Dana Privette
I like all sorts of films be it blockbuster or indie and this movie was just pitiful. Why anyone would want to star in a movie with Keanu Reeves and his stellar acting skills is beyond me. Quite possibly one of the worst, most pointless movies I've ever seen. I was intrigued after reading, "Last Night at the Viper Room" to see some of River's movies other than "Stand By Me" because I'm convinced he was going to be one of the greats. His acting is the only good thing about this movie. I wish I would have counted how many times I had to pause this movie to go and do other things. It didn't hold my interest in the least. I should have known when I saw that Flea was making an attempt at acting in this that it was in no way a serious film. The strangely posed sex scenes were nothing but corny. You'll catch yourself rolling your eyes quite often. I was hoping for a good film, even something artistic but instead I got bizarre, and trying too hard.
david-sarkies
I originally saw this movie years ago and I suspect that I knew that it had relations with Henry IV but until recently I had not see the original Shakespeare play. However, having read both parts, watched a BBC version of both parts, and also seen an amalgamation of both plays on stage I can say that I am much more familiar with it so that I can have a different understanding of this film.When I had first seen the film I had liked it, and I must say that I still like it, but the second time around, including being more familiar with Henry IV, I must say that it did not appeal to me as much. In part I think Van Sant has pulled away significantly from the original play with regards to the themes of the play as well as with regards to the character of Scott (played by Keanu Reeves and is Hal from the play). In a way Scott and Hal are both rebellious teenagers, but Scott is much more conscious of his desire to 'come good' when he turns 21 whereas this does not seem to be the case with Hal. In fact Hal has to prove to his father that he desires to become good, whereas it is clear from the film that Scott is in no danger of losing his inheritance.In Henry IV Poins is more of a supporting character who acts not so much as Hal's conscience but rather as a friend. In the film though Mike (River Pheonix, who corresponds with Poins) plays a much more important and central role. In fact the film is actually focused on Mike, as he goes on a fruitless search for his mother. There is tension between Mike and Scott because it is clear that Mike loves Scott but this love is not returned. This is something that we know is never going to happen, particularly when Scott says at the opening that as long as you do it for money then it is okay, but as soon as you begin to do it for free, you grow wings (and with that he then looks up at Mike as if suggesting that Mike has already grown wings). Another difference we see is that Scott readily deserts Scott when he gets his inheritance and finds the woman that he takes as his wife (though there is no indicating that there is any love, and we raise the question as to whether Scott is capable of love).Henry IV is many cases is about the right of passage that Hal takes from being a rebellious teenager to becoming a king, but this is something that we do not necessarily see here. Scott is not going through a rite of passage, nor is he learning, he is just having fun and behaving like a child while he is a child, and when he comes into his inheritance, he rejects his past and moves on. Okay, at the final scene, were the two funerals are contrasted (and one could say that both of Scott's fathers have died and are being buried) we see a part of Scott looking on at the other funeral. In a way the past has died, but one past, that of the wild and chaotic nature of youth, is also being buried to be replaced with the cold, clinical nature of adult life.I actually found Van Sant's attempts at Shakespearian language to be rather contrived. In the two scenes which are clearly taken from the play, that of Scott's rejection of Bob (who is the Falstaff figure) and the scene were he is mocking Bob after the robbery, we see that Van Sant is trying to create the poetic nature of the original play but using modern language in doing so. To me this fails completely. I can sort of see what he is going, and in a way he is using the play to build upon Scott's character, but the thing is that the movie is focused on Mike and not on Scott.Mike is vulnerable in many ways. Not only does he not understand himself, or even his sexuality (he confuses friendship with erotic love, and this is something that is not returned) he suffers from Narcolepsy. As long as Scott is around, Mike is safe, but as soon as Scott leaves we discover that he is more vulnerable than ever. In a way Mike's search for his mother is his search for security, in the same way that his quest for love is also his quest for security. We know that as long as Scott is around, Mike is secure, but when we see him on the street, back in Portland, we know that this is no longer the case.Then there is Idaho. The movie begins in Idaho, ends in Idaho, and visits Idaho in the middle. It is as if it is this tranquil place between the horrors of the world outside. It is the world of the unique, of the quite, and of the peaceful that pushes away the world of the street. We see the street in Seattle, in Portland, and even in Rome. Granted, we leave Rome for the country, but in a way it is not Idaho. Mike feels secure in Idaho, but not in Italy. However, we learn at the end that no even Idaho offers that protection, for when he collapses again, he is robbed. I guess the idea of the title suggests that is the case, one's search for peace, and that part inside of you were you can feel secure.
