Elephant
Director: Gus Van Sant
Writer: Gus Van Sant
Cast: Alex Frost, Eric Deulen, John Robinson, Elias McConnell, Jordan Taylor, Matt Malloy, Carrie Finklea, Nicole George, Brittany Mountain, Alicia Miles, Ellis Williams
Overview
Tackling a controversial subject matter is never an easy task for a filmmaker, but Gus van Sant manages to create a exploitative motion picture about the Columbine murders that provides a clinical analysis of how such an event could come to pass.
Synopsis
Through long takes, the story of several high-schoolers is told as they go about an ordinary day. One has to take the wheel from his drunk father as he is being driven to school. Another takes pictures of a couple in a park. One young women refuses to change for gym class and is reprimanded for it. Meanwhile two friends draw up plans to murder as many of their classmates as possible before engaging in mass carnage.
The Queering
As someone who has spent many hours pouring over data regarding violent crime as part of an academic research project, it's difficult for me to separate my own work and views on the subject with the story told by Gus Van Sant. So forgive me if I end up talking too much about my own research here a bit.
Our cultural rhetoric on violence consistently posits violent acts as an externalized phenomenon. That is, as something that comes to us from outside our families and our communities. This in spite of the reality that most violence occurs either between family members, intimate parters, or between people who are otherwise known to each other. Our focus on sensational events such as school shootings is one method by which we externalize violence as something that comes from the outside, particularly in the way that it allows us to blame everything from violent video games to absentee parents. Furthermore, such events can be depicted as dramatic inter-group conflicts, such as jocks vs. nerds or the outcasts vs. the preppies. What such framing ignores is that most violence really should be thought of as a phenomenon that occurs within groups, and not solely as the result of conflict between groups.
While Gus Van Sant arguably comes close to perpetrating externalization by making school shootings the subject of a movie, he manages to avoid it many ways within the film. The most common explanations are indeed thrown out there. The shooters are shown playing a violent video game that involves shooting people in a desert like setting, watching Nazi propaganda, being bullied, etc. But none of these explanations feels adequate or complete when we watch shots of the teenagers walk nonchalantly down school hallways shooting their classmates as they go, almost as if Gus Van Sant is mocking the superficiality of anyone who would propose any of the aforementioned hypothesises.
There is one extremely problematic element I have to comment on, namely a shower scene where the two shooters shower together and even share a kiss. While one could argue that this is merely another explanation that Gus Van Sant is trying to mock, it doesn't really help that it means that we have yet another film on our hands where queer identity is overwritten onto historical individuals who committed horrible misdeeds.
Once again I have to say it: The best way to come out in history is to have committed terrible crimes against humanity; the best way to remain closeted was to have been good.
Ultimately though, Elephant is atypical in terms of it's structure. The plot is both elliptical and recursive, with long camera shots following characters as the walk through hallways, only to show us a scene we saw before but now from a different angle. Most of this is Cinéma vérité or slice of life type material. It is not until the end that those members of the audience who might have been unaware of the subject matter, will find that this story is spiraling towards tragedy.
The title of Elephant has two possible interpretations, one is of a parable about a group of blind folks trying to understand an elephant by touching different body parts and limiting their analysis to only those parts that they can feel. Each individual comes to a different conclusion based on which part of the elephant they are touching and none realize that they are touching a large animal. The other interpretation has the title referring to "the elephant in the room" or the obvious subject that no one wants to talk about. Both perspectives can provide viewers with insight into what Van Sant is trying to say.
Many other reviewers have claimed that Gus Van Sant offers no explanations for why incidents like Columbine happen. As someone who has spent a lot of time studying violent crime statistics (much of it involving what can be considered original research) I do not think that violent crime, even incidents as disturbing and shocking as Columbine are incomprehensible. As a film reviewer I do not think that Gus Van Sant himself intended for his film to be given such a nihilistic interpretation. Instead he offers up what should be obvious, that to commit such a horrifically violent act requires a person to experience extraordinary alienation.
Many might assume that people commit horrible crimes against humanity fail to see other people as fully human. That may be so, but many of the cases of violent crimes I found myself studying involved the perpetrators themselves being highly self destructive. The Columbine shooters after all were not arrested or shot by police but instead died at their own hand. Since this is a pattern that repeats itself over and over again, the better question I think is this; do the most violent people amongst us see themselves as human? Maybe this is just me reading my own ideas onto the film, but given how Van Sant approaches his subjects, I cannot help but think that this may have been the connection he wanted viewers to make.
Recommendation
For those interested in a film on such a sensitive subject matter, this is one Elephant in the room that is worth discussing in order to understand entirely.
The Rating
3 stars out of 4
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Showing posts with label gay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay. Show all posts
November 9, 2014
June 4, 2014
Queer Review: Blue is the Warmest Color (2013)
Blue is the Warmest Color
Director: Abdellatif Kechiche
Writers: Abdellatif Kechiche and Ghalia Lacroix. Based on the book Le Bleu est une couleur chaude by Julie Maroh.
Cast: Adèle Exarchopoulos, Léa Seydoux, Salim Kechiouche, Aurélien Recoing, Catherine Salée, Benjamin Siksou, Anne Loiret, Benoît Pilot
Overview
A talky French drama about two women falling in and out of love, Blue is the Warmest Color shows the evolution of a complex and multifaceted relationship. While glacially paced, this is a movie that offers plenty of rewards for viewers with the patience to read the Bible from the beginning all the way to Job. Seriously, the lists in Genesis of who begat who take forever to get through and anyone who can make it through those parts will have no trouble with this film.
Synopsis
Adèle (Adèle Exarchopoulos) is a typical, if rather introverted, French teenager. When Adèle first has sex with her boyfriend, she finds the experience unsatisfying. At a lesbian bar, she meets Emma (Léa Seydoux) and the two begin a passionate relationship. Eventually the two move in together with Adèle taking up a career as a teacher, while Emma pursues work as a fine painter. However, their domestic relationship leads to a routine that leaves Adèle lonely and Emma unsatisfied. When Adèle has an affair with one of her coworkers, Emma kicks her out. More time passes and Adèle has trouble moving on. When she receives an invitation to an art show featuring Emmas' paintings, she goes and manages to find closure to this chapter in her life.
The Queering
Blue is the Warmest Color is filmed with explicit scenes that are designed more to develop and advance the characters than they are to titillate or arouse. Of course, as a gay man, I cannot say I can really judge how titillating they actually are. Of course, this being a character focused piece this a slow moving meditation on the nature of love and relationships. There is little effort to focus on queer or lesbian issues specifically. Adèle goes through a period where she is clearly questioning her sexuality and has to face homophobia from friends when the suspect that she is dating a woman, but this becomes a non-issue once she moves in with Emma. Futhermore, the characters never come out to anyone that the audience is made aware of. As it is, outside of a scene where Adèle marches in an anti-austerity march, the film is largely apolitical.
This doesn't stop the film from raising questions about depictions of female sexuality and desire. Given that the director is a man, the male gaze is of course utilized but as far as I could tell, never subverted nor averted. However, Director Kechiche does raise questions about it. In one scene, a character comments on how men are the ones who most often depict female sexuality in spite of the fact that men cannot know what women really experience when it comes to sex. It's a philosophical question and one reflective of Platos' views of art in general. Plato, as it were, had a pet peeves was that since our world was merely a copy of his beloved Forms, then the highest thing art could aspire towards was being a second hand imitation of a copy of a copy of the "original" forms.
It makes sense then, that Kechiche films Blue is the Warmest Color in a cinema vérité style with many hand held camera shots, no voiceover, and a minimal soundtrack. Blue is the Warmest Color tries to be real, even while it acknowledges in sometimes subtle ways that it's not. Furthermore, all we ever see of Emmas' drawings or paintings of Adèle are brief glimpses, yet there implications that the Kechiche is trying to frame Adèle through the same lens that Emma views her in. That is just as Emma paints Adèle on canvas, so too does Kechiche attempt to present Adèle through the eye of the camera.
When people refer to the "male gaze", they invariably mean the "straight male gaze". But this raises the question: Is there a difference between the straight male gaze and the lesbian gaze and if so, what is it? Furthermore, can a difference between the two gazes be established at all without resorting to gender essentialism?
At the end of the day, it is Kechiches' willingness to address this issue that sets Blue is the Warmest Color apart. At nearly 3 hours, with little action, combined with the slowest of plots, it would seem that this would be a drag to sit through. It is a testament to those involved that Blue is the Warmest Color manages to be engaging from start to finish.
Recommendation
For fans of dialog heavy films that focus on characters over action or plot, this would be worth crossing the most depressingly warm blue ocean in existence in order to see.
The Rating
3 out of 4 stars.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Abdellatif Kechiche
Writers: Abdellatif Kechiche and Ghalia Lacroix. Based on the book Le Bleu est une couleur chaude by Julie Maroh.
Cast: Adèle Exarchopoulos, Léa Seydoux, Salim Kechiouche, Aurélien Recoing, Catherine Salée, Benjamin Siksou, Anne Loiret, Benoît Pilot
Overview
A talky French drama about two women falling in and out of love, Blue is the Warmest Color shows the evolution of a complex and multifaceted relationship. While glacially paced, this is a movie that offers plenty of rewards for viewers with the patience to read the Bible from the beginning all the way to Job. Seriously, the lists in Genesis of who begat who take forever to get through and anyone who can make it through those parts will have no trouble with this film.
Synopsis
Adèle (Adèle Exarchopoulos) is a typical, if rather introverted, French teenager. When Adèle first has sex with her boyfriend, she finds the experience unsatisfying. At a lesbian bar, she meets Emma (Léa Seydoux) and the two begin a passionate relationship. Eventually the two move in together with Adèle taking up a career as a teacher, while Emma pursues work as a fine painter. However, their domestic relationship leads to a routine that leaves Adèle lonely and Emma unsatisfied. When Adèle has an affair with one of her coworkers, Emma kicks her out. More time passes and Adèle has trouble moving on. When she receives an invitation to an art show featuring Emmas' paintings, she goes and manages to find closure to this chapter in her life.
The Queering
Blue is the Warmest Color is filmed with explicit scenes that are designed more to develop and advance the characters than they are to titillate or arouse. Of course, as a gay man, I cannot say I can really judge how titillating they actually are. Of course, this being a character focused piece this a slow moving meditation on the nature of love and relationships. There is little effort to focus on queer or lesbian issues specifically. Adèle goes through a period where she is clearly questioning her sexuality and has to face homophobia from friends when the suspect that she is dating a woman, but this becomes a non-issue once she moves in with Emma. Futhermore, the characters never come out to anyone that the audience is made aware of. As it is, outside of a scene where Adèle marches in an anti-austerity march, the film is largely apolitical.
This doesn't stop the film from raising questions about depictions of female sexuality and desire. Given that the director is a man, the male gaze is of course utilized but as far as I could tell, never subverted nor averted. However, Director Kechiche does raise questions about it. In one scene, a character comments on how men are the ones who most often depict female sexuality in spite of the fact that men cannot know what women really experience when it comes to sex. It's a philosophical question and one reflective of Platos' views of art in general. Plato, as it were, had a pet peeves was that since our world was merely a copy of his beloved Forms, then the highest thing art could aspire towards was being a second hand imitation of a copy of a copy of the "original" forms.
It makes sense then, that Kechiche films Blue is the Warmest Color in a cinema vérité style with many hand held camera shots, no voiceover, and a minimal soundtrack. Blue is the Warmest Color tries to be real, even while it acknowledges in sometimes subtle ways that it's not. Furthermore, all we ever see of Emmas' drawings or paintings of Adèle are brief glimpses, yet there implications that the Kechiche is trying to frame Adèle through the same lens that Emma views her in. That is just as Emma paints Adèle on canvas, so too does Kechiche attempt to present Adèle through the eye of the camera.
When people refer to the "male gaze", they invariably mean the "straight male gaze". But this raises the question: Is there a difference between the straight male gaze and the lesbian gaze and if so, what is it? Furthermore, can a difference between the two gazes be established at all without resorting to gender essentialism?
At the end of the day, it is Kechiches' willingness to address this issue that sets Blue is the Warmest Color apart. At nearly 3 hours, with little action, combined with the slowest of plots, it would seem that this would be a drag to sit through. It is a testament to those involved that Blue is the Warmest Color manages to be engaging from start to finish.
Recommendation
For fans of dialog heavy films that focus on characters over action or plot, this would be worth crossing the most depressingly warm blue ocean in existence in order to see.
The Rating
3 out of 4 stars.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
May 24, 2014
Queer Review: X-Men - Days of Future Past (2014)
X-Men - Days of Future Past
Director: Bryan Singer
Writers: Simon Kinberg, Jane Goldman, and Matthew Vaughn
Cast: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Nicholas Hoult, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Shawn Ashmore, Omar Sy, Evan Peters, Josh Helman, Daniel Cudmore, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart
Overview
With a glimpse into a grim future filled with holocaust-esque imagery, Days of Future Past can be said to open in a similar fashion to the first X-Men film. Following that grim opening though, is the best film in the series since X2 - X-Men United.
Synopsis
In the year 2023, the last surviving mutants of a war to eliminate their species find hatch a desperate plan to avert that war. They decide to send back on of their own, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) to alter the past. This means inserting his future conscience into his past body. Once Wolverine goes back, his job becomes reuniting Charles Xavier (James McAvoy, Patrick Stewart) with Magneto (Michael Fassbender, Ian McKellen) in order to prevent Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) from setting in motion the events that could potentially lead to the extinction of all mutant kind.
The Queering
The opening of Days of Future Past is the rockiest part of the film, particularly in an exposition heavy scene where Charles Xavier lays out the backstory and explains key details primarily for the benefit of the audience. Fortunately the film improves dramatically after that. While a story featuring centered around a post-apocalyptic future might seem rather entirely grim, there is plenty of fun to be had in the 70's timeline. The best parts include a brilliant sequence set to Jim Croces' Time in a Bottle and a clever reference to John F. Kennedy being a mutant whom Magneto tried to save (which is why the "magic" bullet curved).
X-Men - First Class ended with the break up of Professor Xavier and Magneto. While Professor Xavier believed that peaceful coexistence between humans and mutants was possible, Magneto instead held to a hard line anti-assimilationist stance. Mutants like Mystique whose blue skinned appearance fail to endear her to mainstream society are drawn to Magneto because he advocates being able to live as a mutant openly without persecution. On the flip side, mutants like Beast and Xavier live in the closet, covering up their appearance in order to avoid being detected. Xavier even went so far as to sacrifice his powers in order to be able to walk. These differences of opinion leads to their relationships' inevitable split. This means that in addition to bringing out the mutant abilities of Beast and Xavier, Wolverine spends the middle section of the movie acting like a couples counselor in order to get Magneto and Xavier to reconcile their irreconcilable differences.
On the queer subtext front, this may have the strongest LGBTQ political subtext of any of the movies. The sentinels that lead to the future war, are robots that are designed to hunt down, detect, and kill mutants. The scene where the Sentinels designer Dr. Trask (Peter Dinklage) demonstrates their abilities evokes the U.S. government programs of the 50's and 60's to eradicate gays and lesbians from civil service jobs. This parallel is made particularly clear in the scene reveals that there is already a mutant in the room where Dr. Trask is making his presentation.
Many people were disappointed back when X-Men III - The Last Stand and it was viewed as a less than desirable send off for characters. Here Bryan Singer takes full advantage of the opportunity to give many of the characters from that trilogy a better wrap. However, many of them, such as Storm (Halle Barry), are given little more than extended cameos. For the most part however, the action is more epic than anything we've seen before in this series and many of the primary characters are given a bigger chance to shine.
