comment #1

Alex Stroup says ...

I saw it a couple weeks and it was so bland and blah that I never worked up the energy to write my review for MousePlanet.

Everything is exactly what it seems (especially as given away in every detail in the trailer) and there is not suspense or thrill or even strong emotion.

It also feels like it is out of time by about 10 years. I've been heavily involved in online communities for about 15 years now so my view is probably skewed, but if anybody involved much in such things has already come to terms with both the anonymity of not being sure you are talking to who you think you are, but also the people who fabricate illnesses and deaths for sympathy (one of the famous cases, Kaycee Nicole, has even already been made into a "ripped from the headlines" episode of Law & Order several years ago).

There might be something interesting there if what is a revelation to Amistead Maupin were tied into the fact that this kind of uncertainty is the reality in which today's young children are coming to maturity.

comment #2

Todd J says ...

Hmmm. Maybe no one wants to be labeled a homophobe.
And you were talking about David Poland right? Oh yeah. He's not a journalist.

comment #3

Jeffrey Wells says ...

The indication that Williams' character might, deep down, have an "interest" in the Culkin kid is right there on the screen. You can't see this movie and go, "No, that's absolutely not a valid interpretation." You'd have to be in a coma to miss this, and you're saying my mentioning it makes me a homophobe? This...is...moronic.

comment #4

Kim Voynar says ...

I gotta say, Jeff, I didn't get that out of this film at all. I took from it that William's character, Gabriel, was just depressed from the end of his relationship and needing someone to nurture. His ex-lover makes a comment to him about how Gabriel always wanted to be a father, and personally, I saw his interest in the boy as more paternal than anything. What, a gay man can't be nurturing toward what he believes to be a sick boy without there being something perverse in it?

I dunno -- call up Armistead Maupin and ask him his intent; the book and film were based on real events in his (and Terry Anderson's) life. Not that he'd admit if that was there for him, but it would be interesting to hear his response.

K.

comment #5

Rod says ...

What MIGHT make you a homophobe is that you say the "interest" is "icky." If Williams' character were straight, would his interest be more father-like to you, or still "icky"? As a 42 year old teacher for 18 years, and a man, I can tell you that I've held a lot of interest in students I've taught, some of them 14 year old boys, but my "interest" has never ever been of a sexual or perverse or questionable manner. I have gay male friends (a couple) in Boston who have adopted teenage sons, and saved these boys lives, lives that were full of abuse and neglect from their natural parents. I suppose it is up to interpretation, but I saw this film today and, slow as molasses as it is (and how come no one has said that long stretches are just plain B-O-R-I-N-G...well, you did say it with more finesse, I guess), I never thought of Williams' character's interest as anything "icky." He certainly doesn't play him that way at all. Why quotation marks around the word interest, anyway?

comment #6

Todd says ...

Jeff the only thing icky is that you would make that interpretation, because Robbin Williams is a homosexual then his interest are to be presumed of a sexual nature.

comment #7

Alex says ...

Yeah, I didn't really see any sign of prurient interest. I thought the movie was bending over backwards to make it very clear that there was nothing of that nature going on.

It plays up the problems Noone has with his own un-nurturing father. It has the ex-boyfriend explicitly say he is always looking for someone to nurture.

I can't really agree with you on that aspect of it. But I hope to wake up from my coma by the holidays so that I can have some pumpkin pie.

comment #8

Dixon Steele says ...

Bullshit, Jeff. I just came back from this movie and if you thought the Robin Williams character had designs on the boy, well my friend, that says a lot more about you than anything else.

Talk about creepy. Jesus...

comment #9

Steve Schalchlin says ...

There was NOTHING "icky" about his concern for this kid. None. At. All. And to even feel that there might have been is some kind of weirdness on the part of the observer. Sorry, Jeff, but this says more about you than it does about the Robin Williams character. I can tell you this as a gay man who has been involved in online counseling with young people by virtue of my having had an HIV blog for 10 years (first one of the Internet).

