Jesse Rosen is a very attractive guy with a wonderful smile--although his hair line recedes oddly throughout the movie as though he's two days from going bald--and plays young-and-sexually-confused well. His female friend who's going through her own confusion does a better job, though, mostly because her character has something of an arc to follow (and better lines to recite). As others have pointed out, the biggest problem here is that just as the third act of the movie starts, and the resolution of the issues begins to settle, the movie ends. For a moment I thought something was wrong with the TV, but nope, it's as though Rosen just decided, let's stop here while I think about how to end this. Still, the movie is worth seeing just for its pleasant, rather realistic recreation of young 20-somethings in LA in 2008.
17 Reviews
Cute But Fluffy Film
cfbrown777 June 2009
There is nothing particularly bad about the Art of Being Straight, but there is nothing especially good. Rachel Castillo does deliver a delightful performance as the lead character's ex-girlfriend who is now in a committed lesbian relationship, but dealing with her attraction to the new guy who moved in next-door. Unfortunately, the parallel main plot and lead performance given by the writer/director Jesse Rosen is not as engaging as he explores his own sexual identity. Mr. Rosen acting is lifeless and his character is dull. However, the film's tone is warm, the dialogue is sincere, and the movie smartly avoids heavy angst (for the most part) and tedious academic explorations of identity politics; however, it just ends up coming up short. The movie is neither intellectually provocative, nor particularly sexy (I am not arguing for more graphic sex scenes, but the few sex scenes which were shot are so insipid and boring they should have simply been left out). The film also occasionally stretches credulity when it needs to be believable. But most problematic is that the movie fails to deliver much of a message beyond "life isn't always black and white"--something other films have conveyed in a much more thoughtful and effective manner. In the end, the film is a mildly interesting "slice of life" flick, but mostly it's just a harmless bit of fluff. It's something worth catching for free on cable, if you have an empty hour on your hands, but it is nothing worth going out of your way to see.
Wow, What A Shocker!
martimusross2 March 2020
The Art Of Being Straight
Set in the late 1990's this movie attempted to examine two rather absurd assumptions
Firstly when young people are exploring their sexuality it swings backwards and forwards between gay and straight eventually landing on a determined sexuality for life, quite ridiculous.
Secondly that even in the 1990's people were conflicted over their sexuality, an even more ridiculous assertion. Exploration is not confliction.
The only shred of sense lay in that it is up to any individual to decide the moment when they decide to come out to their friends
The script was bland, the situations contrived, the liaisons unbelievable and the acting had more ham than the supermarket.
What I really hated was the portrayal that being gay was linked to guilt, deceit and around something bad.....how crass!
Set in the late 1990's this movie attempted to examine two rather absurd assumptions
Firstly when young people are exploring their sexuality it swings backwards and forwards between gay and straight eventually landing on a determined sexuality for life, quite ridiculous.
Secondly that even in the 1990's people were conflicted over their sexuality, an even more ridiculous assertion. Exploration is not confliction.
The only shred of sense lay in that it is up to any individual to decide the moment when they decide to come out to their friends
The script was bland, the situations contrived, the liaisons unbelievable and the acting had more ham than the supermarket.
What I really hated was the portrayal that being gay was linked to guilt, deceit and around something bad.....how crass!
A mediocre attempt
Gordon-1124 November 2009
This film is about a young man who moves to Los Angeles to pursue his dreams. His life gets complicated when his boss takes a special interest in him.
"The Art of Being Straight" is a realistic down to earth story. The lead character Jesse Rosen is handsome and is convincing as a confused man. However, the story telling is not so good. It fails to create tension or suspense. There is little to stir the emotions of viewers, which I find a fatal flaw. The only interesting character is Rachel Castillo, whose performance is the most natural and convincing. I guess "The Art of Being Straight" might be an autobiographical account from the writer. It is not terrible, it is not particularly entertaining either.
