Die Hard
Director: John McTiernan
Writers: Jeb Stuart and Steven E. de Souza. Based upon the novel Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp.
Cast: Bruce Willis, Bonnie Bedelia, Reginald VelJohnson, Paul Gleason, Alan Rickman, James Shigeta, Hart Bochner
Overview
As surprising as it may seem, Die Hard could be considered a sequel to one of the earliest films to deal explicitly with the topic of queer sexuality. However, Die Hard diverges considerably from the novel Nothing Lasts Forever which was a sequel to The Detective, thereby obscuring the connection. That does not stop Die Hard the film from being entertaining, but it is a much different animal from it's source.
Synopsis
On Christmas Eve, NYPD Detective John McClane (Bruce Willis) is visiting his wife Holly (Bonnie Bedelia), with whom he is estranged from, out in LA. Six months ago she had accepted an executive position with the Nakatomi Corporation, while John had stayed behind in New York City. Their reunion is brief and soon interrupted by a group of disguised terrorists (who are actually thieves after $640 million bearer bonds currently being protected in the building vaults) led by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman). While the thieves hold the members of the Nakatomi Corporation hostage as they try to break into the vaults, John McClane escapes in a desperate attempt to wreck havoc on their plans.
The Queering
The novel Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorpe, was a sequel to The Detective which was made into a a 1968 film starring Frank Sinatra. Die Hard the film though, should not be considered a direct sequel, as the film differs from the book in many significant ways. Furthermore, while Die Hard 2: Die Harder went so far as to credit Roderick Thorp with creating the characters, only the barest echo of Frank Sinatra's Joe Leland can be seen in Bruce Willis's John McClane. Furthermore, Bonnie Bedelia's Holly is a completely different character bearing no resemblance to Lee Remick's Karen Leland. For example, Karen would certainly have taken Harry Ellis (Hart Bochner) up on the offer he made to Bonnie at the beginning of the film.
The Detective the film, was problematic in many ways, but it attempted to include (for the time period) portrayels of sympathetic gay characters. Unfortunately, it failed in that endeavor. What The Detective the film did succeed at was a rather adult perspective on the subject matter, as well as including some rather interesting thematic content related to issues of intersectionality. Roderick's novels, from what research I have done, appear to have also attempted to look at deeper themes and ideas.
Die Hard the film though, attempts to be nothing more than a popcorn action flick, although admittedly it is a very well done popcorn action flick. There is almost no queer content whatsoever, unless you count little things, like a drunken male party goer kissing John McClane at the beginning. McClane reacts to that incident pretty much the way I would have expected LeLand to have. Re-watching Die Hard this time arround, I was actually surprised to notice how unfeminine Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber is. He is intelligent and sophisticated to be sure, but not the least bit fey.
There is of the course the matter in which the LAPD is portrayed, which leads me to the conclusion that no one involved with the film roots for the Dodgers. While McClane (an NYPD detective) is shown to be smart and highly resourceful, pretty much every member of the LAPD who shows up on screen is either an idiot or comic relief. When John McClane first attempts to send out a distress signal on the radio about the hostage situation, he is lectured by a dispatcher for using an emergency broadband channel. When the LAPD finally do show up, Deputy Police Chief Robinson (Paul Gleason) ignores information that the thieves are armed with heavy artillery and attempts to send in a team to retake the building, with predictable results. During this offensive, LAPD officers are shown trying to use an acetylene torch to remove the lock on a glass door. Even at the end, Robinson refuses to give McClane credit for his efforts to save the hostages. The LA media doesn't fare much better. During the hostage crises, one upstart reporter forces his way into the house where the McClane kids are being babysat and the resulting interview provides Hans Gruber with a vital piece of information. I guess people in Hollywood don't have a whole lot of hometown pride...
