Philadelphia International Gay and Lesbian Film Festival July 14, 1995

The unnamed "mystery film" at the PIGLFF did indeed turn out to be the highly anticipated and star-studded "Jeffrey".

Starting off with about 30 minutes of furiously gut-busting antics, in the form of sight gags, exquisite queeny quotables, and the always reliable components of screwball romance and sex farce, the film went a little schizo, unable to decide if it was going to try and hit all the bases, or not, and if it was going to be heavy drama, or not, and if it was going to be Fag 101 or not. It may also be your view, upon seeing the film yourself, that this "schizoid" character is actually a feature and not a bug, since it is also true that at no point did the action fall entirely into [ pathos | preaching ] and every time, just in the nick of time, fortunately, the sheer talent of the performers, and wit of the screenplay rescued matters.

The list of guest cameos (Christine Baranski, Sigourney Weaver, Kathy Nijimy, Nathan Lane, Robert Klein, Kevin Nealon, Olympia Dukakis, Patrick Stewart [who isn't really a cameo]) is probably more important than just a marketing strategy. In all these cases, this normally high-priced talent was probably the single most important factor in rescuing the stagy/televisiony dialogue and techinques for the screen so that they wouldn't have to be re-written out of exsitence. What would have been on-screen preaching in lesser hands was vibrant movie-making. Nice.

A big question mark, of course, is how Steven Weber, TV's "Wings" guy, handles the title character. He appears extremely comfortable in the "sex" scenes at the beginning of the film, including a sequence which has him pumping then dismounting his partner when the condom breaks. His expressions of lust and frustration were just wonderful, and a very big hit with the audience, which responded with lots of "recognition" applause. Again, the roller-coaster ride which is this film's believability factor takes a dip just before Jeffrey is caught in his date-breaking lie and fumbles for conversation - great stuff. He looked and sounded like the real thing to *moi*. (And the little episode where Jeffrey/Weber gets a small part in a TV series episode playing the queeny neighbor is priceless.) Several lines did seem to fall flat with the crowd: a running gag about recovering sexual compulsives included a joke about oral sex and being an agent was hampered a bit by too-quick editing, and it didn't help that it wasn't all that funny in the first place. It got the coldest reaction of the running "12 step" gags. When Darius assures Jeffrey that "HIV Positive men are the hottest.", you could hear a tiny collective gasp, and, if you chose to drop a pin, probably the sound of it hitting the floor and bouncing.

Should you see this movie? Yes, yes, yes. You should see this movie for the same reasons you should (according to the film's philosophy and exhortations) *embrace* *life*. It may not be the perfect *queer* *film* (as if any one could be), but it is very funny, very romantic (great date flick!!), very relevant, very 90's, very unapologetic, very "Who cares if other people are 'in the room'?". Advised before the start of the film that a wonderful surprise would await us if we hung around after the credits went by, it did indeed come to pass that Co-Producer and Screenwriter Paul Rudnick, of Libby Gelman-Waxler and "Addams Family Values" fame, grabbed a cab from Borders (Boooo...!!) to get down to the theater and answer our questions.

Very little was asked about the film itself, as (I imagine) most of the people attending had already seen the play. What we did learn about Jeffrey from Our Time With Paul was that * Rudnick was unaware of the bizarre "AIDS disclaimer" that quickly rolled by at the end of the credits. No one, even those who paid close attention, were able to describe what it actually said with any more detail than that it seemed to be a "medical treatment" disclaimer, and that no one should presume that anything said about the disease or treatment thereof should consider the content anything but dramatic license. I imagine that the mention of a particular prescription Darius was on, and the folk treatment administered him when he dehydrated, was the impetus for this particular warning.

* The Screen and The Stage are two different beasts. Paul was asked about the addition of two female characters in the "church scene", where Jeffrey is hounded by a horny Catholic priest (Nathan Lane - faaaabulous!!) whose confessional is plastered with Broadway posters. The question's presumption was that it dramatically altered the impact of the scene, so "Why were they added?" probably seemed like a sensible question. Rudnick went on to explain the problems one faces in writing for stage vs. screen: the timing, blah blah blah. We also learned that an alternate ending for the scene was shot and left unused. Instead of Lane belting out "Everything's Coming Up Roses" as Jeffrey makes his hasty exit (the rights to the song weren't secured when filming began), Lane is surrounded by a bevy of altar boys, and exclaims "I love show business!". (I'm glad they got the song, myself.)

* Rudnick maintains that there is no intellectual hand-holding going on in the script, to bring the Great Unwashed (not his words) up to speed on Topics Gay. I would disagree except that this was my sixth straight day of Festival-going, and I have to admit that one loses perspective under those circumstances. He does claim that it has been well-received in front of "general" audiences. (BTW, Public acceptance in America's malls is the basis for one of the best sight-gags in the film.) He also expressed relief at the route the film took to theaters (picked up by Working Man's Films, then on to Orion Classics) so that the content could be left intact, garnering its "R" rating. (The full page print ad in the PIGLFF program guide claims that the film has not yet been rated.)

* The final scene, which is supposed to take place on an observation deck on one of those big ol' buildings in NYC, had to be transplanted to the Essex House ballroom. According to Rudnick, not only did any view which tried to capture the couple _and_ the skyline end up looking like it was shot on Rikers' Island, it was difficult for the two stars to circle and maintain the delicate balloon-tossing they were engaged in.

* The announcement that filming took 5 weeks was greeted by many "Ooh"s and "Aah"s, but it was a little difficult to get excited after hearing, only a few days before, that "Lie Down With Dogs", also in the festival, was 1 camera and 12 days in Provincetown. Whatever. From my experiences at this festival, it looks like technology and tenacity are what will bring us the great films of the 90s.