"The Art of Being Straight" is a realistic down to earth story. The lead character Jesse Rosen is handsome and is convincing as a confused man. However, the story telling is not so good. It fails to create tension or suspense. There is little to stir the emotions of viewers, which I find a fatal flaw. The only interesting character is Rachel Castillo, whose performance is the most natural and convincing. I guess "The Art of Being Straight" might be an autobiographical account from the writer. It is not terrible, it is not particularly entertaining either.
Really bad film
janus126 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This film goes nowhere. If it is supposed to be a man's serious concern about whether or not he is gay, one cannot tell much about what he is thinking except for possibly one scene in a car with his lesbian friend. The film ends with no resolution at all. If he has decided to accept himself, the audience has not idea why. His earlier male relationship is not dealt with. He tells his lesbian friend--who has dealt with her own personal gay concerns--that he is "thinking" about going back to school. He takes some pictures, comes home to his straight friends, to only one of whom he has come out, smiles, and, bingo, end of picture. A total letdown.
Not really "Art" but still
thesar-25 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
While The Art of Being Straight wasn't a terrible movie, original for the most part – that is, having a convincingly straight/confused character, it's not great either. I give them kudos for the effort for the majority of the film.
After Jon (Rosen) breaks up with his girlfriend and moves to a frat household to be one of the boys again, he discovers he likes, well, boys. The movie just pans out to his "self-discovery" at a relatively slow pace, even at just 70 minutes.
Honestly, it's been a few weeks since I've seen this (I'm catching up on a lot of reviews) and nothing really stuck out for me to really remember or recommend. Again, I believed he was straight, for the most part, and that you rarely get in movies like this. In fact, for the majority of gay themed films I watch where a straight male barely puts one foot out of the closet, they might as well mirror RuPaul. So good for them. Too bad the movie as a whole wasn't as good or rememberable. Watch for a quickie before your real movie night.
Oh, and side note: for having an independent film, and for someone who wrote, directed, starred, etc, you'd think he wouldn't have gone all out on his "baby" for the DVD. Well, that sucked. Bad. I always appreciate a good audio commentary, outtakes, behind the scenes, etc, to learn more about all they had to go through and sometimes understand the film more. I seriously can't imagine an "Extended/Special Edition" of this movie, but if it does come out, I will re-rent for that purpose.
After Jon (Rosen) breaks up with his girlfriend and moves to a frat household to be one of the boys again, he discovers he likes, well, boys. The movie just pans out to his "self-discovery" at a relatively slow pace, even at just 70 minutes.
Honestly, it's been a few weeks since I've seen this (I'm catching up on a lot of reviews) and nothing really stuck out for me to really remember or recommend. Again, I believed he was straight, for the most part, and that you rarely get in movies like this. In fact, for the majority of gay themed films I watch where a straight male barely puts one foot out of the closet, they might as well mirror RuPaul. So good for them. Too bad the movie as a whole wasn't as good or rememberable. Watch for a quickie before your real movie night.
Oh, and side note: for having an independent film, and for someone who wrote, directed, starred, etc, you'd think he wouldn't have gone all out on his "baby" for the DVD. Well, that sucked. Bad. I always appreciate a good audio commentary, outtakes, behind the scenes, etc, to learn more about all they had to go through and sometimes understand the film more. I seriously can't imagine an "Extended/Special Edition" of this movie, but if it does come out, I will re-rent for that purpose.
Let's repeat it all together: bi-sex-u-a-li-ty
nnenok16 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
In general, this movie is pretty cute. It's not overly dramatic and quite realistic. The cast is likable: the lead Jon is convincing in all his awkwardness towards men and relaxation towards women, the best friend Andy, the "weird" friend Maddy and her neighbour are all really cool characters. The story is really simple - a group of people exploring their sexuality and love.
The only thing that really bothered me is the apparent lack of the word "bisexuality" in the movie makers' dictionary. If the movie would promote itself with this term, the lead character's dilemma would be much simpler and the LGBT community would get a good enough representative in cinematography. Because what is usually perceived a problem with bisexual people is that they are supposedly perverse and regularly hopping in beds of everyone. This movie nicely shows the feeling of being bisexual (Jon's quote "Some days I know I'm completely straight. Some days I don't") and people who discover they're not (Maddy). But since they don't mention bisexuality, the lead is left wondering whether he's gay or straight - even though it's pretty obvious he likes both.
