yawnmower1 AKA is writer/director Duncan Roy's thought-provoking memoir of his own youth. He escaped from a brutal, sexually abusive working-class household by assuming the identity of a young aristocrat and became famous - or notorious, rather - in the process.Mr. Roy's movie is brilliantly written, directed, and cast. Matthew Leitch is perfect as Dean, the handsome, sweet, innocently seductive young man who desperately wants a better -- or, to be more precise, another -- life. His intelligence, looks, charm, and manner make people want to believe he is who he says. All the actors are notable and entertaining. Two are exceptional: Diana Quick as the prickly patrician Lady Gryffoyn, whose son Dean impersonates; and George Asprey as the striking, urbane, gay aristocrat who takes Dean under his wing. Heir to the Asprey fortune in real life, he was born for the part.Aside from the fascinating story, imaginative photography done solely with available light, and perfect musical support, AKA is a scathing portrayal of the English class system, where aristocrats rely on certain cues (accent, pronunciation, name, manners, schooling, demeanor) to identify one another and preserve their exclusivity. Dean lives as 'one of them' successfully and happily for over a year. After which he says, quite truthfully (if Mr. Roy's portrait of Alexander Gryffoyn is in any way accurate in its mean-spirited snobbery), that he was a better Lord Gryffoyn than the real one could ever be. Mr. Roy also depicts a working class equally complicit in maintaining 'place' and limited social mobility.After watching the single screen version, the three-screen triptych version, as it was released theatrically, is an interesting complement which adds dimension to the story. Mr. Roy's commentary track is illuminating politically, and enlightening cinematically. His film is a very personal work of art. The entire ensemble is outstanding, but the talent and beauty of Matthew Leitch form the solid core on which the story rests.

Figaro14 I (fortunately) viewed this for the first time on the DVD version where the filmmaker chooses to use the triptych effect only once to punctuate a party scene. This is much the same way that this technique was used by the French Impressionist filmmakers of the 1920's. They never filmed entire movies using these kinds of avant-garde techniques. However I understand that those who watched this film in the theater had to endure the triptych effect throughout the entire move. As a reference, the director has included the triptych version on the DVD. The technique wears thin after only a few minutes and makes it impossible to focus on story and character. See this film in its conventional version and I'm certain you will enjoy it.

hshowe This movie is better than Ripley or old-time Vanity Fair (both from British writers) because the last tinge of the seventies had that "maybe you can be anyone" potential still being born. This is also a true story. This contrasts against England's "birth first, achievements second" class structure still alive today. A handsome young man might very well follow "Lord' Gryffoyn"'s road every day. What are also allowed to see is the pathos and confusion that whips and buttresses the choices behind such pathways.I think my favorite moment is when privileged Lord Glendenning tries to Charlton Heston his way to rifling Thatcher off the TV screen, and when he belittles her, across the room, an obviously Labor class guy, "Lord Gryffoyn" watches wide eyed, while the third member of their troika mocks her hair. So much political correctness has washed out current cinema, it's eye opening to see gay life the way it was in New-York/Britain/France capitals among the upper class. Practically a history lesson in class consciousness, this movie roves from the main character's motivation, to shifting maturity, to the shifting sands underneath and around him.Most of the reviews I've read fasten on the split screen as topic and almost ignore the film as a whole. The version i downloaded had split screen in areas, but not a jaw dropping medium at all, merely a savvy cinematic comment on the media of the press.What I found most entertaining was that the "slut" character was for once played by a man. It's tired to see every floozy and hustler portrayed as a woman, Youngblood Hills really energizes the film with his attempts to work two men who are so chained by their secrets they are immune to his lures, and his desperate "fixes" only precipitate more conflict and pushed them into negating him. His character's attempts to be used by these men and thus be used by him backfire in ways we can see through even when he can't.An excellent film to watch, for discussion, study, and enjoyment of cinema.

theffner It is without doubt that Duncan Roy inspires much love and loathing when ever the chance is given for the public to make comment about his film AKA. It made me chuckle to read the new comments here on this site. What ever may happen to AKA it has, as a first feature made for very little money, made waves. The film is a remarkable film, it is also an annoying film. AKA opened at the London gay and lesbian film festival and many of the same comments about this film written here were aired by similar sounding people. Perhaps the greatest proof of the growing respect he deserves for making this film so honestly and radically are the many awards and nominations for BAFTAS etc. he has received. I have now seen the film in LA and again at Sundance and at both of those screenings many people stayed behind to ask questions and I believed the applause was real. Perhaps this film only hits the mark with film reviewers and festival juries for this film to be so well reviewed (see newsday) and awarded, or more likely, the scewed "reviews" written here are by people with axes to grind. True talent has a habit of being undaunted. Duncan Roy, undoubtedly, will make other films with real money. Let's see what he can do next. Until then I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I think that I will not be dissapointed.