Straightman

I have read comments and reviews that compare this to movies by John Cassavetes and Mike Leigh. It is, and by far, in a totally different league. I believe it takes incredible talent, even genius, to pull off near reality when you let your actors improvise. Cassavetes and Leigh have (had) such talent and I find many of their movies admirable.

Unfortunately, it is my opinion that neither the director, the writers nor the actors who gave birth to Straightman had what it takes to pull it off. The dialogs were painfully empty, incoherent and led nowhere. The characters were not developed, the ending a cop-out. I found the whole thing rather pretentious, posing as "rough trade chic".

Are the reviewers indulgent because of the gay theme? I'm gay and have seen many gay movies. In Straightman, the theme does not redeem the film. Maybe, as Liz Braun (reviewer, Toronto Sun) said: "Straightman is the sort of film people tend to either love or hate." Well, I hated it, except for a few moments, and gave it a 2/10.

This hyper low-budget, rough edged study of a friendship between two men, one straight, one gay is unusual for the honesty with which it shows the layers that men place over their feelings, between each others and even within themselves. The need for love, the use of sex as a distancing device instead of a way of being closer, the confusion of vulnerability and weakness, the use of humor to mask deeper feelings, these traits are rarely examined with much honesty. The same could be said for how male friendship in general functions (and doesn't) as well.

Made in the rough edged, improvised tradition of Casavettes and Mike Leigh, this deserves points for trying. The difference is, both Casavettes and Leigh had access to some of the best actors of their respective days, and while the actors here are willing,they're simply not at that level of depth or talent, meaning that while this has some wonderful moments, there are also some repetitive, or even awkwardly 'acted' ones as well.

But I'd rather see a film that aims high and doesn't always make it, than one that tries for nothing and succeeds.

Take two ordinary men who have no previous film credits for acting, directing, or writing, put them in charge of all three tasks, and the result is likely to be as shapeless and self-indulgent as "Straightman." This low-budget movie is a real disappointment -- so much so that I begin to suspect the glowing reviews were written by friends of the cast. It's a shame, too, because there is potential here for a good indie movie. It begins with a good premise, the working-class Chicago backdrop is interesting, and there is a sense that the film might be semi-autobiographical.

This film's main problem is that the director, who also co-stars, apparently has no distance from the material. An objective eye would have edited the tiresome and repetitious improvisation. As it is, the two men talk on and on and on. Scenes are too long, and footage that should have been cut is treated as sacrosanct. The drama goes from feeling fresh to feeling forced as each of the lead actors has to pile on dramatic moments. While the actors do not stink, they are not noticeably talented, either; so they cannot sustain the drama, and ultimately their time on screen feels undeserved.

Not recommended.

Straightman is the story of Jack and David and what happens to their friendship once they become roommates.

This is a tough movie to watch. Not because of the subject matter, but because the acting, directing, and the writing are not up to the quality needed for a movie like this. While having some really great moments, it seemed that the director was more interested in keeping the viewer off balance with unsteady camera work.

The script, if there was one, seemed to broad and too focused by strokes. Where things should have been played with a delicate hand, we were smashed over the head with info. Where we should have been given the internal dialog of a character, we are just given the outcome.

The acting seemed both earnest and forced. The moments that shone are the ones where the two main characters weren't talking to each other. When they did, it felt forced and awkward.

This is a movie I would have eagerly watched when it first came out. So starved for representation in movies, I would have been glad for it. Now, it just doesn't hold up to newer movies that seem to have done the same story, but better.

I don't usually skip ahead in movies, but had to do it with this one. Was thanking my dvd remote for that option! Not entirely bad, just overall boring. Ben Redgrave is white trash "eye candy". The homo sex scenes are very erotic. The straight sex scenes were like watching a Ron Jeremy movie. Yuck! A nice attempt for film production. Will be looking for more movies by this novice team. If they can pull it together, lot's of potential.