Showing posts with label glbt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label glbt. Show all posts

PSIFF 2011: HEARTBEATS

Nico (Niels Schneider) in Heartbeats.
Quazy Québécois kids 

By Don Simpson

Francis (director Xavier Dolan) and Marie (Monia Chokri) are hyper-hip BFF’s who commence a fierce competition for the affections of the sexually ambiguous Nico (Niels Schneider). In turn, Nico knowingly or unknowingly (it's your call) taunts and teases the friends into a bitter high school-ish rivalry that eventually comes to physical blows. 

Heartbeats is essentially about a threesome of trendy twenty-something Québécois hipsters with a unique flair for melodrama. All three characters are quite superficial in terms of their appearances (they are what they wear -- nothing more, nothing less) and attitudes towards others. Dolan’s penchant for slow-motion when photographing the leads clearly accentuates their beauty and elegance, yet reinforces that their beauty and elegance is all they have.

Francis co-opts the physical appearance (or, at least, the iconic hairstyle) of James Dean; Marie evolves into Audrey Hepburn (by way of Anna Karina); and Nico resembles a classic Greek Adonis, or a cross between a Jean Cocteau and Kenneth Anger lead. Nico exists purely as an object of lust, while Francis and Marie appear to be driven only by sex.

To counteract (or provide a Brechtian disruption for) the purely sexual tension, Dolan intersperses pseudo-documentary footage of female and male subjects describing their most obsessive loves. With these talking head interviews, Dolan is informing us that Francis and Marie are not the only two people who have become crazy while in the grasp of love. Sometimes Brechtian techniques work better than other times; in the case of Heartbeats, the interviews do not work at all. This is Dolan’s one amateurish flaw in Heartbeats. 

Something I have noticed is that in comparison with the kind and beautiful male characters, Dolan’s females are cruel and calculating monsters. (Nico, being a straight male, is merely a dick tease.) Dolan’s gay males are not the stereotypically catty, spiteful and flamboyant queers we have grown to know and love via Hollywood; they are quite vulnerable, sympathetic and normal characters. He might be impeccably dressed with perfectly coiffed hair, but Francis is by no means flamboyant. For all intents and purposes, Francis could be a straight metrosexual hipster -- except we do occasionally see Francis in bed beside another male, and we know that he has a more than just friends infatuation with Nico (highlighted in the cleverly conceived masturbation scene). Basically, Dolan has discovered a way to normalize gay men, all the while demonizing straight women; but the jury is still out on straight men and lesbian women.

Dolan artistically crafts each and every scene of his sophomore feature with intensely colorful costume and production design. The party scene -- during which Dolan utilizes strobe lights to tremendous effect -- is a lot of fun to watch; while the monochromatically-gelled lighting of the bedroom scenes introduces a certain Kenneth Anger aesthetic to the film. First and foremost, though, are the slow-motion walking scenes (which is quickly becoming Dolan’s directorial signature) in which the actors’ wardrobes are always brilliantly juxtaposed against a colorful backdrop, all the while the soundtrack (which is often the de facto theme for Heartbeats, Dalida's “Bang Bang”) meshes perfectly with the movement.



Read more

PSIFF 2011: UNDERTOW

Marieta (Tatiana Astengo) and Miguel (Christian Mercado) in Undertow.
Against the current

By John Esther

Written and directed by Javier Fuentes-Leon, Undertow (Contracorriente) walks a thin line between taking a stance against homophobia and holding homosexuality accountable for its disruption to tradition.

Peru's pick for Oscar submission in the Best Film in a Foreign Language category, Undertow tells the tale of Miguel (Christian Mercado), who is madly in love with his wife, Marieta (Tatiana Astengo). She is pregnant and is about to give him a son. But then Miguel falls for an artist named Santiago (Manola Cardona). The community frowns on this kind of relationship.

