Comme un frère

The directors and star of Comme un frere were in town for a screening at the London Lesbian & Gay Film Festival yesterday. The screening I attended looked to be a sell-out, but I can only think that the audience was primarily attracted by the cunning use of a "boys on the beach" promotional photograph rather than any Fesitival buzz surrounding the film itself.

One of the directors spoke rather charmingly (in French) about how he was inspired by British cinema, particularly by the gritty realism of Mike Leigh and Stephen Frears. He found their films, however, too "noir" and hoped to make something more optimistic in Comme un frere. Well, all I can say is that the French idea of optimism is like the Luftwaffe's idea of town planning, so hopes were not particularly high.

Comme un frere (Like a Brother) is the tale of Zack (Benoit Deliere), a pretty blond lad who has come to Paris to explore his sexuality. He clubs, he hooks up on chat lines, he has a beauty routine that would put Elizabeth Arden to shame. But, as seems to be obligatory in all French cinema, he is pining for something.

That something is Romain (the extraordinarily beautiful Thibault Boucaux), his best friend, left behind in the Styx when Zack moved to the big city. Scenes of Zack and Romain on the beach, hanging about in cafés and even (platonically) sharing a bed have a tendresse that is deeply touching - but their scenes are filmed in a washed out grey that removes any sense of what made this time special for young Zack.

By contrast, the Paris scenes have a colourful vibrancy that makes one wonder why on earth Zack would be pining for his dreary seaside town, with or without the lovely Romain.

If you're thinking "It seems to me I've heard that song before" then you've nailed the problem with Comme un frere. Young men with unrequited crushes on their best friends have been a staple of gay cinema since the year dot, and Comme un frere has nothing new or fresh to add. The performances are generally good, with some real star potential from Boucaux, and the sex scenes are filmed with urgency and passion, but the inconclusive ending (which really does seem as if the producers just ran out of money and had to stop filming) and the absence of anything to make this stand out from the crowd make it a fairly lacklustre affair.

I agree, the storyline is slender. This is a portrait of a very young man in his first year of moving to the city, being out, juxtaposed with his recollections of the beautiful—and straight—best friend he left behind.

Maybe it's the locale, the language difference, the glimpses of French gay life, but I found this movie very watchable. I think I would be less forgiving (as an American) seeing the same story in an American film. The American version would be more of a straightforward story, I think, and almost certainly heavy-handed. This film is serious, but it's done with a light, gentle touch, and that makes it easier to take.

The movie flips between past and present without much concern for our keeping up with the story. In fact, the jumping around is a reflection of the boy's state of mind. I can't imagine an American film doing the same thing without a lot of dumbing down.

So, despite the familiar plot, if you can even call it that, I still think this is worthwhile. It's very filmic, and relatively uncompromising.

And, the main character's straight best friend is a f**king raving beauty.

Bernard Alapetite & Cyril Legann's film is allocated in two distinct moments: the present in which we catch a glimpse on young Sébastien's life, and the past, which sets the basis for everything he is experiencing now.

Why is it the past so important for most of us? Surely it's not only because we tend to have a glorified memory of years gone by. The past, after all, can sometimes fully define us if we manage to comprehend it. In the present, Sébastien is going to gay bars and hooking up with guys, but in the past only one boy occupied his every thought: his best friend Romain.

When Sébastien is alone, he draws Romain's body in a piece of paper. Here, the image is clearly the ideal and thus the unobtainable object. One moment exemplifies this assertion perfectly: when the two boys are lying in bed together, watching TV, the muffled sound of pornography coming from the background arouses Romain enough for him to fondle himself knowing that his friend is right there; as he proceeds to go to the bathroom Sébastien follows him and watches carefully how his friend masturbates frenetically. Except that he doesn't see his friend's facial expressions of joy, but rather his image reflected in the bathroom's mirror.

Why is the mirror important? For Jacques Lacan a relationship between the specular and the non-specular exists. The individual does not have direct access to the real of his body, it's only through the virtual image in the mirror plane that one gains such access. Although this indicates the necessary interposition of the Other, the Other of language. When Sébastien is looking at himself during the first minutes of the movie, his only concern is his physical appearance, and it should rightly be so as he intends to expose himself to the gaze of the other. This paradigmatic scheme is the foundation of narcissism, in which one's psychic energies are invested in one's own image thus making it lovable (for others).

But is the protagonist narcissistic? Every time Sébastien practices sex with other men he let his himself being penetrated; thus complying with what most people would label a "passive" position. There is, however, one instance in which he plays a most active role, and that is when he spends the night at Romain's place, and starts touching him and caressing him.

If Sébastien is truly narcissistic then the recognition placed upon himself by others would be undermined by a certain 'deceptiveness', because narcissism tends to mask the fact that I perceive myself from the Other's point of view. When Sebastian spies on his friend, draws him or thinks of him, he is indeed circumscribing himself into the sphere of the other's desire; and should he come to the conclusion that the other is no longer there to support him, then the first steps towards narcissism will be taken.

far to be a bad film, its sin is the less courage to give a specific voice. the courage to be more than a sketch. because it propose suggestions. the relation between Sebastian and Romain. the relation between Sebastian and Bruno. the relation with Marine. or with his father. the result is a kind of "Pointilism". and the theme of young man looking for better life in Paris. nothing wrong and the tone is reasonable. but the film seems be a dance without music. and exercise to say the same well known story of the same selfish young man.

It was a good movie. I don't really like when a movie flips between past and present and this movie is no different. I would have like it more as a straightforward story, but nonetheless, it was fun and entertaining. I liked the actors and their relationships, especially Sebastian and Romain's. A lot of the time it seemed like Romain was gay, or at least bi, even though he never admitted so.

What I didn't quite understand, though, was the ending. It didn't imply anything so Romain and Sebastian could have gotten together, but I seriously doubt it. Besides, I liked Bruno a lot more. It could have been a longer movie, and I would have liked it if the movie had been longer, not necessarily continuing the story, but merely adding parts in the middle. I would have liked to know more about Bruno and Sebastian's relationship and I like to imagine that when the movie is over they will continue dating.