The 2010 film Let Me in is an American remake of the Swedish vampire film Let the Right One. Directed by Matt Reeves, Let Me In tells the tale of a boy being bullied at school Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and the friendship that developes between him and a feminine vampire Abby (Chloe Meretz). In the Sweedish film, the characters are Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) and the vampire is Eli (Lina Leandersson).
Overall, the American remake is competently done and retains many of the qualities that made the Swedish version so beautifully frightening. However, it also features some rather shoddy special effects work. Furthermore, the two key relationships - those between the boy and his new vampire friend and the vampire and her guardian - are presented with less ambiguity than in the original. This is critical in the sense that it's clearer much earlier in the film what is really occurring plot wise, thus dissolving some potential tension.
Another big difference, is that Owen is less disturbed then Oskar. In Let the Right One In he is a potential serial killer or school shooter. We even see him collecting material on murders and serial killers in a scrapbook. In Let Me In, he's merely lonely and angry with being bullied.
Also of note, in the Swedish original, there's a brief shot, that suggests that Eli is not a girl, but rather a castrated boy - which follows from the back-story of the book by John Ajvide Lindqvist that the Swedish movie was based upon. However, in the American version, the shot is absent - although set up, which made me wonder if it might show up in some extended edition on DVD. Also, here in the American version, Abby is presented as much more feminine, whereas in the original, the presentation of her character was more androgynous.
With this change comes a fundamental shift of the dynamic of the two movies key relationship. In the American version, it's much, much more suggestive of a romantic relationship, whereas the original skewed more towards the main characters developing a very close friendship. Although, Abby keeps insisting (as in the original) "I'm not a girl".
One of the few upsides to the remake (besides the reduction of an annoying subplot about a woman who is turned into a vampire by Abby/Eli) is that Chloe Meretz gives an amazing performance as Abby, giving a subtle and mature performance as a hunted and ancient creature. Not that Lina Leandersson didn't give a strong performance, just that Meretz gives the more memorable one. None of the other actors in the American version, in my opinion, are better or worse, when compared to their counterparts.
With that said, if one has a choice, I would recommend the Swedish version over the American remake. Let the Right One In overall has better atmosphere and more interesting character development, with none of the embarrassing special effects work of Let Me In, thus making it a clear decision.
October 3, 2010
September 13, 2010
Queer Review: Capote
It has been said, that great writing is born out of great suffering. Irregardless of that being the case, Truman Capote certainly suffered in writing his most famous novel, In Cold Blood. The film Capote directed by Bennett Miller, chronicles Capote's experiences writing In Cold Blood as his growing obsession with his subjects nearly leads him to ruin.
After reading about the murder of an entire family, Truman Capote travels to Kansas to investigate the killing. He brings along with him his good friend Nell Harper Lee, who had just finished the manuscript for To Kill a Mockingbird. Together, Lee and Capote investigate the killings and the subsequent impact on the community they took place in. At first Capote's fay mannerisms and big city style, leave him on the outside. Perseverance and a some help from Lee, eventually land him on the inside, including the good graces of the local chief of police (Chris Cooper). When the killers, Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.) and Richard Hickock (Mark Pellegrino), are caught, Capote interviews them, eventually developing a sympathetic relationship with them. Capote even ends up going so far as to pay for a lawyer to provide for their defense.
The main thrust of the movie shows Capote's growing obsession with the killers, particularly Perry Smith. The relationship that develops between these two is incredibly twisted, with each using the other for their own ends. Capote wishes to know the grisly details of the killings, while also having sympathies for Smith's plight. It's less clear what Smith wants (besides a high priced defense lawyer). A sympathetic posthumous portrayal in the novel Capote is writing? A friend and intimate? Something else?
In real life, rumors suggested that Capote and Smith engaged in a more intimate relationship then is what is depicted on film. Certainly the suggestion is there in the actors performances as to what *might* have happened, but the audience is never privy to those details.
