Christopher And His Kind

[ella_caramella]

First, let me state that Matt Smith was very good in this. He is a very good actor. Period. Hence, it's not MS I have a problem with but, even at the risk of making myself highly unpopular here, I must admit that I didn't like the film very much. Or at all

Comments

[mosame]

Apparently, they think that it's enough to put gay characters in a movie to make it "gay-friendly". *sigh*

I'm no longer that keen to see it.

[ella_caramella]

I'd say watch it if you're a MS fan. The other actors are very good as well. Sure thing is that the 1h30mins restriction wasn't enough to give all the characters a proper window and neither Isherwood's supposed journey arc really happened: apparently he was cold and detached (and selfish) as a young man and he is still the same if not even worse with the years passing.

Apparently, they think that it's enough to put gay characters in a movie to make it "gay-friendly". *sigh*

This. Definitely this. There are explicit scenes and one particularly explicit sex scene. None of them is erotic, though. Guess there will be plenty of slashy screencaps and icons around LJ soon. But *that* doesn't mean the film was anything good or groundbreaking in terms of positive depiction of gay people.

[lucy_locket]

I feel kind of the same. Thought it was pretty creepy that he seemed to treat Heinz like a pet anyway. And I found it all kind of boring. Not to mention I thought that Matt had more chemistry with the woman playing Jean than with any of the men he was paired with.

[ella_caramella]

Yep, as I said the actors were all very good. I guess you're right about the chemistry being there between Christopher and Jean but I'm afraid it's just because her character was probably the one we saw more of, if compared to the others, so it's understandable that they had the (screen)time to actually create a chemistry. Heinz really was nothing but a pet and ridiculously underwritten.

I think the thing the irked me the most was the notion of homosexuality=prostitution: they made it pretty clear all those boys were hetero guys selling themselves. And while it's true this is what happened for real in Isherwood's life, I guess they could have put the accent on his relationship and travels with Heinz just a little bit more. Ending was terribly rushed.

[lucy_locket]

Yeah. I did really like Jean, to be honest. She was probably the only reason I carried on watching. At the end I did kind of wonder what the point was. Seemed like it was just for a few pretty pictures of pretty boys to me.

I did like the music, and it looked gorgeous. I agree that the acting was very good from everyone. Totes not enough Lindsay Duncan though.

Ending was totally rushed. I was confused actually, because it skipped forward in time and then he was gone. But then it didn't bother me much because I didn't really care anyway.

[satanassa]

I borrowed the book 'Christopher and his Kind' from my library after I saw this film. The book is quite different -- there is a lot of detail given to Isherwood's relationship (and it was a proper relationship) with Heinz and there is the full story of how much they had to keep moving around in order to not be caught and how many worries they had about getting visas, permits etc for Heinz, all of which they never bothered to show in the film. Since the book is non-fiction, I don't know why they changed so many details in the film -- a lot of things were completely different. Auden and Isherwood were very close friends, but from the film you'd think that Auden was simply desperately crushing over the unresponsive Isherwood.
And the book didn't have any stuff about Chris's brother sleeping in his mother's bed or anything like that! Why was it necessary to add these details?!

[ella_caramella]

Thank you for confirming that. I read the book ages ago and I wasn't entirely certain I remembered it correctly.

I repeat, I understand the film is only 1h and a half and they had to gloss over or leave many aspects out of the picture but to turn this same justification on its head, by the same logic I don't know why, having only 1h and a half at their disposal, they *had* to focus only on the negative tidbits or even worse why they *had* to make up non existent and unnecessary details.

I swear the wig of the guy Isherwood first met on the train had more importance in the film than the characters themselves! The giggles outside his apartment door... or his dubious sexual activities (gays love a good whipping! or did he just *had* to endure it because his client paid him for that?)... Was that just another excuse to put more focus on how squalid the life of gay guys is or how exaggeratedly pathetic they end up to be when they reach the middle age???

I don't know what the whole point of the film was.