Posted: 09/30/2005

Kinky Boots

(2005)

by Kevin Holmes

The plot of Kinky Boots is based on a true story. The fact that this movie feels contrived and lacking in any notion of the real world is testament to how the filmmaking process, while attempting to convey a story, can distort and simplify the world at large.

Now don’t get me wrong Kinky Boots isn’t a film that delves into the cinematic representation of reality or the essentially voyeuristic and solipsistic nature of the gazing camera. Far from it. This is a film about common folk and their common struggles—namely to make kinky boots for a niche market of cross-dressing men and the soul-searching, introspection and enlightenment that this requires (which, by the way, ‘t much). It’s what’s usually termed a ‘feel good’ movie, except it didn’t make me feel very good; it made me feel tired—tired and angry.

The plot revolves around the affable Charlie Price (Joel Edgerton) taking over his fathers shoe factory due to his untimely death (tragic). Charlie finds out, to his horror, that all this time his father has been stashing the newly made stock in a store cupboard (that obviously know one uses?!) for some time. Oh dear. Cue a harrowed Charlie having to dish out redundancies like he was taking food from the homeless. Bankruptcy looms and Charlie heads to London looking for a way to fix the problem. It’s here that he meets Lola (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and this in turn leads to Charlie deciding to make erotic boots for men. Charlie is hesitant at first, despite it being his idea, but with encouragement from factory worker Lauren (Sarah-Jane Potts) and help with the designs from Lola he takes it on board. Hilarity ensues and the film culminates with a grand finalé at the fashion show in Milan.

A major problem with the film is the lack of likable characters. Our protagonist—Charlie—mopes about the film looking desolate and pathetic, his character having the emotional strength of a heavily pregnant woman and any attempt at trying to make us empathise with him just makes him appear more infuriating. I think we would’ve had more insight into his character if he’d have just come on screen and gone, ‘Hi, I’m Charlie Price and I’m a right James Blunt.’ That’s all we would have needed. Why waste an hour and a half of everybody’s precious and busy lives ‘developing’ his character. This is the real Achilles’ heel of the film. The characters, apart from Lola, are dull and uninteresting. Some how the writers have dived head first into a pool of ideas, clasped at what was lying about in its murky depths and surfaced clutching the bloated corpses of these stereotyped British caricatures. They call it writing, I call it laziness.

Nick Frost (Don) who is hilarious in everything he does (Spaced, Shaun of the Dead, even Danger! 50, 000 Volts!) is completely under-used and reduced to a huffing, frowning ape threatened by the arrival of Lola, her heels and her flamboyant sexuality. He plays the requisite macho male who gives the cross dresser a hard time because basically (yawn) his masculinity is jeopardized. How original and contemporary, I think not! This dispute however is soon resolved by the kind-hearted Lola as she lets Don win an arm wrestling contest that he has won continually since he started. Oh how poignant and affecting. We’re not tearing up any rule books here; in fact the only groundbreaking that will be getting done will be because those heels are reinforced with steel.

The team that brought us Calendar Girls (another film ‘based’ on a true story) now bring us this. I ask them; please stop with the true stories turned heartfelt and touching tales of ordinary people and the extraordinary happenings in their lives. I don’t think I can take anymore. Leave it for the documentary filmmakers.

Despite my complete dislike for this film and everything it stands for I feel compelled to say what a marvellous performance Chiwetel Ejiofor puts in as Lola. He brings the only interesting and convincing character to the film. He’s captivating in his portrait and believable; the only thing missing was a love interest for him. But perhaps the 12A rating would’ve been refused if they had two cross-dressing men flirting with each other throughout the film. It couldn’t have made me feel worse than seeing Charlie and Lauren get it on. Now that was truly tasteless.

I think this film will perhaps find an audience in grandmothers and middle-aged people who aren’t too cine-literate but like watching films (who don’t?) and if you like shoes there is plenty on display from some British designers—Patrick Cox, Emma Hope and various others. But for the rest of us, especially those of us who love the big screen, it’s another disappointing British film to add to the pile (Revolver anybody?). We’ll just have to make do with period pieces that the British do so well, like the new Pride & Prejudice adaptation, but personally I’d rather watch paint dry (which incidentally is a new film I’m looking to make). I can honestly say this film wasn’t worth the price of admission—and I went to a free screening.

Kevin Holmes is a film critic living London, England.

Got a problem? E-mail us at filmmonthly@gmail.com