Strong performances can’t overcome ‘Gaul’s’ faults |

Strong performances can’t overcome ‘Gaul’s’ faults

A strong first act and a middling middle yield to disastrously improbable developments in “The Dying Gaul” that realistically introduced material cannot support.

Craig Lucas, who wrote “Prelude to a Kiss” and “Longtime Companion, based “The Dying Gaul” on his 1998 off-Broadway play. He here makes his debut as a film director, drawing two good performances from his leading men and a particularly strong one from Patricia Clarkson.

But the dramaturgy of the third act cannot and will not wash.

Struggling bisexual writer Robert Sandrich (Peter Sarsgaard), who has an ex-wife and a child about age 6 to support, has named the screenplay he’s shopping “The Dying Gaul” for a Roman statue of a wounded soldier.

The play is about his love affair with his agent, Malcolm (Bill Camp in flashbacks), who is called Maurice in the screenplay and who died of AIDS. It sounds a lot like “Longtime Companion.”

Studio executive Jeffrey (Campbell Scott) offers Robert $1 million for the rights on the condition that Robert compromise the integrity of the work by changing the illness from AIDS to cancer and by changing the deceased from a man to a woman.

Though it isn’t noted in “The Dying Gaul” — and why not• — sexual encoding was done routinely before 1970, and, because it once was necessary, by many gay writers such as Tennessee Williams, William Inge, Lorenz Hart, Cole Porter and Cornell Woolrich, also known as William Irish.

Robert makes the case that the AIDS-themed movie “Philadelphia” sold well in 1993-94 (“Dying Gaul’s” “present” is 1995), but Jeffrey dismisses it as an aberration because “Most Americans hate gay people.”

With one stroke of Robert’s computer keyboard, 1,172 references to Maurice become Maggie.

The seductive, superior, oily, secretly bisexual Jeffrey invites Robert into his bed and into his Malibu home to become part of a family that includes wife and former screenwriter Elaine (Patricia Clarkson) and their two children. Jeffrey is Hollywood.

So far so good.

It’s plausible that Elaine would embrace Robert as a lost soul in a barracuda pool and to join Jeffrey in welcoming the neophyte into their world.

It’s probable that she’d find out what’s going on between the men. We’re waist-high in melodrama anyway.

The film takes a suspect left turn, though, when Elaine asks Robert the identity of his “favorite dirty chat room.”

Each step she takes upon joining him anonymously in the chat room under two aliases is more unlikely than the one before until “The Dying Gaul” spirals so far off track it cannot recover.

And it leads to yet another dumb development of an afterlife theme in which a presumably smart, articulate person fails to ask a single intelligent question about life after death. Patience expires instantly.

“Woe to him who seeks to please rather than to appall,” warns “Moby Dick” author Herman Melville in the opening frames of “The Dying Gaul,” a screenplay so bent on satisfying itself in some respects that it defies gratification in others.

Still, it is not to be denied moments that register with authenticity like the one in which Robert opts for the moolah over the imagined integrity and the one in which Elaine assimilates information she hadn’t expected to find.

  • At the Oaks, Oakmont.

    Additional Information:


    ‘The Dying Gaul’

    Rated R for strong sexual content and language; two and one-half stars.

    Two and one-half stars

  • TribLIVE commenting policy

    You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

    We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

    While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

    We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

    We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

    We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

    We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

    We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.