Keep the Lights On (2012)

What a trip this flick is! Director/writer: Ira Sachs really brings to the screen a story about obsession and pernicious behavior between the emotionally needy Erik and the psychologically baleful Paul. In this story you will go through three stages in what you think of Erik - impatience, because Erik can't see the obvious before him with Paul, - sympathy, because Erik is obsessed with Paul and Erik is truly a nice guy while Paul is nefarious, - relief, when Erik finally get beyond his hang-up with Paul.This movie is all about Erik! You the viewer are taken through about eight years in Eriks life and his undefinable infatuation with Paul. We are never shown why Erik cannot break free of his emotional need for Paul and Erik is lost without him. But Paul, on the other hand, can live his self loathing life perfectly well without Erik. So I believe Mr. Sachs is asking us which character is the more needy of the two. Erik because he is empty without Paul or Paul because he needs his drug habit and to hurt those who care for him.Whatever! This is quite a good film if you concentrate on Erik due to the fact he is the central figure and we see his life only. The story opens and closes about him.

I watched this movie driven by many good reviews depicting the story of complex and difficult relationship, dealing your drugged partner while full of self-uncertainty and an unfulfilled life. Gay themed background or not, sounded worth a detour. This Indie movie (low budget) so I will not grade with an eye out for an outstanding choreography and impeccable script. It has some anachronistic oddities (character not changing style over many years, New York City scenes out of era, interior not changing a bit over the course of many years) but also a few artistic shot that may catch your attention (playing with lights, framing or softness). There is a reasonable balance of both your sensitivity or attention to detail may find either enjoyable or disappointing. Again, an Indie movie - don't be too harsh.With that in mind, the final product does fairly at treating the topic especially with the character of Erik well developed and believable. But it also has gaps and short comings. The second main character of "Paul" as the closeted gay lawyer with a secret side, fails to develop beyond that. By the end, we know nothing of him and it is not all clear if this was intentional or not. Without this development, it is hard to judge of the depth of the struggle - when the "intervention" scene comes to the forefront, we realize there is a real in-depth problem but have not been driven into it but we cannot relate to the depicting of Paul as a "loving and carrying character". We have to feel this as real through Erik.The movie has also holes and the side scenes and stories do not add much to the thread but raise more questions. From under-developed characters to shallow in passing add ons, we often miss the point and the value added to the threaded theme. OK, we get the idea that Erik has an unstable love life and fall for phone based dating and hook ups. But take the character of Igor for example. Who is he? Do they have a relation? Does he present a better alternative for Erik? This is so brief that the intent is unclear. And what about Erik's BFF? They often travel together but at no point in time are we sure of the nature of their relation - why the friendship and dependence? The confidence? How instrumental is she to his life's story? We are left in our unanswered thoughts.The performance of the main actor, Dane Thure Lindhardt (Erik), is one to remember for a movie which is not very deep and at times, treated with flaws, omissions and unexplained or unclear characters. The whole atmosphere succeeds to give you a sense of sadness and disconnect but comes short to an in depth drama.

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.

As a gay man who's been in a relationship in the past with a drug user, I found this to be one of the most compelling and original films I've seen in a long time. The reviewer who stated he's "never even met anyone who's done crack" and accuses it of being "stereotypical" is either living in a small town somewhere or doesn't get out very much; meth and coke use are rampant in the gay community in San Francisco and other big cities, and this film very accurately portrays the disappointments and the gradual loss of self-esteem someone involved with a user goes through in hoping they'll recover. I don't watch a lot of "gay" films because I feel a lot of them are trivial, but this delved into territory I've not seen anyone brave enough to explore before, similar to "Shame." It's not always an easy film to watch, but it's raw and it's real. It will be interesting to see what kind of box office it gets or if it ends up falling between the cracks because it'll be marketed as just another "gay film." This is a universal story, it just happens to be portrayed here as happening between two men... I hope the film gets a fair release and people get a chance to see it.