Reviews

There's a certain line of thinking that would tell you serious debates over homosexuality, or marriage equality, are a thing of the past. The fact that Living Waters, who made Audacity, have close ties to the current speaker of the US House will tell you otherwise.

I'm not going to act like I was extremely offended by this film. Of course I do not agree with the message itself (renounce homosexuality or burn in hell), but I've seen much more openly homophobic material not just in Christian films, but in mainstream works, and any day that I go on social media. The token gay characters are mostly sympathetic, with the least sympathetic (who is, as is the tradition with stereotypes, a white, effeminate male), being framed as being so defensive due to hostile treatment from Christians in the past. The very few Christian films that have gay characters often just paint them as damned, say they were either abused as children or abuse children themselves, but it's not quite that simple here. And frankly, I was just interested in seeing more Christian films with gay characters at all, having grown up just seeing them as sad stories on the 700 Club or Jack Van Impe.

There are a number of positives in the film. Peter manages to thread the line between the goofy comic relief and the uber-sincere conversion tracts, thanks to the work from Travis Owens. I have no idea if the people in the film agreed with the message or just wanted a check, but the acting is better than I often would expect from these types of productions.

One of the biggest issues, and I'm not trying to sit here asking for representation in Christian gay healing films, I promise, is that we do not actually get to see the gay characters from their own point of view. The most overt story in the film that is advertised as being about how to talk to gay people ends up cheating - when Peter preaches the Good Word to Robert (the more docile half of the gay couple), it's drowned out by some tedious emo rock song. A film about giving the Gospel to the gay or gay-friendly world should have given that moment. And as they part ways, you find yourself wondering if Robert will stay with his boyfriend, or choose celibacy, or try to "go straight." This path not shown ends up being more interesting than the end of the film.

Diana, the main female and quasi-love interest, is revealed as formerly being in a lesbian relationship at movie's end, but we don't get to go on that journey with her. They do have a scene at dinner together early in the movie, but little to nothing in her interaction with this other woman suggests they are or were a couple. And again, the film avoids a genuinely compelling issue they could have had - how would Peter have reacted to her being a lesbian or bisexual while he preaches to her and is clearly attracted to her? Would he see himself as being a sinner and preying on her doubts because of his own interest? As they don't address this (he never even knows she is into women), the message of the film ends up being if you have enough faith, you can turn a woman straight. Maybe they should have approached Ben Affleck for the part.

There are a number of twists in the film that are just confounding. Peter has a dream where his rushing for a delivery and refusing to be honest with a lesbian couple leads them to die in an elevator crash. That's one way to give motivation, I guess, but before that point, there is a scene where Diana berates him over being homophobic because she has a lesbian sister. After he wakes up, he goes to talk with her, and this all turns out to have been a dream as well. It's very confusing. Why not have Diana, in the dream, tell Peter that she is gay? Wouldn't that make more sense with her story arc?

We also hear about her sick brother, whose health leads her to leave her date with Peter at his friend's standup set. This coincides with Peter's big break, and undercuts the faith-based message of the film, as he doesn't seem all that bothered by a woman he cares about having to leave due to her dying brother. This sequence is especially odd because instead of seeing her with her dying brother, we get one last lesson that has little to do with the rest of the film - her car breaks down and a man she thinks is a thug breaks into her car and saves her from being hit by an oncoming car. We then have a friend of his blasting her in a news interview for being judgmental, which seems a bit much, given that she was alone at night, out of gas, going through a spiritual crisis, and preparing for her brother's death.

We don't even hear what happens to her brother. Maybe Peter visited him once.

The film, either as entertainment or propaganda, would have benefited with a much more streamlined script, and about ten minutes sliced off - namely, the generic standup from Peter's friend (although Ben Price is an amiable, charismatic presence), and in particular, the preaching-man-on-the-street segments from Ray Comfort. Clearly these were the main points of the film, but they come across as smug and overly simplistic (although Comfort is more gracious toward his interview subjects than the Jay Leno/Jimmy Kimmel versions of this used to be), and just leave you feeling a bit annoyed. I did like his interview with one woman who essentially takes the interview from him, surprising him with the reveal that he has been talking to a lesbian all along. You get the sense even he ended up respecting her.

There's something very clever in the idea of a ruthless gangster (Nat Pendleton) whose mommy issues mean he does anything he can to promote a talentless singer (Zasu Pitts). Add in his moll (Pert Kelton, the most consistent bright spot of the film) who, jealous of losing her position and own failed showbiz dreams, has Pitts kidnapped. All ending in a show. Good concepts, but I just don't think the idea translated well - or at least not to feature length.

The characters are very static. You wonder if the gangster may change his ways, but instead we get a treatment of domestic violence with Kelton that feels shockingly casual even for the era. Don't get me wrong - I know this was 1934, and I can't say I'm upset over the movie's lack of interest in teaching lessons (even if I'm not surprised to hear there were censorship problems as a result), but the lack of progression leaves you still not caring about characters you didn't care a great deal about in the first place.

