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.

Queer Review: X-Men (2000)

X-Men
Director: Bryan Singer
Writer: Tom DeSanto, Bryan Singer, and David Hayter
Cast: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Famke Janssen, James Marsden, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin, Rebecca Romijn, Bruce Davison

Overview
The first X-Men movie was released at a time when comic book movies were at a low ebb and ended up kick starting the current modern comic book movie craze that is still going strong more than 10 years later. While there are no overt queer characters, there is an interesting subtext regarding prejudice and bigotry that is particularly relevant to the queer community.

Synopsis
X-Men takes place in the near future where human evolution is starting to "leap forward" and humans with strange and interesting powers are starting to come forward. Normal humans, however, are filled with fear at these mutants and one U.S. official, Senator Kelly (Bruce Davison) has proposed legislation requiring all mutants to be registered with the government. There are those who oppose him, such as Magneto (Ian McKellen) who wishes to start a war between the mutants and the rest of humanity. However, there are others, such as Professor Xavier (Partick Stewart) who wish to prevent this war from starting by using peaceful methods to obtain equality.

The Queering
Science Fiction movies have a long history of using allegorical stand ins to tell general messages regarding the evils of bigotry - District 9 being a more recent example. X-Men can be seen as a part of this tradition. Magneto, who is Jewish and suffered through the concentration camps, is simply trying to prevent a second Holocaust - although his methodology leaves a lot to be desired.

However, there are many small parallels between the struggles of the mutants and specific queer experiences. For instance, the mutant powers come to exist in adolescence and many mutants hide their powers in order to avoid persecution. Openly gay director Bryan Singer admitted that he saw these similarities as well, the biggest of which is the way the mutant registration act is quite like DOMA. Also, in the comics, Mystique (Rebecca Romijn) was supposed to be a lesbian, but thanks to the Comics Code, that never happened.

X-Men has a strong sense of style although it is not quite on the same level as some of the stronger super hero movies that came afterwords such as Superman Returns or The Dark Knight. Also, one can make the case that Spiderman or Ironman provide better entertainment value overall. However, the strengths of X-Men are it's diverse cast of characters which prevent proceedings from coming boring - although the large number of mutants also tends to prevent character identification - and the moral complexity of its main villain. Magneto makes for a more interesting antagonist than most comic book baddies.

Recommendation
Considering its strengths as a comic book movie with a queer subtext, I highly recommend X-Men.

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.

The Feeling of Hope.

It has been an eventful few days. Friday kicked off the 16th Undergraduate Philosophy Conference and the first one not to have had the guidance of Dr. Shrader. Instead, it was lead by Dr. Koch (who had been my Academic Advisor when I was a student. I do not think it possible that a better replacement could have been found. Make no mistake, a better advisor than Dr. Shrader would have been difficult to find as well.

I had been sitting in on some of the conference classes to lend my expertise from having worked on previous Conferences, and I plan on emailing a list of critiques and suggestions to Dr. Koch. Make no mistake, the conference committee and Dr. Koch were able to pull off an amazing conference this year, my suggestions will simply be of stuff that was done in the past and therefor I hope will be useful for Dr. Koch to know about as he continues forward with the conference.

After the conference ended on Sat. there was a memorial service in the late afternoon for Dr. Shrader. It was a time of mixed emotions. On one hand it was a pure joy to observe the conference will be able to continue. On the other, it's hard to think about the philosophy conference without him.

The weather was nice and it was a beautiful day. It was also nice hearing the stories that other students shared. I finally got the details of the story of how Dr. Shrader met his wife Barbara by eating a whole banana, including the peal.

Then on Sunday I heard the news that finally Osama Bin Laden was dead. I wish to repeat what I said before, I feel there is danger in finding joy in the death of another human being. I do still think though, that catharsis is an appropriate thing. I used to think that catharsis was this esoteric term that also had spiritual implications for those dealing with grief. Then my philosophy of art professor asked us to look it up, and I found out that it was an old school term for an enema. That's right to have a catharsis, all you need to do is stick a hose up your ass and...

Therefore, I really do mean that this is a catharsis. Something shitty has been removed from this world. I might have been a little pessimistic with my last post. While I do not think we should let down our guard, I do hope that this really is a serious blow to Al Qaeda that they will not easily recover from.

Then today my iPad 2 arrived. Overstimulated? That's me now. Rather then take too much time trying to set it up with all my accounts/passwords, I spent some time watching music videos. I found that the vast majority of the videos that I had were from post-9/11.

That's something I think worth reflecting on. 9/11 happened just before I became an adult. I found that today, I had a hard time remembering what it was like in a world prior to 9/11. I remember things that I know happened before that date, but I could not remember what life itself *felt* like.

I could not remember what it was to live in a world without terror alerts. I could not conceive of what it was like to not be a citizen of a nation that was involved with two foreign wars, nor could I recall what it was like to not know the name of Osama Bin Laden.

Tonight, while watching music videos, I started to recall what it felt like. It wasn't strong, it had glimmered through at times, but it was there as I watched music videos such as Kryptonit by Three Doors Down that I had enjoyed from the time before 9/11.

What I hope for now, is that this feeling will become the norm again. I can hope can't I? Or at least, is this what hope feels like?

Osama Bin Laden is dead.

It was nearly 10 years ago that the United States suffered those horrible attacks that I still cannot find the words to adequately describe. September 11th was was exactly 3 months before my 18th birthday and has cast a shadow over everything in the decade since.

While I believe that Bin Laden's death is certainly both a relief and a genuine catharsis, I am hesitant to ascribe to it joy or to engage in celebration. Make no mistake, I believe that even the darkest, most rank places in Hell are too good for Osama Bin Laden, but I cannot find pleasure in the death of another human being.

