Keep the Lights On

My biggest beef with this movie was that the romance between the two main characters, Erik and Paul, seemed shallow. They only meet each other a couple times before we as an audience are supposed to believe that they are "in love." Even Erik can't seem to really put into words why he's so into Paul when directly questioned. That, and that alone, made it difficult for me to be emotionally invested in the relationship between Erik and Paul, and therefore I didn't really care about any of the subsequent ups and downs that they went through. What the script lacks is the development of the relationship, and without it I am left confused as to why Erik chooses to stay with Paul throughout the story.

Otherwise, the acting was believable and the plot was interesting. I just like to feel emotionally connected to the love story in any romance movie, and I didn't feel it here.

Keep the lights on is a story about Erik, a filmmaker, who falls in love with Paul. The movie is about their decade long relationship with many highs and lows and how their lives, tangled into each other's, gets affected by the choices they make.

First of all, hats-off to the direction by Ira Sachs. The film is shot in a very sombre manner which states that the men were never meant to be together to begin with, without the characters explicitly saying it in the film. I am excited now to see his much spoken about "Love is Strange" if I wasn't before. Another thing which I liked is the character development of the protagonist. As he is a filmmaker, he is depicted as eccentric who follows his desire but at the same time, we see him getting entirely overwhelmed by not being able to handle his relationship. As if he is putting so much efforts to make it work but it doesn't seem to be happening like he wanted which makes him furious and forces him to say or assume something which makes the whole situation even worse. Erik is played by Thure Lindhart. I haven't seen any of his other work, but I'll sure keep a lookout from now on.

The movie occasionally takes a very slow pace which might be a turn off to some people but I'll recommend one and all to stay fixated as all the other times, the movie is truly heartbreaking. The truthfulness of the characters, the amber cinematography, the contemporary demeanours but still yearning for traditional facets of a relationship like having a child, are the things which triumph for Keep the Lights on. It's the absence of emotional transparency between the couple which makes it one of the most moving films of its time.

Do give it a go if you're a fan of watching budding romantic flings on-screen and are not too afraid of watching it all shatter as well in less than an hour and a half.

NOTE: If you like, "Keep the Lights On", you might also like, "Happy Together" by Kar-Wai Wong.

Okay, really? This movie is "homophobic" and "makes it look like all gay men smoke crack"? That it didn't seem "believable"? Huh. Maybe because I watched it not only knowing it was largely a true story, but also having read the real-life memoir of the man represented in the film by "Paul" (Bill Clegg), but I thought it did a very good job of depicting the tragedy of being in a relationship with someone fundamentally f*cked up and not being able to let them go until far too late. The acting was spot-on, particularly from Thure Lindhardt, and the portrayals were entirely believable. In no context whatsoever was it intentionally designed to depict gay men as insatiable crackheads.

As for complaints that basically go back to verisimilitude: people, it's an indie flick, and a super- low-budget one at that. You can't realistically depict Manhattan circa 1998 that way, nor can you have characters whose attire and hairstyles change all that much during the film. (That said, I've seen photos of Bill Clegg, and his super-preppy "look" -- which is how Paul is consistently depicted in the film -- hasn't really changed much over the years.) My only issue in this regard was in terms of easily avoidable problems; in the second scene for instance, set in 1998, Erik walks by what is clearly recognizable (to a New Yorker, at least) as one of the bus shelters constructed within the past five years or so. They really had to shoot on *that* street?

My problems with the film weren't with the acting, but more with its failure to fully flesh out Paul as a character. I'm unclear whether this was intentional -- in the context of "you can never *really* know someone" -- but Paul started out as an enigma and largely stayed that way. I understand that this comes with the territory with a largely autobiographical film written by the protagonist, Erik (though I have no clue whatsoever why he's Danish, to the extent of having conversations in Danish with his sister - Ira Sachs is American and Jewish, though obviously a real-life filmmaker), but hewing so closely to a real-life timeline left Sachs with too little time to delve into what compelled him to stay with "Paul" for such an extended period. I also thought there were a few too many largely extraneous side plots, particularly involving Erik's BFF's biological-clock issues and the weird muscley guy Erik inexplicably hooked up with two times five years apart. And why did a solitary, unexplained pair of scenes have him going to Virginia for an extended period of time? (neither of which had anything whatsoever to do with the main plot)

Still, even given its flaws, it's one of the best gay-themed indie films I've seen in quite some time (though "Weekend" is still better all around). It avoids the most typical gay-film clichés (the coming-out stories, the happy endings, the life revolving around discos and fabulous hags) to deliver something raw and real.

I had high hopes for this movie because it has overwhelmingly positive reviews, some even called it the "best film of 2012". I didn't watch the movie until now, and I am really disappointed!

I was dragging myself through most parts of the movie. 30 minutes into the movie and I was thinking, "I'm not interested, what's so interesting about this movie?" Things only became slightly interesting midway through the movie, and so I tried to finish the movie to see if there's a really great ending or something. But sorry, no.

I guess there are two things you can learn after watching this movie: first, the gay hook-up culture (and how it hasn't changed 20 years later... cough... Grindr... cough...); second, the overused "drugs ruin relationships" cliché. Come to think of it, I don't really see the point of the use of drugs in this movie. What's most frustrating is that not much is known about Paul other than his drug addiction! Let's draw an easy comparison: "Weekend" (2011). I don't get how "Weekend" was dragged for filth for featuring drug use, when it actually carries weight and adds an excellent level of depth to the characters! Yes, Paul is a druggie, so what then?

Go see this movie if you want to see a rocky relationship that may or may not work out in the end (no spoiler duh). But don't get you hopes up cause you'll be just as disappointed as I am.

This film tells the turbulent love story of a filmmaker and a drug addict.

The storyline looks great on paper, but "Keep the Lights On" dos not manage to captivate our engage. The two leading characters are poorly developed, especially the drug addict as we don't see who they really are. We seldom see them outside their relationship, so their portrayal is so narrow and one dimensional. As a result, I don't find myself caring for them. Their dysfunctional interaction only annoys me. And there are too many unlikely plot details, I just don't understand how Erik could be allowed in the room while the boyfriend and another guy is having sex.

"Keep the Lights On" is well made, with great sets, lighting and scene composition. However the story is not engaging and I couldn't wait for it to end.