Otherwise, there is not a lot I can say about this, other than what has shown up in pretty much every other review by now. Die Hard set the template for so many other later films (such as Speed). The action is riviting! And well directed! And won't you check out the cinematography! Which is admittedly rather well done. After watching Die Hard I am kind of tempted to have a law passed that mandates a minimum amount of time a shot can last. Seriously, there has been an unfortunate trend with recent films to over-edit, and not just their action sequences. Two more recent films that come to mind are Snow White and the Huntsman and The Hungar Games where even the non-action sequences refused to allow the camera to linger. Watching Die Hard, which features impressive cinematography and classical editing, was a nice reminder that sometimes less can be more, particularly when it comes time to cut a film.
Recommendation
Perhaps not worth dying for, either the hard way or softly, but I would say Die Hard is worth seeking out.
The Rating
*** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
April 26, 2013
March 26, 2013
If Same Sex Marriage Really Leads to Polygamy, Shouldn't Christians Want to Get Gay Married?
So, like Prop 8 is now going before the supreme court which is... interesting. I guess.
There is a little bitty part of me that wants to point out how awkward the push for Marriage Equality has become. How it has pushed aside other more pressing concerns within the queer community. Issues such as poverty, homelessness, HIV/AIDS, employment discrimination, trans issues. On why people never ask why state sanctioned marriage exists in the first place and why do married people deserve easier access to housing, education, and healthcare and so on.
However, I thought it might be fun to put together some responses to some of the reasons that are used to oppose same sex marriage.
Here goes:
Same Sex Marriage will lead to polygamy.
If this were true, all Christians should be wanting to get gay married. See, polygamy was practiced in the Bible so if polygamy were to be legalized in the U.S., the U.S. would therefore become a more Biblical Nation.
Same Sex Marriage is unnatural.
So is walking on water, turning water into wine, and rising from the dead.
Gays need to recruit in order for their numbers too grow
And remind me again what exactly these "Christian missionaries" who keep knocking on my door are doing?
Gay Marriage will destroy the very fabric of society
This is true, a lot of fabric needs to be cut up and destroyed to make wedding dresses and tuxedos. The solution is obvious. Ban Marriage! Save the nation's fabric supply!
Marriage is necessary for procreation.
True again! Nobody who is unmarried can get pregnant! And everybody who does get married can automatically have kids. Infertility is never an issue if a couple is legitimately married. Heck, God didn't even need to have sex with Mary in order for the birth of Jesus to occur. He simply got married to her and presto! Baby Jesus just happened! As opposed to God implanting a fetus in her without her consent and then sending an angel to tell her what had already taken place. I mean it couldn't possibly have been a legitimate rape or her body would
have shut the whole thing down! Oh wait...
All kids require two opposite sex parents in order to not grow up to become murdering psychopaths or bratty socialists.
Because Cain and Abel both had Adam and Eve as parents and turned out fine. Meanwhile, Jesus had two dads and he was a lazy brat who threw temper tantrums in church over the mere presence of hard working business men. One must assume he was jealous of their success, unnatural hippy socialist that he was.
There is a little bitty part of me that wants to point out how awkward the push for Marriage Equality has become. How it has pushed aside other more pressing concerns within the queer community. Issues such as poverty, homelessness, HIV/AIDS, employment discrimination, trans issues. On why people never ask why state sanctioned marriage exists in the first place and why do married people deserve easier access to housing, education, and healthcare and so on.
However, I thought it might be fun to put together some responses to some of the reasons that are used to oppose same sex marriage.
Here goes:
Same Sex Marriage will lead to polygamy.
If this were true, all Christians should be wanting to get gay married. See, polygamy was practiced in the Bible so if polygamy were to be legalized in the U.S., the U.S. would therefore become a more Biblical Nation.
Same Sex Marriage is unnatural.
So is walking on water, turning water into wine, and rising from the dead.
Gays need to recruit in order for their numbers too grow
And remind me again what exactly these "Christian missionaries" who keep knocking on my door are doing?
Gay Marriage will destroy the very fabric of society
This is true, a lot of fabric needs to be cut up and destroyed to make wedding dresses and tuxedos. The solution is obvious. Ban Marriage! Save the nation's fabric supply!