In particular the characters of Magneto, Professor X, and Mystique are all given much better development here than in past efforts. I found the development of Xavier to be the most interesting. In the original movies, Professor Xavier is pretty much the all knowing, wise old mentor without a flaw. There's nothing wrong with such character but it's one we've seen in many other movies. First Class showed Xavier as an immature frat boy, who was willing to play around in the minds of others without a thought to the consequences or ethics of such behavior. Not to mention his inability to acknowledge his privilege as a mutant who could easily pass in public as a non-mutant. This time around he is shown to be a broken man who has given up his telepathic abilities along with all hope for the human race. While 1973 Magneto is still pretty much the angry mutant leader we were shown in past efforts, the one who was willing to kill anyone (including his fellow mutants) in order to protect all of mutant kind, future Magneto is shown to be more reflective and introspective.
As for Mystique, here she is shown to be a women driven by the murder and torture of her fellow mutants into taking extreme actions. What makes her interesting is that she believes absolutely in the righteousness of her actions, which are shown to be entirely justified, even if the consequences will be devastating. However, the queer/trans subtext regarding Mystiques' character is downplayed here compared to First Class (there is no utterance of "Mutant and Proud"), although it is still possible to see it given a broad enough reading.
Recommendation
This is one superhero film that would be worth skipping a few days into the future in order to see.
The Rating
3 and 1/2 out of 4 stars.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Bryan Singer
Writers: Simon Kinberg, Jane Goldman, and Matthew Vaughn
Cast: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Nicholas Hoult, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Shawn Ashmore, Omar Sy, Evan Peters, Josh Helman, Daniel Cudmore, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart
Overview
With a glimpse into a grim future filled with holocaust-esque imagery, Days of Future Past can be said to open in a similar fashion to the first X-Men film. Following that grim opening though, is the best film in the series since X2 - X-Men United.
Synopsis
In the year 2023, the last surviving mutants of a war to eliminate their species find hatch a desperate plan to avert that war. They decide to send back on of their own, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) to alter the past. This means inserting his future conscience into his past body. Once Wolverine goes back, his job becomes reuniting Charles Xavier (James McAvoy, Patrick Stewart) with Magneto (Michael Fassbender, Ian McKellen) in order to prevent Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) from setting in motion the events that could potentially lead to the extinction of all mutant kind.
The Queering
The opening of Days of Future Past is the rockiest part of the film, particularly in an exposition heavy scene where Charles Xavier lays out the backstory and explains key details primarily for the benefit of the audience. Fortunately the film improves dramatically after that. While a story featuring centered around a post-apocalyptic future might seem rather entirely grim, there is plenty of fun to be had in the 70's timeline. The best parts include a brilliant sequence set to Jim Croces' Time in a Bottle and a clever reference to John F. Kennedy being a mutant whom Magneto tried to save (which is why the "magic" bullet curved).
X-Men - First Class ended with the break up of Professor Xavier and Magneto. While Professor Xavier believed that peaceful coexistence between humans and mutants was possible, Magneto instead held to a hard line anti-assimilationist stance. Mutants like Mystique whose blue skinned appearance fail to endear her to mainstream society are drawn to Magneto because he advocates being able to live as a mutant openly without persecution. On the flip side, mutants like Beast and Xavier live in the closet, covering up their appearance in order to avoid being detected. Xavier even went so far as to sacrifice his powers in order to be able to walk. These differences of opinion leads to their relationships' inevitable split. This means that in addition to bringing out the mutant abilities of Beast and Xavier, Wolverine spends the middle section of the movie acting like a couples counselor in order to get Magneto and Xavier to reconcile their irreconcilable differences.
On the queer subtext front, this may have the strongest LGBTQ political subtext of any of the movies. The sentinels that lead to the future war, are robots that are designed to hunt down, detect, and kill mutants. The scene where the Sentinels designer Dr. Trask (Peter Dinklage) demonstrates their abilities evokes the U.S. government programs of the 50's and 60's to eradicate gays and lesbians from civil service jobs. This parallel is made particularly clear in the scene reveals that there is already a mutant in the room where Dr. Trask is making his presentation.
Many people were disappointed back when X-Men III - The Last Stand and it was viewed as a less than desirable send off for characters. Here Bryan Singer takes full advantage of the opportunity to give many of the characters from that trilogy a better wrap. However, many of them, such as Storm (Halle Barry), are given little more than extended cameos. For the most part however, the action is more epic than anything we've seen before in this series and many of the primary characters are given a bigger chance to shine.
In particular the characters of Magneto, Professor X, and Mystique are all given much better development here than in past efforts. I found the development of Xavier to be the most interesting. In the original movies, Professor Xavier is pretty much the all knowing, wise old mentor without a flaw. There's nothing wrong with such character but it's one we've seen in many other movies. First Class showed Xavier as an immature frat boy, who was willing to play around in the minds of others without a thought to the consequences or ethics of such behavior. Not to mention his inability to acknowledge his privilege as a mutant who could easily pass in public as a non-mutant. This time around he is shown to be a broken man who has given up his telepathic abilities along with all hope for the human race. While 1973 Magneto is still pretty much the angry mutant leader we were shown in past efforts, the one who was willing to kill anyone (including his fellow mutants) in order to protect all of mutant kind, future Magneto is shown to be more reflective and introspective.
As for Mystique, here she is shown to be a women driven by the murder and torture of her fellow mutants into taking extreme actions. What makes her interesting is that she believes absolutely in the righteousness of her actions, which are shown to be entirely justified, even if the consequences will be devastating. However, the queer/trans subtext regarding Mystiques' character is downplayed here compared to First Class (there is no utterance of "Mutant and Proud"), although it is still possible to see it given a broad enough reading.
Recommendation
This is one superhero film that would be worth skipping a few days into the future in order to see.
The Rating
3 and 1/2 out of 4 stars.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
February 11, 2014
Queer Review: Casablanca (1942)
Casablanca
Director: Michael Curtiz
Writers: Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein, Howard Koch, and Casey Robinson. Based on the play by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison.
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid, Claude Rains, Conrad Veidt, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, S.Z. Sakall, Dooley Wilson
Overview
Casablanca is an extraordinary film. Not only is it Hollywood's greatest tale of romantic love set against the stormy backdrop of the World War II but it has the most memorable happy ending ever shown on the silver screen.
Synopsis
Rick (Humphrey Bogart) is the owner of Rick's Café Américain, which caters to a wide clientele. When Nazi resistance leader Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid) and his wife Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman) show up at Rick's cafe, the two not only are in desperate need of transit papers, but Ilsa forces Rick to remember his brief experimentation with heterosexuality. Coincidentally, Rick has recently managed to obtain a set of valuable transit papers, thereby forcing Rick to choose between his current lover, Police Chief Louie Renault (Claude Rains) and aiding Ilsa and her husband escape the Nazis.
The Queering
Had Casablanca been released in a more recent times, perhaps in the form of a serialized novel aimed at the teenage crowd, it would not be difficult to see it's fandom quickly dividing itself into Team Ilsa and Team Renault. I say that as it's hard not to empathize with the difficult decision Rick is forced to make. On one hand he clearly loves Ilsa and deeply cherishes the brief period of time they shared in Paris in spite of the abrupt way she dumped him at the end. On the other, making her happy by giving Laszlo and her the transit papers would damage the political standing of Chief Renault once the escape of Victor and Ilsa was discovered by Nazis. What more difficult decision could there be than to have to choose between the two people you love the most?
Chief Renault, for his part, attempts to dissuade Ilsa when she shows up from attempting to rekindle the romance she once had with Rick by stating "Well, Rick is the kind of man that... well, if I were a woman, and I were not around, I should be in love with Rick." When that fails, Renault tries to make Rick jealous, by tricking Rick into thinking that he is planning on accepting sexual favors from a woman who is in need of transit papers for her and her husband. The ruse works and Rick makes sure that the husband is able to win at the roulette tables in order to prevent Renault from straying.
While the racist standards of the time prevented him from presenting as a sexual creature, Sam (Dooley Wilson) too also demonstrates affections for Rick. Like Renault, Sam displays extreme jealousy towards Ilsa when he tries to dissuade her from making contact from Rick. He apparently did not want to have to comfort Rick again, as he obviously once did after Ilsas' brutal breakup with Rick in Paris. Note the way Sam gently caresses Ricks' shoulder on the train during their escape from Paris. Rick, for his part, returns Sams' affections by attempting to negotiate a higher salary for Sam from Signor Ferrari (Sydney Greenstreet), when Rick goes to Ferrari to sell the Café Américain. Apparently when Rick said, "I stick my neck out for nobody" he was only referring to individuals he didn't deeply care for.
Of course there is the ending, where Rick selflessly decides to risk his relationship with Renault and give Ilsa the exit papers so she and Laszlo can escape to continue fighting against the Germans. It is a no win situation for him. While it means that Laszlo will be able to continue to his resistance work against the Axis powers, the unenviable consequences mean that Rick not only ending his relationship with Renault, but sacrificing the possibility of companionship with Ilsa at the same time. It's a noble risk but one that Rick is ultimately rewarded for when Renault, clearly happy that Ilsa is out of the picture, forgives Rick for his decision. Note that he does this in spite of the fact that Rick had just taken him hostage in order to allow Ilsa and Laszlo to escape. The two then walk off into the mists, happy to begin a new and more beautiful relationship. Has Hollywood ever created a romance as deeply affecting as this? I am sure many have wept gallons of tears at this moment, so overwhelmed with joy they must have been.
Ultimately, Casablanca is pure Hollywood cornball. But it's beautiful cornball. While the romantic elements are the films strongest, this is ultimately a World War II propaganda film. As such, I cannot help but wonder if the reason for the films' initial success had to do with a brief line few people remember today. After Rick gives him the transit papers, Laszlo says, "Thanks. I appreciate it. Welcome back to the fight. This time I *know* our side will win." It's a small moment but one that I cannot help but think would have resonated with audiences during the dark days of the time. It's a moment of subtle hope, one whose message is soon underscored by the breathtaking ending.
Yes, this time our side won.
Recommendation
Casablanca would be worth walking in (and out) of all the gin joints in the world while searching for one that happens to be showing this movie.
The Rating
3 and 1/2 stars out of 4.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Michael Curtiz
Writers: Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein, Howard Koch, and Casey Robinson. Based on the play by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison.
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid, Claude Rains, Conrad Veidt, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, S.Z. Sakall, Dooley Wilson
Overview
Casablanca is an extraordinary film. Not only is it Hollywood's greatest tale of romantic love set against the stormy backdrop of the World War II but it has the most memorable happy ending ever shown on the silver screen.
Synopsis
Rick (Humphrey Bogart) is the owner of Rick's Café Américain, which caters to a wide clientele. When Nazi resistance leader Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid) and his wife Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman) show up at Rick's cafe, the two not only are in desperate need of transit papers, but Ilsa forces Rick to remember his brief experimentation with heterosexuality. Coincidentally, Rick has recently managed to obtain a set of valuable transit papers, thereby forcing Rick to choose between his current lover, Police Chief Louie Renault (Claude Rains) and aiding Ilsa and her husband escape the Nazis.
The Queering
Had Casablanca been released in a more recent times, perhaps in the form of a serialized novel aimed at the teenage crowd, it would not be difficult to see it's fandom quickly dividing itself into Team Ilsa and Team Renault. I say that as it's hard not to empathize with the difficult decision Rick is forced to make. On one hand he clearly loves Ilsa and deeply cherishes the brief period of time they shared in Paris in spite of the abrupt way she dumped him at the end. On the other, making her happy by giving Laszlo and her the transit papers would damage the political standing of Chief Renault once the escape of Victor and Ilsa was discovered by Nazis. What more difficult decision could there be than to have to choose between the two people you love the most?
Chief Renault, for his part, attempts to dissuade Ilsa when she shows up from attempting to rekindle the romance she once had with Rick by stating "Well, Rick is the kind of man that... well, if I were a woman, and I were not around, I should be in love with Rick." When that fails, Renault tries to make Rick jealous, by tricking Rick into thinking that he is planning on accepting sexual favors from a woman who is in need of transit papers for her and her husband. The ruse works and Rick makes sure that the husband is able to win at the roulette tables in order to prevent Renault from straying.
While the racist standards of the time prevented him from presenting as a sexual creature, Sam (Dooley Wilson) too also demonstrates affections for Rick. Like Renault, Sam displays extreme jealousy towards Ilsa when he tries to dissuade her from making contact from Rick. He apparently did not want to have to comfort Rick again, as he obviously once did after Ilsas' brutal breakup with Rick in Paris. Note the way Sam gently caresses Ricks' shoulder on the train during their escape from Paris. Rick, for his part, returns Sams' affections by attempting to negotiate a higher salary for Sam from Signor Ferrari (Sydney Greenstreet), when Rick goes to Ferrari to sell the Café Américain. Apparently when Rick said, "I stick my neck out for nobody" he was only referring to individuals he didn't deeply care for.
Of course there is the ending, where Rick selflessly decides to risk his relationship with Renault and give Ilsa the exit papers so she and Laszlo can escape to continue fighting against the Germans. It is a no win situation for him. While it means that Laszlo will be able to continue to his resistance work against the Axis powers, the unenviable consequences mean that Rick not only ending his relationship with Renault, but sacrificing the possibility of companionship with Ilsa at the same time. It's a noble risk but one that Rick is ultimately rewarded for when Renault, clearly happy that Ilsa is out of the picture, forgives Rick for his decision. Note that he does this in spite of the fact that Rick had just taken him hostage in order to allow Ilsa and Laszlo to escape. The two then walk off into the mists, happy to begin a new and more beautiful relationship. Has Hollywood ever created a romance as deeply affecting as this? I am sure many have wept gallons of tears at this moment, so overwhelmed with joy they must have been.
Ultimately, Casablanca is pure Hollywood cornball. But it's beautiful cornball. While the romantic elements are the films strongest, this is ultimately a World War II propaganda film. As such, I cannot help but wonder if the reason for the films' initial success had to do with a brief line few people remember today. After Rick gives him the transit papers, Laszlo says, "Thanks. I appreciate it. Welcome back to the fight. This time I *know* our side will win." It's a small moment but one that I cannot help but think would have resonated with audiences during the dark days of the time. It's a moment of subtle hope, one whose message is soon underscored by the breathtaking ending.
Yes, this time our side won.
Recommendation
Casablanca would be worth walking in (and out) of all the gin joints in the world while searching for one that happens to be showing this movie.
The Rating
3 and 1/2 stars out of 4.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
February 9, 2014
Queer Review: Rope (1948)
Rope
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writers: Hume Cronyn, Arthur Laurents, and Ben Hecht. Based on the play by Patrick Hamilton.
Cast: Dick Hogan, John Dall, Farley Granger, Edith Evanson, Douglas Dick, Joan Chandler, Cedric Hardwicke, Constance Collier, James Stewart
Overview
Loosely based on real life story of "Leopold and Loeb", two gay lovers who killed a 14 year old Bobby Franks, Rope tells the story of two upper class college students who strangle one of their fellow classmates. In short, another example of Alfred Hitchcock's fetisation of queer killers.
