“Turtles” (“Les tortues”) (2024). Cast: Olivier Gourmet, Dave Johns, Brigitte Poupart, Vanessa Van Durme, Sandra Zidani, Laurent Bonnet, Nathalie Laroche, Hassiba Halabi. Director: David Lambert. Screenplay: David Lambert. Web site. Trailer.

Is love enough to sustain a relationship? It can certainly provide a powerful bond to keep partners together, but is that sufficient to maintain that connection when other issues arise (e.g., day-to-day life challenges, disagreements and disconnects about fundamental goals and aspirations, cohabitation conflicts, a growing lack of sexual intimacy, etc.)? These matters often come to a head when certain turning points in life are reached, such as health issues or retirement, especially when each partner holds different views about what that next stage of life is supposed to be all about. And, as is becoming increasingly apparent these days, these questions impact both traditional partnerships and same-sex couples. So what’s to be done? That’s the central issue explored in the insightful new LGBTQ+ romantic comedy-drama, “Turtles” (“Les tortues”).

Thom Halford (Dave Johns) and Henri Janssens (Olivier Gourmet) have been partners for over 30 years, tying the knot when Belgium legalized same-sex marriage. They reside in a modest Brussels flat that they inherited from a late friend, who also left them his pet turtles, Topsy and Turvy, to care for. And, together, they lead what appears to be a rather stable, ordinary life. Thom, an English transplant and former drag queen, spends his days tending to their home and earning a modest income peddling second-hand resale merchandise at a nearby urban flea market. Henri, meanwhile, is a long-tenured police officer nearing the end of his career and preparing for retirement.

Given the longstanding differences in their daily routines, they haven’t always had the chance to spend much quality time together. So, because of that, Thom eagerly looks forward to the start of Henri’s new life, an opportunity that he hopes will enable them to enjoy one another’s company more than in the past. However, Henri doesn’t share that view. Since he’s had a long working life, he’s now ready to have some time to himself – and that plan doesn’t include Thom, who’s heartbroken by what he sees as his husband’s selfish decision. Granted, the couple has slowly been drifting apart for some time, but Henri’s desire to be left alone represents a big change. Thom feels as though the rug has been pulled out from under him, wondering just how far Henri intends to pursue this new path.

In an attempt to win back the affections of his partner, Thom takes steps to try and rekindle the romance between them, such as looking for ways to spice up their life in the bedroom. But, given that there’s been little going on between the sheets for the couple for some time, Henri responds by starting to sleep on his own in a separate room and even posting a profile with provocative photos on a gay dating app. Indeed, there’s nothing the least bit subtle or tactful about Henri’s behavior. And so, in turn, Thom responds with a flagrant level of audacity on par with his partner, such as picking up a prospective sex partner at a local bath house and bringing him back to their home in full view of Henri.

As the animosity between Thom and Henri grows, matters escalate further. Henri, for example, formally adopts his former police dog, Sherlock, bringing him back to their flat in full knowledge of Thom’s severe allergy to canine fur. In turn, Thom somehow “overlooks” Sherlock’s escape when Henri leaves the pooch home alone with him one day. From there, issues arise about ownership decisions about the home and what form of disposition it might take, a serious issue for Thom in light of his virtual lack of income and challenge-filled ability to secure housing of his own.

As time passes, it becomes obvious that Thom and Henri can’t continue carrying on like this. These circumstances thus prompt the question of whether they should seek a divorce. On the surface, that might seem like the most “practical” solution to their difficulties, but is the answer really that simple? As becomes apparent, there’s more going on beneath the surface here, as evidenced by Henri’s vociferous public outburst when he learns that Thom is selling their wedding rings at his flea market stand. If Henri is genuinely convinced that he needs his independence, then why is he so upset by Thom’s decision to dispose of the rings? Could it be that submerged feelings are still in play in this romantic war of wills? And, consequently, will divorce finally settle the issue? Things may not be as clear-cut as they seem.

