I actually enjoyed the movie, and the acting was decent for the most part. However, these things really bothered me:
1. The star's first sexual encounter was with a straight-acting jock who looks like a model and who just happens to be addicted to raping men he knows personally, despite the fact his victims would most likely welcome a healthy sexual relationship with the attacker. This is pretty much unheard of in the gay community, and fosters the false idea that homosexuality is a mental health disorder. This is not to say there are no unhealthy relationships in the gay community. There certainly are. It is just that the one portrayed just didn't seem right. Especially not the awkward encounter itself. I realize this is supposed to be based on a true story, and I get the idea that attacker was supposed to be portrayed as having a lot of repression issues and self hate, but it seemed really off to me in a variety of ways.
2. The lead role is played by someone (Lucas Hedges) who doesn't classify himself as a gay man (although in at least one interview he said he falls within a sexually fluid spectrum - mostly attracted to women, but not totally straight, but also not gay and not necessarily bisexual - I mention this without any implied judgement, but merely as a possible reason I couldn't relate to his character). What about the guy who his first portrayed sexual encounter is with? He happens to be a straight man dating Taylor Swift. What about the director? Again, a straight man who has dated many actresses and models over the years.
I realize that an actor does not have to had lived through all the things they are acting out to do a good job, but these roles went to men that didn't appear to me to connect to the subject matter on any meaningful level, nor ever had to endure all the hardships that most gay men have had to endure, especially those that have at least some feminine characteristics and thus do not have the option to be chameleons existing on some sort of fluidity spectrum. The non-gay actors pretending to be gay looked distractingly uncomfortable in their roles, and the director being straight didn't help either. Although there were several actors in the movie that were sure they were gay, they were given only subordinate roles without many lines, which I found unfortunate. Maybe I'm way off base but I think a movie about the issues gay men have to deal with should star people that are actually gay. Can you imagine a movie about African slavery where all the lead actors playing slave roles were white actors in black face with a Southern accent, and the director gave people that were actually black only small subordinate roles on the basis they were not likable enough to a general audience to play a bigger role? That is how this movie comes across.
Hollywood has many decent openly gay actors who would have loved these roles, and would have had much better insight into how to play such characters properly. I can only speculate as to why they were passed over but it is clear that the director has at least some homophobic tendencies and was in it for the money rather than to educate others.
3. The movie made conversion therapy seem better than most summer camps in America. It was simply portrayed as well-intended but misguided, and didn't delve much into the emotional turmoil the kids must have felt and into how horrible these places can actually be. To me it was way too soft in its approach. For example, I did not think it was possible to show the inner workings of conversion therapy and/or the suicide of a gay teen without triggering a deep emotional response from me, but this director somehow found a way.
4. There was pretty much no meaningful dialogue or relationships between the kids in the program. Not very realistic. Gay guys often have strong personalities, but those portrayed seemed to have none. For some reason the gay guys were not given center stage and allowed to let their personality shine in this movie.
I realize this movie was "inspired" by the life of Garrard Conley. Although this movie didn't seem relatable or realistic to me personally based on my life experiences, maybe it was to Garrard, and it is not my place to question his perception of his life story.
1. The star's first sexual encounter was with a straight-acting jock who looks like a model and who just happens to be addicted to raping men he knows personally, despite the fact his victims would most likely welcome a healthy sexual relationship with the attacker. This is pretty much unheard of in the gay community, and fosters the false idea that homosexuality is a mental health disorder. This is not to say there are no unhealthy relationships in the gay community. There certainly are. It is just that the one portrayed just didn't seem right. Especially not the awkward encounter itself. I realize this is supposed to be based on a true story, and I get the idea that attacker was supposed to be portrayed as having a lot of repression issues and self hate, but it seemed really off to me in a variety of ways.
2. The lead role is played by someone (Lucas Hedges) who doesn't classify himself as a gay man (although in at least one interview he said he falls within a sexually fluid spectrum - mostly attracted to women, but not totally straight, but also not gay and not necessarily bisexual - I mention this without any implied judgement, but merely as a possible reason I couldn't relate to his character). What about the guy who his first portrayed sexual encounter is with? He happens to be a straight man dating Taylor Swift. What about the director? Again, a straight man who has dated many actresses and models over the years.
I realize that an actor does not have to had lived through all the things they are acting out to do a good job, but these roles went to men that didn't appear to me to connect to the subject matter on any meaningful level, nor ever had to endure all the hardships that most gay men have had to endure, especially those that have at least some feminine characteristics and thus do not have the option to be chameleons existing on some sort of fluidity spectrum. The non-gay actors pretending to be gay looked distractingly uncomfortable in their roles, and the director being straight didn't help either. Although there were several actors in the movie that were sure they were gay, they were given only subordinate roles without many lines, which I found unfortunate. Maybe I'm way off base but I think a movie about the issues gay men have to deal with should star people that are actually gay. Can you imagine a movie about African slavery where all the lead actors playing slave roles were white actors in black face with a Southern accent, and the director gave people that were actually black only small subordinate roles on the basis they were not likable enough to a general audience to play a bigger role? That is how this movie comes across.
Hollywood has many decent openly gay actors who would have loved these roles, and would have had much better insight into how to play such characters properly. I can only speculate as to why they were passed over but it is clear that the director has at least some homophobic tendencies and was in it for the money rather than to educate others.
3. The movie made conversion therapy seem better than most summer camps in America. It was simply portrayed as well-intended but misguided, and didn't delve much into the emotional turmoil the kids must have felt and into how horrible these places can actually be. To me it was way too soft in its approach. For example, I did not think it was possible to show the inner workings of conversion therapy and/or the suicide of a gay teen without triggering a deep emotional response from me, but this director somehow found a way.
4. There was pretty much no meaningful dialogue or relationships between the kids in the program. Not very realistic. Gay guys often have strong personalities, but those portrayed seemed to have none. For some reason the gay guys were not given center stage and allowed to let their personality shine in this movie.
I realize this movie was "inspired" by the life of Garrard Conley. Although this movie didn't seem relatable or realistic to me personally based on my life experiences, maybe it was to Garrard, and it is not my place to question his perception of his life story.