Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Wicked Fun

  • Stigmartyr : El Mar

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    El Mar  (2000)

     

    El Mar is a mouse that becomes a tiger when your back is turned. There’s an undercurrent of urgency that erupts in quiet, gradually more devastating explosions until you’re confounded--devoured--used up? Set in a sanatorium for tuberculosis in the Mallorca of post civil-war Spain, El Mar tells the story of three friends: Ramallo, Tur and Francisca, all seeking expiation for a ghastly crime that happened when they were children. When Ramallo is sent to the hospital for treatment he finds his old friends staying there, Tur (Bruno Bergonzini) is a patient and Francisca (Antonia Torrens) in service as a nun.

    There’s a deceptive air of tranquility and fastidiousness that pervades the film. It’s not that these themes aren't part of the mix, but they belie the layers of anguish and turmoil underneath. The characters are struggling to reconcile their need for spiritual transcendence with the perils of human connection, with all its potential for degradation and delight. Even supporting roles like Carmen (Angela Molina) demeaned and abused by her husband, and Galindo (Hernan Gonzalez) the beautiful teenage boy who longs for his first signs of manhood are heartbreaking in the depths of their frustration and longing.

    Directed by Agustin Villaronga and adapted for the screen from his novel by Blai Bonet and co-writer Antonio Aloy, it submerges us in a realm more quiet than a museum or the ocean depths. Where the possibility of death is always imminent and the caretakers more obsequious than acolytes. The specter of Roman-Catholicism looms large, and for this (as well as many other aspects) I must give El Mar credit. In film, the Brides of Christ are often depicted as either zany, innocuous clowns, or strident, sexually frustrated harridans.

    Francisca is by far the most well-adjusted participant in this Freudian, existential morality play. She loves non-judgmentally and (perhaps this is the glitch) doesn’t cleave to canonical edict when it departs from sanity. Her call to the convent is not a refuge from the harsh world, it facilitates her dealings in the midst of it. There is a lot of irony at work in El Mar. While Tur becomes a whipping boy for Catholicism, Francisca goes with the spirit of its broader intent. Though Ramallo can be impulsive and violent, he seems less self-absorbed than Tur.

    While the plot seems to revolve on Ramallo’s obstacles and aims, Tur’s character is more intriguing. Paralyzed by guilt, his desire for the rambunctious, exquisite Ramallo (Roger Casamajor) is nonetheless keen and excruciating. Who among us queer boys wouldn’t love to return to their rooms to find his gorgeous buddy borrowing the shower, grinning under a stream of water, with the curtain pulled back? Ramallo figures it’s okay, since they are so close. And poor Tur is left to sort it all out, wondering if he must forfeit one sort of closeness for another, if he identifies with his beautiful friend or stands in opposition. Whether he can exhale or surrender or wrestle or partake.

    Villaronga is cunning here, it takes a moment to gather that Tur hears Ramallo as if from very far away, marking the distance perceived between them. How Tur, frail and conflicted, sees Ramallo as unapproachable as God himself. What could be sadder than seeing him inhale the scent of Ramallo’s clothes, desperate for a trace experience of that glory? Villaronga shows the difference between Galindo’s comprehension of Ramallo and Tur’s. The discrepancy, I suppose between brotherly and homoerotic patina.

    In the end, El Mar, like so many marvelous, deeply disturbing movies is about a number of issues, but at the center deals with the ugly feelings that men sometimes attach to sexual connection between men. Ramallo loves Tur in a deep, brotherly way, and is more tolerant of Tur’s profound longing than Tur himself. Pretty early on we realize that they must resolve the tension. We want so badly for them to kiss or masturbate together or just something. We understand Tur is too deeply invested and Ramallo too insouciant, and Christ, the piercing, demoralizing pain as we watch Tur aching with crisis of conscience.

    The reason why this Stations of the Cross, this undersea world as interface between the secular and liturgical worlds of carnal impetus and realms of glory clicks is the shock of recognition we feel when Tur’s highest expression of care is denounced as depravity. When we’re told our love is hurting God. What’s a poor Christian Queer to do? We see Tur’s grotesque masochism, doubtful stigmata, betrayal of the man he loves but it’s difficult not to see him also as the victim of persecution. Like a virus, El Mar, will submerge you in a warped, fugue state before returning you to planet earth.

