X-Men - Days of Future Past
Director: Bryan Singer
Writers: Simon Kinberg, Jane Goldman, and Matthew Vaughn
Cast: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Nicholas Hoult, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Shawn Ashmore, Omar Sy, Evan Peters, Josh Helman, Daniel Cudmore, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart
Overview
With a glimpse into a grim future filled with holocaust-esque imagery, Days of Future Past can be said to open in a similar fashion to the first X-Men film. Following that grim opening though, is the best film in the series since X2 - X-Men United.
Synopsis
In the year 2023, the last surviving mutants of a war to eliminate their species find hatch a desperate plan to avert that war. They decide to send back on of their own, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) to alter the past. This means inserting his future conscience into his past body. Once Wolverine goes back, his job becomes reuniting Charles Xavier (James McAvoy, Patrick Stewart) with Magneto (Michael Fassbender, Ian McKellen) in order to prevent Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) from setting in motion the events that could potentially lead to the extinction of all mutant kind.
The Queering
The opening of Days of Future Past is the rockiest part of the film, particularly in an exposition heavy scene where Charles Xavier lays out the backstory and explains key details primarily for the benefit of the audience. Fortunately the film improves dramatically after that. While a story featuring centered around a post-apocalyptic future might seem rather entirely grim, there is plenty of fun to be had in the 70's timeline. The best parts include a brilliant sequence set to Jim Croces' Time in a Bottle and a clever reference to John F. Kennedy being a mutant whom Magneto tried to save (which is why the "magic" bullet curved).
X-Men - First Class ended with the break up of Professor Xavier and Magneto. While Professor Xavier believed that peaceful coexistence between humans and mutants was possible, Magneto instead held to a hard line anti-assimilationist stance. Mutants like Mystique whose blue skinned appearance fail to endear her to mainstream society are drawn to Magneto because he advocates being able to live as a mutant openly without persecution. On the flip side, mutants like Beast and Xavier live in the closet, covering up their appearance in order to avoid being detected. Xavier even went so far as to sacrifice his powers in order to be able to walk. These differences of opinion leads to their relationships' inevitable split. This means that in addition to bringing out the mutant abilities of Beast and Xavier, Wolverine spends the middle section of the movie acting like a couples counselor in order to get Magneto and Xavier to reconcile their irreconcilable differences.
On the queer subtext front, this may have the strongest LGBTQ political subtext of any of the movies. The sentinels that lead to the future war, are robots that are designed to hunt down, detect, and kill mutants. The scene where the Sentinels designer Dr. Trask (Peter Dinklage) demonstrates their abilities evokes the U.S. government programs of the 50's and 60's to eradicate gays and lesbians from civil service jobs. This parallel is made particularly clear in the scene reveals that there is already a mutant in the room where Dr. Trask is making his presentation.
Many people were disappointed back when X-Men III - The Last Stand and it was viewed as a less than desirable send off for characters. Here Bryan Singer takes full advantage of the opportunity to give many of the characters from that trilogy a better wrap. However, many of them, such as Storm (Halle Barry), are given little more than extended cameos. For the most part however, the action is more epic than anything we've seen before in this series and many of the primary characters are given a bigger chance to shine.
In particular the characters of Magneto, Professor X, and Mystique are all given much better development here than in past efforts. I found the development of Xavier to be the most interesting. In the original movies, Professor Xavier is pretty much the all knowing, wise old mentor without a flaw. There's nothing wrong with such character but it's one we've seen in many other movies. First Class showed Xavier as an immature frat boy, who was willing to play around in the minds of others without a thought to the consequences or ethics of such behavior. Not to mention his inability to acknowledge his privilege as a mutant who could easily pass in public as a non-mutant. This time around he is shown to be a broken man who has given up his telepathic abilities along with all hope for the human race. While 1973 Magneto is still pretty much the angry mutant leader we were shown in past efforts, the one who was willing to kill anyone (including his fellow mutants) in order to protect all of mutant kind, future Magneto is shown to be more reflective and introspective.
As for Mystique, here she is shown to be a women driven by the murder and torture of her fellow mutants into taking extreme actions. What makes her interesting is that she believes absolutely in the righteousness of her actions, which are shown to be entirely justified, even if the consequences will be devastating. However, the queer/trans subtext regarding Mystiques' character is downplayed here compared to First Class (there is no utterance of "Mutant and Proud"), although it is still possible to see it given a broad enough reading.
Recommendation
This is one superhero film that would be worth skipping a few days into the future in order to see.
