50 Ways of Saying Fabulous

Before expressing my opinion, I must say that (while I have no personal involvement in the film project) being a school teacher, who's gay, and who grew up and lives in the area in which this film is set - I strongly identify with it.

"50 Ways of Saying Fabulous" has a strong ring of authenticity to it. This may not translate well to the world outside Central Otago, New Zealand - but for a local there's a lot to recognise. A 'coming of age' film it is, but it is also a lot more. It's a brave telling of the true childhood stories that we tend not to allow to see the light of adulthood.

The actors achieve the perfect balance between the paradoxical naivety and knowingness characteristic of the early teenage years. They inspired me with the bravery of their (sometimes misguided) idealism and the story leads them to expose, through their inevitable frustrations, a lot of the senselessness of the restrictions of our narrow society. I loved the relative absence of developed adult roles. The children were not only the main protagonists, but with the unwavering focus on their story: their view became ours - no translation required. Those who would criticise the 'cheesy low budget space-show' scenes woven throughout the film must surely have forgotten the fantasies of their own childhood, or perhaps they never needed to resort to fantasy to escape an all-too-restrictive daily reality. These sequences really were very funny in all of their overt symbolism.

The bravery and incredible sincerity of the outcast character "Roy" (played with unwavering emotional and physical conviction by Jay Collins) struck a chord with me. The tragedy of his determination was almost too much to bear.

I found the shifting of accent for the character "Jamie" (played by Michael Dorman) a little jarring. Somehow "South Auckland Polynesian, circa 2005" segued into "Aussie Battler" a few too many times for me to suspend disbelief.

The filming, in the stunning wilds of Central Otago, captured the vast emptiness of the place beautifully. The characters owned the terrain, there was nothing else there. The intense colour saturation reinforced the historical nature of the film (It was set in the 70's). The drought, and the constant threat of fire, added beautifully to the undertone of tension. Something might go wrong.

Stories like this need to be told over and over in all their variety and colour. I loved sitting in our local cinema surrounded by teenagers from the school at which I teach and seeing them enjoying and responding to the message to "be themselves". New Zealand is perhaps coming of age too, to see a feature film of this nature to fruition.

Anyone with a curiosity for the culture of this isolated southern island would do well to catch this film. It adds a new chapter to the story of where we come from as told in the likes of "The Piano", "Heavenly Creatures" and "Once Were Warriors".

Fabulous.

What an enjoyable watch with a real sense of rural New Zealand in the 70's. There were some wonderful performances from the children & the audience embraced the gentle humour & story, especially it seemed, an older generation. It connected with an audience who either knew these characters or anyone who had grappled with the complications, the lows, the trivia & the joys of growing up. The landscape of Central Otago looked stunning & was transformed into an amazing moonscape in the day-for-night scenes - loved that moody twilight world.

The 'look' actually reminded me a lot of the genius & madness of Canadian Director Guy Madden's films. The 'zany' quality w/ camera zooms, fantasy sequences & OTT music worked fabulously together, but it's a rare beast that also has a sensitive, good looking and well told story - all bundled into one fab package. Well done I say!!

The story of my life as a young overweight gay boy growing up in a small town 35 years ago. What a darling little boy. I also noticed how very true it was that the young man knew what he wanted. His eyes were bleeding to see what he wanted to see! And, yet, his girlfriend, who was not all too happy about being a girl, had no concept of attraction to anyone. She just knew she wanted to play sports and it was her job to take up for the "puffits" of the world. My favorite line was near the end when he said he "belonged here." That sense of belonging is what brings us all together.

Sweet movie. Lynn

Stewart Main's production is a coming-of-age story that bears little resemblance to other typical and predictable movies. 12 year-old Billy idly watches a TV show with his best friend, a rather tomboyish girl who excels at boys sports and acts a bit manly. Inspired by what he sees on TV, Billy wears a fake ponytail and pretends to be Lana, the heroine of the sci-fi series while Lou, the girl, poses as the male hero. They subvert traditional gender affiliated roles as part of a game, but they are also aware of a certain otherness, a certain counterpart that can exist only in private.

The figure of the double, largely described in fantastic literature, is usually developed when the main character fails to recognize his own-self, and starts experiencing a feeling of alienation. The double can adopt several forms, as for instance the form of the exact replica of the character, like in Dostoyevsky's "The double", or on the contrary, it can become the form of an absence of reflection in the mirror image, a horrifying 'presence' as in Maupassant's "Le Horla". Clearly Billy and his friend Lou find an ideal refugee in the form of fictional characters that supply that which they are lacking; Billy is a boy that wishes to be a girl, and Lou is a girl that wishes to be a boy.

