Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens
Director: J.J. Abrams
Writers: Lawrence Kasdan, J.J. Abrams, and Michael Arndt. Based on characters created by George Lucas.
Cast: Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Adam Driver, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Lupita Nyong'o, Andy Serkis, Domhnall Gleeson, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew
Overview
Watching the seventh installment of the Star Wars saga feels, in spite of the title, like we're watching the Force hit the snooze button as many times as it can before dragging it's sorry arse into the bathroom to drive away the hangover brought on by a night bar hoping through the more wretched and scummy hives of Mos Eisley.
Synopsis
Take scripts from previous episodes. Put in blender. Puree for three to five minutes. Make sure to use a lid to avoid being splattered with spoilers.
The Queering
Detractors of the Star Wars saga on the whole have cynically claimed that the films were little more than marketing gimmicks to sell toys and licensed merchandise. Unfortunately, while I have been a fan of the series up until this point, The Force Awakens pretty much lives up the more cynical criticism the earlier installments received.
Watching The Force Awakens feels like watching a mid-season episode of a TV series during sweeps week (back when sweeps were a thing before everyone just binge watched on Netflix). Everything's dialed up to eleven, everything getting thrown at the audience, and boy you better pay attention or you're going to get lost.
Which pretty much is the main problem I had, the plot moves too fast. Outside of the opening sequences, there really isn't any time to absorb background detail or to really get to know any of the characters.
This is probably best illustrated with how space travel now appears to work in this universe. The earlier films implied that even using hyperdrive, it still took hours, or even days to travel between planets. Now space travel appears to work like long range transporters on Star Trek. You just get in a ship, push a few buttons and arrive instantly at your destination.
The problem this endears is that there is no significant downtime between the frenetic action scenes. Everyone just keeps jumping and yelling and running and swinging their lightsabers at each other. New characters like Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) and Maz Kanata (Maz Kanata) are thrown against the wall in the hope that some part of them will stick in viewers mind. A whole village gets wiped out by the bad guys, a planet destroyed, and a major character killed off. But the constant rush to get to the next thing prevents any of these elements from having a significant impact beyond sheer exhaustion.
Remember the scenes on the Millenium Falcon in A New Hope where Obi Wan tries to teach Luke how to use a lightsaber? Remember the line, "it felt like a thousand voices cried out and were suddenly silenced"? Well there's nothing like that here. Turns out sometimes taking a breather is a good thing.
The strength of the Star Wars saga was always it's world building. In earlier episodes, the filmmakers were pretty adept at showing the audience a skeleton and allowing us to flesh out the details of this vast galaxy far away. That doesn't happen here and the lack of any kind of breathing room once the plot kicks into high gear, doesn't help. Why did Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) turn to the dark side besides super vague daddy issues? What is the resistance? And if they're working for the legitimate government of the Republic, why are they called the resistance and not just the military?
Then there are the borderline plot holes: Why is Luke Skywalker in hiding if he wants to be found? Why does no one in La Resistance have a complete map of the galaxy? What's the strategic advantage of having a device that can destroy all of the planets in an entire system for the First Order (besides the fact that the writers hadn't quite ripped off enough elements from the original trilogy at this point)?
Admittedly, it's not all bad. There are a few elements I liked. BB-8 works very well as comic relief and as a substitute for R2-D2. Rey (Daisy Riddle) and Finn (John Boyega) make nice additions to the cast and help to up the diversity quotient. Some of the earlier scenes with Rey exploring (or rather scavenging) through a desert planet littered the remnants of a great battle, with crashed space ships and broken transports littering the landscape, work on their own and promise a more interesting story that never actually gets told. The cast generally acquits itself well during the brief moments when they're actually allowed to act. There's even a fairly obvious queer subtext between Finn and X-wing pilot Poe Dameron. Watch the trailer if you don't believe me. Here's hoping that it becomes text in Episode VIII and that we actually get a fully fleshed out story next time around.
Recommendation
I would recommend The Force Awakens about as strongly as I would allowing ones kids to play Jedi and Sith near a Sarlacc pitt.
The Rating
Two Stars out of Four.
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 lgbtq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lgbtq. Show all posts
January 1, 2016
Deadpool or Who Was On First, First?
A new Deadpool movie is coming out, and the filmmakers are promoting this as the "first" queer superhero movie.
Now personally I've never read the Deadpool comic books. In fact the only comic book or rather, graphic novel, that I've ever read is Watchmen. But the word is that Deadpool is bi/pan/omnisexual (depending on who's talking) because he... flirts with both men and women.
Admittedly, this is a case where the movie hasn't come out and thus this is all speculation, but the trailers show the character Deadpool exchanging one liners with other characters, while talking about how he has to save the girl (who at least declares she doesn't do damsel in distress).
The thing is, if flirting is all it takes to make a superhero queer, then the first queer superhero arrived in cinema decades ago with the black and white silent film The Mark of Zorro (1920). It also bears remarking that all around flirting tends to a major feature of well, just about every super hero ever. So if all Deadpool does is flirt, then he's not going to be the first omniqueer superhero by a long webshot.
On the other hand, I do like the flippant gallows humor on display in the trailers. It should at least make for a nice change of pace from the ultra-vanilla Marvel Avengers flicks we've been getting a steady supply of for the past few years.
Now personally I've never read the Deadpool comic books. In fact the only comic book or rather, graphic novel, that I've ever read is Watchmen. But the word is that Deadpool is bi/pan/omnisexual (depending on who's talking) because he... flirts with both men and women.
Admittedly, this is a case where the movie hasn't come out and thus this is all speculation, but the trailers show the character Deadpool exchanging one liners with other characters, while talking about how he has to save the girl (who at least declares she doesn't do damsel in distress).
The thing is, if flirting is all it takes to make a superhero queer, then the first queer superhero arrived in cinema decades ago with the black and white silent film The Mark of Zorro (1920). It also bears remarking that all around flirting tends to a major feature of well, just about every super hero ever. So if all Deadpool does is flirt, then he's not going to be the first omniqueer superhero by a long webshot.
On the other hand, I do like the flippant gallows humor on display in the trailers. It should at least make for a nice change of pace from the ultra-vanilla Marvel Avengers flicks we've been getting a steady supply of for the past few years.
September 7, 2015
Queer Issue: On the Upcoming Stonewall Film and the Absence of Historical Transgender or Transsexual Characters on Film
By now, the fact that the soon to be released Stonewall movie directed by Roland Emmerich minimizes the contributions of transgender women of color and that key figures such as Sylvia Rivera and Miss Major are entirely absent, is fairly well known.
However let's recap things briefly. While the film is yet to be released, and thus could look very different from the previews and promotional material, the signs are not currently all that promising. The main cast is mainly white and the trailer focuses on a white gay male character who appears to be responsible for (in the movie) actually starting the riots. Although, I never heard the version where a brick thrown threw a window was what started the riots, but um, okay.
Admittedly, the trailer could be misleading, and the cast, as billed, is not reflective of who actually gets to play major parts in the film. Also, there is a character listed as Marsha P. Johnson on the film's IMDB, which will mean that Marsha P. Johnson will be the second transgender woman of color to have a character based on her appear in a major motion picture. The first (that I am aware of) being Lady Chablis in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.
I have often bemoaned the straightening out of historical LGB characters when they are presented on the silver screen. A process in which bisexual or pansexual characters will either be presented as engaging in only heterosexual copulings, or the same sex partners will be minimized or ignored. If they character was gay or lesbian, then they will either wind up bisexual on screen or straight, depending.
However, I have increasingly come to notice the actual absence of characters on film based on historical or real life transgender or transsexual people.
Thus I tried putting together a list of all mainstream feature films that actually featured such characters. Documentaries are excluded. Stories based on a real life story where the transgender character was fictional were also excluded (ie: Dallas Buyers Club).
Here is the list:
-Queen Christina (1933)
-The Christine Jorgensen Story (1970)
-Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
-Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1977)
-Boys Don't Cry (1999)
Upcoming Movies:
-Stonewall (2015)
-The Danish Girl (2015)
I may be missing a few. I can't claim to be an expert on foreign films for example. And many early silent movies have been lost altogether. But even if there are a few examples that I'm missing, that's still a pretty pathetic list. If there are any, let me know, and I'll add them in.
But as it stands, of these examples, one is the story of a trans-man who ends up dead (Boys Don't Cry). Two are famous for primarily being transgender or transsexual (The Christine Jorgensen Story and Queen Christina. The remaining two characters are incidental to the main story (Dog Day Afternoon and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil).
Not that there is anything wrong with presenting the stories of tragedy within the LGBTQ or cases where the character is famous for being LGBTQ, but there needs to be a point where we move past that.
Consider as a point of comparison, the number of movies based on the lie of Ed Gein (who was not in any way transgender in real life), in which characters who were based on him (or his murder spree) are shown cross dressing or attempting to obtain sex change operations. There are 5 of them that I am aware of. (Psycho, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Silence of the Lambs, and The X-Files: I Want to Believe.) Add in sequels and the Gus Van Sant Psycho remake, and these films easily outnumber the films featuring historical transgender characters.
It's worth pointing out that there isn't exactly an absence of historical transgender or transsexual people to tell stories about. The fact that Sylvia Rivera has never shown up in a mainstream film in spite of (almost now) two films about the Stonewall Riots, is itself disheartening.
A few examples:
-Alan L. Hart: Saved thousand of lives by innovating the use of x-rays in the diagnosis of tuberculosis.
-King Ashurbanipal: Developed one of the largest collection of cuneiform documents ever and had a card catalog to find material. In plain talk: He invented the library.
-Karen Ulane: Was fired by Eastern Airlines for undergoing gender affirmation surgery and sued the airline in court before dying an airplane crash.
-We'Wha: A famous Zuni Native American who met President Groover Cleveland.
-Lynn Conway: Computer scientist whose innovations are still used in modern computers and transgender activist.
-Chevalier d'Eon: French spy and member of the Secret du Roi.
-Elagabalus: Roman Emperor who developed such a scandalous reputation that he had damnatio memoriae (the erasure of a Roman's official public record and very rarely done) applied to him.
At the end of the day, it's important to note that the stories of people across the LGBTQ spectrum are told (this should go without saying right?). We are starting to see inroads being made with prominent films featuring cisgender LGB characters based on historical figures getting made and widespread distribution. The Imitation Game being the most recent example. However, the lack of portrayals of historical transgender or transsexual individuals on film (and arguably elsewhere) is an issue that needs to be rectified.
However let's recap things briefly. While the film is yet to be released, and thus could look very different from the previews and promotional material, the signs are not currently all that promising. The main cast is mainly white and the trailer focuses on a white gay male character who appears to be responsible for (in the movie) actually starting the riots. Although, I never heard the version where a brick thrown threw a window was what started the riots, but um, okay.
Admittedly, the trailer could be misleading, and the cast, as billed, is not reflective of who actually gets to play major parts in the film. Also, there is a character listed as Marsha P. Johnson on the film's IMDB, which will mean that Marsha P. Johnson will be the second transgender woman of color to have a character based on her appear in a major motion picture. The first (that I am aware of) being Lady Chablis in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.
I have often bemoaned the straightening out of historical LGB characters when they are presented on the silver screen. A process in which bisexual or pansexual characters will either be presented as engaging in only heterosexual copulings, or the same sex partners will be minimized or ignored. If they character was gay or lesbian, then they will either wind up bisexual on screen or straight, depending.
However, I have increasingly come to notice the actual absence of characters on film based on historical or real life transgender or transsexual people.
Thus I tried putting together a list of all mainstream feature films that actually featured such characters. Documentaries are excluded. Stories based on a real life story where the transgender character was fictional were also excluded (ie: Dallas Buyers Club).
Here is the list:
-Queen Christina (1933)
-The Christine Jorgensen Story (1970)
-Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
-Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1977)
-Boys Don't Cry (1999)
Upcoming Movies:
-Stonewall (2015)
-The Danish Girl (2015)
I may be missing a few. I can't claim to be an expert on foreign films for example. And many early silent movies have been lost altogether. But even if there are a few examples that I'm missing, that's still a pretty pathetic list. If there are any, let me know, and I'll add them in.
But as it stands, of these examples, one is the story of a trans-man who ends up dead (Boys Don't Cry). Two are famous for primarily being transgender or transsexual (The Christine Jorgensen Story and Queen Christina. The remaining two characters are incidental to the main story (Dog Day Afternoon and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil).
Not that there is anything wrong with presenting the stories of tragedy within the LGBTQ or cases where the character is famous for being LGBTQ, but there needs to be a point where we move past that.
Consider as a point of comparison, the number of movies based on the lie of Ed Gein (who was not in any way transgender in real life), in which characters who were based on him (or his murder spree) are shown cross dressing or attempting to obtain sex change operations. There are 5 of them that I am aware of. (Psycho, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Silence of the Lambs, and The X-Files: I Want to Believe.) Add in sequels and the Gus Van Sant Psycho remake, and these films easily outnumber the films featuring historical transgender characters.
