As many of you know, the Oscars were
this past weekend, and like me, I'm sure you noticed the prevalence
of one thing. Rain Phoenix.
Okay. So maybe I was the only one. Nevertheless, each time the camera would focus in on Rain, I couldn't help
thinking of her brother. No, not the one who pretended to have a
drug problem in his infamous mockumentary, the one who sadly did succumb to one. The late River.
River's greatest artistic achievement was his role in the
first film covered on this little blog adventure of mine, Gus Van Sant's My
Own Private Idaho.
Released in 1991, My Own Private Idaho was
a film that was definitely ahead of its time. By combining a modern
day retelling of Shakespeare's Henry IV
with the story of a homeless narcoleptic young man in search of his
mother, Van Sant succeeded in proving that regardless of time period,
the essential element of a good story is its characters.
 |
| Photo credit: One From RM |
The character played by River Phoenix, Mike, broke a number of taboos held in Hollywood at the time.
The product of an incestuous relationship between mother and son, Mike is a young gay prostitute during the AIDS epidemic of the late 1980s-early 1990s. Yet, unlike what the mainstream media was characterizing boys and men like Mike as at the time, the film does not portray him as deviant or even unique. He is simply a boy looking for love.
Mike believes he has found that love in Keanu Reeves' Scott, the son of the mayor of Portland and the modern-day version of Henry IV. Scott immerses himself in Mike's world of street kids as a direct act of defiance against his prim and proper father.
Mike and Scott are a study in character contrast. Van Sant emphasizes this difference blatantly through the use of Shakespearean-inspired dialogue whenever the film is focusing on Scott’s storyline. Whenever we move back to Mike’s world, we are once again back to the everyday diction one would hear on the street. By changing up the vocabulary, we are reminded of where Mike and Scott each come from, their backgrounds and what is ultimately expected of their future.
The character of Mike is exceptionally sympathetic, due in part to Phoenix’s authentic portrayal. We see Mike as he falls into several of his narcoleptic fits. His quiet, meek demeanor shows an endearing vulnerability that makes the viewer want to just take him home and give him a better life. Like a lost puppy sitting on the curb in the pouring rain.
Scott, on the other hand, is much more theatrical, and appropriately so, considering the inspiration for his character. Scott goes out of his way to dress in overly “trashy” ways and make unnecessary scenes, all with the ultimate goal of displeasing and embarrassing his father.
The core difference between these two best friends is perhaps best summed up by a short moment in the film when they are confronted by a police officer.
Mike, being a kid of the streets his whole life, immediately runs, though he has not done anything wrong. Scott, not comprehending what the big deal is, watches confusedly as his friend dashes away, conversing with the cop as normally as he would anyone else.
This scene is immediately followed by what is considered by many, myself included, to be the most memorable moment in the film. Stranded, the two boys are sitting around a campfire in the night when Mike at last confesses his feelings for Scott.
The confession is done in such a subtle and genuine way that the viewer can feel the emotions Mike is experiencing. The fear. The anxiety. The longing. Regardless of gender or sexual orientation, anyone can understand those feelings. The pain of unrequited love.
Again demonstrating the pioneering quality of this film, though Scott does not return his friend's feelings, he accepts them and their friendship remains intact.
But sadly, the dream must end, the two boys' pasts rising from sleep to make themselves known once again.
Scott meets and supposedly falls in love with a young Italian woman, taking her back to the States with him, leaving Mike stranded in Italy. The two boys do not see each other again until after Scott has married the young woman and completely transformed himself into the man his father had always wanted him to be, becoming part of the world he had claimed to detest so much.
It is not until this far into the film, almost at the end, when the complexity of Scott's character is fully realized.
He becomes what his father had always wanted. Does that mean that he was acting the entire time he was with Mike? What about his relationship with Mike? Did he never care about him at all or in fact plan to eventually leave him the whole time?
This theory would hold true if it were not for the subtle moments during Scott’s final scenes in the film. When he is met with reminders of his past, confronted by the people he once knew, the ambivalence is clear on his face. He yearns for the life he had with Mike, and yet he will not leave his new position.
The complexity of this moment just goes to show that this is not a fairy tale. There are no happy endings. Scott remains a member of high society while Mike continues living among the streets. As the film ends, you feel as if you have come to know these characters on a strangely personal level. It's like you've entered their world and come with them on this journey, seeing their innermost thoughts. The fun, the love, the fear, the confusion. The feeling of being young but still plagued by a sense of hopelessness. This is encapsulated in the final frame. The film closes with a shot of Mike, passed out from a narcoleptic episode, being picked up on the side of the road by a passing stranger.
