valinvancouver

I think this film is masterfully made. I didn't know what to expect and I ended up tearful through much of the movie, then cried myself to sleep, then continued to tear up thinking about it the next day. I often feel emotionally manipulated by lesser films or TV shows, but this felt real (emotionally real, despite lots of things in this movie being decidedly not real).

I never really thought much about the impact of the AIDS epidemic on the gay adolescents coming of age at the time. Andrew Scott is a revelation portraying a deeply lonely and habitually isolated man working his way out of his dilemma. How he does this is both beautiful and heartbreaking. He's a writer, so his approach is creative. Brace yourself, in watching this movie you are being immersed in his healing crisis (a painful and exhausting experience that makes one stronger in the end).

Paul Mescal as his lover is also astounding in his role. Claire Foy and Jamie Bell are also fine actors and played their parts very well.

I think people are getting confused, thinking this is a fictional movie and judging it for minimal plot or calling it boring. The film tells you right at the beginning it's based on interviews conducted with members of a real biker club over a period of years (mid '60s to '70s), and Jodie Comer serves as the main documentary-style "talking head" as well as being a main character in the dramatized sections. She really carries the film on her capable shoulders. The cast is rounded out by a number of other formidable actors, Tom Hardy, Austin Butler and Michael Shannon to name a few, all of whom are excellent.

The Bikeriders is not like Elvis, the biopic that also starred Austin Butler, which had a huge budget, Hollywood screenwriters, and was about someone many people loved and admired. As such it was a very easy movie to sit back and enjoy because of a sense of familiarity.

The Bikeriders on the other hand introduces us to complete unknowns. They are not generally an easy to like bunch, but that's a part the point of their existence as a unit. I've seen people say it's like a throwback to the film making done in the 70s. I actually find many 70s films boring and meandering. This does not meander, nor is it boring imho. Sticking close to the source material and not dressing it up with manipulative drama gives it an organic, slice of life feel. It stuck with me for a few days, just the pure artistry of if.

Julianne Moore's character Gracie, who at 36 years of age "had an affair" with a 13 year old, is a narcissistic piece of work. I won't elaborate on this because the beauty of this movie is in the details. I'll just say Julianne is a true professional, and she perfectly inhabits this role.

Charles Melton's performance as Joe encapsulates the damage perpetrated by narcissists. It's great the script gives him an arc, however the spiritual defeat manifested in his physical posture alone carries the biggest punch of the movie, in my opinion. Without saying a word he ably conveys everything you need to know about the longterm effects of childhood sexual abuse.

Natalie Portman's character seems pretty narcissistic too. She gets a little inappropriate talking to a high school drama class about the filming of sex scenes. Like Gracie she takes for granted that her privilege gives her a pass, allowing her to completely overlook any discomfort she creates. I don't know much about actors and their research methods, but this movie suggests it's a fairly superficial endeavour (at one point Gracie outright states that it's a pointless endevour). Her trist with Joe exemplifies the fact she has no deep understanding of the complexity of the situation, or if she does she doesn't give a crap.

There is no "movie of the week" pseudodrama here. Just a serious analysis of the dynamics of fairly common emotional dysfunctions. You need to have at least a passing interest in psychology to appreciate this movie.