Customer Reviews

Glue

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

The latest pedigree offering from the impeccable Picture This! stable, 'Glue' (Spanish, with English subtitles) is a film not easily forgotten. The cast is minimal, focusing largely on Lucas, our 16 year old protagonist, his best friend Nacho, and their age-mate Andrea. We are treated to a glimpse into a few short weeks in the lives of these three characters, as they hang-out, flirt, sniff glue, and enjoy polymorphous physical intimacy in a dusty South American desert town.

But to categorize 'Glue' as a coming-of-age film would be trite in the extreme. While there are many examples of what would be considered the usual 'adolescent angst' (secretly comparing body development against that of friends, awkward silences, parental conflict, watching porn on TV, the importance of music as a form of expression), the portrayal of youth in 'Glue' is more iconoclastic; they are not simply going through a 'phase'. The nihilism portrayed is of a degree commonly seen in films by Gus Van Sant, or in Araki's 'Doomsday' trilogy. There is no sense that the characters will ultimately follow in the subservient footsteps of their parents: they are the last in the line; the contemporary, disenfranchised generation. Araki aficionados will note the subtle, background TV news reports about 'another 15 year old suicide'.

The reference to Van Sant is appropriate also from a stylistic viewpoint. Time-lapsed clouds; blurred and shaky camera shots; sunspots on the camera lens; an emphasis on reddish, earthy tones in the hue and color employed: all add to the impression of a youth eschewing the modern world and trying unsuccessfully to find their way back to nature. This is further emphasized by the role of gender identity in the film - or rather, its absence. The three main characters - Lucas, Nacho and Andrea - are seen in various combinations of sexual interaction; but again, there is none of the typical 'sexual confusion' that we usually see in a pro forma coming-of-age film: they simply follow instinctual enjoyment of physical intimacy, unburdened by their forefathers' limiting preoccupation with gender role:

"What's the difference between kissing a boy or a girl? Boys have beards. That's the only difference, otherwise it'd be the same thing...Why is it that boys don't cry?...Why are there 'girl's things' and 'boy's things'?"

While there is a great deal of humor in 'Glue', the occasions when the viewer can laugh serve as a temporary palliative, rather than as a remedy for the starkness of the nihilistic existentialism. It is only really the characters' attitude towards rejecting received gender identity that provides the film with any genuine optimism. Clearly 'Glue' will not be for everyone: those who find comfort in the simplicity of hard plot lines and linear story-telling, or the superficiality of 'good guy/bad guy' scenarios, will struggle to see the cold, desolate - yet captivating - beauty that provide 'Glue' with it's enthralling, brilliant portrait of contemporary youth.

'Glue' appears to be the first feature-length film from Writer/Director Alexis Dos Santos, a name that is certainly one to watch.

In a phrase, "Glue" is Larry Clark meets Gus Van Sant. I say that in only the most complimentary of terms. The camera basically follows a 15-year old as he discovers himself. He wonders about his physical development, compares himself to his buddy, and begins to explore his sexuality. The barren expanse of Patagonia is the backdrop, the music of The Violent Femmes the appropriately angst-ridden soundtrack.

What makes it so different from most American films is that it's all just so natural. No judgments are made. We only observe through the lens of cinematographer Natasha Braier, as well as writer/director/producer Alexis Dos Santos, who did much of the camerawork himself. It's basically about mid-adolescence told, via voiceover, from the point of view of Lucas (Nahuel Perez Biscayart). Most amazingly, the entire film is improvised. Dos Santos has said that he wrote virtually no dialog at all. There was a 17-page script basically outlining the action. But the three lead actors improvised from start to finish. As it turns out, all three had attended the same acting classes where they learned improv, so they were well-versed in the art and were already friends. And it shows. The chemistry between the teens evokes those awkward years as effectively as any film I've seen.

Biscayart shines. In spite of his young age, he had over a half dozen films and TV series and is something of a teen idol in South America. In the States he'd likely be one of the most sought-after young actors in the business.

If coming-of-age films have become a bit worn in the hands of Hollywood, "Glue" will serve as inspiration and provocation to American filmmakers. It's Larry Clark in Spanish. But sweet and non-judgmental. It will leave you with a smile on your face.

This movie is a pleasure -at least, visual, ethical and philosophical- to watch young adults well-performing the young adult characters maturing in country-side Argentina, bored, alone in family and among strangers, filled with urges nature and surrounding offer, in this case according to English subtitles, at 16 wherever worldwide (advertisement of exalting "Eternal Summer" of Taiwan preceded a feature).

With emphasis on cherubim-like Lucas (Nahuel Pérez Biscayart), a story is of his very close friendship with Nacho (Nahue Vjale) and Andrea (Inés Efron), presented cinematographically by an impressionistic way stimulating the viewers imagination to exercise.

DVD is worth an every cent asked for.

What you read is not what you get. Usually, AMAZON and viewers reviews are a good guideline to choosing what to buy. Not this time. Very tame movie; definitely not what I was expecting. Nothing really gay about it, either; just a couple of high, male teenagers, supposedly going at it. It reminded me of movies of older times: you see a little un-sexy kissing at the beginnig of "the" scene and then cut to the next day. So, if what you are looking for is hot sex scenes, look elsewhere.

You have to buy this movie!!! From the very first moment of this movie, I was immersed in this person life and seeing it from his and his friends' viewpoints. I'm 56 years old and don't have any children, so I've forgotten what it was like in those teenage years. This movie brought me back to those years. But seeing it in how this new generation of teenagers interact with each other and with life, that we didn't have at that age. The filming of this movie was visually fantastic. I can watch this movie over and over and be excited every time. I'll probably watch it again later tonight. Get this movie, I think you'll like it too.

