We have a Paula Abdul song stuck in our head. And we can’t bring ourselves to tell James Sweeney, the soft-spoken director of the movie Straight Up. The romantic comedy plays at Outfest July 23 & 24 in Los Angeles.
Sweeney moved from his native Alaska to Los Angeles to study film at Chapman University. After several attempts at launching an acting career, Sweeney moved into casting, moonlighting writing and directing short films. His acclaimed shorts The First and Before Midnight Cowboy both earned slots at Frameline, the celebrated San Francisco-based queer media arts festival, and helped him generate enough buzz to drum up funding for his first feature, Straight Up.
In Straight Up, Sweeney plays Todd, a gay man with OCD who associates gay sex a bit too closely with all things fecal. When he meets Rory (Katie Findlay, of How To Get Away With Murder), a lonely, struggling actress, he decides to “go straight,” indulging in a sexless emotional relationship, much to the shock of his friends. While Todd and Rory find plenty to enjoy in one another, one question lingers: can they be in love without ever wanting to have sex?
Straight Up channels the screwball comedies of yesteryear like What’s Up Doc or Bringing Up Baby into a romantic comedy of a different kind. We snagged a few minutes to chat with Sweeney about his feature film debut.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Where does this project begin for you?
Well, I started writing it at the end of 2012. So it’s definitely, as you say, my baby for quite a while now. I finished the first draft in 2013. We shot a proof of concept for it in 2015 when Fox Digital Studios was interested in the project, but ultimately, they really wanted to cast YouTubers and I really wanted to play the role myself. Everyone says trying to make your first feature is like going to war…
[Laughter]
And maybe that’s insensitive.
War might be easier sometimes.
It felt like that. There were a couple of times where the project was coming together then fell apart. So it’s definitely been an exhausting process trying to get it made. I just told myself “I have to do it, it will be my first feature.” But at the same time, I’m really glad that it happened the way it did with this cast and team behind it. All the right people came together.
So you’re pulling a Woody Allen here. Writing, directing and acting as a vert neurotic character here. This is both your first feature as director and your first as an actor. What convinced you that you were up to the task? Even writing a part for yourself, that’s a huge workload.
Well my background is actually in theatre. I went to film school and was actually an acting major, I just didn’t really pursue it. I tried; a lot of Rory’s storyline is something I went through. Auditioning for commercials was something I was terrible at. I never had a theatrical agent. It’s really hard to be an actor in LA, especially having been on the other side of the camera. It wasn’t for me. Also, I’m a specific type. Nowadays there’s more openness for a certain kind of diversity, but when I was right out of college, nobody was willing to take a chance on me. I would hope to act more in the future, but this was a huge leap of faith. It was a big undertaking.
Totally. Now how fast did you shoot? What was your schedule?
It was concise. We shot 20 locations in 18 days.
Related: Discos, hookers, stars and divas: the must-see list for this year’s Outfest LA
Holy cow.
We didn’t go overtime because we couldn’t afford it. The nice thing was that we didn’t need a ton of coverage. So, the shot list was specific and concise which lends itself to minimal setups. Thankfully, it also lends itself to the aesthetic of the film. I think every day started slower and at the end of the day we’d cram it all in.
Todd reminds me of a number of people I know, both for the analytical personality and the “gross-out” factor—that sex, or gay sex, is icky, even though he is gay. When you created the character, what backstory did you have in mind for a gay man afraid of gay sexual intimacy?
I think that’s mostly linked to his OCD, and his aversion to germs and bodily fluids. That’s a real phobia for him. In my backstory, I imagined that he’d been through behavioral therapy and had actually been much worse, but he’d worked out a lot of the kinks to the point where he’s highly functional. Ultimately though, there are barriers he hasn’t been able to work through.
So then for you as a writer, where does this idea of a character—a gay man terrified of gay sex—come from?
On an emotional level, I think the whole genesis of the film started from the place of wanting to bring together two people who didn’t see a lack of physical intimacy as “settling.” I was very much in a place when I started writing the film that I didn’t feel like I fit in with the dancing crowd at The Abbey. Being newly out myself at the time, I had a very heteroromantic view of the world. I was a lot more naive then, and a lot more sheltered. I come from a conservative family. Then obviously, the story grew and the characters evolved. And there’s Rory’s side of the story too, her sexual trauma. The idea was that these two people have two different reasons for feeling unlovable and not wanting to commit to a sexual relationship.
Todd’s also a frustrating character. We see how desperately lonely he is, how stunted. But at the same time, he’s so inflexible and utterly terrified of his sexuality. Did you ever worry that audiences would reject him? Did you worry he’d be unrelatable or unlikable?
Yeah, absolutely.
[Laughter]
Yeah, even on set. I won’t say who, but one of the people on my team, after one of my takes said “Did you mean for Todd to be unlikable? Because when I read the script, he wasn’t.” I was like oh, ok, let me go cry in a corner now!
It was something I wanted to be conscious of. I wanted to be authentic to people with OCD. A lot of times, they don’t change, or they can’t change. So on one hand, you want Todd to have everything you want for him, that you feel like everyone should have. At the same time, I didn’t want it to feel like this force-fed Hollywood ending. I wanted it to be something that real people who have OCD or who have other intimacy issues that they’re working through can see that he’s on a journey, as well as Rory. I hope people like the character. I hope he’s at least entertaining to watch in the same way that Woody Allen is interesting to watch. He’s not always likable, but he’s so specific. I think ultimately the characters are kind of pretentious and in their own bubbles. I think that’s true of all the other characters too. I’m not putting them on a pedestal. But they’re on the same vibration with each other, which is why they’re so compatible.
The other major element here is the cruelty of Los Angeles, how isolating and lonely it is, and how the entertainment business just erodes everyone. Without going into too much detail, how much of Rory’s story based on your own?
I think it’s always a struggle between feeling like you’re a smart person and could do so many things with your life, and people tell you if you can do anything besides acting, go do that. Thankfully for me, I can do other things like writing and directing. But I think for Rory—and I feel this too—she felt she had such a responsibility. She felt like the world is crumbling, the world needs so much help. Acting can be such a vain exercise, and if you’re doing something that is creatively unfulfilling, then it can feel really pointless. You hope to get to where you want to be eventually. Perseverance will help you get to where you want to be. But anyone who’s a creative freelancer can attest to that kind of fork in the road: maybe I should have done this instead. For Rory, she found that it wasn’t worth it.
The central question raised by their relationship is are these two people in love with each other, or are they just that lonely? That also raises a philosophical question: is it possible for two to be in love or a romantic relationship, but not want to have sex?
I do believe that. They joke about 65% of married couples stop having sex after ten years. And that’s true. A lot of marriages aren’t based on sexual chemistry. If you look at the history of the world, the idea of modern, romantic love is a very new, modern, Western concept. Arranged marriages are much more successful. I don’t want to speak for arranged marriages on how much sex they’re having, but I would imagine it’s not the same sort of image that we see plastered all over films and television. I wanted too to respect the asexual community. They’re extremely underrepresented in all media. Don’t get me wrong, I like watching beautiful people have sex. I think it’s great. But, I can see from the point of view of someone on the asexual spectrum that it can feel very overwhelming and isolating.
This is an extremely dialogue-heavy film, reminiscent of Allen or Howard Hawkes. Everything has a very specific rhythm to it. At times, the dialogue is almost like music. What strategies as director did you take to make sure it felt cinematic, rather than theatrical or like a stand-up comedy bit? Did you rehearse?
I do sort of envision it as a modern screwball comedy. Unfortunately, we had a very limited time for rehearsal. The nice thing was pretty much everyone in the main cast auditioned so I could see they inherently understood the dialogue and rhythm, which was why I cast them. Katie & I, I traveled to Vancouver where she’s based so we could rehearse a couple days. Because I come from a theatre background, and because it is so dialogue-heavy, people did have concerns that it read more like a play than a film. So that was a challenge for myself as a director—to make sure it didn’t feel like a filmed version of a stage play. I wanted it to feel like we were taking advantage of cinema as a medium. So that was something I really wanted to do: hearken back to older films like Casablanca where they would really sit and allow two actors to talk. You don’t want to cut away from Bergman or Bogart—they’d hold these long two shots. So there were scenes where we felt like that was necessary, but then there were other scenes where we took a more modern spin on it with lots of quick cuts, very Edgar Wright-esque [director of Baby Driver]. In some ways it’s very ADHD, the editing, and other times, we wanted to let it breathe.
What are your ambitions after this? Writing? Directing? Acting?
I have a couple scripts I’m excited about. I’m just looking for the right partners, producers. I learned so much through this process about finding the right people so it doesn’t just sit on the shelf.
Straight Up plays July 23 & 24 at Outfest in Los Angeles. The film is currently seeking distribution.
Pistolo
For whatever philosophical question this movie intends to posit, I can’t help but to already feel triggered by it and “triggered” isn’t a normal part of my vocabulary. I’m sorry but I’ve been in a relationship with a guy who told me what gay men do is gross (this is when we were teens) and he recycled the homophobic garbage we were conditioned with growing up, he was ultimately just self-hating and hateful towards me. I don’t know how you can watch this as a gay man and not feel it’s somewhat of an indictment of your sexuality tied up in some frilly bow about “real intimacy” and “fluid sexuality”.
These anti-label navel gazers evidently weren’t paying attention to the fact we got our foot in the door declaring who we were proudly. Not playing around with the notion of being emotionally straight and trying to argue anybody can be intimate with anybody.
Donston
The movie could indeed be problematic. Its perspective already feels old-fashioned. How it’s approaching this subject matter doesn’t even fit “modern” or “cool” opinions about sex, relationships and identity. Many people have already separated the idea of being a “gay man” as an equivalent to homosexuality and more to do with sustained passions, affections, emotional fulfillment, relationship contentment, general preferences. So, where the movie is coming from seems dodgy? Is it trying to argue that if you remove the sex part all “gay men” could be perfectly fulfilled with women? I haven’t seen it, but I doubt that’s the aim. However, that is one of the viewpoints that has developed because our society (and especially the “queer community”) places so much emphasis on attractions and sex. A movie about a guy trying to have a relationship with a guy while being grossed out by homo sex actually serves greater purpose and is a more honest and typical scenario. And people are tired of “gay movies” that mostly focus on hetero relationships. So, I don’t get the purpose of his from any perspective. It seems like the filmmaker wanted to tell a “subversive” story and didn’t think all that much through. You could almost tell that by this interview
RyanAAD92
He’s afraid of “gay sex”? You mean anal? Then…why doesn’t he, you know, not do it? Didn’t Queerty do an article about gay men who weren’t into anal? He can not-have sex with and be a neurotic mess with men.
Then we get the whole tired and stupid “gay man = only likes dicks and manholes” part. This interview pegs the guy as gay, but is open on “romancing” a woman. That’s not how this works. And I’m not interested in the latest queer theory that’s floating around about this.
Gay = exclusively romantically and sexually attracted to the same sex. He’s clearly an asexual with romantic leaning towards men.
Though I do like how this movie is bring attention to ace people. So there is a silver lining.
Donston
How about simply not being so obsessed with identity, definitions and how people see themselves? Then maybe you won’t be so mad when others have different viewpoints on that matter. But I do agree that this story does not add up. Enjoying sex with dudes doesn’t actually equate to wanting to romance a dude, wanting persistent affections from a dude or wanting to be in a relationship with a guy. So, why does not enjoying anal equate to a guy thinking he shouldn’t be with a guy and has to be with a female? There are plenty of homosexual/homo-leaning/gay-identifying men who just like making out and sucking dick. Plenty of people who have some hold-ups when it comes to intercourse or sexual behaviors in general. As I mentioned in the previous post, it just seems like the filmmaker wanted to tell a subversive story about a “gay” dude trying to in a hetero relationship, but he didn’t do much research on sex, identity, asexuality or anything. Unless one of the bigger points of the movie is to criticize the idea of being a “gay men” as something that’s mostly about intercourse then it doesn’t serve a ton of purpose from a socio-political standpoint.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
And the bloody gelous discharge that comes out of a vagina is perfectly fine then?
Kangol2
If he thinks gay sex is icky he may faint at the sight of a real vulva!
RyanAAD92
@Donston
How about you stop tone trolling and cease your incessant and tiresome preaching for once and let people express themselves?
Expression can come in the form of criticism, which is fair given the very basic mistakes throughout this interview where the director of this movie keeps messing up and throwing around terms that do not work. That by no way makes me “mad” or “obsessed.”
Donston
Is that the best you can come up with? I’m “trolling”. Do people even know what “trolling” means any longer? It’s starting to feel like a word some folks just throw out there when they’re exhausted with someone’s contradictory viewpoints. Your post was clearly trying to indirectly troll and belittle me, which I caught onto and thus responded to, and I responded in a borderline nice way that was mostly on topic. It’s weird how I manage to give my viewpoints without disrespecting folks. Yet, I get accused of “trolling” by a couple people here. But those same folks often indulge name-calling, needless bitchiness, dismissive tendencies and, yes, trolling.
Donston
Having read some reviews and other (more insightful) interviews, I feel like I know where the filmmaker is more coming from. Many people struggle with sense of self, understanding their sexuality, where they fit on the general spectrum, mental health, finding personal happiness, being content in a relationship. Stories like these deserve to be told. Nonetheless, I don’t really see how this movie is about a “gay man”. From what I read the character doesn’t fit anyone’s definition of “gay”. He’s not homosexual (apparently turned off by all sexual activities and I’m not sure if he has overt attractions towards men. I’d of course have to see the movie). He doesn’t seem to have much male-based affections, passions, romantic fulfillment, emotional contentment. And he doesn’t seem to have any gay sexual or romantic/relationship ambitions within the film itself (though of course, I’d have to see the movie). Also, it does feel a bit exhausting and slightly problematic that so many “proudly queer” filmmakers stay obsessed with hetero dynamics. I mean, couldn’t you make a movie about a “straight” guy who’s grossed out by women body parts and is dissatisfied with females so he tries dating a dude? That would actually be a tad bit more subversive and groundbreaking, rather than seeing another example of a “gay” man who feels he can only be content with a female. Once again, I get it. Stories about the complexities of orientation, sexuality, ego, mental health and personal happiness absolutely need to be told. It just feels like too many “queer stories” come from a largely heteronormal perspective. Movies and TV shows still act like men in same-sex relationships must either have zero attractions to women or never indulge any type of sex with women. Hell, what about a movie that centers on a homosexual/homo-leaning/gay man who can’t be happy with a guy because he’s obsessed with “straight dudes”. Many out here can relate to that. What about a movie that genuinely confronts fluidity? There’s a way to tell some interesting stories about complexities and internal struggles without hetero-normal ambitions or conflicts being at the center. It’s almost like “gay” filmmakers don’t know how to make “queer” or present genuinely “queer couples” at the center of a movie without self-identity, confusion, homophobia, coming out and/or the allure of hetero-normalcy being the main issues. And it has gotten tiresome. Why are “queer” filmmakers so afraid of telling stories about men who unabashedly and loudly love men, have male affections and have male romantic ambitions that aren’t also wrapped up in the drama of coming out, being closeted and/or the allure of hetero-normalcy?
EliottlovesLucas
One issue is it can be difficult to get unabashedly “gay” films financed. They are much riskier, many actors are reluctant to even kiss a man on screen let alone simulate sex or appear nude with one. Also,it seems writers and directors don’t know how to do “gay” or even queer. It’s easier to make movies around kids or some issue like HIV or homophobia.
Also, I think people have a hard time imagining men whose sexual and emotional life revolves around other men. Man/Woman dynamics are just too ingrained in American cinema even “queer cinema. It’s much more accepted to portray women living a life a part from men. Male sexuality im general is still taboo and intimidating. It’s easier to do shows and movies about drag queens. We have to look overseas for more interesting “queer” films. Although the heteronormative trope is commom in Europe and South America,at least we get more complex emotional scences.
Recommend:
God’s own country- Great Britain. Beautifully shot. Great acting.
Week-end- Great Britain. Great Script.
In the Greyscale- Chile. Excellent acting. Very realistic. Fine photography. Beautiful unfamiliar location.
dman3379
So what’s the moral of this movie? Intimacy between two men is gross and infeasible and the only way to find romance is to be with a women?
Maybe this is a parody?