This film will live in my brain, forever, with the name Armond White attached to it, much in the same way that I always think of Roger Ebert when I think of Haggis’ Crash. What these two have in common is that both critics picked the respective film as the best of the year in which it was released. The difference in the two, though, is that I actually think that Ebert thought that Crash was the best film of its year. Broken Sky, on the other hand, has no business being praised by a major film critic, and I think that White had his thumbs at his temples, waving his other eight fingers back and forth when he published is review of Hernández’s film, and then erected his middle finger when he placed it at the top of his Top 10 of 2006 list. Adding to the insult, is that he had the audacity to bring up this film in his review of Weerasethakul’s Syndromes and a Century, writing that “[Syndromes’] exploration of sexual passion resists Hernández’s wonderment and depth.” Taken from White, one should probably take this as a compliment for Weerasethakul’s film, but if it’s not, I don’t know that White and I watched the same film. Broken Sky blatantly avoids depth so much so that I assumed that ‘lack of depth’ was Hernández’s thesis. Characters in this film just will not speak to each other, especially the two leads. If one of Hernández’s rules for the film was to create a film in which the characters do not speak to each other, I might have bought into it. But they can speak, and they do a couple of times, which makes all of the moments when they aren’t speaking, and they obviously should be, awkward and self-conscious. If my boyfriend is going to make out with someone else at a club, there are going to be words between us. If the two leads were to actually have a discussion about this, it probably would have been more interesting, and provided more ‘depth’ to the characters, than watching both of them look at each other with sad faces for the rest of the night (and film). The lack of speech and excessive length are clearly gimmicks employed to create a sense of artfulness. In the end this felt like any other gay film that gives gay films a bad name: promiscuous characters who can go from being madly in love with one guy to falling in love with another guy the next moment, all based on a glance and a kiss. Armond White calling this an important film is not only inaccurate, but detrimental to the reputation of GLBT filmmaking.