"Freier Fall" (2013), anyone? I can't help mentioning another movie at the beginning of this review, as the two movies have more or less the same plot. However, it doesn't mean that those who have watched "Freier Fall" should spare their time on this movie, for "Floating Skyscrapers" has raised a lot of thought-provoking questions.**** Spoiler alert ****My biggest question is "Why does the woman choose to cling onto the man?" Why would any woman want to keep a man who has homosexual tendencies? Just let him go! The relationship is damaged anyway. How can the couple survive the relationship? Things only get complicated with the baby, like in "Freier Fall", but at least the woman in "Freier Fall" is smart enough to dump her husband. Is it a Polish thing to never let go of a man, I wonder?Another question is that "What the hell is the man thinking?" He is digging his own grave when he invites the man over for lunch, and then dumb enough to have three people go on a trip together, only to get intimate with his love interest in the same tent that his girlfriend is sleeping in. WHAT? You either choose the man or the woman! At least the male lead in "Freier Fall" tries to hide his male love interest from his wife, which makes the situation plausible. Okay, I get it: there is no happy ending for gay couples. That's the only possible explanation for the abrupt ending, except that it is unfortunately quite plausible. Hey: we're talking about Poland! Not just in Poland, things like this happen all the time! I wonder if this is all karma - if the male lead didn't beat up one of the gang members, maybe his love interest will not get revenged. Perhaps this is his consequence for being insecure about his sexuality? I don't have a definite answer for that.But the ending only leaves me thinking more. Won't the man miss his love interest? How is he going to handle his family, when he obviously desires men now? This is not his first homosexual encounter either; won't he be tempted to have sexual relationships with men in the future? There are so many questions that can be raised from the movie, and the movie does not offer any answers for that. There are plentiful explicit scenes, straight sex involved; prepare your fast-forward button if you don't want to see the male lead sucking the female lead's p***y. But bravo for both the male and female lead! They are willing to show it all, which is quite a brave thing to do. Especially for Mateusz Banasiuk, who is a straight actor; he has played well the indecisiveness and the emotional conflicts of the character. Go see this movie if you want to see how a man's world got turned completely upside down. Not a happy ending, but it leaves you thinking.

Spoiler Alert - A film school quality product. A film about an incestuous mother, and a pathetic girlfriend who settles for life with a gay man. A cookie cutter film in which one of the gay characters has to die from gay bashing, and the other has to live an unbearable existence because he's too weak to grow a pair of balls, and get on with life as a gay man. A film in which the only character that has any self-respect is the one they kill off. We can't have a well-adjusted character upsetting all the artsy, doom and gloom. Maybe one day the writer, and so many other writers, will develop enough talent to write a movie with an original story line.

In many post communist countries, where people used to have lives lined up and where the one who was standing out was the enemy of the society - such perception still exists. The proof is that in several countries lately, the constitution was adjusted to a union between a man and a woman solely. Poland is a very religious country and related prejudice against sexual minority is certainly projected into the questioning men which keeps them in the closet - such as in the example of a main character Kuba who is exploring not only the water of professional swimming facility but also his sexuality. In a way, he represents the society's ideal of a man: if one behaves as a male, has a woman (or women) around, then he is fine. Even though, deep inside, he might be feeling differently. On the other side, the character Mihal represents a more progressive minority person since he is out to himself and has a close relationship with his mother. Unfortunately, sometimes the visible guys such Mihal gain more attention from the radical group members as well. Other characters portray misconception, stereotypes and misunderstandings about homosexuality – which are still present in the contemporary post-communist societies, such as in the statement (about homosexuality) of Kuba's girlfriend, "Why do you do this to me?"

