Clapham Junction

source: Clapham Junction

After much publicity by Channel 4, Clapham Junction started off slow and honestly quite dull. As time went on the plot line began to pick up yet you were still unable to empathise with any of the characters. The programme was cliché ridden and also contained scenes which were pointless at the very least. Three quarters into the show everything began to get confusing again. The character played by Paul Nicholls was also very confusing. Was he gay? Was he straight? There was a very dark mood throughout the whole programme which continued even to the end. As the end approached, i found myself asking questions about what would happen to certain characters. I was sure this would appear on the screen before the end credits. It didn't. And so the audience is left with not only a cliff hanger but also many questions about most of the main characters unanswered. Good performances by the actors involved but i can't help but feel that had some of the pointless scenes been cut, the running time could have been shortened and the programme could have concentrated on a lot less pointless characters. I also felt slightly confused by the inclusion of the small black child playing the violin at certain periods in the programme. By the end the dark mood became even darker when all that was left was his smashed up violin under a bridge. Cue the end credits. All in all a huge disappointment

First, I'd like to say this movie is dated in the themes it portrays, but the acting is very good. It opens with a gay civil union where one of the grooms tries to have a fling with a male waiter (I thought this has a lot of gall and I didn't like this portrayal at a gay union; very unlikely). The movie dealt with gay bashing in several different ways with multiple characters. I didn't even get what was going on in the one guys head who took care of his grandmother (Alfie), he would get dressed up gay and go out to find someone to bash. His first victim, it was horrible to see what he did to him, the way he broke a glass vase over his head, beat and kicked him, stuffed ciggarette butts in his mouth, urinated on him and spit on him (HOW DEMEANING), I never knew what would cause this guy to do something like that. The waiter who was making out with the groom was bashed to death by two youths when they found him in a pickup restroom. The first gay basher I mentioned was later bashed by a big stocky guy he was trying to pickup to bash. At first I thought this might have been someone the first gay bashed victim may have hired to get even with they guy, but the movie never disclosed that. There was a 14 year old boy who was possessed with an older man who turned out to be a convicted pedaphile, living across the street. Although one viewer though this part of the story was very very good and described the man only as an older man and not the pedaphile he was, this turned my thought on this part of their story. It was very well acted and the actors characters you did want to feel different about but pedaphiles do not deserve sympathy. Although he did not provoke the boys attention, quite the reverse, and he tried many times to get the boy out of his apartment and cried when the boy kissed him, etc, etc. The boy was determined to have the man. Despite everything, a pedaphile is a pedaphile and this story touched a nerve and I felt no sympathy for either character. There was a parental confrontation that was well acted as well. The was one short story about a young black violinist that was being harassed by a thug group and he was afraid to go home any one way after his lessons. This story did not feed into the woven structure of the other stories and could have been cut out of the movie. All the other stories, blended together throughout the movie and created a woven storyline. At times shocking, always interesting, most controversial. For the most part, the movie from beginning to end circled around one of the grooms wedding rings, except the pedaphile piece. All together I thought it was a good movie, well acted, but exaggerated a lot of todays actual gay social life. It might be that way in London, but I'm not so sure about here in America. It concentrated a lot on violence and outdated gay sex scenarios. I would buy this movie to add to my personal DVD collection but would be hesitant to share watching it with friends.

This movie gets another mixed review from me. I didn't mind the negative portrayals so much (unsympathetic people exist, after all, among straights and gays alike, as does hatred and hypocrisy, and the performances were mostly really good), but I didn't like that that's all we get in this film. I've read that the writer didn't intend to portray the full range of gay life, but I guess that was what I expected from an anniversary-type movie. All the depression, the violence, the negativity left me feeling rather bleak and unsatisfied, thinking "But that's not all there is!" And, on a rather superficial note, as a big fan of 'Maurice' I did wish for more interaction between Wilby and Graves. :)

This was shown on Channel 4 as part of a season celebrating 40 years since the legalisation of homosexuality in Great Britain. Anyone viewing this film would be likely to campaign for it banning again! While it was cleverly constructed to intertwine the lives of a variety of gay men from different backgrounds, I felt it used sensationalism to a very negative end. There were many gratuitous scenes of violence and sex, including full frontal shots and erect penises, which added little to the bleak storyline. Anyone curious about their sexuality, viewing this film would end up that far back in the closet they would be in Narnia! All that said, this film tackled some very pertinent topics, was well acted and beautifully filmed. I just feel that it wasn't appropriate to be shown as part of this particular season.

