Some thoughts on the 2014 Oscars.

This may come as a surprise, but even though I consider myself a dedicated movie buff, I do not actually pay that close attention to the Oscars. Many like to call the Oscars "the Superbowl" for movie buffs. However, I pay more attention to the actual Superbowl, then I do the Oscars, in the sense that I actually sit down and watch the Superbowl each year (even though I never actually watch a football game the rest of the year), whereas I have never watched the Oscars telecast. Never ever. I understand there's a red carpet involved and people walk on it, and such and that statues get involved at some point.

Also, given how busy I was this past year, I have not actually seen any of the nominees for best picture. I was able to catch a few movies on the big screen Star Trek: Into Darkness, The Lone Ranger, and one or two others whose titles escape me. I have recently purchased copes of and plan on watching Dallas Buyers Club, Blue is the Warmest Color, and pre-ordered Philomena so expect reviews of those in the coming weeks.

However, a quick glance at the Oscar winners raised a few eyebrows for me. 12 Years a Slave winning best picture was not a surprise. Steve McQueens' Hunger fell into the ambitious but flawed category and in the end, he showed enough promise to make me very interested in whatever films he made afterwards. I do have questions about Shame as I question the concept of sex addiction itself, but I have to reserve any judgement until if and when I manage to see it.

The more problematic win was for Jared Leto's performance. I have not seen it so I cannot comment on the performance itself, but I will say that it is high time that producers started casting transgender performers in transgender roles. I won't say that doing so is the equivalent to blackface (the LGBTQ community does a little too much appropriation of the Black Civil Rights Movement as it stands) but gosh darn it, if there aren't too many parallels between the two, to let the practice go without comment.

Seriously it's high time Hollywood started casting roles appropriately. In spite of the Academy's longtime habit of rewarding them, the world does not need another able bodied, cis-gendered, white male playing a disabled person, a transgender/transexual person, or a person of color.

I really dig this XKCD cartoon.

There is this certain tendency I think, when social justice issues are brought up for certain people to react with "But but it's so hard to [blank]" where the blank is filled in with items like the following:
keep a transgender/transexual persons' pronouns straight
avoid using ableist language like "stupid" "lame" "dumb"
stop saying "that's so gay" when one really means "that's so stupid"
saying Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas (unless one knows the person you're greeting happens to be Christian and/or does not mind being wished a Merry Christmas)
change a sports team name like "Redskins" to something not racist
and so on.

In any event, I don't think I've found a better response then to such an attitude then the following XKCD cartoon. Pay particular attention to the mouseover text.

Queer Review: Casablanca (1942)

Casablanca
Director: Michael Curtiz
Writers: Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein, Howard Koch, and Casey Robinson. Based on the play by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison.
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid, Claude Rains, Conrad Veidt, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, S.Z. Sakall, Dooley Wilson

Overview
Casablanca is an extraordinary film. Not only is it Hollywood's greatest tale of romantic love set against the stormy backdrop of the World War II but it has the most memorable happy ending ever shown on the silver screen.

Synopsis
Rick (Humphrey Bogart) is the owner of Rick's Café Américain, which caters to a wide clientele. When Nazi resistance leader Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid) and his wife Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman) show up at Rick's cafe, the two not only are in desperate need of transit papers, but Ilsa forces Rick to remember his brief experimentation with heterosexuality. Coincidentally, Rick has recently managed to obtain a set of valuable transit papers, thereby forcing Rick to choose between his current lover, Police Chief Louie Renault (Claude Rains) and aiding Ilsa and her husband escape the Nazis.

The Queering
Had Casablanca been released in a more recent times, perhaps in the form of a serialized novel aimed at the teenage crowd, it would not be difficult to see it's fandom quickly dividing itself into Team Ilsa and Team Renault. I say that as it's hard not to empathize with the difficult decision Rick is forced to make. On one hand he clearly loves Ilsa and deeply cherishes the brief period of time they shared in Paris in spite of the abrupt way she dumped him at the end. On the other, making her happy by giving Laszlo and her the transit papers would damage the political standing of Chief Renault once the escape of Victor and Ilsa was discovered by Nazis. What more difficult decision could there be than to have to choose between the two people you love the most?

