I went into the process wanting and
expecting to like Latter Days. It was purported to have an attractive
cast -- including Jacqueline Bisset -- and a light-hearted but
heartfelt love story that tried to go a bit beyond "Boy meets
boy, boy beds boy, boy and boy live happily ever after". All of
this is true; there is much to like in the movie, and overall I'd say
it's quite worthwhile. But I still find myself feeling an undeniable
ambivalence toward certain aspects of the story.
The primary plot line is simple enough:
Christian, a young, cute, sexually "easy" gay man (Wes
Ramsey) enters into a lighthearted bet that he can "convert"
-- i.e., seduce -- one of the four young Mormon "missionaries"
that have moved in next door. But young, cute, sexually-inexperienced
Aaron (Steve Sandvoss), the missionary who becomes the focus of his
efforts, ends up challenging Christian's shallowness, inspiring him
to grow emotionally and spiritually. All sort of by accident, while
trying to deal with his own homosexuality, which he is --
understandably! -- having increasing trouble denying and suppressing.
The characters of Christian and Aaron
are both likable enough in their own ways without being too perfect.
Christian is a shallow man who views sex purely as a pass-time, but
he's essentially harmless and completely loyal to and protective of
his friends. Aaron, though a "missionary" who goes from
door to door trying to convert nonbelievers -- an occupation with
which I personally have grave philosophical problems -- is not at all
personally pushy about his beliefs. (Indeed, when one of his
companions obnoxiously spouts some "God hates fags"
rhetoric to Christian, Aaron charmingly tries to defuse the situation
with humor and an apologetic tone.) He is quietly funny and genuinely
empathetic, and is sincerely engaged in a search for meaning in his
life.
Clearly, both of them are meant to be
endearing to the audience, and they certainly are. Clearly, we're
supposed to root for them to get together, and we certainly do.
Clearly, Christian should become a more "substantial"
person to be worthy of Aaron, and he certainly will. Clearly, the
whole "bet" thing must come back to haunt Christian, and it
certainly does. And clearly, love must win out over religious bigotry
and self-hate, and... well, that would be telling. But you can pretty
much guess.
And that's essentially the problem with
the movie: We can pretty much guess what's going to happen -- at
least in broad terms -- because we've seen it all before in one form
or another: The whole "shallow but likable individual attempts
to seduce 'deep' individual on a bet or dare and becomes transformed
for the better in the process" thing. If we know enough about
the story to want to see it, we pretty much know where it must end
up. (And how we're "supposed" to feel about it.) Fold in
the story of a closeted believer trying to find self-acceptance in a
homophobic society, and we know what sort of issues will be addressed
there, as well. Once the filmmakers decide to make such a movie,
then, their challenge is to make the details interesting and
believable, throw us a curve ball or two, and make it all matter to
us by the end. Ultimately, I did care what happened to the
characters; it did matter. But much of the plot along the way felt as
if it were being written by rote, and either the believability or the
significance of what was presented suffered somewhat. It's difficult
to go into sufficient detail without giving too much away, but I'll
try.
We start with Christian's dramatic
protestation of love after he manages to track Aaron down (which he
must do for certain plot-driven reasons): This is delivered after
they've had a single desperate kiss and no real discussions or
heart-to-hearts, other than Aaron blowing up at Christian for being
so shallow. Yet we're supposed to believe that Christian is actually
thinking Aaron may be the great love of his life. Now, it would be
perfectly appropriate for Christian to have followed Aaron out of
general friendly concern and his own sense of responsibility for
stuff that has happened up to that point. But the whole, "What
if you're the great love of my life?" thing is simply not
believable.
It reminds me of the scene in the film
Jeffrey where the main love interest tells the title character, "I
may very well even love you", after they've had a grand total of
perhaps 15 minutes of interaction together, other than one shared
exercise session at the gym. As much as I enjoyed that movie, and as
much as I enjoyed this one, moments like this simply do not make
sense. In both films, it's as if we're missing ten or fifteen
minutes' worth of screen time showing a montage of the relationship
blossoming. I realize we're supposed to just "go with the flow",
but to make us feel like it really matters the story has to flow from
itself, not from our understanding of what the filmmakers must have
intended. (Especially when that understanding is based on our
recognition that the story is contrived!)
