Lazy Eye

One of the characters in "Lazy Eye," Dean, is a fan of NPR (National Public Radio, the movie's other protagonist, Alex, helpfully spells out for us dolts in the audience). This is used as movie shorthand to give us some insight into Dean as a character. However, writer-director Tim Kirkman doesn't flesh out the character enough to make this trait any more than an empty affectation, akin to leather bound classics being displayed on a bookcase to make someone appear cultured when you know the books have never been cracked. This point is hammered home during one of "Lazy Eye"'s unnecessary flashbacks, in which Dean (Lucas Near-Verbrugghe) realizes "Morning Edition" is about to come on and hurries to switch on the radio, a rapturous expression crossing his face as the program's theme music plays. Even Ira Glass would roll his eyes at this scene.

But there are other moments where the characters seem real. Dean is a Los Angeles-based graphic designer in his late 30s who has amblyopia—lazy eye. At the film's opening he's dismayed to learn he'll need trifocals, the new glasses highlighting that he's not getting any younger. He's enjoying a successful career, yet chafes at being bound to his clients' boring ideas. (I particularly liked his railing against "heads in the sky" movie poster designs.) But what's really eating at him is an e-mail received from Alex (Aaron Costa Ganis), an ex-boyfriend from 15 years ago, when he was a New York art student. "Of course I remember you. You broke my f------ heart," is Dean's first response, which he deletes before hitting "send." Instead, he suggests that Alex, a former Wall Street exec now living in New Orleans, come out to visit him at his vacation cabin in Joshua Tree.

The exes reunite and reconnect—literally—within seconds of greeting each other (this sex now-talk later approach mirrors their hook-up 15 years ago, we later find out). After sex the guys talk about old times, the compromises they each made as they got older, and thoughts on the movie "Harold and Maude," the cult comedy discussed as if it's some impenetrable art film. It looks like they might be on the road to rekindling what they had all those years ago in New York. That is, until one character reveals something about himself that changes how the other character—and the audience—regards him. This wouldn't be a problem if Kirkman used it as a jumping off point to further develop the character and the story, but the revelation is never dealt with to a satisfying degree, with lame excuses and justifications taking the place of any real emotional catharsis. We're asked to forgive a character's duplicity because the movie tells us to, not because the forgiveness was earned.

"Lazy Eye" can't totally be written off. Though Kirkman's writing disappoints, his directing seldom falters. The acting is first rate, with Near-Verbrugghe and Costa Ganis exhibiting an easy chemistry. It's the strength of their performances keeps us watching even when the script weakens. Also, Gabe Mayhan's cinematography is gorgeous.

What's so frustrating about "Lazy Eye" is you can see there's potential for a really good—possibly great—movie here, but it's trapped in the body of a mediocre one. It strives to be a more intelligent take on gay relationships and in many instances it is, but there are many more instances where it's clear the film makers haven't done their homework and are just cribbing from Cliff Notes.

It is a film who impose a sort of gratitude for the smart work with cliches, for images and for acting. A mature perspective about love, life, the loved one and people defining the middle age traits. Seductive because it is a kind surprising. In same measure, for the status of reasonable questions support, for storytelling and flash backs, for dialogues and, not last, a little, for mice. A film defined by gentle form of honesty, easy portrait of vulnerability and beautiful images of desert. And a movie who you deserve for a long time. Short, just beautiful.

This film tells the story of a man who meets his ex boyfriend for the first time in a house in the Mojave desert, after he left without a trace fifteen years ago.

"Lazy Eye" stands out from the crowd because it is very well made. The production is very good, and you can tell everything is professionally made. The sets and locations are nice, and I can see much thought have been put into the designs of what is seen on screen. I particularly like the four coloured prints on the wall of Dean's office, and the nice lighting by the pool at night that illuminates the characters.

Story telling is a strong point in this film. Even though there are only two characters in most of the film, I remain captivated by their constantly changing and dynamic interaction. Every line drives the next line, and I just want more of the story to unfold. I really enjoyed watching "Lazy Eye".

