Queer Review: Philadelphia (1993)

Philadelphia
Director: Jonathan Demme
Writer: Ron Nyswaner
Cast: Tom Hanks, Antonio Banderas, Denzel Washington, Jason Robards

Overview
Philadelphia was director Jonathan Demme's penance after he was criticized for the homophobic overtones in his Oscar winning Silence of the Lambs. A story of the AIDS crisis, Philadelphia at least managed to convey the anxieties and fears that came with HIV epidemic, while containing a strong message against homophobia. The only movie that I know that did this better, was the HBO miniseries Angels in America.

Synopsis
When Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) was discovered to have AIDS, he was shortly thereafter fired by his homophobic law firm, even though he had just been promoted to a senior partner. Unfortunately, after being turned down by every other lawyer he had approached, Beckett's only recourse was to hire homophobic attorney Joe Miller (Denzel Washington) in order to file a wrongful termination lawsuit.

The Queering
While Philadelphia is ostensibly about a gay man with HIV/AIDS, the most interesting thematic element is the way homophobia is contrasted with racism. This is underscored, not only by having Beckett being defended by a black lawyer, but during a key scene where Becket is asked repeatedly by a librarian if he would prefer a private study room. During this scene, I could not help but think about that dark part of history when Jimmy Crow dictated that blacks could only swim in public pools on the day before those pools were to be cleaned.

The biggest problem with Philadelphia is the pacing. The opening act is effective in setting up the scenario, but the middle section gets bogged down with too many courtroom scenes, which causes proceedings to drag a bit. That is not to say that there are not many more effective elements, but if the film had trimmed 15-20 minutes, then it would have made for a much better movie experience.

The greatest pleasure comes from watching Denzel Washington's homophobic lawyer gradually turn into someone capable of empathizing with gay people. Tom Hanks is good, as is Antonio Banderas as Beckett's lover, but Washington is the one who has the greatest challenge.

Another thing I appreciated, was how there were no big melodramatic scenes, instead events and themes are developed and explored gradually throughout the movie. Too often courtroom dramas and movies focused on characters dying of terminal illnesses resort to cheap theatrics and over the top melodrama to make their points. Thankfully, Philadelphia avoids all that nonsense and is all the better for it.

Recommendation
Strongly recommended for anyone who can enjoy a solid, well made drama.

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: The Hours (2002)

The Hours
Director: Stephen Daldry
Writer: David Hare. Based upon the novel by Michael Cunningham.
Cast: Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, Meryl Streep, Stephen Dillane, Miranda Richardson, John C. Reilly, Ed Harris, Toni Collette

Overview
The Hours uses a premise that is so simple it might be considered a gimmick - tell the story of three different women of the course of a single day. This is similar to the premise of Mrs. Dalloway, from which Michael Cunningham got the inspiration to write his novel that the film was based upon. When I first saw The Hours in the theater, it was thanks to a literature professor who had assigned viewing the film as an extra credit for the class I was taking. I loved it so much, that I went back and viewed it a second time the next day. While viewing it recently in order to write this review, it's flaws were a little more apparent to me, but I would still label it a personal favorite of mine.

Synopsis
Three women from different time periods, struggle with depression, suicidal thoughts, and various other issues during the course of a single day.

In the 1920's Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman), finds herself beginning a new book, which will become Mrs. Dalloway while the simple tasks she must deal with, such as managing the household servants, nearly prove overwhelming. Woolf also finds herself wishing desperatly to move back to London, a move staunchly opposed by her husband, Leonard Woolf (Stephen Dillane).

The second story takes place in the 1950's and is about a repressed housewife, Laura Brown (Julianne Moore) who struggles with raising her son and the task of preparing a party for her husband. While reading Mrs. Dalloway she finds herself awakened to various possibilities to her life, including the possibility of suicide.

The third story features an New York City editor, Clarissa Vaughan, who represents a modern day Mrs. Dalloway. Clarissa is throwing a party for her gay friend Richard (Ed Harris), who won a prestigious prize for his poetry, yet is dying of AIDS. During these preparations, she finds herself reflecting on the choices she made and the path that led to where she is now.

The Queering
I must admit to having tried to read Mrs. Dalloway and also, to having failed in that endeavor. While both the book and the film version of The Hours revolve around the themes of Mrs. Dalloway, there is no requirement that one has read Woolf's novel in order to understand The Hours. What is necessary that one be able to understand the characters and also be willing to invest some effort into understanding their circumstances. Those who are unwilling to make those leaps, will find themselves watching a film featuring a bunch of unsympathetic, whiny characters.

The title The Hours comes from a working title for Mrs. Dalloway and is crucial to understanding the main themes of the film. This is not a movie about big life changing events, it is about the little moments we struggle through each day. That is, the hours each of the main characters must endure in order just to survive.

There are no traditional villains here, merely minute misunderstandings that have come together to form barriers more impenetrable then concrete walls. Each of the three leads suffer from not being able to express themselves entirely, either publicly or to their romantic partners. Woolf and Brown because they lived in an age when female sexuality, and in particularly lesbianism, was taboo, and Vaughn for more complicated reasons that are never quite made clear.

One complaint that could be leveled against The Hours is that the characters very rarely speak the way ordinary people do, but rather in a poetic and generally more insightful fashion than the average person. This may or may not be a hindrance, depending on ones philosophy of art and how closely one feels dramatic productions should hue to naturalistic stylings.

Director Stephen Daldry makes good use of technical elements (cinematography, editing, music) to blend the three stories seamlessly together to make it feel as if though one was watching one singular narrative, rather than three disconnected ones. One character, who provides a concrete connection between the last two stories helps immensely. Speaking of the technical side, they are all superbly executed overall. The strongest parts of The Hours are the writing and the acting, although on my most recent viewing, I was a bit surprised to find myself noting just how good the cinematography was.

I have come across quiet a few people who view The Hours as nothing more than pretentious, depressing, and boring, Oscar bait. Obviously, I could not disagree with that point of view more. My opinion of The Hours is that it is a superlative motion picture and a defining moment in film for queer cinema.

Recommendation
I did say this was one of my favorites, right? Highly recommended.

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: A Few Memorial Day Reflections on DADT and it's Repeal.

As of this writing, DADT repeal legislation has been passed by Congress but still has to be implemented and there is a whole bunch of shenanigans being done by homophobic politicians to prevent and make difficult that implementation.

Whatever. While I believe that repealing DADT was necessary, I never felt that it was the really huge victory that led to so much cheering and celebrating in the queer community. My reasoning for this view is two fold.

First, while I am not a complete pacifist, I am against the current occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. This begs the question, does supporting the repeal of DADT, mean supporting the military occupations Iraq and Afghanistan? While I do not always agree with Mathilda Bernstein Sycamore, she does make a good argument that this is the case in "A Fine Romance: Democracy Now's Amy Goodman and Lieutenant Dan Choi"

In its eagerness to jump on the bandwagon in support of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the antiwar left becomes complicit with US wars. These reporters can't get past their joy at finding a gay struggle to support, in order to step back and realize, wait: maybe this particular gay struggle is contrary to everything I supposedly represent. That's the nightmare of assimilation we're living in -- add "gay" to any reactionary goal, and the liberals will jump on the bandwagon, but the founding values of gay liberation -- fighting police brutality; challenging US imperialism; ending oppressive institutions like marriage and the military and organized religion; and creating personal autonomy for sexual merrymaking outside of conventional norms -- nope, we rarely hear anything about those queer values.

Irregardless of whether or not supporting the DADT repeal would in fact equate to supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a more pressing issue I want to talk about. While it is often perceived that we treat our veterans with only the respect and dignity that they justly deserve, the reality is actually a bit different. Let me put it bluntly, our country has a truly shitty history when it comes to the treatment of veterans. Not just kind of shitty, really, really shitty.

When I first started this article, I thought I was going to have to search high and low to find the data to back myself up on this. Frighteningly enough, I did not have to.

Let us start with something most people will have heard about, the Washington Post article, "Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility" that uncovered the nightmarish conditions facing returning veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The article opens up with the following paragraph:

Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.

I tried to find information on whether or not conditions had improved at all since the Washington Post report was made in 2007, but failed. The Wikipeda article on the "Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal" only has information on a few administrators being fired and the government planning a review.

