The story follows the protagonist vlogging and making an amateur documentary about a gogo boy he obsesses over and wants to get close to. So the actual film is this footage - webcams, cell phones, shaky, naturalistic, real locations not sets etc
I really enjoyed this style as it felt much more authentic than traditional filming and invested me more deeply in the world than hollywood-esque dramatics. And to me it was more creatively interesting to watch just for being something different, whilst still having sections of more organised artistic cinematography (mostly thru Warhol homages). The naturalistic style was to me the most interesting part of the film.
Where it then stumbled was when this authenticity conflicted with other more contrived elements of the film like the plot, dialogue and character arcs. Plot wise it is unlikely - the protagonist is creepy af, stalking this boy and making up a film just to get near him, consistently judgemental and selfish, but it works out well for him with no repercussions at all, he is even the one to dump Go in the end.... If the actor wasn't cute there's no way this character would be likeable... I wondered if he was based on the Writer/Director himself and therefore avoided the harsh scrutiny he deserves... The characters are often used as puppets for academic-esque commentary on queer culture, which makes for unrealistic dialogue. The points are interesting but just quite clunkily added in, especially for Go, as his brains, depth and wisdom are never acknowledged by the film - in the end he is still presented as a reduced gogo stereotype which doesnt fit with what he says. (That whole ending was a mess and completely undermined Go's character development and many points in the film. It felt like it was written/shot first. Go is described as narcissistic, needy and shallow - but he consistently showed himself in the film to not be any of those things...). I was very aware that this was the writer of the film speaking about queer culture in general in these moments and not really about or reflecting the characters themselves.
Perhaps the point of the film is that the protagonist was never able to move past his own insecurities, prejudices and fantasies in order to really see and therefore love Go (and queer culture in general) accurately - and instead regresses to the isolated heteronorm countryside of his childhood. That would excuse a lot. But the film doesn't suggest that, it seems to frame the protagonist's arc positively.
Acting wise the lead is good, but Go is often wooden and it again made me very aware that he was reading a script. But he has some wonderful moments of endearing authenticity and I wondered if those were the parts more closely based on his actual self.
Overall I enjoyed it and especially by queer cinema standards it was refreshing and interesting to watch.
Where it then stumbled was when this authenticity conflicted with other more contrived elements of the film like the plot, dialogue and character arcs. Plot wise it is unlikely - the protagonist is creepy af, stalking this boy and making up a film just to get near him, consistently judgemental and selfish, but it works out well for him with no repercussions at all, he is even the one to dump Go in the end.... If the actor wasn't cute there's no way this character would be likeable... I wondered if he was based on the Writer/Director himself and therefore avoided the harsh scrutiny he deserves... The characters are often used as puppets for academic-esque commentary on queer culture, which makes for unrealistic dialogue. The points are interesting but just quite clunkily added in, especially for Go, as his brains, depth and wisdom are never acknowledged by the film - in the end he is still presented as a reduced gogo stereotype which doesnt fit with what he says. (That whole ending was a mess and completely undermined Go's character development and many points in the film. It felt like it was written/shot first. Go is described as narcissistic, needy and shallow - but he consistently showed himself in the film to not be any of those things...). I was very aware that this was the writer of the film speaking about queer culture in general in these moments and not really about or reflecting the characters themselves.
Perhaps the point of the film is that the protagonist was never able to move past his own insecurities, prejudices and fantasies in order to really see and therefore love Go (and queer culture in general) accurately - and instead regresses to the isolated heteronorm countryside of his childhood. That would excuse a lot. But the film doesn't suggest that, it seems to frame the protagonist's arc positively.
Acting wise the lead is good, but Go is often wooden and it again made me very aware that he was reading a script. But he has some wonderful moments of endearing authenticity and I wondered if those were the parts more closely based on his actual self.
Overall I enjoyed it and especially by queer cinema standards it was refreshing and interesting to watch.