     

     


  • Geek Prince : THE MUDGE BOY

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Being There  (1979)

    Rain Man  (1988)

    The Mudge Boy  (2003)

     

    Duncan Mudge is the town joke. 14 years old, he rides around on his bike, running errands with his familiar, a white hen he calls “chicken.” Half the time he seems to be in a trance, the other half he lacks the judgment to keep his more peculiar thoughts to himself. His mother has died suddenly and Duncan has shifted into the realm where terrible loss either blinds us to the appropriate world or pushes us past caring. He has a kind of accidental, naive nobility. Duncan (The Mudge Boy) needs what he needs and never pretends otherwise. He doesn’t even know it’s not okay to ask. And writer/director Michael Burke doesn’t make him a quaint human rabbit, like say, Raymond Babbitt in Rain Man or Chance the Gardener in Being There.

    Emile Hirsch jumps into the role with both feet and there are times when he positively seems to have flown in from Planet Neptune. Hirsch’s performance becomes all the more impressive as Duncan begins to grow on us, despite his eccentricities. Obviously he and his father, Edgar (Richard Jenkins) miss the mother intensely, but while Edgar takes to burning all her belongings, Duncan sleeps in her fur coat, speaks for her at the supper table and imitates her skill of calming a chicken by putting its’ head in his mouth. Needless to say, there are gender issues at work behind this imagery.

    If you can get past the bizarre conceit that informs The Mudge Boy, it is more than worth your while to do so. The hen that Duncan carries with him is actually a very complex metaphor that works on several levels. Whether male or female chickens peck. Chickens probably remind Duncan of his mother. Chickens are nurturing. Chickens live in a passive world of their own. Chickens are synonymous with cowardice. And so on. It takes a while for the various components of the film to kick in and come together, but when they do, the effect is brutal, unsettling and inconsolably sad. It never explains its idiosyncratic devices, it never resorts to shorthand, but like the best poetry or painting it often brings the grotesque, menacing world into sharp focus.

    Men dominate the film, it is their world for the most part, and we are relieved when Perry Foley (Tom Guiry) another teenager, takes Duncan under his wing, protecting him from the other teenage boys that mock him. There’s an ominous sense of dread that suffuses the movie. We keep bracing ourselves for some horrible, ugly act of abuse, and it comes, although ultimately Duncan seems to handle it better than we do. He is more terrified of his father’s reaction and Perry’s, than the toxic behavior he’s been subjected to. Like Dawn Wiener in Welcome to the Dollhouse, he will take any reasonable facsimile of love, whenever and however he can find it.

    The rape scene that occurs at the climax of the film was, frankly, horrendous, but not gratuitous. It’s appropriate, I guess, that Perry mistakes conquest for urgency, on the one hand showing concern for Duncan’s welfare, and on the other, slapping him, dressing him in his mother’s wedding gown, calling him “bitch.“ Perhaps there’s some solace in understanding Perry’s inability to reconcile his feelings of tenderness for Duncan and the need that drives his attachment to women. When Duncan finds him a few nights later and asks for a kiss, we realise Duncan’s overwhelming need to connect has blinded him to Perry’s cruelty. And Perry’s response will knock you on your ass. If you’re not already down there.

    At it’s core, The Mudge Boy is about the inability of straight men to comfort, nurture and care for one another, even when it’s legitimately, desperately needed. And how they mask their ambivalence with contempt for other men too “weak” to pretend it’s not important. You don’t have to be queer, of course, to understand men (and all human beings) have an infinite capacity to express this tender side, once they get past the roles that culture would foist upon us.  At first The Mudge Boy seems careless or nasty or arbitrary, it takes awhile to catch up to it’s wisdom. I’m skeptical of any movie that tries to suggest possible “reasons” for why some of us turn out to be gay (and worse yet, a “cure”) but the end of the film more than compensates, I think, for what may be dubious intent. And putting that issue aside, for the moment, Michael Burke has fashioned an important, disturbing, deeply affecting and ultimately redemptive film on the destructive impact that society has on men and our ability to protect, restore and save one another.


