House of Boys

Some viewers, unfortunately, will pass on this film as the cover of the DVD makes it appear to be a gay sexploitation waste of time. It is anything but that. Written and directed by Jean- Claude Schlim (with assistance from Christian Thiry and Robert David Graham) this is one of the finest films about the early days of the AIDS pandemic and long with 'Longtime Companion' is probably one of the more important films for the public to understand the inception of the disease that still hovers darkly over the globe. The cast is rich in talent and the method of unfolding the story is superb.

In opening credits we see an apparent carefree young lad running through sunlit cornfields - perhaps reference the path to Oz: where that goes is revealed at the end of the film. It is 1984 and a gay high school lad Frank (Layke Anderson) escapes his rigid parents by moving to Amsterdam where he lands a job as a bar boy in a gay dance club, the House of Boys run by a man referred to as Madame (Ugo Kier) who keeps everyone in tow as well as performing in drag on stage. Frank is assigned a room with a straight boy Jake 9Benn Northover) who is the club's most popular dancer and who makes considerable money participating in passive physical gratification for the gentlemen who frequent the club. Jake has a girlfriend who sneaks in through the window of their room at night for trysts with Jake: Frank must then move in with transgender Angelo (Steven Webb) and raunchy mohawked dancer Herman (Oliver Hoare) for the night. Frank is talented and wants to leave his job at the bar where he assists the gentle lovely Emma (Eleanor David) and become a dancer. In the meantime Frank has fallen in love with the unattainable straight Jake but the two become close friends. Jake has been saving his money as a dancer and as an escort to run away with his girlfriend, but when his savings go missing he realizes his girlfriend has taken the money to abort Jake's baby. Jake is decimated by this but at the same time he leans on Frank for succor. The two boys realize their friendship has turned to being lovers. Jake introduces Frank to his way with clients and in the process falls through a glass tabletop sustaining cuts the require sutures. Frank takes Jake to the hospital where they encounter Dr. Marsh (Stephen Fry) who ultimately discovers that Jake has no T cells - and the mystery and cruel head of AIDS arises. Jake is fired form the club by Madame who fears for the reputation of this new plague and Frank and Jake move in together, compliments of Emma. From this point Jake has obvious Kaposi's sarcoma and the rest of the film is how Frank and the friends of the club are supportive. The unique aspect of the story is that it is the straight boy receiving passive sex from clients is the one who becomes infected. The beginning of the film is repeated with the full story at the end.

This story could have easily been melodrama but the manner in which the story is handled and the fine acting on the part of the actors involved allows it to rise into the realm of very significant films. It copes with tragedy but it also emphasizes the honest meaning of love in all forms. Highly recommended.

Grady Harp

I saw this nice little movie in Luxembourg one week or so after it's premier here. Basically it's a story of two teenage boys who leave home for different reasons and meet up within a Gay show club in Amsterdam. After falling in love, one ends up sick with AIDS.

Stephen Fry plays a sympathetic doctor but basically helpless with the knowledge of the disease back in the 80s. All the cast act great. I was impressed. Apart from a few short porno scenes, it is a neat little gay drama with some nice music and film direction. There are also some scenes filmed in Luxembourg and Morocco.

If the movie doesn't come to your town, buy it on DVD when released!

If good intentions were everything then this film would be great. A comedy drama about the early years of AIDS set in a decadent Amsterdam cabaret/strip club. Unfortunately when a film is so ineptly conceived and made on every level, it ends up doing a disservice to the issues it raises and when it gets exposure in a prime spot at a major Gay and Lesbian film festival whose future is under thread, then it does a disservice to the future a gay film festivals as well.

The best I can say about the film is that is is professionally shot, but otherwise nothing here works. Why is the film set in Amsterdam when obviously nothing was shot there ? I'm all fine with low budget film-making but if there isn't any money, why not adjust the style of the film to the budget. Instead this sorry mess keeps aiming high only to fall short again and again. We get melodrama ( a death is foreshadowed by a clip of Sirk's Imitation of Life, just so we get it), garish flashbacks, a musical numbers, gross out humour, but all of it is done badly and nothing coheres into consistent tone.

The main culprit here is the terrible screenplay, full of one dimensional gay stereotypes we have seen a billion times before. Everything is sign posted and spelt out in terrible dialog. The two uncharismatic leads must have been purely cast for their abs, because the acting here is so embarrassingly bad, it would put a school play to shame. I have no idea how Stephen Fry (whose phone call to France got some unintentional laughs) and Udo Kier let themselves be roped in. The only thing that looks reasonably professional are a couple of animated birds by German comic artist Rolf Koenig, but what they are doing here I'm at a loss to understand.

I liked this film a lot. Admittedly there were some questionable parts, but overall this film does what it sets out to; reel you in with many bare torsos and shove reality in your face with a hard knock, amid a love story that ultimately has you caring about it by the end.

Layke Anderson is wonderful in this. I haven't seen him in anything else, but he's fantastic as the rebellious party-boy who finds his own heart. It's a shame he finds it with Benn Northover (whom I haven't seen in anything else either), who pales in comparison to pretty much every other performer in this film. He seems an odd choice next to Anderson, and his character is lost among the other, more colourful ones.

Udo Kier and Stephen Webb are good for the laughs, which are few, but effective.

House of Boys pulls no punches in depicting disease and the effects it can cause; this may be unsettling for some, but you'll be glad you sat through it. It's not life-changing, but see it for Anderson's performance, and Udo Kier in drag. Obviously.

There are many good, in some cases excellent, movies about the AIDS crisis, including recent films like The Normal Heart and Angels in America, and earlier work such as And the Band Played On. House of Boys is not one of the good ones. Another reviewer suggested anyone disliking this movie must be a homophobe. To the contrary, anyone who thinks this qualifies as a good gay-themed movie must have a fairly low opinion of what a well done gay-themed movie can be. Admittedly there has become some degree of fatigue for gay films that trade off the AIDS crisis, but again, referencing the two recent films mentioned above, when done well they are still well-received.

In this film there were too many terribly clichéd personalities. ranging from the world-weary aging "madame" of the House of Boys, to the straight woman rescued by said madame, to the somewhat mysterious wealthy American customer, to the assortment of boys working in the club and of course, to the film's very own Little Nell, the wide-eyed naïf, Justin … and nearly all of them with his or her own unsuitable or overdone accent.

With all this heavy traffic distracting us, it was impossible for us to develop any emotional attachment to any individual, least of all the annoying Justin. In fact, most of the characters' development depended more on our familiarity with their recognizable cliché than anything revealed in the story-line.

At times it seemed like a Dickensian soap opera, heavily over-dramatic and replete with all the trappings, including someone in the snow-covered street singing like an urchin beggar from Scrooge or Nicholas Nickelby. Unlike something written by Dickens, however, none of the characters in this story was very well developed nor did they engender much empathy or sympathy.

The actor playing Justin was a poor choice. He lacked talent, charisma or the sort of good looks that might have made us feel some emotional attachment to him. Most of the other actors were fairly good, but the whole enterprise just never came together. Towards the end, when the tears are flowing on screen, I doubt many were shed by anyone watching the movie. And the subject at hand really should produce tears with little effort. I guess it's a matter of distinction that this movie managed to render the whole HIV crisis as well as the death & love loss experienced by its lead characters, as something banal.

There are far better choices for moving, emotionally-draining and inspiring tales from this period in the gay community. You can give this one a miss.