And this is especially emphasized by the fact that this kid was abused as a child. That's one of the motivations that the Williams' character has, his revulsion at the idea of pedophilia -- a subject that is discussed in the film.

comment #10

Diane Sabol says ...

Mark James interviewed Maupin at PlanetOut.com
http://www.planetout.com/entertainment/news/?sernum=1855

On a recent interview on 20/20, the interviewer asked why you would forge a relationship with a 14-year-old boy over the phone. Did that question strike you as homophobic?

Yes, it always does. Bill Maher asked me the same thing when he interviewed me. I look at Bill Maher as an extremely civilized man. But it's amazing how many people think that gay men should slink off into the shadows when it comes to having friendships with children. I believe very firmly that gay people of every stripe and age should be role models for all children, and that means interacting with them.

comment #11

Mike Gebert says ...

Boy, if ever one photo convinced me to stay far far away from a movie, this is it.

Robin Williams + beard + gray lighting + introspective loneliness. Eeeeeek!

comment #12

CCA says ...

"A gay journalist friend explained to me last week that older gay guys having nurturing relationships with teenage boys isn't necessarily what it seems to be. It can just an uncle-mentor type thing."

Yeah, you know ... like in Rome.

comment #13

NYCBusybody says ...

It would be homophobic to assume that because the man is GAY, he is incapable of having a non-sexual friendship with a boy, i.e. it is his homosexuality that is the issue.

I'm quite sure that's not what Jeff was saying. He pointed out that he would think it was just as icky if it was about a straight male and a 14 year old girl. I think the point here is that Jeff finds the AGE difference to be the issue.

He only brings up the fact that Williams' character is gay 'cause it would be relevant to the point he's making, in this specific instance, in that the child in question is a boy. If the child in question was a girl, it would be relevant to point out the issue if the man was straight.

comment #14

Todd says ...

I get it now. In Jeff's world only Straight men can have nurturing relationships with young boys. Gay men can have only nurturing relationships with young girls. Straight men can only have sexual relationships with young girls. Gay men can only have nurturing relationships with young girls. As for the ladies only straight ladies can have nurturing relationships with young girls. Lesbians can only have nurturing relationships with young boys. Lesbians can only have sexual relationships with young girls. Straight ladies can have sexual relationships with young boys. I'll be sure to send this memo out to all the child protective services agencies. It now makes identifying pedofiles a lot easier. Thank you Jeff for clearing this up.

comment #15

NYCBusybody says ...

Todd,

Do I think it impossible for a gay man/boy or straight man/girl or lesbian woman/girl relationship to be non-sexual and nurturing? Of course not, it's totally possible.

But do you REALLY think it's not something that should at least always be there in the forefront of one's mind? No, there shouldn't be drastic, irrational fears of it, but come on. To always at least slightly question the motives of an adult befriending a child is not irrational.

comment #16

Rod says ...

NYCBusybody,

What? To always at least slightly question the motives of an adult befriending a child is not irrational? So, as a teacher in public schools for eighteen years, my befriending the children I teach is irrational? The children who find solace and acceptance in my classroom? The children who, when they feel that they cannot communicate with their parents or their family or their church come to their teachers for guidance and, yes, friendship? This is to be questioned? I have had some intense conversations with students, as have the guidance counselors at our school, students who knew they could trust us, could talk to us, that we would listen. Lives that I know I have enriched and changed for the better, mainly because they have also enriched and changed me for the better.

All of this, of course, has nothing to do with "The Night Listener, " but neither does your sad commentary.

And yes, I am a gay man.

comment #17

NYCBusybody says ...

"So, as a teacher in public schools for eighteen years, my befriending the children I teach is irrational?"

That's not what I said at all. I was merely stating that NOT having the thought of the possibility in mind is irrational and can be socially dangerous.

I think I was quite clear in saying that of course it's totally possible for adults to befriend and nurture children that are not their own, in healthy and happy ways.

Should it be out-and-out "questioned" (your word) in every instance where it occurs? Of course not, particularly in teacher-student relationships or guidance counselor-student relationships, because those don't become private.