The Rating
3 and 1/2 out of 4 stars.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
May 13, 2014
Queer Review: Phantom of the Opera (1943)
Phantom of the Opera
Director: Arthur Lubin
Writers: Eric Taylor, Samuel Hoffenstein, John Jacoby, and Hans Jacoby. Based on "Le Fantôme de L'Opéra" by Gaston Leroux.
Cast: Nelson Eddy, Susanna Foster, Claude Rains, Edgar Barrier, Leo Carrillo, Jane Farrar
Overview
An awkward take on the tale first told by Gaston Leroux, the 1943 version of the Phantom of the Opera mixes comedy, romance, and horror to poor effect. At least there is a same sex romance to keep things interesting.
Synopsis
Moved by the voice of Christine DuBois (Susanna Foster), Erique Claudin (Claude Rains) secretly funds her singing lessons using his income as violinist while nearly going broke in the process. Desperate for money, Claudin attempts to sell one of his compositions to a publisher but when that fails and he believe that his work is being stolen, he snaps. During the following struggle, Claudin kills a man and has his face disfigured with acid. Hiding in the shadows of the Opera House where he once worked, he attempts to pave Christine a path to stardom. Meanwhile, she is being courted by two men - police officer Raoul (Edgar Barrier) and Anatole Garron (Nelson Eddy) - although they both appear to be more into each other than Christine.
The Queering
What is the 1943 version of the Phantom of the Opera? Is it a romance? A horror film? A comedy? All of the above apparently. None of the elements really gel very well. Throw in some bad pacing (it feels like it takes forever to get through any of the opera sequences) and you have what I can only imagine to be (as I have not seen any of the others) one of the weaker versions of the Phantom of the Opera to make it onto the silver screen.
However, there is the romance between Anatole and Raoul, who pretend to be courting the actress Christine so they can spend more time with each other, which helps keep things interesting. The two make every effort, including developing a ritual around who will walk through a door together. However, Christine eventually chooses a life with the theater. Clearly relieved that they no longer have to continue the charade, Raoul and Anatole walk out arm in arm as the camera fades to black.
There is something very strange about a film version of the Phantom of the Opera being filmed in technicolor. It doesn't feel right. Director Lubin tries to add a sense of dread to proceedings by showing shots of The Phantoms' shadow against walls but the framing is too stagy and awkward to be effective. The infamous chandler crashing scene is ineptly shot and way too drawn out.
Tonally the film is all over the place. The original story is a classic of gothic horror but the 1943 version tries to turn it into a romantic comedy. This causes the entire production to feel as off key as an opera singer after inhaling an entire balloon of helium. If you really want to be entertained, watch out for the floating rocks during the climax.
Recommendation
Not worth learning opera nor becoming a phantom of in order to see this movie, not unless one really digs older movies.
The Rating
2 out of 4 stars.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Arthur Lubin
Writers: Eric Taylor, Samuel Hoffenstein, John Jacoby, and Hans Jacoby. Based on "Le Fantôme de L'Opéra" by Gaston Leroux.
Cast: Nelson Eddy, Susanna Foster, Claude Rains, Edgar Barrier, Leo Carrillo, Jane Farrar
Overview
An awkward take on the tale first told by Gaston Leroux, the 1943 version of the Phantom of the Opera mixes comedy, romance, and horror to poor effect. At least there is a same sex romance to keep things interesting.
Synopsis
Moved by the voice of Christine DuBois (Susanna Foster), Erique Claudin (Claude Rains) secretly funds her singing lessons using his income as violinist while nearly going broke in the process. Desperate for money, Claudin attempts to sell one of his compositions to a publisher but when that fails and he believe that his work is being stolen, he snaps. During the following struggle, Claudin kills a man and has his face disfigured with acid. Hiding in the shadows of the Opera House where he once worked, he attempts to pave Christine a path to stardom. Meanwhile, she is being courted by two men - police officer Raoul (Edgar Barrier) and Anatole Garron (Nelson Eddy) - although they both appear to be more into each other than Christine.
The Queering
What is the 1943 version of the Phantom of the Opera? Is it a romance? A horror film? A comedy? All of the above apparently. None of the elements really gel very well. Throw in some bad pacing (it feels like it takes forever to get through any of the opera sequences) and you have what I can only imagine to be (as I have not seen any of the others) one of the weaker versions of the Phantom of the Opera to make it onto the silver screen.
However, there is the romance between Anatole and Raoul, who pretend to be courting the actress Christine so they can spend more time with each other, which helps keep things interesting. The two make every effort, including developing a ritual around who will walk through a door together. However, Christine eventually chooses a life with the theater. Clearly relieved that they no longer have to continue the charade, Raoul and Anatole walk out arm in arm as the camera fades to black.