Synopsis
Two college students, the reluctant Philip (John Dall) and the daring Brandon (Farley Granger) strangle one of their former classmates David (Dick Hogan). Then they invite members of his family, mutual friends, as well as their former school headmaster Rupert (James Stewart), to a party in order to increase the thrill of the kill. However, Philips' obvious nervousness piques Ruperts' suspicions. When Brandons' repeating of Ruperts' interpretation of Nietzche, that superior individuals have a moral right to kill their inferiors, further draws attention to Davids' absence.
The Queering
The presentation of Rope was somewhat experimental. The entire story is set in "real" time, with Hitchcock attempting to use as few edits as possible and hide a couple of cuts by zooming in close to a couple of objects. However, this backfires, as the efforts to disguise said cuts are clumsy and draw attention to themselves and unfortunately an uncharismatic Jimmy Stewart addslittle to the attempts at verisimilitude.
There is a pattern that I have noticed, where real life individuals who were gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, or transexual, did something "evil", then movies are infinitely more likely to accurately depict characters based on those historical figures sexual orientation or gender identity. On the other hand if the real life person did something heroic or good, then the pattern is reversed. Gay or lesbian individuals become bi and bi characters become straight, while effeminate queens will inevitably get butched up.
The only thing that prevented Hitchcock from following this pattern was, ironically, the Hays Code. Since depictions homosexuality was banned outright, the director was forced to limit the characters sexuality to mere subtext. However, offscreen the filmmakers and particular Hitchcock made it clear that they wanted to make a film about queer sexuality. The final product was even banned by some theaters due to the fact that it had gone so far as to include coded gay characters, even if said characters were depicted as evil murderers. Honestly, I never thought I would see the day when I would find myself mildly thankful for Hollywoods' infamous production code.
On the philosophical side of things, the character of Brandon attempts to justify the murder by quoting Rupert, who in turn had been riffing on Nietzche. Unfortunately, the message ends up being garbled. Perhaps it's because Nietzch is a difficult writer to "get" that any superficial analysis is doomed to failure. Ruperts' eventual condemnation of the ideas he had (apparently) originally endorsed doesn't help matters very much. A more recent film to be based on the Leopold and Loeb case, Swoon managed to avoid this problem by focusing more on the psychological forces driving the characters rather than any philosophical justifications they tried to come up with.
Recommendation
No true ubermensch would allow themselves to be roped into seeing this movie, unless they had a strong interest in Hitchcock or the history of queer cinema.
The Rating
2 stars out of 4
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writers: Hume Cronyn, Arthur Laurents, and Ben Hecht. Based on the play by Patrick Hamilton.
Cast: Dick Hogan, John Dall, Farley Granger, Edith Evanson, Douglas Dick, Joan Chandler, Cedric Hardwicke, Constance Collier, James Stewart
Overview
Loosely based on real life story of "Leopold and Loeb", two gay lovers who killed a 14 year old Bobby Franks, Rope tells the story of two upper class college students who strangle one of their fellow classmates. In short, another example of Alfred Hitchcock's fetisation of queer killers.
Synopsis
Two college students, the reluctant Philip (John Dall) and the daring Brandon (Farley Granger) strangle one of their former classmates David (Dick Hogan). Then they invite members of his family, mutual friends, as well as their former school headmaster Rupert (James Stewart), to a party in order to increase the thrill of the kill. However, Philips' obvious nervousness piques Ruperts' suspicions. When Brandons' repeating of Ruperts' interpretation of Nietzche, that superior individuals have a moral right to kill their inferiors, further draws attention to Davids' absence.
The Queering
The presentation of Rope was somewhat experimental. The entire story is set in "real" time, with Hitchcock attempting to use as few edits as possible and hide a couple of cuts by zooming in close to a couple of objects. However, this backfires, as the efforts to disguise said cuts are clumsy and draw attention to themselves and unfortunately an uncharismatic Jimmy Stewart addslittle to the attempts at verisimilitude.
There is a pattern that I have noticed, where real life individuals who were gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, or transexual, did something "evil", then movies are infinitely more likely to accurately depict characters based on those historical figures sexual orientation or gender identity. On the other hand if the real life person did something heroic or good, then the pattern is reversed. Gay or lesbian individuals become bi and bi characters become straight, while effeminate queens will inevitably get butched up.
The only thing that prevented Hitchcock from following this pattern was, ironically, the Hays Code. Since depictions homosexuality was banned outright, the director was forced to limit the characters sexuality to mere subtext. However, offscreen the filmmakers and particular Hitchcock made it clear that they wanted to make a film about queer sexuality. The final product was even banned by some theaters due to the fact that it had gone so far as to include coded gay characters, even if said characters were depicted as evil murderers. Honestly, I never thought I would see the day when I would find myself mildly thankful for Hollywoods' infamous production code.
On the philosophical side of things, the character of Brandon attempts to justify the murder by quoting Rupert, who in turn had been riffing on Nietzche. Unfortunately, the message ends up being garbled. Perhaps it's because Nietzch is a difficult writer to "get" that any superficial analysis is doomed to failure. Ruperts' eventual condemnation of the ideas he had (apparently) originally endorsed doesn't help matters very much. A more recent film to be based on the Leopold and Loeb case, Swoon managed to avoid this problem by focusing more on the psychological forces driving the characters rather than any philosophical justifications they tried to come up with.
Recommendation
No true ubermensch would allow themselves to be roped into seeing this movie, unless they had a strong interest in Hitchcock or the history of queer cinema.
The Rating
2 stars out of 4
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
December 22, 2013
Queer Issue: They Said *What*! A Guide on How To Exploit Minority Outrage For Profit
There has been a bit of an uproar, if you want to call it that, over certain comments Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson made in an interview with the publication GQ. That these remarks were both homophobic and racist goes without saying at this point, so I'm not going to belabor any points here.
The response has been varied and telling. People in my twitter feed appear to be rushing to condemn Robertson for being homophobic bigots (with less attention being paid to the racist comments about blacks being happier under Jim Crow, which is a problem in of itself). Meanwhile, the right is going to great lengths to defend Robertson. He's even getting compared to Rosa Parks because people who state that African Americans were happier under Jim Crow are oh so clearly in the same catagory of people who fought against systemic racism in America.
What nobody is talking about is the possibility that this entire incident was staged at the outset, possibly with the blessing of producers from Duck Dynasty. While the Duck Commander clan has all the appearance of typical "redneck hicks" what with their long beards and business based on hunting products, the success of their business and TV show implies at least some media/marketing savvy. Of course the term redneck is a classist term and from what I'm reading, liberal perceptions of the Duck Dynasty clan is based on a whole set of classist assumptions that I don't have time to deconstruct for one article.
In any case, here is what I expect will happen. At some point in the next week or so, Phil Robertson will issue a carefully worded apology to the LGBTQ community. Afterwards, he'll get to go on some kind of GLAAD sponsored apology/publicity tour and maybe even through a respectable amount of cash at a LGBTQ charity. Afterwards, Duck Dynasty will return in time for the January/February sweeps with a significant ratings boost while Duck Commander merchandise goes flying off the shelf.
I own no crystal ball, so I could be oh-so-very wrong about all of this. But it's not like it hasn't been done before. When I was a teenager, musical artists like Marilyn Manson and Eminim sold records primarily by being as outrageos as possible. Furthermore, The Westboro Baptist Church has gained attention through outrageous picketing tactics. Yet, one wonders if they really believe in what they're saying or are simply in it for the money. After all, as reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center:
I can recall back when I took Philosophy of Religion, someone mentioned "it seems like only a matter of time until someone just end up driving a car into the Westboro Baptist Church picketers". Driving a car into them is not exactly what they want, but it's not all that far removed either. What they really want is someone to attack them, or try and prevent them from protesting altogether. Something to bear in mind when one might be considering directly confronting a Westboro Baptist Church groupies.
Following in the Westboro Baptist Church's footsteps, other groups have taken up the challenge of "who can be the most offensive to everyone". My senior year at SUNY Oneonta, we were visited by the Defarios, a father/daughter team that preached hatred of the homos the first time they came. The next year they showed up, it was all about teh ebils of abortion. Both of their visits, caused heavy counter protests from the student body. I don't recall it ever being brought up directly, but I recall hearing rumors that the Defarios also were interesting in exploiting the legal system then promoting any particular message.
The point is, The Westboro Baptist Church, are ultimately no different from Marilyn Manson in principle, the dividing line revolves solely around which political group or identity they are attempting to offend.
However, larger questions still remain. Namely, how do we respond to such spectacles of bigotry? I have nothing against calling out right wing lies and bigotry when it occurs, but there is a certain tendency for reporters to just go "Oh look at what outrageous thing (so and so) said this time!" and then leave it at that. There are times when I cannot help but wonder if groups like Right Wing Watch function as little more than subliminal publicists for whichever members of the right wing that they decide to draw attention to.
Of course not only do anti-gay bigots pull this trick. As some of you might recall, the story of the waitress who claimed she was stiffed out of a tip by a bigot turned out to be completely false.
One cannot help but wonder, is this sort of thing even avoidable? Is there a way to create a better structure for both getting the word out on the discrimination we face, while responding to the lies told about us, without turning everything into the mere mechanics of an outrage bigot fund generating machine? Or perhaps human nature is against us here. Who knows. As annoying as clickbait culture is, it works because it just so happens to be really effective at selling superficial crap. Yet there is this lingering sense I have that all this outrage does nothing more than feed the hand that slaps us.
Now if you'll excuse me, I just came across a facebook link on my feed that says "You won't *BELIEVE* what this well known conservative said about teh gays THIS time [video]!" that I plan on checking out.
The response has been varied and telling. People in my twitter feed appear to be rushing to condemn Robertson for being homophobic bigots (with less attention being paid to the racist comments about blacks being happier under Jim Crow, which is a problem in of itself). Meanwhile, the right is going to great lengths to defend Robertson. He's even getting compared to Rosa Parks because people who state that African Americans were happier under Jim Crow are oh so clearly in the same catagory of people who fought against systemic racism in America.
What nobody is talking about is the possibility that this entire incident was staged at the outset, possibly with the blessing of producers from Duck Dynasty. While the Duck Commander clan has all the appearance of typical "redneck hicks" what with their long beards and business based on hunting products, the success of their business and TV show implies at least some media/marketing savvy. Of course the term redneck is a classist term and from what I'm reading, liberal perceptions of the Duck Dynasty clan is based on a whole set of classist assumptions that I don't have time to deconstruct for one article.
In any case, here is what I expect will happen. At some point in the next week or so, Phil Robertson will issue a carefully worded apology to the LGBTQ community. Afterwards, he'll get to go on some kind of GLAAD sponsored apology/publicity tour and maybe even through a respectable amount of cash at a LGBTQ charity. Afterwards, Duck Dynasty will return in time for the January/February sweeps with a significant ratings boost while Duck Commander merchandise goes flying off the shelf.
I own no crystal ball, so I could be oh-so-very wrong about all of this. But it's not like it hasn't been done before. When I was a teenager, musical artists like Marilyn Manson and Eminim sold records primarily by being as outrageos as possible. Furthermore, The Westboro Baptist Church has gained attention through outrageous picketing tactics. Yet, one wonders if they really believe in what they're saying or are simply in it for the money. After all, as reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center:
the church makes money by winning or settling civil lawsuits involving the church. During the 1990s, the group sued Topeka multiple times for failing to provide sufficient protection during its protests. Although they lost most of their cases, WBC did win $43,000 in legal fees in 1993. According to Shirley Phelps-Roper, they also won more than $100,000 in 1995 in a lawsuit against Kansas' Funeral Picketing Act, which they claimed violated their First Amendment rights.
I can recall back when I took Philosophy of Religion, someone mentioned "it seems like only a matter of time until someone just end up driving a car into the Westboro Baptist Church picketers". Driving a car into them is not exactly what they want, but it's not all that far removed either. What they really want is someone to attack them, or try and prevent them from protesting altogether. Something to bear in mind when one might be considering directly confronting a Westboro Baptist Church groupies.
Following in the Westboro Baptist Church's footsteps, other groups have taken up the challenge of "who can be the most offensive to everyone". My senior year at SUNY Oneonta, we were visited by the Defarios, a father/daughter team that preached hatred of the homos the first time they came. The next year they showed up, it was all about teh ebils of abortion. Both of their visits, caused heavy counter protests from the student body. I don't recall it ever being brought up directly, but I recall hearing rumors that the Defarios also were interesting in exploiting the legal system then promoting any particular message.
The point is, The Westboro Baptist Church, are ultimately no different from Marilyn Manson in principle, the dividing line revolves solely around which political group or identity they are attempting to offend.
However, larger questions still remain. Namely, how do we respond to such spectacles of bigotry? I have nothing against calling out right wing lies and bigotry when it occurs, but there is a certain tendency for reporters to just go "Oh look at what outrageous thing (so and so) said this time!" and then leave it at that. There are times when I cannot help but wonder if groups like Right Wing Watch function as little more than subliminal publicists for whichever members of the right wing that they decide to draw attention to.
Of course not only do anti-gay bigots pull this trick. As some of you might recall, the story of the waitress who claimed she was stiffed out of a tip by a bigot turned out to be completely false.
One cannot help but wonder, is this sort of thing even avoidable? Is there a way to create a better structure for both getting the word out on the discrimination we face, while responding to the lies told about us, without turning everything into the mere mechanics of an outrage bigot fund generating machine? Or perhaps human nature is against us here. Who knows. As annoying as clickbait culture is, it works because it just so happens to be really effective at selling superficial crap. Yet there is this lingering sense I have that all this outrage does nothing more than feed the hand that slaps us.
Now if you'll excuse me, I just came across a facebook link on my feed that says "You won't *BELIEVE* what this well known conservative said about teh gays THIS time [video]!" that I plan on checking out.
December 6, 2013
Queer Review: Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi
Director: Richard Marquand
Writers: Lawrence Kasdan and George Lucas
Cast: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew, Ian McDiarmid, Sebastian Shaw, Frank Oz, James Earl Jones, David Prowse, Alec Guinness, Kenny Baker
Overview
The weakest of the Star Wars movies, Return of the Jedi sends the saga on a note as as fuzzy and awkward as an Ewoks' pelt.
Synopsis
After rescuing Han Solo (Harrison Ford) from the clutches of the evil Jabba the Hutt, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) and the rest of the gang head back to Rebel Alliance's fleet to discover that the evil Emperor had secretly begun construction on a new Death Star. This time around, the Death Star is being protected by an impenetrable shield that must be destroyed. Luke is selected to lead a strike team to destroy the shield, but after arriving on Endor, he abandons them to pursue a more dangerous mission: to convert Darth Vader back to the light side of the force.
The Queering
I would like to open up this review by asking the same questions every one else always asks about Return of the Jedi. Why do the stormtroopers wear armor that fails to provide any kind of obvious protection from blasters, arrows, or even bloody rocks? Given their inability to hit any of the heroes, it presumably is doing nothing to improve their aim... Also, why are there Ewoks? I said WHY?!
I mean, I sometimes find myself surprised at people who claim that the original trilogy is unquestionably better than the prequels. What I want to know is how exactly such people managed to block Return of the Jedi from their minds. Does the Ewok line "yub, yub" contain subliminal messaging for such a purpose? You will forget this scene! You will scrub our misbegotten existence from every corner of your mind!. The Star Wars films have never shied away from commercial appeal, but the Ewoks unfortunately function as little more than walking merchandise opportunities.
Now old movie serials are an obvious inspiration for the Star Wars saga and recently, my partner and I watched The Phantom serials but had to stop after only a few episodes. I would like to pretend to be all noble and say it was because of the really, really racist manner in which the Native allies of the Phantom were presented, but the real reason was because of the awful overall quality of that series. In any event, I bring this up due to the fact that the manor in which the "Native/Indigenous" characters were presented there, is exactly the same way the Ewoks are developed in Return of the Jedi.
