Leaving Metropolis

Two hot-bodied hunks dominate this Canadian gay drama about an artist who falls in love with a married "straight" guy. This independent Canadian drama from Brad Fraser, the writer of Love and Human Remains focues on David, a controversial gay painter in the remote Canadian province of Manitoba. His financial success has brought him fame, money and a dull life. He basically hangs out with Kryla, a straight woman and Shannon, an HIV positive trans woman who is also his roommate. To get some inspiration, he takes a job as a waiter at a small cafe run by a married couple, Matt and Violet. The last thing he expects to do is fall in love with Matt, but that's just what happens. David starts painting again -- homages to Matt, his new love wreaking havoc on the marriage and on David. While Leaving Metropolis feels like an old-style "gay movie" -- poor writing and stilted characters, it does have something to recommend. There are several fairly intense sex scenes, both straight and gay and these two guys aren't shy about showing us their bodies. No full-frontal nude shots, but plenty of underwear and chest showing and these two boys have a lot to look at. After some research we learned that the film is based on Fraser's stage play Poor Super Man which had a whole different premise to it. The play emphasized David's personal feelings toward the comic book hero Superman and how he was just as perfect as his hero. Of course, what the play was showing was that no one is perfect. Unfortunately that storyline has been trimmed down in the film. Just a simple gay melodrama with some sweet skin.

I came twice to watch this film in a lapse of more than ten years. What motivated to write a review was the recall I had from it, when the character David (Troy Huptash) the painter, curses his best friend Kryla (Lynda Boyd) Faghag. That shocked me, coming from a gay man. And that was one of the few memoirs I had from the film. Seeing it a second time just showed I was right: it has nothing remarkable. In particular, I still have the feeling that Huptash acting has nothing profound – he seemed to read his lines. I would say that Matt (Vincent Corazza) character is deeper. He really shows he's torn between this wife and his new found lover David. Besides, Corazza is a piece of a man, well build developed and a good actor. Overall, it's a film to be watched, perhaps even twice as I did. Another predicate is to say it aged well. The conflicts shown are undying and worth reflection from the viewer.

I would like to have seen Fraser's play, POOR SUPER MAN, largely because there are plaintive allusions to Superman in the film that make me know they were, in some context not necessarily evident, important. I think the film became confused: fading pre-op transsexual, nasty self-loathing, fag hag friend with a drinking problem, a closeted straight man too innocent for life-- with an accompanying jealous wife-- and a Virgil-like artist guide who seems compelled to lead them all through the Circles of Hell.

I was not surprised that the artist and his straight man foil have sex; steamy and straightforward sex. I was shocked, however, that so much of the movie then seemed to pivot on the obvious. The only vital thing I saw were the paintings of straight man Matt which artist David had conjured out of desire and the experience of desire ( who said TS Eliot was a dessicated old bag? He knew this story backwards and forwards!). These were both titillating and of heroic dimension.

Maybe we should have skipped the film and gone, instead, to the exhibition.

I suggest one see LOVE AND HUMAN REMAINS and LEAVING METROPOLIS together; LOVE AND HUMAN REMAINS is the better of the two, but, together, one gets a real glimpse of Fraser's enormous talent.

Leaving Metropolis recalled from the far reaches of my mind lines from the 1816 Lord Byron poem, When We Two Parted:

In secret we met--

In silence I grieve,

That thy heart could forget,

Thy spirit deceive.

If I should meet thee

After long years,

How should I greet thee?

With silence and tears.

This entertaining film is well-acted, intelligently-written and directed with great sensitivity. But it hit too close to home for comfort, which is perhaps one reason why I liked it. The story never over-reaches. The character arcs, as in all good stories, propel the plot forward building ever-increasing tension that is all the more palpable for its exquisite subtlety. Typically, the denouement in most gay-theme films either lacks credibility or is utterly predictable. Neither is the case with this exceptional film. When the lights come down and ninety minutes of screen time pass like five, when one is uplifted for having met the characters but saddened for having to depart from them too soon, when one experiences pathos and ethos in measure enough for an honest cathartic moment--that, for me, marks a worthwhile, captivating, artful film. Bravo! Bravo!

What a great line.

I had never heard of the stage play, "Poor Superman," but, I wasn't one bit surprised to find at the ending credits that this was a film based on a play, and that the original playwright had penned the screenplay.

I haven't read the other comments on here, and really don't have to--but, I am shocked at the user rating. I thought this was a wonderful movie that I picked up out of the "GAY" section of our local video rental chain. I "try" gay films. In essence, I watch for about 20 minutes, and if the acting is horrible and the plot is inconceivable, I generally stop it and move on. I thought this movie was wonderful--plain and simple. The script wasn't far fetched, the situations weren't forced, and even though I tried like hell to predict where it was going, I couldn't. I kept waiting for it to disappoint me, and it didn't. The natural flow of the film is unlike any other "indy gay flick" you've ever seen. I found all the characters believable, with some of the best dialogue I've heard in a while. As a playwright, I was totally engaged, and would recommend it to anyone who asked me for my opinion.