Queer Review: Spartacus (1960)

Spartacus
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writer: Dalton Trumbo. Based upon the novel by Howard Fast.
Cast: Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Jean Simmons, Charles Laughton, Peter Ustinov, Tony Curtis

Overview
Although he later to try and distance himself from the film, auteur Stanley Kubrick - who would later go on to direct such revered classics as 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining - got his start by directing the epic Spartacus. Unfortunately, none of the talent he would demonstrate in later movies is on display here and Spartacus ends up being less an epic adventure and more an epic time waster.

Synopsis
Spartacus (Kirk Douglass) is a slave training under the auspices of Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov) to become a Gladiator when Varinia (Jean Simmons), the slave woman that he had been in love with, is sold to Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier). This event serves as the impetus for a slave revolt that threatened to destroy the Roman Empire.

The Queering
Spartacus was made at a time when Hollywood was still competing with television for ticket sales and was clearly designed to show off the new technology of Panavision. There are some really nicely shot scenes of vast crowds and armies marching across the wilderness. Unfortunately, great cinematography does not make a great movie, otherwise we would have winner here.

It is hard to tell where exactly things go wrong as there is some great talent both behind and in front of the camera. A good place to start would be the romance between Spartacus and Varinia which causes proceedings to grind to a halt every time the two start looking at each other sappily. Then there is the epic battle scene which fails to get the blood pumping. Worst of all, Spartacus himself is so poorly developed by the screenplay that he never warrants much interest beyond a shrug, even when he is dying all Christ like on a cross.

The most interesting scenes are those that offer a behind the scenes look at the corrupt political maneuvering that was going on in the Roman senate while Spartacus was carrying out his revolt. These scenes are not only highly topical considering todays current political climate, but also have an authenticity about them that the rest of the film sadly lacks. There are also several blatant swipes at McCarthyism which should not come as a surprise considering that screenwriter Donald Trumbo had been blacklisted at the time.

I would like to point out that there is one queer scene of note. That is the scene where Crassus uses veiled references to make a failed pass his manservant Antonius (Tony Curtis). This scene was cut in the original 1960's release but later restored in the 1991 edition. If one wishes to see it, one can have fun sitting through all 3 hours and 16 minutes of the restored edition or one can watch the clip below.


Recommendation
Of little interest outside of anyone with a strong interest in film history or films with queer subtexts.

The Rating

Trailer



Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.

Queer Issue: X-Men - First Class and the Unfortunate Straightening Out of Hollywood.

I probably spend more time watching movie trailers than I should. In fact I tend to be a little bit obsessive about it and I would argue that there is nothing wrong with this when so many movie trailers for redundant action movies and lame comedies are more thrilling and funny than the product they are selling.

This has nothing to do with what I actually want to talk about, other than it was while watching the trailer for X-Men - First Class that I noticed something that caught me attention. I have written before about the queer subtexts in the first and second X-Men movies. Therefore, I was a bit shocked when I noticed Mystique making out with a guy. After all, was not Mystique originally supposed to be a lesbian in the comic books? Although thanks to the Comics Code Authority, readers never actually saw her become the lover of the character Destiny (Irene Adler).

In any event, even though I have not seen X-Men - First Class, I must admit to being annoyed that one of the queer characters appears to have been straightened out. Unfortunately, this is a typical Hollywood practice that dates back to the days of the Hays Code, when depictions of queer characters was outright forbidden. This practice of course is that of taking previous material that contains queer characters or stories of real life queer individuals, and washing any queerness out.

Back during the days of the Hays Code, a movie such asThe Lost Weekend (1946) would have had to take any queer characters and straighten them out. Otherwise, the film could not be made as the Hays Code forbid depictions of "sexual perverts". While rather reprehensible, this practice might be understandable at a time when the rules were completely intractable. However, it did not end when the Hays Code was eventually replaced with the MPAA. To me, this is where things get really annoying.

It is bad enough that there are already too few depictions of LGBTQIA characters on film, but when filmmakers take a property or the story of a real person and massage it so that the queerness becomes invisible, the insult stings that much worse.

There have been many books that have been "straigtened out" in the years following the collapse of the Hays Code. Fried Green Tomatoes was made in 1991 and the two main characters are never once shown to be the lesbian lovers they were in the book. A more recent example would be Let Me In (2010) which not only increased the romantic factor between the leads but eliminated the queerness from the main relationship altogether.

