I went to the movie theatre not knowing much. Something about gays in leather. Something starring easy-on-the-eyes Alexander Skarskgård. I didn’t even know what “pillion” meant. Turns out it’s the place where a passenger sits on a motorcycle, but it seems the movie draws much more from that back-seat position. Pillion portrays two gay men, one dominant, one submissive who meet for sex in an alley and then carry on a rigidly defined relationship that comes off as one prolonged role-play.
I will admit that I didn’t know what to think of the movie after seeing it. Just like the TV series Heated Rivalry, the film includes a lot of nudity and simulated sex…though even more graphic. (Apparently, it’s a prosthetic penis that is used in a couple of scenes.) I’d like to say I’m not a prude. In my head, I tried to view the movie’s nudity as giving equal time to the male body after seeing extensive female nudity in such films as Best Picture Oscar winner Anora. But, really, who am I kidding. I am a prude. If people want to see aroused penises, whether fake or real, there’s plenty of porn out there. I don’t need or want it when I go to the movie theatre. (I would say the same about female nudity.)
I try to give myself a reality check, knowing there is technically a difference between gratuitous sex and that which may be more integral to the plot. With this point of view, the nudity in Pillion can be justified. The sexual roles are a major part of how Ray the dom (Skarsgård) and Colin the sub (Harry Melling) interact. I’ve heard about these relationships and I’ve seen some elements of dom-sub role playing in gay clubs and at gay events.
In truth, Pillion may have shocked me more with its nonsexual scenes. Ray and Colin take their roles as defining their entire relationship. Things go far beyond Colin taking a back seat on Ray’s motorcycle. Colin, an admittedly bad cook, must prepare Ray’s meals. He initially must relinquish any right to sit beside Ray on the sofa since that is Ray’s dog’s spot. The sleeping arrangements are especially odd and, for me at least, disturbing. There seems to be a fine line between dom-sub interplay and humiliation.
At many points, people in the audience laughed, which I took as them partly seeing humor in the characters’ interactions and partly out of their own discomfort. To someone who does not ascribe to dominant-submissive roles, the exchanges can come off as absurd. Who would want to be THAT submissive?
It’s Colin’s mother, well played by Lesley Sharp, who is most concerned about Ray’s behaviour and her son’s association with him. Is she unsupportive, rational or both? While I don’t know anyone who is open about being in a dominant-submissive relationship, Colin seems like a perfect candidate to be submissive. He’s a thirty-something guy who lives at home, sings in a quartet with his dad and spends his days slapping parking tickets on people’s windshields. Perhaps I’m judgy, but he seems underdeveloped as a person. His meekness comes off when Ray picks him up at his parents’ house as he allows his parents to engage in the kind of awkward, prolonged meet-and-greet one might expect of a sixteen-year-old’s parents seeing their child off on a first date. Colin just lets them have their way, never seeming embarrassed or horrified by their intrusiveness. While some dom-sub relationships may be relatively normal, Colin looks like he could use some therapy.
As the movie progresses, Colin does find more of a voice, still enjoying his submissive role but wanting a day off each week. Ray’s response, rather than Colin’s request, takes the movie toward its conclusion.
Writing about Pillion hasn’t helped me process the movie much more. I’m still on the fence regarding what to take from the film. I still feel ill-at-ease, as though I’ve peeped on something I shouldn’t have and as if I’m judging a relationship more than a movie. With the dynamics so foreign to me, it’s hard to separate the two. When my partner, Evan, asked how I’d rate the film, I gave it a B…something relatively well done; just not so well-received, if that makes sense.
On a second viewing, I’m sure I would more genuinely laugh. I might see the romance that is portrayed. As I Googled reactions to the film, I saw it described as a rom-com and perhaps a more accurate characterization as a “dom-com.” Still, I don’t think I’ll get to a second viewing. Maybe I’d become more enlightened. I’m just not sure I have a need for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment