A blog currently wondering which of the One Direction boys will take him home. Other obsessions: hot boys, Britney Spears, the Disney pop princesses, French New Wave cinema.
Showing posts with label gay stuff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay stuff. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2012
Bukkake!
For the third installment of our Queer Anglo Films series, Dave and I tackle avant garde director Derek Jarman's debut film, Sebastiane. In the post, we discuss the film's take on homosexuality and Christianity, it's nakedness and influence on modern porn, "love vs. lust" in the gay community and why homoeroticism is deemed okay in films set in Ancient Rome. We even discuss a bukkake scene! So, join us. There's plenty of fun to be had!
Labels:
gay stuff,
god save the british,
queer anglo films
Thursday, January 26, 2012
"It used to be witches. At least they don't burn you."
Wow, it has been ages since my last post. Sorry about that. My life has been a whirlwind lately--in the best way possible, I must emphasize--leaving me little time for writing. However, I have a few free days, so it's time to get this blog up and going again. And boy am I coming back with a bang.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Rants on J. Edgar
It's an odd sensation, walking out of a Clint Eastwood film thinking, "God, that was a queer film." But I suppose anything is possible after the strange, constantly evolving career he has had. A film about J. Edgar Hoover (played here by Leonardo DiCaprio), the notorious director of the FBI who fought for decades cleaning up crime while wielding considerable influence to "keep tabs" anyone he considered a potential enemy of America, sounds right up Eastwood's alley, particularly with his recent trend of historical-minded film such as Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima and Invictus. But when you throw screenwriter Dustin Lance Black, Oscar-winning writer of Van Sant's Milk, into the mix, things are bound to be shaken up. And boy are they ever, as J. Edgar, through its attempt to synthesize Eastwood's style with Black's queer theorizing, becomes something far more than its lousy trailer or a brief description of the film suggests.
Most of Eastwood's usual stylistic tics--muted color palette, heavy shadows, plinky piano score--appear in J. Edgar, but they take on a whole different meaning than they would in any other recent Eastwood picture. Black's screenplay covers a lot of issues and themes, but the one he is primarily focused on is the relationship between Hoover and his "number two man" Clyde Tolson (the dreamy Armie Hammer). The two were notoriously close, but it was only after their deaths that rumors started to swirl that they were lovers. No one knows the exact nature of their relationship, so Black is only able to speculate within J. Edgar, depicting Hoover and Tolson as would-be lovers whose sexuality is so repressed Ennis and Jack from Brokeback Mountain would find them odd. Eastwood's visual flourishes enforce this theme, shrouding Hoover and Tolson in shadows and darkness. Their environment is so dark and suffocating they can't express their true feelings for each other. Even in their final moments, when Clyde is led upstairs by Edgar's maid to see his dead body, Clyde grieving for the love of his life is shoved in the corner of the frame, hidden completely by a dressing screen.
Besides the sexuality of Hoover, J. Edgar also discusses the mythologizing of his legacy as the head of the FBI. Throughout the film, we are privy to scenes where Edgar recounts his life story to a slew of young writers compiling a history of the bureau. This is clearly where Eastwood and DiCaprio are the most comfortable exploring, and it's probably not a coincidence that this is what I was the least fascinated by in the film. Eastwood enjoys unraveling long-held myths, as Unforgiven proved so magnificently, but here it doesn't always work as well. Or maybe it works too well since Eastwood and Black seem positively riveted by Hoover as this monolithic figure, standing up for the America he believes it should be. They drink his Kool-Aid, so to speak, and barring one scene, they don't even begin to question his contradictions. This only makes his comeuppance at the very end that much more swift and tonally unexpected. DiCaprio certainly doesn't help in this regard, as he appears to be more interested in portraying the prestige of Hoover rather than any remotely human aspect of him. We can understand why someone in Edgar's position feels the need to make himself into a legend, but through DiCaprio, we don't understand why Edgar himself does it. Only when DiCaprio verges into the queerness of Black's script, such as the brief moment at a nightclub where he stammers in embarrassment when he is asked to dance by a woman, do we even start to see a real human instead of a ideological mouthpiece.
J. Edgar works best when it explores the queerness of Hoover's life. The way Black explores this reminded me, oddly enough, of Tom Kalin's Swoon. Not artistically or in the execution, mind you, but in the way Black twists rumors with facts to create a could-be version of what really happened. The two people who understand what Black is attempting better than anyone else are Hammer and Dame Judi Dench as Edgar's mother. Hammer plays Tolson like an unmistakable queen, the type of character you would read as gay in a 1950s film even if no one comes out and says it. From the way he gasps "No" when Edgar divulges a secret about Eleanor Roosevelt's personal life to the scene where he helps Edgar pick out a brand new suit and tie, Hammer certainly stands out amid the blandness of his surroundings. But it's an interesting way to play the character, especially one who is so completely repressed with his emotions as Clyde is. In a way, his queerness becomes an embarrassment to the straight-laced Edgar--it's not surprising that in an early scene depicting Edgar's later life we only see Clyde as a shadow hidden behind the door of Edgar's office, almost haunting him like a Ghost of Christmas Past.
