El cielo dividido

Brilliant concept, brilliant direction, brilliant cast.

Take the final scene. Was that a happy ending or a moment from the past? What to make of the mutual love declaration in the penultimate scene?

What I love about this film are the lateral images - stairs, venetian blinds, bridges, ladders, bookcases, freeways, bars, beds, photographs - and all the shoulder touching, love making, full of doubt and sheer longing moments that overlay them.

This, coupled with the camera's constant circling around the protagonists make this a truly remarkable film. (I hope you noticed the scenes where the same actor appears in more than one spot in the same take.)

Yes, this film is not for everyone. Yes, there is little dialog, and yes, most of you will pan it.

For me, el Cielo Dividido remains a silent, magical love story, brilliantly told by Julián Hernández, coupled with exceptional photography and outstanding performances from Fernando Arroyo, Miguel Ángel Hoppe and Alejandro Rojo in the lead roles.

I listened to to the closing lyrics, " so close, so far," and looked back to the beautiful story I'd just been told.

Well done.

This could have been the gay counterpart to Gone With The Wind given its epic lenght, but instead it satisfied itself by being a huge chain of empty episodes in which absolutely nothing occurs. The characters are uni-dimensional and have no other development in the story (there's actually no story either) than looking for each other and kissing. It's a shame that an interesting aesthetic proposition like having almost no dialog is completely wasted in a film than makes no effort in examining the psychology of its characters with some dignity, and achieving true emotional resonance. On top of that, it pretends to be an "art" film by using the worst naive clichés of the cinematic snobbery. But anyway, if someone can identify with its heavy banality, I guess that's fine.

Saw it at SIFF. This is a different kind of film -- but I loved it. I loved the fact that there wasn't a lot of dialogue. I appreciated the non-verbal aspects of this film. While the lack of dialogue some may find tedious it was nice to see something that wasn't shot for the small screen, something that made me pay attention visually, and something that made me think a bit. I thought the camera technique used to convey the passage of time was quite effective. The only technical aspect which drove me nuts was the use of white subtitles on a white background; fortunately this was a small, small part of the film but at key junctions in the story development. I'm rather fond of this film and would like to watch it again.

I guess it's not surprising that this film received mixed reviews. I knew when I saw it that it would not be for everyone. I have to say though that I really loved this film and would gladly see it again, particularly to share it with someone I care for.

I think you have to just sit back, relax and let this film wash over you. The best way for me to describe it is as a beautiful poem about love, particularly young love. It conveys all the thrill and excitement, the confusion and pain, the jealousy and longing...really all the emotions one experiences from first love. Rather than words, however, this poem is composed of pictures and music and ambient sound. Like a poem it isn't always straightforward, you don't always understand every moment, but the feelings that it evokes are strong and genuine, and it captures universals in a way that a more specific, narrative film never could.

The director has said that the reason there is so little dialogue is that the moments he chose to capture were the ones between the dialogue; before the characters felt the need to speak, and after they had said all there was to say. What's amazing is how illuminating those moments are when one chooses to pay attention to them.

In the context of this film I'm not sure what the phrase "gratuitous male nudity" means. Although I know it never happens in the U.S., in other countries people get naked. It's part of life. It's certainly part of the relationship that this film is all about, and to show it, unceremoniously, as part of the fabric of a life and a relationship can hardly be described as "gratuitous".

I guess the best compliment I can pay this film is to say that I am still thinking and talking about it, weeks after seeing it. The camera work, the composition, the use of sound and music, and the contribution of the young stars, all contribute to the film's success. If you enjoy film-making as an art form, I'd highly recommend you seek out this film.

In Mexico this movie, presented as part of the Muestra International de Cine 2006, a cinema tour that goes to every state nationwide, was really disappointing. The director seems to understand the dilemma surrounding gay relationships but fails in the use of an expressive formal language to communicate the narrative elements. Movements and gestures were the basic conductors in this story but in order to keep intensity of emotions within the public actors seem to have troubles while expressing them due to whether a bad direction or lack of experience. At some point, the film appeared to me as a choreography set up for stage and to be performed by dancers. It lasts more than 2 hours which I consider very long and exhausting for people to keep attention on it.