There is something very strange about a film version of the Phantom of the Opera being filmed in technicolor. It doesn't feel right. Director Lubin tries to add a sense of dread to proceedings by showing shots of The Phantoms' shadow against walls but the framing is too stagy and awkward to be effective. The infamous chandler crashing scene is ineptly shot and way too drawn out.
Tonally the film is all over the place. The original story is a classic of gothic horror but the 1943 version tries to turn it into a romantic comedy. This causes the entire production to feel as off key as an opera singer after inhaling an entire balloon of helium. If you really want to be entertained, watch out for the floating rocks during the climax.
Recommendation
Not worth learning opera nor becoming a phantom of in order to see this movie, not unless one really digs older movies.
The Rating
2 out of 4 stars.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
May 10, 2014
Queer Review: High Tension (2003)
High Tension
Director: Alexandre Aja
Writers: Alexandre Ajas and Grégory Levasseur
Cast: Cécile De France, Maïwenn, Philippe Nahon, Franck Khalfoun, Andrei Finti, Oana Pellea, Marco Claudiu Pascu
Overview
As a slasher flick, there are times when High Tension succeeds as a bloody descent into pure horror. However a third act twist causes the proceedings to wind up reveling more in homophobia, than the workings of the Grand Guignol.
Synopsis
Marie (Cécile De France) and Alexia (Maïwenn) travel to the French countryside to visit Alexia's family. However, it isn't long before a demented serial killer shows up, kills the family and kidnaps Alexia, while Marie sneaks a ride in the back of his truck. What follows is a tense cat and mouse game, with Marie alternatively trying to free Alexia from the killers chains or seeking a means of signaling for help from authorities.
The Queering
(Spoilers ahoy! as there is no way to analyze this film without explicitly discussing the nature of the twist itself)
High Tension is gory, make no mistake, but the pacing and suspense level are kept high enough that it still manages to be an entertaining thrill ride, at least until the twist ending introduces homophobia by invoking the psycho lesbian trope. Typically, I am not one who goes for a lot gore in my films, but this particular horror endeavor is slickly enough made that the splatter element didn't bother me. Although I will admit to a few moments where I was paying more attention to the inside of my eyelids than what was occurring on screen. Basically, this falls comfortably within the realm of torture porn, a genre I generally avoid. The score (which for whatever reason reminded me of the one from Halloween) and the gritty - yet stylish - cinematography come together to create an atmosphere of pure dread.
However, the ending cannot be ignored, as it informs everything that happened before. As the "big reveal" reveals, the "killer" was Marie all along, and she simply hallucinated him into existence in order to disassociate herself from the terrible acts that she commits. It is a ludicrous twist, one that has been done before (although not quite like this), and requires that the audience accept that an entire car chase occurred only in Maries' mind. That's not even it's worse sin, as the reason why Maria turns into a killer in the first place is because of her sexual attraction to Alexia. Thus Maries' descent into madness and subsequent murder spree are intractably linked to her sexuality. In other words, the twist manages to be both ableist and homophobic at the same time.
There is nothing terribly original about this movie, which is neither good or bad as far as I'm concerned. There are plenty of references and nods to past horror efforts. This makes sense given the horror genre's tendency towards self cannibalism. Reviewers who liked the movie called these references homages, while those who took a dim view labeled them "rip-offs". I bring this up only on the off chance that someone out there was wondering what the difference between a "homage" and a "rip-off" happens to be.
Recommendation
In spite of being well made, there is no need to go to high lengths to see this (unless one really likes torture porn), the low tension road should work just fine.
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.
Director: Alexandre Aja
Writers: Alexandre Ajas and Grégory Levasseur
Cast: Cécile De France, Maïwenn, Philippe Nahon, Franck Khalfoun, Andrei Finti, Oana Pellea, Marco Claudiu Pascu
Overview
As a slasher flick, there are times when High Tension succeeds as a bloody descent into pure horror. However a third act twist causes the proceedings to wind up reveling more in homophobia, than the workings of the Grand Guignol.
Synopsis
Marie (Cécile De France) and Alexia (Maïwenn) travel to the French countryside to visit Alexia's family. However, it isn't long before a demented serial killer shows up, kills the family and kidnaps Alexia, while Marie sneaks a ride in the back of his truck. What follows is a tense cat and mouse game, with Marie alternatively trying to free Alexia from the killers chains or seeking a means of signaling for help from authorities.
