Tuesday 16 October 2012

New film: 'LIBERAL ARTS'

It's difficult for me to be objective. The reason being that I'm absolutely smitten with the looks of this man, Josh Radnor, of whom I'd never heard until this film.
When one person not only writes, produces and directs a film, but is also the main actor who is rarely off-screen during its entire 97 minutes, it may be forgiveable to think of this as a 'vanity project' on that person's part.
But, trying to put my personal feelings aside by imagining someone in the leading role whom I did not find physically attractive at all, I think I'd still find it a charming film, but can't be absolutely sure.
Radnor plays a mid-30s academically-inclined (but temporarily unemployed?) man falling for a student only a little more than half his age. A platonic friendship develops to the point where she wishes to take it further, but he is reluctant to go there because of their age difference. That's really all one needs to know. There are a couple of quite engaging lesser characters - one, a free-spirited hippy-type guy, especially so, turning up like a benevolent genie on the college campus where much of the story takes place. 

But, doing my level best to be dispassionate about the merits of this film, like the one I saw yesterday, I will also give 'Liberal Arts' a score of .....................7/10


I had a very similar reaction of distracting infatuation when I saw the actor Tom Cullen in the film 'Weekend' (which I wrote about in my blog of 22nd Nov 2011) - but at least Josh R. is a few years older than Mr Cullen, even though the former is in the same age ratio to me (just over half my age) as he is in this film to the girl. So, like him, I'd better not think about taking our 'relationship' any further.  ;-)

Here, for anyone who also didn't know of Mr Radnor, are a few more shots of him. I wish I'd had his looks when I was in my 30s. Maybe he doesn't do anything for you. If so, that's okay. I give you permission not to feel the same 'excitement' as I do.


8 comments:

  1. fairly cute! a bit young for me lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, J.G. You make me feel like a cradle- snatcher! :-)

      Delete
  2. Yes, rather cute, bit of a cub perhaps.

    A charming film?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If only you knew the absolute ANGUISH I went through before employing the 'ch' word, Jase! It's one I'd never knowingly used before - but now the gates have been thrown wide open, watch out!

      Delete
  3. Nice to see him do something besides that sit-com. He's good enough in it but they don't give him much to do. I have never seen him in anything else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it wasn't for my looking up his details, H.K., I wouldn't have known what 'that' sit-com was - which I've never seen. I dare say if he hadn't got that face-fuzz I would probably not have noticed him. But as he has, with it I still think he's sexy as hell.

      Delete
  4. Call me shallow, but I'm holding out only for your "10s." As for Josh Radnor, not my type -- which means he's all yours!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mitch, do you mean you're waiting for a film to which I give a score of 10/10? If so, I think you'll have a long time to wait. Not only have I never given any film a perfect '10', none have even been worthy of a 9.5 - moreover, there have been only half a dozen in my life (out of nearly 4,500 to date) to which I'd award a 9. So I reckon you'd better scale your expectations down a bit.

      Regarding Mr Radnor - well, I realised a long time ago that one's man meat is.....etc etc. It all comes down to personal taste and I certainly wouldn't think any worse of anyone who didn't share my own preferences.
      Although this fellow is nearly 30 years younger than me I keep asking myself "What would I have done if I'd had looks like that when I was his age?" But I dare say that life wouldn't have been so very different anyway.
      - And thanks for leaving him all to me. I'll take up that offer!

      Delete