Queer Review: V for Vendetta (2006)

V for Vendetta
Director: James McTeigue
Writers: Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski. Based on the graphic novel by David Lloyd.
Cast: Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Rea, John Hurt, Stephen Fry

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

-V for Vendetta

Overview
V for Vendetta is a complex sci-fi tale, set in Britain in the near future where the totalitarian government has absolute control over the populace. Utterly compelling, the provocative philosophizing it engages in gives viewers plenty of thematic material to think about.

Synopsis
Evey (Natalie Portman) is an ordinary woman who is stopped by the Fingerman (the movie's secret police), when walking on the streets one night past curfew. Before they can carry out their plans (which include rape and assault) she is rescued by the mysterious V, a masked vigilante whose plans include destroying the all powerful government and replacing it with anarchy. The first step in V's complex plan is blowing up the Old Baily, which sets in motion a series of events he hopes will end with the destruction of the current government led by Adam Sutler (John Hurt).

The Queering
Controversial for a very good reason, V for Vendetta is the type of movie that takes it's main theme of anarchy so far that it refuses to endorse a central thesis of any kind. Instead, we are required to decide for ourselves what to think of V's plans and actions. Stop for a moment to contemplate the following, V is a terrorist who uses violence and fear as his main tactics. There are more than a few parallels between Osama Bin Laden and V regarding tactics (blowing up buildings) and goals (bringing down a government).

Acting wise, Hugo Weaving does more with his face hidden behind V's Guy Fawkes mask, than most actors are capable of when they are not faced with such restrictions. Natalie Portman is good, although her occasional slip ups with the British accent can be distracting. Stephen Fry, John Hurt, and Stephen Rea all provide solid support.

I would also like to point out how impressive the cinematography is. There are many shots that obviously took a great deal of effort to create and from a technical standpoint, it's hard to find a better composed movie. More than one sequence has a ferocious and poetic grace capable of raising the neck hairs.

V for Vendetta does two things worth mentioning in regards to it's gay characters. For one, it "gays up" a character. Stephen Fry's originally in the comics straight character, Dietrich, reveals to Evey when she goes to him for shelter, that his deepest secrets are kept buried in the closet. Two, in a rather touching sub-plot that also shows the plight suffered by queers under Sutler's regime, it is revealed that it was a lesbian who inspired V to begin his revolution. While V for Vendetta may not be "one of the most pro-gay" movies ever - as suggested by Sarah Warn - as both of the gay characters die before the end, the positive steps forward made here are worth celebrating.

The Recomendation
Given the care the movie was put together with, the positive portrayals of it's gay characters, the entertaining storyline that combines action with philosophical provocativeness, I have to give this movie a high recommendation. V for Vendetta is worth seeking out for anyone, not just those who can appreciate over the top comic book adaptations.

The Rating:

Queer Review: The Kids Are All Right (2010)

The Kids Are All Right
Director: Lisa Cholodenko
Writers: Lisa Cholodenko, Stuart Blumberg
Cast: Julianne Moore, Annette Bening, Mark Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson

The Kids Are All Right is a small movie that gained a lot of attention due to featuring a lesbian couple as parents. It manages to be both smartly perceptive and a little vanilla at the same time. I also could not help thinking that this all looked like what might happen if Barbara Kingsolver were to write a lesbian version of American Beauty. Admittedly though, the only reason I mentally made that comparison is because Annette Bening plays similar roles in both movies as the Kids Are All Right lacks both American Beauty's dark humor and violent ending.

The premise is simple, Jules (Julianne Moore) and Nic (Annette Bening) are a happily married conservative lesbian couple, whose two teenagers, Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and Laser (Josh Hutcherson), decide to contact their family sperm donor. When the kids meet Paul (Mark Ruffalo) and then later introduce him to their parents, a chain of events is set in motion, that reveals the cracks in Jules and Nic's previously stable relationship. The highly controlling Nic resents the amount of time her kids start to spend with Paul. Jules, on the other hand, starts a sexual affair with Paul, further straining her relationship with Nic.