But the conditions at Walter Reed, whether they were fixed or not, is not the only issue. According to a government report by The Housing and Urban Development and Veterans Affairs departments:

-- More than 3,000 cities and counties reported 75,609 homeless veterans on a single night in January of 2009; 57 percent were staying in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program while the remaining 43 percent were unsheltered. Veterans represent about 12 percent of all homeless people counted nationwide during the 2009 assessment;
-- During a 12-month period in 2009, about 136,000 veterans -- or about 1 in every 168 veterans -- spent at least one night in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program. The vast majority of sheltered homeless veterans -- 96 percent -- experienced homelessness alone. Four percent of homeless veterans were found to be part of a family. Sheltered homeless veterans are most often single white men between the ages of 31 and 50 and living with a disability;
-- Veterans are 50 percent more likely to become homeless compared to all Americans and the risk is even greater among veterans living in poverty and poor minority veterans. HUD and VA examined the likelihood of becoming homeless among American veterans with particular demographic characteristics and found that during 2009, twice as many poor Hispanic veterans used a shelter compared with poor non-Hispanic veterans. African American veterans in poverty had similar rates of homelessness;

Again, that is not all the damning information I was able to find. According to the Think Progress Twitter Feed @TPHealth:

Something to think about this #MemorialDay: 10.9% of Iraq & Afghanistan veterans are unemployed, 2 %points higher than national average

Also, let me not forget the Time magazine article "Sexual Assaults on Female Soldiers: Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in which we get the following information:

The Pentagon's latest figures show that nearly 3,000 women were sexually assaulted in fiscal year 2008, up 9% from the year before; among women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number rose 25%. When you look at the entire universe of female veterans, close to a third say they were victims of rape or assault while they were serving — twice the rate in the civilian population.

To sum this all up, those that are cheering for the DADT repeal are arguably also cheering to allow LGBTQIA soldiers the chance to not only risk their lives serving their country, but for them to also face substandard medical treatment, greater difficulty in finding employment, an increased risk of homelessness, and for female soldiers, a greater chance of being raped. Ain't the DADT repeal just grand?

In all fairness, the public is often sold a much different image of the services provided to veterans then the reality of what really goes on. Memorial Day features a lot of patriotic flag waving, but almost no serious talk of the difficulties faced by veterans. At least none that I know about. I dislike public memorials for veterans because to me, they feel like ribbon cutting opportunities for politicians, that allow them to ignore the greater problems faced by veterans at a time when those politicians should be solving them. We owe it to those that have served our country in the military to understand their sacrifices and to see to it that they are treated properly upon their return from war. A couple of nice speeches and statues will not accomplish that at all.

WikiLeaks had a good quote from their article
"2011-05-30 Memorial Day in America: What the US Government Wants Americans to Remember vs. What WikiLeaks Thinks Should Be Remembered" to close this all out with:

American society does not remember the stories that soldiers like Ethan McCord [...] will live with for the rest of their lives. Society does not share the burden of memory that a soldier deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq experiences. It adorns yellow ribbons to the vehicles it drive around, awards medals to soldiers, offers minimal health care and ways to reincorporate into society upon return from deployment but little is done to give soldiers a public fora for expressing the anxiety, anguish, fear, pain or stress that a soldier brings back with him or her from a war zone.

Queer Issue: Who am I?

Okay, here is the issue I promised you earlier, the solution to the conundrum I raised here. That conundrum being, how do I define who I am, without using negative descriptions? For example, anything that begins with "I am not...".

Well, let me say it again, I do not wish to define myself as a man. Biologically, I am male, yes. Now by "biological" I am referring of course to our physical bodies, which have certain rules and restrictions placed upon them. Yes, I could have surgery to change my body but as I like I said before, I have chosen not to. However, there are restrictions placed upon what I can do. For example, I am not aware of any techniques that have been developed that allow a person to change their genetic code whole sale. We are stuck with whatever allowance or combination of X and Y chromosomes we were given at birth. Nor could I one day decide that I wanted my heart removed so I could put a giant nuclear reactor in my chest like Tony Stark did in the Ironman movies.

However, while our biological/physical bodies may have certain restrictions placed upon them, there are no rules that state that those bodies in turn force us into certain behaviors, self expression, outward appearance, or capabilities. Just because one has a penis or a vagina or is an intersex individual, does not mean that one should be restricted along gender lines in one's clothing choices, career and educational pursuits, or how one behaves in public or private.