Marriage is necessary for procreation.
True again! Nobody who is unmarried can get pregnant! And everybody who does get married can automatically have kids. Infertility is never an issue if a couple is legitimately married. Heck, God didn't even need to have sex with Mary in order for the birth of Jesus to occur. He simply got married to her and presto! Baby Jesus just happened! As opposed to God implanting a fetus in her without her consent and then sending an angel to tell her what had already taken place. I mean it couldn't possibly have been a legitimate rape or her body would
have shut the whole thing down! Oh wait...
All kids require two opposite sex parents in order to not grow up to become murdering psychopaths or bratty socialists.
Because Cain and Abel both had Adam and Eve as parents and turned out fine. Meanwhile, Jesus had two dads and he was a lazy brat who threw temper tantrums in church over the mere presence of hard working business men. One must assume he was jealous of their success, unnatural hippy socialist that he was.
March 12, 2013
Queer Review: Gun Hill Road (2011)
Gun Hill Road
Director: Rashaad Ernesto Green
Writer: Rashaad Ernesto Green
Cast: Esai Morales, Judy Reyes, Harmony Santana, Miriam Colon, Isiah Whitlock Jr., Franky G, Vincent Laresca, Robin de Jesus
Overview
Gun Hill Road is a film that does as many things wrong as it does right. Lacking in focus, while high in predictability, the main things that save this from being mostly a waste are strong acting and raw cinematography.
Synopsis
Enrique (Esai Morales) has just been released from prison and returns home to find out that his wife, Angela (Judy Reyes) has been having an affair while he was in jail. While this does not bother him too much, when he discovers the fact that his "son", Michael (Harmony Santana) is now in the process of transitioning to Vanessa, he finds it increasingly difficult to control his rage.
The Queering
Watching Gun Hill Road, I was frequently reminded of Pariah. Both films are small, independent features that depict inner city life for young individuals of color, who are LGBTQ identified. The plots also have remarkably similarly narratives, which ends up being Gun Hill Road's biggest undoing.
Familiarity maybe bread contempt, but that need not be a killer for most films, but when the plot becomes too predictable, there needs to be some other element capable of making the story compelling. Unfortunately for Gun Hill Road some naturalistic performances and a shaky cam that lends a feeling of "realness" -- even while the script is doing everything it can to take things in the opposite direction -- are not enough to save it.
There was also the unfortunate decision to make Enrique a focal point of the story. The main problem is that he was not a terribly sympathetic character, particularly after he assaults Vanessa and forces her to submit to a haircut. The fact that his character arc is the most predictable out of all the characters does not help matters either.
Now maybe I've taken too much sensitivity training on the subject, but the choice gendered pronouns and nouns by other characters when they referred to Michael/Vanessa bothered me a biy. I mean, I can understand why Enrique keeps using male pronouns, but why does Angela, who apparently was on board with the transition, keep misgendering Vanessa?
Recommendation
For those who prefer smaller films and independent cinema, Gun Hill Road may be a route worth taking. If not, this film may be better off being left the road less traveled.
The Rating
**1/2 out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Rashaad Ernesto Green
Writer: Rashaad Ernesto Green
Cast: Esai Morales, Judy Reyes, Harmony Santana, Miriam Colon, Isiah Whitlock Jr., Franky G, Vincent Laresca, Robin de Jesus
Overview
Gun Hill Road is a film that does as many things wrong as it does right. Lacking in focus, while high in predictability, the main things that save this from being mostly a waste are strong acting and raw cinematography.
Synopsis
Enrique (Esai Morales) has just been released from prison and returns home to find out that his wife, Angela (Judy Reyes) has been having an affair while he was in jail. While this does not bother him too much, when he discovers the fact that his "son", Michael (Harmony Santana) is now in the process of transitioning to Vanessa, he finds it increasingly difficult to control his rage.