What are Thom and Henri to do? Can their lawyers (Sandra Zidani, Laurent Bonnet) and the divorce court judge (Nathalie Laroche) effectively resolve matters for them? Or must they devise a solution of their own? But is that possible? After all, Thom and Henri have apparently been mimicking the behavior of Topsy and Turvy for quite some time, hiding in their own shells rather than confronting their circumstances and allowing the unaddressed bitterness between them to fester to the point that they have now reached. But, despite the open hostility that has surfaced between them of late, it’s also obvious that feelings of genuine love and affection are still in place, too. So which set of emotions will win out? That’s up to them and their beliefs about which feelings should take precedence, regardless of everything that has happened.

That’s important to bear in mind, given that our feelings are driven by our beliefs. And our beliefs, in turn, are significant, considering that they play a fundamental role in how our existence unfolds, a product of the conscious creation process, the philosophy that governs such outcomes. Whether or not Thom and Henri have heard of this way of thinking is unclear. But, considering everything that’s at stake here, it would behoove them to get a handle on it and the beliefs that they hold. Failing to do so could carry tremendous consequences for both their material existence and their emotional well-being. Treating those considerations lightly by not examining the beliefs that underlie them could prove devastating, resulting in incalculable losses on myriad fronts. Indeed, much could be irretrievably lost by not taking a proactive approach to these matters.

Understanding what it takes to make for a successful relationship is no easy task, as many traditional heterosexual couples have discovered for themselves throughout the ages. But, for same-sex partners, who have a comparatively shorter history on this front (at least from a socially accepted and legally sanctioned standpoint), those who pursue these arrangements have considerably less experience to draw from. As a member of the LGBTQ+ community who has been involved in and a witness to a number of relationships over the years, I have seen for myself how many in my shoes have less practical familiarity with what enables these partnerships to succeed. Oftentimes there is a certain naivete that pervades the mindsets of those who engage in them, characterized by beliefs based on wishful thinking, that they’ll turn out just like the storybook romances in old Hollywood movie musicals, where “love always conquers all.” Those are nice sentiments, to be sure, but, in everyday life, they’re not especially realistic, a quality that, sadly, often dooms many gay relationships to failure.

In part this is because these partnerships are often based on beliefs that draw from conventional relationship models. Now, this is not to suggest that those templates have nothing to offer; they do. But, given the dynamics that often characterize same-sex partnerships, there’s frequently a disconnect between what makes traditional partnerships work and what’s in play in LGBTQ+ couples. And this often-contradictory difference is usually driven by the differing beliefs that underlie their respective natures. When comparing the two types of templates that go into them, same-sex partners may thus enter into their relationships with one set of expectations only to find themselves faced with another that differs in some marked ways. Is it any wonder, then, why they may not ultimately succeed?

When it comes to manifesting the existence we seek through the power of our beliefs, there are three impediments that can prevent them from turning out as hoped for, namely, fear, doubt and contradiction. While it’s true that the first two can play a part in scenarios affecting the success of same-sex partnerships, it’s the third consideration – contradiction – that often does the most harm. It’s as if those seeking to materialize these outcomes are putting forth intents that cancel out one another. It’s akin to saying that one wants something that’s both all red and all green at the same time. That, as is readily apparent, is patently unattainable. So imagine what can happen when partners put out relationship-based beliefs that fundamentally oppose one another. In light of that, then, does it come as any surprise when disillusioned romantics ultimately come to discover for themselves that love by itself, when viewed from a conventional standpoint, may indeed not be enough to make a relationship work?

To a great extent, this is the conundrum that Thom and Henri are now staring down. Even though they have been together for a long time and have even legally formalized the nature of their relationship, it’s obvious that they each want different things for themselves going forward, particularly now that they’re embarking on a new stage of their lives. For his part, Thom craves more quality time together, while Henri seeks a greater sense of independence. They each firmly believe in these convictions, too, thus bolstering their ardor for these fundamentally opposing viewpoints. And, in turn, their determined reactions to these contentious circumstances pointedly reflect their desires to hold on to their respective unwavering outlooks, not to mention their hopes to win over – or to punish – one another for failing to concur with their individual wishes.

