When I watch a film I normally try to ignore what the critics have said and just focus on what the film does (or doesn't) do for me. However it was more a problem for me with Clapham Junction when it was shown as part of the Channel 4 series of films and programmes to mark the 40th anniversary since male homosexuality was legalised. Unwittingly I watched the panel discussion 40 Years Out before I saw this film, and the first part of the former was a group of commentators laying into the producer of the latter. I remember being quite entertained by this match-up but was wary to make up my mind for myself rather than just repeating what the likes of Matthew Parris et al had said.
Problem is though, they were bang on the money in what they said because Clapham Junction is a poor film and a very strange choice to show as part of this series of films. As a narrative it is basically an interweaving set of characters all of whom has some comment on the nature of being a male homosexual in this day and age. However, as a piece of writing it is surprisingly lacking. The characters are connected by coincidence and convenience, without any degree of respect for the viewer. This is a minor issue though because my main one was how negative the entire film was. I have no gay friends and have not a part to play in the modern gay experience but this film seemed to be harking back to the 1980's rather than the noughties. Nobody is cast in a good light the film opens with the groom of a civil partnership couple cheating with a waiter during the reception before following on with queer bashing, cottaging, a 14 year old seducing (then f***ing) an older man etc etc. It is tiresome after a while and has little to say about what it means to be gay today. What little it does say of value is interesting (eg the loss of the thrill of being "dangerous" that modern acceptance has brought) but it is scattered far and wide across the film.
The cast do little with what little material they have. They deliver the characters asked of them but none can find the people inside instead they are horny, camp, in the closet, in denial, on cocaine etc etc, whatever simple classification the script has given them. Shergold's direction is OK in terms of the shots he gets but in terms of helping the material or the actors, he doesn't seem able although Elyot's script offers him little support either.
Overall then a poor film that wallows in negativity while presenting the modern gay experience. There is little debate or discussion just endless "shocking" scenes (yeah shocking 10 years ago) and negative images of homosexuality with no real justification. A sense of balance would have been welcome but a less simplistic script would have been a great starting point sadly it had neither.
Problem is though, they were bang on the money in what they said because Clapham Junction is a poor film and a very strange choice to show as part of this series of films. As a narrative it is basically an interweaving set of characters all of whom has some comment on the nature of being a male homosexual in this day and age. However, as a piece of writing it is surprisingly lacking. The characters are connected by coincidence and convenience, without any degree of respect for the viewer. This is a minor issue though because my main one was how negative the entire film was. I have no gay friends and have not a part to play in the modern gay experience but this film seemed to be harking back to the 1980's rather than the noughties. Nobody is cast in a good light the film opens with the groom of a civil partnership couple cheating with a waiter during the reception before following on with queer bashing, cottaging, a 14 year old seducing (then f***ing) an older man etc etc. It is tiresome after a while and has little to say about what it means to be gay today. What little it does say of value is interesting (eg the loss of the thrill of being "dangerous" that modern acceptance has brought) but it is scattered far and wide across the film.
The cast do little with what little material they have. They deliver the characters asked of them but none can find the people inside instead they are horny, camp, in the closet, in denial, on cocaine etc etc, whatever simple classification the script has given them. Shergold's direction is OK in terms of the shots he gets but in terms of helping the material or the actors, he doesn't seem able although Elyot's script offers him little support either.
Overall then a poor film that wallows in negativity while presenting the modern gay experience. There is little debate or discussion just endless "shocking" scenes (yeah shocking 10 years ago) and negative images of homosexuality with no real justification. A sense of balance would have been welcome but a less simplistic script would have been a great starting point sadly it had neither.