Hollywood is always a sinister setting, even for a comedy and "The Dying Gaul" is no exception. I don't intend to divulge the ins and outs of the story because that should be your job, but I feel compelled to talk about it because it kind of stacked all over me like some kind of alien jelly. I always loved Campbell Scott and I suspect I always will. He plays the devil - The "I'll give you a million bucks if you abandon completely yourself, your principles, your loyalties" - kind of devil - He is married to the splendid Patricia Clarkson ( part Meryl Streep part Wayland Flower's Madame) and the object of his temptation is Peter Sarsgaard, one of the best creepiest actors ever to appear on film. It may be a personal thing but he gives me the willies. The film is an uncomfortable journey through a strangely familiar landscape that becomes darker and darker. I will take my chances and recommend it.
41 Reviews
Say It Isn't So
felixoscar4 December 2005
I would be hard pressed to name a trio of actors that I could be more excited to see than the stars of his film. Been rooting for Clarkson for years; we all know Sarsgaard is Oscar material in the years to come; Scott is (to me) even better than his dad. So I was waiting for this, via Craig Lucas, for a long time.
My cousin had warned me (we are both gay) that the play delivered a memorable first half (in a positive way) and just as memorable second half (in how bad it was). Clearly the screenplay did nothing to change this, alas.
The three leads were, no surprise, just excellent, and seeing them was well worth the time and cost. Oh PeterS, get back to work we need more of you! But dear Mr Lucas, when characters behave in ways that show no logic, it feels like a cheat.
Fascinating idea, beautiful setting, some splendid dialogue and then disaster sets. I say "6" and wish everyone involved great success in the years to come.
My cousin had warned me (we are both gay) that the play delivered a memorable first half (in a positive way) and just as memorable second half (in how bad it was). Clearly the screenplay did nothing to change this, alas.
The three leads were, no surprise, just excellent, and seeing them was well worth the time and cost. Oh PeterS, get back to work we need more of you! But dear Mr Lucas, when characters behave in ways that show no logic, it feels like a cheat.
Fascinating idea, beautiful setting, some splendid dialogue and then disaster sets. I say "6" and wish everyone involved great success in the years to come.
Well Acted Triangle Undercut By Artsy Direction
noralee11 November 2005
"The Dying Gaul" feels like an updated "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" set in Hollywood instead of academia. But it gradually veers towards "Fatal Attraction" as the opening jabs at commercial film-making, with lots of name and title dropping that seem to be writer Craig Lucas's revenge on compromises he made for his successful "Prelude to a Kiss," give way to catastrophic psychological manipulation.
The initial Hollywood commentary is emphasized through the settings, as the movie producer, Campbell Scott, and his ex-writer/liberal activist/household and children manager wife, Patricia Clarkson, live in an extraordinary house with a rippling pool and ocean view. Their financial success is wielded like a weapon as the camera restlessly swoops around all their possessions, household help and scenic property. The emotional price he's paid for this is clear as Scott's "Jeffrey" could be in "Glengarry Glen Ross" (to drop film titles like he does) as he'll clearly do anything to seal a deal.
Peter Sarsgaard drives on to the studio lot and into their lives with a completely different character from his four other released films this year, with inflections and body language that only occasionally get a bit too flamboyant as affectations of an out gay writer discussing issues of sexuality in the movies and his late lover. His grief and need for human warmth is so palpable that it is even believable that after failing with psychological counseling and Buddhism to deal with it, he clutches at what used to be called spiritualism, here delivered through the internet, shown visually both in the written word and the actors talking to the camera like reading aloud from their computer screens, edited effectively in the best key scenes with real life.
Clarkson is wonderful as she morphs from busy housewife lounging in a fetching bikini, to curious dabbler in the dark side, to woman scorned and revengeful manipulator. She may be the Ultimate Scary Mother, sexy, maternal and controlling, who while distraught over violent video games goes after the psyche. Unusually for how such a triangle has been portrayed in films (and the film is specifically set in 1995 as perhaps a more innocent time), we also get brief, sympathetic insight on another woman similarly affected by the writer's selfish actions that puts Clarkson's "Elaine" in perspective as she could have been portrayed as more of a brittle harpy. But each character alternately attracts and repels us.
In his directing debut Lucas does not well serve his own script, adapted from his play, as it could have been a lot tauter in exploring the slippery slope of ethics in human relationships, that all it takes is that one small step to deceive or keep secrets before one falls into the well. There could have been a lot fewer arty scenes in silhouette, at sunset, across water.
The Steve Reich music throughout becomes more irritating than tension-inducing.
While the title has something to do with the writer's long monologue about the significance of the Roman sculpture as an artist's way to make victims sympathetic, one is left here more with the feeling that these three folks deserve each other, though the collateral damage left in their wake is a tragedy.
The initial Hollywood commentary is emphasized through the settings, as the movie producer, Campbell Scott, and his ex-writer/liberal activist/household and children manager wife, Patricia Clarkson, live in an extraordinary house with a rippling pool and ocean view. Their financial success is wielded like a weapon as the camera restlessly swoops around all their possessions, household help and scenic property. The emotional price he's paid for this is clear as Scott's "Jeffrey" could be in "Glengarry Glen Ross" (to drop film titles like he does) as he'll clearly do anything to seal a deal.
Peter Sarsgaard drives on to the studio lot and into their lives with a completely different character from his four other released films this year, with inflections and body language that only occasionally get a bit too flamboyant as affectations of an out gay writer discussing issues of sexuality in the movies and his late lover. His grief and need for human warmth is so palpable that it is even believable that after failing with psychological counseling and Buddhism to deal with it, he clutches at what used to be called spiritualism, here delivered through the internet, shown visually both in the written word and the actors talking to the camera like reading aloud from their computer screens, edited effectively in the best key scenes with real life.
Clarkson is wonderful as she morphs from busy housewife lounging in a fetching bikini, to curious dabbler in the dark side, to woman scorned and revengeful manipulator. She may be the Ultimate Scary Mother, sexy, maternal and controlling, who while distraught over violent video games goes after the psyche. Unusually for how such a triangle has been portrayed in films (and the film is specifically set in 1995 as perhaps a more innocent time), we also get brief, sympathetic insight on another woman similarly affected by the writer's selfish actions that puts Clarkson's "Elaine" in perspective as she could have been portrayed as more of a brittle harpy. But each character alternately attracts and repels us.