The way most Peruvians in the Peruvian coastal town treat Santiago is deplorable. Rooted in superstition they are cruel to the artist. They ignore him. They throw things at his house. They consider him a pervert. Conversely, Santiago is selfish, expecting Miguel to throw away everything for a love, which Miguel resists; Miguel does not consider himself gay. To compound matters, Marieta is very sympathetic and, thanks to Santiago, her life is being ruined by her husband’s homosexual urges.

This strain of sympathies continues until the very end with Santiago getting the better of Miguel at the expense of Marieta. Santiago may have gotten what he wanted, but it is not what Marieta wanted and the film makes it clear whose demands were more justifiable.

Marked by strong performances yet plagued with troubled conceits, rather than promote understanding, it is easy to see how this film could be used by anti-GLBT organizations to keep the GLBT down. 


Read more

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: UNDERTOW

Santiago (Manolo Cardona) and Miguel (Cristian Mercado) in Undertow.
Ghostly love

By Don Simpson

Miguel (Cristian Mercado) is a fisherman whose life with his very pregnant wife, Mariela (Tatiana Astengo), seems pretty darn perfect, but there are emotional undertows tugging Miguel down into trouble. The name of that trouble is Santiago (Manolo Cardona), a traveling artist and outsider to this tranquil Peruvian seaside village.

Out of the closet, Santiago is comfortable with his sexuality and would prefer to be ostracized by society rather than hide from it. Miguel is quite closeted and is tied by local traditions -- as we first witness during the burial ceremony for his cousin -- and morals. Nonetheless, Miguel and Santiago share a series of clandestine meetings, getting busy on breathtaking beaches in between quarrels over Miguel's insistence that their relationship remain a deep dark secret.

Then Santiago dies unexpectedly and his spirit is trapped on Earth until his body can be discovered and offered up to God. In other words, Santiago becomes a ghost. Only Miguel can see and communicate with Santiago and this new situation suits Miguel perfectly. Their relationship is now so much easier to conceal but, unfortunately, Santiago is miserable in limbo. Rumors of their relationship crash to the surface and Miguel is forced to choose between saving his marriage (and respect within the community) and giving his lover a proper send off.

Part love story and part ghost story, this tale of magic realism earned director Javier Fuentes-Leon the audience award in the World Cinema Dramatic Competition at Sundance. A delicate examination of attitudes and social mores, Undertow touches on issues of self-hate and betrayal and is a stark reminder of the liberation that being true to your sexuality brings. Undertow brilliantly explores issues of sexual identity and machismo attitudes in a conservative community built on tradition, religion and superstition.
Read more

AUSTIN FILM FESTIVAL 2010: AN ORDINARY COUPLE

Bernardo Puccio and Orin Kennedy in An Ordinary Couple.
Thirty years and counting
 
By Don Simpson

Orin Kennedy and Bernardo Puccio commemorate their 30-plus year relationship by erecting a marble monument by the lake at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery. Gay marriage being impossible at the time, the monument is Kennedy and Puccio’s way to historically document that they have loved each other for over 30 years. As part of the package deal at Hollywood Forever, a Life Story Documentary is produced as a way to fill in the gap between the date of birth and date of death. Orin and Bernardo hire filmmaker Jay Gianukos to make their Life Story Documentary. Typically the documentary is saved to be shown during the funeral, but Kennedy and Puccio decide to add a twist, screening their Life Story Documentary at the unveiling of their monument for their friends and family to view.

It turns out that the most historical moment of their lives was yet to come. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court overturned the ban on same sex marriages. So on October 12, 2008, Kennedy, a retired Chairman of the Board of the Location Managers Guild of America, and Puccio, a very popular interior designer in Beverly Hills, were officially married. That was a moment in time that not even Proposition 8 could ever take away from them.

