wc1996-428-366101
This glossy, slick Hollywood homage to artsy-fartsy films is as hollow as a drum. It falls apart virtually in the beginning when the studio head asks the struggling writer who his agent is! Please! How did struggling writer's script even get into studio's heads office? Craig Lucas, the guy behind this pointless tripe, was abandoned at birth and found in a car in a parking lot in Atlanta, Georgia. Well, gee whiz, no wonder this film is such a mess - what infant could overcome such an horrific entre into the world? Everything about this film is gorgeous except the pointless plot which meanders every which way until you don't know which way is up. Oh sure it has its erotic moments and this is the dead giveaway because you realize you have been manipulated into a sexual menage a trois that would embarrass a Playboy bunny. Skip this one folks. This is pure undiluated Hollywood in all its all that glitters is gold except in this case its pure tinsel.
Neil Turner
The Dying Gaul is an intriguing little gem of a film.The basic plot of the film is deceivingly simple: A gay screenwriter has written a film about two men deeply in love - one of whom dies of AIDS. The screenplay is excellent, but a powerful Hollywood producer will not support the film unless the writer changes the lovers to heterosexuals. The writer, at first, resists because the screenplay is based upon his relationship with his own deceased lover, but is soon won over by the charismatic producer. As the revision proceeds, the young writer becomes a frequent visitor to the producer's home where he forms a relationship with the producer's wife and children.The complex relationship that develops amongst the writer, the producer, and the wife is what forms the crux of this compelling character study. To elaborate any further as to what takes place in these relationships would spoil the film for anyone wishing to see it, but it isn't pretty. I found myself often questioning the actions and motives of the characters as they proceeded in their games of one-upmanship. If these characters accurately represent the powerful figures of the film world, I can understand why it is often described as dog-eat-dog. Of course, malevolent and self-centered people exist in all strata of life, but wealth and glamour probably add their own extra serving of evil.Strong acting makes this film especially watchable. Patricia Clarkson as the enigmatic wife is enthralling. Campbell Scott as the self-satisfied producer fascinates as he oozes charm and influence. And Peter Sarsgaard as the young writer gives a complex performance as a man who quickly learns the ways of manipulation from experts.This is not a happy movie, and there are some pretty raw sexual scenes, but these three characters certainly captivate and hold your interest from beginning to end.
Merwyn Grote
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.
airdrieguy
...but what a disappointment. The acting was superb. The cinematography was gorgeous. The stimulated sex, particularly the gay stuff, quite hot. However, the characters were totally unbelievable as everything was driven by plot line nothing by the characters. Surely to G-d this was not the first time Campbell Scott's character had stepped out on his wife so she must have known something was going on. He would have been clever enough to ensure she never found out. We are led to believe she is naive to the ways of the world and yet knows to how to find and hire a private detective and gather enough information to 'gaslight' another person so cleverly. This compassionate woman suddenly turns into a total freak? And the up and coming ('scuse the pun) screenwriter is supposed to be a man-of-the-world and yet believes his dead lover speaks to him in a computer chat room? The whole thing about the poisonous plants-gee, can you say "foreshadowing"? We rented the DVD and I left the room to do other things about half an hour before the end because I simply could not waste my time any longer.