In his directing debut Lucas does not well serve his own script, adapted from his play, as it could have been a lot tauter in exploring the slippery slope of ethics in human relationships, that all it takes is that one small step to deceive or keep secrets before one falls into the well. There could have been a lot fewer arty scenes in silhouette, at sunset, across water.
The Steve Reich music throughout becomes more irritating than tension-inducing.
While the title has something to do with the writer's long monologue about the significance of the Roman sculpture as an artist's way to make victims sympathetic, one is left here more with the feeling that these three folks deserve each other, though the collateral damage left in their wake is a tragedy.
The Deadly Buddha
Lechuguilla19 March 2008
Suppose you had intimate knowledge about someone, and that someone did not know that you knew. How would you use that knowledge? Or would you? This issue is the undercurrent that carries the film's plot, like a fast moving stream, over a cliff, to a swirling, uncontrollable emotional vortex that changes people's lives forever.
Set in modern Los Angeles, a grieving gay screenwriter named Robert (Peter Sarsgaard) meets with Jeffrey (Campbell Scott), a wealthy film producer, to talk about Robert's script "The Dying Gaul", a tribute to his deceased lover and soul mate. Jeffrey invites Robert to his mansion by the ocean to meet his wife Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), who reads Robert's script and loves it. Over time, Robert and Elaine become friends, which sets up a triangular relationship that careens out of control when the anonymity of internet chat rooms provides cover for the discovery of secrets.
Artsy in tone and philosophy, the film exudes New Age dialogue, with conversation about Buddhist Karma, "the middle way", enlightenment, and deadly plant roots. The film's production design is chic. And while the color cinematography is mostly conventional, sometimes it is beautifully stylistic. I really liked those stark human silhouettes against that orange screen. The film's score, which connotes New Age spiritualism, is terrific.
Acting of the three leads is quite good. Patricia Clarkson is great as she sits in front of a computer monitor and, without speaking, displays myriad emotions through her facial expressions alone.
The chat room scenes are creative and emotionally potent, amid magnified keyboard clicking sounds. The back and forth exchange here is unusual, and striking in that it is meaningless when taken out of context, but highly enlightening when considered in relation to the film's plot, as this sample shows: "Hello"; "I hear clicking"; "I'm still here"; "Are you still there?"; "Yes"; "You sound really distracted"; "Yeah today"; "When?" "I'm sorry"; "No, I'm all yours"; "Are mine what?"; "No"; "Yes"; "Meaning?"; "I'm all yours now".
The film's screenplay does contain a rather obvious plot hole. And a couple of scenes involving Robert's son and former wife are too tangential to the story's trajectory. But these are minor issues.
"The Dying Gaul" may seem artistically or philosophically pretentious to some viewers. But I really liked it. Quite aside from the wonderful performances and the chic production values, the film's story has thematic depth, a quality lacking in most mainstream Hollywood films.
Set in modern Los Angeles, a grieving gay screenwriter named Robert (Peter Sarsgaard) meets with Jeffrey (Campbell Scott), a wealthy film producer, to talk about Robert's script "The Dying Gaul", a tribute to his deceased lover and soul mate. Jeffrey invites Robert to his mansion by the ocean to meet his wife Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), who reads Robert's script and loves it. Over time, Robert and Elaine become friends, which sets up a triangular relationship that careens out of control when the anonymity of internet chat rooms provides cover for the discovery of secrets.
Artsy in tone and philosophy, the film exudes New Age dialogue, with conversation about Buddhist Karma, "the middle way", enlightenment, and deadly plant roots. The film's production design is chic. And while the color cinematography is mostly conventional, sometimes it is beautifully stylistic. I really liked those stark human silhouettes against that orange screen. The film's score, which connotes New Age spiritualism, is terrific.
Acting of the three leads is quite good. Patricia Clarkson is great as she sits in front of a computer monitor and, without speaking, displays myriad emotions through her facial expressions alone.
The chat room scenes are creative and emotionally potent, amid magnified keyboard clicking sounds. The back and forth exchange here is unusual, and striking in that it is meaningless when taken out of context, but highly enlightening when considered in relation to the film's plot, as this sample shows: "Hello"; "I hear clicking"; "I'm still here"; "Are you still there?"; "Yes"; "You sound really distracted"; "Yeah today"; "When?" "I'm sorry"; "No, I'm all yours"; "Are mine what?"; "No"; "Yes"; "Meaning?"; "I'm all yours now".
The film's screenplay does contain a rather obvious plot hole. And a couple of scenes involving Robert's son and former wife are too tangential to the story's trajectory. But these are minor issues.
"The Dying Gaul" may seem artistically or philosophically pretentious to some viewers. But I really liked it. Quite aside from the wonderful performances and the chic production values, the film's story has thematic depth, a quality lacking in most mainstream Hollywood films.
Trio of Talented Actors in an Unconvincing and Wordy Film
dglink12 December 2005
Despite the earnest work of three talented actors, "The Dying Gaul" is a slow and ponderous film that betrays its stage origins. Unfortunately, the film opens with a scene that seems improbable, if not downright impossible, as a film producer attempts to purchase an original screenplay from a first-time writer who plays coy over principles, despite a million-dollar carrot. Before long, the producer seduces the writer, and the two men carry on an illicit affair behind the back of the producer's wife. However, the wife is intrigued after meeting the writer, and she begins to correspond with him in on-line chat rooms under the guise of a gay man. The sham that the wife uses to uncover the affair and psychologically harass the young writer would not fool anyone, let alone an educated writer, and the film falls apart from lack of credibility. Although Hitchcock may have been able to make lengthy scenes of two characters instant-messaging each other over a computer into classic cinema, director Craig Lucas has yet to hone those skills, and the instant-messaging exchanges are leaden to be polite. Fortunately, my watch has a dial that illuminates in the dark. The direction of the film in general is slowly paced, and there is little visual excitement or breaking through the boundaries of the stage-bound dialog.