The Queering
Watching Gun Hill Road, I was frequently reminded of Pariah. Both films are small, independent features that depict inner city life for young individuals of color, who are LGBTQ identified. The plots also have remarkably similarly narratives, which ends up being Gun Hill Road's biggest undoing.
Familiarity maybe bread contempt, but that need not be a killer for most films, but when the plot becomes too predictable, there needs to be some other element capable of making the story compelling. Unfortunately for Gun Hill Road some naturalistic performances and a shaky cam that lends a feeling of "realness" -- even while the script is doing everything it can to take things in the opposite direction -- are not enough to save it.
There was also the unfortunate decision to make Enrique a focal point of the story. The main problem is that he was not a terribly sympathetic character, particularly after he assaults Vanessa and forces her to submit to a haircut. The fact that his character arc is the most predictable out of all the characters does not help matters either.
Now maybe I've taken too much sensitivity training on the subject, but the choice gendered pronouns and nouns by other characters when they referred to Michael/Vanessa bothered me a biy. I mean, I can understand why Enrique keeps using male pronouns, but why does Angela, who apparently was on board with the transition, keep misgendering Vanessa?
Recommendation
For those who prefer smaller films and independent cinema, Gun Hill Road may be a route worth taking. If not, this film may be better off being left the road less traveled.
The Rating
**1/2 out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
March 10, 2013
Of the Day (March 10th, 2013)
The Amazing Sassy
Links
A term I don’t use anymore: TERF from Transstingray by Annetta Gaiman
American Assassinations For Dummies from NSFWcorp by By Mark Ames
Who are Democrats and Republicans representing, anyway? from Salon by David Sirota
Research shows everyone does worse with online learning from The Raw Story by Kay Steiger
Video
Follow Me On:
Twitter
Follow @queerthecloset
Google+
Facebook
Links
A term I don’t use anymore: TERF from Transstingray by Annetta Gaiman
American Assassinations For Dummies from NSFWcorp by By Mark Ames
Who are Democrats and Republicans representing, anyway? from Salon by David Sirota
Research shows everyone does worse with online learning from The Raw Story by Kay Steiger
Video
Follow Me On:
Follow @queerthecloset
Google+
March 9, 2013
Queer Review: The Mark of Zorro (1920)
The Mark of Zorro
Director: Fred Niblo
Writer: Johnston McCulley. Based upon his novel The Curse of Capistrano
Cast: Douglas Fairbanks, Marguerite De La Motte, Robert McKim, Noah Beery, Charles Hill Mailes, Tote Du Crow, Walt Whitman, Claire McDowell, George Periolat
Overview
This 1920 silent film about Señor Zorro (Mr. Fox) contains more subtexts then one can shake a saber at. While not completely subverting the macho hero/effeminate villain paradigm, The Mask of Zorro does manage to come close.
Synopsis
The year is approximately 1820 and the oppressive Governor of California, Alvarado (George Periolat) has found his authority challenged by a masked vigilante, Señor Zorro (Douglas Fairbanks). His right hand man, Capitán Juan Ramon (Robert McKim), vows to capture Zorro, only to find himself humiliated when Zorro beats him in a dual. Meanwhile, the effete Don Diego Vega (who is really Zorro) is being pressured by his father, Don Alejandro (Sidney De Gray) to marry Lolita Pulido (Marguerite De La Motte), whose family is being persecuted by Governor Alvarado. This leads to an unfortunate love triangle when Capitán Ramon also falls for the beautiful Lolita.
The Queering
If you noticed any similarities between Zorro and Batman in the synopsis, they are not coincidences. Bob Kane admitted that the character of Zorro inspired the development of Batman. Here, in The Mark of Zorro the similarities can be seen everything from a proto-Bat cave to the trusty servant, Bernardo (Tote Du Crow).
