Je t'aime toi

This film reminds us of "Sex and the City", but with the city being Russia's capital.

Showing us a very stylized Moscow (as "SEX" does with New York), the movie spotlights the private lives of 3 main characters in a modern take of now "liberal" Russia. Two of them have glamorous lives and careers, affording us viewers locations (luxury apartments, offices, bars, and so on) to match; a global, thoroughly Westernized side of Moscow we rarely see on film.

The third character is from the Asian part of Russia, throwing in some gritty reminders about how others, especially racial minorities, live in Russia. This character's family, predictably, is more conservative and closed minded than the other more "European" characters. This character and his family also remind the audience of Russia's multi cultural nature.

Minor characters inter related to the main three complete the mosaic of modern day Moscow the film paints. Each is a composite of stereotypes -a foreign multi national executive, two senators (the three living similar hedonistic lifestyles), young people with aspiring consumer driven dreams; all but the "Asian Russians" quite capitalistic.

While not revealing any particularly novelty, the film is interesting to Westerners as a glossy display of Moscow life, with the stereotypes we read about in the press, and hear about in World News, brought to life on screen.

The basic plot however confirms (at least to me) that Moscow is not yet that up to date and permissive. The main relationship formed is a compromise with the conservative reality of Russian morals, and I think not very realistic in any society.

One may infer from this film that progressive trendy Muscovites can accept bisexuality, but not real homosexuality. This film makes it clear that it's OK to be gay if you're really bisexual. At least, that's a start for this conservative society. But it is not what (I believe) most of the film's target audiences are expecting to see. In the end, the message the film sends is a cop out.

I really liked this little Russian movie . . . It's about a love triangle: ad exec, anchorwoman, zoo keeper. We get to see an upscale Moscow couple at work and play, and that in itself is interesting, particularly when an attractive and unsophisticated rural guy is thrown into the mix.

I particularly liked watching the triangle develop. The simple honesty of the young zoo keeper--an Asian-Russian--as he confronts the big city and the object of his desire, is unlike anything I can recall seeing anywhere else. The schism between urban and rural Russia is apparent when the zoo keeper attempts to grasp the concept of an ATM, and when he is enchanted by the ease of turning an electric lamp on and off. While the gay relationship is not shown in an explicit way, the playfully obtuse suggestions of it are fully erotic and believable. The anchorwoman's struggle to keep her man to herself is clever, and again, believable.

There's some melodrama toward the end that is the weakest aspect of the movie. As a plot device, it could have been replaced with something a little more in keeping with the basic concept of the main characters' relationship. Still, it's a plausible story line, and isn't really the main thrust of the movie.

This movie put me in mind of Threesome, a seriously neglected American movie that covers similar ground in a similarly honest and refreshing way. They share an authentic depiction of contemporary love with humor and pathos as equal partners.

This movie deserves a wider audience, and not just a gay audience.

Foreign films have an intrinsic advantage in that their milieu in itself tends to have great charm for audiences unfamiliar with that particular country and its people. What we know of foreign countries is largely based on superficial television coverage so when we seemingly are afforded a supposedly more realistic glimpse into foreign cultures, the result has a certain refreshing quality to it. "You I Love" owes it success primarily to this factor. It's something of a novelty to watch a Russian light comedy concerning a bisexual Muscovite yuppie.

While the end result is not more than an amusing 85 minutes the three protagonists have very engaging screen presences, especially the two males in their debut appearances, (according to IMDb).

Very lightweight but not without charm.

This film, mostly shown outside Russia in gay film festivals, is not mainly a gay film, but rather a statement on diversity in Russia today. Having said that, it is also very stereotypically Russian in its length, cinematography, and in relying on subtleties to tell the truth. The exception to this is sex and nudity. These are not subtle, not very explicit either, but enough to say to the audience "look, how modern we are" while "hotter" issues (homosexuality, inequality between racial groups, economic and political crisis) are self censored.

Still, this is a step forward in free expression for Russian cinema. They still have to masquerade homosexuality as bisexuality (though foreign executives, corrupt politicians, and young hustlers can be gay - this shows where Russian society, at its most liberal level, accepts sexual diversity). It's OK as long as the "normal people" in society aren't gay - bisexual at most. Likewise, the huge socio economic gap existing between "ethnic Russians" and the eastern, more Asian looking ones, is glossed over with cute prejudice and cultural clichés.

We see a very stylized "Sex and the City" -like Moscow: one where, for the most part, people live in luxury apartments, drive expensive cars, and are sexually liberal, even between races and sexes, and threesomes. But hey, it's a movie. Enjoy!

I have read on a previous post something like director-writers Olga Stolpovskaja and Dmitry Troitsky seemed more to be issuing a statement about a westbound, tolerant, more modern Russia than committing to a significant, if not merely credible storytelling. And that's just the tip of the iceberg; I saw it all in order to review it.

To make a long story short: the movie's unskilled actor direction, the ludicrous resolution of its plot, and clamorous potholes in screen writing, editing, photography, etc make this an excellent choice for undemanding audiences who, yes, believe its statement and pay for theatre tickets. Which in the end is, probably, what matters to some.