One of my main irritations with the film is the Edward Everett Horton character. In worlds where Horton can have some back-and-forth, he can be a delight, but in this case, he just has the same disbelieving response to Pitts' singing and mocking comments about her appearance, repeated so many times that I eventually started to wonder if she was all that bad, which went against the whole purpose of the story. Pitts, a wonderful talent, also feels wasted in such an extremely passive role. With that said, Pitts and Pendleton, even if they don't quite get opportunities, are always watchable.

As the film winds down, things do pick up, with a wonderful sequence involving the gangsters threatening a leading theater critic into laughing his head off at the terrible comedy and crying real tears at the melodrama (it's not too difficult for him to weep with a gun to his side). Richard Carle is terrific in these moments, but what makes them even better is seeing the reactions of the other critics, who are visibly reeling from how awful the production is, but force themselves to laugh, cry, and praise when they see that the critic they see as the end-all-be-all loves it. A brilliant moment of satire.

The last moments, where Pitts, finally getting some fun to play, offers herself to Pendleton as gratitude for her one night of fame, also entertain. Pendleton, who is a bit thrown and makes it clear he has no interest in her, heads off to see his dear, sweet mother...just released from prison. (I wish we'd seen her meet Pitts - the comedy would have written itself). As he rushes off with Kelton and his entourage, Pitts tells her seemingly meek-milled fiancé (John Qualen) that she's now ready to go back to the simple life with him. He shows her the ransom money he pocketed from Pendleton. Not so meek after all. And not a bad way to go to the credits.

Brandon Young gives a strong, natural performance as an actor who is torn between waiting for a big break - or any break - and accepting an offer to perform in an adult film. There's nothing new about this plotline, but then there's nothing new about most plotlines. The execution takes the matter seriously without devolving into misery porn (no pun intended), leaving you in the mind of a man who is trying to feel out a very difficult choice.

Just as he's near the point of no going back, his friend (a good performance from Aurelio Reyes), arrives on the set, telling him he's gotten the job he auditioned for at the start of the short. Young immediately quits, and you might think well this is rushed and seems like a bit of a copout, but at least the door was always open for this twist.

Unfortunately, the final scene, after he leaves, is purely comedic, with Reyes talking his way into taking his friend's place, saps away any of the dramatic material or character work up to this point (and nothing about his character in his earlier scene suggests such a sharp left turn in tone), It also makes the choice Young faced seem more trivial after being treated here as a joke.

This is still worth a watch, and I give praise to those who spent time and money getting this made, but maybe just don't bother with the last scene.

The initial story of Love Is... (a blind woman is unknowingly reunited with the man who accidentally blinded her years earlier, when they were teenagers sharing a crush), feels closer to a '30s weepie than a product of 2010, but I at least admire their commitment most of the way through. Unfortunately, either due to Angela Clare (who wrote, directed, and starred in the film) belatedly realizing the story made no real sense (due to her character not recognizing her old love's voice), or deciding a "twist" ending would garner more interest, we get a reveal immediately after the happily ever after that only their initial reunion scene was real, she had actually recognized him by his voice, and had decided to see if he would be honest about their past - only for him to never see her again. We then see him walk by at the end of the film with two small kids, implying he didn't press further because he was already married.

The earlier material is not exactly sterling work, but Clare and Daniel Tyler Smith at least share a certain endearing chemistry that makes you marginally invested in the outcome of their relationship. Learning there was never a relationship just leaves you with a somewhat hollow feeling...not helped by one final appearance of a song which sounds like a discount Sara Bareilles work.

Voulez-vous mon c...?, AKA Cavaliere, among various other titles, starts out with a bang as Christine Frassati, at the breakfast table with, presumably, her mother (Brigitte Verbecq) and maid (Marie-Thérèse Clément), fantasizes about a visitor (Andre Kay) casually seducing them. Unfortunately, the movie's greatest weakness also reveals itself in this sequence - the same instrumental playing over and over and over, stopping at random times, then starting again. (the moments in the film which just have sounds rather than music are much preferable, especially as there is no interminable dirty talk or fake screaming)

When not sucking her thumb, Frassati goes through the rest of the film lost in fantasy, sometimes imagining other people, sometimes inserting herself into an encounter. At one point she inserts a toilet brush into herself (hopefully it was cleaned...before or after). You want to wait for her to have her own moment of stepping into a new life, but when it doesn't happen (still wandering around on her own, with a cat, during the film's final orgy), you can't bring yourself to care very much.

The most memorable sequence features striking redhead Lucie Doll, working in the stalls. Apparently turned on by mucky stalls in freezing cold weather, she treats a rake handle to various orifices. A shot of a horse is repeated several times, briefly making you worry about just where this is going to go...fortunately, nowhere. Dany Berger, a horse in his own way, joins her, in a scene which should probably be hotter than it is - between static shots, too much padding, and a very awkward kiss, it doesn't give you much, although Dany's appendage and Lucie's bottom are enough for many, I'd guess.

The true highlight of the film is Verbecq, a busty blonde MILF before the term was coined, or ground into the dust. She brings a great deal of enthusiasm and sensuality to her scenes, especially her tryst with Clement.