3.5/10 Entertainment. From a purely cinematographic view, this film is NOT worth watching for most people. Filmed in 1976 on 16mm film on a shoestring budget, the camera work, and staging is about a teenager level - although, with today's technology, even mobile phone cinematography could improve - since you could re-do over and over, AND do post-production online. However, it IS watchable (unlike the B&W films of Joe Dellasandro's sexual activity in 1960's Warhol films), and there is a narrative.
10/10. Historical Gay Interest. In 1976, when I was a teen, when even the term "gay" could still mean "happy", it was unimaginable that gays could have any semblance of societal integration. Although not the intent to be a historical snapshot, it does show that there was a "gay scene" in Paris. The gay enclaves in San Francisco and Manhattan never were so clearly and openly "documented" in this era.
5/10. Narrative. This was a very early work by the producer, and very self-absorbed (nombriliste) as the young director (Valois) seeks to cast his autobiographical "movie" with his incarcerated boyfriend, and so he searches for a suitable performer. A film about filming an biography of self!
7.5/10 Depiction of sexuality. The young performers seem to have been porn actors of the time, as many seem to have no other film credits afterwards. The rake thin physiques were not only typical of the French, but also of the era. There was frontal nudity but not of erect organs, nor of close-up activity; it was "tasteful". Only in France could this have been films, and, despite official consorship, it was eventually designated as "art" by French courts.
9/10. Physical attractiveness of protagonists. I found the protagonist (Johan), and muse, played by an adult actor, Georges Barber, who dances nude in one scene, were gorgeous. Even by today's standards.
10/10. Historical Gay Interest. In 1976, when I was a teen, when even the term "gay" could still mean "happy", it was unimaginable that gays could have any semblance of societal integration. Although not the intent to be a historical snapshot, it does show that there was a "gay scene" in Paris. The gay enclaves in San Francisco and Manhattan never were so clearly and openly "documented" in this era.
5/10. Narrative. This was a very early work by the producer, and very self-absorbed (nombriliste) as the young director (Valois) seeks to cast his autobiographical "movie" with his incarcerated boyfriend, and so he searches for a suitable performer. A film about filming an biography of self!
7.5/10 Depiction of sexuality. The young performers seem to have been porn actors of the time, as many seem to have no other film credits afterwards. The rake thin physiques were not only typical of the French, but also of the era. There was frontal nudity but not of erect organs, nor of close-up activity; it was "tasteful". Only in France could this have been films, and, despite official consorship, it was eventually designated as "art" by French courts.
9/10. Physical attractiveness of protagonists. I found the protagonist (Johan), and muse, played by an adult actor, Georges Barber, who dances nude in one scene, were gorgeous. Even by today's standards.