Overall, this is a powerful movie. Great acting and direction come together to create a heady brew. Capote was an effemite and openly gay man, with a distinct and recognizable voice. Hoffman doesn't merely mimic him, he fully inhibits Capote and brings him to life in all of the late writers flamboyant glory. Of note, is also Catherine Keener, who plays Nell Harper Lee.
I've never read In Cold Blood, but I have read To Kill a Mockingbird. It therefore struck me as odd, at the beginning when Nell is running around acting as Capote's secretary and doing most of the dirty work. Granted, this is right before she became famous but it still seemed weird to me.
Overall, this is the type of film that will appeal to more mature viewers. Capote is smartly written, acted, and composed. Those that are willing to stick with a slow moving, yet very engaging movie, will find themselves rewarded.
After reading about the murder of an entire family, Truman Capote travels to Kansas to investigate the killing. He brings along with him his good friend Nell Harper Lee, who had just finished the manuscript for To Kill a Mockingbird. Together, Lee and Capote investigate the killings and the subsequent impact on the community they took place in. At first Capote's fay mannerisms and big city style, leave him on the outside. Perseverance and a some help from Lee, eventually land him on the inside, including the good graces of the local chief of police (Chris Cooper). When the killers, Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.) and Richard Hickock (Mark Pellegrino), are caught, Capote interviews them, eventually developing a sympathetic relationship with them. Capote even ends up going so far as to pay for a lawyer to provide for their defense.
The main thrust of the movie shows Capote's growing obsession with the killers, particularly Perry Smith. The relationship that develops between these two is incredibly twisted, with each using the other for their own ends. Capote wishes to know the grisly details of the killings, while also having sympathies for Smith's plight. It's less clear what Smith wants (besides a high priced defense lawyer). A sympathetic posthumous portrayal in the novel Capote is writing? A friend and intimate? Something else?
In real life, rumors suggested that Capote and Smith engaged in a more intimate relationship then is what is depicted on film. Certainly the suggestion is there in the actors performances as to what *might* have happened, but the audience is never privy to those details.
Overall, this is a powerful movie. Great acting and direction come together to create a heady brew. Capote was an effemite and openly gay man, with a distinct and recognizable voice. Hoffman doesn't merely mimic him, he fully inhibits Capote and brings him to life in all of the late writers flamboyant glory. Of note, is also Catherine Keener, who plays Nell Harper Lee.
I've never read In Cold Blood, but I have read To Kill a Mockingbird. It therefore struck me as odd, at the beginning when Nell is running around acting as Capote's secretary and doing most of the dirty work. Granted, this is right before she became famous but it still seemed weird to me.
Overall, this is the type of film that will appeal to more mature viewers. Capote is smartly written, acted, and composed. Those that are willing to stick with a slow moving, yet very engaging movie, will find themselves rewarded.
September 7, 2010
Setting the Record Queer - Harry Hay and The Mattachine Society
If my father could be wrong, then the teacher could be wrong. And if the teacher could be wrong, then the priest could be wrong. And if the priest could be wrong, then maybe even God could be wrong. -Harry Hay
Radical Fairies and the Revolt of the Homosexual! Oh My!
The Mattachine Socity was the second major homophile group in the U.S. - the first group being the Chicago based Society for Human Rights. Harry Hay and Henry A. Wallace formed the Mattachine Society in 1950 - after first conceiving the idea two years earlier - for the purpose of advancing homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and culture. The name, chosen in 1951, refers to the Société Mattachine from Medieval France, which consisted of masked travelers, who revealed and mocked the injustices perpetuated by the French Monarchs. The name is in reference to gays and lesbians being an invisible minority in the 1950's, thereby being masked from the mainstream.
Many of the founding Members of the Mattachine Society, including Hay, were members of the Communist Party and based the structure of their new organization upon it.
