Keep the Lights On

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.

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.

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.

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.

This film tells the turbulent love story of a filmmaker and a drug addict.

The storyline looks great on paper, but "Keep the Lights On" dos not manage to captivate our engage. The two leading characters are poorly developed, especially the drug addict as we don't see who they really are. We seldom see them outside their relationship, so their portrayal is so narrow and one dimensional. As a result, I don't find myself caring for them. Their dysfunctional interaction only annoys me. And there are too many unlikely plot details, I just don't understand how Erik could be allowed in the room while the boyfriend and another guy is having sex.

"Keep the Lights On" is well made, with great sets, lighting and scene composition. However the story is not engaging and I couldn't wait for it to end.