It's worth pointing out that there isn't exactly an absence of historical transgender or transsexual people to tell stories about. The fact that Sylvia Rivera has never shown up in a mainstream film in spite of (almost now) two films about the Stonewall Riots, is itself disheartening.
A few examples:
-Alan L. Hart: Saved thousand of lives by innovating the use of x-rays in the diagnosis of tuberculosis.
-King Ashurbanipal: Developed one of the largest collection of cuneiform documents ever and had a card catalog to find material. In plain talk: He invented the library.
-Karen Ulane: Was fired by Eastern Airlines for undergoing gender affirmation surgery and sued the airline in court before dying an airplane crash.
-We'Wha: A famous Zuni Native American who met President Groover Cleveland.
-Lynn Conway: Computer scientist whose innovations are still used in modern computers and transgender activist.
-Chevalier d'Eon: French spy and member of the Secret du Roi.
-Elagabalus: Roman Emperor who developed such a scandalous reputation that he had damnatio memoriae (the erasure of a Roman's official public record and very rarely done) applied to him.
At the end of the day, it's important to note that the stories of people across the LGBTQ spectrum are told (this should go without saying right?). We are starting to see inroads being made with prominent films featuring cisgender LGB characters based on historical figures getting made and widespread distribution. The Imitation Game being the most recent example. However, the lack of portrayals of historical transgender or transsexual individuals on film (and arguably elsewhere) is an issue that needs to be rectified.
May 6, 2015
Queer Review: Get on the Bus (1996)
Get on the Bus
Director: Spike Lee
Writer: Reggie Rock Bythewood
Cast: De'aundre Bonds, Thomas Jefferson Byrd, Richard Belzer, Gabriel Casseus, Albert Hall, Hill Harper, Harry Lennix, Bernie Mac, Wendell Pierce, Roger Guenveur Smith, Isaiah Washington, Steve White, Ossie Davis, Charles S. Dutton, Andre Braugher
Overview
The Million Man March on Washington DC in 1995 was an event organized by the controversial Louis Farrakhan and was designed to improve the image of black men by challenging negative stereotypes. That at least is what the textbooks say about the event. What Spike Lees' film Get on the Bus about The Million Man March does is paint a more intimate, on the ground perspective of a group of black men on their way to the rally.
Synopsis
The story begins by introducing the characters we will be spending the next two hours with boarding the bus. Once the trip has begun, conflicts between as the men begin to clash with each other. Gary, who is both biracial and a police officer whose father was killed in the line of duty, becomes a source of tension that is exacerbated when it is revealed that Jamal (Gabriel Casseus) is a former Crip. Flip (Andre Braugher), a snobbish actor, becomes virulently homophobic when he finds out that Randall and Kyle (Henry Lennix and Isaiah Washington) are a gay couple in the midst of a breakup. Evan and his son Smooth (Thomas Jefferson Byrd and De'Aundre Bonds) who are handcuffed together because of a judge's order after Smooth was caught robbing a grocery store. Further problems arise when the bus breaks down and a new bus driver who happens to be Jewish is brought on as a replacement.
Through it all, Xavier (Hill Harper) a film student makes a noble effort to document the proceedings. As tensions flair, guidance is provided by George (Charles S. Dutton), who organized the trip, and Jeremiah (Ossie Davis), an elderly man who it is eventually revealed to have a serious heart condition that threatens his life.
The Queering
It is perhaps because my recent film viewing has been exceptionally selective, but I feel that there has been a strong aversion in recent years by filmmakers to avoid actually addressing complex ideas or real life issues in films. As it is, I found myself surprised at the philosophical depth displayed by Spike Lee in Get on the Bus. Lee has always been a controversial figure and accusations against him for being divisive are everywhere. But as it is, every time I watch a Spike Lee Joint I find it to be an exceptionally thoughtful and balanced effort.
Get on the Bus manages to explore a variety of political issues all the while never losing sight of the characters. The dialog at a couple of points comes across as stilted, but given the nature of the production (filmed on a low budget over 16 days) that's to be expected. The issues that are addressed by the characters range cover just about everything from the root causes of economic deprivation faced by African Americans (is it the result of discrimination or welfare causing the breakup of African American families) to what it means to reform oneself after a hard life of crime. At one point, a character points out the problematic symbolism of Evan arriving at the rally with his son in chains.
As the story unfolds, much of the conflict is driven by the prejudices of the characters. The replacement bus driver, Rick (Richard Belzer) finds himself the target of anti-semitic remarks and quits as a result. Several black women express the view that the march is both exclusionary and sexist. Randal and Kyle find themselves the target of homophobia. It's fascinating how Lee was able to present a microcosm within the film of the march that includes most of the criticism against it and Louis Farrakhan without any of these elements coming across as a forced attempt at balance -- or at least none of it felt forced when I watched it the film while unaware of the criticism against Farrakhan for being both anti-semitic and homophobic. While the March is presented as having the potential for positive change for African-American Men, Lee still makes sure to include a cross section of this criticism.
As for the gay couple Kyle and Randal, they are presented as just as dedicated to the march and as integral to the group as any other main character. Furthermore, the unique prejudices they face are presented as no less significant to them than those faced by the other characters. That is there is no game of oppression olympics being played out here. When Kyle reveals that he served in the Marines, he talks about having to face both racism and homophobia when he tells of an incident where he was wounded by friendly fire:
External obstacles to the group include a scene where they are pulled over by a State Trooper in Tennessee. The scene makes us wonder if someone broke the rule the group was given at the beginning about not carrying illegal substances and is about to be arrested.
In spite of the obstacles that the group faces (which are frequently set up to mirror the obstacles and discrimination that African American Men face in our larger society) the movie ends on a note of hope. In the final scene, a prayer is read which had been written by a character who passed away just when the group had reached Washington. It includes the following quote from the Book of Job:
Recommendation
Definitely would be worth a difficult bus ride to see Get on the Bus.
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.
Director: Spike Lee
Writer: Reggie Rock Bythewood
Cast: De'aundre Bonds, Thomas Jefferson Byrd, Richard Belzer, Gabriel Casseus, Albert Hall, Hill Harper, Harry Lennix, Bernie Mac, Wendell Pierce, Roger Guenveur Smith, Isaiah Washington, Steve White, Ossie Davis, Charles S. Dutton, Andre Braugher
Overview
The Million Man March on Washington DC in 1995 was an event organized by the controversial Louis Farrakhan and was designed to improve the image of black men by challenging negative stereotypes. That at least is what the textbooks say about the event. What Spike Lees' film Get on the Bus about The Million Man March does is paint a more intimate, on the ground perspective of a group of black men on their way to the rally.
Synopsis
The story begins by introducing the characters we will be spending the next two hours with boarding the bus. Once the trip has begun, conflicts between as the men begin to clash with each other. Gary, who is both biracial and a police officer whose father was killed in the line of duty, becomes a source of tension that is exacerbated when it is revealed that Jamal (Gabriel Casseus) is a former Crip. Flip (Andre Braugher), a snobbish actor, becomes virulently homophobic when he finds out that Randall and Kyle (Henry Lennix and Isaiah Washington) are a gay couple in the midst of a breakup. Evan and his son Smooth (Thomas Jefferson Byrd and De'Aundre Bonds) who are handcuffed together because of a judge's order after Smooth was caught robbing a grocery store. Further problems arise when the bus breaks down and a new bus driver who happens to be Jewish is brought on as a replacement.
Through it all, Xavier (Hill Harper) a film student makes a noble effort to document the proceedings. As tensions flair, guidance is provided by George (Charles S. Dutton), who organized the trip, and Jeremiah (Ossie Davis), an elderly man who it is eventually revealed to have a serious heart condition that threatens his life.
The Queering
It is perhaps because my recent film viewing has been exceptionally selective, but I feel that there has been a strong aversion in recent years by filmmakers to avoid actually addressing complex ideas or real life issues in films. As it is, I found myself surprised at the philosophical depth displayed by Spike Lee in Get on the Bus. Lee has always been a controversial figure and accusations against him for being divisive are everywhere. But as it is, every time I watch a Spike Lee Joint I find it to be an exceptionally thoughtful and balanced effort.
Get on the Bus manages to explore a variety of political issues all the while never losing sight of the characters. The dialog at a couple of points comes across as stilted, but given the nature of the production (filmed on a low budget over 16 days) that's to be expected. The issues that are addressed by the characters range cover just about everything from the root causes of economic deprivation faced by African Americans (is it the result of discrimination or welfare causing the breakup of African American families) to what it means to reform oneself after a hard life of crime. At one point, a character points out the problematic symbolism of Evan arriving at the rally with his son in chains.
As the story unfolds, much of the conflict is driven by the prejudices of the characters. The replacement bus driver, Rick (Richard Belzer) finds himself the target of anti-semitic remarks and quits as a result. Several black women express the view that the march is both exclusionary and sexist. Randal and Kyle find themselves the target of homophobia. It's fascinating how Lee was able to present a microcosm within the film of the march that includes most of the criticism against it and Louis Farrakhan without any of these elements coming across as a forced attempt at balance -- or at least none of it felt forced when I watched it the film while unaware of the criticism against Farrakhan for being both anti-semitic and homophobic. While the March is presented as having the potential for positive change for African-American Men, Lee still makes sure to include a cross section of this criticism.
As for the gay couple Kyle and Randal, they are presented as just as dedicated to the march and as integral to the group as any other main character. Furthermore, the unique prejudices they face are presented as no less significant to them than those faced by the other characters. That is there is no game of oppression olympics being played out here. When Kyle reveals that he served in the Marines, he talks about having to face both racism and homophobia when he tells of an incident where he was wounded by friendly fire:
When I woke up, they were laughing and talking about how...they killed two birds with one stone. One nigger, one faggot.
External obstacles to the group include a scene where they are pulled over by a State Trooper in Tennessee. The scene makes us wonder if someone broke the rule the group was given at the beginning about not carrying illegal substances and is about to be arrested.
In spite of the obstacles that the group faces (which are frequently set up to mirror the obstacles and discrimination that African American Men face in our larger society) the movie ends on a note of hope. In the final scene, a prayer is read which had been written by a character who passed away just when the group had reached Washington. It includes the following quote from the Book of Job:
For there is hope for a tree, if it be cut down...
... that it will sprout again...
... and that its tender shoots will not cease...
... though its roots may grow old in the earth...
... and its stump may die in the ground.
Yet at the scent of water...
... it will bud and bring forth branches like a plant.
Recommendation
Definitely would be worth a difficult bus ride to see Get on the Bus.
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.
January 26, 2015
Queer Review: The Imitation Game (2014)
The Imitation Game
Director: Morten Tyldum
Writers: Graham Moore. Based on the book Alan Turing: The Enigma by Andrew Hodges.
Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode, Rory Kinnear, Allen Leech, Matthew Beard, Charles Dance, Mark Strong, James Northcote, Alex Lawther, Jack Bannon
Overview
Thankfully The Imitation Game does not fall prey to the tendency of filmmakers to de-emphasize a heroic LGBTQ historical figures sexual identity. What we do get is a powerful, well made film about one of the more ironic chapters of human history. Alan Turing's work was influential in the fields of Mathematics, Philosophy, and Cryptology and he is considered the Father of Computer Science. His work on codebreaking is credited by historians has potentially having shortened the World War II, thereby saving countless lives. However, his ultimate fate might not have been very different had the Axis powers won that great conflict.
Synopsis
Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch), one of the most talented mathematicians of his time, applies to Bletchley Park (the British center tasked with decoding German communications during World War II. He is accepted and immediately makes enemies with his immediate supervisor and coworkers due to his abrasive personality and his idea that a new kind of machine is necessary to break the German encoding device known as Enigma. As Turing puts it, it will "take a machine to break a machine". Further complications occur when Turing attempts to hire a talented female mathematician, Joan Clark (Kiera Knightly), to help with the decoding efforts, only to have her face severe sexism that hinders the contributions she can make. Eventually, Turing is successful in building the first decoding Machine (which he dubs Christopher after a childhood love) and ultimately aiding the Allies in their eventual victory over Germany.
This does not prevent Turings' inevitable fate when he confesses to having sexual relations with another man and is forced to participate in hormone therapy or go to jail.
The Queering
When I was growing up, my mom refused to allow us a TV and thus the two of us would frequently listen to audiobooks as a form of communal entertainment instead. While I have not (as of this writing) seen the 2001 film Enigma (an alternative version of the Bletchley Park story where Alan Turing was written out and replaced with an entirely heterosexual character), I do clearly recall listening to the audio book with my mother. I do remember that the tale that was told was one of a sweeping romance where the hero and his lover must face impossible odds while working against impossible odds to break the German codes.
Such is the history that a homophobic society would have us believe, one in which queer people simply do not exist but as victims or villians. This is how our history is stolen from us, not merely by presenting only the stories of us as monsters or victims, but by presenting the lives of our heroes as if they themselves were straight.
There is a vocal group of critics who will leap upon any historical inaccuracy in a film which deviates from history in even the smallest of details. Similarly, justification for homophobic language is simply given as "well, that's just the way people talk". However, when films present a LGBTQ character as heterosexual and/or cisgender, then the result is typically nothing more than a deafening silence.
In The Imitation Game there are a few deviations from history, mostly around simplifying the work being done at Bletchley Park and with how the decoding of the Enigma machine was actually used by the Allies. But these generally do not detract from the narrative, other than in one particularly contrived case where one of the codebreakers, after the decoding is first accomplished, reveals that one of his relatives is on part of a group about to be attacked, and the team must make the contrived decision to allow German attack to be carried out, rather than risk revealing to the Germans that Enigma has been broken. It's a small misstep, but it happens at a time when the film should be soaring.
Other deviations include making Turing to be more anti-social than he probably was. While the real Turing was indeed eccentric, he is written as if Graham Moore believes Turing to be a high-functioning autistic (allow me to insert the obligatory "not that there is anything wrong with that" disclaimer here) and his caustic relationship with his co-workers. The only problem with this is that it causes Turing to come across at times as a pan-romantic asexual. The only thing that prevents such an interpretation, is Turing repeatedly identifying as "homosexual" and his eventual prosecution for sexual deviance. As it is, Turing is never shown engaging in a same sex relationship or any kind of romance as an adult.
In any case, what is demonstrated very well by the film is the way in which Turing's work as codebreaker, philosopher, and mathematician was influenced by his sexuality. The most obvious as presented in the film, was the how the death of Christopher Morcom, drove Turing to consider how machines themselves might be able to think and to store consciousness. Turing believed that it might be possible someday for them to store human consciousness. He also developed what is known as the Turing Test (also known as the imitation test or game), which is an artificial test to determine if a machine is "thinking". Another thing that is done well by the film is the presentation of Turing's philosophical work into the question of Artificial Intelligence. The framing sequence, where Turing is being interrogated by a detective, has the two debating the question at length.
What is equally interesting, is the double meaning that can be read into the title. Does the imitation game refer to the Turing Test or to the imitation that LGBTQ people are constantly forced into, when we must imitate the lives of cisgender, heterosexuals? Either could apply to the life of Turing, who became engaged to Joan Clarke while they were working together at Bletchley Park. Fortunately, the filmmakers go out of their way to make it clear, that while Clarke and Turing were very close friends, their relationship was not in anyway romantic but based upon both of them facing different, but parallel forms of discrimination. While I don't wish to take anything away from Turing, it is worth noting that despite modern stereotypes, computer programming was once primarily seen as being a woman's work, due to it's secretarial nature and the fact that it could be done at home.
However, the greatest irony of Turings' life is not one that is often addressed. The NAZI's themselves were of course notoriously homophobic and imprisoned many gay men in concentration camps, where numerous expirements were performed on them in order to determine a cure for homosexuality. Such experiments included castration. As it were, Alan Turings' eventual prosecution at the hands of the British might have been only slightly better than his fate would have been at the hands of the NAZI's. Thus, while Turing's work was instrumental to an Allied Victory during World War II, he was not able to fully enjoy the results of his work.
Further irony comes in the fact that Turings' case was not unique, in the years leading up to 9/11 and aftewards during the US led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, numerous translators specializing in Arabic and Farsi were let go from the US Military for violating DADT. Some have speculated that had they had not been fired, the US would have had a chance to prevent 9/11.
Benedict Cumberbatch gives an impressive performance as Alan Turring, and able support is provided by his costars Kiera Knightley and Mathew Goode. The scene where Turing committed suicide was filmed, but not included in the theatrical version. Turings' final fate thus is revealed by title cards. This is the correct choice in my opinion. While it is important to note the consequences that Turing faced for being gay, too many of stories told about us go out of their way to needlessly demonstrate how miserable being queer can be. As it is, the film ends on a bittersweet note, with scenes of Turing and his coworkers celebrating the end of World War II. This perhaps is the best thing that we should remember Turing, how his accomplishments changed our world for the better. How he died is important, but only because those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it, as historian George Santayana (who was either gay or bi) would have put it.
Recommendation
Highly recommended. This is no imitation of a great movie, it has the heart of the real thing.
The Rating
Four Stars out of Four.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Morten Tyldum
Writers: Graham Moore. Based on the book Alan Turing: The Enigma by Andrew Hodges.
Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode, Rory Kinnear, Allen Leech, Matthew Beard, Charles Dance, Mark Strong, James Northcote, Alex Lawther, Jack Bannon
Overview
Thankfully The Imitation Game does not fall prey to the tendency of filmmakers to de-emphasize a heroic LGBTQ historical figures sexual identity. What we do get is a powerful, well made film about one of the more ironic chapters of human history. Alan Turing's work was influential in the fields of Mathematics, Philosophy, and Cryptology and he is considered the Father of Computer Science. His work on codebreaking is credited by historians has potentially having shortened the World War II, thereby saving countless lives. However, his ultimate fate might not have been very different had the Axis powers won that great conflict.
Synopsis
Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch), one of the most talented mathematicians of his time, applies to Bletchley Park (the British center tasked with decoding German communications during World War II. He is accepted and immediately makes enemies with his immediate supervisor and coworkers due to his abrasive personality and his idea that a new kind of machine is necessary to break the German encoding device known as Enigma. As Turing puts it, it will "take a machine to break a machine". Further complications occur when Turing attempts to hire a talented female mathematician, Joan Clark (Kiera Knightly), to help with the decoding efforts, only to have her face severe sexism that hinders the contributions she can make. Eventually, Turing is successful in building the first decoding Machine (which he dubs Christopher after a childhood love) and ultimately aiding the Allies in their eventual victory over Germany.
This does not prevent Turings' inevitable fate when he confesses to having sexual relations with another man and is forced to participate in hormone therapy or go to jail.
The Queering
When I was growing up, my mom refused to allow us a TV and thus the two of us would frequently listen to audiobooks as a form of communal entertainment instead. While I have not (as of this writing) seen the 2001 film Enigma (an alternative version of the Bletchley Park story where Alan Turing was written out and replaced with an entirely heterosexual character), I do clearly recall listening to the audio book with my mother. I do remember that the tale that was told was one of a sweeping romance where the hero and his lover must face impossible odds while working against impossible odds to break the German codes.
Such is the history that a homophobic society would have us believe, one in which queer people simply do not exist but as victims or villians. This is how our history is stolen from us, not merely by presenting only the stories of us as monsters or victims, but by presenting the lives of our heroes as if they themselves were straight.
There is a vocal group of critics who will leap upon any historical inaccuracy in a film which deviates from history in even the smallest of details. Similarly, justification for homophobic language is simply given as "well, that's just the way people talk". However, when films present a LGBTQ character as heterosexual and/or cisgender, then the result is typically nothing more than a deafening silence.
In The Imitation Game there are a few deviations from history, mostly around simplifying the work being done at Bletchley Park and with how the decoding of the Enigma machine was actually used by the Allies. But these generally do not detract from the narrative, other than in one particularly contrived case where one of the codebreakers, after the decoding is first accomplished, reveals that one of his relatives is on part of a group about to be attacked, and the team must make the contrived decision to allow German attack to be carried out, rather than risk revealing to the Germans that Enigma has been broken. It's a small misstep, but it happens at a time when the film should be soaring.
Other deviations include making Turing to be more anti-social than he probably was. While the real Turing was indeed eccentric, he is written as if Graham Moore believes Turing to be a high-functioning autistic (allow me to insert the obligatory "not that there is anything wrong with that" disclaimer here) and his caustic relationship with his co-workers. The only problem with this is that it causes Turing to come across at times as a pan-romantic asexual. The only thing that prevents such an interpretation, is Turing repeatedly identifying as "homosexual" and his eventual prosecution for sexual deviance. As it is, Turing is never shown engaging in a same sex relationship or any kind of romance as an adult.
In any case, what is demonstrated very well by the film is the way in which Turing's work as codebreaker, philosopher, and mathematician was influenced by his sexuality. The most obvious as presented in the film, was the how the death of Christopher Morcom, drove Turing to consider how machines themselves might be able to think and to store consciousness. Turing believed that it might be possible someday for them to store human consciousness. He also developed what is known as the Turing Test (also known as the imitation test or game), which is an artificial test to determine if a machine is "thinking". Another thing that is done well by the film is the presentation of Turing's philosophical work into the question of Artificial Intelligence. The framing sequence, where Turing is being interrogated by a detective, has the two debating the question at length.
What is equally interesting, is the double meaning that can be read into the title. Does the imitation game refer to the Turing Test or to the imitation that LGBTQ people are constantly forced into, when we must imitate the lives of cisgender, heterosexuals? Either could apply to the life of Turing, who became engaged to Joan Clarke while they were working together at Bletchley Park. Fortunately, the filmmakers go out of their way to make it clear, that while Clarke and Turing were very close friends, their relationship was not in anyway romantic but based upon both of them facing different, but parallel forms of discrimination. While I don't wish to take anything away from Turing, it is worth noting that despite modern stereotypes, computer programming was once primarily seen as being a woman's work, due to it's secretarial nature and the fact that it could be done at home.
However, the greatest irony of Turings' life is not one that is often addressed. The NAZI's themselves were of course notoriously homophobic and imprisoned many gay men in concentration camps, where numerous expirements were performed on them in order to determine a cure for homosexuality. Such experiments included castration. As it were, Alan Turings' eventual prosecution at the hands of the British might have been only slightly better than his fate would have been at the hands of the NAZI's. Thus, while Turing's work was instrumental to an Allied Victory during World War II, he was not able to fully enjoy the results of his work.
Further irony comes in the fact that Turings' case was not unique, in the years leading up to 9/11 and aftewards during the US led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, numerous translators specializing in Arabic and Farsi were let go from the US Military for violating DADT. Some have speculated that had they had not been fired, the US would have had a chance to prevent 9/11.
Benedict Cumberbatch gives an impressive performance as Alan Turring, and able support is provided by his costars Kiera Knightley and Mathew Goode. The scene where Turing committed suicide was filmed, but not included in the theatrical version. Turings' final fate thus is revealed by title cards. This is the correct choice in my opinion. While it is important to note the consequences that Turing faced for being gay, too many of stories told about us go out of their way to needlessly demonstrate how miserable being queer can be. As it is, the film ends on a bittersweet note, with scenes of Turing and his coworkers celebrating the end of World War II. This perhaps is the best thing that we should remember Turing, how his accomplishments changed our world for the better. How he died is important, but only because those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it, as historian George Santayana (who was either gay or bi) would have put it.
Recommendation
Highly recommended. This is no imitation of a great movie, it has the heart of the real thing.
The Rating
Four Stars out of Four.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
November 9, 2014
Queer Review: Elephant (2003)
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.
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.
October 20, 2014
Queer Review: Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971)
Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde
Director: Roy Ward Baker
Writers: Brian Clemens. Allegedly based on the novel Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Luis Stevenson.
Cast: Ralph Bates, Martine Beswick, Gerald Sim, Lewis Fiander, Susan Brodrick, Dorothy Alison, Ivor Dean, Philip Madoc, Paul Whitsun-Jones, Tony Calvin
Overview
A gory retelling of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson, the Hammer Horror film Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde inserts numerous transphobic elements into the classic tale and also uses the trope of female transgender villains as thieves of womanhood. The story also blends bits of history, such as references to the Jack the Ripper murders in addition to including the characters Burke and Hare.
Synopsis
Dr. Jekyll (Ralph Bates) has reached a point in his research where he believes that he can find a cure for most of the common disease and ailments that plague mankind. The catch is that he also realizes that it will take him many decades to complete this research. To solve this problem, he begins harvesting female hormones from deceased female corpses and begins utilizing two thugs by the names of Burke and Hare (Ivor Dean and Tony Calvin) do so. Instead of extending Dr. Jekylls' life, the hormones end up turning him into a woman (which leads to the requisite Hammer Horror nudity). He winds up explaining away his new identity as Ms. Hyde, Dr. Jekylls' sister, to his inquisitive neighbors. Ms. Hyde however, winds up completely dominating Dr. Jekyll and soon takes up stalking and murdering female prostitutes in the same manner as Jack the Ripper, just in order to maintain a fresh supply of female hormones.
The Queering
No one would mistake Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde for a historical bio pic revealing the "true" story behind the infamous Jack the Ripper murder cases. However, in that it clearly draws inspiration from historical events, can be seen writing queer identity onto a historical villain where no hard evidence of one previously existed. As I have previously noted, the only time history is guaranteed to remember someone as being a member of the LGBTQ community is when they kill someone. If you are queer and do something heroic, good luck with history remembering your true identity. However, being heinously evil is a great method for coming out of the closet, even for those who are 100% straight.
