While I hardly expect everything in a movie to be sewn up neatly by the end, the writers introduced characters and story lines that the viewer was lead to believe mattered- but were dropped and never resolved. John Lithgow's character seems oblivious to the fact that he is becoming an imposition to his nephew's family, especially to his nephew's young 15 year old son with whom he is sharing bunk beds. The writers/director have created a story with so many holes and illogical story paths that I found myself annoyed and angry with the characters. The idea of two late 60s/early 70s men with no apparent savings/pension/income to be able to maintain their condo for at least a little while also stretched credibility - instead they selfishly share their predicament with relatives and friends and crash separately with them. The whole movie seems so contrived that it seems the writers chose almost any situation to advance the film so that it got to the ending that they had written, whether it made sense or not. For some reason, they felt it imperative to live separately in the city even though neither was now employed. I found this unbelievable, especially when they had the option to live together with a relative outside the city. Now the bad: the whole premise of the movie, that this couple found it necessary to each find separate temporary living arrangements while trying to find a new apartment, stretched all credibility. First the good: the two leads are wonderful and understated playing the gay couple who've been together for 39 years, now facing the realities of being temporarily homeless, and separated from each other. While I found the acting to be generally good, the writing and direction were uneven and confusing. My partner and I were really looking forward to this movie - a story about a loving mature gay couple dealing with some harsh realities, played by some wonderful actors. In fact, those are exactly the same circles Woody Allen prefers for his films, and sometimes 'Love is Strange' reminded me of Allen's best films, like 'Blue Jasmine', minus the usual neurotic behaviour by the lead characters. (The sort of people who think it's almost impossible to survive in Poughkeepsie when you're used to Manhattan). But the couple fits in perfectly in the liberal, open minded, intellectual New York circles where the movie is set. The film could just as well have been about a straight couple, with some minor script changes.
The couple is gay, but that doesn't really matter. The music has a special meaning, because it is the music that one of the lead characters teaches his piano pupils. Some scenes are very elongated and show little action, which gives an intense effect in combination with the wonderful and very prominent soundtrack consisting of piano pieces by Chopin. The director does a perfect job in balancing the emotions. I think the word that best describes the general mood of the picture is 'heartfelt'. Others are emotional, but never melodramatic.
Some scenes are funny in an understated way, and make you softly chuckle in your seat. The film shows the interaction between civilized and polite people who are all perfectly willing to help each other, but nevertheless are increasingly annoyed by the uneasy situations caused by the arrangement. They temporarily move in with relatives and neighbours, until they have found a new place of their own. The film tells the story of an older couple, who are forced to leave their Manhattan apartment after one of them is fired from his teaching position. Maybe that doesn't sound too exciting, but it's enough to keep on watching, and be moved by what you see. It is a film about how people live, love, talk, help each other out, appreciate each other and sometimes work on each other's nerves. Apart from that, I liked everything about 'Love is Strange'. It's not about a strange love affair, but about a very normal one. And it doesn't even have anything to do with what this film is about. There is only one thing I didn't like about this film: the title.
0 kommentar(er)