Such a pity the writer is normally good and the assembled cast was good, but quite frankly I thought this was a dreadful waste of a good opportunity. The stories were full of tired old clichés. A gay man picking up youth at his own civil partnership ceremony. I have been to several and while a few of the single guests might have been on the prowl I have not heard of any of the people taking oaths straying. A lot of the men I know who are now in civil partnerships have been together for years and in the majority of cases have been faithful. Guys search for sex in public toilets – why would you today when everywhere is filmed by CCTV cameras, it is so easy to meet people in gay pubs, bars and clubs these days. Unless married men go to toilets to seek same sex – I don't know. Everyone off there heads on drugs – and I will admit that there are a lot of drugs around on the gay scene – just as there is in straight clubs as well. The trouble is that anyone watching this will come away with the impression that all gay men are sleazy, drug fuelled, sex mad hedonists. I couldn't agree more with the line spoken by the woman at the dinner party "so what if they are sniffing around for sex in bushes like foxes – no one deserves that". I still object to the proliferation of these out-dated and outmoded stereotypes. We are so much more and we deserve so much more and so much better.

As I gay man, I really liked this film. A more positive vision for at least a few of the characters would have made the movie better. But the acting is very good and violence against gay men still exists today. I have to say that I did not have a problem with the relationship between Theo & Tim. I do not support pedophilia by any means(!), but at 14 ("almost fifteen"), Theo is sexually mature and not confused about his sexuality. He seduces Tim; Tim asks him to leave (4 times I think). I don't believe we know for a fact that Tim is a pedophile. It's only word of mouth from Theo's mother, so consider the source! Their scenes together are quite moving. Watch this film but beware, some of what you will see is very disturbing.

Any organization or individual who is homophobic or hates gays in any way is going to love this film. Here we have every negative gay stereotype imaginable. First we have the gay guy who cheats on his husband on the day they are married. Then there's the pedophile who has sex with a 14 year old boy. Then we have the guys who revel in sex in a public bathroom. Then we have the fat, ugly old priest or minister or whatever. Then we have the closeted, married gay man. Then we have the gay basher who is himself bashed when he reveals his true nature and tries to have sex with a fat, ugly guy. The only stereotype we seem to be missing is the raving gay transvestite, but then most transvestites are heterosexual. So the lesson to be learned here is that it is not possible for gay men to have happy productive lives or 'normal' sex. And if there were anyone associated with this film who is gay, they should be ashamed of themselves for promoting these negative stereotypes.

singularly offensive in that it makes a pretense of addressing some of the darker issues of gay subculture while actually exploiting them for the titillation factor reminiscent of a '50's pulp novel, with graphic and sensational violence presents an unrelentingly grim picture of life as a gay man, and offers no redemption whatsoever not particularly well-acted (the women could do with fewer histrionics), though it is interesting to see the leads of Maurice together again cinematography exaggerates the sordid, but is otherwise lackluster

I was extremely exited when i heard the 40th year since homosexuality was decriminalised was to be marked with this one off drama, and was looking forward to clapham junction giving an insight and celebrating the changes that society has made in dealing with homosexuality in 21st century Britain. I was profoundly disappointed to see that the programme makers decided to concentrate on negative stereotypes of promiscuous partners, horrendous homophobic attacks,closeted husbands and predatory homosexuals preying on underage boys. this type of drama into gay lifestyle gives an untrue representation of how modern gay people live their lives showing that nothing much has changed from the stereotype of the 1950s and 60s. The writers had a massive responsibility and opportunity to show a positive and refreshing view on the matter, particularly for younger people struggling to come to terms with sexuality. Sadly they opted for drama rather than fact.