The Society reached it's peak in 1952 during the trial of Dale Jennings, who had been arrested and charged with "lewd behavior". The publicity the Mattachine Society was able to generate (under the name "Citizens to Outlaw Police Entrapment") gave the group a huge boost, drawing both volunteers and attention to it's cause.
The fall of the group came about as a result of the 1950's McCarthyism driven Red Scare. Accusations of communist ties drove conservative voices within the group to challenge it's communist roots, before ultimately taking control following the ouster and resignation of the founding members.
Once in the hands of the conservatives the group fell apart. Their goals were of accommodation for gays and lesbians, rather then advocating for social change. This change in outlook proved devastating to the Society, which entered into a period of extended decline before fading away altogether following the Stonewall Riots in 1969.
Harry Hay though, continued to be an advocate for social change and was certainly not afraid of embracing controversy. One of his greatest desire was for the formation of an organized queer culture, which was also arguably his greatest contribution (through the Mattachine Society) to the LGBTQA rights movements.
Philosophically, Hay was adamantly opposed to the assimilation of queer culture into the mainstream. To put it in his own words: "We pulled ugly green frog skin of heterosexual conformity over us, and that's how we got through school with a full set of teeth. We know how to live through their eyes. We can always play their games, but are we denying ourselves by doing this? If you're going to carry the skin of conformity over you, you are going to suppress the beautiful prince or princess within you."
In the 1980s' he protested the exclusion of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) from LGBTQA rights organizations, which at the time were making serious attempts to distance themselves from NAMBLA. In 1986, he attmepted to march in the Los Angelos gay pride parade, with a sign stating "NAMBLA Walks with me". He also opposed Act Up! (a direct action group for improving the lives of AIDS patients) believing the group was too aggressive and macho in it's tactics. His argument went that this discouraged divirsity by denying effiminate and soft men a place within Act Up!.
"The assimilation movement is driving us into the ground," Hay once remarked. Indeed. It can be noted that the change in the Mattachine Society where more emphasis was placed on assimilation, that caused it to die. While his support of NAMBLA and opposition to Act Up! certainly can be considered at the very least controversial, there is no denying his impact and influence on the queer rights movement.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/mattachine_society.html
Radical Fairies and the Revolt of the Homosexual! Oh My!
The Mattachine Socity was the second major homophile group in the U.S. - the first group being the Chicago based Society for Human Rights. Harry Hay and Henry A. Wallace formed the Mattachine Society in 1950 - after first conceiving the idea two years earlier - for the purpose of advancing homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and culture. The name, chosen in 1951, refers to the Société Mattachine from Medieval France, which consisted of masked travelers, who revealed and mocked the injustices perpetuated by the French Monarchs. The name is in reference to gays and lesbians being an invisible minority in the 1950's, thereby being masked from the mainstream.
Many of the founding Members of the Mattachine Society, including Hay, were members of the Communist Party and based the structure of their new organization upon it.
The Society reached it's peak in 1952 during the trial of Dale Jennings, who had been arrested and charged with "lewd behavior". The publicity the Mattachine Society was able to generate (under the name "Citizens to Outlaw Police Entrapment") gave the group a huge boost, drawing both volunteers and attention to it's cause.
The fall of the group came about as a result of the 1950's McCarthyism driven Red Scare. Accusations of communist ties drove conservative voices within the group to challenge it's communist roots, before ultimately taking control following the ouster and resignation of the founding members.
Once in the hands of the conservatives the group fell apart. Their goals were of accommodation for gays and lesbians, rather then advocating for social change. This change in outlook proved devastating to the Society, which entered into a period of extended decline before fading away altogether following the Stonewall Riots in 1969.
Harry Hay though, continued to be an advocate for social change and was certainly not afraid of embracing controversy. One of his greatest desire was for the formation of an organized queer culture, which was also arguably his greatest contribution (through the Mattachine Society) to the LGBTQA rights movements.