Chief Renault, for his part, attempts to dissuade Ilsa when she shows up from attempting to rekindle the romance she once had with Rick by stating "Well, Rick is the kind of man that... well, if I were a woman, and I were not around, I should be in love with Rick." When that fails, Renault tries to make Rick jealous, by tricking Rick into thinking that he is planning on accepting sexual favors from a woman who is in need of transit papers for her and her husband. The ruse works and Rick makes sure that the husband is able to win at the roulette tables in order to prevent Renault from straying.

While the racist standards of the time prevented him from presenting as a sexual creature, Sam (Dooley Wilson) too also demonstrates affections for Rick. Like Renault, Sam displays extreme jealousy towards Ilsa when he tries to dissuade her from making contact from Rick. He apparently did not want to have to comfort Rick again, as he obviously once did after Ilsas' brutal breakup with Rick in Paris. Note the way Sam gently caresses Ricks' shoulder on the train during their escape from Paris. Rick, for his part, returns Sams' affections by attempting to negotiate a higher salary for Sam from Signor Ferrari (Sydney Greenstreet), when Rick goes to Ferrari to sell the Café Américain. Apparently when Rick said, "I stick my neck out for nobody" he was only referring to individuals he didn't deeply care for.

Of course there is the ending, where Rick selflessly decides to risk his relationship with Renault and give Ilsa the exit papers so she and Laszlo can escape to continue fighting against the Germans. It is a no win situation for him. While it means that Laszlo will be able to continue to his resistance work against the Axis powers, the unenviable consequences mean that Rick not only ending his relationship with Renault, but sacrificing the possibility of companionship with Ilsa at the same time. It's a noble risk but one that Rick is ultimately rewarded for when Renault, clearly happy that Ilsa is out of the picture, forgives Rick for his decision. Note that he does this in spite of the fact that Rick had just taken him hostage in order to allow Ilsa and Laszlo to escape. The two then walk off into the mists, happy to begin a new and more beautiful relationship. Has Hollywood ever created a romance as deeply affecting as this? I am sure many have wept gallons of tears at this moment, so overwhelmed with joy they must have been.

Ultimately, Casablanca is pure Hollywood cornball. But it's beautiful cornball. While the romantic elements are the films strongest, this is ultimately a World War II propaganda film. As such, I cannot help but wonder if the reason for the films' initial success had to do with a brief line few people remember today. After Rick gives him the transit papers, Laszlo says, "Thanks. I appreciate it. Welcome back to the fight. This time I *know* our side will win." It's a small moment but one that I cannot help but think would have resonated with audiences during the dark days of the time. It's a moment of subtle hope, one whose message is soon underscored by the breathtaking ending.

Yes, this time our side won.

Recommendation
Casablanca would be worth walking in (and out) of all the gin joints in the world while searching for one that happens to be showing this movie.

The Rating
3 and 1/2 stars out of 4.

Trailer


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

Queer Review: Rope (1948)

Rope
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writers: Hume Cronyn, Arthur Laurents, and Ben Hecht. Based on the play by Patrick Hamilton.
Cast: Dick Hogan, John Dall, Farley Granger, Edith Evanson, Douglas Dick, Joan Chandler, Cedric Hardwicke, Constance Collier, James Stewart

Overview
Loosely based on real life story of "Leopold and Loeb", two gay lovers who killed a 14 year old Bobby Franks, Rope tells the story of two upper class college students who strangle one of their fellow classmates. In short, another example of Alfred Hitchcock's fetisation of queer killers.

Synopsis
Two college students, the reluctant Philip (John Dall) and the daring Brandon (Farley Granger) strangle one of their former classmates David (Dick Hogan). Then they invite members of his family, mutual friends, as well as their former school headmaster Rupert (James Stewart), to a party in order to increase the thrill of the kill. However, Philips' obvious nervousness piques Ruperts' suspicions. When Brandons' repeating of Ruperts' interpretation of Nietzche, that superior individuals have a moral right to kill their inferiors, further draws attention to Davids' absence.

The Queering
The presentation of Rope was somewhat experimental. The entire story is set in "real" time, with Hitchcock attempting to use as few edits as possible and hide a couple of cuts by zooming in close to a couple of objects. However, this backfires, as the efforts to disguise said cuts are clumsy and draw attention to themselves and unfortunately an uncharismatic Jimmy Stewart addslittle to the attempts at verisimilitude.

