Showing posts with label gay mEN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay mEN. Show all posts

FILM REVIEW: I LOVE YOU PHILLIP MORRIS


Steven Russell (Jim Carrey) in I Love You Phillip Morris.
Carrey on gayer sum

By John Esther

Repeatedly and ridiculously delayed since its successful premiere at Sundance Film Festival 2009, I Love You Phillip Morris finally arrives in theaters this Friday. Given its subject matter and matter of subject one may speculate why this funny, intelligent and consistent film co-written and directed by John Requa and Glenn Ficarra (co-screenwriters of Bad Santa) has been postponed for nearly two years.

In his best performance hitherto, Jim Carrey plays Steven Russell, a brilliant real life con artist who was able to fake friend and foe alike to such a degree that "fucking Texas" made sure he received an unprecedented 144-year prison sentence. (What no death penalty?)

Life for Russell all starts innocently enough. He is a happily married husband and father, working for the local police force and playing organ in the local church. (The instrument.) He is living the American Dream, so they show, but after a blow to his sense of identity back when he was a 9-years-old (John Kennon Kepper) followed by one to his car as an adult resulting in an epiphany, Russell decides to come straight out of the closet and take the elevator non-straight up to the top of the penthouse, bamboozling everyone he comes across along the way. After all, when you live in a country, as well as in a particular subculture of a subculture (i.e. Noah's Arc; A-List: New York; An Ordinary Couple), where materialistic extravagance is a dominant virtue, a bad boy who happens to prefer boys has got to do what he has got to do in order to lavish his loved ones.

Russell may be a great conniver, but he is not invincible. His wild schemes eventually take him to prison. There he meets Phillip Morris (Ewan McGregor) a gentle, young man who has an unfortunate penchant for linking up with bad people, but not the kind of ruthless ones his namesake would suggest -- he has nothing to do with the tobacco behemoth. (Besides Morris' aggressive fellatio, there are no "smoking a fag" metaphors here). During their incarceration rowdy Russell and mild mannered Morris quickly fall in love, planning to set up home once they are both released...from prison.

As fine as their new life together may be, Russell is never content. He wants to live high on the "gay hog" and he is going to stick it to the ignorant and racist/anti-Semitic pigs at his latest job -- taking down Morris in the process. A natural risk taker, Russell's business schemes become more and more elaborate yet prove to be quite conventional in comparison to what he concocts when Morris and he is, again, incarcerated. Hilariously daring to do anything for freedom and love, one would not believe the things Russell accomplished were they not a matter of record.

Stranger danger than fiction, I Love You Phillip Morris has all the makings to be one of the year's most successful, certainly enjoyable, films. Possessing a strong cast, smart script, and outrageous humor/history, there is very little to dislike about the film. Although I did find the film funnier the first time I saw it at Sundance, it is still one of the funniest of 2010. Amongst films released this year, perhaps only Four Lions is funnier than I Love You Phillip Morris?

So what is with the theatrical release holdup? The film has already opened theatrically across Europe, Asia, South America and Mexico. Are there some handlers out there who feel the mainstream Jim Carrey fan may not accept Russell's sexual orientation? An actor who can green light just about any film of his choosing, Carrey takes an admirable career risk with the Russell role. Possibly even a greater risk than other A-list actors who have played complex "non-flamboyant" gay characters in the past.

As sort of a bourgeois anti-hero incarnation of a gay anti-hero a la writer Jean Genet (Our Lady of the Flowers; Querelle) or filmmaker Rainer Werner Fassbinder (In a Year of 13 Moons; Querelle), Carrey as Russell does not have the sympathetic character advantage of slowly dying yet fighting for justice as Tom Hanks did when he took on what would be the Academy-Award winning role of a dying-AIDS patient named Andrew Beckett in director Jonathan Demme's Philadelphia (1993) or Hilary Swank did when she took on what would be the Academy-Award winning role of Teena Brandon/Brandon Teena, a real-life person murdered by homophobes for her man-hoodwink-ing in director Kimberly Peirce's Boy's Don't Cry (1999) or Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhall for their eventual Academy-nominated roles as fictional star-crossed lovers in director Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain (2005) or Sean Penn did when he agreed to play the eventually Academy-Award winning role of assassinated gay rights politician Harvey Milk in director Gus Van Sant's 2008 film, Milk. (Granted, Swank was not A-List when she took her role, but her character was extremely sympathetic yet there was certainly a career risk.)

On another hand, Russell does have that American gumption many Amer-I-cans sure like to swill. He sees what he wants and he takes it -- all in the so-called name of love. And, considering the current climate, we may indeed be at a crossroads where massive audiences can watch a film with a major star playing a gay protagonist who is not a victim -- in particular, a victim of violence -- and see his humanity more than his or her homosexuality.

Yet what distinguishes I Love You Phillip Morris from the aforementioned films, plus other American films not mentioned here, is that the other films came with an expectation, which is usually fulfilled, of "art house" gravitas (like this year's enjoyable The Kids Are All Right and outstanding Howl) whereas a film starring Carrey comes with the expectation of a physical comedy -- a brand of entertainment infrequently demanding any discomfort whatsoever from its audience these days. In I Love You Phillip Morris Carrey relishes in the role. While incorporating his familiar comical shtick, Carrey takes this role further by not only refusing to hold back on the film's more human complexities, he is also unflinching when it comes to its homoeroticism (the latter being something the misdirected Philadelphia dodged). Often an exacerbating performer to watch -- such as last year's awful adaptation of Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol wherein Carrey played multiple roles -- here Carrey dives deep down to get at the heart and mind of what motivates Russell and it pays off.

