feldman@tle.DEC (Gary Feldman) (03/10/86)
Given the recent glut of topical movies, it's real refreshing to see a movie that doesn't have any newsworthy theme, but just happens to be about a gay couple. "Parting Glances" is a brief look into the lives of Michael and Robert, who've been together for five years, their relationship, and the various relationships between them and their friends. The title of the movie is derived from two imminent departures. Robert, who works for the International Health Organization (or was it the World H. O.?) is about to leave for Africa, where he has been assigned to what is officially expected to be a two year tour of duty. In the meantime, Michael's closest friend Nick has AIDS, so that Michael has to cope with losing the two people who are closest to him (even though Robert's transfer is acknowledged to be temporary). We also get to meet Robert's boss Cecil and his wife Betty, at a going away dinner that they give for Robert and Michael. Betty knows the two are lovers, but believes that Cecil has blinded himself to that fact. The truth is that Cecil knows, and it is Betty who is blind to Cecil's fondness for members of the same sex. Yet this situation gives rise to an observation by Betty that is one of the main points being made by the movie, namely that in any love relationship there is a "kisser" and a "kissee", that is, one who gives the bulk of the affection, and the other who agrees to receive it. In her case, she is the kisser, and is quite content with Cecil's limited need for affection, even though she doesn't know his reasons. However, we can easily apply her insight to Robert and Michael, since we see that it is almost always Robert who initiates the physical affection between the two. Later, we start to understand the relationship between Michael and Robert a little better. We learn about Michael's long standing and greater love for Nick, while it is Robert's insecurity that forces him to plan on being away until after Nick dies. In spite of the imperfections in their relationship, and the few occasions that the movie threaten's us with the possiblity of a break-up, we are always supported with signals of stability that reassure us about the success of their relationship. I believe we get to see the complexity behind Betty's oversimplification, and thus learn that the best couplings are not built on the greatest love. One thing I liked about the movie was the honesty of the characters to themselves. While they weren't always honest to each other about their feelings, I think that each person knew his or her own feelings -- even Robert, who knew he was confused. Michael could talk about his love for both Robert and Nick, and I believe knew why he was coupled with Robert, even though his love for Nick was greater. In spite of Cecil's covert rompings, both he and Betty understood that their relationship was built primarily on a Platonic sort of love, every bit as important as erotic love. Even Nick understands the depression that has hit him because of his illness, although he depends on Michael for staying afloat. Some secondary points: Even though one of the major supporting characters has AIDS, this is clearly a movie about people, and not about the disease. While the sound quality could have been better (and this may have been the fault of the theater, not the movie), overall the technical quality was excellent, given the limited market for the film, and presumably the limited resources of the producers; the cinematography is basic, but professional; the dialogue and acting flow smoothly, and is never forced; the love scenes are neither exploitative nor sanitized, but are quite comparable to what we might expect from a Hollywood PG-13 or soft R heterosexual love scene. Since stereotypes are a hot topic on motss these days, I admit to having detected a bit of the New York City guppy stereotype in the film. Michael and Robert are both handsome, white, young professionals (but at least they're not doctors nor lawyers; Robert is a health administrator, while Michael is an editor). Their apartment is Upper West Side (I think, but it might have been Prospect Park or some other -uppie NY neighborhood), but is discreetly furnished and not particularly gay. The friends we see at a second going away party, given by their artist friend Jean, are, however, very stereotypical chic (the sort we might expect to show up at a Woody Allen party, if he were to ever film a NY artist's party that was 60% gay). While I may be overly sensitive to the stereotype (being an ex-New Yorker myself), I wasn't offended by it, since the characters weren't plastic. In summary, I left the theater feeling good, with a renewed faith in the future of gay life. I give "Parting Glances" 3 1/2 stars; don't miss it. Playing now at the Brattle Theater (off of Harvard Square, Cambridge), and fine cinemas everywhere.