There is a pattern that I have noticed, where real life individuals who were gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, or transexual, did something "evil", then movies are infinitely more likely to accurately depict characters based on those historical figures sexual orientation or gender identity. On the other hand if the real life person did something heroic or good, then the pattern is reversed. Gay or lesbian individuals become bi and bi characters become straight, while effeminate queens will inevitably get butched up.

The only thing that prevented Hitchcock from following this pattern was, ironically, the Hays Code. Since depictions homosexuality was banned outright, the director was forced to limit the characters sexuality to mere subtext. However, offscreen the filmmakers and particular Hitchcock made it clear that they wanted to make a film about queer sexuality. The final product was even banned by some theaters due to the fact that it had gone so far as to include coded gay characters, even if said characters were depicted as evil murderers. Honestly, I never thought I would see the day when I would find myself mildly thankful for Hollywoods' infamous production code.

On the philosophical side of things, the character of Brandon attempts to justify the murder by quoting Rupert, who in turn had been riffing on Nietzche. Unfortunately, the message ends up being garbled. Perhaps it's because Nietzch is a difficult writer to "get" that any superficial analysis is doomed to failure. Ruperts' eventual condemnation of the ideas he had (apparently) originally endorsed doesn't help matters very much. A more recent film to be based on the Leopold and Loeb case, Swoon managed to avoid this problem by focusing more on the psychological forces driving the characters rather than any philosophical justifications they tried to come up with.

Recommendation
No true ubermensch would allow themselves to be roped into seeing this movie, unless they had a strong interest in Hitchcock or the history of queer cinema.

The Rating
2 stars out of 4

Trailer


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

Added Against Me! "I was a Teenage Anarchist" to Queer Friendly Music

After a bit of thought, I've decided to add I was a Teenage Anarchist by Against Me! to Queer Friendly Music. I was hesitant to do so for a couple of reasons, namely that the queer content is entirely subtext.

However, given that I was unable to find any music videos from YouTube that I could embed here from the recently released Transgender Dysphoria Blues, I decided to include I was a Teenage Anarchist as the subtext is rather strong and the entire concept of the video revolves around Laura Jane Grace being rejected by the anarchist community due to transphobia on the part of bigoted anarchists.

Or at least, that is how I read the third verse, which goes:

I was a teenage anarchist, but then the scene got too rigid.
It was a mob mentality, they set their rifle sights on me.
Narrow visions of autonomy, you want me to surrender my identity.
I was a teenage anarchist, the revolution was a lie.

(Emphasis my own)

Obviously though, you have to know that Laura Jane Grace is a transgender woman - who transitioned after the song was released - in order to "get it" but I think meaning is pretty clear in retrospective.

In any case, I downloaded and listened to the entirety of Transgender Dysphoria Blues and I will say that I thought it was a pretty good listen.

Against Me - I was a Teenage Anarchist

Queer Review: Rare Exports: A Christmas Story (2010)

Rare Exports: A Christmas Story
Director: Jalmari Helander
Writers: Jalmari Helander, Juuso Helander, Petri Jokiranta, and Sami Parkkinen.
Cast: Onni Tommila, Jorma Tommila, Tommi Korpela, Rauno Juvonen, Per Christian Ellefsen, Ilmari Järvenpää, Peeter Jakobi

Overview
Rarely has there existed a greater gap between a film's concept/premise and it's execution, than the one that exists in Rare Exports: A Christmas Story. For here in this film we have an absolutely brilliant idea that sours during a turgid middle and then just when things look like they're about to kick into high gear, the blink and you'll miss it climax flashes by quicker than the speed Santa needs to deliver presents to every good little boy, girl, and non-binary gender kid.

Synopsis
When Pietari (Onni Tommila) and his friend Juuso (Ilmari Järvenpää) overhear the plans of an eccentric billionaire Riley (Per Christian Ellefsen) to dig up the grave of the "real" Santa Claus, Pietari hits the books to dig up the story behind the legend. What he finds is that the original Santa Clause was a frightening creature, and the modern holly, jolly version is an invention of retail outlets and soft drink makers. (Sidenote: with regards to Finnish mythology, this actually has a historical basis.) Soon afterwards, the family Reindeer herd is found dead and eaten, while Pietari spots mysterious footprints on the rooftop of their home. When the locals wake up on Christmas day, they find their homes burglarized and their children missing. Even more worrisome, Pietari's father finds a naked man dead in an illegal wolf trap he had set. However, when it is discovered that the stranger is still alive, the possibility is raised that this could be the real Santa Clause of ancient legend.

