AKA Aspect ratio: 3 x 1.78:1 within 2.39:1 frame (Triptych) Sound format: Dolby Digital1978: A working class teenager (Matthew Leitch) assumes a false identity and gatecrashes high society, where he learns harsh lessons about the divisions between Rich and Poor.Autobiographical feature by director Duncan Roy (JACKSON: MY LIFE... YOUR FAULT), an exposé of the pre-Thatcherite aristocracy, as seen through the eyes of a low-rent 'commoner' whose world view is transformed by his adventures amongst the Upper Classes. Unfortunately, Roy's screenplay says very little we didn't already know about the excesses of the idle rich, and the narrative is only briefly ignited by Leitch's relationship with a handsome but self-destructive rent boy (Peter Youngblood Hills) who turns out to be no less hypocritical than the very people he seeks to emulate. Also starring Diana Quick (as an outrageous snob who believes working class people are "embarrassed to be alive"!), Bill Nighy as the black sheep of a wealthy family, Lindsay Coulson ("EastEnders"), Blake Ritson (DIFFERENT FOR GIRLS) and Georgina Hale in a typically flamboyant cameo, flashing her boobs at all and sundry, without a care in the world! Unfortunately, much of the film's impact is diluted by Roy's insistence on using a Triptych effect (three separate 1.78:1 images are letterboxed within the 2.39:1 frame, each one providing a different viewpoint of individual scenes), which shrinks the image and distances viewers from events on-screen. A long, pointless film, too personal for wide appeal, and hampered throughout by a cinematic process which fails to reconcile the story at hand. A single-image version is also available (framed theatrically at 1.85:1), with the on-screen title AKA: LIES ARE LIKE WISHES.

This offering was recently presented on Sundance Channel without much fanfare. I had never heard of it before, in fact. The comparison to "Mr. Ripley" is immediately obvious at about thirty minutes in. If I had not subsequently learned more about evidence of an autobiographical source, I would have judged it a poor copy of the Highsmith novel and film.Nevertheless, I rather liked it as a whole. The version I saw was limited not so much by any split-screen device as it was by extremely shoddy editing. Great gaps in both story line and character development occur almost from the start, and I was left floundering from time to time until I could infer this or that bit by slogging onward. Had it not been for a great supporting cast I might have switched it off before other redeeming pieces fell into place.Those better features included an accurate social setting for 1978, some interesting costumes, and one or two experiences of the character played by Matthew Leitch in Paris that approximated some of my own contemporaneous involvements with that city. In other words, I am not able to be completely objective, and will say no more.

I'm a little surprised at how much vitriol is invested in some of the reviews of this film. As a film, it is tells a story that is challenging, thought provoking and fresh, while the filmmaking as a whole takes creative risks. With that said, it is also flawed in many areas, and many of the criticisms have merit. But on balance I was engaged by this film and have to applaud the filmmaker for trying to tell his story with a unique voice. Sure it's a low budget film, and that shows occasionally. But budget issues never "took me out of the movie" and the split screens - while reminiscent of Timecode - were altogether differently used - specifically using obviously different takes. That was clearly a creative decision, presumably commenting on the accuracy of memory (among other things). I'm not sure whether it entirely worked, but it was a brave attempt. I'm glad he made the film, glad I watched it and a year later, I'm still thinking about it.

It is without doubt that Duncan Roy inspires much love and loathing when ever the chance is given for the public to make comment about his film AKA. It made me chuckle to read the new comments here on this site. What ever may happen to AKA it has, as a first feature made for very little money, made waves. The film is a remarkable film, it is also an annoying film. AKA opened at the London gay and lesbian film festival and many of the same comments about this film written here were aired by similar sounding people. Perhaps the greatest proof of the growing respect he deserves for making this film so honestly and radically are the many awards and nominations for BAFTAS etc. he has received. I have now seen the film in LA and again at Sundance and at both of those screenings many people stayed behind to ask questions and I believed the applause was real. Perhaps this film only hits the mark with film reviewers and festival juries for this film to be so well reviewed (see newsday) and awarded, or more likely, the scewed "reviews" written here are by people with axes to grind. True talent has a habit of being undaunted. Duncan Roy, undoubtedly, will make other films with real money. Let's see what he can do next. Until then I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I think that I will not be dissapointed.