Not even bad in a good way

A Disappointing Continuation

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

I went into this movie not really sure what to expect. I knew a little bit about Soho, but, being from the U.S., I only really knew that it was once a big part of LGBT culture that has been gentrified and turned into more of an upper class area. I'd never conducted any significant research, as I'm obviously more tuned into the American LGBT scene, and mostly thought of it as another unfortunate victim of gentrification. However, the movie ended up being rather interesting and very educational, even to someone like me.I will say, the movie starts off kind of dry. There's a long monologue about Soho's history that, to me, felt more like a nostalgic reminiscing than information about its actual history and how it came to be such a haven for the people that ended up there. Obviously, people thought of Soho as a dangerous place, a place where freaks congregated - but why? It didn't really catch my attention immediately, which I found unfortunate as I progressed, because it really did end up becoming an interesting film.We're introduced to a lot of people through this documentary. The people that are well-known even outside of Soho include Stephen Fry, who speaks a bit to how important he finds the culture of Soho, and Lindsay Kemp, a dancer and choreographer who has inspired many artists in the same vein. Lesser-known people who are prominent in the documentary include Michael Peacock, a male escort and activist, Johnny Deluxe, an artist that speaks mostly about the gentrification of the area, Jen Brown, a rock artist whose music career started in Soho, and David Hodge, who used to be huge in the London drag scene as Dusty O. But even with the huge "cast," it's easy to remember people, even if you don't quite remember their names. Every person is extremely unique and has their own piece of the story to tell.Now, part of the reason I wasn't incredibly into the first part of the story is that it feels more like a reminiscing "good old days" story than an actual documentary. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that as much as Soho did have a substantial amount of culture, art, and diversity in "the old days," it was also incredibly dangerous, with gangs controlling the area and running prostitution rings. It was known to be a terrifying area, but the mobsters who ran the place were rich enough to bribe cops to overlook their speakeasies, brothels, and gambling. And while there's certainly nothing inherently wrong with sex, alcohol, or gambling, the LGBT community in the area has always been a part of this complex equation. Cops could raid gay bars and leave brothels alone so it seemed like they were "doing something," and constant discrimination in work and housing lead many LGBT people, especially trans women, to prostitution and addiction. In the wise words of Philip Sallon, who was interviewed for this documentary: "'Oh, it was so good years ago!' Oh, because it was so dangerous and you got beaten up so much more? Is that such a good thing?"However, about halfway through the movie, it started to move more into an acknowledgement of the culture currently in Soho and how people are being forced to leave due to ongoing gentrification. Perhaps even more importantly, the gentrification in question isn't because of sex, or even entirely because of the real estate. A great point this documentary reveals is that gentrification doesn't just randomly happen. It's an ongoing attempt by people in power to push "undesirables" out to the fringes of society, and then move society further out so they can keep pushing and pushing. David Hodge brings that to the forefront near the end of the documentary, explicitly stating, "It would seem that, bit by bit, Westminster is picking off the LGBT venues within its borders."The themes within this movie are great. The drag community of Soho is perhaps the unintentional focal point of the documentary, as they overlap significantly with the other groups - artists, LGBT people, poor people, performers, and everyone else portrayed. While it certainly isn't a history of the Soho drag community, it puts the spotlight on a lot of people who are heavily involved in that scene. Lindsay Kemp is one of those people, and perhaps one of the most well-known outside of London. At the time of this writing, he's 80 years old, but was still heavily involved in the documentary, contributing not only his life experiences but his artistry and love for Soho. He's an incredibly popular dance teacher, one who worked with, spent time with, and inspired the likes of David Bowie and Kate Bush, both of whom really appreciated his eclectic artistry, and imbued their own creations with his personality.This film ends with a long, soft dance piece that Kemp choreographed and performed. It was an incredibly strong ending to this movie, and I didn't find it "boring" or "campy" like some people have expressed. He is an elderly man, and close shots on his hands show the shakiness in his movements. He moves slowly, but to the gentle music in the background, which includes a repeating statement he made: "I prefer dancing better than walking." And after the deep convictions he expresses throughout the movie, this is perhaps a tribute to the fact that, though things are difficult and hard to stomach sometimes, dancing your way through life may make it a little easier.At the end of the day, I'm pleased with the time I spent watching this movie. I enjoyed it, and if someone was looking for information on modern-day Soho and the people living there, it would certainly be one of my recommendations, though it wouldn't be the only one.