The Queering
(Spoilers ahoy! as there is no way to analyze this film without explicitly discussing the nature of the twist itself)
High Tension is gory, make no mistake, but the pacing and suspense level are kept high enough that it still manages to be an entertaining thrill ride, at least until the twist ending introduces homophobia by invoking the psycho lesbian trope. Typically, I am not one who goes for a lot gore in my films, but this particular horror endeavor is slickly enough made that the splatter element didn't bother me. Although I will admit to a few moments where I was paying more attention to the inside of my eyelids than what was occurring on screen. Basically, this falls comfortably within the realm of torture porn, a genre I generally avoid. The score (which for whatever reason reminded me of the one from Halloween) and the gritty - yet stylish - cinematography come together to create an atmosphere of pure dread.
However, the ending cannot be ignored, as it informs everything that happened before. As the "big reveal" reveals, the "killer" was Marie all along, and she simply hallucinated him into existence in order to disassociate herself from the terrible acts that she commits. It is a ludicrous twist, one that has been done before (although not quite like this), and requires that the audience accept that an entire car chase occurred only in Maries' mind. That's not even it's worse sin, as the reason why Maria turns into a killer in the first place is because of her sexual attraction to Alexia. Thus Maries' descent into madness and subsequent murder spree are intractably linked to her sexuality. In other words, the twist manages to be both ableist and homophobic at the same time.
There is nothing terribly original about this movie, which is neither good or bad as far as I'm concerned. There are plenty of references and nods to past horror efforts. This makes sense given the horror genre's tendency towards self cannibalism. Reviewers who liked the movie called these references homages, while those who took a dim view labeled them "rip-offs". I bring this up only on the off chance that someone out there was wondering what the difference between a "homage" and a "rip-off" happens to be.
Recommendation
In spite of being well made, there is no need to go to high lengths to see this (unless one really likes torture porn), the low tension road should work just fine.
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.
May 9, 2014
Queer Review: The Shining (1980)
The Shining
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writers: Stanley Kubrick and Diane Johnson. Based on the novel by The Shining by Stephen King.
Cast: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, Scatman Crothers, Barry Nelson, Philip Stone, Joe Turkel
Overview
Analysis of Stanley Kubrick films are typically awash in obtuse interpretations and The Shining is certainly no exception. An entire documentary, Room 237, was made with commentators offering up a variety of bizarre explanations, including the possibility that The Shining contains proof that Kubrick was part of the vast government conspiracy that faked the moon landing.
All of this gives The Shining an air of being an high end, elite work of art by one of the great auteurs of the 20th century. However, all of this analysis simply causes people to miss the obvious, namely that The Shining is little more then a typical Hollywood horror film, many of which feature characters wrestling with same sex desires or gender identity issues before turning into deranged killers.
Synopsis
Jack (Jack Nicholson) is the newest caretaker for the Overlook Hotel, an isolated resort which lies abandoned every winter thanks to the difficult to ploy road leading up to it. Thus Jack and his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and child Danny (Danny Lloyd) are stuck in isolation for the entire winter. Since this is a ghostly horror story, it's only natural that the location was once the site of diabolical murders, whereby the previous caretaker went mad and killed the rest of his family. Over time of course, ghostly apparitions start to intrude on their solitude and Jack gradually loses any semblance of sanity, causing him to represent an increasing danger to his family.
The Queering
Evidence of what is actually going on appear early and often. During an interview with the managers of The Overlook, Jack can be seen reading a Playgirl magazine. Furthermore, we never see Jack and Wendy in bed together or otherwise engaging in physical intimacy. In fact, Jack makes it perfectly clear to her that he does not want her around when he's working. In a scene ripe with Freudian overtones, Jack finds himself embracing a naked woman, only to have her turn into a rotting corpse. However, Jack has no problems getting along with the male apparitions he encounters. He converses with ease with a mysterious bartender named Lloyd and there is even a strange scene where a ghostly attendant spends a lot of time cleaning a mess off of Jack's jacket in a brightly lit red bathroom.
This is before we get delve into all the hints that Jack sexually molested Danny, either in the past or as an ongoing issue. For starters, Danny's condition more closely resembles a kid suffering from PTSD, than one experiencing a psychic condition. In the book, the fact that Danny had psychic abilities was less ambiguous and more relevant to the overall story. Here, the ambiguity only makes Danny come across as a tortured victim. When Danny talks about his imaginary friend Tony, he says that Tony lives in his mouth.