That is to say, biology is where we begin, it does not have to restrict where we end up. Our physical bodies should not dictate how we identify ourselves or how we are treated by society.

But I am getting ahead of myself here a bit. What I wanted to talk about was how attending a wedding in Illinois led me to the solution I had wanted for some time now. It was while sitting in the audience, listening to a preacher give a heteronormative spiel along the lines of how "God made man for woman and woman for man" that it hit me. Why the hell do we focus so much on gender polarization so much anyways?

Why is gender itself, even necessary as a societal construct. As I talked about earlier, there are reasons, mostly medical, that make it reasonable to define ourselves along biological traits. However, there is almost no reason for us to make laws or impart social norms that create restrictions along gender. Think for example, of the laws in place at the time of the Stonewall Riots that said one had to have three items of clothing that matched your gender or one would be arrested. So let me repeat what I said earlier, biology is only the beginning, not the end. We are born with a particular set of body parts and genes, but these physical attributes are not a prison for our destiny. We can choose who we are.

What I am getting at is this: How come we cannot simply see ourselves as people? This finally, is my solution. I am not a man, nor am I a woman. I am human. That is all.

Queer Review: I Love You Phillip Morris (2009)

I Love You Phillip Morris
Directors: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Writer: John Requa, Glenn Ficarra. Based upon the novel by Steve McVicker.
Cast: Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor, Antoni Corone, Rodrigo Santoro, Leslie Mann

Overview
For a comedy starring both Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor, I Love You Phillip Morris somehow managed to do a wonderful, although unfortunate, job of flying under the radar. However, this fast moving picture that sounds like it is about battling cigarette addiction, is really the story of a man who has no identity and yet still desperately seeking his true love.

Synopsis
Police Officer Steven Russell (Jim Carrey) is happily married and enjoying a "normal" life, when he makes the unfortunate decision to track down his birth mother. When she denies that he is even hers, he gets upset, quits the force, and moves away. Later, after an unfortunately timed car accident, Steven reveals to his wife (Leslie Mann) that he is gay and becomes a con artist to pay for what he terms "the expensive gay lifestyle". When Steven is caught, he winds up in prison where he meets Philip Morris (Ewan McGregor) and the two fall fast in love. Once they are reunited outside prison, Steven gets a job as a Chief Financial Officer (even though he lacks the credentials, education, and the necessary experience) and is soon engaged in yet another con job that lands him in jail yet again.

The Queering
First off, it is important to note that Steven Russell is a real person who managed to escape from prison multiple times in a narrative so preposterous, it seems that it could only be the province of fiction. But this movie is entirely true. Every single word of it. In fact, it might as well have been a documentary. And if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

In any case, this fast paced, whip smart, and consistently entertaining comedy about two gay lovers makes for a fun con job of a film. What I find remarkable though, is that this story, which includes several scenes of gay sex, was able to land two major stars, Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor. It is hard to think of a more perfect role for the rubber faced impersonator Jim Carrey than a con man who takes on several identities. The only performance of Carrey's that compares would be the one he gave in The Truman Show. Ewan McGregor is good, even though he tends to fade into the background at times, though I would excuse this as his character is supposed to be a bit of a wallflower.

At the heart of I Love You Phillip Morris is a tender love story between two mismatched individuals. There are some raunchier elements to the comedy, but these are mere window dressing. Steven Russell claims - although many reasonable people might have reason to doubt him - that his attempts to escape prison were for the love of his life, Philip Morris. These attempts, which are shown later on in the film, include dying some scrubs using felt pens to make green scrubs so he could impersonate a doctor and faking his own death by AIDS.

Altogether, the character of Steven Morris is a fascinating enigma and I bet there will be many post-screening discussions as to whether he was a bad guy for the crimes that he committed or merely another flawed human. While one may wish to know more about him, and the article I love you Phillip Morris: a conman's story may shed some insight into the matter, he remains somewhat of a blank slate. While this ambiguity may bother some people, I would argue it is fact the film's greatest strength.

Recommendation
Highly recommended. Can be easily enjoyed by all audiences.

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: Chasing Amy (1997)

Chasing Amy
Director: Kevin Smith
Writer: Kevin Smith
Cast: Ben Affleck, Jason Lee, Dwight Ewell, Joey Lauren Adams

Overview
Chasing Amy represents the most mature work of the bawdy and controversial Kevin Smith. Frequently crude, caustic, and absolutely hilarious, Chasing Amy will probably offend even the most liberal audience members.

