gus120970

There are so few films of distinction about gay relationships that one which is even half insightful gets lauded as something greater than it actually is, and such a film is 'Weekend'. This slight affair covers the 48 hour period where two guys pick each other up in a bar, rapidly develop an emotional attachment for each other, spill out some of the details of their somewhat alienated lives and then. Well, I won't spoil the plot. Not that there is a plot in the conventional sense. Which is my gripe. The normal standards by which we measure feature films when we visit the cinema tend, as gay men, to be lowered just because it's a film dealing with 'gay issues'. Engaged as I am to see gay men talking about gay men (and in this film the main topic of conversation between these guys is that they are gay men) I actually like things to happen in films. I like plot twists and subtle characterisations, memorable lines, striking shots. Weekend has none of these things. But it does have plenty of that quality that seems to hang over all gay movies. It has angst - lots of it. We are reminded in almost every shot what a burden it is to be gay. How lonely, how weighty, how alienated and how painful. And sometimes it is. But sometimes it's not. One can redeem Weekend in various ways. You can say it follows to an extent the rules of the Dogma 95 movement in its unrelenting realism, and the writer/director has striven to get a sense of authenticity in the nature of the two guy's awkward emotional exploration, lacklustre sex and bad quality instant coffee. You might also call is subtle and thought-provoking in its drawn-out wordy scenes and oblique camera angles. You might even say it's the gay 'Brief Encounter' if you connect with the two boxed-in main characters. But actually, in truth, it's just a rather boring movie about two characters who happen to be gay and don't do very movie.

Part and parcel of the PR bandwagon for 'Star Trek' were reports of Trekkers (a devotee corrected my previous use of the term 'Trekkie') weeping in the aisles, collapsing in ecstacy etc. at preview screenings. I suppose that's to be expected. It's been a long time since a movie featured the original characters and there was always something slightly antiseptic about the TNG cast and the movies spawned from their series. Such was the pre-release feedback from that constituency I was expecting to be blown away, rather than, as happened, leaving the cinema entertained and engaged, with slight nagging doubts. The most major of these is how cavalierly this reboot rewrites the entire Star Trek universe, details of which, of course, cannot be revealed. It also uses the laziest of sci-fi clichés in order to twist a plot around. When you see the movie you will understand instantly what I mean by this. Otherwise, it's most pleasant aspects are the rich, warm tones of its cinematography and retro stylings when it comes to the likes of uniforms, 'ray guns' and starship interiors which appear to feature copious amounts of pipework. This is as much a homage to an earlier generation of science fiction movies as to the original Star Trek TV series. One irritation is Abrams love of shaky camera work, which sometimes, when combined with overwhelming pyrotechnics makes it difficult to see what's actually going on. This is where JJ Abrams has fixed his vision. The reboot aims at recreating the intimacy of the TV series, dodging behind rocks and acrobatic hand-to-hand combat rather than the 'epic' and cerebral tone introduced by the movies of the 70s and 80s. Unfortunately the plot is not that strong. As in other recent 'reboots' of Batman and Superman, the initial exposition of story drags a little as characters are introduced. I have my doubts as to whether the actors are able to either inhabited these much-loved characters effectively and also give them new life. In this first movie, Spock and Kirk aside, perhaps, they seem to be pale imitations. Simon Pegg's Scotty, especially, was a disappointment. The thing about Star Trek is that it's such an assured franchise, the producers know they can refine and enrich their re-imagined ST universe over several more films, and this one gives them a relatively strong platform to do this from.

'Milk' follows the brief political career of controversial and charismatic San Francisco gay politician, Harvey Milk, who was assassinated in 1978. Milk has since become an icon of gay political activism and a defining figure in the monumental civil rights changes of the 1970s for gay men and women - though he was not universally regarded by his peers during the time.

Sean Penn offers an awesome performance of humanity and sheer acting craft in depicting a character who is only off-screen for seconds, while contemporary newsreels intersperse the dramatic action to provide the historical narrative context. Milk is engaging, lovable but flawed and self-absorbed.

More detail of his complex character is related in Randy Shilt's book 'Mayor of Castro Street' which is an essential companion if you are drawn into the story of the man and the issues. I cannot see why you wouldn't be, as it's a fascinating story of time and place.

The Castro itself is the other star not on the bill. This compact district of Eureka Valley west San Francisco effectively became the world's first gay ghetto back in the early to mid-1970s, in an episode that made it a haven for unhappy,alienated and horny(!) homosexuals from across the USA whilst at the same place dispossessing its traditional Irish-American population. The film tries, in the brief space it has, to document this social upheaval as it plays out.

Anyone that knows the Castro (as a visitor - guilty!) can see quite a few scenes were filmed on it, adding a piquancy to the story and another example of the love lavished on the film by its cast, crew and its director Gus Van Sant. Personally, I dislike many of his films finding them elliptical and pretentious, but 'Milk' is pretty straightforward and has a mainstream feel. Maybe a little too much like a 'studio' movie, but at least the stylistics don't get in the way of the story telling.

Probably most astonishing is how recent these events actually though some of the sentiments expressed feel they come from another time completely. But then, as it was still technically illegal in the early 1970s to serve alcohol to a homosexual in a San Francisco bar, should we be surprised.