In one creepy scene, Danny and Wendy start out watching television in a room of the hotel, when Danny asks if he can go and get a toy from the shared bedroom. Wendy allows him on the condition that he make no noise. What we are supposed to think is that Jack will wake up angry and lash out at Danny, given that it was earlier revealed that Jack had explicitly physically abused Danny. When Danny arrives at the room however, Jack only asks that Danny sit on his lap. The possibility that Wendy was actually worried about Jack molesting Danny is illuminated in a scene late in the movie, once all hell has broken lose, Wendy comes upon a man in a bear suit clearly performing oral sex on another man. Clearly this bit indicates that she saw something in the past and buried it in her memory.
There are subtler elements as well, that also point towards Jack having issues with masculinity. For one, he is an alcoholic, and this would not be the first time that alcoholism has been used as a stand in for queerness. See the film version of The Lost Weekend for an example of this. Also, Jack is a man who is clearly unable to provide for his family. Not only is Wendy the one who is shown performing his care-taking duties (on top of the housework that she also performs) but when we see the manuscript for the book Jack is working on, it ironically only consists of the lines "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy"
So where does this all leave us? For all the analysis dedicated to it, for all the symbols that Kubrick allegedly left behind, there can be no doubt that this is a story of a man destroying his family by succumbing to queer desires. It is an age old tale, one that existed well before The Shining made it's way to the big screen. Because queer peeps are evulz.
Artistically speaking, The Shining is very well made and there is no reason to question Kubricks' status as an auteur. The heavily stylized cinematography where his trademark meticulousness is showcased in every frame only helps to cement it. The finale, with Jack desperately pursuing Danny through the hotel's outdoor maze, is particularly eery and evocative thanks to the long tracking shots Kubrick utilizes. And what would a review of The Shining be without mentioning Jack Nicholsons' "Here's Johnny!" performance? Now that I have mentioned it, I can now end this review.
Recommendation
Only the most devoted horror buffs who don't mind a side dish of homophobia should take a shining to this film.
The Rating
2 stars out of 4 stars.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writers: Stanley Kubrick and Diane Johnson. Based on the novel by The Shining by Stephen King.
Cast: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, Scatman Crothers, Barry Nelson, Philip Stone, Joe Turkel
Overview
Analysis of Stanley Kubrick films are typically awash in obtuse interpretations and The Shining is certainly no exception. An entire documentary, Room 237, was made with commentators offering up a variety of bizarre explanations, including the possibility that The Shining contains proof that Kubrick was part of the vast government conspiracy that faked the moon landing.
All of this gives The Shining an air of being an high end, elite work of art by one of the great auteurs of the 20th century. However, all of this analysis simply causes people to miss the obvious, namely that The Shining is little more then a typical Hollywood horror film, many of which feature characters wrestling with same sex desires or gender identity issues before turning into deranged killers.
Synopsis
Jack (Jack Nicholson) is the newest caretaker for the Overlook Hotel, an isolated resort which lies abandoned every winter thanks to the difficult to ploy road leading up to it. Thus Jack and his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and child Danny (Danny Lloyd) are stuck in isolation for the entire winter. Since this is a ghostly horror story, it's only natural that the location was once the site of diabolical murders, whereby the previous caretaker went mad and killed the rest of his family. Over time of course, ghostly apparitions start to intrude on their solitude and Jack gradually loses any semblance of sanity, causing him to represent an increasing danger to his family.
The Queering
Evidence of what is actually going on appear early and often. During an interview with the managers of The Overlook, Jack can be seen reading a Playgirl magazine. Furthermore, we never see Jack and Wendy in bed together or otherwise engaging in physical intimacy. In fact, Jack makes it perfectly clear to her that he does not want her around when he's working. In a scene ripe with Freudian overtones, Jack finds himself embracing a naked woman, only to have her turn into a rotting corpse. However, Jack has no problems getting along with the male apparitions he encounters. He converses with ease with a mysterious bartender named Lloyd and there is even a strange scene where a ghostly attendant spends a lot of time cleaning a mess off of Jack's jacket in a brightly lit red bathroom.
This is before we get delve into all the hints that Jack sexually molested Danny, either in the past or as an ongoing issue. For starters, Danny's condition more closely resembles a kid suffering from PTSD, than one experiencing a psychic condition. In the book, the fact that Danny had psychic abilities was less ambiguous and more relevant to the overall story. Here, the ambiguity only makes Danny come across as a tortured victim. When Danny talks about his imaginary friend Tony, he says that Tony lives in his mouth.
In one creepy scene, Danny and Wendy start out watching television in a room of the hotel, when Danny asks if he can go and get a toy from the shared bedroom. Wendy allows him on the condition that he make no noise. What we are supposed to think is that Jack will wake up angry and lash out at Danny, given that it was earlier revealed that Jack had explicitly physically abused Danny. When Danny arrives at the room however, Jack only asks that Danny sit on his lap. The possibility that Wendy was actually worried about Jack molesting Danny is illuminated in a scene late in the movie, once all hell has broken lose, Wendy comes upon a man in a bear suit clearly performing oral sex on another man. Clearly this bit indicates that she saw something in the past and buried it in her memory.
