Keep the Lights On

My biggest beef with this movie was that the romance between the two main characters, Erik and Paul, seemed shallow. They only meet each other a couple times before we as an audience are supposed to believe that they are "in love." Even Erik can't seem to really put into words why he's so into Paul when directly questioned. That, and that alone, made it difficult for me to be emotionally invested in the relationship between Erik and Paul, and therefore I didn't really care about any of the subsequent ups and downs that they went through. What the script lacks is the development of the relationship, and without it I am left confused as to why Erik chooses to stay with Paul throughout the story.

Otherwise, the acting was believable and the plot was interesting. I just like to feel emotionally connected to the love story in any romance movie, and I didn't feel it here.

A KVIFF screening of this year's Teddy winner in Berlin International Film Festival, from American director Ira Sachs. It is a detailed dissection of the a tug-of-war gay relationship between Erik and Paul, which soldiers on almost a decade in the present-time (1997-2006).

Thure Lindhardt, the Danish out-of-the-closet actor who has shown the immense stretch in the skin-head gay-romance BROTHERHOOD (2009, an 8/10), transforms himself into a young immigrant documentary director Erik living in NYC, probably sex-addictive, met the dandy boy Peter (Zachary Booth), first time for sexual intercourse, then the mutual attraction brings both into a relationship complex, which encompasses an overt hindrance, Paul's drug-addition, a cliché default even makes for the consistent trappings of gay life, thanks to the barren soil of the genre.

It's hard not to compare this film with last year's indie darling WEEKEND (2011, an 8/10), both stand out among other numerous lesser achievers, but in very disparate ways. KEEP THE LIGHTS ON is a sultry relationship conundrum exhausts one's vigor even dignity to sustain the suffocating love; while WEEKEND concentrates on the bad-timing symptom after a casual sex date which one must cut off his feeling and affection. Different terms, same payoff. Nevertheless, both films have a cracking two-hander cast, in this case, Lindhardt and Booth are fervently suited to their tailor-made roles, especially Lindhardt, literally carries the film on his shoulders to elaborate a not-so-extraordinary script, I do hope he will not be stereotyped into the gay-actor-can-never-act-straight category for his future career.

The film at large is a mean-well, sincere work with some uneasy aftertaste, but never accomplishes itself as a boredom, a welcome 7 out of 10 is my indulgence.

Keep the lights on is a story about Erik, a filmmaker, who falls in love with Paul. The movie is about their decade long relationship with many highs and lows and how their lives, tangled into each other's, gets affected by the choices they make.

First of all, hats-off to the direction by Ira Sachs. The film is shot in a very sombre manner which states that the men were never meant to be together to begin with, without the characters explicitly saying it in the film. I am excited now to see his much spoken about "Love is Strange" if I wasn't before. Another thing which I liked is the character development of the protagonist. As he is a filmmaker, he is depicted as eccentric who follows his desire but at the same time, we see him getting entirely overwhelmed by not being able to handle his relationship. As if he is putting so much efforts to make it work but it doesn't seem to be happening like he wanted which makes him furious and forces him to say or assume something which makes the whole situation even worse. Erik is played by Thure Lindhart. I haven't seen any of his other work, but I'll sure keep a lookout from now on.

The movie occasionally takes a very slow pace which might be a turn off to some people but I'll recommend one and all to stay fixated as all the other times, the movie is truly heartbreaking. The truthfulness of the characters, the amber cinematography, the contemporary demeanours but still yearning for traditional facets of a relationship like having a child, are the things which triumph for Keep the Lights on. It's the absence of emotional transparency between the couple which makes it one of the most moving films of its time.

Do give it a go if you're a fan of watching budding romantic flings on-screen and are not too afraid of watching it all shatter as well in less than an hour and a half.

NOTE: If you like, "Keep the Lights On", you might also like, "Happy Together" by Kar-Wai Wong.

In New York City, two young men are in an intense relationship which is made all the more intense as one of them is a drug addict.

The film seems bleak in the beginning (though in a realistic way) with lonely men getting lost in fast sex and hard drugs. The story, thankfully, goes beyond this as it shows some of these same people genuinely wanting to connect with someone.

Some opportunities were missed in that there were no scenes of what goes on inside a rehabilitation clinic. This would have enhanced the story as would some exploration of the co-dependent behaviour of the non-addicted partner. Also, an overly sentimental speech at a Christmas dinner seemed to go too far.

But these are small compared to the film's good points. It is very rich in exposing the ups and downs of a loving relationship that is realistically flawed. The ending (and the twenty minutes preceding the conclusion) were very powerful emotionally. The ending doesn't quite suck the tears out but instead leaves a deeper emotion which is very genuine.

Also, the film gets credit for avoiding bad, old cliches about gay characters.

Okay, really? This movie is "homophobic" and "makes it look like all gay men smoke crack"? That it didn't seem "believable"? Huh. Maybe because I watched it not only knowing it was largely a true story, but also having read the real-life memoir of the man represented in the film by "Paul" (Bill Clegg), but I thought it did a very good job of depicting the tragedy of being in a relationship with someone fundamentally f*cked up and not being able to let them go until far too late. The acting was spot-on, particularly from Thure Lindhardt, and the portrayals were entirely believable. In no context whatsoever was it intentionally designed to depict gay men as insatiable crackheads.

As for complaints that basically go back to verisimilitude: people, it's an indie flick, and a super- low-budget one at that. You can't realistically depict Manhattan circa 1998 that way, nor can you have characters whose attire and hairstyles change all that much during the film. (That said, I've seen photos of Bill Clegg, and his super-preppy "look" -- which is how Paul is consistently depicted in the film -- hasn't really changed much over the years.) My only issue in this regard was in terms of easily avoidable problems; in the second scene for instance, set in 1998, Erik walks by what is clearly recognizable (to a New Yorker, at least) as one of the bus shelters constructed within the past five years or so. They really had to shoot on *that* street?

My problems with the film weren't with the acting, but more with its failure to fully flesh out Paul as a character. I'm unclear whether this was intentional -- in the context of "you can never *really* know someone" -- but Paul started out as an enigma and largely stayed that way. I understand that this comes with the territory with a largely autobiographical film written by the protagonist, Erik (though I have no clue whatsoever why he's Danish, to the extent of having conversations in Danish with his sister - Ira Sachs is American and Jewish, though obviously a real-life filmmaker), but hewing so closely to a real-life timeline left Sachs with too little time to delve into what compelled him to stay with "Paul" for such an extended period. I also thought there were a few too many largely extraneous side plots, particularly involving Erik's BFF's biological-clock issues and the weird muscley guy Erik inexplicably hooked up with two times five years apart. And why did a solitary, unexplained pair of scenes have him going to Virginia for an extended period of time? (neither of which had anything whatsoever to do with the main plot)

Still, even given its flaws, it's one of the best gay-themed indie films I've seen in quite some time (though "Weekend" is still better all around). It avoids the most typical gay-film clichés (the coming-out stories, the happy endings, the life revolving around discos and fabulous hags) to deliver something raw and real.