This is of course on top of all the more overtly transphobic elements. In this case, the filmmakers appear to be promoting the idea that transgender or transsexual woman can only become "true" woman by stealing something from other woman. In this case, female hormones. TERFs (trans exclusive radical feminists) will love it.
It is possible of course, to get lost in a debate as to whether or not the character of Dr. Jekyll is supposed to represent an actual transgender or transsexual individual. After all, he (the character) continues to maintain his masculine identity after starting the female hormones, rather than being written as an individual whose gender identity does not align with the one they were assigned to at birth. That is, the story is not about a "true" transgender or transsexual individual. However, I think this would ignore the obvious intent of stories involving gender non-conforming characters. That is, not only are they intended to associate gender non-conforming behavior with general evilness, but they also get to promote the idea that there is no "true" transgender or transsexual identity (along with other misguided mistruths about transgender and transsexual identity). To put it another way, the filmmakers get two shots off at transgender and transsexual identities for the price of one.
In a more philosophical vain, I found myself wondering about about the ethics of what Dr. Jekyll was attempting to do with his research. He believes he can find cures for most of the most common diseases and thus end a great deal of suffering for humanity. While this itself is a little arrogant, his solution for expanding his lifespan to complete his research is a little out there. Most researchers in the real world would do as much as they could in their natural life, then hope succeeding generations of scientists and doctors would be able to complete it. This being a Hammer Horror film, Dr. Jekyll naturally chooses the most horrific (not to mention unethical) option available to him. Although I suppose pointing out the absurdity of his motivations in this case makes about as much sense as using female hormones to extend ones lifespan because women live longer than men.
Recommendation
It would probably have been a lot more fun to have been operated on by Jack Ripper than to see the transphobic mess that is Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde.
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: Roy Ward Baker
Writers: Brian Clemens. Allegedly based on the novel Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Luis Stevenson.
Cast: Ralph Bates, Martine Beswick, Gerald Sim, Lewis Fiander, Susan Brodrick, Dorothy Alison, Ivor Dean, Philip Madoc, Paul Whitsun-Jones, Tony Calvin
Overview
A gory retelling of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson, the Hammer Horror film Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde inserts numerous transphobic elements into the classic tale and also uses the trope of female transgender villains as thieves of womanhood. The story also blends bits of history, such as references to the Jack the Ripper murders in addition to including the characters Burke and Hare.
Synopsis
Dr. Jekyll (Ralph Bates) has reached a point in his research where he believes that he can find a cure for most of the common disease and ailments that plague mankind. The catch is that he also realizes that it will take him many decades to complete this research. To solve this problem, he begins harvesting female hormones from deceased female corpses and begins utilizing two thugs by the names of Burke and Hare (Ivor Dean and Tony Calvin) do so. Instead of extending Dr. Jekylls' life, the hormones end up turning him into a woman (which leads to the requisite Hammer Horror nudity). He winds up explaining away his new identity as Ms. Hyde, Dr. Jekylls' sister, to his inquisitive neighbors. Ms. Hyde however, winds up completely dominating Dr. Jekyll and soon takes up stalking and murdering female prostitutes in the same manner as Jack the Ripper, just in order to maintain a fresh supply of female hormones.
The Queering
No one would mistake Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde for a historical bio pic revealing the "true" story behind the infamous Jack the Ripper murder cases. However, in that it clearly draws inspiration from historical events, can be seen writing queer identity onto a historical villain where no hard evidence of one previously existed. As I have previously noted, the only time history is guaranteed to remember someone as being a member of the LGBTQ community is when they kill someone. If you are queer and do something heroic, good luck with history remembering your true identity. However, being heinously evil is a great method for coming out of the closet, even for those who are 100% straight.
This is of course on top of all the more overtly transphobic elements. In this case, the filmmakers appear to be promoting the idea that transgender or transsexual woman can only become "true" woman by stealing something from other woman. In this case, female hormones. TERFs (trans exclusive radical feminists) will love it.
It is possible of course, to get lost in a debate as to whether or not the character of Dr. Jekyll is supposed to represent an actual transgender or transsexual individual. After all, he (the character) continues to maintain his masculine identity after starting the female hormones, rather than being written as an individual whose gender identity does not align with the one they were assigned to at birth. That is, the story is not about a "true" transgender or transsexual individual. However, I think this would ignore the obvious intent of stories involving gender non-conforming characters. That is, not only are they intended to associate gender non-conforming behavior with general evilness, but they also get to promote the idea that there is no "true" transgender or transsexual identity (along with other misguided mistruths about transgender and transsexual identity). To put it another way, the filmmakers get two shots off at transgender and transsexual identities for the price of one.
In a more philosophical vain, I found myself wondering about about the ethics of what Dr. Jekyll was attempting to do with his research. He believes he can find cures for most of the most common diseases and thus end a great deal of suffering for humanity. While this itself is a little arrogant, his solution for expanding his lifespan to complete his research is a little out there. Most researchers in the real world would do as much as they could in their natural life, then hope succeeding generations of scientists and doctors would be able to complete it. This being a Hammer Horror film, Dr. Jekyll naturally chooses the most horrific (not to mention unethical) option available to him. Although I suppose pointing out the absurdity of his motivations in this case makes about as much sense as using female hormones to extend ones lifespan because women live longer than men.
Recommendation
It would probably have been a lot more fun to have been operated on by Jack Ripper than to see the transphobic mess that is Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde.
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.
October 10, 2014
Queer Review: Nymphomaniac Vol. II (2013)
Nymphomaniac Vol. II
Director: Lars von Trier
Writer: Lars von Trier
Cast: Charlotte Gainsbourg, Stellan Skarsgård, Stacy Martin, Shia LaBeouf, Jamie Bell, Christian Slater, Willem Dafoe, Mia Goth, Sophie Kennedy Clark, Udo Kier, Michael Pas
Overview
Nymphomaniac Vol. II continues the story told in Nymphomaniac Vol. I as the two movies were originally conceived as one single story before being split into two films). Nymphomaniac Vol. II takes Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg/Stacy Martin) in a darker and grittier direction, as she goes to increasingly extreme lengths to satisfy her sexual desires.
In the plus column, Nymphomaniac Vol. II has the first openly identified asexual character to appear in a major motion picture. In the negative column, the ending is one of the most problematic I have had the displeasure to witness, both from a dramatic *and* social justice perspective. Not only does it do a grave disservice to the characters, it's very nature reinforces accusations of misogyny against director Lars Von Trier.
Synopsis
After being found injured in the street in Vol. I, Joe continues to tell her story about her life as a nymphomaniac to Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård). In her quest for sexual release, Joe seeks out K (Jamie Bell), an unusual BDSM practitioner, but this leads to her neglecting her child and the end of her relationship with Jerôme (Shial LaBeouf). After K, Joe winds up working for L (Willem Dafoe) as a shady "debt collector". After Joe becomes a successful "debt collector", L suggests that Joe take on a protege P (Mia Goth). Joe is reluctant due to P's young age, but ends up cozying up to her anyways. The two end up forming a lesbian relationship, yet things quickly fall apart when Jerôme comes back into the picture.
The Queering
Never before have I found myself disliking a movie based solely on a single moment tacked onto the very end of the story. Not only does this moment dramatically undermine everything that comes before, it is both pretentious and serves absolutely no purpose other than to stroke Lars von Triers' ego. Everything that can be wrong with a piece of filmmaking is embodied in the last few moments before the end credits roll.
Before the ending Nymphomaniac Vol. II is on the same level as Vol. I. There are a few new wrinkles, such as Joe having to deal with being unable to seek sexual release and later engaging in a sexual relationship with a woman half her age. But for the most part, as with Vol. I there is a great deal to appreciate.
From a queer perspective, Vol. II expands upon elements that were only hinted at in Vol. 1. Seligman comes out here as asexual, making him the first character in a major motion picture to do so. Previously, asexuality has been limited to subtext, and for whatever reason, strongly associated with characters who engaged in cannibalism. (Examples: The Silence of the Lambs and Eating Raoul). Thus, I almost want to call him the first non-cannibal asexual character as well, but for the fact that potentially, there are other subtextual asexual characters out there I am unaware of.
One thing that occurred to me, is that both Seligman and and Joe go against gender stereotypes. Joe seeks out sexual pleasure, no matter the cost, in spite of society constantly telling woman that they should play hard to get. Seligman is asexual and seeks pleasure in the study of music and mathematics, in spite of society constantly telling men that they should do everything possible to spread their wild oats. While this perhaps makes sense, I cannot help but wonder what this might mean for the possibility of female asexual characters. Would most people even think a thing like that strange or would such a character ultimately appear perfectly normal to audiences? This is another reason I am little nervous about declaring Seligman the first openly identified non-cannibal asexual on film, it is quite possible there is a female character out there who fits the bill, but due to our society viewing woman as sexually passive, the characters' identity could easily slip by unnoticed, even by me.
In Lars von Triers' defense, both Joe and Seligman are complex individuals who both happen to exhibit elements of queer identity. There is also plenty of dialog (mostly from Seligman) defending human sexual desires and practices. While this at times borders on an author tract, it is still welcome to hear. Admittedly there are problematic places that Lars von Trier goes with this. For example, in the first film when Seligman defended Joe sexually assaulting a man on a train, and here Joe defends pedophiles who do not act on their desires. While I understand the sentiment, I don't see what is so great about a pedophile merely failing to harm a child. Shouldn't adulation be reserved for those who do genuine good, not merely fail to do bad?
One could potentially find things to criticize in the horrible way Joe's lesbian relationship ends in disaster, but that would ignore the fact that every relationship Joe develops ends badly. There is much more to criticize in the way Lars von Trier chooses to end the story and the way in undermines Seligmans' earlier claims of being asexual. While I try to keep in mind that films themselves are not obligated to adhere to social justice principles, there is much to mourn in what might have been. As it is, while it is nice to have an openly identified asexual character in a major motion picture, I cannot make the argument that this actually represents a step forward for asexual identity on the silver screen.
Recommendation
Pretty much only for completists who viewed Nymphomaniac Vol. I and want to see how the story ends. Just be warned about the pointless awfulness of the ending.
The Rating
1 star 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: Lars von Trier
Writer: Lars von Trier
Cast: Charlotte Gainsbourg, Stellan Skarsgård, Stacy Martin, Shia LaBeouf, Jamie Bell, Christian Slater, Willem Dafoe, Mia Goth, Sophie Kennedy Clark, Udo Kier, Michael Pas
Overview
Nymphomaniac Vol. II continues the story told in Nymphomaniac Vol. I as the two movies were originally conceived as one single story before being split into two films). Nymphomaniac Vol. II takes Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg/Stacy Martin) in a darker and grittier direction, as she goes to increasingly extreme lengths to satisfy her sexual desires.
In the plus column, Nymphomaniac Vol. II has the first openly identified asexual character to appear in a major motion picture. In the negative column, the ending is one of the most problematic I have had the displeasure to witness, both from a dramatic *and* social justice perspective. Not only does it do a grave disservice to the characters, it's very nature reinforces accusations of misogyny against director Lars Von Trier.
Synopsis
After being found injured in the street in Vol. I, Joe continues to tell her story about her life as a nymphomaniac to Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård). In her quest for sexual release, Joe seeks out K (Jamie Bell), an unusual BDSM practitioner, but this leads to her neglecting her child and the end of her relationship with Jerôme (Shial LaBeouf). After K, Joe winds up working for L (Willem Dafoe) as a shady "debt collector". After Joe becomes a successful "debt collector", L suggests that Joe take on a protege P (Mia Goth). Joe is reluctant due to P's young age, but ends up cozying up to her anyways. The two end up forming a lesbian relationship, yet things quickly fall apart when Jerôme comes back into the picture.
The Queering
Never before have I found myself disliking a movie based solely on a single moment tacked onto the very end of the story. Not only does this moment dramatically undermine everything that comes before, it is both pretentious and serves absolutely no purpose other than to stroke Lars von Triers' ego. Everything that can be wrong with a piece of filmmaking is embodied in the last few moments before the end credits roll.
Before the ending Nymphomaniac Vol. II is on the same level as Vol. I. There are a few new wrinkles, such as Joe having to deal with being unable to seek sexual release and later engaging in a sexual relationship with a woman half her age. But for the most part, as with Vol. I there is a great deal to appreciate.
From a queer perspective, Vol. II expands upon elements that were only hinted at in Vol. 1. Seligman comes out here as asexual, making him the first character in a major motion picture to do so. Previously, asexuality has been limited to subtext, and for whatever reason, strongly associated with characters who engaged in cannibalism. (Examples: The Silence of the Lambs and Eating Raoul). Thus, I almost want to call him the first non-cannibal asexual character as well, but for the fact that potentially, there are other subtextual asexual characters out there I am unaware of.