Again, I think this practice is bad enough when it comes to fictional characters, but I would argue that the re-writing of history is even worse. When the world is portrayed as having been shaped by only straight individuals, and the accomplishments of queers are ignored, it is nothing less then an insult to our community. Take for instance, Enigma (2001) which was clearly based on the work of Alan Turing but has the character pursuing a romantic relationship with a woman or A Beautiful Mind (2001) which never mentions that John Nash "had recurring liaisons with other men".

It feels to me as if though Hollywood Producers are saying the same thing to the queer community that the evil Xerxes threatened to do to King Leonidas in 300:

There will be no glory in your sacrifice. I will erase even the memory of Sparta from the histories! Every piece of Greek parchment shall be burned. Every Greek historian, and every scribe shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Sparta, or Leonidas, will be punishable by death! The world will never know you existed at all!

300 is of course a good movie to bring up here as a complete list of it's historical inaccuracies would be pretty long. For starters, Xerxes was not that evil baddie that he was portrayed as. Also, the über macho Spartans portrayed in 300 were also known to practice pederasty. Pederasty, for those who do not know, is the practice of older men having sex with young boys.

To me, this might not be an issue if there were more examples of characters who were queered up. However, the the only example that I know of is V for Vendetta (2006)

Invisibility is not a the only problem facing the queer community, although it can be argued that every other issue (homophobic and transphobic motivated violence, job and housing discrimination, etc) is made that much more serious when people are left unaware to even the existence of LGBTQIA individuals. There are also plenty of sources to blame besides Hollywood for the erasing of Queers from history. Take for instance the "Don't Say Gay Bill" that would forbid discussions of "homosexuality" in Tennessee schools.

However, Hollywood exacerbates an already serious problem whenever queer characters and individuals are made to appear straight. History and fictional stories are not things that should be rewritten merely to serve the whims of those who find depictions of queer characters objectionable. Censorship is the objectionable practice here and the truth is what should be told.

Queer Issue: Defining Oneself

Man or woman, male or female, these are the choices that have been presented to individuals since the beginning. One was born, slapped on the rear by a doctor, allowed a good cry, and then either "It's a Girl!" or "It's a Boy!" or if one was an intersex individual "It needs surgery!"

Once this declaration was made, one was shepherded through life with this label emblazoned on every pink dress and blue bib. There was never any chance for any sort of grey. If one was a man, one was supposed to work to support your family, know how to fix a car, enjoy sports, and be better at things like math and science. If one was a woman, one was supposed to stay home to raise the kids, know how to cook and clean, enjoy knitting, and be better at things like writing and artistic endeavors.

While gender roles have slowly become eroded, women are entering the workplace and stay at home dads are not as uncommon as they once used to be, there still remains another issue. We still tend to think in terms of binary classification. The possibility that one is something other than male nor female, still tends to be ignored.

The reason I wanted to talk about this is because I never felt comfortable saying "I am a man". I also felt a little twitch whenever someone else described me as such. There are implications to go along with that suit and label that do not fit me at all.

So then I can that I am not a man. Fine, but what am I? What identity shall I choose instead? This question has arguably been bothering me for some time, nagging at the back of my head whenever I could not sleep at night.

Here's what I have come up with instead. I am not a man, but I am biologically male and see no reason to change that. I also do not want to identify as a woman either.

Unfortunately, that leaves me with a bit of a quandary, philosophically speaking. I know what I am not, but have a harder time figuring out what I am. I do not like the idea of defining oneself in negative terms. I can use the term gender-queer, and that fits me well enough that it will have to do for the time being.

So while I intend to continue to explore this issue, consider this my coming out as a gay gender queer.

Queer Review: Women in Revolt (1971)

Women in Revolt
Director: Paul Morrissey
Writer: Paul Morrissey
Cast: Candy Darling, Jackie Curtis, Holly Woodlawn

Overview
This Warhol Factory production attempts to satirize the Women's Liberation movement. Unfortunately, Women in Revolt is so painful an experience to watch, that I believe viewing it should be covered by 8th Amendment to the Constitution (the one about Cruel and Unusual Punishment).

Synopsis
Three women Candy (Candy Darling), Jackie (Jackie Curtis), and Holly (Holly Woodlawn) played by men in drag, come together to create a women's liberation movement called P.I.G. (Politically Involved Girls) and become lesbians. We the audience are then subjected to scene after scene - thankfully interrupted by some lengthy scenes of extended nudity - where these characters sit around and complain to each other about the evils of men and how tragic their miserable lives are.