The title The Kids Are All Right refers to every parents fear that their kids are not going to be all right and that any mistakes made will cause irreparable damage to their offspring. As Jules and Nic are both Mom's, these fears appear to have been amplified in their case. The underlying theme therefore, is that in spite of the flaws that most parents possess, kids can still turn out all right.

Overall, this is a well put together movie, with some nicely shot and edited sequences, such as when Nic finds out about the Jules and Paul's affair. Another plus is that there is no overwrought melodrama or "shocking" plot twists. Acting wise, there are no standouts, but each member of the cast turns in a better than adequate work. While there are no showy performances, there is a lot of subtlety to be found, even in Mark Ruffalo's role as a laid back bachelor who finds himself questioning his life choices following the revelation that he is a biological father.

The Kids Are All Right is a small movie, in spite of the big name cast. There are no major revelations into the human condition, just a lot of smaller insights. Also, no earthshaking plot twists occur, just some nicely modulated dramatic turns. There is nothing about the movie that can be called "great". However, it is earnest and tries hard. At the end of the day, I would say that's all right.

Queer Review: 44 Inch Chest (2009)

44 Inch Chest
Director: Malcolm Venville
Writers: Louis Mellis, David Scinto
Cast: Ray Winstone, Ian McShane, John Hurt, Tom Wilkinson, Stephen Dillane, Joanne Whalley, Melvil Poupaud

44 Inch Chest is a gritty drama about a man, Colin Diamond (Ray Winstone), whose wife, Liz (Joanne Whalley) cheated on him with another man. Naturally, this revelation destroys Colin. His friends, Meredith (Ian McShane), Old Man Peanut (John Hurt), Archie (Tom Wilkinson), and Mal (Stephen Dillane), kidnap the interloper - refered to only as Loverboy - for the purpose of allowing Colin revenge by bloody murder.

This simplistic premise sets in motion a compelling meditation on the nature of human relationships as Colin attempts to make the gravest of decisions. This is an unusual motion picture in several respects. For one, the plot is moved forward primarily through dialog rather than action, a characteristic that is becoming increasingly rare in modern movies. I almost thought that 44 Inch Chest was based on a play given the limited sets - the vast majority of the movie takes place in the room where Loverboy's fate is being decided. When I checked, I found that the screenplay was actually an original.

Stylistically speaking, 44 Inch Chest features some dark, yet still beautiful cinematography that strongly enhances the subject matter and effectively setting the mood. The dialog with it's simultaneously crude, yet poetic nature, has a Quentin Tarintino quality to it and the cast members clearly relish delivering their lines.

Acting wise, the cast members are clearly at the top of their game and the chemistry is electrifying. John Hurt as the crotchety Old Man Peanut, gives a potent, stand out performance. Tom Wilkinson and Stephen Dillane are more restrained, but no less worthy. Ian McShane is suitably suave as the gay and sophisticated Meredith.

At the end of the day, 44 Inch Chest is worth seeing for the brilliant writing and great acting. For people who enjoy well made films that do not rely on mindless pyrotechnics and hollow special effects, this movie is a welcome gift.

Queer Review: Born in Flames (1983)

Born in Flames
Director: Lizzie Borden
Writers: Lizzie Borden and Ed Bowes
Cast: Honey, Adele Bertei, Jean Satterfield, Kathryn Bigelow

Many movements and works of art make the claim of being "radical" or "envelope pushing" and in the long run, many of them end up . Born in Flames contains the sort of subversive ideology that whacks radicalism over the head and makes envelope pushing it's little bitch. A low budget science fiction film that has parallels to other classics within the genre, such as Metropolis and 1984, Born in Flames still manages to leave an impression.