One thing that occurred to me, is that both Seligman and and Joe go against gender stereotypes. Joe seeks out sexual pleasure, no matter the cost, in spite of society constantly telling woman that they should play hard to get. Seligman is asexual and seeks pleasure in the study of music and mathematics, in spite of society constantly telling men that they should do everything possible to spread their wild oats. While this perhaps makes sense, I cannot help but wonder what this might mean for the possibility of female asexual characters. Would most people even think a thing like that strange or would such a character ultimately appear perfectly normal to audiences? This is another reason I am little nervous about declaring Seligman the first openly identified non-cannibal asexual on film, it is quite possible there is a female character out there who fits the bill, but due to our society viewing woman as sexually passive, the characters' identity could easily slip by unnoticed, even by me.
In Lars von Triers' defense, both Joe and Seligman are complex individuals who both happen to exhibit elements of queer identity. There is also plenty of dialog (mostly from Seligman) defending human sexual desires and practices. While this at times borders on an author tract, it is still welcome to hear. Admittedly there are problematic places that Lars von Trier goes with this. For example, in the first film when Seligman defended Joe sexually assaulting a man on a train, and here Joe defends pedophiles who do not act on their desires. While I understand the sentiment, I don't see what is so great about a pedophile merely failing to harm a child. Shouldn't adulation be reserved for those who do genuine good, not merely fail to do bad?
One could potentially find things to criticize in the horrible way Joe's lesbian relationship ends in disaster, but that would ignore the fact that every relationship Joe develops ends badly. There is much more to criticize in the way Lars von Trier chooses to end the story and the way in undermines Seligmans' earlier claims of being asexual. While I try to keep in mind that films themselves are not obligated to adhere to social justice principles, there is much to mourn in what might have been. As it is, while it is nice to have an openly identified asexual character in a major motion picture, I cannot make the argument that this actually represents a step forward for asexual identity on the silver screen.
Recommendation
Pretty much only for completists who viewed Nymphomaniac Vol. I and want to see how the story ends. Just be warned about the pointless awfulness of the ending.
The Rating
1 star 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.
September 29, 2014
Queer Issue: Moral Dilemma: Would You Work For a Homophobic or Transphobic Employer?
Recently, my partner and myself moved from Pennsylvania to Minnesota, due to a job my partner was offered teaching Corrections for Minnesota State University. My partner is from the mid-west, so the cultural shock is not quiet so great for him, but I personally don't think that I will ever get used to hearing "soda" referred to as "pop". Also, I'm used to there always being hills or tall buildings around, so the wide open sky is a little off-putting for me. As it is, one reason for the lack of posts recently, is that I have been getting used to the area and am still trying to figure my way around a new location.
Otherwise, I'm doing fine and am finishing up my B.A. degree in Criminology for Wilkes University. I ended up having to take incompletes in two classes in the spring semester, so I'm finishing up my work for those while I search for a job here in Minnesota. I also am in the application process for a job at a local newspaper writing as a freelancer.
However, I am still looking elsewhere for work and recently came across an add for a staff position at a homeless shelter. At first glance the position looked good. The hours for the shifts they were hiring for were a little inconvenient, the pay was not great, but I figured it would be a good chance to obtain valuable experience working for a cause I believe is important. Plus I already have a lot of work and volunteer experience that would make me appear to be an ideal candidate for the position. Everything seemed set. Then I looked up the address in the ad.
As it turns out, the organization in question is one that has a history of discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community. The name of the organization isn't relevant, but for the record, this organization has both turned away homeless LGBTQ people seeking their services and there is at least one documented case of an employee being fired after coming out as LGBTQ that I am aware of. Also, at one point there was a link on their website to a virulently homophobic organization.
It is perhaps also worth pointing out that the link was taken down when it was pointed out to the organization and I could (if I wanted to name the organization in question) point to several news articles talking about the organization claiming they would mend their ways. However, a brief search turned up no news articles about the organization actually creating concrete policies to eliminate discrimination against the LGBTQ community, so it seems unlikely that such change has occurred.
Which brings me to my dilemma, it is possible that the local chapter does not discriminate against LGBTQ people and if the local head honcho was open minded, I might be able to get hired. But if I was hired by this organization, what would the implications be?
There are more than a few ways of looking at this issue. For example, the field of law enforcement and the criminal justice system have a reputation for being particularly homophobic and transphobic (in addition to engaging in other forms of prejudice) and thus one might reasonably question why an LGBTQ person would seek employment as a police officer or other wise within the criminal justice system. But the reputation of law enforcement officers in this case might be misleading that homophobia and transphobia (in addition to other forms of prejudice) are prevalent (or at least present) in just about every other career field imaginable, from science and medicine, to higher education, to politics and government.
One of the key features of systemic forms of discrimination and prejudice is that they are, well... systemic, and in general, it would be virtually impossible to find a career in which they would not be present.
But can a career choice be compared to working for a specific employer? This is the question that gives me pause. There are further complications here as well, namely that as far as I can tell, this organization runs the only homeless shelter for a long way around and thus an argument could be made that it would be better to have me working for this organization than not, as hypothetically, I could potentially work from within to make the local chapter more queer friendly so to speak. This latter choice is definitely a gamble though.
But at the end of the day, I simply do not like being put in this position in the first place. I want to work and put the skills that I have gathered during my life to good use. The choice of having to let them go to waste (if I am unable to find steady work elsewhere) or putting them to a use in a situation that might potentially increase homophobia and transphobia in our society is not a choice I look forward to making.
Otherwise, I'm doing fine and am finishing up my B.A. degree in Criminology for Wilkes University. I ended up having to take incompletes in two classes in the spring semester, so I'm finishing up my work for those while I search for a job here in Minnesota. I also am in the application process for a job at a local newspaper writing as a freelancer.
However, I am still looking elsewhere for work and recently came across an add for a staff position at a homeless shelter. At first glance the position looked good. The hours for the shifts they were hiring for were a little inconvenient, the pay was not great, but I figured it would be a good chance to obtain valuable experience working for a cause I believe is important. Plus I already have a lot of work and volunteer experience that would make me appear to be an ideal candidate for the position. Everything seemed set. Then I looked up the address in the ad.
As it turns out, the organization in question is one that has a history of discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community. The name of the organization isn't relevant, but for the record, this organization has both turned away homeless LGBTQ people seeking their services and there is at least one documented case of an employee being fired after coming out as LGBTQ that I am aware of. Also, at one point there was a link on their website to a virulently homophobic organization.
It is perhaps also worth pointing out that the link was taken down when it was pointed out to the organization and I could (if I wanted to name the organization in question) point to several news articles talking about the organization claiming they would mend their ways. However, a brief search turned up no news articles about the organization actually creating concrete policies to eliminate discrimination against the LGBTQ community, so it seems unlikely that such change has occurred.
Which brings me to my dilemma, it is possible that the local chapter does not discriminate against LGBTQ people and if the local head honcho was open minded, I might be able to get hired. But if I was hired by this organization, what would the implications be?
There are more than a few ways of looking at this issue. For example, the field of law enforcement and the criminal justice system have a reputation for being particularly homophobic and transphobic (in addition to engaging in other forms of prejudice) and thus one might reasonably question why an LGBTQ person would seek employment as a police officer or other wise within the criminal justice system. But the reputation of law enforcement officers in this case might be misleading that homophobia and transphobia (in addition to other forms of prejudice) are prevalent (or at least present) in just about every other career field imaginable, from science and medicine, to higher education, to politics and government.
One of the key features of systemic forms of discrimination and prejudice is that they are, well... systemic, and in general, it would be virtually impossible to find a career in which they would not be present.
But can a career choice be compared to working for a specific employer? This is the question that gives me pause. There are further complications here as well, namely that as far as I can tell, this organization runs the only homeless shelter for a long way around and thus an argument could be made that it would be better to have me working for this organization than not, as hypothetically, I could potentially work from within to make the local chapter more queer friendly so to speak. This latter choice is definitely a gamble though.
But at the end of the day, I simply do not like being put in this position in the first place. I want to work and put the skills that I have gathered during my life to good use. The choice of having to let them go to waste (if I am unable to find steady work elsewhere) or putting them to a use in a situation that might potentially increase homophobia and transphobia in our society is not a choice I look forward to making.
August 13, 2014
Queer Review: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Director: Jonathan Liebesman
Writer: Josh Appelbaum, André Nemec, and Evan Daugherty. Based on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Tutle characters created by Peter Laird and Kevin Eastman.
Cast: Megan Fox, Will Arnett, William Fichtner, Alan Ritchson, Noel Fisher, Johnny Knoxville, Jeremy Howard, Danny Woodburn, Tony Shalhoub, Tohoru Masamune, Whoopi Goldberg, Minae Noji, Abby Elliott
Overview
This most recent incarnation of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise manages to capture some of the fun one expects from a film bearing the title Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Synopsis
Intrepid reporter Apri O'Neil (Megan Fox) is desperate to land a big story about a vigilante group fighting against the dreaded Foot Clan but finds herself being relegated to covering puff pieces by her employer. However, during her investigation into the Foot Clan and the vigilantes pays off, and April manages to snap a few key photos of the vigilantes, who turn out to be the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and are led by the anthropomorphic rat, Splinter (Tony Shalhoub). The four turtles it turns out, were once Aprils' pets and she had named after famous Renaissance Artists: Leonardo (Johnny Knoxville), Raphael (Donatello), Michelangelo (Noel Fisher), and Donatello (Jeremy Howard). Unfortunately, Aprils' involvement with the group leads The Shredder (Tohoru Masamune) and Eric Sacks (William Fichtner) directly to the Turtles liar. After suffering a devastating attack, the turtles must regroup to save Splinter and stop Sacks and The Shredder from releasing a deadly toxin that will kill thousands.
The Queering
I grew up in a home without a television, as my mom refused to pay for that unnecessary contraption. What I do remember though, is watching the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles at my babysitters and I visited my Dad on weekends, who did not share my mom's Luddite views on the boob tube. I was, back in the day, a bit of an obsessed fan. I owned the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle action toys and a punching bag with one of the characters emblazoned on it -- I think it was Michelangelo as he was my favorite Turtle. I also remember watching the first two movies repeatedly when I was visiting my Grandma Gladstone. As it was, she owned a TV, which since she lived in the country, only got one channel through one of the biggest satellite dishes ever, which sat out in the middle of the field across the street. Thus, one of the primary activities I engaged in at Grandma Gladstone's being watching movies on VHS.
In any event, the current movie holds up pretty well. The role of the Shredder and the foot clan has been reduced to being Sacks' henchmen, which is a disappointment. On the other hand, April O'Neil has been given an expanded role, including playing a key part of the Turtle's origins. Megan Fox is not the strongest of performers, but does a good job in presenting April O'Neils' determination in becoming a crack reporter. Michelangelo spends a fair amount of the movie trying to convince her to be his beard. In a sense, the key appeal of the Turtles is the ridiculousness of the premise. There isn't much for the filmmakers to do, other than to make sure the goofiness and humor are translated to the big screen. Personally, I thought this at least was done well enough.
The four Turtles are named after Renaissance artists. Three of them, Michelangelo, Leonardo, and Rapheal, are thought by historians to have been gay or bi. Michelangelo engaged in numerous same-sex affairs, primarily with the male models he based his work on. Donatello once chased a thief with the intention of killing the criminal, but ended up being seduced by him instead. Leonardo made a self portrait of himself in drag into one of the most recognizable paintings of all time (if analysis of the bone structure in the Mona Lisa's face is correct). (Source: Queers in History by Keith Stern)
Meanwhile, the one turtle who is not named after a Renaissance artist who was as queer as a 3 dollar bill, was Rafeal, who is presented as a perpetually angry warrior who rebels against Leo. What else could Rafael represent, but a warning against all of the dangers and negative aspects inherent to the Heterosexual Lifestyle?
All things considered, the conclusion is obvious. Given all the hours I spent watching the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up combined with their queer inspirations, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles made me gay. Clearly, the LGBTQ activist looking to lead fresh, young youthful members into the homosexual lifestyle could not a find a better recruiting tool and the Gay Agenda has no better weapon in it's arsenal, than Leo, Mikey, Raf, and Donnie.
Recommendation
There is enough Turtle Power in this film to be worth it for fans to check out. And be sure to bring a few potential recruits along as well!
The Rating
3 pink shells 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: Jonathan Liebesman
Writer: Josh Appelbaum, André Nemec, and Evan Daugherty. Based on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Tutle characters created by Peter Laird and Kevin Eastman.