The Queering
Suspense is a delicate balancing act. It requires that the filmmakers show somethings and hide others. I am not the worlds biggest fan of Jaws but the tactic of showing as little of the big bad as possible on screen is a popular and effective for a reason. Generating really gut wrenching suspense also requires some degree of attachment with the characters. Nothing too deep, but there needs to be something. With regards to Rare Exports, the filmmakers took the lesson of Jaws a little too much to heart, showing us too little, too late. There's also the issue of once the captured "Santa" shows up, he spends too much time lying around lethargically to feel like much of a threat.

Furthermore, none of the characters are terribly well developed. Outside of Pietari and his father, I'm not sure it's fair to say that any of the characters even rise to the level of caricature, as that would require them to have personalities. What we have here are more like stick figures that are primarily on hand to do whatever it is the script requires.

Even more problematic is the way the bizare way the characters react to the weirdness of Christmas Day. And by bizarre, I mean in the way in which the adults (at least the ones we are shown) show far more concern over some missing burlap bags and a hair dryer, than they do over their missing children. I am not joking, there is literally a scene that plays out approximately as follows:

Adult Character: "Oh noes, all our radiators have been stolen! We're all going to DIE!"

Other Adult: "And they took every burlap bag! Now all our potatoes are naked and cold! WAH!"

Another Adult: "They took my hairdryer! That's premo tech in Russia! LETS INVADE!"

Pietari: "Uh where's Juuso? I just found this weird creepy doll in his bed."

Adult: "He's probably out chasing girls. Don't bother us with trivialities!"

I am not a parent, but if I woke up to find my house broken into, my stuff taken, and my kids bed containing only a creepy doll, I doubt my reaction would be "oh no! Who stole my burlap bags!" Do Finnish facebook pages feature numerous pictures of hairdryers with captions like "Missing since April. Last seen in Bathroom. Large reward for information leading to return of, + bonus if power cord is still intact."? If the characters cannot care about their missing kids, why should I?

Getting back to the line about Juuso "being out chasing girls", the context troubles me for several reasons. One, because the actor who plays Juuso does not appear to be much older than 10 years of age.. Two, outside of that reference (and another to the owner of the hairdryer) it appears as if no females exist in the films universe. That's right folks, apparently universal heterosexuality can still exist and be applied to pre-teens in a man only world. Do NOT ask me to come up with an explanation for this.

When the Bechdel test was first developed, it was to illustrate how female characters exist in fictional narratives only in relation to male characters. In Rare Exports they simply appear not to exist, and given the two lines referenced, they're still reduced to sex objects or as seen solely through their relationships to freaking hairdryers. I don't think this is a case of all of the filmmakers being raging misogynists or even particularly sexist, I think it's more of a glaring oversight, like so many other glaring oversights that exist in the film.

One glaring oversight would be the fact that Pietari's mom is never referenced, ever. Did she die? Leave the country? Have an affair? Get gender reassignment surgery and is now one of the indistinguishable male characters that his dad hangs out with? The fact that there are only male character makes it feel like the whole film should be ripe for queering, but it isn't. It's just another situation which the filmmakers failed to develop properly.

Overall, it is difficult to describe just how frustrating it is to watch a movie like Rare Exports, which starts out strong with a highly promising premise, only to quickly devolve into tedium. This is not a bad movie, nor is it trying to be a "so-bad-it's good" type of projects, as one might think given the premise. There is some gorgeous cinematography of frozen mountain landscapes and there are times when the project manages to develop a subtle, yet powerful, hypnotic quality. But a series of poor choices, such as an almost complete lack of explanation for certain characters motives, causes the film to stall and freeze more thoroughly then the frozen tundra that the story is set in. Why is the industrialist/scientist/entrepreneur trying to dig up Santa Claus anyways? How did he come by the knowledge of where the "real" Santa Claus was buried and why is he so convinced that the legend is true to begin with? What is his backstory?

Recommendation
For those who like off beat pictures with dark humor, there are worse options out there. Otherwise, this is one sleeping Santa that should rarely be exported.

The Rating
2 and 1/2 stars out of 4.