Born in Flames is set 10 years after a peaceful revolution has turned the United States into a socialist Democracy. However, social injustice is still prevalent for woman, LGBTQA, and other minorities. In order to fight back, several groups made entirely of woman organize to develop strategies to change society in ways no one had previously imagined. When the leader of one group, the openly lesbian Adelaide Norris, (Jean Satterfield) is murdered while in government custody, these groups are galvanized to taking greater and more direct action.

Shot on what I imagine was a minuscule budget, the footage is frequently grainy and the production elements are horrendous. This is indie film making in all it's unvarnished glory. The acting is also rather unimpressive, but that is probably a result of most of the cast being amateurs.

The main reason for seeing Born in Flames is for the intellectual butt kicking it provides. While not a very pretty or well polished, theres enough brain power behind the philosophical issues addressed and provocative subtext to put the most intelligent academic scholar to shame.

Born in Flames frequently juxtaposes concepts and images to get it's message across. Prostitution and rape are mentioned in the same sentence so often, that I'm sure some sort of direct comparison was being made by the film makers. In one sequence, a shot of a condom being put on a male penis is placed between an image of a baby feeding from a bottle and a woman washing dishes. There are also scenes of women practicing military drills and other scenes of where women use non-violent methods to protect female victims of violent assaults.

However, the most disconcerting image comes at the end when one of the rebel groups succeeds in blowing up the communication tower on top of the world trade center. While it was undoubtedly intended as a symbolic attack on the system, the final image of smoke billowing from one of the towers evokes too many bitter memories, to not leave post 9/11 viewers deeply unsettled.

On a less downbeat point, it is worth pointing out that Kathryn Bigelow has a small role as a newspaper editor who loses her job for supporting the anti-establishment groups. For those who don't know, Bigelow directed The Hurt Locker and won an Oscar for that, thereby becoming the first female to be awarded an Oscar for best director.

In the final analysis, this is not a great movie, the low budget obviously restricted the film makers too much for that. However, the deeper intellectual currents contained within make it worth seeking out for those who enjoy non-mainstream fare.

Queer Review: Flawless (1999)

Flawless
Director: Joel Schumacker
Writer: Joel Shumacker
Cast: Robert De Niro, Phillip Seymour Hoffman

While not an awful movie by any means, Flawless is perhaps not an entirely accurate tittle for this project. To begin with; subtlety, thy name is not Schumacker. Also, both Robert De Niro and Phillip Seymour Hoffman have done much more impressive work elsewhere.

When decorated cop Walt Koontz (Robert De Niro) suffers a debilitating stroke that impairs his mobility and vocal capabilities, he finds himself in need of singing lessons with a limited number of options that he can turn to. Therefore, in spite of being a cold hearted bigot, he turns to his transgendered neighbor Rusty (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) for these therapeutic lessons. Meanwhile, the local drug kingpin is hunting down thousands of dollars in stolen cash that he believes is being hidden in the apartment building shared by Rusty and Walt.

As I said, this is not a bad movie, just a rather flawed one. The bigest problems relate to Walt Koontz, who starts out the movie as an over the top and completely stereotypical homophobic cop. At the beginning it is not much of a stretch to imagine that Koontz is just itching to restart the Stonewall riots just so he could put the queers in their place. Then, without any real explanation, Koontz is one of the film's most open minded characters, even going so far to defend one of Rusty's friends to a security guard.

The other imperfections include the performance of Robert De Niro who starred in this movie just before starting his descent into self parody with Meet the Parents. Phillip Seymour Hoffman also gives a rather disappointing performance. In fact, compared to his work in Capote, his performance is equally embarrassing to De Niro's.

The story itself also has problems, the missing drug money subplot - which results in the burst of violence that leads to Koontz's stroke and allows the movie a violent and bloody climax - is actually completely unnecessary. Take it away, and the story would have worked a lot better as well as freeing up screen time that could have been devoted to additional scenes between Rusty and Koontz.