Philosophically, Hay was adamantly opposed to the assimilation of queer culture into the mainstream. To put it in his own words: "We pulled ugly green frog skin of heterosexual conformity over us, and that's how we got through school with a full set of teeth. We know how to live through their eyes. We can always play their games, but are we denying ourselves by doing this? If you're going to carry the skin of conformity over you, you are going to suppress the beautiful prince or princess within you."
In the 1980s' he protested the exclusion of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) from LGBTQA rights organizations, which at the time were making serious attempts to distance themselves from NAMBLA. In 1986, he attmepted to march in the Los Angelos gay pride parade, with a sign stating "NAMBLA Walks with me". He also opposed Act Up! (a direct action group for improving the lives of AIDS patients) believing the group was too aggressive and macho in it's tactics. His argument went that this discouraged divirsity by denying effiminate and soft men a place within Act Up!.
"The assimilation movement is driving us into the ground," Hay once remarked. Indeed. It can be noted that the change in the Mattachine Society where more emphasis was placed on assimilation, that caused it to die. While his support of NAMBLA and opposition to Act Up! certainly can be considered at the very least controversial, there is no denying his impact and influence on the queer rights movement.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/mattachine_society.html
August 31, 2010
Queer Issue: My experiences with religion.
When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, sir.’* And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.’ John 8:10-11, New Revised Standard Version
Everyone has a different experience with religion, this post is going to be about mine.
When I was a child, I attended regularly the services at the Otego United Methodist Church. In 6th grade, I was confirmed as a member and continued attending until around my senior year of high-school. I then started attending, the youth services at a local Baptist Church. At one point, someone suggested that the Oneonta Unitarian Universalist Society would be a good choice for me. I have now been in regular attendance at the UU's religious services ever since.
When I was attending the Methodist Church, the minister that was there for most of my adolescence was Pastor Fred Albrecht or as most people called him, Pastor Fred. To put it bluntly, there are few people out there who had the kind of deep impact on my life that Pastor Fred had on me. I do not hold the religious beliefs that I had as a child, I don't call myself a Christian (but rather would describe my religious beliefs as Agnostic. However, the impact of his teachings and the example he set, had a fundamental and significant impact on my deeply held moral compass.
I remember that Pastor Fred's services often placed Biblical stories and lessons in a historical context. Something I found interesting and useful for understanding what was really going on in a particular story. For the most part, the emphasis was placed on parables such as that of the good Samaritan or the stories from the Old Testament. The "Rule Books" - Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy - were never really covered in sermons or Sunday school
I can recall that intolerance and bigotry were to be considered among the lowest forms of evil and that helping others were to be considered among the greatest goods. If people disagreed with you, you should still show respect for their beliefs, was a lesson I learned over and over again in sunday school.
It therefore came as somewhat as a shock to me, as I grew up, to discover that not all people who fell under the Christian umbrella felt that way. Finding out that there were those who used faith and religion to promote bigotry and discrimination came as something of a shock to me. Coming out to Pastor Fred was easy, coming out to the reverend at the Baptist Church was... a different matter. Churches that used Biblical passages to condemn GLBTQA individuals were so far removed from the church that I had been raised in, that I had trouble reconciling the two different versions of Christianity that seemed to exist.
While over time, I came to question the faith that I had been raised in, turning eventually to a position that abandons faith altogether, I believe that there is no reason to abandon moral principles. I cannot say what true Christianity is all about, but those who hide behind the Bible while promoting fear of those who are different are so far removed from the Christianity that I grew up with, that I almost hesitate to use the term. It also really, really bothers me, when I hear queer individuals express contempt of Christians (or religion of general) and lump all people of faith with those few who promote fear and hatred.
In any case, that is my experience and views on religion. I'm always curious as to what other peoples opinions and experiences are when it comes to religion and GLBTQA individuals.
Everyone has a different experience with religion, this post is going to be about mine.