The distancing that has apparently been growing between them for some time should have provided them with clues about the direction in which they were headed. For whatever reason, though, they chose to ignore it (most likely out of denial). That, too, is a belief, one to which they gave ample power and that has manifested in the conditions they now face. It’s almost as if they emulated the inherent nature of the turtles that they’ve been caring for all these years. Such attitudes may have kept the disconnect they now face at bay, but it also allowed it to grow ever stronger, leaving them with a much bigger problem to deal with than they would have faced if they had had the wherewithal to nip it in the bud.

To be sure, it’s not as if Thom and Henri don’t seek guidance from others. Thom routinely consults his best friend and confidante, Jenny (Brigitte Poupart), one of his fellow resellers from the flea market. He also renews ties with Madame (Vanessa Van Durme), a wise old soul and owner of the drag club where he once performed. Meanwhile, Henri confides in his friend Nadia (Hassiba Halabi) when he needs a shoulder to lean on. But, while it can be helpful to have sounding boards to call on, they’re not substitutes for the person one really needs to be conversing with, especially in critical times such as these.

So why didn’t Thom and Henri act sooner? That’s hard to say, but perhaps it has to do with the random element that has also figured into the bumpy unfolding of this situation: their love for one another. As this story reveals, regardless of whatever animosity may now have arisen between them, it’s also obvious that the flame of love has not been extinguished. Indeed, they wouldn’t have stayed together as long as they have if there weren’t something between them, even in the midst of their antagonism. That consideration – and the mutually held beliefs driving it – has been in place for a while, likely from a time long before their troubles began. And beliefs, as is often the case, are imbued with tremendous degrees of persistence and resilience. In this instance, those elements would appear to have survived whatever difficulties the couple has endured, and their continued presence has made the couple’s unfolding separation that much more painful to bear.

But is their love enough to salvage the relationship? That remains to be seen. If nothing else, it has certainly complicated matters, especially in an already-complex situation that neither partner seems to be adequately prepared to handle. However, it could be just what’s called for if there’s any hope to save a partnership that has managed to survive for decades. Perhaps it could be drawn upon as the basis for establishing a new foundation, one that supports the beliefs required to keep the partnership alive, one in which both partners’ needs are met while reaffirming the bond that has kept them together for such a prolonged time.

Therein lies the beauty of our beliefs: They can be rewritten to achieve virtually any outcome. The question here, of course, is, do we have the ability to envision a result where everybody wins? And, if so, do we have the courage and fortitude to proceed with bringing it about? Or will we remain mired in unproductive beliefs that fail to serve us? In the end, it’s all up to us and what we do with our beliefs. And that ultimately may do more for us than even love itself.

As noted previously, is love enough to sustain a relationship? That’s the question insightfully, honestly and sensitively explored in writer-director David Lambert’s bittersweet romantic comedy-drama about what can happen when “things change.” It thoughtfully examines the soul-searching and reevaluations that come with assessing a long-term partnership that appears to have run out of steam, including the open hostility that can emerge between spouses, much like what’s depicted in the dark comedy classic, “The War of the Roses” (1989). It also explores the challenges associated with the change of life that comes with retirement, much the same way as in the Swiss comedy-drama “Golden Years” (“Die goldenen Jahre”) (2022). The picture’s meticulously assembled, well-paced screenplay effectively examines all angles of this scenario through a narrative that’s touching, wickedly funny, heartbreaking and heartwarming all at the same time, effectively fleshed out by the superb performances of the film’s two leads and the adorable former police dog. This release is handily one of the best offerings I’ve ever screened in the LGBTQ+ cinematic genre, as well as one of the best movies I’ve ever watched about relationship discord, regardless of sexual orientation. “Turtles” initially played the film festival circuit, but it is now available on home media and for streaming online, an excellent viewing choice for Gay Pride Month.

As the old song “Breaking Up Is Hard To Do” so astutely observes, this release definitely follows suit when it comes to that sentiment and does so with an eloquence and realism rarely seen on screen. Couples of all kinds faced with issues like these should give this one a look, as it will ultimately likely provide more hands-on insight into how to address their problems than any course of marriage counseling could ever do. Like the creatures cited in the film’s title, the film draws attention to the issues often encountered in these circumstances – and candidly shows that partners can’t afford to avoid confronting them by simply hiding in their shells, especially when it comes to assessing whether love itself is ultimately enough.

Copyright © 2024-2025, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.