Breakfast with Scot...

[fajrdrako]

Watched Breakfast With Scot last night. A Canadian movie, and as such, it was like looking at my own back yard: a little bland, a little predictable, but easy to relate to and fun to watch.

The story: Eric McNally is a former hockey player - for the Toronto Maple Leafs. After being injured in practice, he has a job in Sports network TV. He lives with his boyfriend Sam, a lawyer, and he is generally closeted to all but close family and friends.

But one day Sam's prepubescent nephew Scot comes to live with them temporarily, on the death of his mother. Scot is lonely, depressed, and loves to wear pink feather boas, jewelry, and make-up. Scot's presence emphasizes how Eric and Sam have defined their lives to be respectable to the point of mundanity. He brings meaning to their lives because he brings chaos, and challenges.

There's also a nice (though subtle) challenge to the viewer to sort out what labels and definitions mean (or fail to mean) when applied to people.

The movie never entirely engaged my affections, but I did think Thomas Cavanagh was terrific (and gorgeous) as Eric. I would have liked it to be a little more sentimental - seems to me that a kid whose mother has just died needs more TLC than Scot was getting from anyone.

Best line:

Scot: When you were young, how did you defend yourself?
Eric: I didn't have to. I played hockey.

Comments

[dewline.livejournal.com]

It stinks that the first thing I should be thinking of is probably renting/borrowing this film for myself based on your review, and yet instead I find my attention drawn back to the "McVety Clause" of Bill C-10 again. I seem to recall McVety himself in his complaints published in the Toronto Star in support of C-10 citing this very movie as grounds for the offending clause of that bill. (http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/415391)

Bullies. They really do spoil all manner of fun in the worlds at times.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

That article - the statements in that article - are ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous. No one was encouraging Scot to be gay - on the contray, the whole paradoxical theme was that the straight-seeming gay couple were horrified to find themselves with a cross-dressing kid who just couldn't 'fit in'.

You could have exactly the same story about a straight couple - but it wouldn't be quite so charming.

Bullies and idiots. They're everywhere.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

Amen.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Makes me want to gnash my teeth. Especially when the whole point essentially was one about tolerance.

Of course, not everyone believes 'tolerance' is a good idea.

Faugh.

[duncanmac.livejournal.com]

Of course, not everyone believes 'tolerance' is a good idea.

I'm aware of that too ... there is a reason why I really would rather not move back to Winnipeg, for example. [I'm fairly sure almost everyone there supports the blasted "McVety clause." Par for the parochial course.]

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I didn't know Winnipeg was so right-ring.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure that gumprich is an exception, if the accusation against Winnipeg in general is true.

I do find it hard to credit such a claim, though, given how often I hear about the growth of the arts community in Winnipeg, the growth of social activism...all on CBC Radio One shows, of course. So there may be bias in my sources. :-)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I haven't been reading about Winnpeg lately, but I have been reading a series of mystery novels about a gay detective in Saskatoon - doesn't lead me to think the place is terribly right-wing or homophobic. (Except for the villains in the story, of course.)

[jkluge.livejournal.com]

I'm really looking forward to seeing this. I expected that it might be a little superficial and lack the emotional power of the book, but I really like Tom Cavanagh, and the story sounded sweet, so I'll probably be willing to overlook some faults. :-)

The book is good, btw. I recommend it. In it, the "Eric" character is named "Ed" (I'm sure they changed it due to TC's very popular NBC series Ed from a few years ago), and does not have a macho job. There is a climactic moment in the book that's just so touching and powerful that I reread it over several times in the way I seldom do outside of fanfiction, which often provides more emotional satisfaction than pro books.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

. I expected that it might be a little superficial and lack the emotional power of the book

I think they were trying rather too hard not to be a 'cute kid' movie, or too cloying with the feelings. The result was... a little too reserved for my tastes. But it was still a very good movie, and there was at least one point where it made me cry a little, so it couldn't have been completely uninvolving!

Yes, I'd like to read the book.

I expected that it might be a little superficial and lack the emotional power of the book

I certainly agree with that!

[iibnf.livejournal.com]

I read the book and posted a review last week. I'm not sure why they needed to change Ed from an art magazine interpreter to a hockey player, and Sam from a chiropractor to a lawyer. To add controversy, perhaps?

I just didn't like the fact they tried to oppress Scot in the book, and that is going to make me less keen to see the film. Plus all the changes, too.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure why they needed to change Ed from an art magazine interpreter to a hockey player, and Sam from a chiropractor to a lawyer.

I'm not sure why, either. Maybe to make it more plausible that Eric was so closeted? being in such a male-dominated field? Not entirely convincing, I thought. Not in Toronto in this day and age.