The only thing that really bothered me is the apparent lack of the word "bisexuality" in the movie makers' dictionary. If the movie would promote itself with this term, the lead character's dilemma would be much simpler and the LGBT community would get a good enough representative in cinematography. Because what is usually perceived a problem with bisexual people is that they are supposedly perverse and regularly hopping in beds of everyone. This movie nicely shows the feeling of being bisexual (Jon's quote "Some days I know I'm completely straight. Some days I don't") and people who discover they're not (Maddy). But since they don't mention bisexuality, the lead is left wondering whether he's gay or straight - even though it's pretty obvious he likes both.
Surprising Flick
scootmandutoo13 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie surprised me on many different levels. I was scratching my head, however, coming here and finding a relatively low rating. The comments, though, are fairly spot-on.
I am very wary when somebody gets listed as writer, star and director. In the case of this movie, I realized very early on that Mr. Rosen is not only very good with dialogue, but also with conveying characters that are multi-faceted.
The performances in this film, especially of Rosen and his female lead, Rachel Castillo, are very strong. It is helped by a script that is very believable, for the most part.
There were many instances where gestures and the economy of less dialogue caused moments that were very moving and impressive.
What prevented me from giving this film a higher rating was the disappointing nature of the interaction between Rosen and his best friends. As another commenter stated, outside of his best friend, they hardly seemed straight. Which is quite odd, because some of the supporting casting is very well done.
But the whole last scene seemed to me as if the production ran out of money. Exactly where you think there will be some dramatic tension when his friends may react to the fact that he had outed himself to another friend, the movie just stops and doesn't even deal with it.
I assume Rosen was trying to make the case that after coming out, one's friends will treat you exactly as they did before (well, if they are enlightened friends, yes). But, in this movie, one never knows, because it doesn't get addressed, which makes no sense because prior scenes allude to the fact that it might be a problem.
Summary: The positives: Some of the most realistic representations ever written about the coming out process, some very nuanced and strong performances.
The negatives: It is an unfinished work. It just ends. Some of the friends are badly miscast.
Overall....this movie shows Rosen has an awful lot of talent. Definitely worth checking out. But don't expect much in the way of the film's resolution. It is, as was written earlier, a slice of life. Just not a complete slice.
I am very wary when somebody gets listed as writer, star and director. In the case of this movie, I realized very early on that Mr. Rosen is not only very good with dialogue, but also with conveying characters that are multi-faceted.
The performances in this film, especially of Rosen and his female lead, Rachel Castillo, are very strong. It is helped by a script that is very believable, for the most part.
There were many instances where gestures and the economy of less dialogue caused moments that were very moving and impressive.
What prevented me from giving this film a higher rating was the disappointing nature of the interaction between Rosen and his best friends. As another commenter stated, outside of his best friend, they hardly seemed straight. Which is quite odd, because some of the supporting casting is very well done.
But the whole last scene seemed to me as if the production ran out of money. Exactly where you think there will be some dramatic tension when his friends may react to the fact that he had outed himself to another friend, the movie just stops and doesn't even deal with it.
I assume Rosen was trying to make the case that after coming out, one's friends will treat you exactly as they did before (well, if they are enlightened friends, yes). But, in this movie, one never knows, because it doesn't get addressed, which makes no sense because prior scenes allude to the fact that it might be a problem.
Summary: The positives: Some of the most realistic representations ever written about the coming out process, some very nuanced and strong performances.
The negatives: It is an unfinished work. It just ends. Some of the friends are badly miscast.
Overall....this movie shows Rosen has an awful lot of talent. Definitely worth checking out. But don't expect much in the way of the film's resolution. It is, as was written earlier, a slice of life. Just not a complete slice.