Other elements that can be observed to have been mimicked in later superhero stories is the secret identity, Señor Zorro/Don Diego Vega, concept. It has been commented on that this element of the superhero mythos mimics that of the closeted gay or lesbian. That is, many superheros present themselves as "normal" during the day but at night, take on a different personality to fight crime. What makes Zorro interesting to me, is just how feminine Don Diego Vega was presented. In his first entrance, he is shown making a theatrical entrance to a bar using an umbrella. He even snorts tobacco (smoking it was considered "unladylike", so woman of the time would sniff tobacco instead). More importantly, he feigns a disinterest in girls, much to his father's consternation.
At the end, when Zorro is forced out of the closet, it can be seen as a reversal of the normal "coming out" experienced by LGBTQ people. Here, it's the effeminate, sub-textually gay personality that is revealed to truly be a heterosexual, butch avenger.
Further subversiveness is found in the role of Capitán Juan Ramon, who demonstrates sexual interest in Lolita. Granted, this is not a complete subversion of the butch hero/femme baddie, but Ramon is not shown to be any less masculine than Zorro and is certainly more butch than Don Diego Vega.
There is one element I found interesting that does not get replicated very much in the superhero genre, which is that Zorro is very specifically fighting a governmental authority figure, not a criminal enterprise. Superman fights "for truth, justice, and the American way". While Gotham's Police Department is shown to be utterly corrupt in Batman Begins, during The Dark Knight Rises Batman is shown fighting side by side with Gotham's Law Enforcement. Spiderman pretty much exclusively fights criminals and mad scientists. Professor Xavier in the X-Men films actually support the status quo, while Magneto is the one who attempts insurrection.
However, in spite of it's subversiveness, The Mark of Zorro is not a great film as the writing and plot were fairly simplistic overall. I must admit though, that the fight scenes with their over the top stunts and Zorro engaging in bizarre behavior in order to taunt his enemies, were certainly fun to watch. For the time period, the acting seemed fairly sedate from my perspective, although that might have been because I had recently watched Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.
Recommendation
Overall, a lesser silent film, but one worth taking the time to seek out for it's subversiveness and the absurd fight sequences. Would be worth getting marked with a "Z" upon one's flesh in order to see.
The Rating
*** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Fred Niblo
Writer: Johnston McCulley. Based upon his novel The Curse of Capistrano
Cast: Douglas Fairbanks, Marguerite De La Motte, Robert McKim, Noah Beery, Charles Hill Mailes, Tote Du Crow, Walt Whitman, Claire McDowell, George Periolat
Overview
This 1920 silent film about Señor Zorro (Mr. Fox) contains more subtexts then one can shake a saber at. While not completely subverting the macho hero/effeminate villain paradigm, The Mask of Zorro does manage to come close.
Synopsis
The year is approximately 1820 and the oppressive Governor of California, Alvarado (George Periolat) has found his authority challenged by a masked vigilante, Señor Zorro (Douglas Fairbanks). His right hand man, Capitán Juan Ramon (Robert McKim), vows to capture Zorro, only to find himself humiliated when Zorro beats him in a dual. Meanwhile, the effete Don Diego Vega (who is really Zorro) is being pressured by his father, Don Alejandro (Sidney De Gray) to marry Lolita Pulido (Marguerite De La Motte), whose family is being persecuted by Governor Alvarado. This leads to an unfortunate love triangle when Capitán Ramon also falls for the beautiful Lolita.
The Queering
If you noticed any similarities between Zorro and Batman in the synopsis, they are not coincidences. Bob Kane admitted that the character of Zorro inspired the development of Batman. Here, in The Mark of Zorro the similarities can be seen everything from a proto-Bat cave to the trusty servant, Bernardo (Tote Du Crow).
Other elements that can be observed to have been mimicked in later superhero stories is the secret identity, Señor Zorro/Don Diego Vega, concept. It has been commented on that this element of the superhero mythos mimics that of the closeted gay or lesbian. That is, many superheros present themselves as "normal" during the day but at night, take on a different personality to fight crime. What makes Zorro interesting to me, is just how feminine Don Diego Vega was presented. In his first entrance, he is shown making a theatrical entrance to a bar using an umbrella. He even snorts tobacco (smoking it was considered "unladylike", so woman of the time would sniff tobacco instead). More importantly, he feigns a disinterest in girls, much to his father's consternation.
