Ma vie avec John F. Donovan

True to form, Xavier Dolan has given us something original and profound. This is a beautiful story about time, progress and boundary-crossing forms of friendship and love. The film has its minor flaws but the acting is great from everyone involved (even Kit Harrington, usually rather one-note in my opinion, gives a wonderfully nuanced and haunting performance), an awesome soundtrack, equal parts style and substance, and exquisite cinematography. The critic reviews are shockingly unfair and not at all representative of the great quality that this piece of art embodies.

If you think the movie failed you probably didn't understand the true meaning. It is a movie about soul searching and life with depression. It is about how life with depression requires you to wear a mask because of the expectations of those around you, it's about the lack of intimacy and being truly and personally open with others even those closest to you, it's about trying to live your life based on what you think others expect of you and think you deserve. It is a movie about finding one person who you can truly talk to because you connect and you feel they don't judge you. It's a movie about life and figuring out how to let yourself be happy. Beautifully done movie with great depth yet only some will truly understand it on a personal level.

You know what? If you don't like Xavier Dolan and/or don't appreciate his work, please do not watch this movie; and, above all, don't do reviews.

After watching this movie, I surfed the net - moved only by curiosity -to look for reviews. And, what I mostly found, even from the most qualified and acclaimed reviewers, is a sort of standardized analysis, gravitating around usual Dolan's logos (as unfortunately they use to say): Dolan always talks about his himself, mothers, homosexuality.

So what? Even if these items seem to be recurring in his works, couldn't they be considered as tools, keys he uses for opening the door of his inner world? Everybody use tools, why Dolan should not be allowed to use his? Why don't start from different angles in analyzing what flows before our eyes ?

If we look at things always in the same way, with the corrective lenses of prejudgement, we lose the freedom of observing things the way they are/could be, because we look at them only in the way we would like them to be.

This movie has a lot to say not only about the director himself- of course it does, he's one of the writers- (by the way, the direction is great and beautifully crafted, and emphasizes events and emotions; Kit Harington, Natalie Portman, Susan Sarandon and the kid, Jacob Tremblay, offer beautiful acting performances) - but also it tells a lot about ourselves, humans beings always looking for something to relieve our mal de vivre; always looking for others approval, always deeply involved in an unbalanced balance between joy and despere. Yes, mothers, gays, and children too -people - in a carousel of feelings and emotions.

I stop here. There are many things this movie talks about, many clues to investigate, many paths to follow: I leave you, sensitive people, the pleasure of discovery.

I had been wanted to watch this and then read the reviews and thought I wouldn't bother. I only ended up putting this movie on as I'd seen everything else and couldn't sleep. Did I watch the same movie as the people who hated it? I understand each to their own but for me the acting was great and the story would have resonated with so many different people on many levels. A rare script to have so many great actors in it so they obviously saw the wow factor.

This movie takes place mostly over two main timelines. In 2017, Rupert Turner (Ben Schnetzer) has written a book about his correspondent letters with late actor John F. Donovan (Kit Harington) and journalist Audrey Newhouse (Thandiwe Newton) is interviewing him. During the mid-2000's, John is closeted star with a hit show. Sam Turner (Natalie Portman) is raising her son Rupert Turner (Jacob Tremblay) in England. Grace Donovan (Susan Sarandon) is John's mother and Barbara Haggermaker (Kathy Bates) is his manager.

This seems to have one layer too many. I don't think the present-day shell is necessary. The story is already bifurcated into Rupert's story and John's story. It takes an hour before the story gets to the point. It needs to get there a bit faster. Dropping the present day story would help a lot. The scandal unfolds wrong. The aftermath of the assault needs to have more space instead of just a comment. Haggermaker would not handle it in that way if she knows anything about public relations. The movie reaches a high level with the stolen letters and couldn't maintain it.