In this scenario, two other characters will help develop the dynamic of the double. First of all is Roy, the new kid in the school, who soon becomes attracted to Billy. A most revealing moment takes place when Roy is picked on by kids that held him to the ground, as a consequence of all this roughhousing, the young boy exhibits an erection that soon makes the other lads lose interest in him. This moment is defined by the emergence of sexual excitation in Roy's penis, an irruption of the drive of the real in his body; such pulsations also exist in Billy who stays behind and accepts Roy's invitation to touch his "stiffy".

Do they experiment joy only through phallic exploration? The phallus has no image, the absence of representation in the visual field "signifies that in everything that is imaginary localization, the phallus appears in the form of a lack". As the days go by, Billy is not acquitted of guilt, but nonetheless he decides to join his friend Roy in a shack, wherein they mutually masturbate. But why does Billy seem uncomfortable after these sessions? Perhaps because if the phallus 'is characterized by a lack', then any image would only 'mask' that lack, evoking something which is absent, and in principle one can define that absence as something that pertains to our bodily existence in so far as what is missing in the virtual image is our real existence itself. In the same way Billy can never truly be Lana, from the TV show, he cannot envision his acts with Roy except in the darkness and secrecy of the shack. But what part of our anatomy permits the distinction between oneself and one's own image, including the multitude of others with whom we tend to identify? It is this distinction that seems to get distorted and somewhat effaced in the phenomenon of the double.

The second important character in the story is Jamie, a guy in his twenties. As soon as he enters into the scene, Billy seems to forget all about Roy. He now starts daydreaming about this guy, this strange adult that could eventually pay some attention to him. But before Billy can get closer to Jamie, he must first decide if he should adopt the male or the female position, which is basically the same decision Lou has to make. As the relationship with Roy deteriorates, new problems will arise. The double, again, could signal the coming of ominous events.

This coming-out story of 12-year-old Billy is set in rural New Zealand in 1975. Actually, it's more of a Bildungsroman, because it's no secret to anyone that Billy is gay. His family and friends accept him for who he is, but he's having problems at school.

We follow Billy as he shows us his home, family and childhood friends (mainly tomboy Lou) and his school life, where he is bullied and struggling with his dislike of rugby.

We follow him as he experiences his first relationship with fellow "pufter" Roy and his first crush on older and completely unobtainable Jamie (played by a sexy young Michael Dorman).

"50 Ways" has an incredibly strong sense of time and place. I can't remember any movie that so successfully reconstructs the 1970s. The clothes, the haircuts, the town scenes, the homes -- it was all spot on. There was even a fondue dinner. Am I imagining it, but did the cinematography somehow reproduce the quality and texture of photographs from the 1970s? Movie goers are also treated to almost two hours of beautiful New Zealand landscape.

Main seems to have directed this movie using a group of rural New Zealand children. The line between fiction and documentary is a thin one. The child actors in this movie appeared only in this movie and almost nowhere else. How often do you see real children acting out a graphic gay coming-of-age movie? How did Main accomplish this? I think this would have been unthinkable in puritan America, wouldn't it? For this reason alone, the film is remarkable.

The realism is astonishing. This is not a phony after-school special school. These are not American movie children. These are children without guile and sophistication, without internet, without MTV. Main shows us children and school life as they really were, with all its complexities, difficulties and awkwardness. Sure, the acting was occasionally amateurish, or the dialogue a little forced, but for the most part I felt like I was watching a real group of New Zealand children ca. 1975.

Andrew Paterson, Harriet Beattie and Jay Collins -- I'd like you to thank you for playing in this movie. You did a great job. Your characters will remain with me for a long time.

I found the film to be moving, engrossing, relevant. I thought the movie had good character development and a few interesting plot twists. The complex and problematic relationship between soft Billy and tough Lou was the core of the movie. We outgrow our childhood friends as we discover ourselves.

Main doesn't sugar coat what it's like to grow up gay. It's a rich and full look at every aspect. Billy's hopeless and awkward crush on Jamie felt true. I felt really sorry for hapless Roy. Billy's difficulties with Roy and Jamie reflect core relationship issues that reverberate throughout every gay man's life. The struggle with "rugby" (and what that represents) is also familiar. Adults play a very minor role in this movie. Isn't that also accurate for gay teenagers? What I particularly liked was the way that Main explored how we come to terms with those dreaded words ("pufter", "faggot", "queer", or whatever). "What does that really mean?" And "Yes, that is what I am." Dealing with those words is a big part of growing up.

At times the director introduces some whimsy, mostly based on the theme of Billy's imagined fantasies of a television show similar to Lost in Space. Billy identifies with Lana; Lou identifies with Brad. It's difficult to know what to make of such a deliberate and in-your-face use of cheese in a movie like this. I have to confess I was also into these shows when I was a kid. Or perhaps I have a high threshold for cheese. I think it's accurate to make a television show the centre of a boy's imagination in the 1970s.

I see the movie has not got a strong score on IMDb. However, I wouldn't let this dissuade you from seeing it. Gay movies tend to get inexplicably and undeservedly low scores. Worth seeing!