Cast: Megan Fox, Will Arnett, William Fichtner, Alan Ritchson, Noel Fisher, Johnny Knoxville, Jeremy Howard, Danny Woodburn, Tony Shalhoub, Tohoru Masamune, Whoopi Goldberg, Minae Noji, Abby Elliott
Overview
This most recent incarnation of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise manages to capture some of the fun one expects from a film bearing the title Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Synopsis
Intrepid reporter Apri O'Neil (Megan Fox) is desperate to land a big story about a vigilante group fighting against the dreaded Foot Clan but finds herself being relegated to covering puff pieces by her employer. However, during her investigation into the Foot Clan and the vigilantes pays off, and April manages to snap a few key photos of the vigilantes, who turn out to be the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and are led by the anthropomorphic rat, Splinter (Tony Shalhoub). The four turtles it turns out, were once Aprils' pets and she had named after famous Renaissance Artists: Leonardo (Johnny Knoxville), Raphael (Donatello), Michelangelo (Noel Fisher), and Donatello (Jeremy Howard). Unfortunately, Aprils' involvement with the group leads The Shredder (Tohoru Masamune) and Eric Sacks (William Fichtner) directly to the Turtles liar. After suffering a devastating attack, the turtles must regroup to save Splinter and stop Sacks and The Shredder from releasing a deadly toxin that will kill thousands.
The Queering
I grew up in a home without a television, as my mom refused to pay for that unnecessary contraption. What I do remember though, is watching the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles at my babysitters and I visited my Dad on weekends, who did not share my mom's Luddite views on the boob tube. I was, back in the day, a bit of an obsessed fan. I owned the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle action toys and a punching bag with one of the characters emblazoned on it -- I think it was Michelangelo as he was my favorite Turtle. I also remember watching the first two movies repeatedly when I was visiting my Grandma Gladstone. As it was, she owned a TV, which since she lived in the country, only got one channel through one of the biggest satellite dishes ever, which sat out in the middle of the field across the street. Thus, one of the primary activities I engaged in at Grandma Gladstone's being watching movies on VHS.
In any event, the current movie holds up pretty well. The role of the Shredder and the foot clan has been reduced to being Sacks' henchmen, which is a disappointment. On the other hand, April O'Neil has been given an expanded role, including playing a key part of the Turtle's origins. Megan Fox is not the strongest of performers, but does a good job in presenting April O'Neils' determination in becoming a crack reporter. Michelangelo spends a fair amount of the movie trying to convince her to be his beard. In a sense, the key appeal of the Turtles is the ridiculousness of the premise. There isn't much for the filmmakers to do, other than to make sure the goofiness and humor are translated to the big screen. Personally, I thought this at least was done well enough.
The four Turtles are named after Renaissance artists. Three of them, Michelangelo, Leonardo, and Rapheal, are thought by historians to have been gay or bi. Michelangelo engaged in numerous same-sex affairs, primarily with the male models he based his work on. Donatello once chased a thief with the intention of killing the criminal, but ended up being seduced by him instead. Leonardo made a self portrait of himself in drag into one of the most recognizable paintings of all time (if analysis of the bone structure in the Mona Lisa's face is correct). (Source: Queers in History by Keith Stern)
Meanwhile, the one turtle who is not named after a Renaissance artist who was as queer as a 3 dollar bill, was Rafeal, who is presented as a perpetually angry warrior who rebels against Leo. What else could Rafael represent, but a warning against all of the dangers and negative aspects inherent to the Heterosexual Lifestyle?
All things considered, the conclusion is obvious. Given all the hours I spent watching the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up combined with their queer inspirations, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles made me gay. Clearly, the LGBTQ activist looking to lead fresh, young youthful members into the homosexual lifestyle could not a find a better recruiting tool and the Gay Agenda has no better weapon in it's arsenal, than Leo, Mikey, Raf, and Donnie.
Recommendation
There is enough Turtle Power in this film to be worth it for fans to check out. And be sure to bring a few potential recruits along as well!
The Rating
3 pink shells 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.
August 5, 2014
Queer Review: The Trial (1962)
The Trial
Director: Orson Welles
Writer: Pierre Cholot and Orson Welles. Based on the novel The Trial by Franz Kafka.
Cast: Anthony Perkins, Jeanne Moreau, Elsa Martinelli, Suzanne Flon, Madeleine Robinson, Romy Schneider, Orson Welles, Akim Tamiroff, Max Haufler
Overview
A surreal tale about a man accused of an unknown crime, The Trial represents the best kind of cinematic absurdity to be directed by Orson Welles.
Synopsis
Josef K. (Anthony Perkins) awakens one morning to find his apartment being searched by police officers, who demand that he bribe him to make his life easier. He is told that he is under arrest but not that the crime he is being charged for. Not knowing what to do, Josef seeks the advice of L'avocat (Orson Welles) but finds his council less than useful. As he goes about trying to clear his name, the surreal experiences he undergo increase in their bizarreness. L'avocat all but tries to seduce him and after Joseph files a complaint about the police officers, he walks into a room to find them about to be whipped. As his ordeal becomes increasingly absurd, Josef becomes desperate enough to seek the advice of the painter of the courtroom judges. But for all his efforts to avoid it, Joseph K. is drawn inevitably to his ultimate fate.
The Queering
While I was working towards obtaining a criminology degree from Wilkes University (which I am still working on), I participated in an internship which involved observing court cases. Many of the people who found themselves in court, of course were poor and lacking in eduction. In most cases, it was obvious to me, that many individuals, victim and accused alike, must have found the entire experience with it's multiple hearings, appeals and counter-appeals, and adherence to technical overwhelming. In any case, I can imagine that there are many people out there who would identify quite strongly with the experiences of Joseph K.
The casting of Anthony Perkins in the role of Joseph K. was a deliberate push by Welles to add a queer subtext to the film. As Roger Ebert wrote in his review of The Trial:
There are other ways that The Trial suggests that Josef is not entirely straight, although these primarily boil down to him being seduced by a series of woman and having Josef fail to return any kind of affection back to them. A late scene has him being chased down a long corridor by a gaggle of female teenagers. However, a more interesting subtext emerges though, when L'avocate comments that being accused makes men more attractive, right before requesting that one of Josef K.s' fellow accused kiss his ring.
Generally speaking, I am not a fan of surrealist motion pictures, but for me The Trial works. There is a bit of writing advice that goes that it is important for characters to want something, even if it is simply a glass of water. The problem I find with surrealist films (or absurdist narratives in general) is that such stories tend to forget this advice and present characters who lack the most rudimentary of motivation. Josef K. at least, clearly wants something, to prove his innocence. It is just unfortunate that he is forced to do so under the most absurd of circumstances. It helps in no small measure, that Orson Welles with his astounding visual storytelling abilities is at the helm. Visually, this is almost as impressive an achievement as Citizen Kane. Welles was clearly willing to push the envelope as far as he can with each picture he made (and retained control over) and this is evident in every shot of The Trial.
Recommendation
Would be worth being tried in the most Kafkaesque of trials in order to see.
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.
Director: Orson Welles
Writer: Pierre Cholot and Orson Welles. Based on the novel The Trial by Franz Kafka.
Cast: Anthony Perkins, Jeanne Moreau, Elsa Martinelli, Suzanne Flon, Madeleine Robinson, Romy Schneider, Orson Welles, Akim Tamiroff, Max Haufler
Overview
A surreal tale about a man accused of an unknown crime, The Trial represents the best kind of cinematic absurdity to be directed by Orson Welles.
Synopsis
Josef K. (Anthony Perkins) awakens one morning to find his apartment being searched by police officers, who demand that he bribe him to make his life easier. He is told that he is under arrest but not that the crime he is being charged for. Not knowing what to do, Josef seeks the advice of L'avocat (Orson Welles) but finds his council less than useful. As he goes about trying to clear his name, the surreal experiences he undergo increase in their bizarreness. L'avocat all but tries to seduce him and after Joseph files a complaint about the police officers, he walks into a room to find them about to be whipped. As his ordeal becomes increasingly absurd, Josef becomes desperate enough to seek the advice of the painter of the courtroom judges. But for all his efforts to avoid it, Joseph K. is drawn inevitably to his ultimate fate.
The Queering
While I was working towards obtaining a criminology degree from Wilkes University (which I am still working on), I participated in an internship which involved observing court cases. Many of the people who found themselves in court, of course were poor and lacking in eduction. In most cases, it was obvious to me, that many individuals, victim and accused alike, must have found the entire experience with it's multiple hearings, appeals and counter-appeals, and adherence to technical overwhelming. In any case, I can imagine that there are many people out there who would identify quite strongly with the experiences of Joseph K.
The casting of Anthony Perkins in the role of Joseph K. was a deliberate push by Welles to add a queer subtext to the film. As Roger Ebert wrote in his review of The Trial:
Perkins was one of those actors everyone thought was gay. He kept his sexuality private, and used his nervous style of speech and movement to suggest inner disconnects. From an article by Edward Guthmann in the San Francisco Chronicle, I learn that Welles confided to his friend Henry Jaglom that he knew Perkins was a homosexual, "and used that quality in Perkins to suggest another texture in Josef K, a fear of exposure."
There are other ways that The Trial suggests that Josef is not entirely straight, although these primarily boil down to him being seduced by a series of woman and having Josef fail to return any kind of affection back to them. A late scene has him being chased down a long corridor by a gaggle of female teenagers. However, a more interesting subtext emerges though, when L'avocate comments that being accused makes men more attractive, right before requesting that one of Josef K.s' fellow accused kiss his ring.
Generally speaking, I am not a fan of surrealist motion pictures, but for me The Trial works. There is a bit of writing advice that goes that it is important for characters to want something, even if it is simply a glass of water. The problem I find with surrealist films (or absurdist narratives in general) is that such stories tend to forget this advice and present characters who lack the most rudimentary of motivation. Josef K. at least, clearly wants something, to prove his innocence. It is just unfortunate that he is forced to do so under the most absurd of circumstances. It helps in no small measure, that Orson Welles with his astounding visual storytelling abilities is at the helm. Visually, this is almost as impressive an achievement as Citizen Kane. Welles was clearly willing to push the envelope as far as he can with each picture he made (and retained control over) and this is evident in every shot of The Trial.
Recommendation
Would be worth being tried in the most Kafkaesque of trials in order to see.
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.
July 24, 2014
Queer Issue: Gay Nazis and Transgender Serial Killers: How Filmmakers Queer up Historical Villainy
Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini, is a film that depicts 4 Italian fascists torturing, and ultimately murdering a group of innocent youth. In spite of it being hailed as the most controversial film of all time, I find it little more than a mere curiosity. Defenders of Salo claim that it is an edgy and radical indictment of Italian Fascism. Others just call it torture porn. I myself fall into the latter category although I would also addd that it is unfortunately as queerphobic a film as they come.
I have not in fact watched Salo all the way through, I fast forwarded through the Circle of Shit sequence. But the rest of the film is only just about as unwatchable. I tried watching it a second time at one point, only to make it far enough through to feel confident that my earlier reading of the film was not entirely incorrect. Honestly, the Pasolini appears to have included no greater message in Salo other than people can be horribly cruel to each other. Or maybe it was supposed to be that Fascism creates an particularly virulent setting for people to become especially horribly cruel. In either case my response is, "excuse me while I call in Captain Obvious for a rescue mission".
Salo is particularly problematic with regards to the depictions of the Italian Fascists engaging in same sex activity, sodomy, and rape. Rape is rape, wether the victim is male or female but Pasolini depicts the Italian Fascists raping of the male characters as representing particularly heinous behavior. From the way these scenes are filmed, it is clear that Pasolini intends for we, the audience to be just that much more shocked by the male on male activity, over the other scenes of torture, rape, and general depravity. For this reason, I cannot agree with the claim that Salo represents a "radical" vision, but instead I must stress the point the point that it presents a completely conventional viewpoint with regards to sexual politics.
Just as Salo presents it's sexually liberated libertines as unmistikably queer, so too does The Damned present the NAZI SA Sturmabteilung as engaging in a gay orgy, with the officers pairing off before being disposed of on the Night of Long Knives. This is on top of The Damned's most ardent NAZI supporter, Martin, being shown engaging in a variety of queer behaviors, including his iconic drag impersonation of Marlene Dietrich.
Then there is Germany, Year Zero, which includes a NAZI trying to seduce his young charge into joining the NAZI and Homosexual lifestyles. Germany, Year Zero by the way, is apparently prestigious enough to be given a Criterion Release.
Of course, mainstream films (if Salo and The Damned can be considered mainstream) are not the only ones to link same sex desire to Nazism, pretty much every Nazi sexploitation flick (a genre which includes titles such as Love Camp Number 9 and Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS, includes at least one lesbian officer amongst the NAZI's ranks.
Of course, both the NAZI's and Italian fascists persecuted those they caught engaging in same sex activities. After the Night of Long Knives and the assignation of Ernst Röhm (the openly gay commandant of the SA), the NAZI's stepped up their persecution. In the end, around 15,000 men and women would be imprisoned in camps such as Buchenwald. There they would be the victims of medical experiments, including efforts to create ex-gay therapies.
