I love the way people delude themselves. And I wonder slightly, just slightly, if it is not incest that drives people delude themselves, I mean into investing some kind of interest in this soft corn short. A bad dad supposedly and since their oppressive childhood under his military demeanor towards all things perfectly executed, forces two brothers into love for each other, love that takes a deviant turn, but we never have a quasi-sexual acting out that would heat things up and draw the line we want or not to transgress. As it is, Marshall, the younger actor, cannot but resemble some kind of Brent Corrigan's amanuensis. Both brothers are so athletic that it's a pity they don't tease us directly with all the incestuous potential. And it's a pity people draw themselves into a tender delusion of incest acting like, but not out, into the common light of our world, some alibi for tenderness. It is not even that tenderness has some incestuous alibi. Or maybe this is the point. For this film is not alone in such matters. Can we please have some kind of ultimatum concerning matters of star-crossed tenderness, not crossing over into quasi - and queasy - incest?
Psychoanalysis claims that incest is impossible AND it has to be prohibited. And it is simply like this guys. Otherwise one's sentimental crossbreed runs the risk of being impossible and prohibited. Tenderness can change the world. It does not need an incestuous alibi. Why, would that heat up the crime of affection?
Psychoanalysis claims that incest is impossible AND it has to be prohibited. And it is simply like this guys. Otherwise one's sentimental crossbreed runs the risk of being impossible and prohibited. Tenderness can change the world. It does not need an incestuous alibi. Why, would that heat up the crime of affection?