However, if a teacher started calling a child at home, late in the evening, to talk privately? Yes, that would be something I would find questionable.

comment #18

NYCBusybody says ...

And that's where it DOES have something to do with "The Night Listener", and Jeffrey specifically mentioned the phone aspect:

"50ish gay man developing a fondness for a 14 year-old boy over the phone -- hello? -- feels icky."

comment #19

Todd says ...

To NYCBusyBody then I should also by your line of logic should think everyone may kill me or rob me or mame me or use me for some other horrible things. Why I should just become a hermit. People in general are just icky. So much for that belief in humanity. In fact someone's knocking on my door now I should either hide or get a gun and protect myself.

comment #20

NYCBusybody says ...

Todd,

Exaggeratedly equating "everyone" you see walking around as a threat to rob you, and realistically having at least slight concern when an adult privately contacts a child, is hyperbolic and silly.

comment #21

Todd says ...

To NYC not really because that is how these horrible things happen. Do you remember the case of the lady who went to see about getting a rat terrier dog. The person who was offering it for sale was 8-9 months pregnant so the lady who was originally there to get a dog decided she wanted a baby instead. So she killed the woman and cut the baby out of her abdomen. I know this may sound extreme but it did happen. So everyone should be concerned about every horrible thing because horrible things happen all the time to unsuspecting people.

comment #22

NYCBusybody says ...

Oh Todd, you're a card.

comment #23

Todd says ...

And checkmate. LOL

comment #24

Dixon Steele says ...

NYC BB,

Have you even seen the movie you're so passionately debating over? Didn't think so.

Because if you had, it's so friggin' obvious that Williams has no "designs" whatsoever on this kid.

I'm not gay but from regularly reading this blog, you can tell that Wells is slightly homophobic. Not in a red state (sorry, couldn't resist) nasty way, but it's there nonetheless, which I'm SURE he'll vigorously deny.

By the way NYCBB, I thought you weren't going to post anymore? That sure didn't last long...

Also, I found The Night Listener much better than I expected. Yeah, it's creepy, but not because of Williams' character at all.

It's Toni Collette's blind sociopath, and there are some genuinely scarry little moments in this pic. NOT a horror movie by any means, but a distinct improvement over the director's BUSINESS OF STRANGERS.

Don't be put off my Jeff's sexuality bias. It's well worth seeing (2 thunbs way up by E&R).

comment #25

NYCBusybody says ...

I decided I'd post but not try to be as much of an irritating rabble-rouser as I have been.

I don't think it's important whether I've seen the movie or not, Dixon. I'm not arguing about that movie in particular, was merely saying what I thought Jeff's take on it was.

Whether Jeff is slightly homophobic or not isn't relevant to me here. All I'm saying is I don't see what he said as evidence of that at all.

comment #26

Dixon Steele says ...

NYC,

I'd bet that if you saw the movie Jeff is opining about, you'd understand the debate much more clearly.

Because it all stems from his comments about a PARTICULAR movie. Which you haven't seen.

Let me put it this way though: If a straight 50 year-old man thought a 14 year-old girl was being used, abused, etc., and wanted to visit her to check it out, would you think that's wrong?

I'm betting no. But because the Williams character is gay, and the the "victim" is a boy, he's got a problem with it.

And as I said, that may say more about him than anything else.

And maybe you too?

comment #27

Todd says ...

Thanks Dixon. I too, have noticed Jeff's subtle homophobe tone in his postings over the years. Some might conclude by this is indicative of latent homosexual ideation. But I digress, and one should not diagnose a personality trait solely by the years of ones personal postings of opinions on film entertainment coming from hollywood.
Ultimately it's because of his internal conflicts that make his website entertaining to read.

comment #28

Susan says ...

But if it were a 5-ish *woman* and a 14-year old boy any sexual implications would be okay, yes?

comment #29

Susan says ...

But if it were a 50-ish *woman* and a 14-year old boy any sexual implications would be okay, yes?

comment #30

Anonymous says ...

Only if the 50ish woman was, say, Susan Sarandon.