Tomasz Wasilewski has publicly declared this to be Poland's first gay themed film which is not true. In Poland at least the gay film genre is fledgling, but this film follows in the wake of more than half a dozen gay themed Polish films made in recent years. To insist on such a declaration betrays a failure to grasp the tradition of the gay themed film he has honoured himself with the task of contributing to.Wasilewski's film displays good acting with a cast who are sympathetically engaging. Cinematically, the visuality is sophisticated, with obvious preoccupations with the elemental essences of spatiality and landscape. But this photographic style threatens to bow under the weight of it's own vacuity where style rules over substance once one considers the terrible treatment Wasilewski consigns upon his chosen subject matter, the gay themed film. Wasilewski can be seen on Youtube to say that his gay character is something new but what we in fact encounter is a much unwanted throw-back to the days when gays in cinema were always the unfortunate, the unfulfilled, the castigated, the bad, mad or murdered. Eastern Europe is slowly emerging from a traumatised, isolated, abused and culturally starved recent past and at the time of this film's release Poland is dominated by a reactionary conservatism fuelled by a right wing anti-gay middle European Catholicism. But are things really this bad for gay people in Poland's capital ? Are options among the urban set so limited ? In fact there is much evidence that this is not the case. But more to the point, even if it were, then more so than ever, the film maker has in some sense a duty to use their imagination to elevate the gay themed film to a higher and better place. But this is far from what occurs in Floating Skyscrapers.Despite initial indications of a touching and successful gay romance, Wasilewski freefalls somewhat inexplicably into negative clichés which one had been led to believe were consigned to the vaults of cinematic history. Hail the return of the tedium of the ultra magnified maladjusted gay, the threatened morally indignant heterosexuals, the traumatised parents, the proverbial slaps across the face, the long stoney silences, the angst, the intense sense of heavy burden of the oh-no-he's-gay! problematics and finally the inevitable gay bashing. If Wasilewski thinks this is something new then he needs a stiff pointing back to seminal gay discourses of the 1980s which exposed these negatively limiting stereotypes and were well aired in popular gay documentaries and books such as The Celluloid Closet. This is old hat.The extent to which Wasilewski fails to grasp his subject continues. If there is something new about this character it is the possibility that he is in fact not a gay character but a bisexual character. Certainly he lives out all the primary psychological dilemmas that define the trials of true bisexuality. Bisexuality is one of the emergent sexual minorities of the era in terms of recent understanding and long held misconceptions finally being overturned. As a portrayal of the obstacles of bisexual fulfilment the story serves well. But Wasilewski falls into uninformed handling here, fixing the identity upon the axis of gay, while inferring notions about fluid sexualities which are currently thought to be wrong and damaging to understanding both the emotional needs of gay and true bisexuality. Aside from the failure to handle the thematic politics of sexual minorities, somewhat incongruous with the level of prejudice portrayed, the film's characters hang out in art galleries, smoking dope, listen to cool music, socialise in underground urban gatherings, wear trendy clothing, have IKEA filled apartments and own all the latest gadgets which means crucially access to the internet. So how does Wasilewski imagine that the gay subject could receive such a unanimously negative reception among this set of people ? The only concession one could grant Wasilewski is that he is at odds to portray a Poland which may have had a material recovery but devoid of any tangible recent social revolution, it's social mindset remains effectively in the dark ages. Again there is evidence that this is not necessarily the case in Poland's capital. But also, once again if reality in Poland were so, then would it not be in some sense his duty to offer a different vision, a different way of thinking to the Polish ?Unfortunately Wasilewski does not do this and what we have here is an example of social attitudes presented as cultural immaturity largely because the prejudice portrayed is omnipotent. What's more, the degree of prejudice remains both unexamined & unchallenged but instead accepted and perhaps even gratuitously celebrated. In Youtube interviews, Wasilewski fails to grasp the extent of his negative treatment of the gay subject and perhaps any ownership of his own internalised homophobia which his plot-point choices betray. Though publicly celebrated for creating a gay themed film, he has in fact unforgivably created a homophobic film which revels in the manifestation of gay victimhood and lacks the courage to establish a sustainable vision for sexual minorities in Polish cinema. Further more he plays into the hands of Poland's political right by confirming their beliefs that sexual minorities are unstable, disruptive and as the perpetrator of the unacceptable only ever to be perceived as a victim to be mistrusted. The extent of the failure of responsibility in this work runs deep and that is a shame where obvious cinematographic sophistication can be seen and a very good cast was assembled. Wasilewski needs to consider the charges laid here carefully and perhaps not back away from the subject but make another film which corrects his wrongs and enlightens the territory which this work fails to do.