After his mother dies, 15-year-old Charley must live with his unloving, bullying father. Out of loneliness, Charley strikes up an illicit romance with 29-year-old Eban. When their families f... Read allAfter his mother dies, 15-year-old Charley must live with his unloving, bullying father. Out of loneliness, Charley strikes up an illicit romance with 29-year-old Eban. When their families find out, they must make a life-altering decision.After his mother dies, 15-year-old Charley must live with his unloving, bullying father. Out of loneliness, Charley strikes up an illicit romance with 29-year-old Eban. When their families find out, they must make a life-altering decision.
- Awards
- 1 win total
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
10pgtc
To start with, the completely distorted definition of the word pedophilia. Pedophilia is not a legal term. It is not defined by what the age of consent laws are in a given country or state. Pedophilia is a medical term, and its meaning does not change according to laws. Quoting one of the most respected works in psychiatry, the Comprehensive Textbook Of Psychiatry, vol.1, by Harold I. Kaplan, MD, and Benjamin J. Sadock, MD: "Diagnostic criteria for pedophilia: Pedophilia involves preferential sexual activity with children, either in fantasy or actuality. Adult sexual activities or fantasies involving prepubertal children, the essential behavior in pedophilia, may be exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, or a mixture of both, and may occur within the family, among acquaintance groups, or between strangers." This is not the case in this film, as it isn't the case in most relationships incorrectly classified as pedophilia in sexually sick America. The British puritan heritage certainly plays a role here, but I've always wondered why and how the hysteria about intergenerational relationships got so bad in the USA. And that's the greatest achievement of this film. The characters are real and humane for a change. The director and the screenwriter just went and told a honest, true to life love story, one like hundreds of thousands that happen everyday, everywhere. It's a slap in the face of the hypocrite American society, a wake-up call.
Recommended readings: "Harmful To Minors - The Perils Of Protecting Children Against Sex", by Judith Levine (winner of the Book Of The Year award of the Los Angeles Times in 2000).
"Sexual Panic - America's New Era Of Witch-Hunting", by Jerry Steinbach.
"Adolescent Sexual Health in Europe and the US" - www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/419
Recommended readings: "Harmful To Minors - The Perils Of Protecting Children Against Sex", by Judith Levine (winner of the Book Of The Year award of the Los Angeles Times in 2000).
"Sexual Panic - America's New Era Of Witch-Hunting", by Jerry Steinbach.
"Adolescent Sexual Health in Europe and the US" - www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/419
The filmmaker's indication that Eban's behavior is part of a pattern are proposing that it is compulsive and unhealthy. Charley is portrayed as emotionally needy because of the tragic circumstances in his life. Society's strong condemnation of their relationship is presented by the boy's fathers. However, one cannot walk away from this sensitive film without compassion for Eban and Charley, perhaps even a wish that society would leave them alone if their relationship satisfies their needs. A sub-plot involving straight teenagers suggests that the film is meant to consider the feelings of human beings rather than to react automatically. The film promotes thought.
The film suffers on the big screen, due in part to the tech limitations of the digicam process and the somewhat hard-to-catch inflections of actor Giovanni Andrade (teenage Charley). The first half is slow, moody, and unwilling to tip its hand: one feels ambivalence toward the Brent Fellows character (Eban, age 29). Publicity shots show Fellows to be an acceptably handsome actor; but when we first see Eban, he is pale, stooped, unshaven, and the picture of a shattered soul. Those who leave at the midpoint--and I was tempted--will miss Eban's agonizingly slow growth, his gradual reawakening to warmth and human contact. They will also miss getting to know Charley, brought to life in Andrade's astonishingly detailed and sensitive portrayal through characteristic, near-dancelike movements and a slow, hesitant manner of speaking that rings absolutely true. If the parental figures are saddled with trite dialogue and minimal characterizations, I am more than willing to believe that this is fully intended by director James Bolton in service to his vision. I have now viewed the film three times, the last on DVD, and found more to admire each time around. (The DVD brings warmth to the faces of the principles not evident on the big screen.) In all, this is an admirable, subtle, and sensitive work that asks a lot of the audience, but gives a lot in return.
From the opening minutes, I thought "Uh-oh... we're in for a questionable evening of entertainment"- the movie looks to be shot on digital video, but actually, that detail didn't wind up detracting from the subject matter at all. It's a touchy subject that many will be revolted by, and I'm not sure I agree with the happy ending... but the movie was well-acted by its two leads. The story is told concisely, never wanders far from its focus, and is edited precisely. I've watched it twice now and didn't get bored at all. All in all, a better than average entry into the world of gay cinema.
Some of the negative reaction this film induces can be attributed to the subject matter. In other words, any film ... regardless of the script, the direction, the casting, the acting, or any other technical element ... would be greeted with hostility by large numbers of people, simply because they disapprove that the subject is even being addressed. In this case, the subject is the relationship between a 29-year-old man and a 15-year-old boy.
For open minded viewers, this is a well made film, especially given that it is low budget. Eban is not some lecherous old man, the stereotyped image conjured up in the befuddled minds of moralistic puritans. Eban is caring and sensitive. He's not the least bit predatory. In fact, it's Charley, the boy, who advances the physical relationship as soon as he senses Eban's interest. And the film's plot is so bereft of sexual activity that it seems downright prudish. The only abominable behavior comes from the two guys' fathers, both of whom exude a pathological hatred toward their sons.
That said, a relationship involving a teenage boy must be examined skeptically. And I am doubtful that a long term relationship that benefits both Eban and Charley would actually work out. Still, Charley asks a valid question: "What about my rights?"
Overall acting is highly naturalistic. Characters pause before speaking, as would be expected of people communicating thoughtfully and seriously. Both lead actors act largely with their eyes. There's a lot of silence. Dialogue is sparse. The overall tone of the film is serious and very low-key. The story's ending is appropriate, given the plot circumstances.
"For nonconformity, the world whips you with its displeasure", said Ralph Waldo Emerson over a hundred years ago. I applaud the film's producer and director for having the courage to make a film that addresses an unpopular topic.
For open minded viewers, this is a well made film, especially given that it is low budget. Eban is not some lecherous old man, the stereotyped image conjured up in the befuddled minds of moralistic puritans. Eban is caring and sensitive. He's not the least bit predatory. In fact, it's Charley, the boy, who advances the physical relationship as soon as he senses Eban's interest. And the film's plot is so bereft of sexual activity that it seems downright prudish. The only abominable behavior comes from the two guys' fathers, both of whom exude a pathological hatred toward their sons.
That said, a relationship involving a teenage boy must be examined skeptically. And I am doubtful that a long term relationship that benefits both Eban and Charley would actually work out. Still, Charley asks a valid question: "What about my rights?"
Overall acting is highly naturalistic. Characters pause before speaking, as would be expected of people communicating thoughtfully and seriously. Both lead actors act largely with their eyes. There's a lot of silence. Dialogue is sparse. The overall tone of the film is serious and very low-key. The story's ending is appropriate, given the plot circumstances.
"For nonconformity, the world whips you with its displeasure", said Ralph Waldo Emerson over a hundred years ago. I applaud the film's producer and director for having the courage to make a film that addresses an unpopular topic.
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $30,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $16,918
- Gross worldwide
- $16,918
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content