I guess I was fooled by the classical music setting into thinking this would be a `sensitive' or `classy' portrayal of a young gay artist's coming of age. But I realized halfway into the first ham-handed seduction scene (`Hello, nice to see you again.what's your name? Would you like a backrub?') that it was just another case of prostituting the `gay theme' with a half-baked story that meshes the worst aspects of porn and soap opera without offering any payback in sentiment or even titillation.and then throws in a gratuitous round of `bash on the clueless mother'. I generally love m/m romance and drama and I forgive a lot of weakness in terms of plot and character development, but this was so badly drawn on so many levels, from the incongruous actions of the characters to the unimaginative and obvious plot mechanisms. Maybe it's because I watched this back-to-back with Roger Dodger, an excellent film that leaves you sympathetic with an extreme jerk because his character is so brilliantly defined. In contrast, Food of Love left me annoyed and unsympathetic with every single character by the end, even the tender, confused young protagonist, who I really wanted to like. What is the denouement supposed to mean? Talented young pianist quits Julliard because he can't stand being ignored? Mother and son come to a mutual understanding that life goes on, even after your ideals are shattered? Love and enchantment are fleeting things, so take it one day at a time and always wear a condom? These are far too prosaic outcomes to be arrived at in such a heavy-handed sequence of contrived scenes played by characters so devoid of either depth or charm. Richard the pianist was a despicable ogre-okay, he seduces a barely-legal young man who worships him, I could deal with that. Then drops him like a hot coal. No, sorry, that's where he lost me. But what really sends this guy to Hell in a handbasket is how he ignores his life partner, who tries for days, in great personal distress, to reach him while he is pursuing his affair with Paul. Not that I liked Richard's letchy old man much. And the way the two of them turned against Paul in the end to save themselves from a little honesty in their own relationship was disgusting. Obviously the scenes of Richard ignoring his lover's frantic messages were mindfully included to make us realize that Richard was a self-absorbed jerk and Paul's obsession with him was setting Paul up for a big fall. But why? Was the point to set the artistic aspirations of the young man against the gauntlet of sexual awakening and see if the art survives? I guess I was EXTREMELY disappointed that Paul's art did not survive the challenge, and I was left wondering who he really was and why I should care. I know that's probably the point of the movie-that's what he was struggling with too, but the movie never answered the question, as phrased by his mother, of whether that awful Richard Kensington had something to do with his desire to quit. It is said that good dramatic action is like a roller coaster-ups and downs-but for Paul and his mom it's all downs. Jeez, this filmmaker could have done anything he wanted here, so why not open up some kind of window for young Paul at the end? Okay, Ventura, naturalism is all well and good, but the audience WANTS the protagonist to be exceptional-if you set him up as an aspiring pianist and then you take that away, then give us something else. And the mother was so stupid and hysterical it was an outright insult to all women. Her attempted seduction of Richard was unbearable, as was the support group. Wake up, Ventura-women, even mothers, are now aware of gays and likely to recognize them well before the point of becoming the laughing stock of a humiliating party scene. Just a depressing outing all around.
