High Tension
Director: Alexandre Aja
Writers: Alexandre Ajas and Grégory Levasseur
Cast: Cécile De France, Maïwenn, Philippe Nahon, Franck Khalfoun, Andrei Finti, Oana Pellea, Marco Claudiu Pascu
Overview
As a slasher flick, there are times when High Tension succeeds as a bloody descent into pure horror. However a third act twist causes the proceedings to wind up reveling more in homophobia, than the workings of the Grand Guignol.
Synopsis
Marie (Cécile De France) and Alexia (Maïwenn) travel to the French countryside to visit Alexia's family. However, it isn't long before a demented serial killer shows up, kills the family and kidnaps Alexia, while Marie sneaks a ride in the back of his truck. What follows is a tense cat and mouse game, with Marie alternatively trying to free Alexia from the killers chains or seeking a means of signaling for help from authorities.
The Queering
(Spoilers ahoy! as there is no way to analyze this film without explicitly discussing the nature of the twist itself)
High Tension is gory, make no mistake, but the pacing and suspense level are kept high enough that it still manages to be an entertaining thrill ride, at least until the twist ending introduces homophobia by invoking the psycho lesbian trope. Typically, I am not one who goes for a lot gore in my films, but this particular horror endeavor is slickly enough made that the splatter element didn't bother me. Although I will admit to a few moments where I was paying more attention to the inside of my eyelids than what was occurring on screen. Basically, this falls comfortably within the realm of torture porn, a genre I generally avoid. The score (which for whatever reason reminded me of the one from Halloween) and the gritty - yet stylish - cinematography come together to create an atmosphere of pure dread.
However, the ending cannot be ignored, as it informs everything that happened before. As the "big reveal" reveals, the "killer" was Marie all along, and she simply hallucinated him into existence in order to disassociate herself from the terrible acts that she commits. It is a ludicrous twist, one that has been done before (although not quite like this), and requires that the audience accept that an entire car chase occurred only in Maries' mind. That's not even it's worse sin, as the reason why Maria turns into a killer in the first place is because of her sexual attraction to Alexia. Thus Maries' descent into madness and subsequent murder spree are intractably linked to her sexuality. In other words, the twist manages to be both ableist and homophobic at the same time.
There is nothing terribly original about this movie, which is neither good or bad as far as I'm concerned. There are plenty of references and nods to past horror efforts. This makes sense given the horror genre's tendency towards self cannibalism. Reviewers who liked the movie called these references homages, while those who took a dim view labeled them "rip-offs". I bring this up only on the off chance that someone out there was wondering what the difference between a "homage" and a "rip-off" happens to be.
Recommendation
In spite of being well made, there is no need to go to high lengths to see this (unless one really likes torture porn), the low tension road should work just fine.
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.
Showing posts with label homophobia in art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homophobia in art. Show all posts
May 10, 2014
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.
October 30, 2012
Queer Review: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge
Director: Jack Sholder
Writer: David Chaskin, Wes Craven
Cast: Mark Patton, Kim Myers, Robert Rusler, Clu Gulager, Hope Lange, Marshall Bell, Robert Englund
Overview
A misbegotten sequel, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge not only fails to be as good as the original, it's an awful and amazingly homophobic film to boot.
Synopsis
Freddy Kruger (Robert Englund) is back and this time he is no longer content to simply invade peoples dreams, he wants to recruit a someone in the real world to continue his evil work. That someone turns out to be teenager Jesse Walsh (Mark Patton) who is struggling to adapt to a new neighborhood. When Jesse starts having nightmares and acting strangely, his parents think he is on drugs, but they have no idea for the nightmare that is in store for their boy.
The Queering
The original A Nightmare on Elm Street managed to effectively blur the lines between reality and waking nightmare. A Nightmare on Elm Street is an entirely pedestrian effort that I don't even think was trying to capture the nightmarish qualities of the original. I am being kind when I call sequel is a pale imitation of its predecessor. In the original, Freddy Kruger haunted peoples' nightmares. Here Freddy is going for the more prosaic, and less interesting path of simply taking over a surrogate in this world and having him do the dirty work. Boooooring...
There is however both a queer subtext and a queer text, neither or which lead to anyplace good or interesting. The explicitely gay character, the sadistic Coach Schneider, is the first to die horribly. The other, the films protagonist, Jesse, is coded, but in a rather obvious way. As I talked about in my review of the original, I wondered about the connection between the AIDS crises and the popularity of slasher films. Here, that connection is affirmed by having Jesse waking up with night sweats in imitation of one of the AIDS/HIV diseases better known symptoms.
In addition to waking up with night sweats, Jesse also displays a lack of interest in having sex with his girlfriend, ends up in a gay bar, and in one critical scene rejects the advances of his girlfriend to go hang out with a guy. However, Jesse being coded gay puts a disturbing twist on the ending. If we read Jesse as struggling with his sexuality, and I'm pretty sure the filmmakers intend for him to be read this way, then the climax of the film becomes about the superiority of heterosexuality triumphing over the disease of queerness.
Furthermore, due to Freddy's attempts to "recruit" Jesse the filmmakers end up invoking some of the most disturbingly false attacks on gay men. While Freddy in the first film simply served as a warning against promiscuous sex, here he becomes a sexual predator of a much different nature. Not only is Freddy attempting to recruit a teenager to the gay lifestyle, but his newly established queer nature puts an entirely different spin on the fact that he was an established child murderer in the first film. For no child murderer is just a murderer in Hollywood, there is almost always the implication of sexual violence. This too is alluded to by Freddy's disturbing tendency of leaping onto his victims as if preparing to commit sexual violence.
What I am getting at, is that in A Nightmare in Elm Street 2 Freddy Kruger has been sub-textually reinvented as a gay pedophile, thereby creating a film with more homophobic overtones than Cruising.
That is an accomplishment all filmmakers should have nightmares about even the possibility of achieving.
Recommendation
It is a nightmarish thought that a film this bad and homophobic was able to get made. No matter what street one lives on, A Nightmare on Elm Street is to be avoided.
The Rating
ZERO 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: Jack Sholder
Writer: David Chaskin, Wes Craven
Cast: Mark Patton, Kim Myers, Robert Rusler, Clu Gulager, Hope Lange, Marshall Bell, Robert Englund
Overview
A misbegotten sequel, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge not only fails to be as good as the original, it's an awful and amazingly homophobic film to boot.
Synopsis
Freddy Kruger (Robert Englund) is back and this time he is no longer content to simply invade peoples dreams, he wants to recruit a someone in the real world to continue his evil work. That someone turns out to be teenager Jesse Walsh (Mark Patton) who is struggling to adapt to a new neighborhood. When Jesse starts having nightmares and acting strangely, his parents think he is on drugs, but they have no idea for the nightmare that is in store for their boy.
The Queering
The original A Nightmare on Elm Street managed to effectively blur the lines between reality and waking nightmare. A Nightmare on Elm Street is an entirely pedestrian effort that I don't even think was trying to capture the nightmarish qualities of the original. I am being kind when I call sequel is a pale imitation of its predecessor. In the original, Freddy Kruger haunted peoples' nightmares. Here Freddy is going for the more prosaic, and less interesting path of simply taking over a surrogate in this world and having him do the dirty work. Boooooring...
There is however both a queer subtext and a queer text, neither or which lead to anyplace good or interesting. The explicitely gay character, the sadistic Coach Schneider, is the first to die horribly. The other, the films protagonist, Jesse, is coded, but in a rather obvious way. As I talked about in my review of the original, I wondered about the connection between the AIDS crises and the popularity of slasher films. Here, that connection is affirmed by having Jesse waking up with night sweats in imitation of one of the AIDS/HIV diseases better known symptoms.
In addition to waking up with night sweats, Jesse also displays a lack of interest in having sex with his girlfriend, ends up in a gay bar, and in one critical scene rejects the advances of his girlfriend to go hang out with a guy. However, Jesse being coded gay puts a disturbing twist on the ending. If we read Jesse as struggling with his sexuality, and I'm pretty sure the filmmakers intend for him to be read this way, then the climax of the film becomes about the superiority of heterosexuality triumphing over the disease of queerness.
Furthermore, due to Freddy's attempts to "recruit" Jesse the filmmakers end up invoking some of the most disturbingly false attacks on gay men. While Freddy in the first film simply served as a warning against promiscuous sex, here he becomes a sexual predator of a much different nature. Not only is Freddy attempting to recruit a teenager to the gay lifestyle, but his newly established queer nature puts an entirely different spin on the fact that he was an established child murderer in the first film. For no child murderer is just a murderer in Hollywood, there is almost always the implication of sexual violence. This too is alluded to by Freddy's disturbing tendency of leaping onto his victims as if preparing to commit sexual violence.
What I am getting at, is that in A Nightmare in Elm Street 2 Freddy Kruger has been sub-textually reinvented as a gay pedophile, thereby creating a film with more homophobic overtones than Cruising.
That is an accomplishment all filmmakers should have nightmares about even the possibility of achieving.
Recommendation
It is a nightmarish thought that a film this bad and homophobic was able to get made. No matter what street one lives on, A Nightmare on Elm Street is to be avoided.
The Rating
ZERO 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.
August 10, 2012
Queer Review: Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)
Suddenly, Last Summer
Director: Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Writer: Tennessee Williams and Gore Vidal. Based upon a play by Tennessee Williams.
Cast: Elizabeth Taylor, Katharine Hepburn, Montgomery Clift, Albert Dekker, Mercedes McCambridge, Gary Raymond
Overview
An ugly mess. In spite of being written by two prominent gay writers (Gore Vidal and Tennessee Williams) Suddenly, Last Summer somehow manages to include almost every last queer bashing technique ever dreamed up by Hollywood.
Synopsis
Dr. Cukrowicz (Montgomery Clift) is asked by Mrs. Violet Venable (Katharine Hepburn) to perform a lobotomy on her niece, Catherine Holly (Elizabeth Taylor). However, when Dr. Cukrowicz interviews Catherine, he suspects that she is in fact perfectly sane, albeit severely traumatized by mysterious events surrounding the death the previous summer of Sebastian (Mrs. Venables' son). He also suspects that Mrs. Venable has an ulterior motive for wanting Catherine lobotomized.
The Queering
(This is an older film but I plan on discussing explicit details of the ending. For those who hate SPOILERS, you are now warned.)
If there is a gay bashing trope used by Hollywood that Suddenly, Last Summer does not somehow use, I am unaware of its' existence. The relationship details that Mrs. Venable shares with Dr. Cukrowicz show she and her son had a creepy, bordering on incestuous, relationship. Mrs. Venable also describes her son as being "fastidious" and other details reveal him to have been what could be described as a "nancy boy" (not that I think there is anything wrong with that). Catherine also, apparently justifiably, describes Sebastian as being an emotionally manipulative user.
For added bonus, Sebastian is suggested to not only have been an active pedophile, but the ending reveals that he was eaten alive by the same boys that he had preyed upon sexually. Yay!
How two gay writers were able to create such a homophobic crapfest is a little difficult to explain but not entirely. After all, 1959 was the same era that had the Mattachine Society attempting to argue that gay men were in fact mentally ill and that criminalizing homosexuality was pretty much the same thing as outlawing wheelchairs.
Suddenly, Last Summer is flawed in other ways besides being homophobic. The characterization of Catherine Holly is just awful. Catherine should be demonstrating symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but more frequently simply displays an amalgamation of Hollywood stereotypes about the mentally ill. To top it off, both Catherine's mother and brother are among the more irritating characters that I can recall having witnessed on the silver screen. Both ma and bro Holly suffer from what I shall call "Jar Jar Binks Meets Nails on Chalkboard" syndrome.
On the plus side of things, Katherine Hepburn gives a riveting performance as the Mrs. Venable. There is also some nicely composed cinematography. Make note of how a painting of Saint Sebastian is shown before being explicitly referenced by Mrs. Venable. I would also like to point out that there are several intriguing shots of skeletons (or statues of skeletons) which may or may not be intended as simple metaphors for death.
Unfortunately one good performance, a few nicely composed shots, and a couple of stabs at complex visual symbolism are not enough to undo the overall awfulness that is Suddenly, Last Summer
Recommendation
Only for those with a strong interest in the history of queer cinema. Everyone else would best serve themselves by suddenly seeing something else, be it summer or any other season.
The Rating
*1/2 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: Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Writer: Tennessee Williams and Gore Vidal. Based upon a play by Tennessee Williams.
Cast: Elizabeth Taylor, Katharine Hepburn, Montgomery Clift, Albert Dekker, Mercedes McCambridge, Gary Raymond
Overview
An ugly mess. In spite of being written by two prominent gay writers (Gore Vidal and Tennessee Williams) Suddenly, Last Summer somehow manages to include almost every last queer bashing technique ever dreamed up by Hollywood.
Synopsis
Dr. Cukrowicz (Montgomery Clift) is asked by Mrs. Violet Venable (Katharine Hepburn) to perform a lobotomy on her niece, Catherine Holly (Elizabeth Taylor). However, when Dr. Cukrowicz interviews Catherine, he suspects that she is in fact perfectly sane, albeit severely traumatized by mysterious events surrounding the death the previous summer of Sebastian (Mrs. Venables' son). He also suspects that Mrs. Venable has an ulterior motive for wanting Catherine lobotomized.
The Queering
(This is an older film but I plan on discussing explicit details of the ending. For those who hate SPOILERS, you are now warned.)
If there is a gay bashing trope used by Hollywood that Suddenly, Last Summer does not somehow use, I am unaware of its' existence. The relationship details that Mrs. Venable shares with Dr. Cukrowicz show she and her son had a creepy, bordering on incestuous, relationship. Mrs. Venable also describes her son as being "fastidious" and other details reveal him to have been what could be described as a "nancy boy" (not that I think there is anything wrong with that). Catherine also, apparently justifiably, describes Sebastian as being an emotionally manipulative user.
For added bonus, Sebastian is suggested to not only have been an active pedophile, but the ending reveals that he was eaten alive by the same boys that he had preyed upon sexually. Yay!
How two gay writers were able to create such a homophobic crapfest is a little difficult to explain but not entirely. After all, 1959 was the same era that had the Mattachine Society attempting to argue that gay men were in fact mentally ill and that criminalizing homosexuality was pretty much the same thing as outlawing wheelchairs.
Suddenly, Last Summer is flawed in other ways besides being homophobic. The characterization of Catherine Holly is just awful. Catherine should be demonstrating symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but more frequently simply displays an amalgamation of Hollywood stereotypes about the mentally ill. To top it off, both Catherine's mother and brother are among the more irritating characters that I can recall having witnessed on the silver screen. Both ma and bro Holly suffer from what I shall call "Jar Jar Binks Meets Nails on Chalkboard" syndrome.
On the plus side of things, Katherine Hepburn gives a riveting performance as the Mrs. Venable. There is also some nicely composed cinematography. Make note of how a painting of Saint Sebastian is shown before being explicitly referenced by Mrs. Venable. I would also like to point out that there are several intriguing shots of skeletons (or statues of skeletons) which may or may not be intended as simple metaphors for death.
Unfortunately one good performance, a few nicely composed shots, and a couple of stabs at complex visual symbolism are not enough to undo the overall awfulness that is Suddenly, Last Summer
Recommendation
Only for those with a strong interest in the history of queer cinema. Everyone else would best serve themselves by suddenly seeing something else, be it summer or any other season.
The Rating
*1/2 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 26, 2011
Queer Review: Partners (1982)
Partners
Director: James Burrows
Writer: Francis Veber
Cast: Ryan O'Neal, John Hurt, Kenneth McMillan, Robyn Douglass, Jay Robinson,
Overview
A cop "buddy" comedy, like so many that were made in the 1980's, with the exception that here, one of the Partners happens to be gay. While some may label this "progress" and such, it's not difficult to find a dozen or so films that came earlier that were more daring and radical, not to mention better made.
Synopsis
After the police department is criticized for failing to solve the murder of a gay man, Chief Wilkins (Kenneth McMillan) assigns the clichéd manly Detective Sergeant Benson (Ryan O'Neal) to go undercover with the clichéd gay desk officer, Kerwin (John Hurt). Naturally, this means that the two will spend the remainder of the film bonding with each other, while tracking down clues about the killer. For the most part, Benson works through his homophobia by uttering homophobic remarks whenever he gets angry and having sex with lots of women, while Kerwin cooks and does the laundry for both of them.
In other words, see Cruising and just add gay sidekick!
The Queering
As a viewer, you know your in trouble when a scene in a comedy that's played for drama gets more laughs then most of the scenes that are meant to be funny. Yup, that's right. This is a comedy minus any intentional comedy, a dramatic romance that veers into comedy, and a central mystery most likely likely to provoke the same kind of yawns suffered by a high-schooler trying to read War and Peace.
In the film's defence, it never manages to sink to Cruising's level of homophobia or become as painful to watch as Another Gay Movie. Instead Partners falls into pretty much the same category as I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry of a well meaning film that could pass for progressive and radical under certain circumstances, such as having been released back in the 50's. Thankfully, there's no equivalent scene here of having to watch Adam Sandler fondle a women's breasts, while she blissfully thinks he is straight...
There are many issues that I had with John Hurt's Kerwin. For starters, he never mentions having a boyfriend or having ever been in a relationship with another man. Given Kerwin's age, this is certainly rather odd. Then there is the fact that Kerwin is such a wall flower that he never defends himself whenever Benson uses a homophobic slur. As such, the relationship that develops between Benson and Kerwin felt borderline abusive to me, with Kerwin acting more like Benson's clingy servant than equal partner.
Then there is the ending, which has Kerwin saving Benson from the killer and getting shot for his efforts. Thankfully he does not die for this, but while part of me appreciated that Kerwin got to be all heroic and such, another part of me wanted to yell out, "Hello! The Hays Code was over before the 70's. You no longer *need* to punish someone just for being gay! Sheesh!" Progress, this is not.
Recommendation
If your partner suggests watching this, it's not time to break up, but it would still be worth considering.
The Rating
Clip
(Quick, spot which one of them is gay! It's so hard, ain't it?)
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: James Burrows
Writer: Francis Veber
Cast: Ryan O'Neal, John Hurt, Kenneth McMillan, Robyn Douglass, Jay Robinson,
Overview
A cop "buddy" comedy, like so many that were made in the 1980's, with the exception that here, one of the Partners happens to be gay. While some may label this "progress" and such, it's not difficult to find a dozen or so films that came earlier that were more daring and radical, not to mention better made.
Synopsis
After the police department is criticized for failing to solve the murder of a gay man, Chief Wilkins (Kenneth McMillan) assigns the clichéd manly Detective Sergeant Benson (Ryan O'Neal) to go undercover with the clichéd gay desk officer, Kerwin (John Hurt). Naturally, this means that the two will spend the remainder of the film bonding with each other, while tracking down clues about the killer. For the most part, Benson works through his homophobia by uttering homophobic remarks whenever he gets angry and having sex with lots of women, while Kerwin cooks and does the laundry for both of them.
In other words, see Cruising and just add gay sidekick!
The Queering
As a viewer, you know your in trouble when a scene in a comedy that's played for drama gets more laughs then most of the scenes that are meant to be funny. Yup, that's right. This is a comedy minus any intentional comedy, a dramatic romance that veers into comedy, and a central mystery most likely likely to provoke the same kind of yawns suffered by a high-schooler trying to read War and Peace.
In the film's defence, it never manages to sink to Cruising's level of homophobia or become as painful to watch as Another Gay Movie. Instead Partners falls into pretty much the same category as I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry of a well meaning film that could pass for progressive and radical under certain circumstances, such as having been released back in the 50's. Thankfully, there's no equivalent scene here of having to watch Adam Sandler fondle a women's breasts, while she blissfully thinks he is straight...
There are many issues that I had with John Hurt's Kerwin. For starters, he never mentions having a boyfriend or having ever been in a relationship with another man. Given Kerwin's age, this is certainly rather odd. Then there is the fact that Kerwin is such a wall flower that he never defends himself whenever Benson uses a homophobic slur. As such, the relationship that develops between Benson and Kerwin felt borderline abusive to me, with Kerwin acting more like Benson's clingy servant than equal partner.
Then there is the ending, which has Kerwin saving Benson from the killer and getting shot for his efforts. Thankfully he does not die for this, but while part of me appreciated that Kerwin got to be all heroic and such, another part of me wanted to yell out, "Hello! The Hays Code was over before the 70's. You no longer *need* to punish someone just for being gay! Sheesh!" Progress, this is not.
Recommendation
If your partner suggests watching this, it's not time to break up, but it would still be worth considering.
The Rating
Clip
(Quick, spot which one of them is gay! It's so hard, ain't it?)
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
November 16, 2011
Queer Review: Vampiros Lesbos (1971)
Vampiros Lesbos
Director: Jesus Franco
Writers: Jaime Chávarri, Jesus Franco, and Anne Settimó.
Cast: Soledad Miranda, Ewa Strömberg, Dennis Price, Heidrun Kussin, José Martínez Blanco, Andrés Monales, Paul Muller, Jesus Franco
Overview
Vampiros Lesbos is a lesbian themed exploitation flick from the early 1970's. Granted, I would not consider myself in the target audience, but I was surprisingly bored by the slow moving plot and a narrative that rarely makes any sense. I would say it was the worst vampire movie I'd ever have the misfortune of seeing ever but then I have seen the trailers for all of the Twilight movies.
Synopsis
Note: This is about how much of the plot I could make sense of. There are plenty of random elements and characters and the line between what is a dream and what actually happened in the plot is almost never clear.
Countess Nadine Oskudar (Soledad Miranda) keeps appearing in the dreams of Linda Westinghouse (Ewa Strömberg), a lawyer for the firm Simpson & Simpson. Simpson & Simpson, upon the request of Nadine, assign Linda to oversee the transfer of the estate of Count Dracula to Nadine, who he apparently selected as his heiress. Nadine attempts to seduce Linda but things go wrong and Nadine finds herself under the influence Linda. Shortly afterwards, Linda collapses and ends up under the care of Dr. Alwin Seward (Dennis Price), who wishes to become a vampire himself.
The Queering
It's not surprising that Vampiros Lesbos is completely incoherent, given its pedigree but it is shocking that there is nothing else worthwhile here either, not even the slightest visceral thrill is to be had. That is because the pacing makes the whole movie feel about as much fun as watching the paint used as fake blood used in this film, dry. Most scenes go on forever while managing to avoid advancing the plot and random non-sequiters are frequent and time consuming.
Given the reputation of Vampiros Lesbos, I somehow expected more then a few tame lesbian sex scenes and a couple of splatters of obviously fake blood. A common interpretation of vampire stories is that the drinking of blood is a stand in for actual sexual seduction and conquest. More then a few storytellers, have keyed into this interpretation and gone all the way and depicted sex while the drinking of blood is occurring, while other filmmakers have used a more sophisticated approach and leave the seduction part to the viewers imagination. Vampiros Lesbos director, Jesus Franco takes the former approach.
However, there's a very obvious and very disturbing subtext here. Lesbianism and vampirism become one and the same, with the purpose of making lesbians appear dangerous seductresses. As Countess Nadine pulls Linda away from her male partner by invading Linda's dreams and subconscious, the metaphor is obvious. The dangerous lesbian is seducing/recruiting Linda into becoming another lesbian, and Linda must fight back in order to remain straight.
I had originally thought a different subtext was going to play out, one in which lesbians and vampires were equated in a more interesting manor. What this interpretation would have entailed was that the female vampires were both social outsiders and the victims of male dominance, and that in the end Linda would throw of the oppressive shackles of society to become another vampire. My reason for thinking this was because Agra (Heidrun Kussin), another woman whom Count Nadine had seduced, appeared to be the prisoner of Dr. Alwin Seward and his clinic being a metaphorical representation of an ex-gay clinic. However, the ending eliminates any possibility of this scenario being the case.
In my estimation therefore, there is not a single worthwhile element in the hateful mess that is Vampiros Lesbos. The plot tries use surrealism in place of good storytelling in an effort to prevent audiences from realizing how lame the story is but ends up being boring and incoherent instead. The direction is stilted, with the extreme close ups fast becoming a nuisance. Then there's the acting where every performer appears to be in a competition to see who can best imitate furniture.
Recommendation
Pretty much only for those looking for a soft core porno and are willing to spend time fast forwarding through the parts where nothing interesting occurs or better yet, for those in need of a sleep aid. In spite of it's reputation, Vampiros Lesbos would be best served by being marketed as a cure to insomniacs, whether they be vampires or mortals.
The Rating
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Jesus Franco
Writers: Jaime Chávarri, Jesus Franco, and Anne Settimó.
Cast: Soledad Miranda, Ewa Strömberg, Dennis Price, Heidrun Kussin, José Martínez Blanco, Andrés Monales, Paul Muller, Jesus Franco
Overview
Vampiros Lesbos is a lesbian themed exploitation flick from the early 1970's. Granted, I would not consider myself in the target audience, but I was surprisingly bored by the slow moving plot and a narrative that rarely makes any sense. I would say it was the worst vampire movie I'd ever have the misfortune of seeing ever but then I have seen the trailers for all of the Twilight movies.
Synopsis
Note: This is about how much of the plot I could make sense of. There are plenty of random elements and characters and the line between what is a dream and what actually happened in the plot is almost never clear.
Countess Nadine Oskudar (Soledad Miranda) keeps appearing in the dreams of Linda Westinghouse (Ewa Strömberg), a lawyer for the firm Simpson & Simpson. Simpson & Simpson, upon the request of Nadine, assign Linda to oversee the transfer of the estate of Count Dracula to Nadine, who he apparently selected as his heiress. Nadine attempts to seduce Linda but things go wrong and Nadine finds herself under the influence Linda. Shortly afterwards, Linda collapses and ends up under the care of Dr. Alwin Seward (Dennis Price), who wishes to become a vampire himself.
The Queering
It's not surprising that Vampiros Lesbos is completely incoherent, given its pedigree but it is shocking that there is nothing else worthwhile here either, not even the slightest visceral thrill is to be had. That is because the pacing makes the whole movie feel about as much fun as watching the paint used as fake blood used in this film, dry. Most scenes go on forever while managing to avoid advancing the plot and random non-sequiters are frequent and time consuming.
Given the reputation of Vampiros Lesbos, I somehow expected more then a few tame lesbian sex scenes and a couple of splatters of obviously fake blood. A common interpretation of vampire stories is that the drinking of blood is a stand in for actual sexual seduction and conquest. More then a few storytellers, have keyed into this interpretation and gone all the way and depicted sex while the drinking of blood is occurring, while other filmmakers have used a more sophisticated approach and leave the seduction part to the viewers imagination. Vampiros Lesbos director, Jesus Franco takes the former approach.
However, there's a very obvious and very disturbing subtext here. Lesbianism and vampirism become one and the same, with the purpose of making lesbians appear dangerous seductresses. As Countess Nadine pulls Linda away from her male partner by invading Linda's dreams and subconscious, the metaphor is obvious. The dangerous lesbian is seducing/recruiting Linda into becoming another lesbian, and Linda must fight back in order to remain straight.
I had originally thought a different subtext was going to play out, one in which lesbians and vampires were equated in a more interesting manor. What this interpretation would have entailed was that the female vampires were both social outsiders and the victims of male dominance, and that in the end Linda would throw of the oppressive shackles of society to become another vampire. My reason for thinking this was because Agra (Heidrun Kussin), another woman whom Count Nadine had seduced, appeared to be the prisoner of Dr. Alwin Seward and his clinic being a metaphorical representation of an ex-gay clinic. However, the ending eliminates any possibility of this scenario being the case.
In my estimation therefore, there is not a single worthwhile element in the hateful mess that is Vampiros Lesbos. The plot tries use surrealism in place of good storytelling in an effort to prevent audiences from realizing how lame the story is but ends up being boring and incoherent instead. The direction is stilted, with the extreme close ups fast becoming a nuisance. Then there's the acting where every performer appears to be in a competition to see who can best imitate furniture.
Recommendation
Pretty much only for those looking for a soft core porno and are willing to spend time fast forwarding through the parts where nothing interesting occurs or better yet, for those in need of a sleep aid. In spite of it's reputation, Vampiros Lesbos would be best served by being marketed as a cure to insomniacs, whether they be vampires or mortals.
The Rating
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
September 12, 2011
Queer Issue: Hey Hollywood! Where are the Queer Youth?
I recently came across this excellent article I am Not a Secondary Character: Queer Kids in YA, and Why We Need to Do Better at Muse Rising, and found myself thinking, what about films? Where are the stories of queer youth in cinema? I found myself looking back over the 90+ films I had reviewed here in order to figure out how many of them featured queer youth. Let me warn my readers ahead of time, the results are not going to be pretty.
Basically, I found 6 films I had reviewed that had queer youth characters. They are: Another Gay Movie, But I'm a Cheerleader, Die, Mommie, Die!, Easy A, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, and lastly, 50 Ways of Saying Fabulous, which I saw but never wrote a review of.
Really? Out of those, Another Gay Movie is just awful, But I'm a Cheerleader and 50 Ways of Saying Fabulous could hold competitions for "Most Mediocre Film Of All", and I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry is borderline homophobic. Only Die, Mommie, Die! and Easy A are any good. Of those last two though, the gay youth character is secondary.
But, I told myself, can that be all? Seriously? Is that it? After all the screaming by Right Wing Evangelicals about the Evils of Hollywood and their Homosexual Agenda to use radical films to recruit our youth into making America A Gay Commie Hell, I can only find 6 films that feature queer youth characters? Hollywood, really, you're not keeping up with your yearly quota! Remember the plan!
In any case, I did some searching through Netflix and the index page for Gay Celluloid and came up with the following titles as being described or appearing to have queer youth characters:
Wild Reeds
Summer Storm
Another Gay Sequel
Bowser Makes a Movie
D.E.B.S
Boy Crush
The Incredibly True Adventures of 2 Girls in Love
Ma Vie En Rose
Beautiful Thing
Europa Europa
Saved!
You Are Not Alone
Whole New Thing
Twist
My Summer of Love
Billy Elliot
Wild Tigers I Have Known
The Curiosity of Chance
You'll Get Over It
Ma Vraie Vie à Rouen
Glue
So that makes 21 titles. Now together with the previous 6 that's a grand total of 27, which is still pathetic. Several of these are notable or I've at least heard good things about them, such as Europa Europa, My Summer of Love, Billy Elliot, and Ma Vie En Rose. But in any case, how many queer youth will have even heard of these movies or have access to them?
I mean seriously, Hollywood, you are way behind schedule.
Apparently, if you are a Hollywood, you are a well adjusted adult or never bother figuring out your sexual orientation until you are in college or middle aged. Which is sad, as we owe our queer youth better than that.
I am somewhat at a loss to explain this phenomenon. I can point fingers at the now defunct Hays Code and the hypocritical ways that the MPAA rates queer movies with much harsher standards but I think goes a little bit deeper than that. For all those who claim that that Hollywood is some sort of pusher of liberal propaganda, I think the evidence often goes the other way. In this instance, it is the almost complete lack of queer youth characters on film.
Let's be frank, all companies that make movies exist to make money. It does not matter if it is an independent company or one of the big mainstream conglomerates, they only exist for the purpose of making a profit. However, I do not see ticket sales being an issue here. Why? Because Hollywood markets and makes most of it's movies off of teens, who all things considered, are probably much less likely to shun a movie with queer content. Furthermore, if studios are worried about offending homophobic groups so much, I would like to point out that the resulting controversy and protests are probably more likely to boost ticket sales, than to drive people away. In fact, I would bet that the more authority figures that will tell a teenager not to see a movie or film, the more likely that teen will go the extra mile to seek them out. It's also worth noting the success of crap like the The Da Vinci Code, which was was widely protested by the Catholic League when it was released? (Although to be fair, I never saw it after having read the god awful Dan Brown novel it was based upon).
Nope, what I think are the driving force behind this glaring absence is simply cowardice. There is no reason, financial or otherwise, that should cause producers to shy away from
There is another matter that makes this even more distressing. In the past year, the issue of suicide among queer youth has been brought to the national spotlight. While I would not argue that the lack of queer youth characters on film or in books is the driving force behind the disproportionaly high suicide rate among LGBTQIA youth, I cannot imagine that it helps. In fact, a lack of general media portrayals will only help to further the impression that being GLBTQIA is abnormal and therefore heighten feelings of isolation amongst queer youth. This in turn, can only worsen an already serious problem. What makes this situation further depressing is that is only likely to get worse. The tepid trickle that exists now will probably come to a complete stop as the last gasps of independent cinema, which has been slowly strangled over the past decade, are breathed.
Basically, I found 6 films I had reviewed that had queer youth characters. They are: Another Gay Movie, But I'm a Cheerleader, Die, Mommie, Die!, Easy A, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, and lastly, 50 Ways of Saying Fabulous, which I saw but never wrote a review of.
Really? Out of those, Another Gay Movie is just awful, But I'm a Cheerleader and 50 Ways of Saying Fabulous could hold competitions for "Most Mediocre Film Of All", and I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry is borderline homophobic. Only Die, Mommie, Die! and Easy A are any good. Of those last two though, the gay youth character is secondary.
But, I told myself, can that be all? Seriously? Is that it? After all the screaming by Right Wing Evangelicals about the Evils of Hollywood and their Homosexual Agenda to use radical films to recruit our youth into making America A Gay Commie Hell, I can only find 6 films that feature queer youth characters? Hollywood, really, you're not keeping up with your yearly quota! Remember the plan!
In any case, I did some searching through Netflix and the index page for Gay Celluloid and came up with the following titles as being described or appearing to have queer youth characters:
Wild Reeds
Summer Storm
Another Gay Sequel
Bowser Makes a Movie
D.E.B.S
Boy Crush
The Incredibly True Adventures of 2 Girls in Love
Ma Vie En Rose
Beautiful Thing
Europa Europa
Saved!
You Are Not Alone
Whole New Thing
Twist
My Summer of Love
Billy Elliot
Wild Tigers I Have Known
The Curiosity of Chance
You'll Get Over It
Ma Vraie Vie à Rouen
Glue
So that makes 21 titles. Now together with the previous 6 that's a grand total of 27, which is still pathetic. Several of these are notable or I've at least heard good things about them, such as Europa Europa, My Summer of Love, Billy Elliot, and Ma Vie En Rose. But in any case, how many queer youth will have even heard of these movies or have access to them?
I mean seriously, Hollywood, you are way behind schedule.
Apparently, if you are a Hollywood, you are a well adjusted adult or never bother figuring out your sexual orientation until you are in college or middle aged. Which is sad, as we owe our queer youth better than that.
I am somewhat at a loss to explain this phenomenon. I can point fingers at the now defunct Hays Code and the hypocritical ways that the MPAA rates queer movies with much harsher standards but I think goes a little bit deeper than that. For all those who claim that that Hollywood is some sort of pusher of liberal propaganda, I think the evidence often goes the other way. In this instance, it is the almost complete lack of queer youth characters on film.
Let's be frank, all companies that make movies exist to make money. It does not matter if it is an independent company or one of the big mainstream conglomerates, they only exist for the purpose of making a profit. However, I do not see ticket sales being an issue here. Why? Because Hollywood markets and makes most of it's movies off of teens, who all things considered, are probably much less likely to shun a movie with queer content. Furthermore, if studios are worried about offending homophobic groups so much, I would like to point out that the resulting controversy and protests are probably more likely to boost ticket sales, than to drive people away. In fact, I would bet that the more authority figures that will tell a teenager not to see a movie or film, the more likely that teen will go the extra mile to seek them out. It's also worth noting the success of crap like the The Da Vinci Code, which was was widely protested by the Catholic League when it was released? (Although to be fair, I never saw it after having read the god awful Dan Brown novel it was based upon).
Nope, what I think are the driving force behind this glaring absence is simply cowardice. There is no reason, financial or otherwise, that should cause producers to shy away from
There is another matter that makes this even more distressing. In the past year, the issue of suicide among queer youth has been brought to the national spotlight. While I would not argue that the lack of queer youth characters on film or in books is the driving force behind the disproportionaly high suicide rate among LGBTQIA youth, I cannot imagine that it helps. In fact, a lack of general media portrayals will only help to further the impression that being GLBTQIA is abnormal and therefore heighten feelings of isolation amongst queer youth. This in turn, can only worsen an already serious problem. What makes this situation further depressing is that is only likely to get worse. The tepid trickle that exists now will probably come to a complete stop as the last gasps of independent cinema, which has been slowly strangled over the past decade, are breathed.
September 8, 2011
Queer Review: Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
Diamonds Are Forever
Director: Guy Hamilton
Writer: Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz. Based upon the novel Diamonds Are Forever by Ian Fleming.
Cast: Sean Connery, Jill St. John, Charles Gray, Lana Wood, Jimmy Dean, Putter Smith, Bruce Glover, Bernard Lee, Desmond Llewelyn, Lois Maxwell, Bruce Cabot
Overview
The iconic spy extraordinaire, James Bond, finds himself battling his arch nemisis Ernst Stavro Blofeld over diamond trading in this classic from 1971. An otherwise excellent adventure, Diamonds Are Forever suffers from one major problem, the homophobic portrayal of the main villains.
Synopsis
After apparently dispatching the evil megalomaniac Blofeld, James Bond (Sean Connery) is called in by the British Intelligence Agency to investigate a diamond smuggling operation. This takes him to Amsterdam, working with Tiffany Case (Jill St. John) who is involved with the operation. After an attempt on Bond's life, it's off to America, where Bond finds himself uncovering a much larger conspiracy involving the stolen diamonds, a mysterious research operation, and a reclusive playboy.
The Queering
On one hand, I found this seventh outing for James Bond to be rather entertaining, at least outside of a snooze inducing car chase during the final half. On the other hand, I cannot ignore the overt homophobia embedded in the characterization of the two evil henchman Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint. Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint are obviously intended to be a gay couple, even going so far to hold hands at one point. Even Blofeld gets in on the act by crossdressing briefly for one scene and for no apparent reason to boot.
The message is pretty clear, being gay or gender non-conforming is something done only by evil sociopaths. James Bond - whose position as the hero makes him the example all guys should exemplify - is a womanising paragon of rampant masculinity. Of course this was a normal practise for Hollywood, until Cruising came along and set such a bad example. However, this does not make the sin excusable.
This is unfortunate, as Diamonds Are Forever is one of the better entries into the James Bond franchise. I enjoyed it a lot more then when watching the critically acclaimed Casino Royale (whose dark and gritty tone made for a strong entry, but I hated the ending). However the blatant homophobia, and brief instance of transphobia, cause the whole project to sink faster than an exploding oil rig.
Recommendation
While an entertaining movie, this is no diamond in the rough, so feel free to keep on putting this off for forever.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Guy Hamilton
Writer: Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz. Based upon the novel Diamonds Are Forever by Ian Fleming.
Cast: Sean Connery, Jill St. John, Charles Gray, Lana Wood, Jimmy Dean, Putter Smith, Bruce Glover, Bernard Lee, Desmond Llewelyn, Lois Maxwell, Bruce Cabot
Overview
The iconic spy extraordinaire, James Bond, finds himself battling his arch nemisis Ernst Stavro Blofeld over diamond trading in this classic from 1971. An otherwise excellent adventure, Diamonds Are Forever suffers from one major problem, the homophobic portrayal of the main villains.
Synopsis
After apparently dispatching the evil megalomaniac Blofeld, James Bond (Sean Connery) is called in by the British Intelligence Agency to investigate a diamond smuggling operation. This takes him to Amsterdam, working with Tiffany Case (Jill St. John) who is involved with the operation. After an attempt on Bond's life, it's off to America, where Bond finds himself uncovering a much larger conspiracy involving the stolen diamonds, a mysterious research operation, and a reclusive playboy.
The Queering
On one hand, I found this seventh outing for James Bond to be rather entertaining, at least outside of a snooze inducing car chase during the final half. On the other hand, I cannot ignore the overt homophobia embedded in the characterization of the two evil henchman Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint. Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint are obviously intended to be a gay couple, even going so far to hold hands at one point. Even Blofeld gets in on the act by crossdressing briefly for one scene and for no apparent reason to boot.
The message is pretty clear, being gay or gender non-conforming is something done only by evil sociopaths. James Bond - whose position as the hero makes him the example all guys should exemplify - is a womanising paragon of rampant masculinity. Of course this was a normal practise for Hollywood, until Cruising came along and set such a bad example. However, this does not make the sin excusable.
This is unfortunate, as Diamonds Are Forever is one of the better entries into the James Bond franchise. I enjoyed it a lot more then when watching the critically acclaimed Casino Royale (whose dark and gritty tone made for a strong entry, but I hated the ending). However the blatant homophobia, and brief instance of transphobia, cause the whole project to sink faster than an exploding oil rig.
Recommendation
While an entertaining movie, this is no diamond in the rough, so feel free to keep on putting this off for forever.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
July 10, 2011
Queer Review: I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (2007)
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
Director: Dennis Dugan
Writers: Barry Fanaro, Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor, and Lew Gallo
Cast: Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Jessica Biel, Dan Aykroyd, Ving Rhames, Steve Buscemi, Cole Morgen, Shelby Adamowsky
Overview
Somewhere buried in I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry there is a really good movie struggling to get out. That is, until it got smothered by Adam Sandler's juvenile "comedy" and therefore what we are stuck with is a half baked retread of better and edgier queer movies with a stinky side dish of homophobia.
Synopsis
Following the passing of his wife, fire-fighter Larry Valentine (Kevin James) has a problem. Due to an unfortunate bureaucratic detail, if he were to die, his kids Eric and Tori (Cole Morgen and Shelby Adamowsky) would be unable to access his pension. So he does what any sane heterosexual father would do, he gets married to his best friend and fellow firefighter Chuck Levine (Adam Sandler). Unfortunately, their sham relationship is under scrutiny by fraud inspector Clint Fitzer (Steve Buscemi) and they must turn to a lawyer Alex McDonough (Jessica Biel) for aid. Unfortunately, more complications arise when Chuck finds that he has feelings (sexual and possibly love) for Alex.
The Queering
In a way Chuck and Larry are facing a rather similar issue that many gay people deal with all the time. That is, in order to succeed, they must closet their heterosexuality in order to uphold a shammarriage domestic partnership. If they fail at this, they face the same problems that queers who were caught by the authorities did at the time of Stonewall, persecution and imprisonment.
It is therefore unfortunate that whatever cleverness there may have been in the premise is quickly overshadowed by the crude comedy employed by Adam Sandler. This film does not even limit itself to offensive gay stereotypes, there are also cruel jabs at the obese during an early fire rescue sequence and some degrading commentary about woman throughout. For whatever reason, Sandler had to make it very clear from the outset that his character is a straight, manly-manly skirt chaser. This would not be a problem in of itself, but Sandler knows no subtleties and goes for the overkill. The scene where he fondles Biel's boobs made me feel like I was watching a sexual assault. I found myself wondering if this movie would have been better if another actor, such as Jim Carrey who gave a brilliant performance in I Love You Phillip Morris, had played Chuck. I also had a problem with Steve Buscemi's obviously gay, fanny pack wearing, villain, as this is the epitome of the effeminate male villain that pervades far too many movies.
Kevin James is fine as Larry, a firefighter still struggling with the death of a beloved wife, even though it's been more than a year since the tragic event. It is too bad that his quiet performance is overshadowed by Sandler's screen hog. I also enjoyed Eric, Larry's effeminate son, who manages to be one of the small pleasures offered up by the movie. Ving Rhames, who usually plays the heavy, also gives a delightfully subversive performance as a tough black guy with a wee little secret.
I regret that the pedantic speeches at the end condemning bigotry could not undo what had gone on before. There is an uneasy union between the homophobic jokes and the high minded ideals expressed in the screenplay. In short, I now pronounce this to be one marriage that is headed for divorce court.
Recommendation
For non-homophobic Adam Sandler fans, this could offer up a few laughs. Anyone else is advised to stay away.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Dennis Dugan
Writers: Barry Fanaro, Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor, and Lew Gallo
Cast: Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Jessica Biel, Dan Aykroyd, Ving Rhames, Steve Buscemi, Cole Morgen, Shelby Adamowsky
Overview
Somewhere buried in I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry there is a really good movie struggling to get out. That is, until it got smothered by Adam Sandler's juvenile "comedy" and therefore what we are stuck with is a half baked retread of better and edgier queer movies with a stinky side dish of homophobia.
Synopsis
Following the passing of his wife, fire-fighter Larry Valentine (Kevin James) has a problem. Due to an unfortunate bureaucratic detail, if he were to die, his kids Eric and Tori (Cole Morgen and Shelby Adamowsky) would be unable to access his pension. So he does what any sane heterosexual father would do, he gets married to his best friend and fellow firefighter Chuck Levine (Adam Sandler). Unfortunately, their sham relationship is under scrutiny by fraud inspector Clint Fitzer (Steve Buscemi) and they must turn to a lawyer Alex McDonough (Jessica Biel) for aid. Unfortunately, more complications arise when Chuck finds that he has feelings (sexual and possibly love) for Alex.
The Queering
In a way Chuck and Larry are facing a rather similar issue that many gay people deal with all the time. That is, in order to succeed, they must closet their heterosexuality in order to uphold a sham
It is therefore unfortunate that whatever cleverness there may have been in the premise is quickly overshadowed by the crude comedy employed by Adam Sandler. This film does not even limit itself to offensive gay stereotypes, there are also cruel jabs at the obese during an early fire rescue sequence and some degrading commentary about woman throughout. For whatever reason, Sandler had to make it very clear from the outset that his character is a straight, manly-manly skirt chaser. This would not be a problem in of itself, but Sandler knows no subtleties and goes for the overkill. The scene where he fondles Biel's boobs made me feel like I was watching a sexual assault. I found myself wondering if this movie would have been better if another actor, such as Jim Carrey who gave a brilliant performance in I Love You Phillip Morris, had played Chuck. I also had a problem with Steve Buscemi's obviously gay, fanny pack wearing, villain, as this is the epitome of the effeminate male villain that pervades far too many movies.
Kevin James is fine as Larry, a firefighter still struggling with the death of a beloved wife, even though it's been more than a year since the tragic event. It is too bad that his quiet performance is overshadowed by Sandler's screen hog. I also enjoyed Eric, Larry's effeminate son, who manages to be one of the small pleasures offered up by the movie. Ving Rhames, who usually plays the heavy, also gives a delightfully subversive performance as a tough black guy with a wee little secret.
I regret that the pedantic speeches at the end condemning bigotry could not undo what had gone on before. There is an uneasy union between the homophobic jokes and the high minded ideals expressed in the screenplay. In short, I now pronounce this to be one marriage that is headed for divorce court.
Recommendation
For non-homophobic Adam Sandler fans, this could offer up a few laughs. Anyone else is advised to stay away.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
June 30, 2011
Queer Review: Cruising (1980)
Cruising
Director: William Friedkin
Writer: William Friedkin. Based upon the novel by Gerald Walker.
Cast: Al Pacino, Paul Sorvino, Karen Allen, Richard Cox, Don Scardino
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
Overview
Originally protested by queer activists at the time of its release, Cruising wears it's homophobia blatantly on its leather sleeves. I believe people in general are sometimes too easily offended, but Cruising earns all of the animosity and criticism that has been directed at it over the years thanks to its blatant bigotry.
Synopsis
Straight cop Steve Burns (Al Pacino) is tapped to go undercover by the police chief (Paul Sorvino) to investigate a disturbing series of murders of gay men. Once undercover, he must learn to adopt to what is him a strange culture, while being separated from his girlfriend (Karen Allen).
The Queering
There is a certain kinship that Cruising shares with the pre-stonewall film The Detective. Both feature police officers performing homicide investigations into the murders of gay men and have villains who are the self loathing type of queer whose crimes are motivated by that repression. Both are also extremely problematic in their portrayal of gay characters. However, while The Detective can be excused as it was clearly attempting a sympathetic portrayal for the gay lifestyle and for its time period.
Cruising, however, represents a clear regression. Even taking the two time periods out of the equation, Cruising's portrayal of gay men is much more homophobic than what audiences were exposed to in The Detective. The ending itself is of particular concern, with its evocation of the gay recruiting myth and the suggestion that Steve Burns had become that which he had been fighting. Look into the abyss and the abyss looks back into you but what is the real abyss here? The amoral black hole created by the serial killers murderous rampage or his sexual orientation? The film does not make it clear and its ambiguous attitude is what dooms it.
From an aesthetic point of view, there is nothing particularly wrong with this film. There is also nothing that particularly stands out either. The plot is your standard serial killer being pursued by determined police, with the gay cruising angle thrown in simply to add some spice. There also also some nice cinematography featuring the grittier areas of NYC at night and a particularly beautiful shot with the sun setting as Burns enters his girlfriend's apartment.
The scenes of Al Pacino cruising in gay bars, looking for the killer are somewhat effective in there portrayal of gay leather bars. The filmmakers apparently took the time and effort to shot in actual gay bars and recruited the customers before filming took place to act as extras.
The lone upside to Cruising's release was that the protests it generated prompted Hollywood to reconsider its portrayals of gay characters. Seen in this light, it could be argued that many of the pro-gay films made and released in the 80's (Kiss of the Spider Woman, Victor/Victoria, My Beautiful Laundrette) owe their existence and success to Cruising.
Recommendation
Not for anyone really, other than those who wish to see the film that helped change Hollywood by providing an example of what not to do. The one star is only for the reforms that Cruising inspired, not for the film itself.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: William Friedkin
Writer: William Friedkin. Based upon the novel by Gerald Walker.
Cast: Al Pacino, Paul Sorvino, Karen Allen, Richard Cox, Don Scardino
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
Overview
Originally protested by queer activists at the time of its release, Cruising wears it's homophobia blatantly on its leather sleeves. I believe people in general are sometimes too easily offended, but Cruising earns all of the animosity and criticism that has been directed at it over the years thanks to its blatant bigotry.
Synopsis
Straight cop Steve Burns (Al Pacino) is tapped to go undercover by the police chief (Paul Sorvino) to investigate a disturbing series of murders of gay men. Once undercover, he must learn to adopt to what is him a strange culture, while being separated from his girlfriend (Karen Allen).
The Queering
There is a certain kinship that Cruising shares with the pre-stonewall film The Detective. Both feature police officers performing homicide investigations into the murders of gay men and have villains who are the self loathing type of queer whose crimes are motivated by that repression. Both are also extremely problematic in their portrayal of gay characters. However, while The Detective can be excused as it was clearly attempting a sympathetic portrayal for the gay lifestyle and for its time period.
Cruising, however, represents a clear regression. Even taking the two time periods out of the equation, Cruising's portrayal of gay men is much more homophobic than what audiences were exposed to in The Detective. The ending itself is of particular concern, with its evocation of the gay recruiting myth and the suggestion that Steve Burns had become that which he had been fighting. Look into the abyss and the abyss looks back into you but what is the real abyss here? The amoral black hole created by the serial killers murderous rampage or his sexual orientation? The film does not make it clear and its ambiguous attitude is what dooms it.
From an aesthetic point of view, there is nothing particularly wrong with this film. There is also nothing that particularly stands out either. The plot is your standard serial killer being pursued by determined police, with the gay cruising angle thrown in simply to add some spice. There also also some nice cinematography featuring the grittier areas of NYC at night and a particularly beautiful shot with the sun setting as Burns enters his girlfriend's apartment.
The scenes of Al Pacino cruising in gay bars, looking for the killer are somewhat effective in there portrayal of gay leather bars. The filmmakers apparently took the time and effort to shot in actual gay bars and recruited the customers before filming took place to act as extras.
The lone upside to Cruising's release was that the protests it generated prompted Hollywood to reconsider its portrayals of gay characters. Seen in this light, it could be argued that many of the pro-gay films made and released in the 80's (Kiss of the Spider Woman, Victor/Victoria, My Beautiful Laundrette) owe their existence and success to Cruising.
Recommendation
Not for anyone really, other than those who wish to see the film that helped change Hollywood by providing an example of what not to do. The one star is only for the reforms that Cruising inspired, not for the film itself.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
January 25, 2011
Queer Review: Chick Comics
First there was Homosexuality: Legitimate Alternative Deathstyle by Dick Hafer. In modern times, anti-queer comic lovers can get there fix from Chick Publications by Jack T. Chick, which is just beyond words. The comic takes place in the sort of world where the Homosexual Menace is Trying to Take Over the World and Everyone Is In On It. There are gay cops who beat up innocent Christian, the media engages in shameless gay propaganda, and "blood terrorism" can be engaged in by any gay man who gives blood.
I would also like to point out that most of the extreme propaganda the comic is actually, I think somewhat dangerous, particularly in regards to the misinformation contained within the comics regarding AIDS.
Lets break down the three comics listed under "Homosexuality".