Fortunately, the always-wonderful Patricia Clarkson plays the wife, and she does wonders with a part that is not intrinsically interesting. While Peter Sarsgaard generally falls into the "always-wonderful" category as well, his subtly mincing shtick as the gay writer seems as though it were lifted from the worst episodes of "Will and Grace." Sarsgaard played a gay (or bisexual) man far more convincingly in "Kinsey." While there certainly are effeminate and fey gay men, those stereotypes have already been played to death on screen, and a fresher concept would have been expected of an actor with the talents of Sarsgaard. Campbell Scott plays his part well, although, when a viewer's mind wanders to thoughts of how well Scott is aging, the actor is apparently not fully engaging the audience's attention.
"The Dying Gaul," while not a complete failure, is nonetheless a disappointment and little more than an acting exercise for three talented performers. The wordiness and leisurely pacing may have worked on stage, and the flimsy plot devices may also have played more credibly in the theater. However, on film, "The Dying Gaul" fails to engage or convince and ultimately falls flat.
Fortunately, the always-wonderful Patricia Clarkson plays the wife, and she does wonders with a part that is not intrinsically interesting. While Peter Sarsgaard generally falls into the "always-wonderful" category as well, his subtly mincing shtick as the gay writer seems as though it were lifted from the worst episodes of "Will and Grace." Sarsgaard played a gay (or bisexual) man far more convincingly in "Kinsey." While there certainly are effeminate and fey gay men, those stereotypes have already been played to death on screen, and a fresher concept would have been expected of an actor with the talents of Sarsgaard. Campbell Scott plays his part well, although, when a viewer's mind wanders to thoughts of how well Scott is aging, the actor is apparently not fully engaging the audience's attention.
"The Dying Gaul," while not a complete failure, is nonetheless a disappointment and little more than an acting exercise for three talented performers. The wordiness and leisurely pacing may have worked on stage, and the flimsy plot devices may also have played more credibly in the theater. However, on film, "The Dying Gaul" fails to engage or convince and ultimately falls flat.
Boring and Unrealistic
claudio_carvalho18 May 2014
The gay screenwriter Robert (Peter Sarsgaard), who is grieving the recent loss of his lover, writes a screenplay based on his biography and tries to sell it to the Hollywood producer Jeffrey (Campbell Scott). He offers one million dollars for his work, provided changes in the story replacing the dying man per a woman to make a commercial film. Jeffrey shows the screenplay to his wife Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), who loves to write and to plant flowers, and she is also delighted with the story.
Robert works introducing the required modifications and Jeffrey, who is bisexual, has an affair with him. Meanwhile Elaine finds the gay website where Robert writes and she creates a fake profile to have conversation with him pretending that she is his deceased lover. Soon she learns the affair of her husband and she decides to leave him. But when the gay Robert discovers the truth, he has a breakdown and takes vengeance for Elaine with tragic consequences.
"The Dying Gaul" is a boring movie with an unrealistic story. The idea of Elaine pretending to be the spirit of the dead gay and luring Robert in a gay chat room is ridiculous. The use of the deadly flower to poison Elaine would be easily found by the autopsy despite his explanation about the impossibility of finding the traceability of the poison. My vote is four.
Title (Brazil): "Triângulo Obsceno" ("Obscene Triangle")
Robert works introducing the required modifications and Jeffrey, who is bisexual, has an affair with him. Meanwhile Elaine finds the gay website where Robert writes and she creates a fake profile to have conversation with him pretending that she is his deceased lover. Soon she learns the affair of her husband and she decides to leave him. But when the gay Robert discovers the truth, he has a breakdown and takes vengeance for Elaine with tragic consequences.
"The Dying Gaul" is a boring movie with an unrealistic story. The idea of Elaine pretending to be the spirit of the dead gay and luring Robert in a gay chat room is ridiculous. The use of the deadly flower to poison Elaine would be easily found by the autopsy despite his explanation about the impossibility of finding the traceability of the poison. My vote is four.
Title (Brazil): "Triângulo Obsceno" ("Obscene Triangle")
Devious
awjonesjr20 November 2005
First off, the less you know about this movie before seeing it, the better. Go in clean. And just let it such you in. Here are a few things you CAN know. (a) The screenwriter/director, Craig Lucas, is gay but wrote his best known play, PRELUDE TO A KISS, about a straight relationship that has overtones of homosexuality. (b) Patricia Clarkson may be the finest actress of her age. She flits around the first 20 minutes of this movie in a bra and panties, toyingly svelt but with a panther-like quality you only realize later. (c) This is a movie without a protagonist or an antagonist -- or more accurate, a movie in which each of the main characters take turns at being the antagonist and protagonist. (d) Despite the gay aspects, this is really a movie about betrayal, and it is fiendishly mean (but in a good way). (e) Peter Sarsgaard has never looked handsomer. (f) That's all you need to know. See it.
Interesting, watchable, and maddening
Juliette20052 November 2005
I enjoyed this film, up to a point- and that point was almost exactly the half way mark, where the writer director chose to go the maudlin implausible route instead of sticking with what he had, which was wonderful.
To have three characters in conflict and resolve it without any fancy plot device would have been truly courageous, but sadly what started out so lovely descended into melodrama and tedium.
That being said, Craig Lucas is clearly a talent to watch, he did a marvelous job with the actors- particularly Peter Skaarsgard, who does wonderful work, and the script is smart and even touching in places.
Campbell Scott seemed miscast to me, wooden and distant at places but oddly brazen in others. I can't imagine a married studio executive actually touching and almost kissing a writer ON THE LOT. I found myself imagining what other actors would have done with the role, never a good sign. But then again, he was one of the producers, so Mr. Lucas had his hands tied.
All in all, the first act was so promising that I was angered by the way Lucas decided to end it.
To have three characters in conflict and resolve it without any fancy plot device would have been truly courageous, but sadly what started out so lovely descended into melodrama and tedium.
That being said, Craig Lucas is clearly a talent to watch, he did a marvelous job with the actors- particularly Peter Skaarsgard, who does wonderful work, and the script is smart and even touching in places.