Trailer


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

Review: The Hobbit - The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

The Hobbit - The Desolation of Smaug
Director: Peter Jackson
Writers: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, and Guillermo del Toro. Allegedly based on The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien.
Cast: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Lee Pace, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mikael Persbrandt, Sylvester McCoy, Luke Evans, Stephen Fry, Ryan Gage

Overview
Padding The Hobbit out to 3 movies causes this middle entry to feel bloated and unfocused, with more than a few absurd sequences managing to jack up the running time to almost unbearable lengths.

Synopsis
In his continued attempt to take back the dwarven homeland, the exhiled King Thorin (Richard Armitage) finds himself and his gang of dwarves pursued by Orcs, spiders, and other dangers. After they enter Mirkwood and Gandalf (Ian McKellen) leaves to do battle with Sauron, the group is captured by the dangerous Wood Elves who are led by King Thranduil (Lee Pace) and his henchmen Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly). The group manages to escape and make their way to Laketown with the aid of the Bard (Luke Evans) whose ancestor once fought the dragon Smaug, but not without one of their own being gravely injured. After resting in Lake Town, they continue on to the Misty Mountain and the final battle with the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch).

Throughout it all, the hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) manages to make a few cameo appearances here and there.

The Queering
The Hobbit who? One of the consequences of expanding Tolkien's novel to three films is that an abundance of additional material has managed to find itself onto the big screen. While some of it is effective, a great deal more of it feels like it would have been questionable to be shown even in an uncut/extended edition on home video. Worse, the result of so much additional material causes Bilbo to come across as a supporting character in a film where title supposedly refers to him. Without an effective character arc, he frequently feels like a hairy footed deus ex machina who shows up to help the rest of the group out of whatever jam they happen to be in.

When the filmmakers pull from Tolkien's work to create additional material, they are on somewhat solid ground. It's when they stray from what Tolkien created that everything comes apart. I did not mind the addition of Tauriel, who is effectively played by Evangeline Lily channeling Liv Tyler, but the love triangle feels forced and the possibility of a relationship between her and one of Thorin's dwarves strains the films' already shaky credibility.

Then there is the more buffoonish elements, such as the barrel chase sequence following the groups escape from the Wood Elves that simply don't work. The heavier reliance here on CGI (compared to the Lord of the Rings films) is a mistake, transferring many of the battles into what feel like extended demos for a video game. I get that the films are aiming for a lighter tone then Lord of the Rings but I do not recall as many extended fight sequences with orcs in the novel as there are in the film.

I would never suggest that anything with Stephen Fry is completely useless, but the sub-plot with the Lake Town Master and his henchmen nipping at the heels of the Bard and the main protagonists could have been cut without too much being lost. Even more problematic, these two characters feel like their aping the relationship between Sauromon and Wormtongue from the original films. Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens far too often. Not only does most of the material feel overstretched, but stale to boot.

The climactic battle between Smaug and Bilbo starts out effectively before descending into the over top shenanigans that plague the rest of film. When it's just Bilbo and Smaug, the film manages to capture that ethereal sense of danger and wonder so desperately missing from everything that came before. The thing is, once the dwarves show up, it becomes a ridiculous special effects extravaganza that serves little purpose besides lowering the unemployment rate for computer animators.

The parallels between the dwarven culture and the history of the Hebrew peoplem - being exhiled from their homeland and other cultural motifs - are still present in the story but not a lot of attention is paid to it. Unlike all of the previous Lord of the Rings films by Peter Jackson, there are no real queer subtexts to speak of. I'm reviewing this pretty much because I'm a completest. However, on a more interesting note, the first person of color shows her face in Lake Town. Brief, but it's there and it now feels much less likely that Middle Earth will have the KKK show up and declare that their quest for racial purity has been successful.

At the end of the day, this is not the worst possible adaptation of The Hobbit but there is a sense that not only have the filmmakers sprained themselves trying to stretch the material out to the lengths that they did here. The material setting up the main Lord of the Rings Films, such as showing Bilbo starting to be corrupted by the one ring, is mostly effective. It's just that too often that The Hobbit films feel like their mimicking them, rather than standing on the two large hairy feet of Bilbo Baggins.

Recommendation
Not worth enduring the entirely desolate running length if one is merely a casual fan of the series, although the climactic scenes with Smaug might make it worthwhile for the die hards.

The Rating
2 and 1/2 stars out of 4

Trailer


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