Allow me to explain. In The Phantom serials, the Native characters are what could probably be categorized as "generic Hollywood primitives". The story is set in Asia, but their visual elements (clothing, homes, weaponry) are drawn from a much wider variety of sources, primarily African and Native American, with a few Amazonian elements thrown in for good measure. None of the characters look Asian themselves, nor does anything they wear, live in, or use. Of particular interest is the fact that the Phantom uses the Natives characters superstitions as a means of controlling them.
I bring this up, only because it's a recent example that's stuck in my mind but really, probably the presentation of any indigenous group from any serial would work just as well. This is after all, how the concept of genericness works. In any event, it's just a really obvious example for the template that the Ewoks were clearly based on. The use of superstition being a means to control the Natives being a particular important element. In any case, the point I want to make is that I don't think that using racist tropes to develop an alien culture makes those tropes any less racist.
Okay, onto the queer subtexts. They really are thin this time around, if they can be said to exist at all. We learn for example this time around that Han Solo can only say "I love you" to Princess Leia if she's holding a phallic-esque blaster near her crotch. I know, I know, I'm stretching things out here. Sorry.
Overall, Return of the Jedi manages to do some things right. The opening sequences where the gang rescues Han from Jabba the Hut are well executed, with the creepiness of Jabba's fortress oozing from every frame. Also, the three way climax between Darth Vader, Luke, and the Emperor are as intense and dramatic as one could hope. Now if only those scenes hadn't constantly been interrupted by Ewok action porn....
Recommendation
This Jedi film thingie is worth returning to the Star Wars saga in order to see, but only kind of.
The Rating
3 out of 4 stars
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Richard Marquand
Writers: Lawrence Kasdan and George Lucas
Cast: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew, Ian McDiarmid, Sebastian Shaw, Frank Oz, James Earl Jones, David Prowse, Alec Guinness, Kenny Baker
Overview
The weakest of the Star Wars movies, Return of the Jedi sends the saga on a note as as fuzzy and awkward as an Ewoks' pelt.
Synopsis
After rescuing Han Solo (Harrison Ford) from the clutches of the evil Jabba the Hutt, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) and the rest of the gang head back to Rebel Alliance's fleet to discover that the evil Emperor had secretly begun construction on a new Death Star. This time around, the Death Star is being protected by an impenetrable shield that must be destroyed. Luke is selected to lead a strike team to destroy the shield, but after arriving on Endor, he abandons them to pursue a more dangerous mission: to convert Darth Vader back to the light side of the force.
The Queering
I would like to open up this review by asking the same questions every one else always asks about Return of the Jedi. Why do the stormtroopers wear armor that fails to provide any kind of obvious protection from blasters, arrows, or even bloody rocks? Given their inability to hit any of the heroes, it presumably is doing nothing to improve their aim... Also, why are there Ewoks? I said WHY?!
I mean, I sometimes find myself surprised at people who claim that the original trilogy is unquestionably better than the prequels. What I want to know is how exactly such people managed to block Return of the Jedi from their minds. Does the Ewok line "yub, yub" contain subliminal messaging for such a purpose? You will forget this scene! You will scrub our misbegotten existence from every corner of your mind!. The Star Wars films have never shied away from commercial appeal, but the Ewoks unfortunately function as little more than walking merchandise opportunities.
Now old movie serials are an obvious inspiration for the Star Wars saga and recently, my partner and I watched The Phantom serials but had to stop after only a few episodes. I would like to pretend to be all noble and say it was because of the really, really racist manner in which the Native allies of the Phantom were presented, but the real reason was because of the awful overall quality of that series. In any event, I bring this up due to the fact that the manor in which the "Native/Indigenous" characters were presented there, is exactly the same way the Ewoks are developed in Return of the Jedi.
Allow me to explain. In The Phantom serials, the Native characters are what could probably be categorized as "generic Hollywood primitives". The story is set in Asia, but their visual elements (clothing, homes, weaponry) are drawn from a much wider variety of sources, primarily African and Native American, with a few Amazonian elements thrown in for good measure. None of the characters look Asian themselves, nor does anything they wear, live in, or use. Of particular interest is the fact that the Phantom uses the Natives characters superstitions as a means of controlling them.
I bring this up, only because it's a recent example that's stuck in my mind but really, probably the presentation of any indigenous group from any serial would work just as well. This is after all, how the concept of genericness works. In any event, it's just a really obvious example for the template that the Ewoks were clearly based on. The use of superstition being a means to control the Natives being a particular important element. In any case, the point I want to make is that I don't think that using racist tropes to develop an alien culture makes those tropes any less racist.
Okay, onto the queer subtexts. They really are thin this time around, if they can be said to exist at all. We learn for example this time around that Han Solo can only say "I love you" to Princess Leia if she's holding a phallic-esque blaster near her crotch. I know, I know, I'm stretching things out here. Sorry.
Overall, Return of the Jedi manages to do some things right. The opening sequences where the gang rescues Han from Jabba the Hut are well executed, with the creepiness of Jabba's fortress oozing from every frame. Also, the three way climax between Darth Vader, Luke, and the Emperor are as intense and dramatic as one could hope. Now if only those scenes hadn't constantly been interrupted by Ewok action porn....
Recommendation
This Jedi film thingie is worth returning to the Star Wars saga in order to see, but only kind of.
The Rating
3 out of 4 stars
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
November 24, 2013
Queer Review: Star Wars: Episode VI - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Star Wars: Episode IV - The Empire Strikes Back
Director: Irvin Kershner
Writers: Leigh Brackett, Lawrence Kasdan, and George Lucas
Cast: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams, Anthony Daniels, David Prowse, Peter Mayhew, Kenny Baker, Frank Oz, Alec Guinness, Jeremy Bulloch, James Earl Jones
Overview
Continuing the adventure started with A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back takes the saga in a very different, and much darker direction. A shocking twist (now ruined for anybody who watches the films in chronological order) elevates this entry onto a much higher level.
Synopsis
Following the destruction of the Death Star, the evil Empire is desperate to capture the leaders of the Rebel Alliance. While Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) heads to Degobah to be trained by the ancient Jedi Master Yoda (Frank OZ), Han Sol (Harrison Ford) and Leia (Carrie Fisher) find themselves in desperate flight from Darth Vader (David Prowse, James Earl Jones). However, Darth Vaders' plans are much bolder than capturing a few Rebel Leaders. Vader wants to lure Luke out of hiding so he can use a dark secret from the Skywalker family past to turn Luke to the dark side.
The Queering
The Empire Strikes Back does what few sequels actually do. It takes the premise of the original as a springboard for a different story. Better yet, A New Hope was a fairly light hearted space romp, The Empire Strikes Back introduces not only a darker tone, but legitimate substance into the saga.
While Empire Strikes Back is the darker, and most mature out of all the episodes, it is also the one that gives it's female lead the least amount to do. Leia is pretty much on hand this time around solely to flirt with Han Solo and yell at Luke "it's a trap!". Hard to imagine a farther cry from the princess in the last flick who picked off stormtroopers with a blaster and boldly took charge of her own rescue before it had even properly begun.
I mentioned before how the Empires' Stormtroopers, are named after a NAZI militia. Here, the ground troops who attack the Rebels on the Frozen planet Hoth, are given uniforms that make them more or less resemble the white hoodies of the KKK. I am not sure what to make of this. Since the rebels are pretty much mostly white, it feels a like drawing any kind of parallel between the rebellion and the civil rights movement feels a bit appropriative.
As for queer subtexts, Han Solo once again not only proves himself willing to put his life on the line to rescue Luke Skywalker, yet he's more than willing to delegate protecting Princess Leia duties to Chewie (Peter Mayhew). Worse, when during a key dramatic moment, when Leia tells him she loves him, Han is unable to respond with a "I love you too" but rather "I know". Really Han? Meanwhile, while Darth Vader showed absolutely no hesitancy when it came to torturing Leia in the last episode, he decides this time around that the best way to lure Luke out of hiding is to torture Han. I wonder, does this mean that Luke cares more about Han than Leia?
All in all, the darker tone and grown up attitude, helps elevate this Star Wars entry a true classic.
Recommendation
See this flick, or do not see this flick, there is no point in merely trying to see this flick.
The Rating
4 stars out of 4
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Irvin Kershner
Writers: Leigh Brackett, Lawrence Kasdan, and George Lucas
Cast: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams, Anthony Daniels, David Prowse, Peter Mayhew, Kenny Baker, Frank Oz, Alec Guinness, Jeremy Bulloch, James Earl Jones
Overview
Continuing the adventure started with A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back takes the saga in a very different, and much darker direction. A shocking twist (now ruined for anybody who watches the films in chronological order) elevates this entry onto a much higher level.
Synopsis
Following the destruction of the Death Star, the evil Empire is desperate to capture the leaders of the Rebel Alliance. While Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) heads to Degobah to be trained by the ancient Jedi Master Yoda (Frank OZ), Han Sol (Harrison Ford) and Leia (Carrie Fisher) find themselves in desperate flight from Darth Vader (David Prowse, James Earl Jones). However, Darth Vaders' plans are much bolder than capturing a few Rebel Leaders. Vader wants to lure Luke out of hiding so he can use a dark secret from the Skywalker family past to turn Luke to the dark side.
The Queering
The Empire Strikes Back does what few sequels actually do. It takes the premise of the original as a springboard for a different story. Better yet, A New Hope was a fairly light hearted space romp, The Empire Strikes Back introduces not only a darker tone, but legitimate substance into the saga.
While Empire Strikes Back is the darker, and most mature out of all the episodes, it is also the one that gives it's female lead the least amount to do. Leia is pretty much on hand this time around solely to flirt with Han Solo and yell at Luke "it's a trap!". Hard to imagine a farther cry from the princess in the last flick who picked off stormtroopers with a blaster and boldly took charge of her own rescue before it had even properly begun.
I mentioned before how the Empires' Stormtroopers, are named after a NAZI militia. Here, the ground troops who attack the Rebels on the Frozen planet Hoth, are given uniforms that make them more or less resemble the white hoodies of the KKK. I am not sure what to make of this. Since the rebels are pretty much mostly white, it feels a like drawing any kind of parallel between the rebellion and the civil rights movement feels a bit appropriative.
As for queer subtexts, Han Solo once again not only proves himself willing to put his life on the line to rescue Luke Skywalker, yet he's more than willing to delegate protecting Princess Leia duties to Chewie (Peter Mayhew). Worse, when during a key dramatic moment, when Leia tells him she loves him, Han is unable to respond with a "I love you too" but rather "I know". Really Han? Meanwhile, while Darth Vader showed absolutely no hesitancy when it came to torturing Leia in the last episode, he decides this time around that the best way to lure Luke out of hiding is to torture Han. I wonder, does this mean that Luke cares more about Han than Leia?
All in all, the darker tone and grown up attitude, helps elevate this Star Wars entry a true classic.
Recommendation
See this flick, or do not see this flick, there is no point in merely trying to see this flick.
The Rating
4 stars out of 4
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
November 18, 2013
Queer Review: Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)
Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope
Director: George Lucas
Writer: George Lucas
Cast: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Peter Cushing, Alec Guinness, Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Peter Mayhew, David Prowse, James Earl Jones, Ken Burtt
Overview
The first Star Wars movie released, A New Hope introduces us to a galaxy far far away, filled with the likes of Darth Vader, Princess Leia R2-D2, C-3PO, Han Solo, and a whiny, angsty teenager by the name of Luke Skywalker.
Synopsis
Two droids, R2-D2 (Ben Burtt, Kevin Baker) and C-3PO (Anthony Daniels), fall into the hands of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), a moisture farmer on the backwater planet Tattoine. The droids contain plans vital for the destruction of the recently completed Death Star, a space station capable of destroying an entire planet, which makes it the most dreaded weapon in the Galactic Empire's arsenal. With the dreaded Darth Vader (James Earl Jones, David Prowse) in pursuit, Luke, C-3PO, and R2-D2 join with Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guiness), Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) and blast off from Tattoine for Alderaan, only to find the entire planet was destroyed.
The Queering
The first time I saw A New Hope, it was in my Grandmother's basement on a TV that could double as a piece of furniture. The television was old, really old, and still works today. It had a remote control that attached to the TV directly via a physical wire that, in contrast to today's modern remotes, had only one knob that you turned to chain the channel. With the recent passing of my Grandmother, I find myself actually trying to figure to get it to my current apartment in Wilkes-Barre, so I can use it as a TV stand. Because nostalgia.
A New Hope opens by introducing us to R2-D2 and C-3PO, two characters whose chemistry was severely missed in the prequels. One wonders if somehow, they had been given more screen time together in Episodes I - III, those movies would have been better received. Re-watching the Star Wars films recently in order to write these reviews, the biggest difference I could find between the two trilogies had nothing to do with overall artistic quality of the films but rather with how long C-3PO and R2-D2 spent together on screen.
Of course R2-D2 and C-3PO could also be seen as something of a gay-odd couple. In fact, in spite of all droids in the Star Wars universe appearing fully sentient, they are consistently de-humanized. Given that they are mechanical and therefore genderless, they seem a natural set of characters to impose queer subtexts upon. A subtext that can be seen perhaps most obviously in the scene where the two droids try to enter Mos Eisley Cantina and are told "we don't serve their kind here". This scene reminded me of the fact that during the time of the Stonewall Riots, it was illegal to serve known "homosexuals".
Another queer subtext shows up in the relationship between Han Solo and Luke Skywalker. While both Luke and Han both express heterosexual desire for Princess Leia at some point, there is a pattern worth commenting on. Han, a space freighter who has been cavorting around the galaxy up to this point in time with only a Wookie companion, takes quite a bit of persuasion before he is willing to go and rescue Princess Leia from captivity. In the end, it's pretty clear he's only does participate in her rescue because of the potential reward. Later, he does verbally express interest in Leia, but it's Luke that he puts his on the line to save at the end, without any promise of material reward. Talk is cheap Han, talk is cheap.
Also, if anyone can explain how the last scene does not resemble a marriage ceremony between Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, I would be interested in knowing about it. Thanks.
There is however, a rather unfortunate negative ableist subtext regarding Darth Vader. Vaders' most visible and memorable traits (heavy breathing, scary mask thingie) are directly tied to the character being physically disabled. I talked about Darth Vader being de-queered during his transformation into most evil Sith Lord, but what escaped my notice was how this came about through Anakin's body being several damaged, 3 of his limbs light-sabred off, and his lungs burned, forcing him to breath through a respirator to live.
But what message does it send when a characters' descent into evil is marked by bodily damage? It happened as well with both Palpatine and General Greivious in Revenge of the Sith, with General Greivious being a precursor to Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine rapidly aging specifically due to his use of the Dark Side. Obi-Wan specifically mentions here in A New Hope that Darth Vader is "more machine now, than man". In the Star Wars universe it seems, a damaged soul equates to a damaged body. Actually it's not so much a Star Wars trope as it is a highly problematic ableist trope in general. This is just something that needs to be said.
Problematic elements aside, A New Hope effectively sets up the Star Wars Universe by cramming as many strange beasties and clunking mechanical beings into every frame possible. The Special Edition, released in 1997, inserted even more creatures, particularly into the Mos Eisley sequences. While critics have complained about Lucas's tendency to insert as many background material, be it cantankerous machinery or alienated monsters, it is the intricate background details that make the story work. This Galaxy Far, Far Away works the way it does for so many fans the way it does precisely because there is so much texture. No movie series before (or since really) has managed to create an entire universe with this much depth of background detail to get lost in.
Recommendation
Would be worth seeing, even if in fact there was no new hope to be found here.
The Rating
4 Stars out of 4
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: George Lucas
Writer: George Lucas
Cast: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Peter Cushing, Alec Guinness, Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Peter Mayhew, David Prowse, James Earl Jones, Ken Burtt
Overview
The first Star Wars movie released, A New Hope introduces us to a galaxy far far away, filled with the likes of Darth Vader, Princess Leia R2-D2, C-3PO, Han Solo, and a whiny, angsty teenager by the name of Luke Skywalker.
Synopsis
Two droids, R2-D2 (Ben Burtt, Kevin Baker) and C-3PO (Anthony Daniels), fall into the hands of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), a moisture farmer on the backwater planet Tattoine. The droids contain plans vital for the destruction of the recently completed Death Star, a space station capable of destroying an entire planet, which makes it the most dreaded weapon in the Galactic Empire's arsenal. With the dreaded Darth Vader (James Earl Jones, David Prowse) in pursuit, Luke, C-3PO, and R2-D2 join with Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guiness), Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) and blast off from Tattoine for Alderaan, only to find the entire planet was destroyed.
The Queering
The first time I saw A New Hope, it was in my Grandmother's basement on a TV that could double as a piece of furniture. The television was old, really old, and still works today. It had a remote control that attached to the TV directly via a physical wire that, in contrast to today's modern remotes, had only one knob that you turned to chain the channel. With the recent passing of my Grandmother, I find myself actually trying to figure to get it to my current apartment in Wilkes-Barre, so I can use it as a TV stand. Because nostalgia.
A New Hope opens by introducing us to R2-D2 and C-3PO, two characters whose chemistry was severely missed in the prequels. One wonders if somehow, they had been given more screen time together in Episodes I - III, those movies would have been better received. Re-watching the Star Wars films recently in order to write these reviews, the biggest difference I could find between the two trilogies had nothing to do with overall artistic quality of the films but rather with how long C-3PO and R2-D2 spent together on screen.
Of course R2-D2 and C-3PO could also be seen as something of a gay-odd couple. In fact, in spite of all droids in the Star Wars universe appearing fully sentient, they are consistently de-humanized. Given that they are mechanical and therefore genderless, they seem a natural set of characters to impose queer subtexts upon. A subtext that can be seen perhaps most obviously in the scene where the two droids try to enter Mos Eisley Cantina and are told "we don't serve their kind here". This scene reminded me of the fact that during the time of the Stonewall Riots, it was illegal to serve known "homosexuals".
Another queer subtext shows up in the relationship between Han Solo and Luke Skywalker. While both Luke and Han both express heterosexual desire for Princess Leia at some point, there is a pattern worth commenting on. Han, a space freighter who has been cavorting around the galaxy up to this point in time with only a Wookie companion, takes quite a bit of persuasion before he is willing to go and rescue Princess Leia from captivity. In the end, it's pretty clear he's only does participate in her rescue because of the potential reward. Later, he does verbally express interest in Leia, but it's Luke that he puts his on the line to save at the end, without any promise of material reward. Talk is cheap Han, talk is cheap.
Also, if anyone can explain how the last scene does not resemble a marriage ceremony between Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, I would be interested in knowing about it. Thanks.
There is however, a rather unfortunate negative ableist subtext regarding Darth Vader. Vaders' most visible and memorable traits (heavy breathing, scary mask thingie) are directly tied to the character being physically disabled. I talked about Darth Vader being de-queered during his transformation into most evil Sith Lord, but what escaped my notice was how this came about through Anakin's body being several damaged, 3 of his limbs light-sabred off, and his lungs burned, forcing him to breath through a respirator to live.
But what message does it send when a characters' descent into evil is marked by bodily damage? It happened as well with both Palpatine and General Greivious in Revenge of the Sith, with General Greivious being a precursor to Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine rapidly aging specifically due to his use of the Dark Side. Obi-Wan specifically mentions here in A New Hope that Darth Vader is "more machine now, than man". In the Star Wars universe it seems, a damaged soul equates to a damaged body. Actually it's not so much a Star Wars trope as it is a highly problematic ableist trope in general. This is just something that needs to be said.
Problematic elements aside, A New Hope effectively sets up the Star Wars Universe by cramming as many strange beasties and clunking mechanical beings into every frame possible. The Special Edition, released in 1997, inserted even more creatures, particularly into the Mos Eisley sequences. While critics have complained about Lucas's tendency to insert as many background material, be it cantankerous machinery or alienated monsters, it is the intricate background details that make the story work. This Galaxy Far, Far Away works the way it does for so many fans the way it does precisely because there is so much texture. No movie series before (or since really) has managed to create an entire universe with this much depth of background detail to get lost in.
Recommendation
Would be worth seeing, even if in fact there was no new hope to be found here.
The Rating
4 Stars out of 4
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
November 15, 2013
Queer Review: Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
Director: George Lucas
Writer: George Lucas
Cast: Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, Ian McDiarmid, Samuel L. Jackson, Jimmy Smits, Frank Oz, Anthony Daniels, Christopher Lee
Overview
Without any poorly developed romance to drag it down, Revenge of the Sith manages to send the prequel trilogy out on a high note. This long descent into darkness as the Jedi Order is wiped out and the Sith gain absolute over the galaxy, is remarkably enjoyable (from a certain point of view...).
Synopsis
The Clone Wars are in full swing, although the end is in sight. During a rescue mission for the kidnapped Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) manages to kill Count Dooku (Christopher Lee), who had been leading the insurrection against the Republic. This means that Chancellor Palpatine (who is now revealed to have been Darth Sidious all along) must find a new apprentice, so he turns his attention to completing his seduction of Anakin to the dark side. This is made easier when Obi-Wan is sent away to kill the new separatist leader, General Grevieous, leaving Anakin behind. Anakin, who is also dealing with Padme's revelation that she is pregnant and that he thus will become a father, feels spurned by the Jedi Council over this decision and that they do not trust. With so much hanging in the balance, Anakin is pushed inevitably closer and closer to the dark side.
The Queering
I can recall waiting in line to see Revenge of the Sith at the midnight showing in theaters. I remember playing Uno with some college students (I was in the middle of working towards my first bachelors degree myself at the time) who were in line behind me, while sitting on the sidewalk in the middle of chilly enough night. It marks one of the more fun times I had in college. There is a certain excitement that comes, not just from seeing a movie in theater, but in waiting in line to see a work that one is eagerly awaiting the release of. If the movie succeeds, the experience can be transcendent. Seeing it with the right audience, that cheers at the right moments, is far different from seeing even the most artistically accomplished film with an audience that might as well be dead. Citizen Kane is one of the most critically acclaimed films of all time (and rightfully so) but that movie's power is subtler, and doesn't quite compare in many ways to seeing a lightsabre battle between two Jedi's that was legendary long before it had ever been committed to film.
This is not a knock on Citizen Kane, simply the observation that it is possible for one to like different movies for different reasons. I do not think that Attack of the Clones is in any ways, an artistic accomplishment, although there are certainly many nice visuals that could qualify as arty. This may seem like an odd observation, but while George Lucas was hardly a film student at the time he had made The Phantom Menace, not only had he directed a small handful of films, but hadn't actually been in a directors' chair in decades. I think this shows most in the way many of the scenes of The Phantom Menace were incredibly stagy and the camerawork often resembled the work done on well made, but unambitious TV show. By the time we get to the Attack of the Clones, the action is much more fluid and more cinematic. With with no poorly developed romance scenes drag things down, the dialog manages to not be embarrassing to itself or any nearby bits of sand.
Another element that has increased from the previous films are the queer subtexts. The relationship between Anakin and Obi-Wan is much clearer and they spend more time on screen together this time around and even get to have a moment of physical intimacy in an elevator shaft. There's even a moment during an important and emptionally charged scene where Obi-Wan yells out "I loved you... like a brother!" Furthermore, the scenes between Soon-to-be-Emperor Palpatine and Anakin ooze the scent of seduction. Also, the fact that Anakin and Padme must keep their romance secret, lends an element of queerness to their otherwise heterosexual relationship. And as I talked about in my reviews of the previous prequels, the Jedi Order can be read as an isophylic order, while there are obvious parallels and references to the events of World War II. Taken together, then there is an obvious parallel between Anakin Skywalker and Ernst Rohm. A parallel that is emphacized when Palpatine has Anakin hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights as the destruction of the Jedi Order can be seen as mirroring the The Night of Long Knives.
This of course makes for a more interesting reading, for as we are repeatedly told, the rise of Darth Vader requires the "death" of Anakin Skywalker, much like Hitler's rise to power forced him into assassinating Ernst Rohm. Of course Anakin's death is purely symbolic in nature, but it can be seen as Anakin having to purge anything "queer" from his life, including both his relationship with Obi-Wan and his secret love affair with Padme. How nice, for a change, that a characters descent into evil can be read as them having to de-queer and straighten themselves out, rather than the other way around.
Overall, Attack of the Clones contains many powerful scenes and on the whole, manages to more than justify the existence of the prequel trilogy. Although I do contend that the previous two were good enough to stand on their own merits. The force is steroids strong this time around.
Recommendation
Served hot or cold, this dish of revenge is purely delectable.
The Rating
**** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: George Lucas
Writer: George Lucas
Cast: Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, Ian McDiarmid, Samuel L. Jackson, Jimmy Smits, Frank Oz, Anthony Daniels, Christopher Lee
Overview
Without any poorly developed romance to drag it down, Revenge of the Sith manages to send the prequel trilogy out on a high note. This long descent into darkness as the Jedi Order is wiped out and the Sith gain absolute over the galaxy, is remarkably enjoyable (from a certain point of view...).
Synopsis
The Clone Wars are in full swing, although the end is in sight. During a rescue mission for the kidnapped Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) manages to kill Count Dooku (Christopher Lee), who had been leading the insurrection against the Republic. This means that Chancellor Palpatine (who is now revealed to have been Darth Sidious all along) must find a new apprentice, so he turns his attention to completing his seduction of Anakin to the dark side. This is made easier when Obi-Wan is sent away to kill the new separatist leader, General Grevieous, leaving Anakin behind. Anakin, who is also dealing with Padme's revelation that she is pregnant and that he thus will become a father, feels spurned by the Jedi Council over this decision and that they do not trust. With so much hanging in the balance, Anakin is pushed inevitably closer and closer to the dark side.
The Queering
I can recall waiting in line to see Revenge of the Sith at the midnight showing in theaters. I remember playing Uno with some college students (I was in the middle of working towards my first bachelors degree myself at the time) who were in line behind me, while sitting on the sidewalk in the middle of chilly enough night. It marks one of the more fun times I had in college. There is a certain excitement that comes, not just from seeing a movie in theater, but in waiting in line to see a work that one is eagerly awaiting the release of. If the movie succeeds, the experience can be transcendent. Seeing it with the right audience, that cheers at the right moments, is far different from seeing even the most artistically accomplished film with an audience that might as well be dead. Citizen Kane is one of the most critically acclaimed films of all time (and rightfully so) but that movie's power is subtler, and doesn't quite compare in many ways to seeing a lightsabre battle between two Jedi's that was legendary long before it had ever been committed to film.
This is not a knock on Citizen Kane, simply the observation that it is possible for one to like different movies for different reasons. I do not think that Attack of the Clones is in any ways, an artistic accomplishment, although there are certainly many nice visuals that could qualify as arty. This may seem like an odd observation, but while George Lucas was hardly a film student at the time he had made The Phantom Menace, not only had he directed a small handful of films, but hadn't actually been in a directors' chair in decades. I think this shows most in the way many of the scenes of The Phantom Menace were incredibly stagy and the camerawork often resembled the work done on well made, but unambitious TV show. By the time we get to the Attack of the Clones, the action is much more fluid and more cinematic. With with no poorly developed romance scenes drag things down, the dialog manages to not be embarrassing to itself or any nearby bits of sand.
Another element that has increased from the previous films are the queer subtexts. The relationship between Anakin and Obi-Wan is much clearer and they spend more time on screen together this time around and even get to have a moment of physical intimacy in an elevator shaft. There's even a moment during an important and emptionally charged scene where Obi-Wan yells out "I loved you... like a brother!" Furthermore, the scenes between Soon-to-be-Emperor Palpatine and Anakin ooze the scent of seduction. Also, the fact that Anakin and Padme must keep their romance secret, lends an element of queerness to their otherwise heterosexual relationship. And as I talked about in my reviews of the previous prequels, the Jedi Order can be read as an isophylic order, while there are obvious parallels and references to the events of World War II. Taken together, then there is an obvious parallel between Anakin Skywalker and Ernst Rohm. A parallel that is emphacized when Palpatine has Anakin hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights as the destruction of the Jedi Order can be seen as mirroring the The Night of Long Knives.
This of course makes for a more interesting reading, for as we are repeatedly told, the rise of Darth Vader requires the "death" of Anakin Skywalker, much like Hitler's rise to power forced him into assassinating Ernst Rohm. Of course Anakin's death is purely symbolic in nature, but it can be seen as Anakin having to purge anything "queer" from his life, including both his relationship with Obi-Wan and his secret love affair with Padme. How nice, for a change, that a characters descent into evil can be read as them having to de-queer and straighten themselves out, rather than the other way around.
Overall, Attack of the Clones contains many powerful scenes and on the whole, manages to more than justify the existence of the prequel trilogy. Although I do contend that the previous two were good enough to stand on their own merits. The force is steroids strong this time around.
Recommendation
Served hot or cold, this dish of revenge is purely delectable.
The Rating
**** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
November 1, 2013
Queer Review: The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
The Bride of Frankenstein
Director: James Whale
Writers: William Hurlbut, John L. Balderston, Josef Berne, Lawrence G. Blochman, Robert Florey, Philip MacDonald, Tom Reed, R.C. Sherriff, Edmund Pearson, and Morton Covan. Inspired by the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelly
Cast: Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Valerie Hobson, Ernest Thesiger, Elsa Lanchester, Gavin Gordon, Gavin Gordon, Una O'Connor, O.P. Heggie
Overview
A campy horror flick, James Whale's The Bride of Frankenstein serves just as much of a deconstruction of the first Frankenstein, as it does a sequel. Then there's the queer subtexts galore to consider, which spend most of the running time competing with each other for the opportunity to scream "it's alive!"
Synopsis
After a brief intro in which Mary Shelly (Elsa Lanchester) reveals that both Dr. Frankenstein and his creation survived the first movie, Dr. Frankenstein is approached by Dr. Pretorius with a proposal. He wants to work with Dr. Frankenstein to create something new and even more ambitious then either one had previously achieved. Dr. Frankenstein refuses, but after Dr. Pretorius joins forces with The Monster (Boris Karloff) and kidnaps Dr. Frankenstein's bride to be, Dr. Frankenstein agrees to help create the most monstrous creation possible, a bride for The Monster.
The Queering
It is not unusual to find queer subtexts in older movies, it is however unusual to find them quite like they are in The Bride of Frankenstein where they're running around each other under thunder clapped skies, dripping off of the ceilings of mad scientists' laboratories, and humping each other in the corner of every forgotten graveyard. Starting with The Monster himself, we have a creature shunned from society, blamed for crimes it cannot understand. When he tries to conform to societies standards of true happiness by getting married, he finds himself disgusted by the results. The revelation of the bride and subsequent destruction of Dr. Frankenstein's lab, can be read as a reflection of the potentially disastrous consequences that await (or at least the anxieties of) lesbians and gays who suppress their sexuality in order to conform to heterosexual ideals of wedded matrimony.
Furthermore, the scenes with the blind hermit are overladen with homoerotic suggestion. It is the hermit who introduces The Monster to the pleasures of smoking, which The Monster likes, a lot. *wink* *nudge* Dr. Pretorius also can be seen "initiating" The Monster into a deviant lifestyle when he offers Frankenstein's creation a cigar as well, while proclaiming that it's his "only vice".
Then we have the relationship between Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Pretorius. On one level, you have the obvious reading of these two scientists attempting to usurp God in their pursuit of creating new life. On another, you have two men trying to create a family without the aid of a female mother.
Of course what must also be discussed is the fact that Elsa Lanchester plays both Mary Shelly and The Bride Dr. Frankenstein created. This has interesting implications in that we have the creator becoming the created. Not only that, but very label The Bride (at least under traditional standards) is an image of something that is to also create new life. It suggests a sort of endless cycle of creation, one in which the creators of The Bride of Frankenstein openly suggest that the sequels are never, ever going to end. Or something to that effect, methinks.
Keeping in with the theme of endless sequels and cycles of rebirth, comes also the constant imagery of resurrection, namely in the form of dozens of crucifixes littering nearly every frame. When The Monster is captured early on, he is tied to a large post and held up in an image that is a cross between the iconic image of Sebastian being stuck with arrows, but of the image of Christ himself. In another scene, where the hermit and The Monster become friends, the screen slowly fades to black at the end, with the last item remaining visible is the crucifix on the hermit's wall. It's easy enough to see the connection, The Monster represents the resurrection/rebirth of each of the bodies that Dr. Frankenstein used to create him. But The Monster here is no misunderstood savior, by the end he saves no one, merely grants Dr. Frankenstein and Elizabeth the opportunity to escape.
The original Frankenstein was adapted to film from a stage play and while containing some memorable moments and showing hints of genuine creepiness, often felt stilted and a little silly. The Bride of Frankenstein however, was not adapted from a play, but takes elements found in the Shelly's novel that were not in the first movie, and runs in it's own direction with them. The result is a more organic, more enjoyable motion picture. True, the films do cheapen the themes of the original novel and ends up turning Frankensteins' creation into a farce. Given that the original novel is legitimately considered to be a classic of it's own right, this dumbing down is hard to excuse. On the other hand, how many people have read the novel today because of the movies? Not to mention this movie is a lot of fun it's own right and that is the deciding factor as far as my opinion is concerned.
Recommendation
Whether it's his wedding day or not, even the most superstitious groom should see make every effort possible to see The Bride of Frankenstein.
The Rating
*** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: James Whale
Writers: William Hurlbut, John L. Balderston, Josef Berne, Lawrence G. Blochman, Robert Florey, Philip MacDonald, Tom Reed, R.C. Sherriff, Edmund Pearson, and Morton Covan. Inspired by the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelly
Cast: Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Valerie Hobson, Ernest Thesiger, Elsa Lanchester, Gavin Gordon, Gavin Gordon, Una O'Connor, O.P. Heggie
Overview
A campy horror flick, James Whale's The Bride of Frankenstein serves just as much of a deconstruction of the first Frankenstein, as it does a sequel. Then there's the queer subtexts galore to consider, which spend most of the running time competing with each other for the opportunity to scream "it's alive!"
Synopsis
After a brief intro in which Mary Shelly (Elsa Lanchester) reveals that both Dr. Frankenstein and his creation survived the first movie, Dr. Frankenstein is approached by Dr. Pretorius with a proposal. He wants to work with Dr. Frankenstein to create something new and even more ambitious then either one had previously achieved. Dr. Frankenstein refuses, but after Dr. Pretorius joins forces with The Monster (Boris Karloff) and kidnaps Dr. Frankenstein's bride to be, Dr. Frankenstein agrees to help create the most monstrous creation possible, a bride for The Monster.
The Queering
It is not unusual to find queer subtexts in older movies, it is however unusual to find them quite like they are in The Bride of Frankenstein where they're running around each other under thunder clapped skies, dripping off of the ceilings of mad scientists' laboratories, and humping each other in the corner of every forgotten graveyard. Starting with The Monster himself, we have a creature shunned from society, blamed for crimes it cannot understand. When he tries to conform to societies standards of true happiness by getting married, he finds himself disgusted by the results. The revelation of the bride and subsequent destruction of Dr. Frankenstein's lab, can be read as a reflection of the potentially disastrous consequences that await (or at least the anxieties of) lesbians and gays who suppress their sexuality in order to conform to heterosexual ideals of wedded matrimony.
Furthermore, the scenes with the blind hermit are overladen with homoerotic suggestion. It is the hermit who introduces The Monster to the pleasures of smoking, which The Monster likes, a lot. *wink* *nudge* Dr. Pretorius also can be seen "initiating" The Monster into a deviant lifestyle when he offers Frankenstein's creation a cigar as well, while proclaiming that it's his "only vice".
Then we have the relationship between Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Pretorius. On one level, you have the obvious reading of these two scientists attempting to usurp God in their pursuit of creating new life. On another, you have two men trying to create a family without the aid of a female mother.
Of course what must also be discussed is the fact that Elsa Lanchester plays both Mary Shelly and The Bride Dr. Frankenstein created. This has interesting implications in that we have the creator becoming the created. Not only that, but very label The Bride (at least under traditional standards) is an image of something that is to also create new life. It suggests a sort of endless cycle of creation, one in which the creators of The Bride of Frankenstein openly suggest that the sequels are never, ever going to end. Or something to that effect, methinks.
Keeping in with the theme of endless sequels and cycles of rebirth, comes also the constant imagery of resurrection, namely in the form of dozens of crucifixes littering nearly every frame. When The Monster is captured early on, he is tied to a large post and held up in an image that is a cross between the iconic image of Sebastian being stuck with arrows, but of the image of Christ himself. In another scene, where the hermit and The Monster become friends, the screen slowly fades to black at the end, with the last item remaining visible is the crucifix on the hermit's wall. It's easy enough to see the connection, The Monster represents the resurrection/rebirth of each of the bodies that Dr. Frankenstein used to create him. But The Monster here is no misunderstood savior, by the end he saves no one, merely grants Dr. Frankenstein and Elizabeth the opportunity to escape.
The original Frankenstein was adapted to film from a stage play and while containing some memorable moments and showing hints of genuine creepiness, often felt stilted and a little silly. The Bride of Frankenstein however, was not adapted from a play, but takes elements found in the Shelly's novel that were not in the first movie, and runs in it's own direction with them. The result is a more organic, more enjoyable motion picture. True, the films do cheapen the themes of the original novel and ends up turning Frankensteins' creation into a farce. Given that the original novel is legitimately considered to be a classic of it's own right, this dumbing down is hard to excuse. On the other hand, how many people have read the novel today because of the movies? Not to mention this movie is a lot of fun it's own right and that is the deciding factor as far as my opinion is concerned.
Recommendation
Whether it's his wedding day or not, even the most superstitious groom should see make every effort possible to see The Bride of Frankenstein.
The Rating
*** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
October 20, 2013
Queer Review: Keep the River on Your Right: A Modern Cannibal Tale (2000)
Keep the River on Your Right: A Modern Cannibal Tale
Directors: David Shapiro, Laurie Gwen Shapiro
Writers: David Shapiro, Laurie Gwen Shapiro
Cast: Tobias Schneebaum
Overview
An intellectually stimulating documentary about the controversial Tobias Schneebaum which analyzes the lined between civilization and the wilderness; between the other and the not-other.
Synopsis
Tobias Schneebaum created a brief stir when he emerged from the Amazon wilds with tales of having eaten human flesh and made love with the males of the Arakmbut tribe. The documentary follows the modern day Tobias Schneebaum as he returns to the Amazon to revisit the places that he had once lived.
The Queering
It is difficult to know exactly where to begin in a review of Keep the River on Your Right: A Modern Cannibal Tale. For starters the issue of cannibalism may be the films least interesting element. In many ways it's almost a McGuffin. We never actually see anybody eating anyone else, although the topic is broached at several points, while like any good McGuffin, the film ultimately is not about cannibalism at all, it's simply a device to drive the rest of the plot. What the filmmakers are more interested in exploring is the line that divides the civilized from the uncivilized, or if any such distinction can be made.
Of course, Tobias Schneebaum is an interesting individual in his own right. He comes across as charismatic, yet naive, open minded and without guile, but frequently takes a patronizing attitude towards the individuals and tribe that he once studied. He suggests openly the that the closeness that the Arakmbut live with nature make them superior to Western Civilization.
The thing is, his attitude is not uncommon. Our society has this weird, almost hypocritical dichotomy where the civilized world is set up as superior to the uncivilized, but the natural is thought of a superior to the unnatural. Just think about that for a little bit. But as David Wong once said in this Cracked article, "there are two ways to dehumanize someone: by dismissing them, and by idolizing them."
And perhaps this is the downfall of the nature is superior line of thinking for it implies that those who live in harmony with nature live outside the realm of human laws. Yet there are no known societies/group of humans that functions without laws or methods of resolving interpersonal disputes, even non-technologically advanced societies.
For an example of this kind of thinking, watch the following video about an uncontacted (by western civilization at least) tribe in the Amazon, is described as "the last free people on earth", because you know, primitive savages lacking advanced technology are *obviously* too feeble minded to develop rules and systems of laws.
Sorry non-westerners, we Superior Beings can just know this kind of thing simply taking long distance photos of you.
Perhaps the most pertinent statement Keep the River on Your Right is made when one academics points out how weird it is for someone to walk into another persons home and start asking that person questions about their sex lives. In Western Society after all, this would generally be considered stalking and trespassing. Apparently, all rules are bendable, particularly for the rule makers.
Like any good documentarians, David and Laurie Gwen Shapiro make little effort to provide concrete answers to the questions that they are raising. Instead they document as many perspectives as the format allows and then assemble the most relevant of those into a coherent motion picture. The final result is as compelling a tale as could be made from this material.
Recommendation
Worth fording many a river in order to see.
The Rating
*** out of ****
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Directors: David Shapiro, Laurie Gwen Shapiro
Writers: David Shapiro, Laurie Gwen Shapiro
Cast: Tobias Schneebaum
Overview
An intellectually stimulating documentary about the controversial Tobias Schneebaum which analyzes the lined between civilization and the wilderness; between the other and the not-other.
Synopsis
Tobias Schneebaum created a brief stir when he emerged from the Amazon wilds with tales of having eaten human flesh and made love with the males of the Arakmbut tribe. The documentary follows the modern day Tobias Schneebaum as he returns to the Amazon to revisit the places that he had once lived.
The Queering
It is difficult to know exactly where to begin in a review of Keep the River on Your Right: A Modern Cannibal Tale. For starters the issue of cannibalism may be the films least interesting element. In many ways it's almost a McGuffin. We never actually see anybody eating anyone else, although the topic is broached at several points, while like any good McGuffin, the film ultimately is not about cannibalism at all, it's simply a device to drive the rest of the plot. What the filmmakers are more interested in exploring is the line that divides the civilized from the uncivilized, or if any such distinction can be made.
Of course, Tobias Schneebaum is an interesting individual in his own right. He comes across as charismatic, yet naive, open minded and without guile, but frequently takes a patronizing attitude towards the individuals and tribe that he once studied. He suggests openly the that the closeness that the Arakmbut live with nature make them superior to Western Civilization.
The thing is, his attitude is not uncommon. Our society has this weird, almost hypocritical dichotomy where the civilized world is set up as superior to the uncivilized, but the natural is thought of a superior to the unnatural. Just think about that for a little bit. But as David Wong once said in this Cracked article, "there are two ways to dehumanize someone: by dismissing them, and by idolizing them."
And perhaps this is the downfall of the nature is superior line of thinking for it implies that those who live in harmony with nature live outside the realm of human laws. Yet there are no known societies/group of humans that functions without laws or methods of resolving interpersonal disputes, even non-technologically advanced societies.
For an example of this kind of thinking, watch the following video about an uncontacted (by western civilization at least) tribe in the Amazon, is described as "the last free people on earth", because you know, primitive savages lacking advanced technology are *obviously* too feeble minded to develop rules and systems of laws.
Sorry non-westerners, we Superior Beings can just know this kind of thing simply taking long distance photos of you.
Perhaps the most pertinent statement Keep the River on Your Right is made when one academics points out how weird it is for someone to walk into another persons home and start asking that person questions about their sex lives. In Western Society after all, this would generally be considered stalking and trespassing. Apparently, all rules are bendable, particularly for the rule makers.
Like any good documentarians, David and Laurie Gwen Shapiro make little effort to provide concrete answers to the questions that they are raising. Instead they document as many perspectives as the format allows and then assemble the most relevant of those into a coherent motion picture. The final result is as compelling a tale as could be made from this material.
Recommendation
Worth fording many a river in order to see.
The Rating
*** out of ****
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
September 27, 2013
Queer Issue: A Really Bad, No Good Idea For a Sociological Experiment on Street Harassment
Over on The Bilerico project, there is a newish post entitled "How To Cat Call Appropriately" on the issue of street harrasment that is frequently faced by women.
One of the commentators (and I might point out this is kind of a predictable response) asked (and I'm paraphrasing) "But what if I just tell her she's pretty and ask her for her number?"
Well, okay let's put the shoe on the other foot. Let's consider a sociological experiment. what if the situation were different? What if it was men who had people coming up to them, telling them they were handsome or good looking, and oh by the way, what's their number?
If women were to go around asking men for their numbers, I have honestly have no idea how it would go. It might be viewed as an impropriety but I am not sure that *most* men would react negatively. Some might be annoyed but others might like it, and at the end of the idea I really have no idea what would go on.
Now, to make this a really fun experiment, what if gay men were to go around in a public space and tell men how sexy/hot/handsome they were, and what their phone number was?
First, we would probably need to wear full body armor to have any hope of maintaining physical safety.
Second, there would be a very real chance of us being arrested for soliciting sex in public. I am not making this up. There's plenty of examples of this happening, even in recent years, of gay men being arrested for public solicitation.
Do I even need to point out that this is certainly a case of how society can enforce rules differently when it comes to minority status.
For extra fun, consider what would happen if the "hey sexy man, can I have your number" solicitor (male, female, or otherwise) fell into any of the following identity categories (or was a part of multiple categories):
-Was visibly disabled
-Was a non-passing transgender, transexual, or otherwise presented outside the gender binary
-Was a person of color
-Was fat
-Was 65 plus and asking males 20-30 years old
I bring up these identities, not because I think that these necessarily should be considered less attractive then what society conditions people into thinking what should be attractive, but because I am willing to gamble that most men, thanks to said social conditioning, would be less receptive in general to being solicited by those in the above categories. Which in turn means that they might get a better idea of why street harassment is such a horrible practice.
That said, there are plenty of men out there who would appreciate being approached by any of the above, but that still wouldn't make it right. Just because some of the mud that you fling at people sticks, does not make mud flinging at people okay.
For further reading:
PSA: Dear Street Harassers by Foz Meadows.
One of the commentators (and I might point out this is kind of a predictable response) asked (and I'm paraphrasing) "But what if I just tell her she's pretty and ask her for her number?"
Well, okay let's put the shoe on the other foot. Let's consider a sociological experiment. what if the situation were different? What if it was men who had people coming up to them, telling them they were handsome or good looking, and oh by the way, what's their number?
If women were to go around asking men for their numbers, I have honestly have no idea how it would go. It might be viewed as an impropriety but I am not sure that *most* men would react negatively. Some might be annoyed but others might like it, and at the end of the idea I really have no idea what would go on.
Now, to make this a really fun experiment, what if gay men were to go around in a public space and tell men how sexy/hot/handsome they were, and what their phone number was?
First, we would probably need to wear full body armor to have any hope of maintaining physical safety.
Second, there would be a very real chance of us being arrested for soliciting sex in public. I am not making this up. There's plenty of examples of this happening, even in recent years, of gay men being arrested for public solicitation.
Do I even need to point out that this is certainly a case of how society can enforce rules differently when it comes to minority status.
For extra fun, consider what would happen if the "hey sexy man, can I have your number" solicitor (male, female, or otherwise) fell into any of the following identity categories (or was a part of multiple categories):
-Was visibly disabled
-Was a non-passing transgender, transexual, or otherwise presented outside the gender binary
-Was a person of color
-Was fat
-Was 65 plus and asking males 20-30 years old
I bring up these identities, not because I think that these necessarily should be considered less attractive then what society conditions people into thinking what should be attractive, but because I am willing to gamble that most men, thanks to said social conditioning, would be less receptive in general to being solicited by those in the above categories. Which in turn means that they might get a better idea of why street harassment is such a horrible practice.
That said, there are plenty of men out there who would appreciate being approached by any of the above, but that still wouldn't make it right. Just because some of the mud that you fling at people sticks, does not make mud flinging at people okay.
For further reading:
PSA: Dear Street Harassers by Foz Meadows.
May 8, 2013
Queer Issue: Politifacts' Rating System is a Lie (By Their Own Standards)
In an interview with CBS Face the Nation, Martina Navratilova made the claim that "In 29 states in this country you can still get fired for not just being gay, but if your employer thinks you are gay."
In response, Politifact rated the claim as being half true.
To justify their claim, Politifact points out that while 29 states do not have legislation at the state level to protect against discrimination, there are exceptions, such as those that exist for government employees, or in local municipalities that have passed anti-discrimation laws, in addition to specific employers which may also have anti-discrimination protections in place.
Politifact also points out that according to the deputy director of Lambda Legal, Hayley Gorenberg, a 1989 Supreme Court Case based around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins) *might* have set a precedent that could bar discrimination based upon an employer believing an employee is uh... "gay" (more on the word choice in the article here later).
So Politifacts' arguments boil down to two main points. One is that exceptions exist within the 29 states that do not have legislation at the state level to offer protection against discrimination based upon sexual orientation. The second point revolves around the possibility (offered up by Gorenberg) that the Civil Rights Act might bar discrimination based upon an employer merely believing an employee is uh... "gay".
The first part of Politifact's argument holds some water. Even though Navratilove never said that "no protections exist" in 29 states, the fact that a certain number of protections do exist for certain uh... "gays" might have justified rating Navratilove's claim as "Mostly True" rather than "True".
However, the second part is complete horseshit. There has never been an actual case before a court in which an individual has successfully used the precedent set by Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins to argue against discrimination based upon an employer's belief that an employee was/is uh... "gay". So any lawyer who argues that it might be *possible* that such protections exist is simply offering up an opinion on what *might* happen if a fired employee were to use it in a court trial.
This is but the first error that Politifact makes in their use of Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins. In their article, Politifact states:
Let's break this down:
1) Navratilove used the term gay in her original claim, which is problematic in it's own right since it ignores transgender and transsexual identities (along with lesbian, bi, pan, etc...)
2) However, the number of states that do not offer up legislation that protect specifically against discrimination based upon gender identity is much larger than the number of states that protect based upon sexual orientation. Which means that to acknowledge gender identity would require a much wider analysis than what Politifact offers here.
3) I have seen it argued in the past that anti-discrimination laws for sex/gender might also apply to gender identity.
4) Since Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins dealt with discrimination based upon gender stereotypes (not on sexuality) it seems like it would be the sort of test case one might use to expand protection against discrimination based upon sex/gender to discrimination based upon gender identity.
5) It is therefore possible that this is what Gorenberg was refering to when she cited Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins as a precedent that might offer some protections to those who are uh... "gay".
6) Gorenberg, being deputy director of Lambda Legal should know the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity.
This all leads to the conclusion that Politifact, in order to apply Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins to Navratiloves' claim, deliberately conflated sexual orientation with gender identity. I'd also like to point out the fact that while Politifact does not quote Gorenberg directly when they say "This precedent could protect a straight person who appeared to an employer to be "gay" and suffered discrimination" they do put the word "gay" in scare quotes.
In any case, this all makes Politifacts' arguments here really, really screwy. Navratilove makes a claim that applies solely to sexual orientation. In analyzing it, Politifact brings in a case that might apply to gender identity, yet continues to use the term "gay" for unknown reasons. Furthermore, Politifact makes *no* mention of the current state of anti-discrimination laws based upon gender identity, which have a completely different status from those that apply to sexual orientation.
This is a *gargantuan* omission. One which makes Politifact's use of the sin of omission against Navratilove extremely hypocritical.
However, even if they are correctly representing Gorenberg's citation of Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins, Politifact is still relying on an expert opinion (which they have done in the past) as a key part of their ratings process. So even if they are correctly citing Gorenberg, they are still committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority in order to justify their rating of Navratilove's claim.
In the grand scheme of things, I have no problem with Politifact or any organization wishing to present contrary opinions to publicly made claims. But in attempting to clarify the situation in this case, Politifact only managed to further muddy the waters. Combine this with their repeated use of the appeal to authority fallacy and it becomes clear that it is Politifact and their rating system which is misrepresenting the truth.
In response, Politifact rated the claim as being half true.
To justify their claim, Politifact points out that while 29 states do not have legislation at the state level to protect against discrimination, there are exceptions, such as those that exist for government employees, or in local municipalities that have passed anti-discrimation laws, in addition to specific employers which may also have anti-discrimination protections in place.
Politifact also points out that according to the deputy director of Lambda Legal, Hayley Gorenberg, a 1989 Supreme Court Case based around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins) *might* have set a precedent that could bar discrimination based upon an employer believing an employee is uh... "gay" (more on the word choice in the article here later).
So Politifacts' arguments boil down to two main points. One is that exceptions exist within the 29 states that do not have legislation at the state level to offer protection against discrimination based upon sexual orientation. The second point revolves around the possibility (offered up by Gorenberg) that the Civil Rights Act might bar discrimination based upon an employer merely believing an employee is uh... "gay".
The first part of Politifact's argument holds some water. Even though Navratilove never said that "no protections exist" in 29 states, the fact that a certain number of protections do exist for certain uh... "gays" might have justified rating Navratilove's claim as "Mostly True" rather than "True".
However, the second part is complete horseshit. There has never been an actual case before a court in which an individual has successfully used the precedent set by Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins to argue against discrimination based upon an employer's belief that an employee was/is uh... "gay". So any lawyer who argues that it might be *possible* that such protections exist is simply offering up an opinion on what *might* happen if a fired employee were to use it in a court trial.
This is but the first error that Politifact makes in their use of Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins. In their article, Politifact states:
Hayley Gorenberg, deputy legal director of Lambda Legal, cited the 1989 Supreme Court case Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins. In that case, a woman sued the accounting firm where she worked because she was not offered a promotion after a senior manager told her she should "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry." The plaintiff convinced the court that sex stereotyping constitutes sex discrimination, Gorenberg said. This precedent could protect a straight person who appeared to an employer to be "gay" and suffered discrimination as a result.
Let's break this down:
1) Navratilove used the term gay in her original claim, which is problematic in it's own right since it ignores transgender and transsexual identities (along with lesbian, bi, pan, etc...)
2) However, the number of states that do not offer up legislation that protect specifically against discrimination based upon gender identity is much larger than the number of states that protect based upon sexual orientation. Which means that to acknowledge gender identity would require a much wider analysis than what Politifact offers here.
3) I have seen it argued in the past that anti-discrimination laws for sex/gender might also apply to gender identity.
4) Since Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins dealt with discrimination based upon gender stereotypes (not on sexuality) it seems like it would be the sort of test case one might use to expand protection against discrimination based upon sex/gender to discrimination based upon gender identity.
5) It is therefore possible that this is what Gorenberg was refering to when she cited Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins as a precedent that might offer some protections to those who are uh... "gay".
6) Gorenberg, being deputy director of Lambda Legal should know the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity.
This all leads to the conclusion that Politifact, in order to apply Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins to Navratiloves' claim, deliberately conflated sexual orientation with gender identity. I'd also like to point out the fact that while Politifact does not quote Gorenberg directly when they say "This precedent could protect a straight person who appeared to an employer to be "gay" and suffered discrimination" they do put the word "gay" in scare quotes.
In any case, this all makes Politifacts' arguments here really, really screwy. Navratilove makes a claim that applies solely to sexual orientation. In analyzing it, Politifact brings in a case that might apply to gender identity, yet continues to use the term "gay" for unknown reasons. Furthermore, Politifact makes *no* mention of the current state of anti-discrimination laws based upon gender identity, which have a completely different status from those that apply to sexual orientation.
This is a *gargantuan* omission. One which makes Politifact's use of the sin of omission against Navratilove extremely hypocritical.
However, even if they are correctly representing Gorenberg's citation of Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins, Politifact is still relying on an expert opinion (which they have done in the past) as a key part of their ratings process. So even if they are correctly citing Gorenberg, they are still committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority in order to justify their rating of Navratilove's claim.
In the grand scheme of things, I have no problem with Politifact or any organization wishing to present contrary opinions to publicly made claims. But in attempting to clarify the situation in this case, Politifact only managed to further muddy the waters. Combine this with their repeated use of the appeal to authority fallacy and it becomes clear that it is Politifact and their rating system which is misrepresenting the truth.
March 10, 2013
Of the Day (March 10th, 2013)
The Amazing Sassy
Links
A term I don’t use anymore: TERF from Transstingray by Annetta Gaiman
American Assassinations For Dummies from NSFWcorp by By Mark Ames
Who are Democrats and Republicans representing, anyway? from Salon by David Sirota
Research shows everyone does worse with online learning from The Raw Story by Kay Steiger
Video
Follow Me On:
Twitter
Follow @queerthecloset
Google+
Facebook
Links
A term I don’t use anymore: TERF from Transstingray by Annetta Gaiman
American Assassinations For Dummies from NSFWcorp by By Mark Ames
Who are Democrats and Republicans representing, anyway? from Salon by David Sirota
Research shows everyone does worse with online learning from The Raw Story by Kay Steiger
Video
Follow Me On:
Follow @queerthecloset
Google+
February 4, 2013
Queer Issue: How Queer was Super Bowl XLVII?
One might say that Football being an inherently masculine sport, gaying it up might be pretty hard. Not really. And one doesn't even need to go into the detail about the players grabbing each others buttocks, chest bumping, and the other forms of physical intimacy on blatent display.
Let's start with the music.
-The intro song, We Will Rock You was originally by Queen, whose lead singer Freddie Mercury died of complications from HIV/AIDS.
-The Sandy Hook/Newton Elementary School performers sang America the Beautiful, whose lyrics were written by Katarine Lee Bates, a lesbian.
Advertising
-Unfortunately there was a ridiculously transphobic Doritos ad. Yeah, guys wearing dresses is all you need to do apparently in order to create mirth these days...
-Which was then followed up by a Calvin Klein ad featuring a muscular guy wearing only underwear. Go figure.
.
-This Coke ad reminded me of both The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and Lawrence of Arabia (about T.E. Lawrence, who historians now accept as likely as having being gay). Probably the only reason I was reminded of Lawrence of Arabia was because I had just watched it about a week ago.
Miscelaneous
-The 49ers are from San Francisco, which at one point was considered a gay mecca and where the first openly gay politician, Harvey Milk, was elected to major office in the U.S.
-Half-Time show was by gay icon Beyonce.
Let's start with the music.
-The intro song, We Will Rock You was originally by Queen, whose lead singer Freddie Mercury died of complications from HIV/AIDS.
-The Sandy Hook/Newton Elementary School performers sang America the Beautiful, whose lyrics were written by Katarine Lee Bates, a lesbian.
Advertising
-Unfortunately there was a ridiculously transphobic Doritos ad. Yeah, guys wearing dresses is all you need to do apparently in order to create mirth these days...
-Which was then followed up by a Calvin Klein ad featuring a muscular guy wearing only underwear. Go figure.
.
-This Coke ad reminded me of both The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and Lawrence of Arabia (about T.E. Lawrence, who historians now accept as likely as having being gay). Probably the only reason I was reminded of Lawrence of Arabia was because I had just watched it about a week ago.
Miscelaneous
-The 49ers are from San Francisco, which at one point was considered a gay mecca and where the first openly gay politician, Harvey Milk, was elected to major office in the U.S.
-Half-Time show was by gay icon Beyonce.
December 27, 2012
Queer Review: City Lights (1931)
City Lights
Director: Charles Chaplin
Writers: Charles Chaplin, Harry Clive, and Harry Crocker
Cast: Virginia Cherrill, Florence Lee, Harry Myers, Al Ernest Garcia, Hank Mann, Charles Chaplin
Overview
City Lights, released in 1931, was the last major hurrah of the silent era. While Wings and The Artist are the only two "silent" films to ever win the Best Picture Oscar, City Lights shines out high above both of them.
Synopsis
The Tramp (Charles Chaplin) falls in love with the blind Flower Girl (Virginia Cherrill) but his lowly status makes it difficult for him to woe her. That is until he saves the live of an eccentric Millionaire (Harry Myers). Afterwards, the Millionaire takes the Tramp for a night out on the town and provides him with means for Tramp to woe the Flower Girl. Eventually though, the Tramp discovers the help of the Eccentric Millionaire is complicated by the fact that the Millionaire is only capable of recognizing the tramp at night when he's drunk. Thanks to the Millionaire's jealousboyfriend butler who refuses to help the tramp in any way, the Tramp is forced to seek other means to impress the Flower Girl.
The Queering
City Lights is primarily a straight romance, with Chaplin's well known brand of physical comedy providing comic relief. However, the relationship between the Tramp and the Eccentric Millionaire has such a strong queer subtext to it, that it at times threatens to become pure text. I realize that Chaplin's brand of physical comedy requires a lot of physical contact, but that only explains why the two are constantly grabbing and groping each other (and groping here does mean buttocks). I'll even go so far as to point out that the constant hugging the two engage could be chalked up to the relaxed rules regarding male affection of the 1920's and 30's
However one can only go so far with this line of thinking, for not only do the Millionaire and Tramp hold hands and kiss (in public no less!) but after one rambunctious party the two of them wind up in bed together, which of course infuriates the Millionaire'sboyfriend butler. Furthermore, there's also the fact that the Millionaire's behavior closely mirrors that of a man suffering from internalized homophobia, which help explains why he wants to kill himself and why he only recognizes the Tramp at night, rather than during the day.
As for the Tramp, there is a scene where he attempts to raise money for the Flower Girl so she can pay her rent by participating in a boxing match. Prior to the start of the match, the Tramp flirts with his opponent so much, the other boxer goes behind a curtain to change.
