User reviews

This 1973 film tells a story of gay life that is simple and familiar. Boy meets boy. Boy loves boy. Boy gets bored with boy. Etcetera. The straightforward, non-apologetic script is either timeless or old as the hills, depending on your tolerance level. While I was watching I began to wonder if the script could be re-shot today without significant modification. I think it probably could--there isn't much happening that couldn't take place almost word-for-word in any present-day urbanopolis.

Despite the sometimes raging amateurism in acting, photography, and especially sound, this film is well worth seeing. Those who lived through the era will experience an affectionate nostalgia for what I cannot help but call "the good old days." For those born after, say, 1985, you'll get an accurate look at what gay life was like as it was beginning to coalesce post-Stonewall. The production of the film also reflects the times. Some scenes have a cinema verite feel, some are clearly documentary. The last scene's unflinching male "frontal" nudity is another relic of the 70s. Like I said, the good old days.

I would classify this as a "must-see" for any gay cinema buff. To my knowledge it is the first to grapple with the relationship problems unique to post-Stonewall gay life.

I watched this last night on television. I'm quite the gay film buff but I had never heard of this movie. I can't top Tom Norris's review;they reflect my thoughts perfectly. The film is a documentary of a time I lived through but was just a little too young to participate in. A must see film.

Some very fine reviews already posted for this interesting movie, which I found very enjoyable as an intriguing look at gay life and also from a historical point of view. It often has the flavor of a documentary because of the interjection of real newsreel scenes of Stonewall. The cruising episodes on Fire Island and in steam baths have a cinema verite quality. The story involving the up-and-down efforts of ex-priest David to find a man he can settle down with hold the viewer's interested, but the bickering between the two men becomes a drag on the movie. One is relieved when David finally hooks up with the Bo White character, leading to a very beautiful closing episode shot amid the dunes at Truro on Cape Cod. The movie therefore ends on a note of affirmation and one hopes that all went well for all the men involved in this important glimpse at gay life a generation ago.

It's interesting to see how this film has weathered the last 40+ years. I enjoy reading your comments.

I remember seeing this when it first came out. It was a revelation back then, today it seems like a good story with bad production values. Just seeing two guys kissing on screen was a very big deal back then, then to see them naked too. Oh my. We were beside ourselves. I don't think anyone noticed just how bad the lighting and sound were, we just wanted to see ourselves reflected on the silver screen. Bad editing was easily forgiven.

I just finished watching a special about the history of Fire Island on Logo, then I rented this movie. Must be my 70's day. It's hard to believe I lived through that era and that thirty years have passed.

I wonder what has happened to each of the three leads? I don't recall seeing them in anything else.

An early glimpse into the beginnings of gay culture and gay rights movement in NYC before HIV surfaced. A lot of the dialogue contained truisms regarding relationships in general and are as valid today as they were then. Interesting historical peak into the bathhouse scene that existed then. Notice the bottle of poppers. Acting could have been a lot stronger, but as a "first", the film remains important.

I was genuinely surprised by how good this film is, especially given that it was made only a few years after Stonewall. The portrayal of the relationships the protagonist has was very moving and real, the psychological depth much more complex than most films that are made today, gay or straight. Of all the movies I've seen in my life, I have never seen so many beautiful images of gay male love that are so celebratory and happy. It's like a Walt Whitman love poem brought to vivid life. The movie is worth seeing just for the last five minutes alone.

The film is also an incredible historical archive. Some of my favorite sequences were interviews made with people on the street during the 1973 "Christopher Street Pride Parade," probably among the first Pride festivals ever. Many of the comments made could have been said today. This film shows a slice of life at the beginning of the gay sexual revolution, and at the same time deals with all the complicated issues of falling in love that remain timeless. That it shows life before AIDS also adds a layer of poignancy that the filmmakers could never have planned for.

I was sad to see that the principal figures in the movie, the actors and director, didn't do much more cinema work beyond this film. I hope they know they created a very special film that still can touch one's heart.

It is a dive in an era I barely knew, I was 14 at at that time ...AIDSwas some years away but the film gives an honest depeiction of what was life in a pre AIDS time. Some truths about relationships binded together with docu drama . It is a pity that the film was not digitally remastered and hence my 7/10 star. The film has aged well. A film that should be kept in your library of good gay films.

"A Very Natural Thing," according to sources I've read, was one of the first films to show gay men candidly as people. The two principle characters could be anyone. They don't fall easily into stereotypes which plague gay-themed films, even today in the late 1990s.

This film definitely has the look and the feel of its times, the mid-70s. It's fascinating to see how people dressed, the way they talked, what cars they drove, even how they cut their hair. It's also interesting to look at gay lifestyles in this period setting. This was before AIDS/HIV, and unprotected sex was the norm. It takes place just at the beginnings of the 70s age of sexual liberation, not only for gays, but people in general as well. (For another view of the period see BOOGIE NIGHTS or the TALES OF THE CITY series.)

But the most important part of the film is the relationship between the two, psychologically different characters who meet in a dance club, fall in love, and live together. It could be two people today. It shows what two average gay men might experience living together.