Has not aged well
mythopoeic30 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
In light of the recent developments in Hollywood, I think a lot of people will find this movie quite offensive. The character of Paul is the protagonist's professional superior yet invites him to his home and engages in absolutely unprofessional and sexually harassing behavior in order to seduce him. Irrelevant to how this is meant to set up the rest of the plot, I think that this will be more than sufficient to some of today's audience to completely tune out. Personally, while I found Paul to be a disgusting predator what ultimately turned me off about rhia movie were the rest of the unsympathetic characterizations, tepid conflict development, and unengaging subplots. I try to have a bit of patience with LGBTQ themed movies but unfortunately I cannot recommend this one in good conscience.
Worth seeing
user-117219 June 2009
Though not a major movie, it is fun and has many nicely observed moments. I found the characters believable, especially the protagonist, played by Jarod Grey. He does a very good job. There are many scenes in which I thought he seemed completely real, such as when he gets chewed out at work for not sending a FedEx package properly, smoking pot in his driveway with his kooky neighbor and telling her he has slept with a guy, coming home to confusingly find his macho apartment mates with GAY spelled on their chests in grease paint, his reaction in the party scene when a girl he has recently slept with asks him whether he is gay, and especially I found the seduction scene very convincing and well done.
The Art of Bad Writing
myronlearn3 November 2023
Jesse Rosen not only directed this Cali-venued monstrosity, but also wrote it. It deals with overgrown men who are LA misfits, trying to navigate the waters of sexuality and gender affiliation. I'm not sure where Rosen received his training as a writer, but for the sake of that institution, it's best he not reveal it. Once again, we're thrown into the boring world of LaLa land with a cast of characters lacking any depth, consistency or interest for that matter. The acting is also awful. Nobody really cares about these pampered, spoiled brats but themselves as well as some over enabling parents. The guys aren't anywhere as good looking as they think they are. The women do nothing to help the women's cause whatsoever. Overall, this film should never have happened. Jesse Rosen should return to Freehold NJ and start all over again.
Won me over with the performances
Keb-brand24 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is a very "slice of life" film. I normally prefer movies with a stronger plot. However, the quality of the performances completely won me over, and I wound up enjoying it a lot.
Basically, the movie is about a young guy who moves to LA and has a gay experience with his boss. He's not sure what it means, and it's never really clear whether he is gay or not. The rest of the movie involves the repercussions for him and his relationship with his straight friends.
In a parallel plot line, his lesbian friend is having trouble in her relationship, and is considering sleeping with a guy.
The plot is pretty thin, and the movie was clearly shot on a very slight budget. But the performances are completely engrossing. Also, the sexually ambiguous nature of the two leading characters is something that I haven't seen depicted in film before. It feels very fresh and contemporary.
Basically, the movie is about a young guy who moves to LA and has a gay experience with his boss. He's not sure what it means, and it's never really clear whether he is gay or not. The rest of the movie involves the repercussions for him and his relationship with his straight friends.
In a parallel plot line, his lesbian friend is having trouble in her relationship, and is considering sleeping with a guy.
The plot is pretty thin, and the movie was clearly shot on a very slight budget. But the performances are completely engrossing. Also, the sexually ambiguous nature of the two leading characters is something that I haven't seen depicted in film before. It feels very fresh and contemporary.
A pilot film for a TV series
Toadinthehole28 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A closet 'bottom'(the term used by his friend in the film) finds himself in somebody's dreams. He's all dizzy from a recent breakup with the girl back home and all fresh to LA with his cute big eyes and smile to die for. Who will resist him? The boys are not unaware of his charms and shoot pool, throw balls, get pally and all sweaty with John and wonder why he looks so darn aloof when he walks straight past them looking mysterious and glossy. Little do they know that all our John is really doing is developing his photo career with his boss like any normal boy would, behind their backs.
If only John knew what he was doing getting all tied up in his secret life!
John's confusion takes him to that familiar architype 'the predatory queen' who with that man's man look(no girlyboy for him)is probably in post boyfriend fallout and keen to shift John into gay gear and top him. This seduction scene is the best scene in the film of course. Very very funny. And so well done.