At the end, when Zorro is forced out of the closet, it can be seen as a reversal of the normal "coming out" experienced by LGBTQ people. Here, it's the effeminate, sub-textually gay personality that is revealed to truly be a heterosexual, butch avenger.
Further subversiveness is found in the role of Capitán Juan Ramon, who demonstrates sexual interest in Lolita. Granted, this is not a complete subversion of the butch hero/femme baddie, but Ramon is not shown to be any less masculine than Zorro and is certainly more butch than Don Diego Vega.
There is one element I found interesting that does not get replicated very much in the superhero genre, which is that Zorro is very specifically fighting a governmental authority figure, not a criminal enterprise. Superman fights "for truth, justice, and the American way". While Gotham's Police Department is shown to be utterly corrupt in Batman Begins, during The Dark Knight Rises Batman is shown fighting side by side with Gotham's Law Enforcement. Spiderman pretty much exclusively fights criminals and mad scientists. Professor Xavier in the X-Men films actually support the status quo, while Magneto is the one who attempts insurrection.
However, in spite of it's subversiveness, The Mark of Zorro is not a great film as the writing and plot were fairly simplistic overall. I must admit though, that the fight scenes with their over the top stunts and Zorro engaging in bizarre behavior in order to taunt his enemies, were certainly fun to watch. For the time period, the acting seemed fairly sedate from my perspective, although that might have been because I had recently watched Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.
Recommendation
Overall, a lesser silent film, but one worth taking the time to seek out for it's subversiveness and the absurd fight sequences. Would be worth getting marked with a "Z" upon one's flesh in order to see.
The Rating
*** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Queer Review: Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994)
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective
Director: Tom Shadyac
Writer: Jack Bernstein, Tom Shadyac, and Jim Carrey
Cast: Jim Carrey, Courteney Cox, Sean Young, Tone Loc, Dan Marino, Noble Willingham, Udo Kier
Overview
An overly transphobic and homophobic turd of a film from the mid-90's, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective commits the ultimate sin for a comedy; not only is it offensive, it isn't really all that funny.
Synopsis
When the beloved Miama Dolphins football team mascot (Snowflake) goes missing, the teams publicist Melissa (Courteney Cox) calls upon the services of Ace Ventura (Jim Carrey) to get the aquatic mammal back. His investigation will take him on a bizare path, one filled with twists and surprises.
The Queering
There is a scene in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective where Ace Ventura, while searching for Snowflake, comes across a large aquarium. Instead of an innocent dolphin swimming inside, Ace Ventura finds instead a giant man eating shark. This moment is clearly intended as a sublime metaphor for the films tragic denouement. It's almost as subtle as the one featured in the opening scene where Ace Ventura is shown kicking a package down a hallway, thereby destroying the contents. This scene is clearly meant to tell the audience that the film ahead is an empty, soul eating endeavor that will completely destroy all that is funny or humorous in our world.
Or perhaps not.
So, in any case some of the higher ups for the Bush administration openly cited transgender/transsexual people as a security concern. What's amusing about this, is that they're concern could have easily been based off of a juvenile plot twist from this film. Never mind that if one wanted to change one's identity, it's much easier to change things like eye/hair/skin color then it is to go through the surgical procedures to change one's gender/sex. Height and weight are similarly malleable, but lord knows, nobody ever brings up banning spray on tanning products, hair dye, colored contacts, diet pills, or any of the kinds of surgery one could use to change one's physical stature or THE TERRORISTS WIN.
Sorry, but I digress.
