Contains spoilers...
After all the praise that has been given to this film, I was surprised by finding myself becoming so bored by it I struggled to make it to the end.
The film consists of two broadly uninteresting people having mostly downbeat and unoriginal conversations. One, Glenn, is a 24 year old aspiring artist, though what we learn about the quality of his mind and the limited range of his consistently solipsistic thinking suggests he will be without success. He complains that straight people aren't interested enough in hearing about gay sex, that if he did a show about him talking about gay sex then straight people wouldn't come, that there aren't enough gay story lines on TV, that heterosexuality is shoved in his face, that marriage is too conformist, that gays are too pigeon– holed etc ad nauseum. And many other things the average gay man will have heard expressed 100 times before, with as little depth. Glen's friends hold him back, he thinks, seeing him only as he used to be, whereas he feels he is constantly changing. He hates Nottingham. He doesn't want a boyfriend.
The protagonist, Russell, is more endearing and essentially likable, but most of the time words need to be dragged from him, sometimes in a mumble. His relationship with his best friend Jamie is much dwelt upon, but when together he barely holds a conversation with him. He maintains a habit of writing down his depressing sexual encounters with closeted or cheating or just unhappy men. Several of these are later read out, Glen and Russell taking in turns.
Most of the film takes place inside Russell's small and dreary flat. The director's choice of a washed out colour palette of grey and blue compounds the dreariness. Outside, people shuffle up concrete paths. Russell lives there in a vacuum. Glen has some friends, but from what little we see of them, they are neither interesting or pleasant and he doesn't like them much. Really there is little of anything in their lives. What others found deeply romantic, I experienced more as claustrophobic and was unconvinced by the depth of foundations of the connection. Both characters are lonely and slightly unhappy and fancy each other. But it was easy to imagine the relationship being broken off, whether or not Glen does ultimately go to Portland (the film's only plot point). The most exciting thing they do together is have a backie on a bike.
The sex is believable and unerotic, to my mind at least, and even the drugs are no fun. In this film taking large amounts of cocaine only makes people crave gloomy and irritable conversations with each other; I would suggest another dealer. These men in their mid 20s talk a great deal about whether and when they feel embarrassed or ashamed to be gay, and about coming out and the extent to which they are out. Which hasn't been my own experience of what English gay men in their mid 20s talk about with each other (yes, I've been one).
As well as a lack of plot, there is no cinematography to speak of that could be described as filmic. It could easily be made for TV, except there's deliberate camera shakiness and blurring. There's little in the way of a soundtrack.
The film is very well acted; the leads play their parts convincingly, it's the characters that lack interest. There is most of the time a strong sense of verisimilitude. And that has been the biggest source of praise for the film. But filming people talking on a bus would also have a sense of verisimilitude. The question is what would be the point? Where is the creativity? Are the leads being gay sufficient justification for the film? I certainly don't feel it told me anything about life, or made me see life in a slightly new way. The sense it brought to mind was of being stuck in a corner at a disappointing and dingy house party, being spoken to at length by someone dull, but being in two minds whether to leave yet as it's a long journey home and I'm not yet drunk, so I hang around.
After all the praise that has been given to this film, I was surprised by finding myself becoming so bored by it I struggled to make it to the end.
The film consists of two broadly uninteresting people having mostly downbeat and unoriginal conversations. One, Glenn, is a 24 year old aspiring artist, though what we learn about the quality of his mind and the limited range of his consistently solipsistic thinking suggests he will be without success. He complains that straight people aren't interested enough in hearing about gay sex, that if he did a show about him talking about gay sex then straight people wouldn't come, that there aren't enough gay story lines on TV, that heterosexuality is shoved in his face, that marriage is too conformist, that gays are too pigeon– holed etc ad nauseum. And many other things the average gay man will have heard expressed 100 times before, with as little depth. Glen's friends hold him back, he thinks, seeing him only as he used to be, whereas he feels he is constantly changing. He hates Nottingham. He doesn't want a boyfriend.
The protagonist, Russell, is more endearing and essentially likable, but most of the time words need to be dragged from him, sometimes in a mumble. His relationship with his best friend Jamie is much dwelt upon, but when together he barely holds a conversation with him. He maintains a habit of writing down his depressing sexual encounters with closeted or cheating or just unhappy men. Several of these are later read out, Glen and Russell taking in turns.
Most of the film takes place inside Russell's small and dreary flat. The director's choice of a washed out colour palette of grey and blue compounds the dreariness. Outside, people shuffle up concrete paths. Russell lives there in a vacuum. Glen has some friends, but from what little we see of them, they are neither interesting or pleasant and he doesn't like them much. Really there is little of anything in their lives. What others found deeply romantic, I experienced more as claustrophobic and was unconvinced by the depth of foundations of the connection. Both characters are lonely and slightly unhappy and fancy each other. But it was easy to imagine the relationship being broken off, whether or not Glen does ultimately go to Portland (the film's only plot point). The most exciting thing they do together is have a backie on a bike.
The sex is believable and unerotic, to my mind at least, and even the drugs are no fun. In this film taking large amounts of cocaine only makes people crave gloomy and irritable conversations with each other; I would suggest another dealer. These men in their mid 20s talk a great deal about whether and when they feel embarrassed or ashamed to be gay, and about coming out and the extent to which they are out. Which hasn't been my own experience of what English gay men in their mid 20s talk about with each other (yes, I've been one).
As well as a lack of plot, there is no cinematography to speak of that could be described as filmic. It could easily be made for TV, except there's deliberate camera shakiness and blurring. There's little in the way of a soundtrack.
The film is very well acted; the leads play their parts convincingly, it's the characters that lack interest. There is most of the time a strong sense of verisimilitude. And that has been the biggest source of praise for the film. But filming people talking on a bus would also have a sense of verisimilitude. The question is what would be the point? Where is the creativity? Are the leads being gay sufficient justification for the film? I certainly don't feel it told me anything about life, or made me see life in a slightly new way. The sense it brought to mind was of being stuck in a corner at a disappointing and dingy house party, being spoken to at length by someone dull, but being in two minds whether to leave yet as it's a long journey home and I'm not yet drunk, so I hang around.