The whole film would make a great sitcom and as others have already pointed out here, the fact that it ends suddenly and all too soon could be its cue here in my opinion.....more to come? Yes please.
Three cheers to its director, main lead and writer who may have unwittingly introduced a much needed theme to our movie screens...bisexuality, but notice how everyone in the film assumes that if the main character John sleeps with a guy he is automatically gay. Why? Is this the point the script is making or is that true to life? Is it not possible for John to like both equally? None of his friends say its cool to dig both. They think in black or white it seems to me. But that's the point...why?
Obviously its nice to be left thinking a film has ended, but clearly there's much more ground to cover...so go for it Mr Rosen sir. Develop the plot in a part two, three four....
Does John coming out as a Gay man mean he'll be saying goodbye to his obvious enjoyment sleeping with females? Or will he now be the exclusive Gay he never realised he was? See what I mean? No. Then see the film or think about it please. There are some questions here that further episodes could play with...
It is my humble opinion that once you see the film you may like me feel that John's fratpad may expose some further closet 'bottoms'. I'm thinking of the character Jon played by Jesse Janson who kept picking on our hero and calling him gay etc. And in these days of Bromance if Mr Rosen will not write the next bit, then I will. Here is a tremendous opportunity to open up a few more bisexual closets or even a gay one or two along the way.
This is a good pilot film for a promising TV series...if not...well then it should be...I rest my case.
If only John knew what he was doing getting all tied up in his secret life!
John's confusion takes him to that familiar architype 'the predatory queen' who with that man's man look(no girlyboy for him)is probably in post boyfriend fallout and keen to shift John into gay gear and top him. This seduction scene is the best scene in the film of course. Very very funny. And so well done.
The whole film would make a great sitcom and as others have already pointed out here, the fact that it ends suddenly and all too soon could be its cue here in my opinion.....more to come? Yes please.
Three cheers to its director, main lead and writer who may have unwittingly introduced a much needed theme to our movie screens...bisexuality, but notice how everyone in the film assumes that if the main character John sleeps with a guy he is automatically gay. Why? Is this the point the script is making or is that true to life? Is it not possible for John to like both equally? None of his friends say its cool to dig both. They think in black or white it seems to me. But that's the point...why?
Obviously its nice to be left thinking a film has ended, but clearly there's much more ground to cover...so go for it Mr Rosen sir. Develop the plot in a part two, three four....
Does John coming out as a Gay man mean he'll be saying goodbye to his obvious enjoyment sleeping with females? Or will he now be the exclusive Gay he never realised he was? See what I mean? No. Then see the film or think about it please. There are some questions here that further episodes could play with...
It is my humble opinion that once you see the film you may like me feel that John's fratpad may expose some further closet 'bottoms'. I'm thinking of the character Jon played by Jesse Janson who kept picking on our hero and calling him gay etc. And in these days of Bromance if Mr Rosen will not write the next bit, then I will. Here is a tremendous opportunity to open up a few more bisexual closets or even a gay one or two along the way.
This is a good pilot film for a promising TV series...if not...well then it should be...I rest my case.
Not Good
norman-dostal25 September 2011
Bad movie with no ending. I knew I was in trouble when the main guy was the least good-looking with receding hairline (the comb over is terrible, especially after the gay sex scene). It was obvious this guy wrote and directed it; the main character would not be the least attractive if he was cast on his acting talents. The story begins with no realism-the least attractive guy is a ladies' man? Not believable. And then he has a gay eperience as a bottom? Guys in the closet do not immediately jump into anal sex-it just doesn't happen. And then the movie just ends after less than 70 minutes. I don't even want to go into the parallel story involving a teacher and some girl...not connected to the main story at all! Nothing new here-its all been done before and much better. Next time, don't cast yourself. Very few experienced film makers can star as well as direct a movie-this guy is NOT one of them.
The art of movie making
lossowitz4 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
To make a first movie, to write it, direct it AND star in the leading role might either be genius or heading for the big big fall. Jesse Rosen has decided to take his chances and really, he did not fall.