Much like LGBTI people, Queer cinema has struggled to find its place, often disadvantaged and dismissed by the mainstream. Making movies is expensive and generally queer cinema never has access to the same kind of budgets as its hetero-normative counterparts resulting in, at times, distractingly poor production standards which fans of the genre generally forgive, hungry for any kind of representation on screen. Actors can be afraid to be associated with 'gay roles' whether they are gay, straight, closet, etc in real life. And stories can be safe, not wanting to miss the chance of catching that stray, curious, 'straight' viewer. But lately, in my opinion, some of these concerns are disappearing. Though film-making is still an expensive endeavor, high-quality cameras, audio and editing equipment is cheaper than ever – resulting in higher production standards. Need an aerial shot of a car on a desert highway? No need to hire a chopper. Hire or even buy outright a drone for that spectacular opening, closing or establishing shot. The myriad of ways we can now watch 'cinema' also helps, as streaming services (and alike) are hungry for content, making them far more willing to take risks on 'niche' titles to fill their catalog. All this brings me to Lazy Eye, which has its fair share of striking drone shots (of the Mohave Desert) and that I saw via iTunes after reading about it in a festival program – the kind of instant access to queer cinema I never had only a few years ago. There's no need to give a synopsis here but Lazy Eye (ironically) looks great, uses its locations well and is, for the most part, well-acted in what is essentially a two-hand-er. Another positive is the story, one that deals with gay men who are completely at ease with their sexuality, the drama coming from their tumble towards middle age and the physical, mental and emotional changes that come with it. We've seen the coming out, first love story countless times – Lazy Eye is what happens 15 plus years down the track, when you've had a number of relationships, you're out to everyone around you and might even be in a same sex marriage. Lazy Eye also doesn't reply on overt, titillating or unrealistic sex scenes where some queer cinema makes the mistake of being more like a porno. That's not to say Lazy Eye doesn't have sex scenes, there are two, but both have a distinct storytelling purpose and are all the more emotionally arousing for it. While it's not a perfect film (the 'Lazy Eye' of the title ends up having little bearing on the story despite the opening scene) it is an example of a certain maturity Queer cinema has reached both in production technique and story content. Another recent film, 'Retake', is very similar. Well shot, well- acted, set partially in a desert and deals with characters who are not tormented by their sexuality but who are dealing with life issues common to everyone. Retake too is very much worth a look as is 'Those People'. Again, it's well shot, in this case beautifully with characters not dealing with the singular issue of 'being gay' but dealing with life issues from a gay perspective. Yet another example is 'Akron'. On the surface it has all the hallmarks of the coming-out, first love story but quickly and refreshingly our very young characters are revealed to be utterly at ease with being gay as are their family and friends. While probably the weaker of the films mentioned here, Akron is worth seeing for the absolute normalcy of the gay relationship, accentuated by amazingly natural and uninhibited performances from the two leads. If these films are any indication, the future of Queer cinema is indeed bright.

First I want to thank Director: Tim Kirkman for making a good film on a touchy subject, that being male companionship and how it's often based on a shallow foundation. In Lazy Eye the character Dean decides to look back and find a guy he had a brief relationship with 15 years past. What Dean fails to realize is that the entire affair with Alex was based on lust and not common interest or friendship. He finds Alex through the now all pervasive social media via the internet and discovers that Alex is open for a short visit to Dean's desert house.

We discover early on that Dean and Alex are more interested in one another physically than mentally because within five minutes of meeting again after 15 years they are both in the sack! From that point on their relationship and efforts to catch-up through talking is strained and often confrontational. In addition both seem to regress to the emotional level both were at 15 years earlier. Dean is only curious because he is not completely truthful with Alex about his life. And the past 15 years with Alex's life remains a mystery to Dean and the viewer.

This movie has nice production values and the actors try to bring the script to life. The story is a bit weak but it's brought together nicely.