The Queering
Women in Revolt was made by under the auspices of the Warhol Factory shortly after the attempted murder of Andy Warhol by radical feminist Valerie Solanas. It is not hard therefore, to see Warhol and company aiming the "satire" of Women in Revolt at Solanas. There is an obvious kinship between P.I.G. and the S.C.U.M (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto which was written by Solanas. I can understand the sentiment as I imagine Warhol was not exactly a fan of Solanas after that event. However, there is no excuse for him to have foisted this unfunny dung pile upon the public at large.

I suppose on one hand, there will be those who leap to write/director Paul Morrissey's defense here and argue that there is some sort of artistic vision driving the movie's nearly incoherent plot forward. These people will probably point out the symbolism and shocking irony of having most of the nudity provided by the men rather then the women.

I, however, find no difficulty in calling a pretentious pile of **** a pretentious pile of ****. After watching Women in Revolt I can only say that I developed an even deeper appreciation of Born in Flames, which was another low budget, pro-feminist independent film and that I kept thinking of fondly while watching this movie.

Let's start with the acting. The only nice thing I can say here is that some of the better performers did not grate on my nerves quite so much as the worst performers did. At least a few of them were obviously high while they were filming their scenes.

As for the production values, the camera work appears to have been done by somebody with only the dimmest sense of where they should be pointing the camera and the editing done by a drunken person with access to only a chainsaw and scotch tape. As for the writing, I am guessing that the dialog was developed using a technique that is now commonly referred to as mumblecore, although if there had been more mumbling and less screeching this film would have been a little easier to bear.

The only positive aspect of this movie is that there is a fairly large amount of male nudity and some female nudity. Although, if that is what one wants, one would be best served by watching porn, as most pornos would have better acting, writing, and production values than Women in Revolt

Recommendation
Too many revolting characteristics to be worth watching. Avoid at all costs.

The Rating

Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.

Queer Review: Stonewall Uprising (2010)

Stonewall Uprising
Directors: Kate Davis and David Heilbroner

Overview
It was called many things, The Stonewall Riots, Revolution, Insurrection, Rebellion. Stonewall Uprising is a comprehensive documentary on the events at the Stonewall Inn on June 28th, 1969 that launched the LGBTQIA civil rights movement.

Synopsis
Stonewall Uprising tells the story of that fateful night when the Stonewall bar was raided by police and the inevitable riots that followed. Also explores the conditions faced by Queers prior to the Stonewall Riots in order to demonstrate the impact that the riots had.

The Queering
Documentaries can be a tricky thing. They can too easily become boring and pedantic, especially if the subject matter is well known. Stonewall Uprising does not fully overcome this problem, but covers a wide enough variety of topics to avoid becoming deathly dull.

This is the strongest aspect of Stonewall Uprising, that it does not limit itself to the events of that night. It discusses how and why the Stonewall Inn came to be run by the Mafia, as well as the widespread oppression faced by queers prior to the Stonewall Riots. One thing I really appreciated was that it did not ignore the fact that there existed - what was referred to at the time - The Homophile Movement, as too often those who cover the Stonewall Riots in an attempt to beef up the importance of those events. However Stonewall Uprising also does show the limited impact groups such as the Mattachine Society had.

Since few photos and no video footage exists of the Stonewall Riots themselves, obviously a lot of hard work had to have been done by the filmmakers to fill an hour and a half movie. There are interviews from those who participated in the riots and most remarkably from police officer, Seymour Pine, who led the original raid on the Stonewall Inn. Unfortunately, it is difficult to gauge his true feelings on the matter. While on one hand he does weakly defend the actions of the police, he also states at one point, “You knew they broke the law, but what kind of law was that?"

Recommendation
Strongly recommended, particularly for those with an interest in the history of the Queer/LGBTQIA civil rights movement.

The Rating

Trailer



Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.

Queer Review: Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967)

Reflections in a Golden Eye
Director: John Huston
Writers: Chapman Mortimer and Gladys Hill. Based on the novel by Carson McCullers.
Cast: Elizabeth Taylor, Marlon Brando, Brian Keith, Robert Forster, Julie Harris, Zorro David

Overview
Sexual obsession, longing, and perversion come together in this tale about a repressed gay military officer, Weldon Penderton (Marlon Brando).