  • Pops Madonna : TOKYO GODFATHERS

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Tokyo Godfathers  (2003)

     

    Tokyo Godfathers begins on Christmas Eve in Shinjuku, Tokyo. The three homeless people who become “godfathers” to an abandoned baby (they name “Kiyoko” for purity) will scour the city for the girl’s rightful parents in an odyssey that will lead them to confront their personal demons. You might think comparing the transience of Mary, Joseph and the Three Magi to the plight of the indigent was pretty corny, but Keiko Nobumoto and Satoshi Kon pepper the screenplay with lots of jaundiced humor and deadpan payoffs. Impossibly and extravagantly upsetting moments are interspersed with lines like: “You can’t squeeze milk from an old queer’s tits.”

     Our heroes bitch, harass and care for each other more than they’d ever admit, but sentimental they are not. Their ill-tempered banter keeps this anime’ moving from slapstick to bathos to action to melodrama. The film was ill-served, at times, by its uneven pacing, undulating between stasis and chaos. One wonders if animators feel obliged to push the kinetic envelope, even in films such as this, that are plainly more character-driven, and where an excess of hi-jinks can be extremely distracting. I would not presume to suggest there is formula when devising the delicate balance of plot (who’s to say Bergman couldn’t have worked a car-chase into Cries and Whispers) but anytime an action pulls you out of the narrative, i.e., you become abruptly aware that you are watching a movie, this is a red flag to intrusion.

    The milieu of Tokyo Godfathers, an urban jungle with its squalor, destitution and hordes of the disenfranchised is dense with color, detail and muted vibrance. I don’t think the art director, Nobutaka Ike, was aiming for photorealism or a painterly effect, but maybe a fusion of the two. The depth of each “shot” is startling, and the dreary, stony range of colors has a kind of sheen that’s hard to explain. The sadness of the world comes through but it doesn’t feel oppressive. At times it seems like there’s a twisted, visionary mind at work in the director, Satoski Kon, if not the entire creative team behind Tokyo Godfathers.

    There are tableaux of hushed eloquence and eerie, trippy goofs on religious iconography. In one scene, Hana stops to sit down and rest, holding the baby in her lap as the snow starts to fall. She tells the others to go on, that her guardian angel will come to the rescue. She inclines her shawled head in a way that suggests a tawdry Madonna, and the movie takes this quantum leap into rapturous lunacy. As if Kon had hired seraphim to occasionally take control of the cameras. There are numerous instances like this, where you don’t know whether to gasp or laugh.

    The godfathers of the title are Gin (Toru Emori) an alcoholic curmudgeon in his fifties, Hana, a transvestite of roughly the same age, and Miyukia (Aya Okamoto) a teen runaway full of piss and vinegar. Without giving away the particulars, none of them are paragons of virtue, but neither are they judged, which they are left to do for themselves. They have become a family to each other, and like many they spend a lot of time reading each other the riot act. Life has dealt them some harsh blows, but never are we asked to pity them. Nor does Tokyo Godfathers deal in quaint, broad strokes. We’re never tempted to use adjectives like gruff, spunky or campy.

    I have mixed feelings about the character of Hana (Yoshiaki Umegaki). On the up side, she is arguably the most spiritually enlightened person in the film, perhaps even the moral compass. She has an ongoing relationship with God (that the film never questions or mocks) and an intuitive trust in the everyday miraculous. Caught up in momentary poignance, she composes haiku on the spot. For all her ranting, the results of her kooky behavior are generally to the good. On the down side, she may be as close as Tokyo Godfathers comes to caricature.

    Thirty years ago, Hana might have been an eccentric bag lady and I suppose Nobumoto and Kon deserve points for giving a key role to a gay character. She is a mixture of scintillating attributes: haughty, weepy, giddy, pretentious, credulous, effusive. Her litany of self-effacing names: “faggot”, “homo”, “queer” is consistent with her mindset and surroundings. I wish she weren’t quite so shrill, though, so frantic. It’s hard to fight the notion she’s a clown of sorts.

