nuances of an age. Not different by many other French films about same subject, it is a seductive, bitter film about life. In the inspired manner.

So very touching in it's simplicity. A 20 yr old taking his 12 yr. brother to an adventure that will never ever be repeated. Great actors, a great performance, and Marcel is the brother that would have. Not very movies reduce me to tears, but this was one.

How DOES a person react to the news that they have HIV and how does their family act? In fact, how do we think WE would act? Well, regarding that second question, I honestly don't have the slightest idea and fortunately, haven't had to find out. But I am guessing that it would involve a vast variety of conflicting and changeable emotions and behaviors, both rational and irrational, as was expressed here in this, what I can only believe is a very realistic film...because each individual and family may have their own responses. I think all emotional responses and behaviors are realistic and justified under the circumstances, even some that might generate distaste among some viewers of this film. A family, with its shock, fear, grief, and shame, if they feel those emotions, may decide to protect whom they believe is a more vulnerable member of the family. Then they may decide that that was the wrong tack to follow. Or maybe not. Who knows WHAT to do, really? Sometimes paralysis is bound to take over to the extent of collapsing into semi-catatonia, or maybe the opposite, such as running wildly toward a futile sense of escape. Any and everything may happen, and all are valid.

Isn't it realistic that one so stricken might want to reach out to people who had held meaning in the past, but not really have any idea how to go about that in a prudent way? Or maybe there will be feelings of hatred or envy of those who are able to peacefully go through the normalcy of their lives, because they do not have this issue to suddenly contend with. Maybe one might for a moment become utterly irresponsible and uncaring, or self-destructive, for in the face of death, or certain pain and anguish, what of any shreds of a former morality may seem to truly matter?

I believe that this film accurately explores the potential universe of reactions in a powerfully communicative way. This maybe made the "narrative story" jerky or uncomfortable to watch or understand, but if so, welcome to THEIR world.

I don't believe that the makers of this film believe that this film, or any other, shows the definitive way things will happen under these circumstances. I think they know more than that...that they know that we all DON'T know and all bets are off, but in their work, here, they are going to explore and have the viewer live some of the possibilities. And I felt that as a viewer, they were very successful. I couldn't help but feel throughout this movie, things maybe I didn't want to feel, but I then I shouldn't watch a movie like this if I wanted to be protected. We all knew going into it what the subject matter was.

One thing that I thoroughly appreciated about the film was the physical affection and body contact among the various family members that seemed to disturb the sensibilities of some reviewers, when it is so clear to me that one valid reaction might be the family's desire (either being satisfied in actuality or else communicated metaphorically via the visual language of film) to utterly ABSORB every precious square inch of not only the body of the loved one that is soon to be falling apart, possibly into nothingness, but also those suddenly even-more- precious-than-ever-before who will remain after the one so stricken has gone, all of whom will have to live with this shared loss for the rest of their lives. And for the one stricken, to connect with the sweet human flesh of those whom he loves while he still can effect such a connection, I submit that the most fundamental and reliable communication of all may be through touch and the body, for the emotions and the intellect would be too much in a typhoon to be constant.

It is projected that between 2000 and 2020, 68 million people will die prematurely as a result of AIDS. The projected toll is greatest in sub-Saharan Africa where 55 million additional deaths can be expected. Beyond the grim statistics are personal stories that we rarely hear about. Christophe Honoré describes one of the most moving in Close to Leo, a film produced for French television as part of a series dealing with issues facing young people. Though fictional, it deals with a situation that is unfortunately too common -- the effect of a diagnosis of HIV on a loving close-knit family.

When twenty one-year old Leo (Pierre Mignard) tells his parents and two teenage brothers, Tristan (Rodolphe Pauley) and Pierrot (Jeremie Lippmann) that he has AIDS, the family is devastated. Out of concern for his youth, they decide to withhold the information from his youngest brother, 12-year old Marcel (Yannis Lespert) but he overhears the conversation and begins to sulk and act erratically. When Leo goes to Paris for treatment, he takes Marcel with him but the young boy confronts Leo and demands to know the truth. Leo tells him that he is ill and Marcel is sad but accepting. When he brings Marcel along to meet some former gay friends, however, tension between them boils to the surface, setting the stage for a riveting conclusion.

Although I was uncomfortable with scenes in bed involving physical contact between the brothers, I feel that the sincerity of Close to Leo and the brilliant performances by Lespert and Mignard more than tip the scales in its favor. Seeing events unfold from the young boy's perspective gives the film an authenticity that reminded me of the Quebecois film Leolo and Truffaut's The 400 Blows. Unlike some American films that dance around the anguish of AIDS, Close to Leo tells a harsh truth but does so in a way that is tender and wonderfully real.