When straight guys play gay guys, this can go either pretty well or pretty badly, this film being a prime example of the latter. If it goes well, you'll usually have actors who play their gay characters as in any other (not necessarily tragic) romantic involvement, which is what Gyllenhaal and Ledger did in 'Brokeback', and what Colin Firth did in 'A Single Man'. If it goes badly, the actors and/or the script rely heavily on common gay stereotypes, which is what Patrick Swayze did in 'To Wong Fu', and what Jim Carrey does here.
That's all the more regrettable as the true Steven Russell story is indeed brilliant screen material, among other things dwelling on the reasons why family fathers, at a turning point of their lives, may question their sexual identity. What do the script and the abominable showman Carrey make out of this? He exclaims 'I wanna be a faggot! outlined on a stretcher after a car accident.
His character quickly evolves into one of the most offensive Hollywood portrayals of gay men I've ever seen: while the extravagant, shallow con-man lifestyle Russell aka Carrey pursues in the film may be accurate for the story, I could have done very well without cliché remarks such as 'I discovered that being gay is terribly expensive'. This plays well into a certain public stance towards gays: we tolerate you as long as you behave according to our stereotypes, which films like this embrace. Typical for this are the ridiculously overplayed sex scenes, which seem to have caused a stir, even though there's a straight sex scene just as ridiculous to match, which should have shown that credibility isn't quite the issue here.
To be fair, it's not all Carrey's fault: the script jumps from one perspective to the other and simply can't decide what this is supposed to turn into. A gay romance? A con-man story? A comedy? A dramedy? A biopic? McEwan seems just as confused about this as his hapless character; even though he is about the only good thing this drivel has to offer, his acting angle appears to be just as clueless as the viewer in regard to the plot.
Or maybe I'm just being a drama queen, and Carrey's shenanigans are just the harmless silly fun they've always been. Yet it's hard to be objective about a film that mocks a significant part of your life.
That's all the more regrettable as the true Steven Russell story is indeed brilliant screen material, among other things dwelling on the reasons why family fathers, at a turning point of their lives, may question their sexual identity. What do the script and the abominable showman Carrey make out of this? He exclaims 'I wanna be a faggot! outlined on a stretcher after a car accident.
His character quickly evolves into one of the most offensive Hollywood portrayals of gay men I've ever seen: while the extravagant, shallow con-man lifestyle Russell aka Carrey pursues in the film may be accurate for the story, I could have done very well without cliché remarks such as 'I discovered that being gay is terribly expensive'. This plays well into a certain public stance towards gays: we tolerate you as long as you behave according to our stereotypes, which films like this embrace. Typical for this are the ridiculously overplayed sex scenes, which seem to have caused a stir, even though there's a straight sex scene just as ridiculous to match, which should have shown that credibility isn't quite the issue here.
To be fair, it's not all Carrey's fault: the script jumps from one perspective to the other and simply can't decide what this is supposed to turn into. A gay romance? A con-man story? A comedy? A dramedy? A biopic? McEwan seems just as confused about this as his hapless character; even though he is about the only good thing this drivel has to offer, his acting angle appears to be just as clueless as the viewer in regard to the plot.
Or maybe I'm just being a drama queen, and Carrey's shenanigans are just the harmless silly fun they've always been. Yet it's hard to be objective about a film that mocks a significant part of your life.