Caution: Lots of spoilers!

You could write a book about the movie "Chuck and Buck." And before it's all said and done, somebody just might. I spent a lot of time watching the film trying to decide whether it was homophobic nonsense or a masterpiece. This is one many will have to judge for themselves. But for me, as the film progressed, I found it more and more easy to accept at face value and not to evaluate it as if it's subtext were anti- gay or trying to make a statement about gay people in general.

The film concerns a young man, Buck, whose mother has just died. He invites his old childhood playmate, whom he hasn't seen in years to the funeral and this sparks old feelings in him. Buck is still very child-like and initially seems almost retarded. His sexual advances rebuffed by his friend, he begins to fixate on him and even moves to L.A. to be near him.

This isn't the most easy situation to be politically correct within when trying to present a dramatic piece, a realistic story. Therefore, I have to separate some thoughts on some of the elements in the film and search to understand their meaning and intent.

1) Buck is retarded. The film is trying to say being gay is like being mentally retarded.

Well, this is only partially true. Buck is retarded but really only emotionally. Continually throughout the film he proves to us that he is competent, smart and creative. He is not mentally challenged in the traditional sense of the word. He is emotionally retarded however. This is not a statement about gay men, I think, but about this particular character. The film's emotional and dramatic crux only works if Buck is living mentally and emotionally as if he were a child. There is even a term for this in gay culture (although not one we are particularly proud of) called "Peter Pan Syndrome." "Chuck and Buck," as a film, seems to be presenting themes and elements of this particular condition. I don't think it's intent is to belittle gays or their mental capacity.

2) Buck is a stalker.

This is true in a sense. He is fixated. But he does not seem really dangerous, he seems more confused. While he does peep in windows and follows Chuck around, he does not seem to do so in a menacing fashion. Political Correctness has made the distinction between "pursuit" of a desideratum and "stalking" even more of a fine line. Buck never ever shows any signs of becoming violent or physically dangerous.

3) Chuck made Buck gay by molesting him as a child.

This is a toughie. The film explains away such notions by saying that it is a typical thing for children to explore. Buck's situation pulls this idea to the extremum, however. At one point Buck even says, "He started it. He made me this way." This opens up a whole discussion about the genetic vs. environment issue. You can decide on some of this for yourself. Many of you probably already have. I think it is much more interesting to discuss Chuck who, as the film evolves, confronts his own homosexuality (or bisexuality) and then has to make a decision about who he is. It's a complex and interesting subject and the film definitely expresses ideas on this. In the end, we feel Chuck has hidden something or ignored part of his own feelings in order to be "accepted." This is a profound moment in the film. For whether or not homosexuality is genetic or a condition of environment, one can almost assuredly assert that a repression of one's homosexual desires is, without a doubt, societal.

These are just a few of the themes concerning homosexuality that "Chuck and Buck" explores. Buck is an immensely complex character and one is almost sure to be engaged in conversations with friends after viewing it about these topics. I myself feel that the film is one of those rare cinematic endeavors where it is important that the gay character is gay (this film would probably not work as well between a man and a woman) and where he is childlike and emotionally incapable of handling his feelings. Buck doesn't want to grow up and face the reality of his parent's death and his loneliness. He doesn't want things to change. I think this is a feeling that many gay men, many people of all kinds, can surely relate to. As gay men, our carefree days of childish exploration with other boys are some of the most fond memories of our sexual identity. The film seems to call out for a more open and honest exploration of those feelings -- or at least more tolerance toward them. If young boys engage in homosexual exploration, without any societal knowledge of what is supposedly right and wrong, without, perhaps, of even knowing anything about what they are doing, doesn't that prove the very "natural" nature of homosexuality? Doesn't that prove that the repression of those feelings are based on society and it's mores and constructs?

Well, here I go writing the beginning of that book that the film could evoke. I don't want to do this. I'd rather send you on your merry way to see the film. It is definitely something worth watching, especially if you are a gay man.

As for the film itself, as a film it may be low budget but it's story comes through loud and clear. The performance by Mike White is nothing short of Oscar caliber. He brings a real heart and soul to Buck. Without him, it would be far less easy to understand what the film is trying to present. It could much too easily become the negative reinforcement that many already fear it is. Meanwhile, Chris Weitz is excellent as Chuck. He takes a character with much history and many conflicting ideas and emotions and makes us care about him. Together, his chemistry with White is phenomenal. And, finally, mention must be made of Lupe Ontiveros who provides an interesting support mechanism for Buck. Her acting, as always, is top notch. This woman would be a superstar if she were thin, white and blonde.

"Chuck and Buck" is one of those films that will have people talking for days and days. It's a brilliant essay on longing and loneliness. And it says much, in the early 21st century, about our inability to grow up and get on with life - as a nation, as a community, as adults.

Notes:

Also with Paul Sand, Paul Weitz and Beth Colt.

Written by White. Colt is a co-producer. Directed by Miguel Arteta ("Star Maps"), who works with White on the TV series "Freaks and Geeks."

The Weitz brothers brought us "America Pie."

More of Lodger's reviews indexed alphabetically! Just click your favorite letter to go there.

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

HOME

In Association with:

Posters From!

Get your Movies

Please Visit