I cross-referenced some of the people who made this film. Few went on to do anything else in movies. I think only one made it into the '80s in a mainstream film.

The film has low-budget production values from the period. I didn't find that so much distracting as endearing. It made the film all that much more real.

One of the most honest films ever made about a homosexual relationship. 26-year-old gay English teacher in New York City, a former monk who left the church, falls for a 23-year-old bisexual man he meets in a gay bar. Boy-meets-boy story was directed, produced and co-written by Christopher Larkin--who, indeed, gets very natural performances from his leads, Robert Joel and Curt Gareth. When Arthur Hiller's bashful "Making Love" was released in 1982, audiences gasped when the two male actors kissed; this film is targeted towards gay audiences in general, not the mainstream, thus affording Larkin and his actors the opportunity to be frank, casual and honest about homosexual coupling--what starts the romance, what keeps it going, and what ends it. Although considered a landmark drama today, the picture curiously didn't break a lot of ground in 1974, and Larkin never worked on another picture. Some gay audiences reportedly felt the filmmaker was merely mimicking heterosexual love stories while downplaying big, dramatic moments (such as an interesting argument in the park that starts to get heated before Larkin cuts away). Others may be grateful for the lack of histrionics in favor of conversation and sexual (and romantic) exploration. *** from ****

Christopher Larkin's "A Very Natural Thing" is considered a seminal gay movie, probably because at the time (1974) gay-themed films made by gay film-makers, especially 'love' stories, just weren't being done. Of course, this was never intended for the mass market; it is as independent as it's possible to get, (and it was the only film Larkin ever made), but it broke new ground in its frank depiction of homosexuality, (as frank as you were likely to get outside of gay porn).

Actually, it's pretty terrible if very well intended. It's very poorly shot, (the lighting in the interiors is virtually non-existent and in the exteriors it's not much better), is badly written and appallingly acted. If you must see it at all you have to judge it in the historical context, (it was pre-AIDS), and while it may not be particularly good at least it lead the way for other gay film-makers. Personally, I think the poster is way better than the film.

I no longer live in Florida, having decided to move to California after the death of my long-time companion/partner -- a life altering event. Having never heard about or seen this movie before, I wish Bill could have viewed this film before he left me! We were pre-Stonewall (I am now in my 80's)and, in fact, living just around the corner from The Stonewall in the NYC Village on the night of that famous explosive event -- another life altering event. A Very Natural Thing is an amazing film that everyone (gay or straight) should (must?)see. It tells a simple story in a very simple manner: expressive of a time when gay men and women were watchful and fearful of exposure. I confess tears streamed down my face -- partially because of the beauty of the film and partially grieving for lost youth. I hope younger homosexuals will not disparage the old-fashion-ness or the lack of modern day cinematic sophistication of this outstanding piece of film work: indeed a thing of beauty and a joy forever.

I only heard of this film in passing, and did not realize how good it was until I rented the DVD. Don't be put off by the dated 1970s music, wardrobes, hairstyles, small-budget, grainy photography, etc. For this is a milestone in gay cinema. Made just about 5 years after the groundbreaking "The Boys in The Band", this greatly improves upon that film, with no self-loathing characters, but natural, real people. The writer-director Christopher Clark incorporates pensive dialogue in the story of an ex-Seminary student who finds love with one man, but is soon turned away from him and eventually finds peace with someone else. The musical score is moving, with classical pieces and more. Cast of unknowns unfortunately remained that way, but they are all outstanding. The parade sequences give added flavor and still timely food for thought. The last 5 minutes, with slow-motion photography and soaring music (pre-dates "Chariots of Fire" -1981), better illustrates male bonding than anything seen before or since. Most of the latter-day gay films remain silly, shallow, frequently mean-spirited fodder, with "Big Eden" (2000 - good), "Maurice" (1987 - better) "Making Love" (1982 - great) among the few notable exceptions. A classic awaiting rediscovery.

A hidden gem and one of the few good movies about homosexuality I've seen.

Thank god and the writer for the following:

(a) No AIDS - infinite gay protagonists have been starved and killed in movies using this, don't need to be reminded about this every time.

(b) No Melodrama, drag queens, etc - plenty already out there (some passing sentimentality, nothing that one can't overlook)

(c) No depressing scenes about being gay or sexually confused or fighting the system for rights - enough is enough.

(d) No plastic Hollywood porn - freely available online when you need it badly (the movie has the right dosage of genuine sensuousness :-)

What I personally liked was the realistic and honest depiction of a relationship between individuals, particularly the sexy affection that exists in any sexual relationship, you rarely see this in movies, homo or hetero.

A cheerful and touching film, you wouldn't need to cry (again) after seeing this one, perhaps people (& directors) understood homosexuality and human relationship/love better in 1974.

Don't miss this one, whether gay or not, satisfaction guaranteed.