Then we have Christian's budding
involvement with "Angel Food", a charitable food delivery
service for individuals debilitated by HIV. He starts participating
in this after Aaron's blow-up at him, to feel like he's contributing
something. There's nothing really wrong with the whole sequence, but
it pretty much goes where one might expect: Christian uses his
pretty-boy powers of clever bitchiness to get the initially-scary
emaciated AIDS patient to eat when he doesn't want to, ends up
bonding with the guy, and so forth. It's all just too... well,... "on
the nose". Even to the point that when the patient, who is
semi-psychic, "reads" Christian early on, he reveals that
he gets "nothing but snow" from him, as if Christian were
just a blank TV screen because he's still too shallow to have any
real "substance", yet.
Aaron's story at this point is somewhat
more interesting, though it still strikes me as proceeding a bit too
predictably from A to B to C. Without going into too much detail,
I'll simply say that I'd be interested to learn how accurate is the
film's depiction of the Mormon mindset and official philosophy
regarding gay people. If the church and its membership really are as
openly hateful and disdainful of gays as they are presented, then I
guess certain plot points aren't unreasonable. But others become more
difficult to fit into the picture, including the fact that Aaron is
as generally well-adjusted as he is throughout most of the film.
Still, when we see him at the end of his ordeal, our hearts can't
help but go out to him. Even though we know we're being manipulated
emotionally, it works. Sandvoss' acting and the direction are good
enough to pull it off.
The final resolution is dependent on
several interlocking coincidences that occur throughout the film.
When I saw the first such coincidence -- an unanticipated meeting
between two characters at a hospital fairly early-on -- I took it for
another example of contrived, even lazy, writing. (Although the scene
taken by itself is quite nice). But I soon realized that the mounting
"coincidences" were actually part of the theme of the
movie: That, whether due to God, fate, karma, or "whatever",
things do fall into place and make sense, and that this is an example
of the fundamental nature of the universe, to be (as Aaron puts it)
"beautiful, funny, and good".
Now, this is a worthwhile message, and
a sentiment with which I don't completely disagree (at least in
spirit). And I guess that one could say we have to give the
filmmakers a pass on all the coincidences, given that they were using
them not only plot wise but thematically. But still, especially when
added to the overall plot, it smacks of being a bit too easy, like
choosing to take a class you know you can pass without studying
rather than one that will really make you work (and learn). It
certainly would have been possible to express this idea in a more
subtle way, a way which would actually have had relevance to those of
us who look for beauty and humor in the world and in our lives
without experiencing so many convenient coincidences that make us go,
"Hmmm.”
But again, having said all that: It
still works. The same "After School Special" sort of
simplicity that infuses the entire story also grants it a certain
earnestness that I couldn't help but find endearing. So as the film
progressed I ended up being drawn along with it, even as I made
mental notes of the various criticisms cited above (and others,
besides). And when the ending that I knew we had to be working toward
finally arrived, I found it satisfying emotionally, if not
particularly so intellectually. Even on the second viewing.
I'm sure that part of my positive
response is due to Sandvoss's and Ramsey's acting and the quiet grace
of Jacqueline Bisset. Sandvoss's Aaron is such a well-intentioned
innocent that you can't help but want to hug him. And though I
couldn't avoid feeling that Ramsey's portrayal of Christian lacked a
certain depth at first, I decided that much of that can be attributed
to merely doing a good job of portraying a shallow character. (What
I'll call the "bear scene" gives him a chance to show a bit
more of his acting acumen, and he succeeds well in it.)
In general, the film's dialog is
fast-paced and the jokes are on-target. The same can be said of the
directing and editing, which include some stylish touches (one
example of which would be the interesting presentation of the "shock
treatment" scene in the second half). I also feel the lighting
and cinematography deserve special mention, as they make the film as
a whole as visually attractive as its cast.
The coda of the story has Aaron
reiterating his belief that the world is fundamentally “beautiful,
funny, and good”. Even with my reservations about aspects of the
writing, the same is pretty much true for the film, as well.
Rated R For Strong Sexual Content And
Language.
DVD extras include a commentary track,
deleted scenes, and behind-the-scenes featurette.