I finally saw Behind the Candelabra a few nights ago. I was not confused in the least--I was appalled. As a gay man I was greatly offended that this cartoonish effort was made in the first place, and then was celebrated as being of any worth at all.
Any gay man seeing this film without warning would be repelled. I suppose with some warning it could be watched as a kind of over-the-top parody that could be fun--but under the fun would be the suspicion that this production actually thought it was saying something serious about gay life.
At its heart it was the story of a crazy, stereotypically gay, older sugar daddy (virtually a drag queen in pants), and his twinkie boyfriend who was out for everything he could get out of the old man. Douglas and Dillon could not possibly have been a worse case of casting. No, please. It was ghastly and embarrassing to watch. I can certainly understand why LGBTs did not want their families and friends to see it. BTC is exactly the kind of anti-gay propaganda that comes from time long ago, and still drives me berserk.
Scott Thompson was the only one alive to write the book--and profit from the movie royalties. That he was shamelessly using Liberace all along, and was a totally self-seeking bastard seems to have gotten lost along the way. Liberace sure had bad taste in men. He is the one to pity, not the sleazy hangers-on who took advantage of him.
And why do some of you straight people insist on calling the younger partners in gay relationships "boys?" Thompson was not a boy, he was a young man. To characterize them as "young boys" is to suggest paedophilia, and is homophobic. Stop it. Do you describe 17 and 18 year old females as "young girls?" No. And feminists I know would be very angry if you did.
That this film would win any awards--at SAG or any place else--says nothing about the film, but lots about the organizations presenting the awards,