Campbell Scott seemed miscast to me, wooden and distant at places but oddly brazen in others. I can't imagine a married studio executive actually touching and almost kissing a writer ON THE LOT. I found myself imagining what other actors would have done with the role, never a good sign. But then again, he was one of the producers, so Mr. Lucas had his hands tied.
All in all, the first act was so promising that I was angered by the way Lucas decided to end it.
THE DYING GAUL = Phony Hollywood, "Like, who really cares???"
screenwriter-145 November 2005
Craig Lucas' film is a piece of pretentious Hollywood crap, with the only saving grace that of the wonderful Patricia Clarkson who plays the "wounded" Hollywood wife in the film and delivers a very poignant and empathetic performance.
From the first scenes between Peter Sarsgaard, Robert, and the handsome Cambell Scott, Jefferey, this film doesn't ring true to me as a writer in Los Angeles, as he heads to meet a Studio executive in such a nonchalant and unprofessional manner to discuss the purchase of his script THE DYING GAUL. That whole office scene is just too silly for words-even Robert's...Any writer would die to be in his position, let alone to be so uncaring about his script being sold to a major studio.
The usual glamorous Malibu settings, sun setting over the blue Pacific, that limo ride where everyone is sipping champagne to the good life in Hollywood once you make it, just seemed such a boring cliché. And the scenes where Jefferey keeps saying to Robert, "you're so beautiful", are beyond trite dialog.
Yes, we all have lost someone we love to death, but the way these characters discuss, chat online and deceive one another is not bringing any empathy to their stories, nor for their audience. And the last scene is not a tear jerker, just a reflection of what deception and lies can create for your downfall.
My recommendation, you want a shot of dark Hollywood, stick to the intriguing MULHOLLAND DRIVE for viewing, not THE DYING GAUL.
From the first scenes between Peter Sarsgaard, Robert, and the handsome Cambell Scott, Jefferey, this film doesn't ring true to me as a writer in Los Angeles, as he heads to meet a Studio executive in such a nonchalant and unprofessional manner to discuss the purchase of his script THE DYING GAUL. That whole office scene is just too silly for words-even Robert's...Any writer would die to be in his position, let alone to be so uncaring about his script being sold to a major studio.
The usual glamorous Malibu settings, sun setting over the blue Pacific, that limo ride where everyone is sipping champagne to the good life in Hollywood once you make it, just seemed such a boring cliché. And the scenes where Jefferey keeps saying to Robert, "you're so beautiful", are beyond trite dialog.
Yes, we all have lost someone we love to death, but the way these characters discuss, chat online and deceive one another is not bringing any empathy to their stories, nor for their audience. And the last scene is not a tear jerker, just a reflection of what deception and lies can create for your downfall.
My recommendation, you want a shot of dark Hollywood, stick to the intriguing MULHOLLAND DRIVE for viewing, not THE DYING GAUL.
intriguing and beautifully done
btyson-129 October 2005
How do we honor those we love? What kind of therapy can words provide?
I didn't understand the title of this movie but was eager to see it at the Austin Film Festival because it features such an exceptional cast. Campbell Scott, Peter Sarsgaard, and Patricia Clarkson consistently do interesting work and are appearing together for the first time. "The Dying Gaul" is one of the best movies I've seen in awhile.
In one of the first scenes Robert (Peter Sarsgaard) elaborates on the title of his screenplay, "The Dying Gaul," with studio executive Jeffrey (Campbell Scott.) The screenplay and its meaning to the writer becomes a catalyst for the story that unfolds.
This story of lust, manipulation, betrayal, and revenge is - not surprisingly - set in the Hollywood of 1995. But it's a story that could take place elsewhere, it just wouldn't be as captivating or beautifully photographed - and there are some lovely and interesting scenes and unusual close-ups.
Robert has turned the loss of his partner to AIDS into a screenplay that studio executive Jeffrey will pay top dollar for, with one significant change. Jeffrey's wife Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), also a screenwriter, adores the original script. She is drawn to Robert and wants to know more about the forces that influenced his talent. Her shocking discovery propels the story in unexpected ways.
Don't leave until the credits roll or you won't know who screenwriter and director Craig Lucas dedicates his story to. You may think about it in a different light. Lucas also wrote the screenplays of two other movies I liked very much: "The Secret Lives of Dentists" and "Longtime Companion." He is quite good at exploring the mysteries of the heart and dynamics of relationships. Don't miss this movie. I intend to see it again.
I didn't understand the title of this movie but was eager to see it at the Austin Film Festival because it features such an exceptional cast. Campbell Scott, Peter Sarsgaard, and Patricia Clarkson consistently do interesting work and are appearing together for the first time. "The Dying Gaul" is one of the best movies I've seen in awhile.
In one of the first scenes Robert (Peter Sarsgaard) elaborates on the title of his screenplay, "The Dying Gaul," with studio executive Jeffrey (Campbell Scott.) The screenplay and its meaning to the writer becomes a catalyst for the story that unfolds.
This story of lust, manipulation, betrayal, and revenge is - not surprisingly - set in the Hollywood of 1995. But it's a story that could take place elsewhere, it just wouldn't be as captivating or beautifully photographed - and there are some lovely and interesting scenes and unusual close-ups.
Robert has turned the loss of his partner to AIDS into a screenplay that studio executive Jeffrey will pay top dollar for, with one significant change. Jeffrey's wife Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), also a screenwriter, adores the original script. She is drawn to Robert and wants to know more about the forces that influenced his talent. Her shocking discovery propels the story in unexpected ways.
Don't leave until the credits roll or you won't know who screenwriter and director Craig Lucas dedicates his story to. You may think about it in a different light. Lucas also wrote the screenplays of two other movies I liked very much: "The Secret Lives of Dentists" and "Longtime Companion." He is quite good at exploring the mysteries of the heart and dynamics of relationships. Don't miss this movie. I intend to see it again.