Instead, I believe that this is a time for reflection. I believe that we need to understand Osama Bin Laden as a human being. I say this, not because I believe we should empathize with him, but because it is only with that understanding that it will be possible to create a more secure and safe world. Remember, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it and if we forget the evil that humans are capable of, we will enable the creation of others like Osama Bin Laden.

Furthermore, let us not forget that terrorism is like the ancient hydra, for every head that is cut off, two more will be created. This is a symbolic victory. Yes this is a cathartic victory, but terrorism will not end with the death of one person. We have killed the head, but let us be aware that many more could be given life.

Queer Issue: The Problems of Marriage Equality

I recently had the pleasure of attending the 16th Annual SUNY Oneonta Undergraduate Philosophy Conference. I have been a part of this conference for some time, starting 5 years ago when I joined the 12th Annual Conference planning committee with the mere thought of fulfilling the "public speaking" gen ed requirement I needed for my bachelors degree. I had no idea that it would lead me to becoming a philosophy major, plus 2 more times on the Philosophy Conference Committee, concluding with me chairing the committee two years ago. Last year, after I had graduated, I came back to serve as a discussant on a paper by David Naples which he discussed the subjective grounds that arguments for and against marriage equality are based upon. The abstract can be read here.

This year, Naples was the discussant for another paper on gay marriage by Kirk Schneider and the abstract for his paper can be found here. I was glad when Naples claimed that Schneider was not radical enough, as Schneider's arguments were limited to same sex marriage, and argued this year, that the entire issue of marriage needs to be analyzed and questioned, particularly when it comes to issue of societal approval.

To put it another way, Naples was arguing for a point of view that closely resembled one adopted by Against Equality: Queer Challanges to the Politics of Inclusion, as well as the viewpoint adopted by the editors of That's Revolting! Queer Stratagies for Resisting Assimilation.

According to Against Equality:
Gay marriage apes hetero privilege and allows everyone to forget that marriage ought not to be the guarantor of rights like health care. In their constant invoking of the “right” to gay marriage, mainstream gays and lesbians express a confused tangle of wishes and desires. They claim to contest the Right’s conservative ideology yet insist that they are more moral and hence more deserving than sluts like us. They claim that they simply want the famous 1000+ benefits but all of these, like the right to claim protection in cases of domestic violence, can be made available to non-marital relationships.

On the most general grounds that marriage ought not to confer rights that should be guaranteed to all, I agree with Against Equality. However, I feel that are still situations which are being ignored here by Against Equality that need addressing.

In general, I feel that term marriage should be left to religion and not given any special legal standing. However, civil unions between can and should be given legal recognition and considered the same as any other legally binding contract that can be made between two or more consenting adults. This civil union contract would then be used in cases when issues or questions regarding custody of kids, medical decisions when one partner no longer has the capacity to make those decisions, and inheritance of property when one partner dies.

Notice how all of those cases can be decided without the need to engage in a civil union, the simple advantage of them being recognized by a civil union contract would be a bundling effect. That is, rather than having to decide each item separately, this civil union contract would have defaults that would come into play whenever certain situations arose.

To conclude, I would like to point out that a general philosophical issue that I had with Against Equality was that its purpose, as far as I could tell, was defined in the negative. That is, while Against Equality, was objecting to broad problems within the LGBT rights movement, specifically the problem of the push for marriage equality, I did not notice that many specific solutions being proposed. In fact, a lot of what I read had a negative attitude in general. I should point out though, that I did not do a thorough investigation of the site, so I cannot make a definitive claim here. However, I would argue that Against Equality raises enough valid points that they should not be ignored or dismissed out of hand simply because of this negativity.

Setting the Record Queer: Ruth C. Ellis, the oldest Lesbian.

It is said that Ruth Ellis was the oldest - as in first - known lesbian who was publicly out. What makes her remarkable was that she came out in 1915, which was 54 years before the Stonewall Riots that "started" the queer rights movement.

Throughout her long life Ellis was an activist for the queer community. Even more extraordinary was that Ellis was African American and therefor served a community that faced a double whammy of discrimination - racism and homophobia.

Ellis's main romantic partner - and the only woman she lived with - was Ceciline "Babe" Franklin. When Ellis and Franklin lived in Detroit, Ellis opened up a printing business and became the first woman in Michigan to own and operate a printing business in Michigan according to the GLBT History Month 2009 article on Ellis. Ellis and Franklin turned their house during this time period into a safe haven for black gays and lesbians and it was referred to as "gay spot".

Ruth Ellis died on October 5th, 2000. She was 101 years old at the time of her passing. Her legacy includes the Ruth Ellis Center which, on their website describes their purpose as "to provide short-term and long-term residential safe space and support services for runaway, homeless and at-risk gay, lesbian, bi-attractional, transgender and questioning youth in Detroit and Southeastern Michigan."

According to the center's website Ruth herself, "opened her home to the community on the weekends as a safe space from the 1940s through the 1960s, a time when African-American gay men and lesbians had few social venues." and "personally assisted young people with money for college, books, and food. She unselfishly gave everything that she had to whomever needed it."

In 1999, a documentary Living With Pride: Ruth C. Ellis @ 100 was released about Ruth Ellis's life which was directed by Yvonne Welbon.

Links and Further Reading:
Wikipedia Article on Ruth Ellis
Ruth Ellis Center
GLBT History Month 2009 Spotlight on Ruth Ellis
Living With Pride: Ruth C. Ellis @ 100 at IMDB