It is a rare occurrence that I read a book or see a movie twice. When I first viewed "L.I.E." I came away mildly impressed with the acting, writing and overall production. Considering the content: man/boy sex – it was a fast-moving drama unthinkable ten years ago.
However, the "content" is never fully explored -- only exploited. Obviously, vivid scenes of sexual encounters with an underage minor are (thankfully) against the law -- at least in the USA. Furthermore, such graphic depictions would have betrayed the coming-of-age thesis that is prevalent in most of the film.
The director and writer, Michael Cuesta captured that theme: confusion, frustration, anger, angst, etc., with a near-superb delicateness. However, the cliché-ridden, chicken-hawk characterization of "Big John" does not mesh realistically with young Howie, amongst other things.
Howie Blitzer, age 15 (born July 8, 1986 -- interesting trivia introduced - well, see the film and you'll understand) is portrayed by Paul Dano. (Dano was closer to 17 when the film was made according to IMDb.) Basically, Howie is infatuated with street-wise, teen-boy prostitute, and part-time thief, Gary. The audience is left (or at least I was) not knowing Gary's age. At least 16, I suppose? Early on in the film the "non-sexual" relationship between the two burgeoning delinquents glimpses an intimacy that is nothing but deeply sensual and sexual. This was one of the numerous lost moments when two characters (both age-appropriate) could have cemented their "angst" with something simple like a kiss. Gary's character is aggressive and well-written, but departs much too soon. Not so for the protagonist Howie.
Howie, underplayed by the teen-age Mr. Dano, or over-directed by writer/director/producer Michael Cuesta, Dano's Howie appears displaced as an upper-income, motherless teen. Howie has certainly annexed the ghetto dialect of the uglier inner-city street corners with ease; a perfect fit saddled with the necessary, never-ending profanities of a street-tough gangster peppered with fight scenes. This characterization is difficult to believe especially from a youth who resides in an Architectural Digest ready home in upscale Long Island suburbia. He speaks fluent French and nimbly quotes Walt Whitman in a peculiar mental-seduction scene with the chicken-hawk, Big John.
Big John Harrigan is portrayed by Brian Cox. Lost moments are abundant. No doubt that Cox is believable in his attempt as the 'under-the-radar' pedophile. The simple flaw is Cox's Big John portrayal is overly ostentatious in speech and macho bravado. Big John would've absolutely raised eyebrows, if not direct questioning, by the police in the scene where he rescues his "nephew" Howie from a night in jail. Additionally, Big John's rejection when near-naked Howie (clad only in his jockey's) seeks physical (and emotional?) comfort in Big John's embrace. I imagine this is to show the "love" for the youngster knowing that sex is just a matter of time and some grooming.
I remain supportive of the film simply because it tackles a taboo subject. Sometimes it tries too hard and bounces back to the viewer. In an unusual way we can easily empathize with the characters. But, not so fast. The script takes the easy way out – or does it? See the film and agree or not.
3 out of 5 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends