So we are introduced to and follow a group of hustlers living on the very buttom of society. We zoom in on Mike (River Phoenix) and Scott (Keanou Reeves) each with their sad story that slowly unfolds.
Mike is really tragic and sad. His mental state seemed to be infantile and instead of dealing with diverse inner conflicts in a manner that could have some sort of therapeutic effect he escapes into one narcoleptic seizure after another. It was as if he needed to start life all over again by returning to the very time of birth and here being nurtured as supposed.
Hollow as a result, responsibility that follows an adult life was by any standard not possible. The relationships that could be established was superficial and more driven by common destiny with the others in the group than by an explicit choice. With one exception. Scott. Their friendship though still rested on the premise that Scott needed to stay in a position as the grown up who could be in charge.
Otherwise Mike only had short moments of joy when luxury in a hotelroom etc. could be enjoyed as a prelude to the exchange of sex for money. Luckily the director had chosen not to depict these scenes - it would have very unpleasant, maybe even as watching a peadophile scene, and without a real purpose. It was easy enough to imagine.
Scott is finally able to break his social heritage and with that the friendship with Mike. This is depicted in the most beautiful ending scene where both Mike and Scott attends a funeral at the same church yard at the same time and the estrangement between the two is shown with great effect.
The acting in itself makes the movie worth watching. One thing is the undeniable talent of both River Phoenix and Keanou Reeves but the directing seemed to provoke different modes of acting.
At certain times it seemed as if the acting had an almost theatrical quality to it. It consisted of monologes that seemed to be spoken out to an audience all the while the actor walked around, like on a theater scene.
At another time it seemed as we were watching an interview with two hustlers telling about their first experience selling sex.
And then we had the two scenes, surreal in their quality, where sex and a strong and odd narcissistic tendency blended together which gave the feeling that this was a way of dealing with a topic in a more humerous way that didn´t correspond with the more general narrative. They existed in their own right. And right they had!
The target audience to this movie is hard to define. You must find out yourself...
Regards Simon
Mike is really tragic and sad. His mental state seemed to be infantile and instead of dealing with diverse inner conflicts in a manner that could have some sort of therapeutic effect he escapes into one narcoleptic seizure after another. It was as if he needed to start life all over again by returning to the very time of birth and here being nurtured as supposed.
Hollow as a result, responsibility that follows an adult life was by any standard not possible. The relationships that could be established was superficial and more driven by common destiny with the others in the group than by an explicit choice. With one exception. Scott. Their friendship though still rested on the premise that Scott needed to stay in a position as the grown up who could be in charge.
Otherwise Mike only had short moments of joy when luxury in a hotelroom etc. could be enjoyed as a prelude to the exchange of sex for money. Luckily the director had chosen not to depict these scenes - it would have very unpleasant, maybe even as watching a peadophile scene, and without a real purpose. It was easy enough to imagine.
Scott is finally able to break his social heritage and with that the friendship with Mike. This is depicted in the most beautiful ending scene where both Mike and Scott attends a funeral at the same church yard at the same time and the estrangement between the two is shown with great effect.
The acting in itself makes the movie worth watching. One thing is the undeniable talent of both River Phoenix and Keanou Reeves but the directing seemed to provoke different modes of acting.
At certain times it seemed as if the acting had an almost theatrical quality to it. It consisted of monologes that seemed to be spoken out to an audience all the while the actor walked around, like on a theater scene.
At another time it seemed as we were watching an interview with two hustlers telling about their first experience selling sex.
And then we had the two scenes, surreal in their quality, where sex and a strong and odd narcissistic tendency blended together which gave the feeling that this was a way of dealing with a topic in a more humerous way that didn´t correspond with the more general narrative. They existed in their own right. And right they had!
The target audience to this movie is hard to define. You must find out yourself...
Regards Simon