There's a lot to comment on this movie: superfluous scenes, overplayed emotions, clichés, amateur actors and pretentious camera-work at times. But that does not get in the way of the story. The script is well wrought, although the juxtaposition of the straight boy going gay and the lesbian going straight is a little too symmetric, but things are left to guess and find out for yourself. Does Jon really go gay? Will Maddie ever make something of her life? Is Paul a predator or just looking for love? The acting by the two leads, and some supporting actors (the history teacher, the best friend), is good and a times funny and on the dot. ("Oh, you were the cutest bottom boy!")
Why the ending is not more pronounced might be a question of taste, but the scene where Jon is getting back with his friends (who are supposed to be straight but seem played by very gay actors...) is plain weak.
So Rosen did not fall, that's good, but it is no work of genius either.
There's a lot to comment on this movie: superfluous scenes, overplayed emotions, clichés, amateur actors and pretentious camera-work at times. But that does not get in the way of the story. The script is well wrought, although the juxtaposition of the straight boy going gay and the lesbian going straight is a little too symmetric, but things are left to guess and find out for yourself. Does Jon really go gay? Will Maddie ever make something of her life? Is Paul a predator or just looking for love? The acting by the two leads, and some supporting actors (the history teacher, the best friend), is good and a times funny and on the dot. ("Oh, you were the cutest bottom boy!")
Why the ending is not more pronounced might be a question of taste, but the scene where Jon is getting back with his friends (who are supposed to be straight but seem played by very gay actors...) is plain weak.
So Rosen did not fall, that's good, but it is no work of genius either.
Surprise Sleeper
donwc19962 September 2014
This film is a real surprise sleeper. It starts out so slow and casual that it lulls you into the story and before you know it you are zapped as though hit on the head with a two by four and it just takes you for the ride which has you gnawing your knuckles. The cast is as perfect as can be and beautifully written in terms of character and motivation. In fact the script is a real gem written with not only a great deal of heart but real understanding of human nature. The ending was a shock, however, and my buddy and I sat there in silence trying to grasp the idea that the film was actually over. Then it hit us both almost at the same time that the story really had gone as far as it could and that the title of the film said it all.
Nothing good but the production, which I care nothing about
jm1070130 August 2012
So... What's supposed to be the point of this movie? That straight white men are the most retarded, obnoxious sub-human species on the planet? That residents of Los Angeles County are the most vapid, self-obsessed, boring people in the US? That in an LA gay movie gay bosses can get away with sexual harassment and even rape of employees as long as they're hot and have fabulous tans, buff bodies and blindingly white teeth? Don't we already know all this?
The only thing this movie has going for it is the one thing I care about least in a movie: the technical quality of the production - flawless sound, lighting bright enough that everything on screen is always easy to see, and a camera that never EVER shakes - so that you can easily keep up with everything that happens in this movie while simultaneously eating, texting, playing your X-Box and trying to remember what day it is.
This is the kind of movie the geniuses who impress us all with such pronouncements would NEVER complain about as looking like a film-school project. Everything else about this movie is pretty bad, except for some of the acting, which is passable at best. None of the characters is the least bit believable or interesting at all, and the story is about as dumb as they come.
If what you care about most in a movie is bright lighting and a camera that never shakes, this one is for you.
The only thing this movie has going for it is the one thing I care about least in a movie: the technical quality of the production - flawless sound, lighting bright enough that everything on screen is always easy to see, and a camera that never EVER shakes - so that you can easily keep up with everything that happens in this movie while simultaneously eating, texting, playing your X-Box and trying to remember what day it is.
This is the kind of movie the geniuses who impress us all with such pronouncements would NEVER complain about as looking like a film-school project. Everything else about this movie is pretty bad, except for some of the acting, which is passable at best. None of the characters is the least bit believable or interesting at all, and the story is about as dumb as they come.
If what you care about most in a movie is bright lighting and a camera that never shakes, this one is for you.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
