This is your typical indie coming-of-age tale about a teenager, though it’s clearly working with a very tiny budget. Set within a migrant family living in Southern California’s Coachella Valley, the movie digs into how fragile old-school traditions and expectations can be. We follow a teenage son as he goes through the process of coming out and struggles to find acceptance while dealing with homophobia, domestic abuse, and a messy love triangle that involves his own sister. Goyo is seventeen and just about to graduate from high school. Since he’s been a bit more feminine since he was a little kid, he’s always had to deal with emotional and physical transition from his dad, Ramon, who is obsessed with him being "a man." The only real love he gets is from a lady next door who actually respects him for who he is. The family lives in a Mexican community where everyone works on a grape farm, but things get shaken up when a new guy named Lucio arrives. Lucio basically seduces Goyo ...
This was an interesting weird film. I don’t think I still completely understand what exactly happened with the whole twist, but to be honest I really don’t care. Yes, the film is confusing, yet pretty straight forward and it still keeps for an engaging viewing. It never lets you bore besides the confusion that it adds. Also I don’t think it is a gay film per say. Yes there is a gay couple and yes maybe they try to seduce the straight guy but thats that.40-year-old Anna brings her much younger lover, Stefan, to her childhood home. She meets her old school friend Bernd and his boyfriend Marc of 20 years. The protagonists stay in a secluded location )of this house in east Germany) for a few nights, the house serves as a pressure cooker of emotions and sexual tensions. There is open-pit mine activities going o the town that sends occasional small quakes in the region. The metaphor also is important since it is the similar quakes thats happening in Anna’s life. Marc, who is a well respected psychiatrist, enjoys stirring up shit by asking very uncomfortable questions to everyone around him. He clearly flirts with Stefan and asks Anna very uncomfortable questions about the past when Anna and Bernd used to date each other. After a while Marc’s psychological pontificating seems to lead to a physical manifestation of…well…something. The narrative goes into a circular motion allowing Anna a unique opportunity to observe things from another perspective. And this is where the film gets very confusing, leading to 2 possible endings. Now which one is the correct one?
The best thing about this film were the actors. They all shared great dynamics with each other and were all really good. Their interactions are full of possibilities and hence as a viewer, I felt always on the hook as to where the story ill lead to. Clearly there is a big connection between the past activity and the present. The weird dream sequence that Anna has sort of gets explained by the circular narrative towards the end, which itself only adds to the confusion. I wonder if more time was given to it, would it have made sense? Also, the mood of the film kept changing between psychiatric evaluation by March vs he trying to create some sexual tension with Stefan. I wish there was more of the latter. The cinematography is beautiful and the quiet old town looks magical. I felt like I should go there for a holiday.
Bit confusing and a bit creepy, it was an interesting watch but the fact that I didn’t completely grasp the concept prevents me from giving it a high rating. (6/10)
Comments
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/bright-night-nachthelle-munich-review-721911
But still appreciate and always open to constructive feedback.
BTW.. I just discovered your blog, and am thoroughly enjoying it!