When I was a child, I attended regularly the services at the Otego United Methodist Church. In 6th grade, I was confirmed as a member and continued attending until around my senior year of high-school. I then started attending, the youth services at a local Baptist Church. At one point, someone suggested that the Oneonta Unitarian Universalist Society would be a good choice for me. I have now been in regular attendance at the UU's religious services ever since.
When I was attending the Methodist Church, the minister that was there for most of my adolescence was Pastor Fred Albrecht or as most people called him, Pastor Fred. To put it bluntly, there are few people out there who had the kind of deep impact on my life that Pastor Fred had on me. I do not hold the religious beliefs that I had as a child, I don't call myself a Christian (but rather would describe my religious beliefs as Agnostic. However, the impact of his teachings and the example he set, had a fundamental and significant impact on my deeply held moral compass.
I remember that Pastor Fred's services often placed Biblical stories and lessons in a historical context. Something I found interesting and useful for understanding what was really going on in a particular story. For the most part, the emphasis was placed on parables such as that of the good Samaritan or the stories from the Old Testament. The "Rule Books" - Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy - were never really covered in sermons or Sunday school
I can recall that intolerance and bigotry were to be considered among the lowest forms of evil and that helping others were to be considered among the greatest goods. If people disagreed with you, you should still show respect for their beliefs, was a lesson I learned over and over again in sunday school.
It therefore came as somewhat as a shock to me, as I grew up, to discover that not all people who fell under the Christian umbrella felt that way. Finding out that there were those who used faith and religion to promote bigotry and discrimination came as something of a shock to me. Coming out to Pastor Fred was easy, coming out to the reverend at the Baptist Church was... a different matter. Churches that used Biblical passages to condemn GLBTQA individuals were so far removed from the church that I had been raised in, that I had trouble reconciling the two different versions of Christianity that seemed to exist.
While over time, I came to question the faith that I had been raised in, turning eventually to a position that abandons faith altogether, I believe that there is no reason to abandon moral principles. I cannot say what true Christianity is all about, but those who hide behind the Bible while promoting fear of those who are different are so far removed from the Christianity that I grew up with, that I almost hesitate to use the term. It also really, really bothers me, when I hear queer individuals express contempt of Christians (or religion of general) and lump all people of faith with those few who promote fear and hatred.
In any case, that is my experience and views on religion. I'm always curious as to what other peoples opinions and experiences are when it comes to religion and GLBTQA individuals.
August 29, 2010
Queer Book Review: The Skull of Truth
On one hand, we give high honor to truth. On the other hand, we know the social value of the little white lie, the not-quite true words spoken to spare someone's feelings, or avoid an unnecessary argument.
It's all very confusing.
Which is why I keep writing about it.
-Bruce Coville, The Skull of Truth, A Note from the Author
Bruce Coville is the rare type of author who is not afraid of putting in complex themes or addressing controversial issues in children's literature. His The Skull of Truth is about a boy, Charlie Eggleston, who manages to acquire the skull of truth, which goes by the name of Yorrick. The skull of truth an ancient artifact that forces anyone in it's immediate vicinity to tell the truth and only the truth. For Charlie, Yorrick has a special surprise in store, when he curses Charlie into always telling the truth, even when they are not near to each other.
Charlie, who is a compulsive liar, ends up with a bit of a problem on his hands. He finds himself in humiliated at school when he is forced to tell everyone exactly what he thinks about his classmates. The biggest problem occurs when he ends up being forced to leave Yorrick in the closet next to the dining room during a family gathering. This of course causes all kinds of havoc, particularly when his Uncle is forced to reveal to the whole family that he is really gay. Some good does end up coming out of Yorrick's stay with Charlie, such as when during a public forum Charlie uses Yorrick to force politicians to reveal the full extent of the environmental impact of a proposed construction project. If only getting polititians to tell the truth in real life were this easy...