Dying Plot
jiffyxpop22 May 2005
I just saw this at the Seattle Film Festival, Peter Saarsgard was there to answer questions. The movie is extremely watchable for the first half of the way through, is built on a fascinating premise with interesting characters (a bisexual movie producer and his wife who reside in a Lifestyles of the Rich And Famous type beachside modern mansion, a young gay writer whose lover has died of AIDS), and builds to a pitch of extreme suspense. After that, however, the plot stumbles and the film's conclusion turns on a series of unbelievable events. I thought since the movie was based on a play, the plot would be clear, but it's almost as if the movie version was forced to cut out some important sequences, as there is never quite enough information about 1) how the woman obtains all her inside information on the writer, 2) how the writer's ex-wife was related to the characters and 3) most importantly, what happens to the characters at the end of the movie.
I went into the bathroom after the movie and joined a lineup of women who were also asking each, "What exactly happened there?" --- when it's not clear it's a sign of unclear movie-making.
I went into the bathroom after the movie and joined a lineup of women who were also asking each, "What exactly happened there?" --- when it's not clear it's a sign of unclear movie-making.
Inspiring drama and sensuality
guilfisher-14 April 2006
This is a gem of a film. Directed by Craig Lucas (I loved his LONGTIME COMPANION, also starring this film's star, Campbell Scott) it is adapted from the play centering around a young screenwriter who sells his story for a cool million. There are conditions which I won't divulge. See the movie. This is a love triangle in a strange scenario. Lucas brings many moments in this film by a closeup. While going into the internet chat rooms, he pulls out deep and dark thoughts from his leading player.
I thought Peter Sarsgaard, whom I recently admired in JARHEAD, did a remarkable job with a complex and difficult role. He brought a depth to his character. Patricia Clarkson, too, was outstanding. Campbell Scott brought a fine performance to the screen. These three players worked well together. Bouncing off each other like a pin ball machine. Scott redeemed himself with this as producer and actor from that bad movie he made LUSH. I'm not too familiar with Clarkson's work but will certainly look forward to other films after viewing this. Sarsgaard was remarkable in JARHEAD and doesn't disappoint me in this one. Hats off to the three stars and Lucas for a fine job.
I thought Peter Sarsgaard, whom I recently admired in JARHEAD, did a remarkable job with a complex and difficult role. He brought a depth to his character. Patricia Clarkson, too, was outstanding. Campbell Scott brought a fine performance to the screen. These three players worked well together. Bouncing off each other like a pin ball machine. Scott redeemed himself with this as producer and actor from that bad movie he made LUSH. I'm not too familiar with Clarkson's work but will certainly look forward to other films after viewing this. Sarsgaard was remarkable in JARHEAD and doesn't disappoint me in this one. Hats off to the three stars and Lucas for a fine job.
High Praise For Dark, Brooding Story
gregg_klein21 November 2005
I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Mr. Lucas directed a very cinematic version of his stage play, and assembled an outstanding cast. Peter Sarsgaard, Campbell Scott and particularly Patricia Clarkson, give layered, complex, award-worthy performances.
This film reminds me of another along the same genre, American Beauty, which also examined difficult and complex relationships, and attempted to do so with both humor and pathos.
Because this film is part thriller, part black comedy, part searing emotional drama, it had me going on many levels.
Again, Patricia Clarkson should be praised highly for her ability to make the reactions of her character so real! I have not always been a Craig Lucas fan, as I sometimes find his work to be a bit preachy (Prelude to a Kiss), but with this film, and his obvious director's eye, I look forward to his next effort.
This film reminds me of another along the same genre, American Beauty, which also examined difficult and complex relationships, and attempted to do so with both humor and pathos.
Because this film is part thriller, part black comedy, part searing emotional drama, it had me going on many levels.
Again, Patricia Clarkson should be praised highly for her ability to make the reactions of her character so real! I have not always been a Craig Lucas fan, as I sometimes find his work to be a bit preachy (Prelude to a Kiss), but with this film, and his obvious director's eye, I look forward to his next effort.
Awfully exiting on a road to disaster
OJT21 September 2012
When I fell into this film on a TV-channel I actually never before had watched, I found myself mesmerized. There was something pulling me into the stoat, and when I understood what was going on, it became even more interesting. I just couldn't let it go. I think the average rating on this film might have to be because of some homosexual scenes. These are made very beautiful and artistically, and far from any close ups. There's nothing distasteful about any of this.
I must say I really enjoyed this immensely. The story is compelling, the acting is superb, and the direction is excellent. What's even better is that this movie has a drive towards something you don't know what will come out of.
I really find myself loving movies you really don't know what to expect next from. This story has both a very pleasant and understanding tone, as well as a lingering unease, on a travel you hope is not a ending up as catastrophe. I found myself twitching in the sofa, while the this threesome tried to figure each other out. You all the way know who's to blame, but the excitement lies in what this will bring.
You start caring about them, and see how dangerous such a nasty game is. Really deceitful and devious. But sometimes you get more than you bargain for, and I certainly did here. A very strong and different tale about deceit, that is really underrated. If you want to see something a bit different, this might be it.
I must say I really enjoyed this immensely. The story is compelling, the acting is superb, and the direction is excellent. What's even better is that this movie has a drive towards something you don't know what will come out of.
I really find myself loving movies you really don't know what to expect next from. This story has both a very pleasant and understanding tone, as well as a lingering unease, on a travel you hope is not a ending up as catastrophe. I found myself twitching in the sofa, while the this threesome tried to figure each other out. You all the way know who's to blame, but the excitement lies in what this will bring.
You start caring about them, and see how dangerous such a nasty game is. Really deceitful and devious. But sometimes you get more than you bargain for, and I certainly did here. A very strong and different tale about deceit, that is really underrated. If you want to see something a bit different, this might be it.
Implausible
RNQ22 September 2005
"The Dying Gaul" is well photographed, uses a house as location it would be interesting to know more about, and Peter Sarsgaard performs a vigorous imitation of orgasm, but the film fails in plot, characterization, and exposition. It lurches into coups de theatre worthy of Ibsen, except that Ibsen would have better prepared what may crop out in a character. Judging by the conventions of other movies about the Hollywood milieu, such as Altman's "Player," the behavior of characters is implausible, unagressive, indifferent. If Campbell Scott is to play a producer with hidden "sensitivity," the character must still show he can play a tough game, and the same for a writer pitching his script. Exposition by means of typed-out e-mail messages is tedious. Genstures of sympathy are diffused by transcendental generalities. For how to deal with dying, see instead Patrice Chereau's "Son frere."