Over the last two years I've stopped watching Hollywood movies for several reasons that I won't go into here. I prefer to watch films by independent producers, and that's how I stumbled across "The Battle of Soho." I've walked through the streets of Soho on the odd occasion, but I have never really had an opinion about the place. All I've heard about this town is that it's the "Red Light District" of London. I had no interest or attachment to Soho whatsoever, until I watched this documentary. The title of the film is what drew my attention. I wanted to know what the "battle" was all about, and what I discovered was not what I was expecting. I was assuming that it would be about local residents trying to drive out the prostitutes or something of that nature. Instead, I learnt about the history and attempted gentrification of a town that its residents and loyal visitors love and are very passionate about. Let me start by saying that the production was fantastic; it was more like a documentary than a film. It featured real people, and captured real emotion. Unless you have a heart of stone, you will feel the immense pain and suffering of these people. To be honest, before I watched the film, gentrification was not something I even thought about. I live in Kent, no one is trying to dig up my home to make the area more modern and drive out the poor. However, now I have a heart for the people who are faced with this struggle. There were several scenes in the film that were extremely moving. I wish I could talk about them all, but space won't allow me to do so. What I learnt is that Soho is a place for non conformists, it has a huge LGBT community, there are a lot of clubs and bars that cater to their lifestyle. The majority of the places that were being shut down so that this railway station could be built, were the places that this community socialise and live their lives without feeling threatened by a society that doesn't accept their lifestyle. There was one man in particular who really touched my heart. He was a bald male escort/activist who had a very dominant voice in the fight against the destruction of this community. When he heard that a club called "The Black Cap" had been shut down, he broke down in tears. This scene was heartbreaking to me. Another scene that was both powerful and emotional, was the campaign for a lady called Marian to be re-housed. I can't remember the full story, but she was being evicted by the council so they could build something, and at the same time refusing to re-house her. The bald male escort/Activist, and many others from the community stood with this woman shoulder to shoulder and fought to have her re-housed. Due to the publicity that her case received, partly as a result of this documentary, Marian and her children were moved into another property. At the end of the documentary one of the people being interviewed said: "If you really believe in something get involved." I applaud everyone who took part in this film and stood up for something they believed in. I applaud the producers of this film who chose to assist this community in their fight instead of trying to be the next big Hollywood movie directors making huge profits but having no impact. I was also saddened that Johnny Deluxe, one of the participants in the documentary died in 2017. He had a powerful voice, and he used it well. Rest in peace!Although this is not my fight, I will remember each person who starred in this film, and the people who made it in prayer. Thank you for such an inspirational and moving narrative.

This is such an important subject, deserving of a fantastic documentary. So sad that this was not it. This was such lazy, random filmmaking I can't believe it ever made it to cinemas. A bunch of rambling interviews with some mates of the director, no discussion of subculture, sex work, women, the larger forces at play, no questions put to the other side, no research. Offensively bad.

The movie has truly great opening. It invites viewer to the underground world of Soho – both sleazy and magical at the same time. Then the actual movie starts and everything falls apart. The movie consists mostly of interviews. We meet extravagant performers, local business owners and activists. For some Soho is a memory of their gone youth for others it is place where they found acceptance and now are forced to defend their second home from real estate developers who want to change it to just another part of London. Regardless of who is speaking you can feel that Soho is extremely important to them but we never get to hear their stories as director is jumping between speakers not getting deeper with any of them.My main issue with this movie is that it lacks both focus and good decisions. What this movie is about because honestly I don't know. If it wanted to show the variety of people living in Soho and it's local culture – great. If it wanted to show how democracy is failing against big corporate system using forceful changes on Soho as a baseline for discussion – again, great. Instead we get a little of this, a little of that and in the end we get nowhere just one giant mess. Not only that but one of the subplots involves a fight of a single mother to get a replacement housing because she is being evicted from her flat. This whole subplots feels completely out of place. I really wonder if director took time to think about why he is putting this part of the interview in the movie – what this scene means to the movie, is it funny, does it offer a strong point or is it just wasting time? I find it amazing that music in this movie is so messed up. In some scenes I feel like somebody forgot to normalize volumes so if character on screen was loud I would get screamed at as well, experience far from enjoyable. The other thing I would notice is that on numerous occasion halfway the interview the background music would start playing and getting progressively louder to the point that it was very difficult to understand what the speaker was saying.The movie has, sort of, main characters: a queer, a transvestite activist and local artist. They are given more screen time than others and are regularly revisited thought the movie between interviews. All three annoyed me. What's worse the movie presented much more interesting characters whose stories I would be much more fascinated to hear.In some movies at the end of the movie there is a writing saying what happened after the end of the action of the movie, what was the follow up. This is is used here as well on several cases but it's used poorly. We get letters to read (long section) on very active background. So as the viewer should I be reading or looking at action in the background because both are asking for my attention.The film ends with 10 minute sequence of an elderly gay man dancing on the beach. Was this supposed to be artistic or kamp? As a matter of fact who cares – one more bad decision when whole movie is build upon bad decisions won't make much difference anyway.People connected to Soho show passion when talking about it and the place deserve a better movie. Something done with skill, at least some. Truly hated the movie and that I paid any money for it.