Recommending this movie to anyone is rather hard. While not completely awful, the production as a whole stews in mediocrity, making it difficult to imagine anyone who would actually enjoy watching it.

Queer Review: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (2010)

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World
Director: Edgar Wright
Writers: Michael Bacall and Edgar Wright. Based on the Graphic Novel series by Bryan Lee O'Malley.
Cast: Michael Cera, Alison Pill, Ellen Wong, Kieran Culkin, Mary Elizabeth Winstead

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is a high energy, campy production that tells the story of Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) as he attempts to woo the girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). In order to do so, Pilgrim must first defeat her seven evil exes.

From the very start, is clear that Edgar Wright intended for the production to resemble a graphic novel come to life crossed with a video game. In other words, if one were to create a spectrum, Scott Pilgrim would be on the farthest end from naturalism. In a way, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World follows the same path set by movies like 300, Sin City or Watchmen. Although I want to point out that the violence is more akin to Donkey Kong or Super Mario Brothers than to Call of Duty and other ultra violent modern games.

In any event, whilst being primarily about a straight couple, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World can almost, but not quiet, be considered a post-gay movie. That is, one of Ramona's evil exes is a lesbian from her bi-curious phase - making Ramona herself a queer character - and Pilgrim's roommate Wallace Wells (Kieran Culkin) is gay. Wells and Pilgrim even chastely (I presume) share the same bed. One subplot has Wells stealing Scott Pilgrim's sister's boyfriend, to which she responds with "not again!".

In terms of quality, Wright manages the difficult task of keeping the production at a high energy level throughout without becoming repetitive or causing viewer fatigue. As Scott Pilgrim, Michael Cera does pretty much Michael Cera does best, play a low key, socially awkward, yet charismatic nerd. Opposite Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is effective as a former bad girl trying now to be good. Everyone else is pretty much having fun chewing the scenery and spitting it back up.

At the end of the day Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World may not blaze new ground or examine deeper themes, but it is a lot of fun to watch and that's a lot more than can be said for most movies.

Classic Review: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Note, before anyone else points it out, I do realize that 2001: A Space Odyssey is not a queer film per se. Although admittedly it is also possible to discern some themes of interest to feminists and academics studying gender theory, there is not really enought to classify the movie as a queer movie. Irregardless, I felt that it wouldn't hurt if I were to stretch my wings a little and write the occasional formal review of a few classic movies.

Also, I am planning on talking about the ending a bit, so those who have not seen the film and wish to have an unspoiled experience should not read this review.

2001: A Space Odyssey
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writers: Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark. Based upon the book by Arthur C. Clark.
Cast: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Douglas Rain

2001: A Space Odyssey is the first film I was able to see in glorious HD blue ray. This of course means that I must make the almost obligatory comment that pretty much every previous critic has made before and say that those were some pretty amazing visuals that Kubrick cooked up for the screen. While not so well received when it was first released, 2001 has since grown in stature to the point where it has the reputation as being one of the greatest science fiction films of all time.

The plot of 2001 starts with the dawn of man when a group of apes recently evicted from their water hole by a rival group, discover a strange, black monolith. Like Adam and Eve cast from the garden of Eden, these apes are forced to develop technology to survive and as in the Genesis story where Cain kills Abel, this development soon leads to the first act of aggression and murder.

The plot then leaps forward and now mankind's rapidly advancing technology has given us to the ability to explore space with increased ease. When another monolith is found by colonists on the moon, Dr. Heywood R. Floyd (William Sylvester) is sent to investigate. The moon monolith, which was buried for 4 million years, is clearly not of natural design. When Dr. Floyd touches the monolith, a shriek is emitted, stunning his crew as the monolith beams a message in the direction of Jupiter.

