This Hindi movie is a pretty straightforward slice-of-life story that tries to give a modern look at what it's like to be a single, professional gay man. It dives into how he understands who he is, the chances he missed out on, and the personal choices he’s made along the way. The director used three parallel timelines to tell the story, which honestly didn't make much sense to me. While the core idea was actually pretty interesting, I really feel like this would have worked way better as a short film considering the point it was trying to make. Still, it wasn't a bad watch. The plot centers on Rachit, a city professional, and his friend Shikhar as they hang out for an evening. Rachit is a polished, urban guy, while Shikhar has more of a "small-town" rustic vibe, and you can really see the contrast between them when they talk. As the night goes on, Rachit starts thinking back to some old memories from a long time ago. He remembers being an intern after college in ...
This has to be one of the weirdest 'film' I have seen. It neither falls into dramatic recreation and neither documentary, but he way it is presented is definitely documentary style with interviews and some other snippets which are so damn slow that it can put anyone to sleep. Based on the true story of the infamous Groningen HIV case, in which three men drugged other men and infected them with their own HIV-infected blood, Feast is a bold and provocative film that skillfully reflects the questions of life, death and morality that have emerged from one of the most disquieting stories in contemporary Dutch life. Sadly what the above statement is supposed to represent doesn't get translated on the screen at all.
The film starts with a policewoman displaying all the objects that were at the sex party: from the wine glasses, CDs, to the sex toys. It was weird and long scene, but intriguing. Then we hear the conversation with Hans, one of the perpetrators, at whose house the orgies were hosted. He tells us the story of hw he met Peter online and how the duo used to host group sex parties with drug and bareback sex. He says what he did was not ok, but at the same time blaming the victims, because they should know what to expect at a sex party. And that blood exchange was, in a way, beautiful. Then we see an interview of Peter, who was the main guy behind all this and he shares his perspective saying it wasn't rape but consensual sex and what not. Then randomly we meet a botanist who tells us how virus can be transferred from one tulip to another. And then we see 3 cops interrogating a complainant. The film randomly ends as randomly it started.
I am not sure why this film was made if it wasn't; t even going to take a stand. It was snippets of multiple scenes joined together without giving meaning to it. Are you saying what the two guys did was ok? Because it was not. I understand them trying to justify because thats probably why they did it in the first place but as a film maker you should have an opinion, otherwise why are you making this film. The worse that botanist lady saying how infecting a disease can bring beautiful results on flowers, and depending on the perspective it can have beautiful results. And the idea of mixing blood could be romantic and beautiful. That was just jaw-dropping statement. The film is done in hybrid model mixing documentary, fiction and different perspectives of this creepy criminal case. This could have been interesting but this is an hardcore art house stuff, which despite its possibly interesting premise fails to invoke absolutely any emotions in the audience. (2/10)
Comments