Fixing Frank

First of all, I have to admit that I am a sucker for movies that have a stage-feeling to them. 'Suicide Kings' is a great example and 'Fixing Frank' is another brilliant movie to add to the family.

Frank is a writer who is working on an article about a psychologist who is trying to 'cure' people from homosexuality. This, of course, is not Frank's own idea, but his boyfriend's; another psychologist who is more than involved with anything having to do with gay-rights. Trying to be the "good fag", Frank is on a mission to bring this psychologist down, but as time passes he begins to doubt himself as well as his relationship with his boyfriend.

Needless to say, the subject is delicate and the fact that the movie's standpoint is pretty much neutral will probably strike a sensitive nerve within a lot of people. Personally, I couldn't have seen the subject being approached in any other way. Because handling a political and ethical subject such as this without preaching is hard. I'd say they did a pretty damn good job.

Some people say that the main character, Frank, is plain, neutral and terribly underwritten and yes, it's all true. But I do believe that was intentional. Having a fully developed character would make it too personal which would somehow spoil the whole purpose because this is not really about this person we know as Frank; it could be about anyone.

I love the theatrical dialog and the actor playing the gay-curing psychologist is brilliant.

If you watch this movie, thinking it will be another gay-movie, you will probably be disappointed. Because even though it concerns a gay-issue, this is more of a movie debating what's ethical versus personal choice. And yes, it's highly recommended.

I started watching this movie, not knowing what to expect. The whole issue of conversion therapy has been close to me ever since a friend of mine who's gay wanted to try and change his sexual orientation. That's why I approached this movie with both anticipation - for some possible answers - and dread.

Let me put it this way: if you want to understand why some gay men want to change their sexual orientation, you've come to the right place. The movie, through the characters of Frank and Dr. Apsey, raises many questions that aren't easily dismissed. The writing is good, the acting is good, and the way it all plays out is both engaging and plausible.

At the end of the day, however, I felt the problem was that too many of the questions raised weren't handled well enough, weren't addressed as they should have been, considering their enormity. Supposedly the movie gives both sides a chance to show their point of view. Supposedly you're given an answer at the end as to which "side" Frank chooses. But you're given no insight as to why he makes the choice that he does at the end (don't worry, I won't give it away) and you certainly not hearing a real discussion between the two opposing POVs, as one is more dominant in this movie, in a way that Considering the importance (even the urgent importance, that the movie itself refers to) of not leaving this discussion one-sided in those areas where there are answers to be offered to the questions raised here, I think there's still an issue of social responsibility pressing, that suggests those answers should have been supplied more than they have been.

Yet for all this, it does make you think. If you're willing to be a thinker, if you're willing to have a go and find the answers that truly balance things out yourself, you could indeed enjoy this movie.

The feelings through seeing this film were so contrastant than not exactly easy to define it.

It is a film about rivalry, chains of lies, manipulation, dark games and forms of cruelty .

Two psychologists.

The boyfriend of one of them used for presumed article , in fact for proves to compromite the colegue.

The first part is more than promissing.

The second seems not only dark but forced in few scenes.

Because the premises are reduced at terrible confrontation in which young man, not very clever but batsy enough for his ignorance confronts a man who seems interested about him in profound sense.

Obvious, Frank is only a tool for mature. Dr. Apsey, for less mature, remaining in his traumas circle Dr. Baldwin. And the presumed independence is only a lie itself.

Not bad film, useful , first, for reflection ( maybe for bath scene, to, for different reasons ).

On the topic of the validity and morality of offering psychological treatment for those unhappy with their same-sex attractions. As at July 2007 the APA's official attitude is that "ex-gay" therapy should not be promoted, because it is likely to do more harm than good - but they don't object to the members providing treatment if it is actually sought by the client. "Fixing Frank" plays devil's advocate in letting us decide whether this attitude is really acceptable.

Frank is a young journalist who is lacking in assertiveness and personal motivation. Frank's psychotherapist partner has a long standing loathing for a rival therapist whom he knows has been providing "ex-gay" treatments. He convinces Frank that there's a great opportunity for an expose feature by posing as a client seeking an ex-gay cure from this other therapist. The plan falls apart as we see how carefully chosen and passionately delivered rhetoric very effectively chips away at Franks self-confidence as a gay man.

It's a fine film for helping us to empathise with anyone who has sought ex-gay therapy - and is particularly interesting for allowing us to look through the eyes of the ex-gay therapist who passionately believes that he's doing the right thing.

The commentary track on the DVD is invaluable. The director and the actor playing the ex-gay therapist are both gay - but the other two actors are extremely convincing straight men (the cast are all great actors).

A challenging premise. The main flaw is that it takes way too long to set up the plot. The acting is very weak in some scenes(and very good in others). It seems like 90% the shot compositions are close-ups. The film feels very long. About 25% could be edited out. Too much emphasis on repetition of characters conflict and not enough on the conceptual issue. I my opinion it takes something noble and reduces it to a petty squabble between childish overdone stereotypes. Music was unhelpful.

Unfortunately a missed opportunity to get these ideas to a broader audience, as the focus was too much on some unlikable characters on not on the social issues.