Amazing Dying Gaul at Sundance
MissDev25 January 2005
Absolutely stunning editing and cinematography. A great adaptation of a good stage show. About a young screenwriter after the lose of his lover and his relationship with his married boss. A story or betrayal and revenge.
The film is shot in LA, and uses the architecture and atmosphere to the max.
The editing is disjointed, but appropriate. The script is not even, and needs the Hitchcockian editing to keep it from seeming choppy.
This is unlike other recent "queer" films in that it doesn't have such a patronizing political message. It is truly a film of passion, not of politics.
The director is incredible and has such a clear vision for being a first time film director.
I believe that we can expect great things from this man, as this is just his first film, and it is captivating.
The film is shot in LA, and uses the architecture and atmosphere to the max.
The editing is disjointed, but appropriate. The script is not even, and needs the Hitchcockian editing to keep it from seeming choppy.
This is unlike other recent "queer" films in that it doesn't have such a patronizing political message. It is truly a film of passion, not of politics.
The director is incredible and has such a clear vision for being a first time film director.
I believe that we can expect great things from this man, as this is just his first film, and it is captivating.
Greek Tragedy
baho-131 January 2005
Somehow, this movie managed to hold my interest despite the fact that I never really cared about the characters or what was going to happen to them next. It's not a love story. Not a very good relationship tale. Not a mystery or thriller. Instead, Dying Gaul is a modern day Greek tragedy that uses Hollywood and homosexuality as simply vehicles to generate interest.
This is Craig Lucas' first time in the director's chair. He wrote The Secret Lives of Dentists (previously at Sundance, starring Patricia Clarkson). The movies tackle the same themes---the value and meaning of marriage, the impact of dalliances, the complexities of finding happiness and satisfaction without veering from tradition. But Dying Gaul comes at it with a different orientation, and even outcome.
Patricia Clarkson is always excellent, but here she shows a little evil in her character, which is outside her normal range. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast comes off as wooden, certainly uninspired. Pay attention, because there are liberal doses of philosophy in the form of quotes and counsel. But the real tragedy here is the lack of a meaningful story or compelling characters.
This is Craig Lucas' first time in the director's chair. He wrote The Secret Lives of Dentists (previously at Sundance, starring Patricia Clarkson). The movies tackle the same themes---the value and meaning of marriage, the impact of dalliances, the complexities of finding happiness and satisfaction without veering from tradition. But Dying Gaul comes at it with a different orientation, and even outcome.
Patricia Clarkson is always excellent, but here she shows a little evil in her character, which is outside her normal range. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast comes off as wooden, certainly uninspired. Pay attention, because there are liberal doses of philosophy in the form of quotes and counsel. But the real tragedy here is the lack of a meaningful story or compelling characters.
Oh, please. Peter is cute; it ends there.
catchersmitt010 November 2005
The acting is to die for; the cliff house is to die for; Peter Sarsgaard is to die for. In other words, the movie's not ALL bad; it just falls apart really quick - and unfortunately in just those key plot moments, so you walk out of the theater ready to slice it like a Ginsu, then talk about something else.
Like, did they really have to beat us over the head about the POISON PLANT that JUST HAPPENS to grow in the back yard. Didn't see that coming. Or about emailing with a dead person? Huh? Or how Peter conveniently FORGETS he told that woman his favorite online chat site. Oops. Or when one of the characters admits to being bisexual... HELLO, YA THINK??
Go. See it. Really. I MEAN it - if you want to get out of the house and/or satisfy your curiosity. But at the same time, prepare to cringe when Sarsgaard screams like a little girl during his orgasm. Actually, any little girl would sound like a grizzled old lumberjack next to Sarsgaard's orgasmic tittering.
Like, did they really have to beat us over the head about the POISON PLANT that JUST HAPPENS to grow in the back yard. Didn't see that coming. Or about emailing with a dead person? Huh? Or how Peter conveniently FORGETS he told that woman his favorite online chat site. Oops. Or when one of the characters admits to being bisexual... HELLO, YA THINK??
Go. See it. Really. I MEAN it - if you want to get out of the house and/or satisfy your curiosity. But at the same time, prepare to cringe when Sarsgaard screams like a little girl during his orgasm. Actually, any little girl would sound like a grizzled old lumberjack next to Sarsgaard's orgasmic tittering.
Chilling is right
ssturges30 July 2005
This is such a powerful movie. Without revealing any of the plot details, I will just say that at the "preclimactic" moment I thought it was anyone's guess as to which way the chips would fall... I was literally holding my breath in anticiaption.
The movie was beautifully shot, artfully written and skillfully acted. I can't shake the image of the characters as each realizes the life-altering consequences that their behavior had on themselves and each other.
I saw it at the Stony Brook Festival (July 2005) and hope it will be released nationally although I'm not so sure it's a film that will appeal to a wide audience. I admire Campbell Scott and his production company for making the film. I hope at the very least that it successfully plays the "art house" theaters and has a big DVD distribution. I think that word-of-mouth will take this film far among true movie lovers.
The movie was beautifully shot, artfully written and skillfully acted. I can't shake the image of the characters as each realizes the life-altering consequences that their behavior had on themselves and each other.
I saw it at the Stony Brook Festival (July 2005) and hope it will be released nationally although I'm not so sure it's a film that will appeal to a wide audience. I admire Campbell Scott and his production company for making the film. I hope at the very least that it successfully plays the "art house" theaters and has a big DVD distribution. I think that word-of-mouth will take this film far among true movie lovers.