Synopsis
Major Weldon Penderton is an effeminate officer, whose wife Leonora Penderton (Elizabeth Taylor) is having an affair with Lt. Col. Morris Langdon (Brian Keith). Landon's wife Allison (Julie Harris), on the other hand, is suffering from a mental illness that keeps her indoors where she finds solace in the antics of another effeminate male, her servant Anacleto (Zorro David). When Major Weldon Penderton spots Pvt. L.G. Williams (Robert Forster) outside doing some naked horseback riding, Penderton becomes obsessed with him, while at the same time, Williams is also becoming obsessed with Lenora and begins to stalk her.

The Queering
Honestly, I am not sure what to make of this movie. There is a lot going on beneath the surface of each character, but I did not find myself enthralled trying to figure out the boiling emotions that must be going on deep down within each of them. While I have come across a few reviewers who have referred to Reflections in a Golden Eye as a classic, I have to say that it appears to me that it must not have aged well over the years.

It is clear to me that the filmmakers were trying to make a more mature/adult film and for the time period, Reflections probably was. However, to me, much of what the film was trying to say felt facile. I get that the Hays Code, which was on it's last legs at the time that Reflections was released, would have prevented open acknowledgement of Penderton's sexual orientation, but the film still treats being gay as a pathological disease. There is something unsettling about Penderton's obsession with Pvt. Williams and the character comes across as a creepy lowlife. I was somewhat shocked that Penderton was not killed off at the end, which is what the Hays Code would have dictated. I can only assume that the lack of punishment at the end for Penderton, was a sign of the Hays Code's waning influence.

Now supposedly Marlon Brando was the greatest actor of his generation, so it's unfortunate that he does nothing to show that here. Rather, in Reflections in a Golden Eye, Brando tend s to come across as an overlarge ham. Elizabeth Taylor fares a little better as a superficial army brat and I would say she gives the best performance of the film. No one else does that badly but, other than Taylor, there are no stand out performances.

On the whole, the movie appears more concerned with shallow gimmicks than with trying to make any kind of interesting insight into human nature. The golden infused cinematography is one example of this. In the end there is very little to keep me from labeling Reflections in a Golden Eye as both deadly boring and highly pretentious. Keeping the eyes open so they can continue to reflect the golden imagery will ultimately be a chore for most people.

Recommendation
Recommended only for those with a strong interest in older movies with queer subtexts, there is not much here for anybody else.

The Rating

Trailer



Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.

Queer Review: X2: X-Men United (2003)

X2: X-Men United
Director: Bryan Singer
Writers: Zak Penn, David Hayter, Bryan Singer, Michael Dougherty, Dan Harris, and David Hayter
Cast: Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellen, Halle Berry, Famke Janssen, James Marsden, Anna Paquin, Rebecca Romijn, Brian Cox, Alan Cumming

Overview
X2: X-Men United continues the adventure started in the first X-Men movie. There are new mutants and villains, such as Nightcrawler (alan Cumming) and Lady Deathstrike (Kelly Hu) joining the cast. Ultimately, X2: X-Men United is a bigger, bolder version of its predecessor.

Synopsis
X2 opens with a memorable sequence with Nightcrawler attempting to assassinate the President of the United States. This gives William Stryker (Brian Cox) the reason he had been waiting for to obtain authorization to lead an assault on Professor X's School. Soon, Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) has been captured by Stryker, and the X-Men team seperated from their leader must join forces with the recently escaped Magneto (Ian McKellen) - who had been imprisoned at the end of the previous movie. All the while clues indicate that Stryker has plans that present a grave danger for both mutants and mankind.

The Queering
As sequels go, X2 can be seen as a bigger, badder version of the first movie. Many of the same strengths and weaknesses are present here. Bryan Singer's sense of style is just as strong here, as it was in the first movie. The large cast, while still keeping proceedings interesting, continues to hinder character development and identification. On the other hand, Stryker, while played with panache by Brian Cox, makes for a much less interesting villain then Magneto.

X2 starts out strong with Nightcrawler bamfing his way through the white house and has a few memorable sequences in the middle, such as Pyro losing control of his power to manipulate fire. The climax however, is somewhat muddled, and a key character's death fails to leave any significant impact.

However, Singer does a good job of continuing to highlight the queer subtexts, which are much stronger here than in the first movie. There is a notable scene where Iceman comes out of the closet to tell his parents that he is a mutant which many queers will be able to relate to.

Recommendation
Overall, X2: X-Men United is of the same quality as the first movie, therefore I strongly recommend X2 as well.

The Rating

Trailer


Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.