Clapham Junction

I was disappointed. The final image did it for me. That is, it clinched my feeling about the film and it's ambitions. That final image is so pat, so cliched. Almost all of the gay characters are rather pitiful. Is that the point of the film?

The major reviews of "Clapham Junction" on IMDb have collectively been on target. The characters are lightly linked and do little to show the positive aspects of gay life. The performances and technical aspects were workmanlike. Luke Treadaway (Theo) and Joseph Mawle (Tim) were the most memorable.

The high IMDb viewer rating (currently 7.50) might be lower if it were not for student Theo's unambiguously nude scenes.

What seems to me not to be on target is the write-up on the USA DVD package: "Inspired by True Events / In this riveting film about sexual tolerance in modern society, the paths of several men intersect during a dramatic thirty-six hours in which their lives are changed forever. After another man falls victim to a violent gay-bashing incident, the homosexual community of Clapham Junction comes together to bring the assailants to justice."

My USA DVD timed out at 99 minutes and had SDH English subtitles and three previews as its extra features. You might compare the timing shown on the IMDb listing. The result is acceptable; I hoped the film would be more focused, not longer.

When I watch a film I normally try to ignore what the critics have said and just focus on what the film does (or doesn't) do for me. However it was more a problem for me with Clapham Junction when it was shown as part of the Channel 4 series of films and programmes to mark the 40th anniversary since male homosexuality was legalised. Unwittingly I watched the panel discussion 40 Years Out before I saw this film, and the first part of the former was a group of commentators laying into the producer of the latter. I remember being quite entertained by this match-up but was wary to make up my mind for myself rather than just repeating what the likes of Matthew Parris et al had said.

Problem is though, they were bang on the money in what they said because Clapham Junction is a poor film and a very strange choice to show as part of this series of films. As a narrative it is basically an interweaving set of characters all of whom has some comment on the nature of being a male homosexual in this day and age. However, as a piece of writing it is surprisingly lacking. The characters are connected by coincidence and convenience, without any degree of respect for the viewer. This is a minor issue though because my main one was how negative the entire film was. I have no gay friends and have not a part to play in the modern gay experience but this film seemed to be harking back to the 1980's rather than the noughties. Nobody is cast in a good light – the film opens with the groom of a civil partnership couple cheating with a waiter during the reception before following on with queer bashing, cottaging, a 14 year old seducing (then f***ing) an older man etc etc. It is tiresome after a while and has little to say about what it means to be gay today. What little it does say of value is interesting (eg the loss of the thrill of being "dangerous" that modern acceptance has brought) but it is scattered far and wide across the film.

The cast do little with what little material they have. They deliver the characters asked of them but none can find the people inside – instead they are horny, camp, in the closet, in denial, on cocaine etc etc, whatever simple classification the script has given them. Shergold's direction is OK in terms of the shots he gets but in terms of helping the material or the actors, he doesn't seem able – although Elyot's script offers him little support either.

Overall then a poor film that wallows in negativity while presenting the modern gay experience. There is little debate or discussion – just endless "shocking" scenes (yeah – shocking 10 years ago) and negative images of homosexuality with no real justification. A sense of balance would have been welcome but a less simplistic script would have been a great starting point – sadly it had neither.

This movie gets another mixed review from me.

I didn't mind the negative portrayals so much (unsympathetic people exist, after all, among straights and gays alike, as does hatred and hypocrisy, and the performances were mostly really good), but I didn't like that that's all we get in this film. I've read that the writer didn't intend to portray the full range of gay life, but I guess that was what I expected from an anniversary-type movie. All the depression, the violence, the negativity left me feeling rather bleak and unsatisfied, thinking "But that's not all there is!"

And, on a rather superficial note, as a big fan of 'Maurice' I did wish for more interaction between Wilby and Graves. :)

The problem with Kevin Elyot's (writer) and Adrian Shergold's (director) boldly ambitious "Clapham Junction" is that it attempts to bite off so much more than it can possibly chew in just under two hours. Elyot goes for an epic structure in an intimate setting. At times it looks like he's trying to cram in forty years of gay sexual history into a night and day and it just doesn't work. I wish I could have liked it more because there is so much here to admire and spread over, maybe six weekly episodes, he might have got away with it but as it stands it just doesn't ring true. This may well be down to Elyot's reliance on coincidence. All the characters seem to be inter-related. Nothing wrong with that, you might say; it has worked as a backdrop to many splendid dramas in the past but you have to suspend quite a lot of disbelief when in a city the size of London with a sizeable gay population, all the gay characters keep bumping into each other in clubs, public toilets, on Clapham Common itself or at dinner parties or just in living across the street from each other. It's a banal plot device and you can't help feeling Elyot would have made his point a lot better if the stories hadn't been connected.

Nor is Elyot particularly good at serving up dialogue that sounds believable or naturalistic. The characters either talk in sound-bites or are reduced to double-entendres. If he can get in a crass joke, he does and nobody comes out of it well. But at least he tries. There is hardly an aspect of gay life, (or of 'straight' society's reaction to it), that he leaves unexplored. He even gives us the self-loathing bit of gay trade who beats up his pick-up for the night, (and later gets beaten up himself), and the film's most successful story is the one between the pedophile and the fourteen year old boy who worships him, (this only let down by casting a twenty-three year old actor as the boy).

It is also very unevenly acted. There may be an in-joke of sorts in casting James Wilby and Rupert Graves, (the lovers from "Maurice"), Wilby as a closeted married man and Graves as an out and aging queen he eyes up in a toilet and later meets at a dinner party. Perhaps if these parts had been better written neither actor would have looked so foolish. The best performances come from Jospeh Mawle and Luke Tredaway as the pedophile and the boy and it's very much to their credit that they lift a very difficult subject and make it moving and oddly romantic. Detractors will, of course, find this story the most objectionable for obvious reasons although the producers have cushioned the blow by casting the obviously older Tredaway as the boy.

The film itself takes as its basis the real-life murder of Jody Dobrowski on Clapham Common in 2005 but the impact is weakened by the episodic structure. Ultimately "Clapham Junction" is neither fish nor fowl but an unwieldy hybrid. Its heart may be in the right place but you can't help but feel it does its subject, (whatever you take its subject to be), something of an injustice.