The only sex scenes are straight or lesbian scenes, yet the main character is a gay male. Is one to think that gay men only get BJ's? So the director would have it. All you get out of this one is a couple of guys kissing. Pathetic!!!!!
sharePerhaps you should rent porn next time.
shareI don't think you can argue that this film was made by a homophobe. However, I think sex scenes are a reasonable criterion to gauge how comfortable the filmmakers are with the sexuality inherent in their subject matter.
shareI think a little sex can go a long way in a film. Brokeback Mountain didn't suffer for the small amount of sex it featured.
Just because mainstream movies have to have wall to wall sex in them doesn't mean gay films that lack that are made by homophobes or people who are uncomfortable with it. After all, no one holds a gun to anyone's head to make a gay movie or threatens them that their career will be finished if they don't.
Good point, ttenchantr.
I think what is more relevant than the way the sex is presented (or not) is the way the characters are portrayed. The character of David was a gay man who appeared to be everyone's best friend for whatever reason. He was seen as a source of stability, even though he remained detached from his own loneliness and made snarky comments about others. Regardless, it was pretty uncommon for the early '90s to have a gay lead character as the voice of reason in a fairly mainstream film.
Besides, did anyone find the sex as presented here actually sexy? I found the dominatrix scenes sad, the guy on girl scene artificial, and the girl on girl scene lacking (partly because one character was clearly awkward in it, which was the point). No one came out of this looking good, and more gay sexuality wouldn't have helped.
As for the director being "homophobic," that's a word I never use (unless quoting others), but kudos to Denys Arcand for exploring issues that others weren't in 1993.