Keep the Lights On

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.

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.

I wanted to like this one for some obscure reason. The subject matter seemed promising and I dove into it with an open mind. Even though the acting was adequate (although nothing great), the one flaw was of course the story or rather the lack of it.

At first, I was lulled into a false sense of hope that something would come to grab my attention so I kept on watching and soon found out that this was as good as it would get. The story should always be the number one priority when producing a movie and sadly, this is not the case here.

The drug aspect didn't bother me as much as it just seemed like yet another cliched way of depicting a love story between 2 men. True, drug addiction can be a part of that community but in this case, it just felt stitched together to give the characters something to do.

The whole time I felt like the director/writer didn't know what to do with his characters to make them interesting. The chemistry between the 2 leads was fair and the supporting actors were also decent but yet again, the story didn't have enough meat to make this riveting. It dragged along to its wobbly conclusion which felt like a letdown because the payoff never came.

The only actor who I felt really owned his part was Thure Lindhardt as Erik and he was quite good in portraying the anguish and sadness of his character but he wasn't given enough substance in terms of his tale to make me feel satisfied with this movie so I could only give it a decent 4 star rating. Nothing horrible certainly but nothing outstanding either.

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.

The approach, manner of depiction, and pace are more characteristic to a Danish or Swedish movie rather than a US one. The gay topic is atypical to a US movie industry as well, although a few of them were even awarded Oscars (e.g. Brokeback Mountain); still, gay erotica there was rather superficial. Keep the Lights On shows - apart from deep and painful dramatic moments - carnal part of love and affection as well (probably too much for certain viewers, on the other hand, the director/screenwriter is gay). The other main topic - drug addiction - has been approached more frequently. However, the plot is uneven, at times the tension disappears and some moves are not grounded, the last 20 minutes or so is protracted, and the ending is trivial. But the cast is evenly strong, the best performance is carried out by a relatively unknown Dane Thure Lindhardt (as Erik Rothman); he is worth remembering, he has recently had several big roles in good productions. But all other characters are deliberated and performed giftedly as well.

If you like dramatic movies with passion and addictions, then the one in question is definitely for you.