There are subtler elements as well, that also point towards Jack having issues with masculinity. For one, he is an alcoholic, and this would not be the first time that alcoholism has been used as a stand in for queerness. See the film version of The Lost Weekend for an example of this. Also, Jack is a man who is clearly unable to provide for his family. Not only is Wendy the one who is shown performing his care-taking duties (on top of the housework that she also performs) but when we see the manuscript for the book Jack is working on, it ironically only consists of the lines "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy"
So where does this all leave us? For all the analysis dedicated to it, for all the symbols that Kubrick allegedly left behind, there can be no doubt that this is a story of a man destroying his family by succumbing to queer desires. It is an age old tale, one that existed well before The Shining made it's way to the big screen. Because queer peeps are evulz.
Artistically speaking, The Shining is very well made and there is no reason to question Kubricks' status as an auteur. The heavily stylized cinematography where his trademark meticulousness is showcased in every frame only helps to cement it. The finale, with Jack desperately pursuing Danny through the hotel's outdoor maze, is particularly eery and evocative thanks to the long tracking shots Kubrick utilizes. And what would a review of The Shining be without mentioning Jack Nicholsons' "Here's Johnny!" performance? Now that I have mentioned it, I can now end this review.
Recommendation
Only the most devoted horror buffs who don't mind a side dish of homophobia should take a shining to this film.
The Rating
2 stars out of 4 stars.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
April 7, 2014
Upcoming Movies
With my class schedule being what it is, I have not had a chance to sit down and watch Blue is the Warmest Color properly and then bore everyone out there with my thoughts on it. I did get a chance to watch Frozen and am considering writing a review of that film, although it appears that many people beat me to the punch and there now exist claims of it being the first Disney film to feature a gay couple. I wouldn't put it quite that way, as the character(s) in question are subtextually queer at best. However, I always feel like I'm going to get some degree of pushback when I write about subtextually queer characters that it's nice to have things swing in the opposite direction.
In any case, here are some upcoming movies that I'm interested in.
X-Men: Days of Future Past
It really is nice to be able to queer a movie before it even comes out. As it is, it looks like Days of Future Past is going to be about Magneto and Professor X getting back together after their big breakup in X-Men: First Class.
Burning Blue
According to what I've read, this is about an Air-force investigation into a series of mysterious crashes incidentally revealing a romantic relationship between two air-force pilots. Could be interesting provided they don't go the "it was the creepy gay killers sabotaging the planes the whole time" route.
Jupiter Ascending
The Wachowskis return to theaters with Jupiter Ascending and it looks absolutely thrilling. Can they reach the bar they set so high with The Matrix? My fingers are crossed here.
In any case, here are some upcoming movies that I'm interested in.
X-Men: Days of Future Past
It really is nice to be able to queer a movie before it even comes out. As it is, it looks like Days of Future Past is going to be about Magneto and Professor X getting back together after their big breakup in X-Men: First Class.
Burning Blue
According to what I've read, this is about an Air-force investigation into a series of mysterious crashes incidentally revealing a romantic relationship between two air-force pilots. Could be interesting provided they don't go the "it was the creepy gay killers sabotaging the planes the whole time" route.
Jupiter Ascending
The Wachowskis return to theaters with Jupiter Ascending and it looks absolutely thrilling. Can they reach the bar they set so high with The Matrix? My fingers are crossed here.
March 13, 2014
Queer Review: Dallas Buyers Club (2013)
Dallas Buyers Club
Director: Jean-Marc Vallée
Writers: Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack
Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, Jared Leto, Denis O'Hare, Steve Zahn, Michael O'Neill, Dallas Roberts, Griffin Dunne
Overview
A potent story about the development of underground drug markets in the face of the devastating HIV/AIDS crisis is undermined by Hollywood's propensity to straighten out LGBTQ heroes and the unfortunate casting of the talented (yes) but otherwise cisgendered actor Jared Leto in the role of a transgender character.
Synopsis
When Ron Woodroof (Mathew McConaughey) is diagnosed as being in the advanced stages of AIDS, he is given 30 days to live by the doctors treating him. Unwilling to accept this prognosis, he begins doing research on his own into the disease and starts taking off-market drugs that had yet to be approved by the FDA. Eventually, after a few complications and with the help of Rayon (Jared Leto) (a transgender woman who is also living with HIV that he meets during one of his hospital visits) Ron forms the Dallas Buyers Club, a program to distribute unapproved drugs that offer promise and hope to those with HIV. While this program is able to help some, it is not long before Ron and Rayon find themselves facing down increasing opposition from the authorities who want to shut down the whole operation.