In any case, if there is a transphobic or homophobic trope that this film misses, I cannot think of it. The main "twist" of the film revolves around the fact that one of the characters transitioned from male to female. Or maybe not. It's not clear whether or not the writers are even aware of the possibility of someone wanting to undergo surgery to change their sex for purposes other than deception. So we have "deceptive trans villain". Check.
In one scene we have Jim Carrey wearing a dress in order to intimate to a medical professional that he has a mental illness. This is on top of the numerous times there is dialogue blatantly stating that the villain is mentally ill. So, linking mental illness and transgender and transsexual identities? Check.
Then there is the scene where Ace Ventura gets all upset over the fact that he kissed a person with a dick. When he reveals this little factoid to the other police officers (the villain here also happens to be a police lieutenant) all of the police officers present react negatively, as if they too had been making out with the female lieutenant. So the idea of queer sexuality as gross and disgusting present? Check.
I could go on, but it's really not worth it. In the end, I could not help but think about how Jim Carrey, more than a decade later, would star in the excellent I Love You Phillip Morris. It got me thinking about the number of filmmakers who have worked on incredibly transphobic productions later going on to work on gay friendly ones. For example, Johnathen Demme making Philadelphia following criticism of Silence of the Lambs. Also, there were at least two episodes of The X-Files that could be considered gay friendly (All Things and X-Cops), but I Want to Believe contained an obvious trans villain. Off the top of my head, I could not think of a single counter example of a filmmaker who had worked on a homophobic film and had ever made another one featuring a positive transgender or transsexual character.
Recommendation
This pet detective can only be taken care of properly one way, with a pooper-scooper.
The Rating
Zero out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Tom Shadyac
Writer: Jack Bernstein, Tom Shadyac, and Jim Carrey
Cast: Jim Carrey, Courteney Cox, Sean Young, Tone Loc, Dan Marino, Noble Willingham, Udo Kier
Overview
An overly transphobic and homophobic turd of a film from the mid-90's, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective commits the ultimate sin for a comedy; not only is it offensive, it isn't really all that funny.
Synopsis
When the beloved Miama Dolphins football team mascot (Snowflake) goes missing, the teams publicist Melissa (Courteney Cox) calls upon the services of Ace Ventura (Jim Carrey) to get the aquatic mammal back. His investigation will take him on a bizare path, one filled with twists and surprises.
The Queering
There is a scene in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective where Ace Ventura, while searching for Snowflake, comes across a large aquarium. Instead of an innocent dolphin swimming inside, Ace Ventura finds instead a giant man eating shark. This moment is clearly intended as a sublime metaphor for the films tragic denouement. It's almost as subtle as the one featured in the opening scene where Ace Ventura is shown kicking a package down a hallway, thereby destroying the contents. This scene is clearly meant to tell the audience that the film ahead is an empty, soul eating endeavor that will completely destroy all that is funny or humorous in our world.
Or perhaps not.
So, in any case some of the higher ups for the Bush administration openly cited transgender/transsexual people as a security concern. What's amusing about this, is that they're concern could have easily been based off of a juvenile plot twist from this film. Never mind that if one wanted to change one's identity, it's much easier to change things like eye/hair/skin color then it is to go through the surgical procedures to change one's gender/sex. Height and weight are similarly malleable, but lord knows, nobody ever brings up banning spray on tanning products, hair dye, colored contacts, diet pills, or any of the kinds of surgery one could use to change one's physical stature or THE TERRORISTS WIN.
Sorry, but I digress.
In any case, if there is a transphobic or homophobic trope that this film misses, I cannot think of it. The main "twist" of the film revolves around the fact that one of the characters transitioned from male to female. Or maybe not. It's not clear whether or not the writers are even aware of the possibility of someone wanting to undergo surgery to change their sex for purposes other than deception. So we have "deceptive trans villain". Check.
In one scene we have Jim Carrey wearing a dress in order to intimate to a medical professional that he has a mental illness. This is on top of the numerous times there is dialogue blatantly stating that the villain is mentally ill. So, linking mental illness and transgender and transsexual identities? Check.