I stumbled across this film from Netflix. I really had no preconceived notions of the film when I got the DVD in the mail. I was surprised and uplifted to see a film that was extremely progressive for being filmed in 1973(!) The discussions and concepts brought to light are somewhat the same as now. There was an openness to the cast and real people interviewed during the film that I was unaware of during the early 70s. So many times gay films seem to lack real substance and can't get over the basic premise of dealing with being gay and using stereotypical characters. The story moves from beyond that point and deals with real issues, even if it's just finding someone to love. I was very impressed and it was a great story of modern gay relationships.

This is a beautiful period piece. Even though the direction is uneven (but gets better in the last half) it carries a powerful message which still has meaning 3 decades later. It has less sex than the series "Queer as Folk",or cable "Adult Movies", yet still communicates this aspect of gay relationships. The surprising thing when viewed from an historical perspective, is that society's attitudes toward diversity have changed little and gay people are still struggling with the problems presented in this movie. An additional plus, is that it deals with the difficulties facing all human relationships, whether gay or heterosexual. A must see film.

this is a tale of pre-aids post stone wall. gay in new york city (early village) this a very important film for many reasons including the 1973 NYC gay pride parade footage, the very ground breaking subject of that time men on men in long term relationships, also for its very butiful gay love seence. A truly butiful movie a decade before its time. thanx sky w.

This movie was made in 1974 and out performs most anything being offered in 2021. The writers put together a story that is plausible and compelling. You feel the struggles this couple is going through with great emotion....why?, because it happens everyday in real life. It isn't a movie solely based on nudity and sex, which is also appreciated. Gay men respond to a beautiful nude male body, but this movie delves deeper into the emotional and intellectual person that happens to be gay. Both actors did a stellar job representing their characters. I enjoyed this vintage movie far more that weak representation of gay relationships that writers are offering today!

I glossed over any interest in watching this until my choices on "Fawesome" were extremely slim. I was so pleasantly surprised and could kick myself for not choosing it sooner. For 1974 this was so well filmed or it's been digitally remastered because it's very beautifully done. A very typical love story but when it's love that relates to you and in a time you couldn't imagine it existed, well it did and it's no different 40 some years later. The lacking of technology that's destroyed the world today makes this so much better and more fun to watch. I'm rambling...the film is fantastic, especially if you were born in the 1970's!

This is a landmark film in American film history. When it was released in 1973 it was lambasted by both "Right" and "Left"-wing film critics for it presenting of LGBT-relationships as the equivalent to "traditional" marriage. Today, as that debate has taken center-stage in American Society, the films can now be seen as "prophetic." The failure of the film and the critical attacks from all sides of the cultural debate, contributed to the filmmaker to ultimately commit suicide. This is a cautionary posting to Indy filmmakers. You never know. Today, his film is being shown in numerous American universities as part of the canon of significant films. I'd bet this film is shown in more university film classes in 2013 than the Academy Award winning "Around the World in 80 Days." - G. Tom Poe, Ph.D. - Film Studies, The University of Missouri, Kansas City.

Had the chance to see this rare 1974 film and it's a cautionary tale of being a part of the LGBT community, especially where relationships are concerned. Namely, romantic ones.

I wouldn't say that it gave me a realization nor an awakening of some sort in my pursuit of getting into a relationship nor do I contemplate repentance and revert back to religion. But the movie gave an honest look at the illusion of the LGBT life in terms of being in a relationship and its outwardly portrayals of what it's like being in the LGBT community amidst all the pride parades and self- acceptance.

I must say that everyone within the LGBT community ought to take a look at this movie once and question one's idea of what he'll get himself into if he so chooses to be with that so-called soulmate.

A Very Natural Thing tells the story of a gay man who left the seminary and get in touch with his sexuality. He met other fellow homosexuals and try to find his own true love story.

What a wonderful film.

Apparently made as the gay version of the film Love Story, it does not even thread close to it. I guess the wiki page explain it best, it was made during a short period before AIDS and during the Gay Rights Movement. Thus, it was made to solely be about a gay man, and how he is with his relationship.

Firstly, its actually kind of shocking how the character where portrayed as like people, not stereotyped gay archetype. Its actual depiction of a gay culture at the time AND its openness to criticize it was also revolutionary. In fact, some gay critics were criticizing its rather tame sexuality and apropos against gay norms of the time, a facet they'll sure be changing attitudes by the 80's. It just chose a subset of ideas that aged well in time.

Also, kudos to the writing. It is the only writing credit of the director AND the failure of the film Box Office wise, was his death knell BUT this was very modern. The choice to include real Pride March and ultimately use it as a framing device for a later storyline and its unexpected shift between two relationship are both unique to this film (and definitely copied by certain romcoms) AND should definitely be noted.

Kudos, also to Robert McClane, who was marvelously nuanced in this film. He played the former seminarian guy with such conscious grace and avoidance to stereotype. Sadly, like the director, he'll also be afflicted and die of AIDS.

The fact that I only known of this film because of McClane's connection with the awful film Barbara. Its kind of sad that this is somewhat forgotten and put aside in the grand scheme of Gay Cinema - most likely due to unavailability. I even could not find any information about Curt Gareth at all.

Highly Recommended.