Alexis Dos Santos' Glue is an unpredictable film: surprising twists at the end would have been utterly unnecessary. This is not a story that needs to be resolved. It finds resolution in its own wandering narrative lines that intercross with each other and sometimes build up into new plots and sometimes just vanish into the seemingly vague introspective monologue of the main characters.
Alexis Dos Santos creates a very interesting protagonist. A young boy that cannot yet define what it is he wants. A boy that can stare at the abyss without worrying about the abyss staring back at him (and in that sense, just like with Nietzsche's phrase, there is a full reaffirmation of life without going through the usual passages or topics). Lucas is a boy that notices with a strange fascination the hair protruding out of his best friend's armpit and wonders what the other boy might think of when indulging in solitary sexual stimulation.
Michel Foucault's affirms that fantasizing must be taken into account if one intends to understand masturbation; in Foucault's terms, masturbation is impossible without the subject's fantasy; and it's because of this fantasy more than the act itself that people in the Victorian age tried, by any means possible, to eradicate onanism. Nonetheless, the viewer cannot be privy to Lucas' fantasies when he engages into such activities. Is it then the fantasy that works as the Aristotelian primus motor that leads Lucas acts? And if so, what is Lucas constantly fantasizing about? Lucas also thinks about what it means to be a man, and why is it that a man must act according to some unwritten and yet fully endorsed social law. Andrea, a friend of his, also asks herself why it is that some activities are considered masculine while others aren't, she questions gender differences and sees how arbitrary they can be. Destabilizing Lacan's masculine and feminine positions, both characters undermine the core of it all: the name of the father. It's the name of the father, or nom de père, that inscribes a subject into the symbolic order and inserts him into either the masculine or the feminine position. It's no surprise, then, to see that Lucas at first tries to eliminate his father from his life (a father who is already an absent figure, a situation that occurs with the rest of the characters as well).
Can Lucas and his best friend Nacho continue to be friends despite Lucas hidden desire? It would seem like it as long as the friendship is structured upon an overtly heterosexual dynamic. This dynamic will be interrupted one night in which some boundaries are crossed and as a result Nacho feels guilty and decides to leave Lucas alone.
As soon as the father reinserts himself into Lucas life, the nom de père settles in. Lucas discovers inadvertently that it is not his mission to undermine the structures but to take advantage of them. And conquering Andrea's affections he also regains Nacho's interest. Then only through Andrea's body will Lucas be able to enjoy Nacho's body. When this most peculiar ménage a troi is carried out masturbation is no longer necessary, but even with the other body Lucas is still forced to sustain the fantasy that has led him from the very beginning.
Alexis Dos Santos creates a very interesting protagonist. A young boy that cannot yet define what it is he wants. A boy that can stare at the abyss without worrying about the abyss staring back at him (and in that sense, just like with Nietzsche's phrase, there is a full reaffirmation of life without going through the usual passages or topics). Lucas is a boy that notices with a strange fascination the hair protruding out of his best friend's armpit and wonders what the other boy might think of when indulging in solitary sexual stimulation.
Michel Foucault's affirms that fantasizing must be taken into account if one intends to understand masturbation; in Foucault's terms, masturbation is impossible without the subject's fantasy; and it's because of this fantasy more than the act itself that people in the Victorian age tried, by any means possible, to eradicate onanism. Nonetheless, the viewer cannot be privy to Lucas' fantasies when he engages into such activities. Is it then the fantasy that works as the Aristotelian primus motor that leads Lucas acts? And if so, what is Lucas constantly fantasizing about? Lucas also thinks about what it means to be a man, and why is it that a man must act according to some unwritten and yet fully endorsed social law. Andrea, a friend of his, also asks herself why it is that some activities are considered masculine while others aren't, she questions gender differences and sees how arbitrary they can be. Destabilizing Lacan's masculine and feminine positions, both characters undermine the core of it all: the name of the father. It's the name of the father, or nom de père, that inscribes a subject into the symbolic order and inserts him into either the masculine or the feminine position. It's no surprise, then, to see that Lucas at first tries to eliminate his father from his life (a father who is already an absent figure, a situation that occurs with the rest of the characters as well).
Can Lucas and his best friend Nacho continue to be friends despite Lucas hidden desire? It would seem like it as long as the friendship is structured upon an overtly heterosexual dynamic. This dynamic will be interrupted one night in which some boundaries are crossed and as a result Nacho feels guilty and decides to leave Lucas alone.
As soon as the father reinserts himself into Lucas life, the nom de père settles in. Lucas discovers inadvertently that it is not his mission to undermine the structures but to take advantage of them. And conquering Andrea's affections he also regains Nacho's interest. Then only through Andrea's body will Lucas be able to enjoy Nacho's body. When this most peculiar ménage a troi is carried out masturbation is no longer necessary, but even with the other body Lucas is still forced to sustain the fantasy that has led him from the very beginning.