By using homophobia to condemn fascism, filmmakers commit the ironic sin of promoting a message easily found at any neo-Nazi rally.
Which brings us to the way transgender characters are presented, particularly the image of the transgender serial killer. This is an image that continues to persist up to the present day. The serial killer Ed Gein has served as inspiration for films such as Silence of the Lambs and Psycho. More recently, The X-Files: I Want to Believe paid homage to Silence of the Lambs by borrowing (or ripping off, depending on ones perspective) the plot of Silence of the Lambs, although it should be noted that the villain of I Want to Believe bore little resemblance to Gein.
But once again we have the issue of history and cinema being at odds with one another, for there is almost no evidence that Ed Gein was transgender or engaged in gender non-conforming behaviors. Instead the story of him trying to wear female body parts appears to have been created entirely out of media sensationalism.
Contrast the above examples to the frequency of stories of LGBTQ historical figures who managed to achieve greatness but who inevitably wound up being straightened out when it came time to tell their stories on film. Enigma wrote out Alan Turing from the story of the development of the Enigma machine altogether, the device which helped crack German codes used during World War II and (potentially) saved thousands of lives. Apparently, on the silver screen queers can only be Nazis, we cannot fight them.
More recently, Dallas Buyers Club took a bisexual hero in the fight against AIDS, Ron Woodroof, and presented him as straight.
When it comes depictions of transgender and transsexual historical figures, it gets worse, as their stories typically never making it to Hollywood in the first place. Their is a distinct paucity of transgender historical figures in motion pictures. Mike Newall's Stonewall never mentioned Sylvia Rivera, nor had any character that could act as a stand in, and it looks as if Roland Emmerich's upcoming Stonewall flick will follow a similar path.
Remember this, when people argue that films don't have to present an individuals sexual orientation, it's not so simple as presenting a character as straight or queer when the patterns of who gets straightened out and who does not, is not random. When Hollywood only presents queers as killers or NAZI's, while ignoring the stories where we are the heroes, it does nothing but reinforce the message that we are dangerous, creepy, and immoral. But the LGBTQ community is not composed (at least entirely) of killers and Nazi's, in spite of what some apparently want the public to believe. There are heroes amongst our ranks and it is important that their stories get told as well. But it is also important to remember that the villainy attributed to us, is all too frequently exaggerated.
I have not in fact watched Salo all the way through, I fast forwarded through the Circle of Shit sequence. But the rest of the film is only just about as unwatchable. I tried watching it a second time at one point, only to make it far enough through to feel confident that my earlier reading of the film was not entirely incorrect. Honestly, the Pasolini appears to have included no greater message in Salo other than people can be horribly cruel to each other. Or maybe it was supposed to be that Fascism creates an particularly virulent setting for people to become especially horribly cruel. In either case my response is, "excuse me while I call in Captain Obvious for a rescue mission".
Salo is particularly problematic with regards to the depictions of the Italian Fascists engaging in same sex activity, sodomy, and rape. Rape is rape, wether the victim is male or female but Pasolini depicts the Italian Fascists raping of the male characters as representing particularly heinous behavior. From the way these scenes are filmed, it is clear that Pasolini intends for we, the audience to be just that much more shocked by the male on male activity, over the other scenes of torture, rape, and general depravity. For this reason, I cannot agree with the claim that Salo represents a "radical" vision, but instead I must stress the point the point that it presents a completely conventional viewpoint with regards to sexual politics.
Just as Salo presents it's sexually liberated libertines as unmistikably queer, so too does The Damned present the NAZI SA Sturmabteilung as engaging in a gay orgy, with the officers pairing off before being disposed of on the Night of Long Knives. This is on top of The Damned's most ardent NAZI supporter, Martin, being shown engaging in a variety of queer behaviors, including his iconic drag impersonation of Marlene Dietrich.
Then there is Germany, Year Zero, which includes a NAZI trying to seduce his young charge into joining the NAZI and Homosexual lifestyles. Germany, Year Zero by the way, is apparently prestigious enough to be given a Criterion Release.
Of course, mainstream films (if Salo and The Damned can be considered mainstream) are not the only ones to link same sex desire to Nazism, pretty much every Nazi sexploitation flick (a genre which includes titles such as Love Camp Number 9 and Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS, includes at least one lesbian officer amongst the NAZI's ranks.
Of course, both the NAZI's and Italian fascists persecuted those they caught engaging in same sex activities. After the Night of Long Knives and the assignation of Ernst Röhm (the openly gay commandant of the SA), the NAZI's stepped up their persecution. In the end, around 15,000 men and women would be imprisoned in camps such as Buchenwald. There they would be the victims of medical experiments, including efforts to create ex-gay therapies.
By using homophobia to condemn fascism, filmmakers commit the ironic sin of promoting a message easily found at any neo-Nazi rally.
Which brings us to the way transgender characters are presented, particularly the image of the transgender serial killer. This is an image that continues to persist up to the present day. The serial killer Ed Gein has served as inspiration for films such as Silence of the Lambs and Psycho. More recently, The X-Files: I Want to Believe paid homage to Silence of the Lambs by borrowing (or ripping off, depending on ones perspective) the plot of Silence of the Lambs, although it should be noted that the villain of I Want to Believe bore little resemblance to Gein.
But once again we have the issue of history and cinema being at odds with one another, for there is almost no evidence that Ed Gein was transgender or engaged in gender non-conforming behaviors. Instead the story of him trying to wear female body parts appears to have been created entirely out of media sensationalism.
Contrast the above examples to the frequency of stories of LGBTQ historical figures who managed to achieve greatness but who inevitably wound up being straightened out when it came time to tell their stories on film. Enigma wrote out Alan Turing from the story of the development of the Enigma machine altogether, the device which helped crack German codes used during World War II and (potentially) saved thousands of lives. Apparently, on the silver screen queers can only be Nazis, we cannot fight them.
More recently, Dallas Buyers Club took a bisexual hero in the fight against AIDS, Ron Woodroof, and presented him as straight.
When it comes depictions of transgender and transsexual historical figures, it gets worse, as their stories typically never making it to Hollywood in the first place. Their is a distinct paucity of transgender historical figures in motion pictures. Mike Newall's Stonewall never mentioned Sylvia Rivera, nor had any character that could act as a stand in, and it looks as if Roland Emmerich's upcoming Stonewall flick will follow a similar path.
Remember this, when people argue that films don't have to present an individuals sexual orientation, it's not so simple as presenting a character as straight or queer when the patterns of who gets straightened out and who does not, is not random. When Hollywood only presents queers as killers or NAZI's, while ignoring the stories where we are the heroes, it does nothing but reinforce the message that we are dangerous, creepy, and immoral. But the LGBTQ community is not composed (at least entirely) of killers and Nazi's, in spite of what some apparently want the public to believe. There are heroes amongst our ranks and it is important that their stories get told as well. But it is also important to remember that the villainy attributed to us, is all too frequently exaggerated.
July 19, 2014
Queer Issue: The Unfortunate Straightening Out of Hollywood Redux
It is easy to get caught up in analysis of LGBTQ related films that focus on movies in isolation without consideration of larger patterns. But those larger patterns can be more revealing than any in depth analysis of a single film can accomplish. When it comes to the presentation of characters based on LGBTQ historical figures, there are plenty of examples of films that have had no problems presenting their characters sexual orientation and gender identities with a reasonable degree of accuracy. There are also plenty of films that have even exaggerated the queerness of their characters, while on the opposite end of this issue are those that have downplayed or straightened out the sexualities and gender identities of LGBTQ historical figures.
The question then becomes, in what situations are LGBTQ historical figures most likely to retain their sexualities and gender identities or have them exaggerated and when are they going to be straightened out?
To analyze this issue, I divided up films based on LGBTQ historical figures into the following categories: Killers, Criminals and Other Villains, Neutral, LGBTQ Activists and Pioneers, Artists, and Generally Heroic. I also included films that presented certain historical figures as queer, even if the gender identity or sexuality of the historical figure has not been well established or is otherwise known. In order to include as wide a range of films as possible in this analysis, I have included films that are heavily fictionalized or merely used certain historical figures for inspiration. Films in this category are marked with a ✦. Films made during the Hays Code, which banned depictions of same sex sexuality, are marked with an asterisk.
Here are how the results broke down:
Killers
Accurate or Exaggerated:
Kill Your Darlings
Monster
I Shot Andy Warhol
Swoon
Heavenly Creatures
The Krays
Bloody Mama
Braveheart
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
Deranged
Elephant
Psycho*✦
Silence of the Lambs✦
Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde✦
Salò✦
The Damned✦
Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS✦
Texas Chainsaw Massacre✦
Straightened Out:
Rope*
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith✦
Criminals and Other Villains
Accurate or Exaggerated:
I Love You Phillip Morris
Dog Day Afternoon
Boys Don’t Cry
Bent✦
South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut✦
Angels in America✦
Straightened Out
Mommie Dearest
Neutral
Accurate or Exaggerated:
Queen Christina
Philomena
Straightened Out
LGBTQ Activists and Pioneers
Accurate or Exaggerated:
Milk
Kinsey
The Christine Jorgensen Story
Straightened Out:
Artists
Accurate or Exaggerated:
Wilde
Capote
Howl
Gods and Monsters
Ed Wood
Love is the Devil
Next Stop, Greenwich Village
Frida
The Hours
Straightened Out
De-Lovely
The Libertine
Anonymous
Saving Mr. Banks
Cabaret
Quills
Shadow of the Vampire✦
Night and Day*
The Agony and the Ecstasy*
Generally Heroic
Accurate or Exaggerated:
Alexander
J. Edgar
Straightened Out:
Dallas Buyers Club
Silkwood
A Beautiful Mind
Enigma
Lawrence of Arabia*
Percentages (Excluding fictionalized cases and films made during the Hays Code):
Killers: 100% Accurate
Criminals and Other Villains: 75% Accurate
Neutral: 100% Accurate
LGBTQ Activists and Pioneers: 100% Accurate
Artists: 60% Accurate
Generally Heroic: 33% Accurate
Conclusion
If a queer individual wants their sexuality or gender identity to be presented accurately by Hollywood, kill someone, become an LGBTQ activist or do nothing noteworthy. You also stand a pretty good chance of your sexuality and gender identity being presented accurately if you choose a non-homicidal life of crime. However, if you want to become an artist or do something influential outside the LGBTQ community, you better be prepared to play Hollywoods' heterosexualization lottery.
The question then becomes, in what situations are LGBTQ historical figures most likely to retain their sexualities and gender identities or have them exaggerated and when are they going to be straightened out?
To analyze this issue, I divided up films based on LGBTQ historical figures into the following categories: Killers, Criminals and Other Villains, Neutral, LGBTQ Activists and Pioneers, Artists, and Generally Heroic. I also included films that presented certain historical figures as queer, even if the gender identity or sexuality of the historical figure has not been well established or is otherwise known. In order to include as wide a range of films as possible in this analysis, I have included films that are heavily fictionalized or merely used certain historical figures for inspiration. Films in this category are marked with a ✦. Films made during the Hays Code, which banned depictions of same sex sexuality, are marked with an asterisk.
Here are how the results broke down:
Killers
Accurate or Exaggerated:
Kill Your Darlings
Monster
I Shot Andy Warhol
Swoon
Heavenly Creatures
The Krays
Bloody Mama
Braveheart
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
Deranged
Elephant
Psycho*✦
Silence of the Lambs✦
Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde✦
Salò✦
The Damned✦
Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS✦
Texas Chainsaw Massacre✦
Straightened Out:
Rope*
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith✦
Criminals and Other Villains
Accurate or Exaggerated:
I Love You Phillip Morris
Dog Day Afternoon
Boys Don’t Cry
Bent✦
South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut✦
Angels in America✦
Straightened Out
Mommie Dearest
Neutral
Accurate or Exaggerated:
Queen Christina
Philomena
Straightened Out
LGBTQ Activists and Pioneers
Accurate or Exaggerated:
Milk
Kinsey
The Christine Jorgensen Story
Straightened Out:
Artists
Accurate or Exaggerated:
Wilde
Capote
Howl
Gods and Monsters
Ed Wood
Love is the Devil
Next Stop, Greenwich Village
Frida
The Hours
Straightened Out
De-Lovely
The Libertine
Anonymous
Saving Mr. Banks
Cabaret
Quills
Shadow of the Vampire✦
Night and Day*
The Agony and the Ecstasy*
Generally Heroic
Accurate or Exaggerated:
Alexander
J. Edgar
Straightened Out:
Dallas Buyers Club
Silkwood
A Beautiful Mind
Enigma
Lawrence of Arabia*
Percentages (Excluding fictionalized cases and films made during the Hays Code):
Killers: 100% Accurate
Criminals and Other Villains: 75% Accurate
Neutral: 100% Accurate
LGBTQ Activists and Pioneers: 100% Accurate
Artists: 60% Accurate
Generally Heroic: 33% Accurate
Conclusion
If a queer individual wants their sexuality or gender identity to be presented accurately by Hollywood, kill someone, become an LGBTQ activist or do nothing noteworthy. You also stand a pretty good chance of your sexuality and gender identity being presented accurately if you choose a non-homicidal life of crime. However, if you want to become an artist or do something influential outside the LGBTQ community, you better be prepared to play Hollywoods' heterosexualization lottery.