Sin City (2001)
The comic starts out with a man protesting a gay pride parade while holding a sign stating "Homosexuality is a Sin" while a bear leather-man urges the float he's standing on to run over the protester. Fortunately, some obviously gay cops (they all have pierced ears) intervene to protect the pride parade and start beating up the anti-gay protester, while shouting "You Devil! Nobody stops my parade".
Later, while lying in a hospital bed, recovering from his sound thrashing, he's told that he's being charged with a hate crime for interfering with the parade. The man (now identified as Malcolm) is also told that the charges will be dropped if he changes and becomes less hateful and bigoted.
The prosecuter introduces him to Reverend Ray who claims to be gay and is presented with a demon/ghost looking creature named Zanah hanging out on his shoulder. Reverend Ray of course tries to make inroads in changing Malcolm into a loving Christian.
After a bit of a struggle, in which one of Malcolm friends shows up to recite a highly stylized version of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Reverend Ray finds himself breaking down and admitting that Malcolm was right all along and then begging God for salvation.
And the Moral of the Story is: Getting the stuffing beat out of you by gay cops is a great way to win converts for Jesus. No really! The world would clearly be a much better place if fundamentalists just let themselves get beat up more often!
Doom Town (1991)
This one starts out at a pro-gay rally. The speakers at the rally impresses upon the crowd and media the importance of funding for AIDS research and suggest that if not enough funding is received, all gay men should donate blood.
In spite of the fact that not all gay men have AIDS and that the Red Cross started testing blood donations for AIDS in 1985, this is considered "blood terrorism", "cold blooded Murder" and would guarantee that the blood supply of the country would become infected with AIDS. Clearly, this is because of the satanic evilness that exists in homosexual's blood that is so powerful, it can not only fool the Red Cross's tests, it can also infect blood donations from people who aren't gay.
A lone man named Charlie who was watching the rally prays to God for the ability to speak to someone. When he's asked what he thinks of the rally by another individual, Charlie launches into a rather detailed telling of Sodom and Gomorrah. This one includes the rather lovely image of a large hair man saying to a small child "it's that time again".
At the end of the telling of Sodom of Gomorrah, the person listening to Charlie breaks down and converts to Christianity while begging God for forgiveness.
And the Moral of the Story: Homosexual blood is dangerous and powerful, but not as powerful as some good old Sodom and Gomorrah.
Uninvited (2011)
This story is about a group of gay men suffering from AIDS in a group home and Nurse Clara, who is attending to them. The men and Nurse Clara argue over how AIDS was started. This argument results in Clara telling the men about how when she was 6 years old she suffered a brutal rape and nearly died. Afterwards, she claimed that she nearly became a lesbian but was only saved by God's love.
Clara then asks the men if any of them had been molested as children and they all admit that they were. Nurse Clara then tells the men the story of Sodom and Gomarrah as apparently there are never enough tellings of Sodom and Gomarrah to go around for everyone.
After telling the story, two of the men allow themselves to be saved, while another two soundly reject Jesus and "die in their sins". The next day Nurse Clara declares that homosexuals have been trying to create another Sodom and Gomarrah here today in America.
And the moral of the story is: If you're raped or sexually molested as a child, your choices are either to become an AIDS infected Lesbian/Homosexual OR to ask for, and accept, the eternal love and salvation that only God and Jesus can provide.
This is the same God by the way who:
-Destroyed entire cities and countries in flame and brimstone
-Let loose plague and disease (AIDS) as punishment for sexual deviancy
-Let loose some other plagues of gnats, flies, frogs, a river turning to blood, diseased livestock, boils, locusts, darkness, *and* killed the firstborns of an entire nation, all because the leader of that nation would not free some slaves
-Flooded the entire world killing everyone but the few people who happened to have been within walking distance of the only Arc that could withstand the flood.
Yep, that all sounds like the sorts of actions a loving and forgiving God would regularly partake in.
I would also like to point out that most of the extreme propaganda the comic is actually, I think somewhat dangerous, particularly in regards to the misinformation contained within the comics regarding AIDS.
Lets break down the three comics listed under "Homosexuality".
Sin City (2001)
The comic starts out with a man protesting a gay pride parade while holding a sign stating "Homosexuality is a Sin" while a bear leather-man urges the float he's standing on to run over the protester. Fortunately, some obviously gay cops (they all have pierced ears) intervene to protect the pride parade and start beating up the anti-gay protester, while shouting "You Devil! Nobody stops my parade".
Later, while lying in a hospital bed, recovering from his sound thrashing, he's told that he's being charged with a hate crime for interfering with the parade. The man (now identified as Malcolm) is also told that the charges will be dropped if he changes and becomes less hateful and bigoted.
The prosecuter introduces him to Reverend Ray who claims to be gay and is presented with a demon/ghost looking creature named Zanah hanging out on his shoulder. Reverend Ray of course tries to make inroads in changing Malcolm into a loving Christian.
After a bit of a struggle, in which one of Malcolm friends shows up to recite a highly stylized version of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Reverend Ray finds himself breaking down and admitting that Malcolm was right all along and then begging God for salvation.
And the Moral of the Story is: Getting the stuffing beat out of you by gay cops is a great way to win converts for Jesus. No really! The world would clearly be a much better place if fundamentalists just let themselves get beat up more often!
Doom Town (1991)
This one starts out at a pro-gay rally. The speakers at the rally impresses upon the crowd and media the importance of funding for AIDS research and suggest that if not enough funding is received, all gay men should donate blood.
In spite of the fact that not all gay men have AIDS and that the Red Cross started testing blood donations for AIDS in 1985, this is considered "blood terrorism", "cold blooded Murder" and would guarantee that the blood supply of the country would become infected with AIDS. Clearly, this is because of the satanic evilness that exists in homosexual's blood that is so powerful, it can not only fool the Red Cross's tests, it can also infect blood donations from people who aren't gay.
A lone man named Charlie who was watching the rally prays to God for the ability to speak to someone. When he's asked what he thinks of the rally by another individual, Charlie launches into a rather detailed telling of Sodom and Gomorrah. This one includes the rather lovely image of a large hair man saying to a small child "it's that time again".
At the end of the telling of Sodom of Gomorrah, the person listening to Charlie breaks down and converts to Christianity while begging God for forgiveness.
And the Moral of the Story: Homosexual blood is dangerous and powerful, but not as powerful as some good old Sodom and Gomorrah.
Uninvited (2011)
This story is about a group of gay men suffering from AIDS in a group home and Nurse Clara, who is attending to them. The men and Nurse Clara argue over how AIDS was started. This argument results in Clara telling the men about how when she was 6 years old she suffered a brutal rape and nearly died. Afterwards, she claimed that she nearly became a lesbian but was only saved by God's love.
Clara then asks the men if any of them had been molested as children and they all admit that they were. Nurse Clara then tells the men the story of Sodom and Gomarrah as apparently there are never enough tellings of Sodom and Gomarrah to go around for everyone.
After telling the story, two of the men allow themselves to be saved, while another two soundly reject Jesus and "die in their sins". The next day Nurse Clara declares that homosexuals have been trying to create another Sodom and Gomarrah here today in America.
And the moral of the story is: If you're raped or sexually molested as a child, your choices are either to become an AIDS infected Lesbian/Homosexual OR to ask for, and accept, the eternal love and salvation that only God and Jesus can provide.
This is the same God by the way who:
-Destroyed entire cities and countries in flame and brimstone
-Let loose plague and disease (AIDS) as punishment for sexual deviancy
-Let loose some other plagues of gnats, flies, frogs, a river turning to blood, diseased livestock, boils, locusts, darkness, *and* killed the firstborns of an entire nation, all because the leader of that nation would not free some slaves
-Flooded the entire world killing everyone but the few people who happened to have been within walking distance of the only Arc that could withstand the flood.
Yep, that all sounds like the sorts of actions a loving and forgiving God would regularly partake in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)