The Gaul of Shame ...
majikstl1 April 2007
Vaguely at the center of THE DYING GAUL is a screenplay for a potential movie. The plot of the would-be movie, also called "The Dying Gaul," concerns a gay couple and what happens when one of them is faced with AIDS. It would make a perfect movie, so says the studio exec who wants to buy it and film it, except that the couple really doesn't have to be gay. And it doesn't really have to be called "The Dying Gaul." And I guess it doesn't really have to be about AIDS. And, when you get right down to it, the plot of this film itself doesn't really have to be about Hollywood, screen writing, homosexuality, AIDS, infidelity or betrayal. But it has to be about something for it to be worth our time. And it isn't.
Strip away the pretentiousness of the supposed noble symbolism of "the Dying Gaul," brush aside the trendiness of it being set in Hollywood, and forget the faux importance of it exploiting AIDS; and THE DYING GAUL is nothing but a gimmicky soap opera with a contrived and not-particularly-honest twist. It's a love triangle wherein the anonymity of an internet chat room not only becomes a vehicle for deceit but the basis for a seemingly supernatural scam. Lovers and/or rivals building a wicked web of lies out of disguises is as old as drama, be the pretense coming in the form of masked balls, con games, mistaken identities, innocent pen pal letters or CB radios. Playing such duplicity for laughs, this sort of romantic misdirection can work nicely, but THE DYING GAUL has less in common with YOU'VE GOT MAIL than with the gloomy, pseudo-realism of overwrought junk like CLOSER.
The neophyte screenwriter is Robert (Peter Sarsgaard), who wrote the script to honor his deceased partner, Malcolm. Jeffrey (Campbell Scott) is the producer who wants to make the movie, but insists that the sexuality of the protagonists is irrelevant; straight or gay, it is all the same, pain and loss is universal -- but straight pain and loss is more commercial. He should know, Jeff is bisexual and seems more interested in Robert's sword than his pen. But Jeff loves his wife, Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), who becomes fast friends with Robert, until she figures out that the two guys are collaborating in more ways than one. So far, so good. Then writer/director Craig Lucas derails his entire project by letting his entire film become hijacked by a lame and contrived gimmick. Elaine, using a fake identity, begins exchanging messages with Robert via the internet and convinces the already disturbed writer that he is actually communicating with the spirit of his dead lover. Apparently DSL reaches as far as Heaven's gate.
Even as the film prattles on about mythic themes and makes references to famed art and literature, yet sells out to a lame technological gimmick, it still has potential. Elaine suddenly has the power to control Robert and, indirectly, her husband. But Elaine doesn't know what to do with her newfound power, and unfortunately neither does Lucas. The confused story takes a dark turn and it is obviously headed for tragedy, but Lucas balks at making the film either an outright thriller or even a psychologically twisted comedy. He has a cast of morally bankrupt characters (well acted by excellent actors), but he seems unwilling to let any of them be the villain. Each are painted as being capable of killing, but when death finally takes a role in the story it is left frustrating unclear whether a murder was even committed. The ambiguity is meant to be clever or disturbing or shocking, but it is really just a sign of incredibly bad writing.
The film certainly doesn't play to our expectations. Lucas is an acclaimed gay playwright and is probably best known for his script for LONGTIME COMPANION, a landmark in gay cinema. So when the film at first appears to be about the integrity of gay fiction -- compromising orientation and honesty to pander to a straight public -- there is a promise of THE DYING GAUL being a story of substance. But that quickly evaporates when the ineffectual Robert far too easily sells out his values -- literary and sexual -- to the charming and pragmatic bisexual Jeffrey. Then there is the hope that the film will be about redemption, about Robert regaining his self-respect and ethics -- but that never materializes and if anything the characters grow increasingly amoral -- and increasingly less interesting.
Ultimately, the story seems intent on proving Jeffrey right, that the sexuality of the protagonists is irrelevant; straight or gay, it is all the same, good and evil are hardly relevant. And, I suppose, there is some minor victory to be had by Lucas showing no need to be politically correct by making Robert neither a role model nor a tragic hero -- but just another unredeemable human wretch. But the victory is very small and no more meaningful or gratifying than Robert's ultimate reward.
And for what is worth, Jeffrey is right; THE DYING GAUL is a lousy title.
Strip away the pretentiousness of the supposed noble symbolism of "the Dying Gaul," brush aside the trendiness of it being set in Hollywood, and forget the faux importance of it exploiting AIDS; and THE DYING GAUL is nothing but a gimmicky soap opera with a contrived and not-particularly-honest twist. It's a love triangle wherein the anonymity of an internet chat room not only becomes a vehicle for deceit but the basis for a seemingly supernatural scam. Lovers and/or rivals building a wicked web of lies out of disguises is as old as drama, be the pretense coming in the form of masked balls, con games, mistaken identities, innocent pen pal letters or CB radios. Playing such duplicity for laughs, this sort of romantic misdirection can work nicely, but THE DYING GAUL has less in common with YOU'VE GOT MAIL than with the gloomy, pseudo-realism of overwrought junk like CLOSER.
The neophyte screenwriter is Robert (Peter Sarsgaard), who wrote the script to honor his deceased partner, Malcolm. Jeffrey (Campbell Scott) is the producer who wants to make the movie, but insists that the sexuality of the protagonists is irrelevant; straight or gay, it is all the same, pain and loss is universal -- but straight pain and loss is more commercial. He should know, Jeff is bisexual and seems more interested in Robert's sword than his pen. But Jeff loves his wife, Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), who becomes fast friends with Robert, until she figures out that the two guys are collaborating in more ways than one. So far, so good. Then writer/director Craig Lucas derails his entire project by letting his entire film become hijacked by a lame and contrived gimmick. Elaine, using a fake identity, begins exchanging messages with Robert via the internet and convinces the already disturbed writer that he is actually communicating with the spirit of his dead lover. Apparently DSL reaches as far as Heaven's gate.
Even as the film prattles on about mythic themes and makes references to famed art and literature, yet sells out to a lame technological gimmick, it still has potential. Elaine suddenly has the power to control Robert and, indirectly, her husband. But Elaine doesn't know what to do with her newfound power, and unfortunately neither does Lucas. The confused story takes a dark turn and it is obviously headed for tragedy, but Lucas balks at making the film either an outright thriller or even a psychologically twisted comedy. He has a cast of morally bankrupt characters (well acted by excellent actors), but he seems unwilling to let any of them be the villain. Each are painted as being capable of killing, but when death finally takes a role in the story it is left frustrating unclear whether a murder was even committed. The ambiguity is meant to be clever or disturbing or shocking, but it is really just a sign of incredibly bad writing.