Synopsis
When Holden McNeil (Ben Affleck) is introduced to Alyssa Jones (Joey Lauren Adams) by a mutual friend, Hooper X (Dwight Ewell), he finds himself falling fast in love with her. It is not long though, before Holden is shocked to discover that Alyssa is actually a lesbian and not interested in being anything other then friends with him. He eventually manages to wear her down her defenses and soon they are in a serious relationship, which upsets Holden's friend, Banky (Jason Lee).

The Queering
I can recall when I was in high school and watching Chasing Amy at a drama club cast party where the host's parents were away. I was the only one who was not drinking, so I was given the honor of controlling the remote control. Even with out being drunk, I can not recall that many movies where I laughed harder. In retrospect, the thrill at seeing something forbidden ended up being more intoxicating then any spirits could have matched.

Re-watching Chasing Amy now, many years later, I do have a somewhat different take on it. First, let me get the criticisms out of the way. Kevin Smith is the funniest writer working today in Hollywood, but I would not to be the first to point out that his directing abilities stink. Most of the scenes are poorly staged and the cinematography is crude. Also, while Joey Lauren Adams gives the most memorable, and at times, moving performance, she too often lapses into over the top histrionics. Ben Affleck and Jason Lee are not all that great either, but manage to succeed thanks to both of them giving rather charismatic and natural performances.

Chasing Amy however has more strengths then weaknesses. The characters are well developed and feel like the sort of real people one comes into contact with everyday rather than the invention of a screenwriter. This is particularly true in several scenes, such as when Alyssa and Banky compare battle wounds acquired through ill advised sexual mis-adventures or when Alyssa and Holden discuss what it means to lose ones virginity.

What is most refreshing is about Chasing Amy is the sense that Kevin Smith has the same attitude regarding political correctness that most fundamentalists have towards the anti-Christ. Hideous slurs and inappropriate language are thrown about like confetti at a parade. Through it all though, Smith manages to deliver a subversively pro-gay, pro-equality message. For example, take Hooper X who plays a black militant who screams about the white menace in order to sell comic books but is really actually a sassy black queen when out of sight of his fans. Later Hooper X has a speech where he gives a much needed bemoaning about the double discrimination faced by black queers and how his black power act is necessary for him to receive professional recognition.

Between the constant onslaught of political incorrectness and the fact that Holden does manage to sleep with Alyssa, many have argued that Chasing Amy is in fact homophobic. To me though, nothing could be more untrue. What Chasing Amy really does is revel in the sexual freedoms brought to light by Alfred Kinsey. This is also why the scene between Banky and Alyssa is noteworthy. Too often male and female promiscuity is treated differently by society, yet here, the promiscuous behaviors of a man and a woman are shown in the same light.

This is also a movie with the most sexually fluid cast of characters that I have seen. Alyssa is eventually revealed to have slept with guys other than Holden. Banky also clearly harbors feelings of some sort for Holden, which Holden acknowledges by forcefully kissing Banky in a key scene. Bisexuality is too often ignored or given short shrift by movies, yet here, Kevin Smith's uninhibited explorations of love and sexual relationships makes for some of the most compelling and hysterical queer cinema to have come out of the 90's.

Recommendation
Highly recommended for anyone who can laugh at (rather than be offended by) Kevin Smith's brand of crude humor.

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.

Back from vacation.

It has been a little while since I posted anything here. That was because I was away on vacation with my boyfriend attending the wedding of his nephew in Indiana. This is not going to be a post of much substance, but I thought I would give people a little preview of articles I am planning on doing in the near future.

First off, two new Netflix movies were waiting for us when we got back, so you guys can expect new queer reviews of Chasing Amy and I Love You Philip Morris soon.

Also, at one of the restaurants we stopped at, my boyfriend noticed that they had some Chick Comics out on display. I am therefore planning on doing an article on the issue of supporting businesses that support homophobia.

While I was at the wedding itself an idea came to me about the dilemma of defining myself that I wrote about here. Will therefore be writing more about this in the future.

This is unrelated to going on vacation but I thought I would offer up some thoughts on the TV series Glee. Ultimately, whether this one gets done or not depends on if I have the time to do it.