donwc1996 This film is one of my Top Ten Films of All Time, enshrined forever in the pantheon of great films. Everything about it is perfect, but most importantly, to be a great film it must be true - in other words - it must convey the "truth" of life - giving the viewer a slice of life that is true, that rings true, that is based on truth - that's what great art is about and this film is great art. I had never heard of Ventura Pons before but then I learned Food of Love is his first English film, although the version I have is dubbed in English, so I imagine the original was in Spanish. Does that mean the English speaking actors were dubbed in Spanish for the original? Enquiring minds want to know! Kevin Bishop, the young lead, is breathtakingly handsome yet he has a depth that sort of catches you by surprise because his beauty is so captivating. Juliet Stevenson, one of my favorites, is spellbinding in every scene - you cannot take your eyes off her - she is the core around which the entire story is built.

John Jobeless Forgive me, but I'm a retired proofreader, and Juilliard is almost never spelled correctly except by people directly connected with the school.More to the point, I quite liked the film. Everything worked for me -- acting, direction, story, production. Not that I thought it a great film -- I did think there could have been more attention paid to motivation in several instances, such as Kennington's not answering Mansourian's many messages, Paul's involvement with Alden, and Paul's leaving Juilliard. Not to mention how Paul went from being good enough to get into the highly competitive Juilliard to not being good enough for a career as a musician in just a few years. Another 20 minutes could have fleshed out many aspects of the sometimes sketchy narrative.While the wide range of opinion expressed by others above is not unusual in film commentary, the diametrically opposed views on so many points is fascinating to me. Perhaps hot-button subjects such as homosexuality, abortion, etc. inspire hyper-sensitive, if not hyper-critical responses -- pro and con.What concerns me is how little or how narrowly most of the commentators -- gay as well as straight -- seem to understand the uniqueness of everyone's gayness, everyone's coming-of-age, everyone's taste and attractions. Of course, the same is no doubt true of heterosexuals.For many, experimenting and/or interacting with peers is the "right" or "best" way to come to terms with one's sexuality. For others, far older or younger people are more appropriate partners, whether for short-term liaisons or for longer relationships. While some of this no doubt derives from our individual (sometimes twisted) psychological underpinnings, I'm convinced that such variations often are merely part of the great breadth of human nature.Regardless of gender, many older people do gravitate to the younger for intimacy, but it's also true that many younger people gravitate to the older. Of course, some are manipulative, even predatory, but by no means is it always the older taking advantage of the younger. Regrettably, I think only one of the commentators above noted that Paul was using the older men, just as they were using him. Often, such "unequal" relationships are mutually beneficial.Speaking of my own non-sexual experience, as a child and well into adolescence, I felt (and others observed) that I related more comfortably with adults than with my peers. In adulthood, it's been just the opposite -- I've been more comfortable with people 10, then 20, now 30 years and more younger. The only period when I was in-sync with my peers was my college years and shortly thereafter.Frankly, my development as a gay person might have been much less difficult had someone 25 or 35 or 45 initiated an intimate relationship (sexual or not) with me in my adolescence. My few halting attempts to find intimacy with adult men were met with abject terror of even being suspected of pedophilia. Left to my own devices, I didn't really figure it out until I was about 30. Not that I ever thought I was, or tried to be, straight; I simply didn't have a sexual or emotional life. It's been rich and rewarding since, but I can't help wondering how much I might have missed. But enough about me.It strikes me as troubling that so many, perhaps most people lack the certain instinctual knowledge that everyone's experience, everyone's psyche, is different. They may know it intellectually, but not viscerally. And so they can't help judging other people, as well as art and literature, as if everyone's life experience were much the same.We're all entitled to our own thoughts, reactions, opinions. But to judge the characters, situations, motivations in a piece of fiction as unrealistic because they don't match one's own life experience is simply off the mark. Virtually everything in the novel as well as the film is familiar to me, so I guess that mean's it's realistic...no?

HoldenSpark stellarust, You seem to have missed the point of the movie. Its not about the young man's art (his love and study of the piano) nor is it even about his romance with his idol (the piano player he looks up to.) It is, in fact, a fable, or fairy tale, (very much like the many attributed to Grimm). This is why, I believe, you found it heavy-handed. The story is about a mother who learns her son is gay, and learns it while he is still a child (albeit he is 18 and not, technically, a child, yet as most 18 year olds, they still require wise parenting from time-to-time for a few more years yet, when appropriate) and so he needs some guidance. Yet he doesn't realize he does, and fights it for a variety of reasons, most of which are somewhat characteristic of this point in time (the beginning of the 21st century). What this fable does is demonstrate a woman with problems of her own, realizing she her son still needs guidance even if she's not sure what it should be yet. The fable is two-fold: 1) it shows how an enlightened parent should react once they become aware and become educated, and 2) shows that there are still big bad wolves in the forest just waiting to huff and puff and blow your house down. It says to parents: here is how to respond to a gay child/young adult. And it says to gay young adults: beware the wolves of the forest, but, if you notice your parent responding like the mother in this film, trust them.Its about where to place trust, which is always the core of any fable, parable, or fairy tale.Lighten up. Stories cannot be alike. A variety of food is required to fill all your needs. Man cannot live on bread alone.

joelglevi This film had so much potential, but many things were just off. Most grating to an American were the accents, of which Stevenson's was the worst. Bishop's accent is a wooden attempt at the Midwest, especially Ohio. Stevenson's was an attempt at Los Angeles, with some Brooklyn thrown in. Most of the scenes are set in America, but it's clear they were not filmed there. Everything, right down to the Christmas tree, the kitchen appliances (small European refrigerators!), telephones from the 1970s, the Spanish-looking New York apartments, is from a different continent. Even Bishop's wardrobe reflects a misunderstanding of American culture. Are we to believe that this young, gay pianist who grew up in Boston and San Francisco dresses like a frat boy from Georgia in 1987? This director learned everything about America from old movies, and had no concern for accurately depicting a culture. How can any of his films, set in America or elsewhere, ring true without an eye for details? Actually, this "American" film directed by a Spaniard was an education of sorts. I came away appreciating how distracting it must be for British film goers, for example, to see American actors ham-hand their accents. With the film industry so dominated by Hollywood, I have gotten a taste of what a mess American actors and filmmakers often make of non-American subjects.