Holding the Man

Gaaaay!

Holding the Man-360P

Holding the Man-720P

Holding the Man-480P

one should stay faithful to their partner.

I really really liked this movie! It was a relentless and at times confronting experience, but proof positive that storytelling when it is steeped in such truth and such life experience, in the hands of brilliant storytellers results in exemplary cinema. Neil Armfield has long been a leading light in Australian theatre, and I had nearly forgotten his feature 'Candy' with Heath Ledger and Abbie Cornish, but was reminded of it, as I sat spellbound by the performances in 'Holding The Man' and its expert direction and attention to detail. Being in the audience for this movie, I felt safe in the hands of a master director. Ryan Corr, best known for the small screen like 'Packed to the Rafters' is a revelation; throwing himself head first into this leading role and intrepidly going where I suspect few actors might go. Craig Stott was a discovery for me, and although I struggled with some of the early scenes and wardrobe choices, his performance was realised as a truly moving and career making turn. Lots of great actors in supporting roles and cameos including the hilarious Kerry Walker in a blink and you'll miss it part. There's lots of humour, lots of pathos and lots of sexual activity which is thoughtfully and bravely brought to the screen. This is a must see experience, a story that needed to be told and has honoured the actor/writer Timothy Conigrave in so doing. Aussie filmmaking at its very finest.

I wasn't searching for a movie about aids. The subject usually gives me a very uneasy feeling. I don't want to remember those days when some very good friends of mine died in agony in front of my eyes. I was quite young back then, and did I really understand what happened? No, when you're young life looks endless. So when this movie, unexpectedly for me, because I had not read anything about it, brought up the aids subject, I had to take a deep breath. But the movie is so well executed that it is much more than an aids drama. This movie is a piece of human history and every high school student should see it. I am in my 50s and now aids is something of the past, thanks to great medicine. It cuts through my heart that young men like ones in this film had no chance at all. Especially in the 80s gay liberation wasn't that far, and so much human needs have been denied to these men. Thank god society has improved on these levels, and it only could by telling these important stories.

This has been a favourite book of mine for many years, one I always have a few spare copies of to lend out to people, not because I think the literary skills are phenomenal but because I think it is a beautiful story of passion, lust, leaving and love. I've tried not to include spoilers in my review but there are one or two things that really perhaps are if you haven't already read the book or are aware of the story of Tim and John. I saw the play in London some years back, and thought it cleverly done, and I had hoped to see it one day become a movie. Whilst I didn't doubt there would be some challenges in doing this, I thought it had potential to be retold in the cinematic form as beautifully as it is told in written form. Let me start by saying I think the Actors were well chosen and performed very well. The character of the two lead personalities of the book were to a large extent captured, Tim's extroversion to John's quiet thoughtfulness. I thought the roles of both sets of parents were equally well played, with the supporting friend roles perhaps being a little bit neither here nor there in terms of what I think they really bought to the film (unlike their roles in the book). What I did think was missing was much of the actual story, there were for me many parts missing, essential parts that enabled me as a reader to understand some of the decisions and directions Tim took in his life, parts of the overall journey he was living and how that impacted John and others around him, by their absence the movie lost something - parts that were rich in the telling were summarised by some random sex scenes and a visit to a gay mens sauna. Whilst I appreciate the need to confidence a book into a film, the absence of these parts of the book left me feeling less like I knew either character, and thus less invested in them. Obviously I knew where the film was going in terms of it's conclusion, and in the book that conclusion was heart rending sadness, real lump in the throat tears on the cheeks stuff.... the movie was more for me just a case of 'yep OK so they put that bit in but left this and that bit out'. I was not able to connect with the characters because so much of their story was missing. Am I glad it was made into a film, yes. Do I wish the script writers had included more, yes. Do I wish the editing perhaps had been a little more judicious in places and possibly a little less ruthless in others, yes. Would i watch it repeatedly, which I do with movies I love, perhaps not so much, and would I recommend others see it now it is becoming available through DVD/Blu-Ray/iTunes - yes, but only if they have not read the book. To me, this movie was a little bit of a disappointment for the reasons stated above, it could have been more, it could have told the viewer more about their lives, their struggles, the way they fought to overcome all that they faced, but really for me it could have created characters for these good actors to inhabit who one could connect with on an emotional level and share the lows and highs, instead, it felt as if they were cardboard cut outs of themselves. As someone now living with HIV myself, I am only too aware of the struggles they faced, times have changed, medication is available but the experiences people went through in those times are all to real in our very recent past, and the stigma, shame and negative attitude is still so prevalent - this story is one of love overcoming all but the worst of times and the worst of situations, it gave and perhaps still gives many hope in finding love in life despite the challenges and in spite of some of the choices we make on purpose. I really just wanted more, more of them, more of the emotion and turmoil, the guilt, the anxiety, the passion and the sense of being denied that was so full in the book. Alas, to me it did not happen.

