Fixing Frank

A person's response to a film often depends of where they are emotionally and psychologically at a particular point in time. Great films can break through whatever emotional and psychological barriers the viewer brought with them - their baggage - and enlighten, inform and entertain. This film, although engaging, does not come near being great. The adaptation to film from play should somehow transcend the mediums. If you just film the play, you are missing the opportunity to use the medium of film to enhance the storyline. This film never loses its play quality. The dialog that works so well as a play, become tedious and goes on forever! Do people really talk this way? I think not! After a while the psycho babble becomes a hmmmmmmmmm in the ears. Now what was the point? Ah, the actors did a great job!

My only regret about this movie is it is not yet available for purchase. I would love to watch it again.

Frank is a journalist who is living with his psychologist boyfriend. His boyfriend unethically sets him up to meet with a rival psychologist who works with making gay people straight. Frank battles with the psychologist, his boyfriend and, ultimately, himself. The ending is excellent, and leaves the viewer with even more questions about homosexuality.

It really made me think about whether or not gay people can be made straight. If they are born that way, what if they are very unhappy? Can or should they be allowed to change their sexual orientation? How much of this is because of the gay political climate? Is there really pressure to remain gay if someone wants to be stressed?

I highly recommend this movie, because it is intelligent and witty, and does not cater to one side of the debate, but leaves it to the viewer.

FIXING FRANK is somewhat of a rarity these days - a film well made form script to production that puts a hot topic on the table and challenges the viewer to think, all the while providing a very entertaining movie experience. The work began as a play by Ken Hayes who also adapted his play for the screen and while the 'opening up' of a stage play on the cinematic format is successful, in many way the dialogue feels very theatrical and the method of production stagy. That fact may annoy some viewers: for this viewer it worked, allowing us to here the superb script delivered in its entirety without frosting it with unnecessary visuals.

Credit director Michael Selditch for the creative approach to this filmed play. He keeps the story moving and integrated and draws exceptionally fine performances from his superb cast. In essence this is a three person film - two apposing therapists who are at opposite poles of dealing with the concept that being gay is an immutable inherited trait versus the possibility that with therapy the gay behavior can be changed to heterosexual behavior if the patient desires that 'change'.

Frank (Andrew Elvis Miller), a writer who is in the process of exposing a therapist Dr. Aspey (Dan Butler) who claims he can 'cure' gay men - at least according to Frank's lover Dr. Baldwin (Paul Provenza), an activist gay therapist. Frank, coached by Baldwin, has sessions with Aspey with the idea of trapping him into revealing his 'damage' to gay patients who have complained to Baldwin of Aspey's techniques. But what Frank discovers is a that Aspey deals with choices and changes on a strictly therapeutic angle, not basing claims for 'cures' for a lifestyle he does not condemn. In the process of the 'therapy' sessions, Frank grows into his own identity - a fact that alters his relationship with Baldwin and opens many closed doors of thought for all three characters - and us.

The actors are all excellent: one wonders if they played these roles on the stage. The intermingling of the sessions with conversations outside of sessions is additive and while many may object to the theatrical use of placing all three actors on the screen simultaneously when a 'session; is in progress, the format works well in allowing the script to be heard and maintain its punch. This is a thinkers' movie, the concepts are controversial and may find some viewers anger points, but as a film it works exceptionally well. Grady Harp

A challenging premise. The main flaw is that it takes way too long to set up the plot. The acting is very weak in some scenes(and very good in others). It seems like 90% the shot compositions are close-ups. The film feels very long. About 25% could be edited out. Too much emphasis on repetition of characters conflict and not enough on the conceptual issue. I my opinion it takes something noble and reduces it to a petty squabble between childish overdone stereotypes. Music was unhelpful.

Unfortunately a missed opportunity to get these ideas to a broader audience, as the focus was too much on some unlikable characters on not on the social issues.

I found this really interesting, not only because of sexual preference/identity issues, but also because of its universal theme of trying to figure out who you are apart from other people in your life whose opinions may sway you toward doing what you think they think you should. For me, watching this character try to unravel this tangle was inspiring. Also it was refreshing to me to face head-on some of the questions it raises. Even though the film takes a stand in the end, there's a lot of room to question and think about the issues, and I didn't come out of it with clarity, but more with thoughts about the questions, which is so much better than everything being wrapped up neat package. If I have one critique it's that maybe the film could have ended even more ambiguously (hence I gave it 9 instead of 10). This story is very layered and clever, if not always entirely subtle about it. Shot beautifully - another review listed as one of the negatives that it is mostly close-ups. I think this is a strength of the film, it is so much about internal dialog of the main character, and the other main characters are really in his space mentally so I think the way it was shot really reinforces what he's going through. The use of reflections and enclosed spaces whenever the shots are NOT close-ups also enhances this feeling of closeness and constriction. And the director's commentary is pretty good, which is so rarely the case... starts off on the wrong foot, but stick with it, they actually do discuss meaning and intent and ideas rather than the all-to-often string of production stories.