Assédio

I'm fairly certain that any gay teacher has a well developed sense of self-preservation as well as a heightened, possibly exaggerated, awareness of the perceptions others have of him as he interacts with people, especially young males, around him. The somewhat annoying Michael seems to be clueless in this regard. His excessive interest in a special scholarship student, whose step-father works as a janitor in the school, and his touching & pawing of this student, borders on the ridiculous. And, aside from raising red flags amongst parents & fellow teachers, any sensible teacher would realize his constant attention to an individual student would only further alienate this "special" student from his peers.

This all appears to come to a head when Michael is putting his hands all over Jason in the school hallway and Jason pushes him away telling him quite loudly to keep his hands off and calling him a faggot … with a carefully staged audience of staff, parents and students standing about in stunned silence.

Of course, in this fairy tale everyone in the small town (a sort of green Camelot) had been just peachy keen enthusiastic about Michael and his gay lover moving there from NY, one becoming a teacher, the other opening a business. But as soon as Jason makes it clear he doesn't like all the touchy-feely hands-on concern from Michael, the brown stuff hits the fan and things are no longer idyllic green.

To burnish this mediocre soap opera's credentials, we've got someone with cancer, we've got a lecherous step-father (in the lowly profession of janitor, wandering about unshaven to make sure we know he's a bad guy), we've got everyone from a roofing contractor to the town's busybody cancelling contracts with Michael and partner as well as shunning them in public. And it turns out our supposed victim-stroke-hero has a prior arrest for indecent exposure. One isn't quite sure if the whole thing wasn't actually intended to lampoon more credible and well-scripted stories about damaging accusations and their painful consequences.

Not to fear. The bad guy gets shot and all is well in the credulity- stretching, hackneyed, rushed conclusion to a cliché-ridden movie populated by all the popular PC stereotypical characters.

And, like Pavlov's dogs responding to the bells, all the soap opera loving politically correct reviewers gush and gasp. A reasonably serious subject treated like a cartoon. Sad, superficial and trite.

The main motif , for me, to see this film was the presence in cast of Illeana Douglas. The second - I am teacher and the delicate situation of Michael is pretty realistic.

Indeed, not a great film , part for cliches, part for predactibility and holes, part for drops of unrealistic facta.

But reasonable and, in essence, this is what real matters.

Not brilliant performances but decent ones. Few delicate things fair reminded- from the apparences about neighbors to the attitude of comunity, secrets in couple and the brutal step father traumatizing the poor step son, the support for a good student from a teacher and the interpretation of the others.

But it is only a film. Decent, pretty interesting, correct in essence. And this is the only matter thing.

I can't understand why this movie didn't get wider distribution and more attention. It's really one of the overall best movies--gay or straight--i've seen in a long time. The writing is expert and never falls to cliché or hackneyed dialog. The actors are all excellent in their roles, presenting genuine emotions genuine, allowing us to feel with them and for them. The big reveal may be a little too unannounced, mainly because the character of Jason isn't given the time he needs, but I consider even that a minor flaw in an otherwise intelligent, moving, thought provoking and far-from-heavy-handed movie. Up there with Maurice as my favorite gay movie; up there with the Big Chill as one of may favorite movies overall.

I found the film very absorbing, but if you're looking for Lillian Hellman's "The Children's Hour," this isn't it.

The fault doesn't lie with the actors or production qualities or the director: I think it's mostly that the script is a bit predictable, and not terribly daring: there are clear-cut good guys and bad guys motivated, on the one hand, by goodness and benevolence, and, on the other, by unspeakable evil and malice.

That is not suggest it's a waste of time: just that the screenplay struck me as too tame and too safe, instead of straying into more dangerous territory, raising tougher questions, and not resolving everything in the manner of (as I've seen others on IMDb saying, justifiably) of a T.V. "Movie of the Week." There are good, emotional scenes and quarrels, which will draw you in, however, performed with honesty and skill by a very fine cast.

I fully agree with the reviewer above who underlines the stupid attitude of the teacher towards his vulnerable pupil. No wise gay teacher would take such risks. Moreover, where the whole situation is concerned, I believe a gay couple such as we have here would have to be very unintelligent to have only seen the pros and been blind to the cons of moving out of the city into a small provincial town.

Didn't they realise their living together openly as a gay couple would soon be noticed and become a subject for gossip unless they were very discreet! There is, after all, a considerable section of society that is homophobic and it's folly to behave in a way that draws their attention and hostility. In short, they take unnecessary risks and, alas, pay the consequences. As to the homophobics, well, it'll take time and patience to change them...