bkoganbing
My Own Private Idaho is a bittersweet tale of two rent boys in the Pacific coast are and the contrasts between them. With the help of the greatest writer in the English language ever, William Shakespeare, Gus Van Sant draws two great characterizations in the characters realized by River Phoenix and Keanu Reeves.You couldn't find two more opposite types in the world. River is a street kid through and through. Even the circumstances of his birth are a tragedy that I won't reveal. His mother leaves him as a youngster and he can't get over it and go on. He was raised by an older brother in the sparsely populated 'potato state' as he calls Idaho and the and the family dynamic was strained. He's a gay kid in an area where that could be deadly so he takes off for the fleshpots of Seattle and Portland where his youth and beauty will bring him some cash. He has no skills or education to support himself any other way. Sad, but the only hope this kid has of a decent life is to get taken up by some older sugar daddy who might just treat him to an education of some kind. That is if he can decide to just get over a bad home life and lack of a normal family. I've known gay kids who came from as lousy a background as River Phoenix and who never could get over it. River has developed an interesting defense mechanism and a psychologist would have field day with him if he got him on the coach. When the stress gets too much for him he just has a seizure like an epileptic, but in fact all he does is fall asleep. It's called narcilepsy, but he's vulnerable in that state as the film shows as well. River just tunes out the world. Keanu comes from a different world, his father is the Mayor of Portland, but he's dying and hopes to have his son take over the family political dynasty. But Tom Troupe is bitterly disappointed in his 'effeminate' son who like Prince Hal likes to hang out with lowlifes and street trash. Keanu's Falstaff is William Richert, a gay older man of a Falstaffian bloated belly who likes the young stuff and in his world probably treats them well. Gus Van Sant was quite imaginative in seeing the gay subtext that could be drawn from Prince Hal and Falstaff. Indeed Keanu says that Richert is closer to him than his real father. But he also says that he's planning to work a change in him when he comes into his own. And he says it in dialog taken from Shakespeare's Henry IV Parts one and two.The most touching scene is with River and Keanu out in the country at a fire where River basically confesses his love for him. It's love to be sure, but River also sees in Keanu a figure who has confidence and self assurance and those are the qualities that draws him to Reeves. What Phoenix misreads is that self confidence is really a safety net that he knows he has and at the appropriate time uses. Although he's gay for pay as he states, he still allows River to have sex with him. I suspect that Gus Van Sant from his own background knows full well that gay for pay is not always 100% absolute.Reeves goes on to his destiny for which if you know your Shakespeare know what that is. Phoenix's destiny is less clear, more than likely an oblivion that a lot of those kids go to. As a fantasy I'd like to think that as Reeves denies himself, closets himself as he moves on in life, that an older River comes back to remind him of his roots.We all know of the tragedy of River Phoenix who died way too young just like a lot of street kids do ironically. There is a second tragedy in the My Own Private Idaho. Rodney Harvey who played one of River and Keanu's street peers also died way too young in similar circumstances to Phoenix. Not only does Van Sant give us an excellent two person character study, but his other character with less dialog than the leads also are fully formed characters which is the mark that many including me say indicates a great film. My Own Private Idaho is a troubling picture, but a realistic one of the underside of gay life that we cannot ignore.
