profhound

This was a fun family show and was at its best in the first season. It was refreshing to see a family sitcom without the treacle of The Brady Bunch. Unfortunately, like many sitcoms, it ran for more seasons than it should have. (Ricky Segal, arrgh! What were they thinking??)

I would like to respectfully correct the review posted here by Siobhan from Chicago: Barry Gibb did not write "Dirty Work" -- it was written by the two members of Steely Dan, Donald Fagen and Walter Becker. Matter of fact, as far as I know, it never appeared on a Partridge Family album. David Cassidy recorded it in 1979, and it was released on a 1991 compilation, "Best of David Cassidy."

What were all of these fine stars thinking when they agreed to be involved with this chaos? I truly mean no offense to those of you here who love this film, but good grief! As has been mentioned, it was too ambiguous about what it was trying to say (if anything). The writers really needed to decide on the story they wanted to tell. Was this supposed to be about a kid responding to a religious epiphany, or a kid experiencing a gender identity crisis? The script insists that it's the former, so let's assume for the sake of argument that's the case. (See "Ma Vie en Rose" for a definitive film on the latter.)

If we're to believe that Bruno's choices come from a vision he had rather than confusion regarding gender or other issues, the film should have depicted him trying to imitate angels and religious figures by dressing in robes, not Cher's castoffs. (That could've been just as interesting, maybe more so -- I'm sure the Catholic school would've found Bruno's imitations of the Pope or Jesus just as shocking.) I find it impossible to believe that a boy that age would calmly discuss his La Cage aux Folles wardrobe as his way to open people's eyes to the beauty of Heaven, that he's not afraid of dying at the hands of people who would want to kill him for appearing in public this way, ad nauseam. (The conversation about all this between Bruno and grandmother MacLaine was absurd.)

If Bruno's motivations had been based on confusion, I would be the first to defend his right to wear dresses and appear feminine. This makes all the difference, and this is what I find offensive about this story passing itself off as a testament to tolerance. Unless there's a darn good reason for it, who in their right mind would let their nine-year-old boy run around looking like that? We're not talking about boys imitating Roman warriors, the Pope, Dalai Lama, and other historic figures Bruno cites in his argument to nun Kathy Bates (delivered with far too much confidence for a little boy coming from a screwed-up broken home, genius be damned). We're talking about a boy (who keeps insisting he doesn't want to be a girl, yeahrightsure) wearing decidedly feminine dresses, sequins and tiaras, MAKEUP and WIGS. AAHHGGHH!! These ensembles, fetching though they may be, have nothing to do with visions of angels or holy vestments. The kid is a mini drag queen, and the adults are wrong to encourage him in such outrageous public display, especially at school. Age nine is far too young to understand the implications of such things. The film gives the impression that anyone who has trouble with Bruno's actions is intolerant, homophobic, etc. What nonsense. Another reviewer said there are plenty of straight men who dress up in women's clothing. The key word is MEN.

I will say that the film looks very nice and some of the performances are fine. Alex Linz does a great job, but his dialogue is badly written; it simply doesn't ring true of a child. I'm simply not convinced that, having been through all Bruno supposedly has been through in his short life, he would be so self-assured.