Now admittedly, as I said before, the main story is about the Tramp trying to woo the Flower Girl and this material is presented as effectively as it can be. The ending is often cited as being one of the most emotional and moving in the history of cinema. It certainly makes for an interesting study in understatement. Personally, I wasn't that moved by it. Although that was probably due to me not only knowing what was going to happen but because I also had become more interested in the relationship between the Tramp and the Millionaire, which was abandoned somewhere between two-thirds to three-fourths through the film.
Recommendation
For lovers of classic cinema and silent films, this is highly recommended. Buy all the lights in your city if it is too dark to find your way to see City Lights
The Rating
*** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Charles Chaplin
Writers: Charles Chaplin, Harry Clive, and Harry Crocker
Cast: Virginia Cherrill, Florence Lee, Harry Myers, Al Ernest Garcia, Hank Mann, Charles Chaplin
Overview
City Lights, released in 1931, was the last major hurrah of the silent era. While Wings and The Artist are the only two "silent" films to ever win the Best Picture Oscar, City Lights shines out high above both of them.
Synopsis
The Tramp (Charles Chaplin) falls in love with the blind Flower Girl (Virginia Cherrill) but his lowly status makes it difficult for him to woe her. That is until he saves the live of an eccentric Millionaire (Harry Myers). Afterwards, the Millionaire takes the Tramp for a night out on the town and provides him with means for Tramp to woe the Flower Girl. Eventually though, the Tramp discovers the help of the Eccentric Millionaire is complicated by the fact that the Millionaire is only capable of recognizing the tramp at night when he's drunk. Thanks to the Millionaire's jealous
The Queering
City Lights is primarily a straight romance, with Chaplin's well known brand of physical comedy providing comic relief. However, the relationship between the Tramp and the Eccentric Millionaire has such a strong queer subtext to it, that it at times threatens to become pure text. I realize that Chaplin's brand of physical comedy requires a lot of physical contact, but that only explains why the two are constantly grabbing and groping each other (and groping here does mean buttocks). I'll even go so far as to point out that the constant hugging the two engage could be chalked up to the relaxed rules regarding male affection of the 1920's and 30's
However one can only go so far with this line of thinking, for not only do the Millionaire and Tramp hold hands and kiss (in public no less!) but after one rambunctious party the two of them wind up in bed together, which of course infuriates the Millionaire's
As for the Tramp, there is a scene where he attempts to raise money for the Flower Girl so she can pay her rent by participating in a boxing match. Prior to the start of the match, the Tramp flirts with his opponent so much, the other boxer goes behind a curtain to change.
Now admittedly, as I said before, the main story is about the Tramp trying to woo the Flower Girl and this material is presented as effectively as it can be. The ending is often cited as being one of the most emotional and moving in the history of cinema. It certainly makes for an interesting study in understatement. Personally, I wasn't that moved by it. Although that was probably due to me not only knowing what was going to happen but because I also had become more interested in the relationship between the Tramp and the Millionaire, which was abandoned somewhere between two-thirds to three-fourths through the film.
Recommendation
For lovers of classic cinema and silent films, this is highly recommended. Buy all the lights in your city if it is too dark to find your way to see City Lights
The Rating
*** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
December 25, 2012
Of the Day (12/25/12)
Awhile back, I attempted to create a web comic, The Amazing Sassy, and host it here on blogger. I did this by creating a new blog, The Queerest Selections From the Library of Babel and putting the comics there, along with other bits of fictional stuff that I was working on at the time. Needless to say it didn't work out very well. Frankly, blogger really is not the right platform for what I wanted to do.
However, I eventually abandoned that project after a brief attempt to combine the content of both blogs. What I eventually decided to do after a bit of research is to have the comic strip hosted at
Comic Fury.
Now, in the past I had also toyed with the idea of creating superficial content for this blog as a means of increasing hits and traffic. I mean, I could do things like have a regular link of the day post. But I'm not in the business of simply linking to content I found elsewhere, although I do like to post links I have found on the web on to my twitter account and I find twitter to be a much more agreeable format for such a purpose. I want to produce my own content, not simply link to work done by others.
Now in the same vein, I could also do things like post random pictures I find interesting or post interesting quotes. I mean, having a quote of the day would be nice, I like quotes.
However, what I have decided to do is this: Every time I create and upload a new The Amazing Sassy comic strip, I'll promote it here in an "Of the Day" post, where I'll include (potentially) a quote, a link, and perhaps a Historical Queer Poem. Because randomly combing random things for a random purpose is totally awesome, trust me.
By the way: Historical Queer Poetry was something I tried to create for The Queerest Selections From the Library of Babel but I think I could revise that project for this purpose.
Now without further ado, I shall give you the first "Of the Day" post:
The Amazing Sassy
Quote
"The shallow consider liberty a release from all law, from every constraint. The wise man sees in it, on the contrary, the potent Law of Laws."
- Walt Whitman
Link
How to be a Fan of Problematic Things by The Social Justice League.
Historical Queer Poem
Abraham Lincoln
Originally published in The L.A. Weekly, 1829
However, I eventually abandoned that project after a brief attempt to combine the content of both blogs. What I eventually decided to do after a bit of research is to have the comic strip hosted at
Comic Fury.
Now, in the past I had also toyed with the idea of creating superficial content for this blog as a means of increasing hits and traffic. I mean, I could do things like have a regular link of the day post. But I'm not in the business of simply linking to content I found elsewhere, although I do like to post links I have found on the web on to my twitter account and I find twitter to be a much more agreeable format for such a purpose. I want to produce my own content, not simply link to work done by others.
Now in the same vein, I could also do things like post random pictures I find interesting or post interesting quotes. I mean, having a quote of the day would be nice, I like quotes.
However, what I have decided to do is this: Every time I create and upload a new The Amazing Sassy comic strip, I'll promote it here in an "Of the Day" post, where I'll include (potentially) a quote, a link, and perhaps a Historical Queer Poem. Because randomly combing random things for a random purpose is totally awesome, trust me.
By the way: Historical Queer Poetry was something I tried to create for The Queerest Selections From the Library of Babel but I think I could revise that project for this purpose.
Now without further ado, I shall give you the first "Of the Day" post:
The Amazing Sassy
Quote
"The shallow consider liberty a release from all law, from every constraint. The wise man sees in it, on the contrary, the potent Law of Laws."
- Walt Whitman
Link
How to be a Fan of Problematic Things by The Social Justice League.
Historical Queer Poem
Abraham Lincoln
Originally published in The L.A. Weekly, 1829
I will tell you a Joke about Jewel and Mary
It is neither a Joke nor a Story
For Rubin and Charles has married two girls
But Billy has married a boy
The girlies he had tried on every Side
But none could he get to agree
All was in vain he went home again
And since that is married to Natty
So Billy and Natty agreed very well
And mama's well pleased at the match
The egg it is laid but Natty's afraid
The Shell is So Soft that it never will hatch
But Betsy she said you Cursed bald head
My Suitor you never Can be
Beside your low crotch proclaims you a botch
And that never Can serve for me
December 21, 2012
Queer Review: The X-Files - I Want To Believe (2008)
The X-Files - I Want To Believe
Director: Chris Carter
Writers: Frank Spotnitz and Chris Carter
Cast: David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson, Amanda Peet, Billy Connolly, Xzibit, Mitch Pileggi, Marco Niccoli, Adam Godley
Overview
This second film in The X-Files franchise is pretty much a fans only endeavor. With some nice atmosphere and well written drama/character interaction, I Want To Believe does at least manage to succeed in being a subtle meditation on the nature of faith and the limits of science. However, there is one problematic element in that the I Want To Believe has a pair of queer villains as it's main bad guys.
Synopsis
When an FBI agent goes missing, Agent Dakota Whitney (Amanda Peet) and Agent Mosley Drummy (Xzibit) approach former Agents Dr. Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) and Fox Mulder (David Duchovny). It turns out that former priest and convicted pedophile Joseph Crissman (Billy Connolly) has had psychic visions of the kidnapping and Whitney and Drummy want Fox and Scully's help on the case due to their expertise on paranormal phenomenon. Meanwhile, Dr. Scully finds herself fighting a hospital bureaucrat who wants to send a boy with a rare and terminal illness to hospice care, but whom Scully thinks there may be a chance she can save.
The Queering
When The X-Files first started airing back in 1993, it was commented that Dana Scully bore a striking similarity to Clarice Starling from The Silence of the Lambs. A first season episode Beyond the Sea even had Scully forgoing her role as a skeptic in order so that she could more effectively follow the road traveled by Clarice Starling. The plot of I Want to Believe also appears to have been inspired by The Silence of the Lambs, right down to the unfortunate detail of having a psycho transgender villain. It seems even today there are some in Hollywood who still want to promote the idea of changing one's sex/gender via surgery is terrifying on it's own.
In I Want To Believe Joseph Crissman fills the same role plot-wise as Hannibal Lector, although the two are completely different in terms of personality. Scully does get a few interesting moments of interaction with Crissman but I Want To Believe is not on the same psychological level as the Jonathen Demme flick. To be fair though, I did not think Chris Carter was trying to perfectly replicate Silence of the Lambs.
I Want To Believe does succeed as a moody character drama with supernatural overtones. For the devoted X-phile, being able to spend time once again with Scully and Mulder is worth the price of a ticket alone. The issue of faith versus the application of science, which in some ways formed the backbone of the series, is explored in depth here.
What set The X-Files apart from other series about the paranormal was the character of Dana Scully, who functioned primarily as the voice of science and reason. In doing she subverted traditional gender roles since it was Fox who relied on intuition and instincts. However such characters are typically undermined fairly early on in films and TV shows - usually either by shows treating the character as a buffon or by making it obvious that the aliens/conspiracy/ghosts/etc. are "real". I Want To Believe retains the ambiguity and of earlier seasons of The X-Files.
Now during those early years of The X-Files, Scully was typically given a leg to stand on. Rarely did she revert to the role of the believer, it was always Mulder who put forth outrageous theories about what was going on. However, there were several occasions when the character roles would be reversed. Outside of the aforementioned Beyond the Sea these reversals would typically center around matters that invoked the Christian god and specifically, thanks to Scully's Catholicism, the Catholic version. Episodes with overtly religious themes, such as Revelations, would have Scully playing the role of the believer and Mulder the skeptic. I Want To Believe is actually odd in the way that it not only invokes the earliest episode of The X-Files that had Scully acting as a believer in addition to involving the issue of Catholicism, but it still has her playing the role of the skeptic.
However, this is one of the reasons why non-fans are going to have a hard time getting into this. The series mytharc may have been jettisoned, but the character mythos play a big part in understanding why Scully and Mulder act or react the way they do. In particular, the final scene serves as a perfect coda for Dana Scully. It could even be argued that her character arc for the entire series was building towards that one particular moment. However, as a result it's significance will probably be lost on anyone who has not seen more than a few episodes of the TV series.
Recommendation
Primarily for die hard X-Phile believers, but then we've already seen it.
The Rating
*** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Chris Carter
Writers: Frank Spotnitz and Chris Carter
Cast: David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson, Amanda Peet, Billy Connolly, Xzibit, Mitch Pileggi, Marco Niccoli, Adam Godley
Overview
This second film in The X-Files franchise is pretty much a fans only endeavor. With some nice atmosphere and well written drama/character interaction, I Want To Believe does at least manage to succeed in being a subtle meditation on the nature of faith and the limits of science. However, there is one problematic element in that the I Want To Believe has a pair of queer villains as it's main bad guys.
Synopsis
When an FBI agent goes missing, Agent Dakota Whitney (Amanda Peet) and Agent Mosley Drummy (Xzibit) approach former Agents Dr. Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) and Fox Mulder (David Duchovny). It turns out that former priest and convicted pedophile Joseph Crissman (Billy Connolly) has had psychic visions of the kidnapping and Whitney and Drummy want Fox and Scully's help on the case due to their expertise on paranormal phenomenon. Meanwhile, Dr. Scully finds herself fighting a hospital bureaucrat who wants to send a boy with a rare and terminal illness to hospice care, but whom Scully thinks there may be a chance she can save.
The Queering
When The X-Files first started airing back in 1993, it was commented that Dana Scully bore a striking similarity to Clarice Starling from The Silence of the Lambs. A first season episode Beyond the Sea even had Scully forgoing her role as a skeptic in order so that she could more effectively follow the road traveled by Clarice Starling. The plot of I Want to Believe also appears to have been inspired by The Silence of the Lambs, right down to the unfortunate detail of having a psycho transgender villain. It seems even today there are some in Hollywood who still want to promote the idea of changing one's sex/gender via surgery is terrifying on it's own.
In I Want To Believe Joseph Crissman fills the same role plot-wise as Hannibal Lector, although the two are completely different in terms of personality. Scully does get a few interesting moments of interaction with Crissman but I Want To Believe is not on the same psychological level as the Jonathen Demme flick. To be fair though, I did not think Chris Carter was trying to perfectly replicate Silence of the Lambs.
I Want To Believe does succeed as a moody character drama with supernatural overtones. For the devoted X-phile, being able to spend time once again with Scully and Mulder is worth the price of a ticket alone. The issue of faith versus the application of science, which in some ways formed the backbone of the series, is explored in depth here.
What set The X-Files apart from other series about the paranormal was the character of Dana Scully, who functioned primarily as the voice of science and reason. In doing she subverted traditional gender roles since it was Fox who relied on intuition and instincts. However such characters are typically undermined fairly early on in films and TV shows - usually either by shows treating the character as a buffon or by making it obvious that the aliens/conspiracy/ghosts/etc. are "real". I Want To Believe retains the ambiguity and of earlier seasons of The X-Files.
Now during those early years of The X-Files, Scully was typically given a leg to stand on. Rarely did she revert to the role of the believer, it was always Mulder who put forth outrageous theories about what was going on. However, there were several occasions when the character roles would be reversed. Outside of the aforementioned Beyond the Sea these reversals would typically center around matters that invoked the Christian god and specifically, thanks to Scully's Catholicism, the Catholic version. Episodes with overtly religious themes, such as Revelations, would have Scully playing the role of the believer and Mulder the skeptic. I Want To Believe is actually odd in the way that it not only invokes the earliest episode of The X-Files that had Scully acting as a believer in addition to involving the issue of Catholicism, but it still has her playing the role of the skeptic.
However, this is one of the reasons why non-fans are going to have a hard time getting into this. The series mytharc may have been jettisoned, but the character mythos play a big part in understanding why Scully and Mulder act or react the way they do. In particular, the final scene serves as a perfect coda for Dana Scully. It could even be argued that her character arc for the entire series was building towards that one particular moment. However, as a result it's significance will probably be lost on anyone who has not seen more than a few episodes of the TV series.
Recommendation
Primarily for die hard X-Phile believers, but then we've already seen it.
The Rating
*** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
December 18, 2012
So... about this Google+ gizmo...
I created a Google+ community today for Queering the Closet. I'm still not sure why, as I already have Google+ a fan page.
When I first found out that Google was now allowing the creation of community pages on Google+, I wasn't sure what to think. However, I was invited to a community page for M/M romance literature and thought I might start one that had a more general purpose. That is rather than just those interested in m/m romance, how about a community to talk about LGBTQ media in general?
We'll see where things go from here. I wonder if this will be another social media thing to manage or if it might actually go someplace.
When I first found out that Google was now allowing the creation of community pages on Google+, I wasn't sure what to think. However, I was invited to a community page for M/M romance literature and thought I might start one that had a more general purpose. That is rather than just those interested in m/m romance, how about a community to talk about LGBTQ media in general?
We'll see where things go from here. I wonder if this will be another social media thing to manage or if it might actually go someplace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)