    Hana doesn’t just chew the scenery, she gobbles it. At times she seems grotesque, and others positively regal. But clearly she is one of the most intriguing and endearing characters, and we’ve all known guys just like her, however they gender-identify. I have never been one to sacrifice accuracy to political correctness. Just once though, couldn’t filmmakers with this kind of opportunity make the troglodyte gay, just to keep us on our toes?


  • Venus Boyz: Butch-slapped

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Venus Boyz  (2002)

     

    Perhaps one idea the queer community might agree upon in its entirety (gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered, and undecided) is that gender is ultimately a mystery. Enigmatic and elusive. Fluid but not necessarily shapeless. Detectable but impossible to pin. However we express it we have found the limitations a dominant culture places on gender to be unacceptable, or at any rate, without merit. The irony of culture, gender and politics is that it’s our oppressors who interpret our actions as anarchy. We simply recognize the nature of our sexual attraction without shame, and those who find this behavior inappropriate call us rebels because we are unwilling to hide, apologize or plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Our mere existence has been politicized by our opponents (as if you could oppose a class of people). Because we want the “privileges” of respect, housing, and the right to earn our daily bread, we have a special “agenda.”

     

    It may not be a coincidence that the Gay Rights Movement was precipitated by the Drag Queens that hung out at the now legendary Stonewall Inn in New York City, back in 1969. If announcing we’re queer makes us de facto anarchists then I’m guessing our cross-dressing sisters and brothers may deserve the title in earnest. The original gender warriors, who understood that what passes for “male” and “female” in American (and human) culture is nothing more that a collection of gestures, actions, inflections and comportment, comprising an illusion that anyone can cultivate. And if anyone can cultivate them, then, to quote Diane Torr, “masculinity is no longer sacred.” When Drag Queens and Kings adopt a persona in the other gender, they challenge the status quo. The popular notions that genitals are destiny, gender is : a script, a map, a codified manifesto of values and desires.

    Venus Boyz, Gabriel Baur’s documentary celebration of Drag Kings, explores women  who have endeavored to summon their “female masculinity”. Some are performance artists, some entertainers, some identify as men or choose to live in the context of a masculine identity. Some are combinations. Some call themselves inter-sexed (what was once referred to as “hermaphroditic”) or “other-sex.“ Some are androgynous in the truest sense. They do not wear makeup or other trappings. They are fetching and wise and charismatic and you can’t tell by looking what gender they were born with. And you start to grasp that maybe it doesn’t matter. Venus Boyz makes us startlingly aware of how gender perception affects our attitudes towards one another.

    Baur touches on many different aspects of transgenderism for women. They speak candidly about anguish, cruelty, violence, the sense of elation, emancipation, and empowerment. Some women strap on dildos as part of their transformation; male-transgender workshop participants pass around a “faux penis” more supple than customary sex toys. Some of the ladies act out male identities as a way of channeling their male spirit, or creating a third gender other than “male” or “female”. They don’t necessarily identify with, or need to make themselves into men. It is never suggested there is one simple answer. Though the women seem to share some traits, we learn what makes each one unique.

    In Venus Boyz, Gabriel Baur captures all the grace, eeriness and loopy humor of Drag King performance and the women who feel they must live as male or “other-gender” identified. Bridge Markland is sardonic and withering when she creates her men. In one number, she comes out in “female drag” looking like a man dressed as a woman. All voluptuousness and sexual allure, she vamps and camps like a force of nature. Then she pulls off the wig, tears off her blouse to expose taped nipples and now, suddenly her gender becomes even more obtuse. You can’t tell what the hell she is! She’s next to naked and yet wickedly, grotesquely, confounds our need for gender assignation.

