10.08.08
Review: “Breakfast With Scot”
“Breakfast with Scot” is a gay-themed comedy/drama, based on the book by Michael Downing, that isn’t especially funny or insightful, and ends up being every bit as convoluted as its foundations that barely keep it from collapsing like the mediocre, made-for-television movie that it is – and it doesn’t even try to conceal that fact. Decidedly modest in scope and emotional limitation, shunning the flamboyancy that plagues many likeminded films, director Laurie Lynd tells what could have been a compassionate, thoughtful look at the intolerance of not only the straight community but also of the homosexuals whose internalised homophobia eradicates all that it means to accepting of one’s self too, as a commercialised “anti-I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” with good intentions and not much else.
When Sam (Ben Shenkman) brings home the effeminate son of his brother’s dead junkie of an ex-girlfriend, he and his ex-hockey playing gay homophobe of a partner Eric (Thomas Cavanaugh) have to take care of this strangely self-assured kid who is essentially their nephew. Ripe for good, old-fashioned (meaning threadbare, overused and formulaic) social commentary, Scot (Noah Bernett) is the aforementioned charasmatic, colourful soul whose carefree spirit clashes with Eric’s deeply closeted self-loathing rejection. Eric’s solution? To infuse as much machismo into one small, good-hearted little person through petty things like sports, denying him his birthright to be whoever it is he is, regardless of how uncomfortable/jealous it would make Sam or Eric. The film touches on that, or lightly prods it, but never goes deep enough to flesh out the realistic reasoning behind Eric’s shameful mentality.
Shenkman and Cavanaugh lack more than chemistry with each other. Their screen presence, as a couple and individually, is almost entirely ignorable and muted to the point where one has no choice but to ask the question whether or not there were absolutely no other suitable actors to play their parts. It’s an amiable story, which had the potential to become a significant probe into the hypocrisy surrounding the topics it covers so sweetly, without a hint of consideration making it borderline offensive. It’s essentially an after-school special that tries so hard to break free from the edgy, outspoken gay-themed films that have popped up in abundance over the past few years. It does more than that, it substitutes melodrama in place of poignancy, and forceful moralisations in place of insight leaving the film with just one direction to follow, the inevitable road of seen-it-all-before and better at that.
In between all this messy, dull mediocrity, Noah Bernett shines as the jewellery-adorned, constantly sparkly Scot. Displaying a remarkable air of maturity and nuanced congeniality at such a young age, perfectly accepting of who he is, he directly contrasts all the adults around him causing them to look within themselves and find the root of their insecurity, which would be truly interesting if it weren’t so predictable and contrived.
“Breakfast for Scot” is nothing if not bland and conservative, but it works well at bridging the gap between bold and shocking homosexual examinations and those that can inform on a level almost anyone can connect with. That would mean something more if it weren’t so set in its unadventurous ways. It does achieve one of its goals though; by not trying to any push boundaries, it ends up working within the constraints of unoriginality and despite its one-dimensional structure, one has to admit that there is something genuinely heart-warming about the entire affair but it just isn’t enough to make up for all its mishaps along the way.
Fatac Rating: **
Breakfast With Scot. Directed by Laurie Lynd. Written by Sean Reycraft. Starring: Tom Cavanagh, Ben Shenkman, Noah Bernett, Graham Greene, Fiona Reid, Jeananne Goossen and Colin Cunningham. Running Time: 95 minutes. Age Restriction: PG-13. Year: 2008. Rating: 2 out of 5 stars. [E]
Note: “Breakfast with Scot” opens this Friday in the United States, in a limited release.
Danessa said,
October 8, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Hm, I was really looking forward to this actually. Sorry to hear you didn’t like it, but you make some really interesting points, so I will watch it, but my expectations aren’t as high anymore to be honest.
Justin said,
October 8, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Ouch, you really didn’t like it? Neither did I, I saw it at Out in Africa (I’m assuming you did too) in September, and it was offensively contrived and Noah Bernett was so good, but everyone else sucked. Too freaking bad. But that little kid’s going places [he just needs to get the hell outta Canadian flicks that are funded on the basis of them having broad, commercial, unadventurous appeal].
Sonato said,
October 8, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Ugh, a gay film that is barely gay and doesn’t even do anything with its ungayness? Hm.
Salmaya said,
October 8, 2008 at 10:41 pm
That boy is SO cute, and he really is the best thing about this lame movie. I saw it at TIFF last year, for no reason, and it was such a waste of my time. It is something you would find on TV.
Kerry said,
October 8, 2008 at 10:50 pm
But that little boy looks so adorable! Ah, sucks when films just aren’t as good as they could be. What’s the point of it all really? I might just see it just to get a glimpse of Noah, whom you all seem to adore.
Sam Juliano said,
October 8, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Well, this surely a probing piece of film criticism, and it examines a film that seems to have some built-in fascinations: case in point the entire second paragraph, which presents an intrigue with the effeminate nephew under the auspicies of homophobes.
Yet the film is basically summed up succinctly by this sentence: “BREAKFAST FOR SCOT is nothing if not bland and conservative, but it works well at bridging the gap between bold and shocking homosexual examinations and those that can inform on a level almost anyone could connect with.”
Beautifully written essay which evinces a certain level of *sigh* resignation. Thanks for the tip-off. I will see it, and keep your eloquent take in mind.
Vera said,
October 8, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I read the novel several years ago and really liked it. I remember seeing the trailer for the movie, seems like ages ago, and thinking, “Well, it looks like they fucked that one up.” And it from your review it sounds like I was right. Too bad.
Matthew Lucas said,
October 9, 2008 at 2:56 am
Shenkman was actually quite good in ANGELS IN AMERICA, but this sounds like a missed opportunity.
J.D. said,
October 9, 2008 at 3:56 am
Your letter grade scale includes E? How quirky. <3
I’ve never even heard of this, but it doesn’t sound too great, and not only from your review. Eh.
Gonzalo said,
October 9, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Ah, sometimes I forget how great you write when you are negative on a particular film, very nicely done – and I definitely wont be seeing this one. I’m gonna avoid it like the plague.
Sasha Perez said,
October 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I got talked into seeing this at TIFF last year; worst mistake ever, it was so lame I don’t know how it even got into Toronto in the first place….oh, yeah, it’s a Canadian film! That explains it all….[puh-leaze]
Nick Plowman said,
October 9, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Yup, I use a rating different to the US in terms of alphabetical ratings.
I am so glad I am not alone in my dislike of this awfully misguided movie.
Matthew Lucas said,
October 9, 2008 at 6:12 pm
In elementary school we used Es instead of Fs…didn’t start using Fs until high school I don’t think.
Nick Plowman said,
October 9, 2008 at 7:24 pm
My rating scale goes like this, just like how our grades work in school, for clarity.
5 stars – A+
4.5 Stars – A+
4 Stars – A
3.5 Stars – B
3 Stars – C
2.5 Stars – D
2 Stars – E
1.5 Stars – F
and everything other than that doesn’t deserve an alphabetical symbol.
Matthew Lucas said,
October 9, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Gotcha…I was a bit confused because here when E is used it is used instead of F…but generally we just skip the E and go straight to F.
Yeah I know it’s weird…but it’s America so that is to be expected.
jenny demarkos said,
October 11, 2008 at 10:10 pm
yeah, why this isn’t on TV amazes me.