The Queering
The story of the HIV epidemic is among the most horrifying stories in LGBTQ history. When the first HIV cases were discovered, the disease was deadly and before advanced anti-viral therapies were developed, the prospects of those infected were dark. In the absence of a cure and with so little known about the disease, terror and uncertainty were the characteristics of the day. It was the sort of time that tends to bring out the best and worst in people.
Unfortunately, only glimpses of the real life HIV/AIDS story make it to the big screen. While the essentials behind the actual Dallas Buyers Club formed by Ron Woodroof are approximately accurate, there are few rather problematic changes worth noting. For starters, several people close to the real Ron Woodroof have reported that he was bisexual and not at all bigoted, as depicted in the film. The other issue is that Rayon is made up. While this is not a problem in of itself, the character essentially fills the same role as a "Magic Negro" in that she helps Ron Woodroof to become a better person before winding up dead. This trope, for whatever reason, appears to becoming more often applied to LGBTQ characters, who like the "Magic Negro" serve as inspiration for the heterosexuals before typically winding up dead. Another recent example would be Tom Wilkinson's character in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, as well as V for Vendetta which has two examples of LGBTQ characters who serve as inspiration for the main characters before going to the great beyond. Easy A provides a non-deadly example.
In other words, we have a story of a straigt(ened out) dude saving queers with the aid of a magic queer. In the Hollywood imagination, the only true hero allowed is the cis-gendered hetero. Ron is presented as straight and macho as they come. We see him fucking a woman in the opening scene and later on engaging in bull riding. There are few moments in fact, where we are not in some way reminded that Ron is a total hetero. Just for the record and at the risk of repeating myself, I wouldn't mind this so much if it wasn't for the fact that Ron Woodroof was (probably) bisexual.
Then there is the casting of Jared Leto, a cisgendered man, in the role of a transgender woman. There are potential problems with the character, given that while the filmmakers attempt to essay a sympathetic presentation, she still tends to come across as pathetic and weak. While I think it's problematic to ignore the suffering LGBTQ people went through at the height of the AIDS crisis, I find it even more problematic to have a weaker queer character contrasted in such a fashion as is done in this film with a stronger straight(ened out) hetero male. It just doesn't jive. And that's before we get into the problems with the casting of Jared Leto. Generally speaking, acting is about taking on the role of a person not yourself. Therefore, hypothetically speaking, in a world where transgender actors were cast to play cis-gendered roles, there would be no problem with the casting of cis-gendered actors to play transgender roles. The thing is, we don't live in such a world and thus the casting comes across as a blatant form of discrimination at best, if not explicitly transphobic.
On the plus column, the film is actually more than competently made, with the some effective examples of editing being employed to demonstrate Ron's mental functions breaking down as the disease ravages his body. There are also some memorable and evocative scenes, such as one involving Ron walking through an atrium full of butterflies that land on his body. Matthew McConaughey, Jared Leto, and Jennifer Garner all give strong performances (at least insofar as their roles were written). There are also some interesting philosophical questions raised about the ethics surrounding drug testing when dealing with a disease as fatal as AIDS. How long do you let people die while tests are conducted to ensure the safety of a medication? Is it right to give people sugar pills (while tricking them into thinking they are taking the real thing) simply so researchers can isolate the placebo effect? And as I hinted at earlier, there are certain hints and shadows of the real AIDS/HIV crisis that do make it on screen, such as the scenes which show the fears and anxieties which characterized the era as well as, the extreme desperation of those people who had been infected with the virus in the early days of the epidemic.
At the end of the day though, none of these elements are enough to overcome the ahistorical straightening out that was applied to the story, nor the problematic casting of Jared Leto.
Recommendation
Not worth driving out to Dallas or joining any buyers clubs in order to see, unless one is desperately interested in seeing every film ever made with an LGBTQ character in it.
The Rating
2 out of 4 stars
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Jean-Marc Vallée
Writers: Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack
Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, Jared Leto, Denis O'Hare, Steve Zahn, Michael O'Neill, Dallas Roberts, Griffin Dunne
Overview
A potent story about the development of underground drug markets in the face of the devastating HIV/AIDS crisis is undermined by Hollywood's propensity to straighten out LGBTQ heroes and the unfortunate casting of the talented (yes) but otherwise cisgendered actor Jared Leto in the role of a transgender character.