The film certainly doesn't play to our expectations. Lucas is an acclaimed gay playwright and is probably best known for his script for LONGTIME COMPANION, a landmark in gay cinema. So when the film at first appears to be about the integrity of gay fiction -- compromising orientation and honesty to pander to a straight public -- there is a promise of THE DYING GAUL being a story of substance. But that quickly evaporates when the ineffectual Robert far too easily sells out his values -- literary and sexual -- to the charming and pragmatic bisexual Jeffrey. Then there is the hope that the film will be about redemption, about Robert regaining his self-respect and ethics -- but that never materializes and if anything the characters grow increasingly amoral -- and increasingly less interesting.
Ultimately, the story seems intent on proving Jeffrey right, that the sexuality of the protagonists is irrelevant; straight or gay, it is all the same, good and evil are hardly relevant. And, I suppose, there is some minor victory to be had by Lucas showing no need to be politically correct by making Robert neither a role model nor a tragic hero -- but just another unredeemable human wretch. But the victory is very small and no more meaningful or gratifying than Robert's ultimate reward.
And for what is worth, Jeffrey is right; THE DYING GAUL is a lousy title.
a gem of a movie
mgwitte29 January 2005
Was lucky enough to view this at Sundance in Park City this past Monday morning in the Park City HS gym. Craig Lucas introduced the film and took questions after. The crowd was in awe of the acting, plot, the actual house where filmed etc. A wonderful film that hopefully will stun audiences. Patricia Clarkson, Peter Saarsgard and Campbell Scott were perfect in their roles. Was this purchased at Sundance? Is this subject matter going to make it on a national level with our present political situation so anti-gay? Mr. Lucas blasted our present president and our sorry political environment. He was thrilled with the film and the number of people in the audience at 9 in the morning. A treat of a film.
Interesting psychological drama
marlonwallace21 July 2005
The film starts out with a quote from Herman Melville's MOBY DICK, "Woe to him who seeks to please rather than appall," which by the end turns out to be a commentary on the inner workings of Hollywood and if the main character played brilliantly by Peter Sarsgaard wants to be a part of that. In MOBY DICK, the quote is used to expound the point of telling the truth. Here, that's where the main struggle is also centered. Telling the truth and being honest, like in the movie CLOSER, becomes entangled in a deadly, KINSEY-like love triangle here. Campbell Scott (RODGER DODGER & DYING YOUNG) and Patricia Clarkson (PIECES OF APRIL & THE GREEN MILE) round out the cast and give amazing performances.
Excellent
joannefilm25 April 2005
An excellent, contemporary, chilling look into the clash between art and Hollywood, soul and the devil, love and internet sex. A truly adult movie created with sharp writing and intelligent characters.
This is exactly the kind of movie I want to see. These characters are struggling in today's world with today's challenges. Discussion of many serious themes: art, mainstream, selling out.
Phenomenal acting from Patricia Clarkson and Campbell Scott. The cinematography is very interesting.
Deeply, pleasurably, joyously disturbing.
Don't miss.
This is exactly the kind of movie I want to see. These characters are struggling in today's world with today's challenges. Discussion of many serious themes: art, mainstream, selling out.
Phenomenal acting from Patricia Clarkson and Campbell Scott. The cinematography is very interesting.
Deeply, pleasurably, joyously disturbing.
Don't miss.
Prelude to a Kiss Off
ArmsAndMan20 July 2006
Craig Lucas took his comic fantasy "Prelude to a Kiss" and created an update for the internet age, a noirish exploration of the same body/soul dichotomy, but this one ends badly.
By 'badly' I mean both the tragic arc of the story, and the failure to end the story in a cinematic way. What plays well on stage seems static here, wrapped up in confusion that poses as ambiguity.
DVD UPDATE: the video release offers an alternate ending that is far superior to the theatrical release. Who decides these things?
Regardless of a few problems with plot and direction, this is stellar work from a tremendous ensemble, and Lucas deserves high praise for the performances he draws from such singular talents. The three leads create a harmony that most movies never attempt, and for this alone the movie is a must see.
By 'badly' I mean both the tragic arc of the story, and the failure to end the story in a cinematic way. What plays well on stage seems static here, wrapped up in confusion that poses as ambiguity.
DVD UPDATE: the video release offers an alternate ending that is far superior to the theatrical release. Who decides these things?
Regardless of a few problems with plot and direction, this is stellar work from a tremendous ensemble, and Lucas deserves high praise for the performances he draws from such singular talents. The three leads create a harmony that most movies never attempt, and for this alone the movie is a must see.
The writer and the director need to talk
marcslope9 July 2007
Based on an off-Broadway play I saw and remember nothing about, this modern-day cyber-noir has a clever screenplay (Craig Lucas) undercut by inept direction (Craig Lucas). Its three protagonists -- a cheating bisexual film producer, his taken-for-granted wife, and a promising gay screenwriter -- are all upstaged by the spectacular Malibu-ish beach house where much of the action takes place. But the camera angles and cutting are stodgy, the staging awkward, the composition too artsy (no conference room was ever that color orange), the use of close-ups excessive, Steve Reich's score predictably repetitive and pseudo-chic, the mini-flashbacks confusing, and the long sequences of characters reading their cyber-chat to the camera distinctively uncinematic. Add to that certain plot details that just don't ring true: Would a neophyte gay screenwriter with an uncommercial script really land a million-dollar contract? How would the wife learn all the intimate details about his life that she later uses to destroy him? And would he really be so impressionable as to fall for her scheme? All three actors are excellent (Peter Sarsgaard does mince more than necessary), and Campbell Scott and Sarsgaard have a couple of scenes startling in their intimacy and honesty. But beyond the gaps of credibility in the plotting, these are three unpleasant, inconsistent people who use one another in annoying, unconvincing ways.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
