The Velocity of Gary

Dan Ireland's film The Velocity of Gary* (*Not his real name)is both moving and involving, painting a honest depiction of unconventional love in an almost abstract, fantastical way. I tracked this film down (not an easy task here in the UK) as a loyal follower of the great Thomas Jane and was not disappointed when I finally got to watch it. Jane plays Gary, a hustler in New York who falls under the loving wing of Valentino, an adult film actor played by Vincent D' Onofrio. Both have an immediate attraction to one another (sexual? paternal, in Valentino's case?) but things are complicated by the presence of Valentino's shrieking girlfriend Mary Carmen (Salma Hayek). A brutal yet genuinely loving emotional triangle is formed, then tragedy strikes as Valentino is diagnosed with AIDS. Adapted by James Still from his own one man play, this is raw, passionate stuff, and not to everyone's taste. But to those who want to taste something a little different, I highly recommend the picture. Two factors keep the interest throughout: 1) Jane. His performance is honest, brave and utterly believable. He has to be the best working young actor in American film at this point in time. 2) The films original score by Peitor Angell is as moving as its source material. The films theme (though it only appears during the opening credits and during a festival some time later) is a beautiful piece of film composition. This is an intimate little flick which, whilst never exactly 'feel-good', highlights the gift of life and making the most of it.

I found the movie to be great at times and despite a couple of awkward scenes, enjoyed it very much. The actors are all terrific, especially Thomas Jane. I also enjoyed the drag queen lip-synching along to Patsy Cline and the Halloween parade scenes. I have thought about this movie fondly ever since seeing it - its not like any other movie I've seen lately so I appreciate it for that, too.

It's painful to watch competent actors slumming in this movie. You know they are reaching for something "cool" and knowing, when what they ultimately grab at is something infantile and delusional. This is probably the writer James Still's point: that these people need to look death in the face and grow up. But it's such a mundane point.

If death is all around you, if the people you know are dropping like flies, and you figure the remedy is to get along with the people who are left (because they may be gone tomorrow) and have children of your own (so you feel death has not defeated you), why stay among people whose habits issue in death? Why impose the specter of sexual caution and responsibility, when what makes the people in this movie who they are flies in the face of this appeal? I don't think the main characters Valentino, Mary Carmen, and Gary form a bisexual triangle, because they want to lead wary, conventional lives. The thought presented here that bisexuality can be the common ground on which homosexuals and heterosexuals can come together is sly pontificating, and when you consider the way the camera languishes over the liplock Vincent D'Onofrio is made to plant on Thomas Jane, you get the feeling that the heterosexual side is taking a back seat to the flip side of the triangle.

This really seems like Gary's story anyway; Selma Hayek is trying much too hard to garner some respect and dignity for Mary Carmen for it to be hers. Director Dan Ireland should have pulled her in more; it might have done wonders for her big moment, when she lip-syncs to Diana Ross' "Ain't No Mountain High Enough." It's supposed to suggest the strength of her attachment to her lover, but Hayek hasn't been asked to play it deeply. She declaims everything, so what she emotes spreads out too thinly.

It's Thomas Jane's reticence that convinces us of whom the story favors. When his body surrenders to Valentino on the dance floor, or his eyes roll back with Valentino's teeth in his neck, or he broods quietly when Valentino and Mary Carmen are sharing intimacies, the sexual undercurrent he creates pulls you under with great impetus. This must be what Still means by Gary's velocity. At least that is what I figure. But if I happen to be wrong, what in blazes does that pretentious title mean?

I just watched the movie. And I can't understand the bad critics, because it is a sweet and interesting movie. The Actors doing a pretty good job. Especially Thomas Jane. He was part of the reason why I rented it in the first place. His performance was stunning.

"THE VELOCITY OF GARY" starts out promising and quite cinematic with hunky Thomas Jane as daylight cowboy Gary (not his real name) showering in one of New York's open hydrants. Montage of Gary (n.h.r.n) in every cinematographer's NY tribute from Bowery to Brooklyn, which makes Gary (nhrn) one busy cruiser.

Next up, Gary (nhrn) reluctantly comes to the aid of a young drag queen whose straight off the bus from one of the square states (swinging her suitcase and grinning as if she's just landed in the Greenwich Village of the musical "Wonderful Town" not the real-life scaresville of today) and is promptly set upon by gay bashers. Suffice it to say, the kid learns that interesting people do indeed live on Christopher Street.

Unfortunately, this collection of downtown losers is of far more interest to themselves than us. Under-developed and preening constantly, they speak in bad poetic jargon (the film's stage roots showing terribly) and manage to grate on our nerves in a New York minute. Selma Hayek (real name) and Jane (real name) are both oddly drawn to super-loser bisexual idiot played by Vincent D'Onofrio (who should change his name after helping produce this mess). All need a haircut in the worst way, making their adventure look like a 60's flashback when it's anything but. Everything goes downhill after the first flash forward and never recovers.

"The Velocity of Gary" is lacks both velocity and veracity. You're better off not having known their real names.