Dench's entrance in J. Edgar provides one of the best and truest meetings between Eastwood's visual language and Black's themes. As Edgar enters his home, calling for his mother, we see Dench slowly emerge out of a shadow, in all of her Baby Jane glory, as Eastwood's plinking on the piano melodramatically underscores the danger that lies ahead for Edgar. It's a moment straight out of a Grand Dame Guignol film, which Dench brilliantly understands how to play without veering too far on the side of camp. Later on, when Dench's character is telling her son a story about a young homosexual who was tormented and then killed himself after his secret was discovered, she highlights the frightening coldness of the woman, even toward the son she has smothered with love for the last 90 or so minutes. She only has a few scenes, yet Dench brilliantly captures this woman's heart of darkness masked by motherly warmth.
J. Edgar is not a perfect film: the synthesizing of Eastwood, Black and the actors doesn't come together a good portion of the time and parts of the film are stuck in Biopic Cliché Hell. But this film has something to say, or at least presents certain viewpoints in ways that are fresh and intriguing. This isn't Clint in top form, but it sure as hell beats listening to Angelina Jolie scream, "I WANT MY SON!" for two and a half hours. B-
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Crazy 80's Project: Making Love
I wanted to hate Making Love and its safe, dated handling of a then-controversial plot (a married man upsets his comfortable upper-class life by having an affair with an openly gay man), but a funny thing happened on the way to a perfectly predictable and disposable film. In between the cheesy moments of pure marital bliss between Zach (Michael Ontkean) and Claire (the fabulous Kate Jackson), the scenes of Gay Life Circa 1982, which was apparently a lot more masculine and rugged than it is nearly 20 years later, and the ho-hum, middle-of-the-road easiness the film embraces for much of its runtime, there's something surprisingly refreshing about Making Love. Honestly, there's nothing even slightly offensive about Making Love, which is surprising since even a full decade later Philadelphia was far more uncomfortable with its sexuality and had much less to lose. This is both to Making Love's credit and a knock against it because it almost refuses to raise the stakes beyond the minimum necessary to move the story forward, which matches its indistinct Movie of the Week style. But the choice to have both Claire and Bart (Harry Hamlin), the man Zach has the affair with, speak long monologues directly into the camera like a documentary subject lends Making Love a touch more honesty than it probably deserves. Jackson and Hamlin deliver these monologues with the same delusions, idiosyncrasies and misguided conviction that ordinary people would (Bart claims he loves being single and unattached but something in his manner suggests otherwise; Claire naively thinks her marriage can still work even though her husband wants to bone dudes now). It's not especially groundbreaking--we're not talking Bergman-levels of self-examination--but it's enough to turn what could have been a turgid, past-its-prime piece of fluff cinema into something worth thinking of at some point in the future. Besides, how can you hate on an 80's film where the gay main characters neither contract HIV or die outright by the final frame? C+
Saturday, January 22, 2011
So GLAAD to Be a Gay
As I'm sure you ascertained from this recent blog post, GLAAD and I are not on very good terms. We often disagree on what constitutes a "positive" portrayal of gay life in movies and TV--they either like nice, quiet gays coming out of the closet or loud, in-your-face crusaders while I tend to prefer characters with a little more shading or, heaven forbid, an evil gay--so it pisses me off that this lousy group is supposed to be "representing" me and my best interests. Anyways, they recently announced the nominees for their Media Awards, so I thought it would be fun to take a gander at what they thought was the best in gay cinema this past year.
Outstanding Film - Wide Release

I haven't seen The Girl Who Played With Fire--hell, I barely made it through The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo--but I have seen the rest so let's tackle them in alphabetical order. As a film, Burlesque is a heaping pile of shit. Not even Cher in all of her Cher glory nor an impressive star turn from Cam Gigandet can save this Fosse-wannabe from being anything but a joyless, soulless imitation of far better films. With that being said, the depiction of homosexuality in Burlesque, even the "gay stuff" that extends far beyond Stanley Tucci's character, didn't offend me in the slightest. Actually, I quite enjoyed the films enthusiasm for treating Cher like the God of the Gays she is and for giving into every cliché you'd expect from a Gay Romp like this: Glitter? Check. Belting divas? Check. Catfights? Check. Cher being a bitch? Check. Cher looking fiercer in outfits than many women half her age? Check. For once, I believe GLAAD is looking beyond the surface as to what a "gay" film means and for that I must, gulp, applaud them.
Know we are up to Easy A and I'm afraid this love fest must end. I know, that was quick. Listen, I thought Dan Byrd was hilarious and his chemistry with Emma Stone made their witty repartée that much funnier, but to suggest that his character's representation of a gay male is either positive or progressive is grossly offensive. This is a character who asks a friend to help make other people in his school think he's straight by pretending to have sex with him because he's too much of a pussy to ignore the haters and thinks that things will get magically better when he goes to college. The whole scene where he asks Emma Stone to help him was so uncomfortable for me to watch both times I've seen the movie. Maybe it's because my own personal philosophy has always been to either come out or shut up but never, ever pass for straight, but I can't stand behind him as any sort of positive role model.
