People are voting emotionally.

Let's be realistic.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

On the weekend I recommended this film to friends who had told me how much they enjoyed the film "Christopher And His Kind" (starring Matt Smith). A few days later I realised that my friends are (as with Chris and Don) in a 30+ year relationship, with the younger man facing the impending loss of his beloved through cancer. So the part of the film which I am worried might be too distressing for them is when Don shares his experience of caring for Chris at home at the end of his life - which was of course extremely challenging, but exactly what they both wanted. I feel privileged to have been allowed such a personal view to this vital act of love - which is an integral part of their story, of lives well lived.The documentary presents a great deal of interesting material about the life Christopher Isherwood shared with Don Bachardy (and we hear Don's honest first hand opinion throughout). While they were very much in love, it wasn't all wine and roses (I think very few relationships are). Chris wrote "A Single Man" at a time when Don had requested a trial separation and he was not at all confident that Don would return. Don lives on in the house they shared for many decades and is a duly successful artist (a talent Chris had recognised in him and actively encouraged). The DVD edition comes with several cards of Don's work - including portraits of Chris."Chris & Don" is a magnificent testament to the reality of true love and to the value of commitment - and is much more effective in this regard than any other film I've seen.

This was just a beautiful, fascinating, really touching film. And the filmmakers nearly destroyed it. Like so many of the other commentators, I have to add that the use of recreations and animation - as little as there was - was a grave mistake. They had a wealth of - gorgeous - archival footage to work with. Truly, the quality and aptness of the Isherwood/Bachardy footage they were able to use was quite remarkable. So they had no need at all to add poorly shot bits of recreated narrative. It was obvious and completely unnecessary. As there was so little of it, it might have been overlooked. But the cringe-inducing cartoons could not be. They were used to illustrate the personal pet-names the two men would use with each other. Many of us tend to wax infantile when lovingly addressing our spouses or partners; they were no exception. That's fine. That's lovely, really. But to ratchet up the "cute" by morphing their messages and drawings into animation was a stupid choice. And to actually end the film with one of these sick-sweet cartoons is really unforgivable.I wish I had been told about those missteps. I wish I'd been told to be ready for them and do my best to ignore them. If the viewer can do that, this is a fantastic film.

What is love? And how does it exercise us? As, regardless of age or experience, we grope, or dance, or trot, or what you will, our way in life, is there not at some point, for some of us, a deep impact encounter with another person that challenges our expectations, our fears, even our love? Let alone the fact that, for example, a friend's fleeting remark can trigger an unpleasant memory. That much for frailty, for I do not want to deliver any kind of portentous philosophical or psychoanalytic sketch as a response to the film, but there was one thing, one thing if you may, that touched me profoundly, and although it shows, I think, an immense refinement and spontaneity of affect, it is of the simplest logical necessity!First things first! you may say, if you still read this.Like, this is a documentary concerning two men, two artists, in love, in a relationship for more than thirty years, along with geography, exile, backgrounds, celebrities, chronology, hilarity, love and its discontents making for a (dual) portrait. Like Chris Isherwood, a somewhat canonical writer, mostly for his Berlin stories, living the 20th century passion in an insouciant pre-fascist Germany, ends up in Hollywwod, California coming from rural upper-class England, and, past middle age, he encounters a charming adolescent who ends up the love of his life. A worthy artist, also. Like all that this entails, what is influence, what are the stakes, of youth coming into age, into art, jealousy, manhood, disgust for mushrooms (and even worse, where this, combined with canned breakfast, can lead to!), shock treatment, and what is the use of a horse being with a cat, along other matters. Or even why love is as rare as guts. I felt my saliva freeze in my neck and tears at the back of my eye-bulbs, when Don Bachardy raised to the camera the first drawing of Isherwood's dead head. Or why love is as frequent as ideology. If one bothers about the same sex marriage issue, thumbs up or down, mildly or not, that is if such a story can trigger a political, ideological statement or pronouncement, then one should bother also for re-balancing the debt towards people shock-treated. Recall how a broken, elderly Ted, Don Bachardy's brother, comes just a couple of minutes after the sly editing of his former, radiant and handsome self. And, even more sobering, how his brother's voice says, in a tone hurt, with all the could-have-beens of a life muffled, and still matter of fact: the shock treatment ruined his life. But as this, too, begins to smell of ideology, I turn to what, how shall I put it, elevates to a higher degree the linear, ideological, biographical data of the film. The day Chris Isherwood died, Don Bachardy commenced reading his diaries backwards. He wanted to reach back to their meeting. Now, for me, if there ever was an effective and affective definition of Jean Baudrillard's awkward phrase "Things get their full meaning when played backwards", this is the case!To make first things last, a true, a truly meaningful act of love!Like a poem by Elizabeth Bishop, namely her last one, simply and aptly called "Poem". I would like to quote it in extent:(...) Our visions coincided - "visions" is too serious a word - our looks, two looks: art copying from life and life itself, life and the memory of it so compressed they've turned into each other. Which is which? Life and the memory of it cramped, dim, on a piece of Bristol board, dim, but how live, how touching in detail the little that we get for free, the little of our earthly trust. Not much. (...)Thank you.

For those that do not know a wee bit of history first.Chris is Christopher Isherwood, a novelist & story writer, He is mostly known for I AM A CAMERA which in turn became CABERET.Don is Don Bachardy a noted painter who has had many successful showings.There was a 30 year age difference between these 2 men.Chris was in his 40's when he met this handsome young teenager. Over a short period of time they fell in love with each other.& lived and made a life together till Chris' death 33 years later. In that time Chris helped Don become the fine artist he became & they were together to the end. Don narrates most of this 90 minute film, we learn about each of there careers & there devotion to one another.We (my partner of near 40 years & I) both felt the same way.There was something missing, The 2 fine men had a very exciting life, We see or know about none of it.If Hollywood made a real film of there lives the rating would be PG-13 more than likely an R or even an NC 17 would not be inconceivable.What we have just seen is PG mature subject matter. These 2 exciting people had very exciting lives,nothing indicates this.As is its a well made movie & we see much of Dons excellent paintings.Ratings *** (out of 4) points ** IMDb 7 (out of 10)** no points given for documentaries,I never was able to decide how to.