[iibnf.livejournal.com]

Another thing they changed as in the book he wasn't closeted at all - everyone he worked with and knew knew that he was gay - he had gay couple friends, too, although they didn't like Scot.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

in the book he wasn't closeted at all

That's a big difference!

[dewline.livejournal.com]

If that last theory be the case, I'm surprised that the Maple Leafs let their trademarks and facilities be used so blatantly. It's as if they used the film as a product placement for the team!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes - I wonder what their intention was there?

[jkluge.livejournal.com]

I just didn't like the fact they tried to oppress Scot in the book, and that is going to make me less keen to see the film.

Ah, but I thought it was realistic--these two gentleman are just living their lives, they're comfortable, and Scot is a disruption. It also makes the book's climax so much more poignant.

I expect the film to be much more lighthearted fare (not that the book wasn't witty).

[iibnf.livejournal.com]

I saw their point of view - not only where they trying to protect him from being mocked by other people, or hurt, or beaten up, by getting him to conform, but they were also conforming pretty hard themselves, and he was everything that a lot of gay guys try to stand away from. I have 'straight-acting' gay friends (I hate that straight-acting term, as if it's all a pretence) who just hate that out and proud, parade in frocks mentality and feel that it is the big reason that society doesn't accept gays. So I got why they were trying to change Scot, and I think that Scot lucked into a really nice family.

BUT, I still wanted to see them put some fruit on their heads and some lipstick on and dance around like Carmen Miranda with Scot, even just once, just in the privacy of their living room, ya know? I don't mean they were bad parents, I just wanted them to accept Scot the way he was a little bit more.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes, I felt the same. Nobody was saying to Scot that it was okay to be different (because clearly they thought it wasn't) or even that it was okay to grieve for his mother.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I have 'straight-acting' gay friends (I hate that straight-acting term, as if it's all a pretence) who just hate that out and proud, parade in frocks mentality and feel that it is the big reason that society doesn't accept gays.

Yes, I could see why they did it - they really were concerned for Scot, and it was clear he was having troubles with other kids (that would only get worse over the next few years) and they wanted to protect him. But since the movie was ultimately about acceptance and tolerance, it seemed like a half-hearted statement. Acceptance and tolerance within a limited range.

[jkluge.livejournal.com]

I adore the mental image your wished-for scene produces, and the way you described it gives the perfect picture. And I agree that it would have added something very special.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes - we can just rewrite the story for our own amusement.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I expect the film to be much more lighthearted fare

I suspect you are correct in that. It doesn't go heavily into issues - just shows them living their lives.

[jkluge.livejournal.com]

The book doesn't really go into issues much, either, but the book's tone is a bit more serious than I suspect the film's will be.

I wonder if the movie will end up on American cable channels one of these days? Since it's not about women, it probably won't end up on Lifetime or Lifetime Move Network, and Hallmark Channel (which shows a number of these types of Cdn films) probably wouldn't show it for the subject matter. As far as I've seen, there are no gay people in Hallmark Land (but I could be mistaken).

Maybe Here! or Logo will pick it up, but I don't get those channels here.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

It is about issues that would interest women - i.e., child-raising - but I don't know where or whether it might turn up on US TV, which is a world of mystery to me, known only by rumour.

As far as I've seen, there are no gay people in Hallmark Land (but I could be mistaken).

Hee. They are gay, they just aren't out. Rather like our heroes here.

[duncanmac.livejournal.com]

Scot: When you were young, how did you defend yourself?

Er, isn't that how did you define yourself instead?

OTOH, hockey is a rather violent contact sport (by most peoples' definitions), so the question may make more sense than it intended!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Scot: When you were young, how did you defend yourself?

Er, isn't that how did you define yourself instead?

I should perhaps put it in context. Another kid had been trying to beat up Scot. Eric rescued him, and Scot was asking for pointers as to how to defend himself from physical attack. Scot already had a strong sense of self - though he didn't have the words to describe it. (He thought being gay meant 'the other kids don't like me'.)

hockey is a rather violent contact sport

The point is made: in the first scene, Eric is brutally attacking other players - in a practice session - and is hit so badly himself that he has to stop playing professionally.

[sparklebutch.livejournal.com]

I am a bit weirded and amused because I just saw this a few days ago. Had opinions, too, but not much of them; the movie's better than most on the agenda business, but I am tired of living on crumbs of visibility and happy endings. I want a proper movie. I want lots of them.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I just saw this a few days ago

What interesting timing!

the movie's better than most on the agenda business, but I am tired of living on crumbs of visibility and happy endings. I want a proper movie. I want lots of them.

Yes - me too! There are movies that get it absolutely right but they are few and far between. (and that's IMHO, of course.)

I want lots and lots of movies that get it right and have happy endings and beautiful people of all types in them.