I'll say from the outset as a gay male I wanted this to be great and elements of it were, so I'm not coming from a perspective of critical indifference. I read the book when it came out and so knew what I was in for, all in all I must say the film was pretty faithful to it and didn't shy away from its most confronting or gruelling contents. I wondered beforehand whether it would or not and was impressed that it dealt with all the heaviest stuff head on, and did so well. The movie also gave me insights that my imagining as I read the book didn't, which I found illuminating and very interesting. I am from Melbourne, Australia where most of this story happened, so am familiar with its locales and some of them are of personal significance to me, so there is some overlap. There were many very strong elements in this film and as with Woody Allen's 'Irrational Man', it should have been great. The historical, social and cultural details of the mise- en-scene, costume, dialogue and even inflection were incredibly accurate, having lived through them myself, and lovingly, painstakingly recreated. Strong performances abounded, with standouts being Craig Stott who gave an incredible performance as John Caleo on par with Meryl Streep only less gimmicky, and that of the actress who played his mother, who gave a beautiful, nuanced performance. The film was for the most part very watchable, with warmth, drama and humour. Its filmmaking basics were very strong. Unfortunately, director Neil Armfield and/or producers went for an overlay of somewhat cheesy, narrated-by-crowd- pleasers pop songs that spelt out the emotions episodically and in a too obvious, simplistic way sometimes. Some of these songs and moments worked and were very touching, but evidently they were aiming for the youth market and it didn't work for me. Second of all, the film is of a genre satirised on Shaun Micallef's Mad As Hell as 'Reflecting Your Comfortable Middle Class Life Back To You And Validating It', Micallef's alternate title for such Aussie schlock as 'Packed To The Rafters', from whence came Ryan Corr who played Tim Conigrave, perhaps tellingly. I would have loved that kind of thing in my twenties, not knowing any better, but now it makes me want to reach for a bucket. And it's not cynical, bitter old age, it makes for dramatically inferior melodrama in my opinion. These two in my view major flaws really marred 'Holding The Man' for me and while professional filmmaking abounded and there were many fine elements, sadly these two errors almost dragged it down into prime time soap opera fare at times, 'Home and Away'. The excellent TV series 'Puberty Blues' which covered the 70's in a similar fashion managed to avoid such pitfalls, was a serious drama and a lot of fun, and managed to achieve art in my opinion. I have a reverent amount of respect for the blood, sweat and tears that go into a movie production, especially when there are some fine elements and great performances, so I don't like to criticise, but due to these elements I could only give it this lower rating.

I had the rare opportunity to finish reading this extraordinary book for the first time and see the film in the same day. I have to say, the film left me rather disappointed for a variety of reasons. As with all book to film adaptations, there are always difficult choices to be made, scenes to leave out, areas on which to focus at the expense of others. The nature of the the film, the jumping around of time periods rather than being a linear edit seemed to serve very little purpose, if any film would have been more emotionally resonant as a linear story, this is it. The wonder of the book is how naturally it plays, the love story is emotionally resonant because it seems so familiar. There is no buildup to that love story here in the film, we know so little of the characters (who, let's be honest, as many people have already stated are played by actors too old to be convincing or able to convey the same sense of discovery and adventure that the book describes)that the love story falls flat. The actors have some wonderful scenes, but the dialogue is far too forced and stage-like at times to hit home. A much simpler approach would have had so much more emotional impact. The unique and incredible love story, and the particular setting of 70s/ 80s Australia should have been the main focus, more time spent focused on the early years could have made the events of the later years so much more impactful. A lot of it felt almost movie of the week type stuff, generic and anonymous. There are obviously very difficult choices to be made by a director and writer in adapting any book, let alone a memoir so incredibly intimate and honest, but so many times in the film I found myself frustrated, wondering "Why didn't they spend so more time on THAT?" A lot of the characters seem like afterthoughts, even the two main characters at times unfortunately. I finished the book with tears running down my face, and finished the film with a sense of frustration and disappointment. Judging from other reviews on here, it seems that the movie had made an emotional impact on many, and that is wonderful. I was very much hoping to feel the same. I was moved by some parts, but left largely cold by the experience. At least the book is there to read again(and again).