Synopsis
When Ron Woodroof (Mathew McConaughey) is diagnosed as being in the advanced stages of AIDS, he is given 30 days to live by the doctors treating him. Unwilling to accept this prognosis, he begins doing research on his own into the disease and starts taking off-market drugs that had yet to be approved by the FDA. Eventually, after a few complications and with the help of Rayon (Jared Leto) (a transgender woman who is also living with HIV that he meets during one of his hospital visits) Ron forms the Dallas Buyers Club, a program to distribute unapproved drugs that offer promise and hope to those with HIV. While this program is able to help some, it is not long before Ron and Rayon find themselves facing down increasing opposition from the authorities who want to shut down the whole operation.
The Queering
The story of the HIV epidemic is among the most horrifying stories in LGBTQ history. When the first HIV cases were discovered, the disease was deadly and before advanced anti-viral therapies were developed, the prospects of those infected were dark. In the absence of a cure and with so little known about the disease, terror and uncertainty were the characteristics of the day. It was the sort of time that tends to bring out the best and worst in people.
Unfortunately, only glimpses of the real life HIV/AIDS story make it to the big screen. While the essentials behind the actual Dallas Buyers Club formed by Ron Woodroof are approximately accurate, there are few rather problematic changes worth noting. For starters, several people close to the real Ron Woodroof have reported that he was bisexual and not at all bigoted, as depicted in the film. The other issue is that Rayon is made up. While this is not a problem in of itself, the character essentially fills the same role as a "Magic Negro" in that she helps Ron Woodroof to become a better person before winding up dead. This trope, for whatever reason, appears to becoming more often applied to LGBTQ characters, who like the "Magic Negro" serve as inspiration for the heterosexuals before typically winding up dead. Another recent example would be Tom Wilkinson's character in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, as well as V for Vendetta which has two examples of LGBTQ characters who serve as inspiration for the main characters before going to the great beyond. Easy A provides a non-deadly example.
In other words, we have a story of a straigt(ened out) dude saving queers with the aid of a magic queer. In the Hollywood imagination, the only true hero allowed is the cis-gendered hetero. Ron is presented as straight and macho as they come. We see him fucking a woman in the opening scene and later on engaging in bull riding. There are few moments in fact, where we are not in some way reminded that Ron is a total hetero. Just for the record and at the risk of repeating myself, I wouldn't mind this so much if it wasn't for the fact that Ron Woodroof was (probably) bisexual.
Then there is the casting of Jared Leto, a cisgendered man, in the role of a transgender woman. There are potential problems with the character, given that while the filmmakers attempt to essay a sympathetic presentation, she still tends to come across as pathetic and weak. While I think it's problematic to ignore the suffering LGBTQ people went through at the height of the AIDS crisis, I find it even more problematic to have a weaker queer character contrasted in such a fashion as is done in this film with a stronger straight(ened out) hetero male. It just doesn't jive. And that's before we get into the problems with the casting of Jared Leto. Generally speaking, acting is about taking on the role of a person not yourself. Therefore, hypothetically speaking, in a world where transgender actors were cast to play cis-gendered roles, there would be no problem with the casting of cis-gendered actors to play transgender roles. The thing is, we don't live in such a world and thus the casting comes across as a blatant form of discrimination at best, if not explicitly transphobic.
On the plus column, the film is actually more than competently made, with the some effective examples of editing being employed to demonstrate Ron's mental functions breaking down as the disease ravages his body. There are also some memorable and evocative scenes, such as one involving Ron walking through an atrium full of butterflies that land on his body. Matthew McConaughey, Jared Leto, and Jennifer Garner all give strong performances (at least insofar as their roles were written). There are also some interesting philosophical questions raised about the ethics surrounding drug testing when dealing with a disease as fatal as AIDS. How long do you let people die while tests are conducted to ensure the safety of a medication? Is it right to give people sugar pills (while tricking them into thinking they are taking the real thing) simply so researchers can isolate the placebo effect? And as I hinted at earlier, there are certain hints and shadows of the real AIDS/HIV crisis that do make it on screen, such as the scenes which show the fears and anxieties which characterized the era as well as, the extreme desperation of those people who had been infected with the virus in the early days of the epidemic.
At the end of the day though, none of these elements are enough to overcome the ahistorical straightening out that was applied to the story, nor the problematic casting of Jared Leto.
Recommendation
Not worth driving out to Dallas or joining any buyers clubs in order to see, unless one is desperately interested in seeing every film ever made with an LGBTQ character in it.
The Rating
2 out of 4 stars
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
March 3, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)