    What’s so engaging about Venus Boyz, so mesmerizing and enchanting, is how it spins the mystery of gender. It doesn’t just deconstruct it. It mocks it, worships it, shatters it, and somehow it all works. Somehow the net result is subtle and jarring and reverent and provocative. Watching the performances at Club Casanova and the Slipper Room we cannot tell if it’s Queer Vaudeville or the liturgy of Dionysiac priestesses. They could be wielding seltzer bottles or suckling fawns. The players are engulfed in butchy incantation and the audience is spellbound. Markland, Dred, Torr and the others take this sorcery to transcendent realms. They reveal gender as simultaneously sacred and profane.

    Venus Boyz a documentary by Gabriel Baur features Dred Gerstand, Diane Torr, Del LaGrace Volcano, Bridge Markland, Mo Fischer, Storme Webber, Queen Bee Luscious, Mistress Formika and Judith Halberstam.


  • Bulgarian Rhapsody: Bulgarian Lovers

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Ah, the eternal allure of the troglodyte god. The straight-identified rough-trade waif. Those broad shoulders, tawdry tattoos, ass cheeks like warm, firm scoops of ice cream that never melt. Bulgarian Lovers is a new film that punctures and celebrates the practical and probably very old arrangement between older gay men and those earthy, uneducated, delectable bad boys. Kyril (Dritan Biba) embodies the kind of poisonous desire nearly impossible to resist, the sort of relationship we intuitively know is going be harmful, if not ultimately fatal. Daniel (Fernando Guillen Cuervo) glamorizes Kyril’s illegal activities (drug-dealing, car theft, uranium smuggling) perceiving him as an anarchist or gangster instead of a spiv. He even imagines himself as Kyril’s moll. He becomes Kyril’s “patron”. He’s not really a sugar-daddy, and Kyril isn’t exactly his kept boy or gigolo. Daniel’s longing for Kyril is ostensibly simple (you only need to see him to understand why) but also, somewhat complicated.

    Kyril, the struggling, earnest Bulgarian immigrant is many things that Daniel is not. Younger, buff, intense, working-class, impulsive, not stupid but not intellectual, either. Daniel, however is also quite attractive, fit, gentle, charming and financially successful. One of the delights and tragedies of Bulgarian Lovers is the way Daniel distorts Kyril’s character, not only to mitigate the pain of disappointment, but to create the ideal romantic partner. His need to create a particular sort of man whose dangerous life and physical splendor he can partake of perhaps blinds him to a greater intimacy. Not that the two aren’t involved in a mutually caring relationship.

    What separates this film from many others is the suggestion that people who truly love us can still exploit us, that perhaps an unspoken, even subconscious contract can exist between lover and beloved. A compromise between what we want most and what we are willing to settle for. Daniel is so plagued by a false sense of inadequacy that the privilege of loving Kyril is astonishing to him. Intoxicating. Like permission to dwell in the temple of Apollo or Dionysus. To know he can have limited access to such exquisite virility, even a small taste, is so deliriously tantalizing that no price, however ludicrous, is too high.

    Daniel finds Kyril somewhat unexpectedly. After videotaping a number of juicy looking men at a bar, he happens upon Kyril, who asks for a cigarette. Daniel buys him a meal (he hasn’t eaten in 3 days) and eventually asks if he wants to go home with him. When Kyril shakes his head, Daniel goes on to explain in voice-over that in Bulgaria nodding means “no” and shaking the head means “yes“. You could call this a portent, an omen pointing to the ambivalent nature of Daniel’s attachment to Kyril. He knows he’s being used, gradually Kyril makes it impossible to ignore, and before the movie is over, Daniel will endanger himself and take all kinds of risks in the name of love.

    What knocks me out about Bulgarian Lovers, what I think is startling and affecting, is how the director, Eloy de la Iglesia, never tries to convince us that Daniel is not a fool, only that sometimes foolishness is a reasonable trade for love. Whether we can buy into this or not, Iglesia makes an alarmingly compelling case. And it’s a heartbreaker, watching Daniel keeping his suave composure while we know he must be dying underneath. When he looks into the camera and tells us he’s a “stupid bitch.” Throughout the movie his friends warn him that Bulgarian immigrants are bad news, that Kyril will only cause him misery. And while that may not be exactly true, he certainly causes more than he should.