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 31, 2014
Queer Review: Philomena (2013)
Philomena
Director: Stephen Frears
Writers: Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope. Based on the book The Lost Child of Philomena Lee by Martin Sixsmith
Cast: Judi Dench, Steve Coogan, Sophie Kennedy Clark, Mare Winningham, Barbara Jefford, Peter Hermann, Sean Mahon
Overview
Thanks to astounding performance by Judi Dench, Philomena manages to present one of the most complex screen protagonists to arrive in theaters in recent memory. Loosely based upon the non-fiction account related in The Lost Child of Philomena Lee by Martin Sixsmith, Philomena tells the story of a woman searching for the child that was forcibly taken from her when she had it out of wedlock.
Synopsis
After having been fired from his gig as a government advisor, journalist Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan) finds himself at loose ends. When he is first approached with the story of Philomena Lee (Judi Dench), he is reluctant to pursue it due to his snobbish attitude towards "human interest" stories. However, he does meet with her and learns more of her story. Philomena Lee was a young mother, who gave birth in a Catholic convent in the 1960's after a sexual encounter at a fair. In order to pay for having the child, Philomena worked for the convent for four years, but the convent sold the boy to American couple. When Philomena and Martin investigate, they find that all records of the adoption were burned and current leaders of the convent uncooperative. Following a lead, the pair travel to America, where they discover that Philomenas' child had his name changed to Michael and after growing up, had become a top ranked member of the Republican Party before passing away from AIDS in the nineties.
The Queering
Shaming is a powerful way to make people conform to excpected norms and nowhere is that more apparent than when it comes to the issue of human sexuality. At it's heart, this is a film about the power of shame and the ability to overcome it. Philomena Lee was shamed about a sexual encounter she had as a teenager and then shamed into keeping quiet when she was forced to give up her kid for adoption. Michael, her son, was also shamed into the closet about his sexual orientation while he worked his way up the ladder within the Republican party. Martin Sixsmith points these issues out to Philomena Lee when the two travel to the U.S. while looking for her son. Of course Lee surprises him by showing a great amount of forthrightness when it comes to sexuality in general.
Much of the humor in the film is derived from the interaction between Lee, who reads romance novels and the more cynical Sixsmith, who finds her naïve. One extended sequence has her describing the plot of a trite romance novel while he looks like he wishes he could anyplace else. However, the most interesting parts of the movie are the philosophical debates that come up between the two. Given that these debates are clearly influenced by each characters' life experience, they are more interesting than your typical dry philosophical debates about "Is there a God?" or "If there is a God, why would he allow suffering to exist?" As an atheist, Sixsmith has no issue with criticizing the Catholic nuns who kept Lee and Michael from reconnecting before the latter died. Surprisingly, Lee remains a devoted Catholic to the very end, even after it is revealed that the nuns kept Michael from reconnecting with her when he traveled to the orphanage to find her.
As for Michael Hess, I found myself wondering what life would be like for a man who chose to work for the Republican Party, rising all the way up to become Chief Legal Counsel of the Republican National Committee. What does it take to work within a group that actively hates you? What did Hess think of Reagans' long public silence on the issue? Was the fact that when he traveled to the Ireland his face already was showing Kaposi's sarcoma affect how cooperative the nuns were?
Ultimately, the strength of Philomena lies in it's ability to be emotionally affecting without resorting to cheap melodrama. The performances drive the movie, along with the smart script and complex characters. A little philosophy on the side helps things immeasurably as well.
Recommendation
Philomena is just about worth the amount of effort one would use to track down a lost relative in order to see.
The Rating
3 and 1/2 stars out 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: Stephen Frears
Writers: Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope. Based on the book The Lost Child of Philomena Lee by Martin Sixsmith
Cast: Judi Dench, Steve Coogan, Sophie Kennedy Clark, Mare Winningham, Barbara Jefford, Peter Hermann, Sean Mahon
Overview
Thanks to astounding performance by Judi Dench, Philomena manages to present one of the most complex screen protagonists to arrive in theaters in recent memory. Loosely based upon the non-fiction account related in The Lost Child of Philomena Lee by Martin Sixsmith, Philomena tells the story of a woman searching for the child that was forcibly taken from her when she had it out of wedlock.
Synopsis
After having been fired from his gig as a government advisor, journalist Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan) finds himself at loose ends. When he is first approached with the story of Philomena Lee (Judi Dench), he is reluctant to pursue it due to his snobbish attitude towards "human interest" stories. However, he does meet with her and learns more of her story. Philomena Lee was a young mother, who gave birth in a Catholic convent in the 1960's after a sexual encounter at a fair. In order to pay for having the child, Philomena worked for the convent for four years, but the convent sold the boy to American couple. When Philomena and Martin investigate, they find that all records of the adoption were burned and current leaders of the convent uncooperative. Following a lead, the pair travel to America, where they discover that Philomenas' child had his name changed to Michael and after growing up, had become a top ranked member of the Republican Party before passing away from AIDS in the nineties.
The Queering
Shaming is a powerful way to make people conform to excpected norms and nowhere is that more apparent than when it comes to the issue of human sexuality. At it's heart, this is a film about the power of shame and the ability to overcome it. Philomena Lee was shamed about a sexual encounter she had as a teenager and then shamed into keeping quiet when she was forced to give up her kid for adoption. Michael, her son, was also shamed into the closet about his sexual orientation while he worked his way up the ladder within the Republican party. Martin Sixsmith points these issues out to Philomena Lee when the two travel to the U.S. while looking for her son. Of course Lee surprises him by showing a great amount of forthrightness when it comes to sexuality in general.
Much of the humor in the film is derived from the interaction between Lee, who reads romance novels and the more cynical Sixsmith, who finds her naïve. One extended sequence has her describing the plot of a trite romance novel while he looks like he wishes he could anyplace else. However, the most interesting parts of the movie are the philosophical debates that come up between the two. Given that these debates are clearly influenced by each characters' life experience, they are more interesting than your typical dry philosophical debates about "Is there a God?" or "If there is a God, why would he allow suffering to exist?" As an atheist, Sixsmith has no issue with criticizing the Catholic nuns who kept Lee and Michael from reconnecting before the latter died. Surprisingly, Lee remains a devoted Catholic to the very end, even after it is revealed that the nuns kept Michael from reconnecting with her when he traveled to the orphanage to find her.
As for Michael Hess, I found myself wondering what life would be like for a man who chose to work for the Republican Party, rising all the way up to become Chief Legal Counsel of the Republican National Committee. What does it take to work within a group that actively hates you? What did Hess think of Reagans' long public silence on the issue? Was the fact that when he traveled to the Ireland his face already was showing Kaposi's sarcoma affect how cooperative the nuns were?
Ultimately, the strength of Philomena lies in it's ability to be emotionally affecting without resorting to cheap melodrama. The performances drive the movie, along with the smart script and complex characters. A little philosophy on the side helps things immeasurably as well.
Recommendation
Philomena is just about worth the amount of effort one would use to track down a lost relative in order to see.
The Rating
3 and 1/2 stars out 4
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.
May 13, 2014
Queer Review: Phantom of the Opera (1943)
Phantom of the Opera
Director: Arthur Lubin
Writers: Eric Taylor, Samuel Hoffenstein, John Jacoby, and Hans Jacoby. Based on "Le Fantôme de L'Opéra" by Gaston Leroux.
Cast: Nelson Eddy, Susanna Foster, Claude Rains, Edgar Barrier, Leo Carrillo, Jane Farrar
Overview
An awkward take on the tale first told by Gaston Leroux, the 1943 version of the Phantom of the Opera mixes comedy, romance, and horror to poor effect. At least there is a same sex romance to keep things interesting.
Synopsis
Moved by the voice of Christine DuBois (Susanna Foster), Erique Claudin (Claude Rains) secretly funds her singing lessons using his income as violinist while nearly going broke in the process. Desperate for money, Claudin attempts to sell one of his compositions to a publisher but when that fails and he believe that his work is being stolen, he snaps. During the following struggle, Claudin kills a man and has his face disfigured with acid. Hiding in the shadows of the Opera House where he once worked, he attempts to pave Christine a path to stardom. Meanwhile, she is being courted by two men - police officer Raoul (Edgar Barrier) and Anatole Garron (Nelson Eddy) - although they both appear to be more into each other than Christine.
The Queering
What is the 1943 version of the Phantom of the Opera? Is it a romance? A horror film? A comedy? All of the above apparently. None of the elements really gel very well. Throw in some bad pacing (it feels like it takes forever to get through any of the opera sequences) and you have what I can only imagine to be (as I have not seen any of the others) one of the weaker versions of the Phantom of the Opera to make it onto the silver screen.
However, there is the romance between Anatole and Raoul, who pretend to be courting the actress Christine so they can spend more time with each other, which helps keep things interesting. The two make every effort, including developing a ritual around who will walk through a door together. However, Christine eventually chooses a life with the theater. Clearly relieved that they no longer have to continue the charade, Raoul and Anatole walk out arm in arm as the camera fades to black.
There is something very strange about a film version of the Phantom of the Opera being filmed in technicolor. It doesn't feel right. Director Lubin tries to add a sense of dread to proceedings by showing shots of The Phantoms' shadow against walls but the framing is too stagy and awkward to be effective. The infamous chandler crashing scene is ineptly shot and way too drawn out.
Tonally the film is all over the place. The original story is a classic of gothic horror but the 1943 version tries to turn it into a romantic comedy. This causes the entire production to feel as off key as an opera singer after inhaling an entire balloon of helium. If you really want to be entertained, watch out for the floating rocks during the climax.
Recommendation
Not worth learning opera nor becoming a phantom of in order to see this movie, not unless one really digs older movies.
The Rating
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: Arthur Lubin
Writers: Eric Taylor, Samuel Hoffenstein, John Jacoby, and Hans Jacoby. Based on "Le Fantôme de L'Opéra" by Gaston Leroux.
Cast: Nelson Eddy, Susanna Foster, Claude Rains, Edgar Barrier, Leo Carrillo, Jane Farrar
Overview
An awkward take on the tale first told by Gaston Leroux, the 1943 version of the Phantom of the Opera mixes comedy, romance, and horror to poor effect. At least there is a same sex romance to keep things interesting.
Synopsis
Moved by the voice of Christine DuBois (Susanna Foster), Erique Claudin (Claude Rains) secretly funds her singing lessons using his income as violinist while nearly going broke in the process. Desperate for money, Claudin attempts to sell one of his compositions to a publisher but when that fails and he believe that his work is being stolen, he snaps. During the following struggle, Claudin kills a man and has his face disfigured with acid. Hiding in the shadows of the Opera House where he once worked, he attempts to pave Christine a path to stardom. Meanwhile, she is being courted by two men - police officer Raoul (Edgar Barrier) and Anatole Garron (Nelson Eddy) - although they both appear to be more into each other than Christine.
The Queering
What is the 1943 version of the Phantom of the Opera? Is it a romance? A horror film? A comedy? All of the above apparently. None of the elements really gel very well. Throw in some bad pacing (it feels like it takes forever to get through any of the opera sequences) and you have what I can only imagine to be (as I have not seen any of the others) one of the weaker versions of the Phantom of the Opera to make it onto the silver screen.
However, there is the romance between Anatole and Raoul, who pretend to be courting the actress Christine so they can spend more time with each other, which helps keep things interesting. The two make every effort, including developing a ritual around who will walk through a door together. However, Christine eventually chooses a life with the theater. Clearly relieved that they no longer have to continue the charade, Raoul and Anatole walk out arm in arm as the camera fades to black.
There is something very strange about a film version of the Phantom of the Opera being filmed in technicolor. It doesn't feel right. Director Lubin tries to add a sense of dread to proceedings by showing shots of The Phantoms' shadow against walls but the framing is too stagy and awkward to be effective. The infamous chandler crashing scene is ineptly shot and way too drawn out.
Tonally the film is all over the place. The original story is a classic of gothic horror but the 1943 version tries to turn it into a romantic comedy. This causes the entire production to feel as off key as an opera singer after inhaling an entire balloon of helium. If you really want to be entertained, watch out for the floating rocks during the climax.
Recommendation
Not worth learning opera nor becoming a phantom of in order to see this movie, not unless one really digs older movies.
The Rating
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.
May 10, 2014
Queer Review: High Tension (2003)
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)