Then there is the scene where Ace Ventura gets all upset over the fact that he kissed a person with a dick. When he reveals this little factoid to the other police officers (the villain here also happens to be a police lieutenant) all of the police officers present react negatively, as if they too had been making out with the female lieutenant. So the idea of queer sexuality as gross and disgusting present? Check.
I could go on, but it's really not worth it. In the end, I could not help but think about how Jim Carrey, more than a decade later, would star in the excellent I Love You Phillip Morris. It got me thinking about the number of filmmakers who have worked on incredibly transphobic productions later going on to work on gay friendly ones. For example, Johnathen Demme making Philadelphia following criticism of Silence of the Lambs. Also, there were at least two episodes of The X-Files that could be considered gay friendly (All Things and X-Cops), but I Want to Believe contained an obvious trans villain. Off the top of my head, I could not think of a single counter example of a filmmaker who had worked on a homophobic film and had ever made another one featuring a positive transgender or transsexual character.
Recommendation
This pet detective can only be taken care of properly one way, with a pooper-scooper.
The Rating
Zero out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
March 2, 2013
If it's not one thing...
There is a part of me that is tempted to issue some sort of "sorry for not posting more often" apology thing, but given the fact that I'm not exactly under any obligation to put my writing out there on a regular basis, I do this for myself as much as anything else, I'm not sure there is much point in doing so.
In any case one reason for there not being too many posts recently was that two weeks ago, just after I was done getting all nice and settled into the new apartment and starting to get into a regular schedule with regards to my classes at Wilkes-Barre, I get the news that my grandmother passed away. I of course then went down to Maryland to be with my father on that Sunday. Thus, the last two weekends, which probably would have gone towards catching up on my reading for college, were spent driving around, spending some time with my father, and attending the memorial service.
While I was in Towson the first weekend, my Uncle Bruce and I went for a walk through a nearby federal park/historic site of a former slave plantation, called the Ridgely Plantation. While we were walking towards the site, my uncle gave me a brief lecture about the site. About how the planation had been used to manufacture arms during the Revolutionary war and such.
When we got to the site, there was one thing that stuck out and actually bothered me a little bit. Not something I want to devote a whole blog post to, but still worth pointing out. Around the plantation and various buildings, there were these signs that had information about the history of the site. Now I did not get a chance to look at all the signs, of the few that I did, all but one used the term "worker" rather than "slave". The one exception was the sign outside the slave quarters that actually identified the building as being the slave quarters. What made this really odd, was the fact that other terms like "master" "owner" and "overseers", were still used by whoever wrote the signs up.
Just a minor example of historical erasure I thought I'd bring to people's attention.
In any case one reason for there not being too many posts recently was that two weeks ago, just after I was done getting all nice and settled into the new apartment and starting to get into a regular schedule with regards to my classes at Wilkes-Barre, I get the news that my grandmother passed away. I of course then went down to Maryland to be with my father on that Sunday. Thus, the last two weekends, which probably would have gone towards catching up on my reading for college, were spent driving around, spending some time with my father, and attending the memorial service.
While I was in Towson the first weekend, my Uncle Bruce and I went for a walk through a nearby federal park/historic site of a former slave plantation, called the Ridgely Plantation. While we were walking towards the site, my uncle gave me a brief lecture about the site. About how the planation had been used to manufacture arms during the Revolutionary war and such.
When we got to the site, there was one thing that stuck out and actually bothered me a little bit. Not something I want to devote a whole blog post to, but still worth pointing out. Around the plantation and various buildings, there were these signs that had information about the history of the site. Now I did not get a chance to look at all the signs, of the few that I did, all but one used the term "worker" rather than "slave". The one exception was the sign outside the slave quarters that actually identified the building as being the slave quarters. What made this really odd, was the fact that other terms like "master" "owner" and "overseers", were still used by whoever wrote the signs up.
Just a minor example of historical erasure I thought I'd bring to people's attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)