Later, an astronaut team lead by Dr. Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Dr. Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood) is sent to Jupiter to investigate what could be there to have received the signal. Along the way most of the crew is killed by the amoral computer Hal 9000 (Douglas Rain), forcing Dr. Bowman to deactivate it. When Dr. Bowman finally reaches Jupiter, he discovers a third monolith that when as he's approaching, launches him on a final odyssey. At the end of this journey Bowman finds himself rapidly aging before being reborn as the star child, the next stage in human evolution.

Now, while that description makes that movie sound completely chaste, I have to point out that I left out any mention at all of the rather overt sexual imagery Kubrick included. Seriously, 2001: A Space Orgy would work just as well for a title.

To start out, the stewardess that Dr. Floyd interacts with at the beginning of the film are all wearing headgear that makes them look like walking dildos. One shot features a stewardess maneuvering in such a way so that she can enter a doorway headfirst. Another shot is of Dr. Floyd's ship on a tall platform being lowered into the moon, which appears to have been framed to better resemble a giant phallus penetrating the lunar surface.

In this analogy, when Dr. Floyd touches the monolith, he's not just making contact with an extra-terrestrial intelligence, he's hitting it's g-spot. The resulting screech is just the sort of orgasmic scream I would expect from a woman who has gone unstimulated for a few million years. The intermission is even conveniently placed at such a point so people can go outside to have a post-coital smoke.

Then the Jupiter mission's spaceship is shaped almost precisely like a giant sperm cell. By this analogy, when Dr. Bowman makes contact with the Jupiter monolith, he's also metaphorically impregnating it. Fortunately for the monolith, pregnancy does not include morning sickness, hungering for strange food, or painful swelling. Instead, it resembles an acid trip, with the bright color patterns and surreal imagery all leading up to Dr. Bowman achieving a higher state of being.

Also, the early sequence where the apes discover the monolith can be seen in the context of a first date. That is, the apes must kill or run off the other apes, not just to get the water hole back, but to eliminate potential rivals for the monoliths affection. Apparently, the monolith is also the completely monogamous type.

To sum up for those who might be confused:
This 2001 plot point resembles ->
The Dawn of Man -> First Date
Dr. Floyd's moon trip -> The penetrating, humping, and grinding part
Touching the monolith -> The G-spot Baby!
Monolith Screech -> Orgasm!
Intermission -> The Post-Coital Smoke
Jupiter Mission -> Sperm traveling towards the egg
Dr. Bowman entering the Jupiter Monolith -> Impregnation
Dr. Bowman's acid trip -> Pregnancy
Dr. Bowman reborn -> (re)Birth

In this analysis, space and the dark, mysterious monoliths are metaphors for the feminine mystique. For the most part, female characters themselves are almost entirely absent. The few that do show up early in the movie are either presented as giant penises or are otherwise irrelevant to the plot. The feminine elements in the movie are outer space and the monoliths, both of which are presented as these great mysteries that men must solve in order to achieve enlightenment. Or great sex, I will admit to now being a bit confused on that bit myself.

Easy Rider (1969) is often credited by film historians as being the first movie about the counter-culture movement that was popular in the 1960's. I am no expert, but I have to point out how much A Space Odyssey (which was released the year before Easy Rider) is not only mired in, but also a direct result of the 1960's counter-culture ideology. All the aforementioned sexual imagery can be seen as a homage to the rallying cry of "free love" and the final climactic journey appears designed by and for LSD users. A tag-line for one poster even describes the movie as "The Ultimate Trip".

If reviewers at the time 2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968 were harsh on the film, they can be forgiven. After all many of them were probably expecting a more conventional space opera. What they got instead was an avant garde porno set in outer space. I don't think any one of them can be blamed for ending up a bit confused.

So to wrap this up, considering the philosophical elements and themes that form the foundation of 2001: A Space Odyssey I would argue that it is unquestionably one of the greatest movies of all time. For those who still complain that 2001 is a complete bore, just remember that that this is a movie about sex, drugs, and men doing kinky things in space with tall, dark monoliths. Not so boring now is it?