Coville takes care to show both the upside of telling the truth and the downside, such as when Charlie ends up making a very hurtful comment to a friend who lost their hair while undergoing chemotherapy. Like all of Coville's other works, this one is funny and witty, yet with a touch of pathos to keep it grounded. Highly recommended for all ages who can grasp the ideas that Coville is presenting here.
It's all very confusing.
Which is why I keep writing about it.
-Bruce Coville, The Skull of Truth, A Note from the Author
Bruce Coville is the rare type of author who is not afraid of putting in complex themes or addressing controversial issues in children's literature. His The Skull of Truth is about a boy, Charlie Eggleston, who manages to acquire the skull of truth, which goes by the name of Yorrick. The skull of truth an ancient artifact that forces anyone in it's immediate vicinity to tell the truth and only the truth. For Charlie, Yorrick has a special surprise in store, when he curses Charlie into always telling the truth, even when they are not near to each other.
Charlie, who is a compulsive liar, ends up with a bit of a problem on his hands. He finds himself in humiliated at school when he is forced to tell everyone exactly what he thinks about his classmates. The biggest problem occurs when he ends up being forced to leave Yorrick in the closet next to the dining room during a family gathering. This of course causes all kinds of havoc, particularly when his Uncle is forced to reveal to the whole family that he is really gay. Some good does end up coming out of Yorrick's stay with Charlie, such as when during a public forum Charlie uses Yorrick to force politicians to reveal the full extent of the environmental impact of a proposed construction project. If only getting polititians to tell the truth in real life were this easy...
Coville takes care to show both the upside of telling the truth and the downside, such as when Charlie ends up making a very hurtful comment to a friend who lost their hair while undergoing chemotherapy. Like all of Coville's other works, this one is funny and witty, yet with a touch of pathos to keep it grounded. Highly recommended for all ages who can grasp the ideas that Coville is presenting here.
August 16, 2010
Queer Book Review: That's Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation.
Whatever item I may be reading, I try not to base my opinion or how much I like/dislike what I'm reading based on how much I agree/disagree with what the writer is saying. So, let me put out a disclaimer first, I do not agree with everything that was written or said in That's Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation.
However, this is precisely the sort of book that is worth reading - not in spite of - but rather, *because* it represents a radical position that many people are not going to agree with, at least initially. However, it is powerfully written, so much so that it could end up changing some peoples' minds. The essays are all very well written, thought out, and informative. Some of them are shocking, some may even be described as vulgar and offensive. All of the essays are worth reading.
The central premises of That's Revolting! are as follows:
-That the LGBTQA movement, in its fight to promote Gay Rights and universal acceptance, has destroyed queer identity and along with anything that made being queer special and in the process created new kinds of discrimination.
-It is the assimilation and the acceptance of dominant institutions, such as marriage, that ultimately ends up destroying Lgbtqa identities and anything that made being queer special.
Humor,insight and provacative ideas are all found between the covers. Essay topics range from attempts to gain gender neutral bathrooms at one campus "Calling All Restroom Revolutionaries", to how racism can be present even within queer organizations.
Again, not everything that was said in That's Revolting! I agreed with nor do I expect that many people are going to agree with the conclusions the writers come to. However, in spite of the fact that this book is hard to find - it's currently out of print - those who take the extra time to track it down, will find their efforts well rewarded.
However, this is precisely the sort of book that is worth reading - not in spite of - but rather, *because* it represents a radical position that many people are not going to agree with, at least initially. However, it is powerfully written, so much so that it could end up changing some peoples' minds. The essays are all very well written, thought out, and informative. Some of them are shocking, some may even be described as vulgar and offensive. All of the essays are worth reading.
The central premises of That's Revolting! are as follows:
-That the LGBTQA movement, in its fight to promote Gay Rights and universal acceptance, has destroyed queer identity and along with anything that made being queer special and in the process created new kinds of discrimination.
-It is the assimilation and the acceptance of dominant institutions, such as marriage, that ultimately ends up destroying Lgbtqa identities and anything that made being queer special.