Alexis Dos Santos' Glue is an unpredictable film: surprising twists at the end would have been utterly unnecessary. This is not a story that needs to be resolved. It finds resolution in its own wandering narrative lines that intercross with each other and sometimes build up into new plots and sometimes just vanish into the seemingly vague introspective monologue of the main characters.

Alexis Dos Santos creates a very interesting protagonist. A young boy that cannot yet define what it is he wants. A boy that can stare at the abyss without worrying about the abyss staring back at him (and in that sense, just like with Nietzsche's phrase, there is a full reaffirmation of life without going through the usual passages or topics). Lucas is a boy that notices with a strange fascination the hair protruding out of his best friend's armpit and wonders what the other boy might think of when indulging in solitary sexual stimulation.

Michel Foucault's affirms that fantasizing must be taken into account if one intends to understand masturbation; in Foucault's terms, masturbation is impossible without the subject's fantasy; and it's because of this fantasy more than the act itself that people in the Victorian age tried, by any means possible, to eradicate onanism. Nonetheless, the viewer cannot be privy to Lucas' fantasies when he engages into such activities. Is it then the fantasy that works as the Aristotelian primus motor that leads Lucas acts? And if so, what is Lucas constantly fantasizing about? Lucas also thinks about what it means to be a man, and why is it that a man must act according to some unwritten and yet fully endorsed social law. Andrea, a friend of his, also asks herself why it is that some activities are considered masculine while others aren't, she questions gender differences and sees how arbitrary they can be. Destabilizing Lacan's masculine and feminine positions, both characters undermine the core of it all: the name of the father. It's the name of the father, or nom de père, that inscribes a subject into the symbolic order and inserts him into either the masculine or the feminine position. It's no surprise, then, to see that Lucas at first tries to eliminate his father from his life (a father who is already an absent figure, a situation that occurs with the rest of the characters as well).

Can Lucas and his best friend Nacho continue to be friends despite Lucas hidden desire? It would seem like it as long as the friendship is structured upon an overtly heterosexual dynamic. This dynamic will be interrupted one night in which some boundaries are crossed and as a result Nacho feels guilty and decides to leave Lucas alone.

As soon as the father reinserts himself into Lucas life, the nom de père settles in. Lucas discovers inadvertently that it is not his mission to undermine the structures but to take advantage of them. And conquering Andrea's affections he also regains Nacho's interest. Then only through Andrea's body will Lucas be able to enjoy Nacho's body. When this most peculiar ménage a troi is carried out masturbation is no longer necessary, but even with the other body Lucas is still forced to sustain the fantasy that has led him from the very beginning.

This movie both disturbed and enlightened me in many ways. At first I found the style to be overtly simplistic, lengthy and crass. However, as the story unfolded I understood why the Director would take such an approach to his story. It is meant to be gritty, raw and open.

Ultimately, this amounts to a painful examination of a disintegrated family, which in these times is neither unusual nor rare, and the impact such has on youth. Now I am no fan of the 'traditional family values' argument, as this is often overstated to the point that abuse, intolerance and outright failure is ignored. I am however, a fan of families that honour each other and communicate in a way which is dignified and supportive (despite the differences that will ultimately emerge). Unfortunately, this family is none of the above. The mother is a broken woman having been betrayed by her philandering husband, and yet she tries desperately to find some respect for both herself and her children. Alas, her efforts have little effect, as her children have learnt to merely exist, and in doing have removed themselves from parental influence. If anything they rebel against such, finding solace and direction in their peers. This of course is far from ideal, as their peers are not immune to the effects of broken families, and are within themselves mere students of life.

The great irony in this movie, is that whilst there are no family structures, normative thinking remains a pervasive presence in the lives of these adolescents. This irony is perverse considering that the 'adults' that propagate these social norms, have no moral basis upon which to claim credibility. They are hypocrites, or more accurately products of consequence. The main character Lucas, asks why do we have 'girl things' and boy things' when we are much the same. When you kiss a girl or a boy, the only difference is the facial hair. Whilst somewhat naive in his thought process, his self discovery reveals an interesting paradigm shift amongst youth. They are certainly influenced by normative society, but they are no-longer controlled by it. Their parents are casual observers trying to hold on, severely hampered by their own realisations and impediments.

Some may find the movie too long, as the story takes some time to unfold. This is particularly frustrating when you are well aware of where the plot is intending to take you, and so you may find the internalised self-exploration a little tedious at times. It is however necessary, and the movie in general is well worth watching.

If anything its message is both disturbing and enlightening.

Good independent film movie. The movie takes place in argentina and the main actors are 3 teenagers. Okward conversation moments (or lack of them) in the film takes your memory back to when you were 15 yrs.

This movie is very slow moving. He's on the bus... he's on the bus... he's still on the bus... we get it already! they do this throughout the movie. This movie could have been done in 1/2 the run time. The mono logs attempt to be deep, but fall short. They attempt at showing intimacy between the two boys and the girl in one scene in the boys room. All they do is hold each other and kiss and it's quite boring. Wish I could get my money back and the 2 hours of my life back! Don't buy it.

With the jolting of the camera as filming in a California earthquake,this movie is a twister and if not for a few of the "actors" its a burner.Hablo es spaniel,you better i dont and am still trying to figure out why a russian is involved.The one night high and of course a one night stand is the whole story,between two males jacking eachother off unseen after sniffing glue is it.The music in some aspect is okay except the squealling of one bad banshee and some kind of lullaby lesbians song that doesnt fit.You will be lost in circles but if you pay attention you might learn some spanish.The main revues are from family members or from the director,ask John Waters to do your next one.