I wasn't a big fan of The Kids Are All Right, but even I can't argue about it's importance as a gay film. Sure, I do have a reservation or two about that fact that when Julianne Moore's character has an affair it is with a man and not another woman, but I obviously understand why it happens and it's necessity to the story. Doesn't mean I have to agree, though. Either way, this film is on it's way to an easy win so congrats!
And, finally, we have Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. I liked this film far more than I ever thought I would. The trailer made it seem overly quirky, even by my standards, but in the finished product, everything sort of fell into place. Keiran Culkin plays the gay roommate of Michael Cera's Scott Pilgrim and while I liked the character, once again I'm not sure if it was entirely a "good" gay creation. Culkin's character Wallace is wickedly funny, yet he also steals his female best friend's date, has sex with him while in a relationship with another guy and then tells Scott when he questions it that, basically, it's okay for him to do it because he's gay. In the words of Cher Horowitz, "As if!" How revolting. With that being said, I did enjoy that Wallace and Scott's friendship was never once threatened by his homosexuality; Scott could care less either way. That's quite a big leap forward in the depiction of gay/straight male friendships in the movies.
So, all in all, not exactly a bad batch of films here. The only one I would be quick to replace is Easy A, although I'm not exactly sure what to replace it with. Black Swan, perhaps? And as much as I bitch about GLAAD, let's all be grateful that they didn't go for something completely horrible like, as Glenn suggests, Kick-Ass or even Valentine's Day for that dumb "twist" ending.
Outstanding Film - Wide Release
- Burlesque
- Easy A
- The Girl Who Played With Fire
- The Kids Are All Right
- Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

I haven't seen The Girl Who Played With Fire--hell, I barely made it through The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo--but I have seen the rest so let's tackle them in alphabetical order. As a film, Burlesque is a heaping pile of shit. Not even Cher in all of her Cher glory nor an impressive star turn from Cam Gigandet can save this Fosse-wannabe from being anything but a joyless, soulless imitation of far better films. With that being said, the depiction of homosexuality in Burlesque, even the "gay stuff" that extends far beyond Stanley Tucci's character, didn't offend me in the slightest. Actually, I quite enjoyed the films enthusiasm for treating Cher like the God of the Gays she is and for giving into every cliché you'd expect from a Gay Romp like this: Glitter? Check. Belting divas? Check. Catfights? Check. Cher being a bitch? Check. Cher looking fiercer in outfits than many women half her age? Check. For once, I believe GLAAD is looking beyond the surface as to what a "gay" film means and for that I must, gulp, applaud them.
Know we are up to Easy A and I'm afraid this love fest must end. I know, that was quick. Listen, I thought Dan Byrd was hilarious and his chemistry with Emma Stone made their witty repartée that much funnier, but to suggest that his character's representation of a gay male is either positive or progressive is grossly offensive. This is a character who asks a friend to help make other people in his school think he's straight by pretending to have sex with him because he's too much of a pussy to ignore the haters and thinks that things will get magically better when he goes to college. The whole scene where he asks Emma Stone to help him was so uncomfortable for me to watch both times I've seen the movie. Maybe it's because my own personal philosophy has always been to either come out or shut up but never, ever pass for straight, but I can't stand behind him as any sort of positive role model.
I wasn't a big fan of The Kids Are All Right, but even I can't argue about it's importance as a gay film. Sure, I do have a reservation or two about that fact that when Julianne Moore's character has an affair it is with a man and not another woman, but I obviously understand why it happens and it's necessity to the story. Doesn't mean I have to agree, though. Either way, this film is on it's way to an easy win so congrats!
And, finally, we have Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. I liked this film far more than I ever thought I would. The trailer made it seem overly quirky, even by my standards, but in the finished product, everything sort of fell into place. Keiran Culkin plays the gay roommate of Michael Cera's Scott Pilgrim and while I liked the character, once again I'm not sure if it was entirely a "good" gay creation. Culkin's character Wallace is wickedly funny, yet he also steals his female best friend's date, has sex with him while in a relationship with another guy and then tells Scott when he questions it that, basically, it's okay for him to do it because he's gay. In the words of Cher Horowitz, "As if!" How revolting. With that being said, I did enjoy that Wallace and Scott's friendship was never once threatened by his homosexuality; Scott could care less either way. That's quite a big leap forward in the depiction of gay/straight male friendships in the movies.
So, all in all, not exactly a bad batch of films here. The only one I would be quick to replace is Easy A, although I'm not exactly sure what to replace it with. Black Swan, perhaps? And as much as I bitch about GLAAD, let's all be grateful that they didn't go for something completely horrible like, as Glenn suggests, Kick-Ass or even Valentine's Day for that dumb "twist" ending.
Labels:
cher,
gay stuff,
julianne moore,
le cinema,
stanley tucci
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





