Food of Love (2002)

Fantastic!

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Indeed, the subject promised a lot of food for thought:how can a gay and talented young musician fit in the world of dogmatic clichés of his mother's? Quite a common and, alas,dangerous situation. Indeed,the cast promised a lot:British actors usually present a much more sophisticated and profound performance than their famous Hollywood counterparts.Also, they usually speak better English ! Indeed,the characters involved promised a serious and uncompromising drama , because they differed from the traditional gay films stereotypes . Well,it might have been a real masterpiece, but...it failed.Why?What is the reason? I believe the main culprit is the script that ,probably, is a little vague in its message.What is the idea of the film?The liberation of a gay spirit from the chains of traditions and old values?The sudden (and absolutely unbelievable) "awakening " of the boy's mother, who is the type that brings their sons to a suicide and then cries for them for the rest of her life?The cruelty and deceit of the gay world?The ruined dreams and ambitions (again, never properly explained)of a young musician? Unfortunately, these questions have never been answered, and the only reaction of a viewer after watching the film is the disappointed shrug of his/her shoulders.

You may consider what follows a "spoiler". Too much information may "ruin" it for you so may not want to read on.This is a movie about discovery and confusion and anger and love. A young man comes of age and recognizes his potential but in an odd way. And older men seem to find confusion and angst and yet wield their weight as mature people of position. The entire drama takes place against the backdrop of a gorgeous city in Europe and then a wonderful American city and also Orange County, California (filmed in a European suburb, actually).Some folks have panned this movie but I can't figure out why. The Ðirector is not American, he is definitely European and he's interpreting an American writer's work. But he does so beautifully. The characters take on depth and there is humor, drama, some irony and a bit of pessimism. I also found the definite sense of futility that is part of the European character of where the movie is being filmed.This movie's actors do a marvelous job and the thought that they need "direction" or lack it is an insult. In particular Juliette Stevensen needs no director's hand - she is a classically trained actress and it does show.If you're looking for an epic or a "Bond" flick or something of that nature that is not this film. If you want a film that makes you think and smile a bit and wonder and if you love beautiful scenery and gorgeous people this is a flick for you to enjoy for a bit.

stellarust, You seem to have missed the point of the movie. Its not about the young man's art (his love and study of the piano) nor is it even about his romance with his idol (the piano player he looks up to.) It is, in fact, a fable, or fairy tale, (very much like the many attributed to Grimm). This is why, I believe, you found it heavy-handed. The story is about a mother who learns her son is gay, and learns it while he is still a child (albeit he is 18 and not, technically, a child, yet as most 18 year olds, they still require wise parenting from time-to-time for a few more years yet, when appropriate) and so he needs some guidance. Yet he doesn't realize he does, and fights it for a variety of reasons, most of which are somewhat characteristic of this point in time (the beginning of the 21st century). What this fable does is demonstrate a woman with problems of her own, realizing she her son still needs guidance even if she's not sure what it should be yet. The fable is two-fold: 1) it shows how an enlightened parent should react once they become aware and become educated, and 2) shows that there are still big bad wolves in the forest just waiting to huff and puff and blow your house down. It says to parents: here is how to respond to a gay child/young adult. And it says to gay young adults: beware the wolves of the forest, but, if you notice your parent responding like the mother in this film, trust them.Its about where to place trust, which is always the core of any fable, parable, or fairy tale.Lighten up. Stories cannot be alike. A variety of food is required to fill all your needs. Man cannot live on bread alone.

This film had so much potential, but many things were just off. Most grating to an American were the accents, of which Stevenson's was the worst. Bishop's accent is a wooden attempt at the Midwest, especially Ohio. Stevenson's was an attempt at Los Angeles, with some Brooklyn thrown in. Most of the scenes are set in America, but it's clear they were not filmed there. Everything, right down to the Christmas tree, the kitchen appliances (small European refrigerators!), telephones from the 1970s, the Spanish-looking New York apartments, is from a different continent. Even Bishop's wardrobe reflects a misunderstanding of American culture. Are we to believe that this young, gay pianist who grew up in Boston and San Francisco dresses like a frat boy from Georgia in 1987? This director learned everything about America from old movies, and had no concern for accurately depicting a culture. How can any of his films, set in America or elsewhere, ring true without an eye for details? Actually, this "American" film directed by a Spaniard was an education of sorts. I came away appreciating how distracting it must be for British film goers, for example, to see American actors ham-hand their accents. With the film industry so dominated by Hollywood, I have gotten a taste of what a mess American actors and filmmakers often make of non-American subjects.