THEO ET HUGO DANS LE MEME BATEAU/ PARIS 05:59

France, 2015, 97 minutes, Colour.
Geoffrey Couet, François Nambot.
Directed by Olivier Ducastel, Jacques Martineau.

The films by Ducastel and Martineau dramatise and explore themes of homosexuality, gay life, relationships. They have had a career of making these films for over 15 years, Drole de Felix, Cote D’Azur?, Family Tree.

Basically, the films are for this target audience although they extend to relatives of gay men as well as those concerned with gay men’s health.

The film has an almost 20 minutes opening of quite explicit sexual activity in a gay club in Paris, The Attract (which has a credit at the end of the film). While there are many men involved in sexual activity, the film begins to focus on one man, Theo, and his attraction for another, Hugo. They encounter each other, are sexually active, attracted to each other, collect their clothes at reception, dress and go into the streets of Paris.

The film focuses on the time, over several hours in the early hours of the morning, culminating at 6 am, with time coming on screen at various locations.

The two men hire bikes, ride through the almost deserted city, reflect on their experience and the film changes its tone.

From a great deal of anonymous sexual activity to the encounter of the two men, the reflections, the attraction, the possibilities of forming a relationship, the film moves to a cautionary tale, especially about unprotected sex and the possibility of HIV infection. It emerges that Hugo is HIV positive, Theo not and there is some dispute as to what they should do, Hugo ringing the hospital, discussing his situation with emergency, his decision to go, Theo not wanting to be pressurised and going alone, ignoring the phone calls from Hugo.

The next part of the film is instructive for the target audience, the gay men as well as their helpers, when the two men go to reception, go through the procedures, plainly and un-emotionally, descriptions about their activity and then waiting for the call. The film moves into the wider world with the appearance of the receptionist as well and some of the patients in emergency, African women with babies, a man with a wound to his face, and a cantankerous old man who complains about the use of mobile phones.

The next sequence with the intern is very informative, the intern again getting the information plainly and objectively, describing the issue, the cautions, the special treatment, the taking of tablets over a period of one month, with Theo beginning the treatment, he and Hugo having discussed the situation and Hugo giving him moral support.

The rest of the film has the two talking about the relationship, the possibilities of something more. Hugo explains his background in the country, his initial sexual experimentation at toilets and roadsides, his being infected. He also explains that he is a notary clerk. It eventually emerges that Theo is an intern, with a focus on design, but with a desire to take some time off to do some aid work.

There are two very good scenes in the latter part of the film, one where the two buy kebabs at an all-night store, having a discussion with a friendly Syrian who was an architecture student in Damascus but who describes the oppression of the regime in Syria and his coming to Europe. the film suggests a parallel between silence and oppression for Syrians at home and for men in the gay community. After the two quarrel, they make up and decide to take the first Metro, asking an older lady in the train whether it is the first and a very engaging short sequence follows in which she explains herself, her past, not enough superannuation, doing work as a cleaner.

The two decide to go to Theo’s house, there is an intimate scene – but a decision is made that they will go to Hugo’s house, Hugo supporting Theo during the medical process, and hoping for the possibility of a relationship (even it should break up, as they expect so many relationships do, after 20 years).

One of the difficulties in communicating this drama is that Francois Nambot is a much more convincing actor than Geoffrey Couet.
The film has its explicitness for the first part of the film which may put off a great number of audiences – but he wants to make the point that while there seems to be anonymous sexual activity there is much more to the characters and their relationships and that this needs to be understood after the initial encounter, possibility romance, possibility of a life together – and the significance of HIV in the consciousness of the gay men.