Humor,insight and provacative ideas are all found between the covers. Essay topics range from attempts to gain gender neutral bathrooms at one campus "Calling All Restroom Revolutionaries", to how racism can be present even within queer organizations.
Again, not everything that was said in That's Revolting! I agreed with nor do I expect that many people are going to agree with the conclusions the writers come to. However, in spite of the fact that this book is hard to find - it's currently out of print - those who take the extra time to track it down, will find their efforts well rewarded.
August 4, 2010
Queer Review: Querelle
Querelle, the 1982 film from R.W. Fassbinder, is about the most surreal film I can recall seeing. It takes place in Brest, France, but there is no clear indication as to the time period. There are some props from the 1980s, including a video game I have strong memories of playing with as a kid and a tape recorder. The costumes, particularly the outfits worn by the sailor, point to an earlier time period, indicating that the filmmakers didn't want the movie to be set in a specific time frame. The novel takes place in the 1890s.
The plot revolves around Querelles', a sailor, murderer, and drug dealer, as he explores his sexual desires with other men. These include his "brother" Robert, the bartender Nono, and Gil (played by the same actor as Robert). Lieutenant Seblon, Querelles' superior, also displays desire and longing for him.
I'm not sure I'm up for a more detailed plot synopsis than that, much of it only made sense to me in the most abstract way. This is at its' most basic, a 1980s art film and is also pretentious as hell. The complicated plot moves at a glacial pace while the characters wax all poetically about The Human Condition. Querelle in particular is very articulate and has a vocabulary above and beyond what one might expect from a sailor from any time period. Although, to be fair, Lieutenant Seblon is the greatest offender when it comes to spouting way too much purple prose. To put it bluntly, people in this film talk like most of their lines were stolen from the sort of angst ridden poetry many people write when they are teenagers.
The imagery also contributes to the surreal nature of the film and is highly sexualized. There's a little nudity, but nearly every shot contains some sort of artistic rendering of male genitals or at least an obvious phallic symbol. Anyone who might doubt that Fassbinder was primarily attracted to men, might consider that there is only one significant female role in this movie, who is always stately dressed, while many of the male characters wear skimpy tight fitting outfits, emphasizing their bulges, muscular and otherwise.
There exist people and critics out there who might like this film, but I would not count myself among them. Instead, the whole thing grated on my sensibilities. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone except those bold few who wish to experiment with alternative forms of cinematic storytelling.
The plot revolves around Querelles', a sailor, murderer, and drug dealer, as he explores his sexual desires with other men. These include his "brother" Robert, the bartender Nono, and Gil (played by the same actor as Robert). Lieutenant Seblon, Querelles' superior, also displays desire and longing for him.
I'm not sure I'm up for a more detailed plot synopsis than that, much of it only made sense to me in the most abstract way. This is at its' most basic, a 1980s art film and is also pretentious as hell. The complicated plot moves at a glacial pace while the characters wax all poetically about The Human Condition. Querelle in particular is very articulate and has a vocabulary above and beyond what one might expect from a sailor from any time period. Although, to be fair, Lieutenant Seblon is the greatest offender when it comes to spouting way too much purple prose. To put it bluntly, people in this film talk like most of their lines were stolen from the sort of angst ridden poetry many people write when they are teenagers.
The imagery also contributes to the surreal nature of the film and is highly sexualized. There's a little nudity, but nearly every shot contains some sort of artistic rendering of male genitals or at least an obvious phallic symbol. Anyone who might doubt that Fassbinder was primarily attracted to men, might consider that there is only one significant female role in this movie, who is always stately dressed, while many of the male characters wear skimpy tight fitting outfits, emphasizing their bulges, muscular and otherwise.
There exist people and critics out there who might like this film, but I would not count myself among them. Instead, the whole thing grated on my sensibilities. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone except those bold few who wish to experiment with alternative forms of cinematic storytelling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)