(During the post-Sundance screening someone in the audience asked the filmmakers, "Why didn't you get gay actors to play the leads?" Without missing a beat, Carrey replied, "What makes you think we didn't?" Nice.)

With a better chance of receiving award nominations this year and the country incrementally becoming nonchalant about homosexuality, perhaps the delay of I Love You Phillip Morris has been good fortune for the film. The film is very entertaining and Carrey's performance is certainly one of the better ones of the year. Award consideration for McGregor, Xavier Pérez Grobet's playful cinematography as well as the Requa and Ficarra's direction and screenplay, are nothing to eschew either. (Oh, come on, cinematography consideration for a comedy? Yes.) But more important than the potential denial of any forthcoming award nominations, it would be a shame to see a film of this caliber rejected, or delayed anymore, including the eyes and minds of some Carrey fans, for the wrong reasons.














Read more

FILM REVIEW: SPRING FEVER

Scorned between two lovers: Li Jin (Zhou Tan) in Spring Fever.

Love plus one

By Don Simpson

Director Ye Lou is hardly a darling of the China's aging government. His debut feature, Weekend Lover (1994), was censored by the Chinese government; his Suzhou River (2000), filmed clandestinely on the streets of Shanghai, was banned in China yet won the Grand Prize at the Rotterdam Film Festival; his Summer Palace, which included explicit sex scenes and touched on the 1989 events surrounding Tienanmen Square, screened at Cannes in 2006 and resulted in Lou’s ban by the Chinese Film Bureau for five years.

But that did not stop him from making his latest film, Spring Fever. Filmed under the radar of the Chinese government in Nanjing, Lou circumvented the Bureau’s five-year filmmaking ban by  registering the film as a Hong Kong-French co-production.

Considering the film's content it would not be a stretch of the imagination China's government would not approve of Spring Fever, either. 

Wang Ping’s (Wei Wu) schoolteacher wife (Jiaqi Jiang) has hired Luo Haitao (Sicheng Chen) to track and photograph her wandering husband who is in the midst of an extra-marital relationship…with a man, Jiang Cheng (Hao Qin). When that love triangle shatters, Luo becomes Jiang’s rebound; but Luo also has a girlfriend, Li Jing (Zhou Tan), who works at a counterfeit textile factory. So, once again, Jiang finds himself sharing his man with a woman.

The multiple love “triangles” of Spring Fever lack their third side which means there is always a third wheel, and with a third wheel jealousy and animosity abound. (Critics have been quick to pounce on obvious analogies to Jules and Jim.) There lies the drama within Spring Fever. Jiang Chang has no interest in his partners’ “other women” and the ladies certainly have no interest in him.

The spring fever of the film’s title refers to the hormones (and feverish craziness) bubbling over within the characters. It is as if everyone in Spring Fever is an animal in heat. Just as the flowers are blooming, so do love affairs. The “drunken spring nights” will eventually end; the flowers must die and so must love.

Despite the images of sunshine and flowers that come to mind upon hearing the bright and cheery title, Spring Fever takes place primarily in the shadows and dark recesses of the night. Blackness engulfs the screen, as restrained splashes of fluorescent red and green hues render the actors’ faces barely identifiable (which may make it difficult for some Western audiences to follow the complex web of relationships). The furtive visual elements of the film are understandable because gays in China are destined to remain confined to the shadows since being homosexual is still classified as a mental illness. 

Cinematically, Spring Fever appears illicit and clandestine using only existing light sources and handheld camerawork -- which also conveys a haphazard narrative in which a spy (in this case the audience) only knows where their subject is at the present and is unable to prepare for the subject’s next move.

Visually impressionistic and linguistically sparse yet poetic, Spring Fever is like a recollection of faint remnants of a dream. There are moments of clarity in which onscreen events appear clearly and unfold sensibly, but the rest is just a beautifully mysterious blur.


 
Read more

OUTFEST 2010: BEAR NATION

A bear hug of sorts.

A bear is…

By Don Simpson

Bear Nation takes us inside two distinct camps of bears: the doughy and scruffy camp and the burly body-builder camp. Though some of these bears are black, some are brown, some are white, and quite a few are grizzly, I should probably clarify that director Malcolm Ingram’s (Small Town Gay Bar) documentary concerns the bear sub-culture of gay men.


Ingram interviews a slew of bears, all of whom discuss their love for bear culture all the while purposefully differentiating themselves from the other unique subsets of gay society (particularly the ultra-feminine “twinks”). Though many of the interviews are entertaining (as in humorous), it seems as though most of the talking head interviews are saying the exact same things over and over again as if they are reading from the same page of a script. The true highlights of Bear Nation are Kevin Smith (Clerks; Chasing Amy) and Bob Mould (Hüsker Dü, Sugar). I was initially put off by Smith’s inclusion in the documentary, but his perspective is so different than everyone else’s that -- for once in his career! -- he is a breath of fresh air (rather than a whole lot of hot air). Mould also has a little something different to offer to Ingram’s camera.


As much as I enjoyed and appreciated Bear Nation, I really felt as though it was missing something. Bear Nation is a great overview of the two differing perspectives of “what is a bear?” As an outsider I find this debate quite intriguing, mainly because I am curious about why the two camps – which are quite the opposite in philosophy and appearance – can’t just agree to disagree? Why do they both have to be called bears? (That right there is the exact question that I really wanted Ingram to discuss.) I understand that both camps are of the opinion that they were bears first, but maybe they can have some sort of meeting of the minds and compromise. Maybe there can be two different categories of bears -- like grizzly bears and teddy bears?


(Bear Nation screens July 17, 9:30 p.m., DGA Theatre 2)
Read more
Get paid To Promote at any Location
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...