    What makes much of Bulgarian Lovers bearable is Kyril’s earnest love for Daniel. He never pretends it’s something that it’s not, and cares for Daniel in the same way we love a parent, or someone who supports and looks out for us. Which may explain his friend Gildo’s observation that Daniel can be somewhat kinky. Even though it’s never said aloud, Kyril has become Daniel’s lover for pay, but we never get the impression he feels obliged. He loves Daniel like a buddy or protege who’s decided he’s okay with having sex. Like the kind of guys who figure that if it’s with another man, it doesn’t really count. The scene where he finds Daniel the evening after his wedding so they can dance together is one of the most touching and audacious I’ve ever witnessed. Iglesias has fashioned a sleek, sly parable on the nature of love and wanting, with the very odd conclusion that delusion, martyrdom and genuine care are not necessarily incompatible. Or maybe that we all just do the best we can with what we’ve got, and what comes our way.


  • Summer Cramp : Camp

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    All About Eve  (1950)

    Fame  (1980)

    Camp  (2003)

     

    Camp is a less polished cousin to Alan Parker’s Fame, and a film that pushes all my queer consciousness buttons. Once I knew the premise, I wanted to love the movie, and it spoke to me in a way that other movies, from their heterosexual world-view, could not. What teenager wouldn’t want to attend a retreat (like Camp Ovation) where all summer long you get to sing, dance and act in stage plays and musicals? As far as I’m concerned it would have been Mecca. And how delicious is it, that for once, the yummy, manly, straight guy is at the disadvantage? Feels like the freak? So, yes, when a movie like Camp comes along and I see an instance when Michael eyes Vlad (Daniel Letterle ) unapologetically, explaining, “I’m only human,” I can only say I’m deeply, sincerely grateful.

    But it helps no one if we pretend something is better than it is because we applaud the message. When we expect heterosexuals to make allowances, as if we were five-year-olds, handing them a crayon picture to hang on the refrigerator. And perhaps it’s because of the high hopes the premise instilled, that I found Camp to be such a disappointment. There are gratifying moments that are clever and enjoyable. Jill (Alana Allen) and Fritzi’s (Anna Kendrick) turn on All About Eve is funny and pleasurable, Michael’s (Robin De Jesus) birthday surprise is fantastic. But from the endless possibilities that could have emerged, Camp has very little to show for it. A movie doesn’t have to be flawless to be successful, it doesn’t have to be slick, or refined or visionary. But it’s got to have something on the ball. Some aspect that will make you remember it, 10 days, 10 months, 10 years from now. Some kick. A piece of dialogue, the way a shot is lit, a strain of music wed to an image that made it implacable. SomethingCamp’s key strength is its’ urge to be plain-spoken, which might also be its downfall.

    When the alcoholic, embittered theatre veteran, Bert (Don Dixon) calls Ellen (Joanna Chilcoat) a “fag-hag” it’s okay, because that’s the lingo. It may not be nice, but it’s “true.” Fame was conceivably the inspiration for Camp, both movies revolve (more or less) on a triangle between a straight boy and girl and a queer boy. Both elicit the characters’ personal demons as they strive to cultivate their talents and grapple in the competitive jungle of the performing arts. And though Camp strips down the content (no moody, shadow-ridden milieu, no song-and-dance numbers in the cafeteria) the verisimilitude, the ingenuousness is a washout.

    The actors have a kind of charisma, we like them, but they lack screen presence. Camp definitely gets points for the way the Michael and Vlad connect, but you have to wonder if Graff was conflicted between needing to show us the world as it ought to be and is. Michael may be the screen’s first Gay Noble Savage. The problem with affecting documentary style is the belief that it’s a one-way ticket to Truth. It’s a device like any other, and simply instructing the actors to converse as if they were on the street, or talking on the phone won’t cut it. There’s a lot of good work going on in Camp, but the spark is missing. As it spars for stronger, less elaborate swipes at authenticity than Fame, it doesn’t feel more spontaneous, it feels more contrived.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<July 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
24252627282930
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930311234


Categories
 


Advertisement