Eban and Charley

The film suffers on the big screen, due in part to the tech limitations of the digicam process and the somewhat hard-to-catch inflections of actor Giovanni Andrade (teenage Charley). The first half is slow, moody, and unwilling to tip its hand: one feels ambivalence toward the Brent Fellows character (Eban, age 29). Publicity shots show Fellows to be an acceptably handsome actor; but when we first see Eban, he is pale, stooped, unshaven, and the picture of a shattered soul. Those who leave at the midpoint--and I was tempted--will miss Eban's agonizingly slow growth, his gradual reawakening to warmth and human contact. They will also miss getting to know Charley, brought to life in Andrade's astonishingly detailed and sensitive portrayal through characteristic, near-dancelike movements and a slow, hesitant manner of speaking that rings absolutely true. If the parental figures are saddled with trite dialogue and minimal characterizations, I am more than willing to believe that this is fully intended by director James Bolton in service to his vision. I have now viewed the film three times, the last on DVD, and found more to admire each time around. (The DVD brings warmth to the faces of the principles not evident on the big screen.) In all, this is an admirable, subtle, and sensitive work that asks a lot of the audience, but gives a lot in return.

This is a small quiet film that never sensationalizes the subject matter - pedophilia?? It has some sound problems that are glaring at times but that didn't stop me from enjoying the movie. Although it was slow, I felt that it was quite sweet, a little creepy, and even suspenseful at times. It was shot digitally like many great movies of it's kind are (i.e. Chuck and Buck) but I assume it was never transferred to film since I saw a not so great video projection in the east village.

I would recommend this low budget dv flick to anyone who hates big happy gay hollywood movies that never deal with anything touchy or interesting. There's not a lot of movement, locations, or characters to be mesmerized by - but minimalist nature of the story really works if you let it. I believe it was a bold and conscious move on the director's part and I truly respect him for that. I wouldn't mind seeing it again.

I was surprised by the excellent production values in this film, even though it is shot in digital video. The cinematography was superb. Several reviewers speak about the very slow pace of the film, but I think that this gives it a remarkable life-like feel. The reticence of Eban works well with his confusion. The two male leads work very well together, and the tender scenes between them are quite effective. You can sense that they are quite comfortable with one another, and the young teen, Charley, seems ecstatic. The only problem I have with the script and the acting centers around Charley's father, who comes off so over the top, without real motivation for his belligerent attitude towards his son, that it takes away from what could have been a top-notch film. As for the subject matter, pedophilia usually occurs between a teen and a much older person; but the film asks the simple question: why should other people tell teenagers whom to love? It seems to be a very personal matter, and not up to society or the state to dictate the terms of love. But I suppose there is an emotional line to be drawn that protects young people who are clearly not in control of their sexual longings. The ending of the film is hopeful, and thus breaks a trend away from depressing endings. All in all, a very good film that young people should watch and discuss.

From the opening minutes, I thought "Uh-oh... we're in for a questionable evening of entertainment"- the movie looks to be shot on digital video, but actually, that detail didn't wind up detracting from the subject matter at all. It's a touchy subject that many will be revolted by, and I'm not sure I agree with the happy ending... but the movie was well-acted by its two leads. The story is told concisely, never wanders far from its focus, and is edited precisely. I've watched it twice now and didn't get bored at all. All in all, a better than average entry into the world of gay cinema.

To start with, the completely distorted definition of the word pedophilia. Pedophilia is not a legal term. It is not defined by what the age of consent laws are in a given country or state. Pedophilia is a medical term, and its meaning does not change according to laws. Quoting one of the most respected works in psychiatry, the Comprehensive Textbook Of Psychiatry, vol.1, by Harold I. Kaplan, MD, and Benjamin J. Sadock, MD: "Diagnostic criteria for pedophilia: Pedophilia involves preferential sexual activity with children, either in fantasy or actuality. Adult sexual activities or fantasies involving prepubertal children, the essential behavior in pedophilia, may be exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, or a mixture of both, and may occur within the family, among acquaintance groups, or between strangers." This is not the case in this film, as it isn't the case in most relationships incorrectly classified as pedophilia in sexually sick America. The British puritan heritage certainly plays a role here, but I've always wondered why and how the hysteria about intergenerational relationships got so bad in the USA. And that's the greatest achievement of this film. The characters are real and humane for a change. The director and the screenwriter just went and told a honest, true to life love story, one like hundreds of thousands that happen everyday, everywhere. It's a slap in the face of the hypocrite American society, a wake-up call.

Recommended readings: "Harmful To Minors - The Perils Of Protecting Children Against Sex", by Judith Levine (winner of the Book Of The Year award of the Los Angeles Times in 2000).

"Sexual Panic - America's New Era Of Witch-Hunting", by Jerry Steinbach.

"Adolescent Sexual Health in Europe and the US" - www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/419