Eban and Charley

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

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.

Wow! I get to be a movie critic or so most people think who write on this message board. Horrors! It was shot on tape using a digicam! Is that bad? It didn't have LucasFilm Surround Sound...which automatically makes it a bad picture. And OHHH, those actors. Not a one of them ever won an Oscar...no talent whatsoever! The subject matter is shocking and poorly developed through a weak script. Sorry, no Pulitzer this time! Why are these matters taken into account and must be criticized. The people had little or no money. Probably no member of the cast or crew were paid a dime...but they MADE their film in spite of all their professional needs and MY HAT'S Off TO THEM. One thing I've learned in my long lifespan is that people don't walk around with their ages tattooed on their foreheads. Love comes from the heart, the mind, the emotions, fun, laughter, wanting to be with that certain 'someone'. If the friendship leads to sex, if they're both willing...it's THEIR choice not society's. People can't be satisfied living their own lives, they have to involve themselves in other people's lives and set the rule and the moral limits for others when it's really none of their business. It's the same in most society standards. I don't drink or smoke and I don't want you to have the right to drink or smoke because it's against my rules/ I'm not gay so it's wrong for anyone else to be gay and I'll vote to make sure that MY rules are enforced (even though it doesn't affect me or my family or friends...I just don't want YOU to be gay. Getting back to the movie...Eban is 29 and Charley is 15...but they talk and feel on the same plane. What one feels, so does the other. Neither if forcing the other to do anything he doesn't like. Stay in your own domain and don't set your rules for others. They could set a few of theirs toward your not minding your own business!

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.