Gianukos and Susan Barnes create a personal life story/documentary of Kennedy and Puccio’s fairy tale life that ends up making the perfect argument against Proposition 8. Other than their gender, Kennedy and Puccio are not unlike most other couples of their generation. They are opposites who came together from two completely different worlds and they always bicker (my favorite moment is when Puccio snaps “Don’t step on the flowers!” then rolls his eyes) -- and somehow this proves (at least to me) that gay couples can really be just like other more “ordinary” (read: hetero) couples.
Read more

FILM REVIEW: HOWL

Allen Ginsberg (James Franco) in Howl.
The beauty of the beasts

By John Esther

Back in 1997 during his last year alive, I had the great fortune to spend some time with the astounding American poet, Allen Ginsberg. 

 
Among the many things Ginsberg imparted on me was that the worst thing in the world is for people to deliberately ignore one’s existence, especially when it comes to the poor.

 
“When some street person asks you for money and you don’t want to give it,” said Ginsberg, “at least acknowledge they exist. Don’t just ignore them.”

 
Since then I have tried to follow Ginsberg’s advice. After watching Howl, I remember why.  


Directed by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, Howl looks at Ginsberg, circa age 29, and the influence his magnum opus and first published poem, Howl, had on America during the mid-1950s. 

In some ways a poetic equivalent of Orson Welles and Citizen Kane (the artist’s first work for public consumption was his best), Ginsberg’s Howl defined a country hell bent on making every unhappy face smile as they ignored and perpetuated the misery around and behind him and her. 

Rather than tell a straightforward biopic, Howl, which was an opening night film at Sundance Film Festival 2010, is essentially divided into four equal parts using four different mediums/tropes to convey the power the poet and his poem had on the people and the powers-that-be.  

One part is essentially theater, with Ginsberg (a marvelous James Franco) reading his poem at the Six Gallery on October 7, 1955, to an enthusiastic crowd, including the writers/future “absent lovers,” Jack Kerouac (Todd Rotondi) and Neal Cassady (Jon Presscott). The second part uses animation (designed by Eric Dooker) to illustrate the meanings/feelings of the poem -- at least one accurate interpretation thereof. The third part is the dramatic poetic justice of Howl, and thus free speech, on trial for obscenity (People vs. Ferlinghetti). And the fourth part is a pseudo documentary where Ginsberg answers questions to an off-screen interviewee.  

Highlighted by Edward Lachman’s magnificent direction of photography, Howl intermingles these four sets to brilliant heights.
 

While the poem Howl said so many things about America and Howl the film says so much about America then and now, the greatness in this film lies in the fact that the filmmakers managed to capture both Ginsberg and Howl at its vital essence: the voice of desire and fulfillment of communication and acknowledgement by and for those who have been ignored by society at large through malice, ignorance or indifference. 

Without a significant flaw in sight after two viewings, I will be very surprised if Howl is not one of the 10 best films of the year.
Read more

FILM REVIEW: BROTHERHOOD

I love you, man

By Don Simpson

Recently dismissed from the Danish army as a direct result of rumors of his homosexual behavior, Lars (Thure Lindhardt), the dashing 22-year-old quintessential Aryan, falls in with a gang of neo-Nazi hoodlums whose leader Michael “Fatty” (Nicolas Bro) sees potential in Lars' intelligent, eloquent and confrontational nature. The primary targets of the members of this local branch of the National Socialists are the “Pakis” who are purportedly settling in Denmark for the sole purpose of acquiring social services and financial assistance (similar to the Tea Party’s perception of “foreigners” in the United States.)

After being booted from his parents’ home, Lars is sent to shack up with one of the group’s A-members, Jimmy (David Dencik), in a cozy seaside house being remodeled for Ebbe (Claus Flygare), the supreme leader of the organization. Jimmy is assigned the task of prepping Lars on the rules of a lifetime A-membership, which Lars has promptly been offered. (Fatty also advices Jimmy to “just make sure [Lars] doesn’t get too cocky.”) The A-membership requires that one pledge to fight for white supremacy, promise to live in harmony with nature’s laws (Jimmy drinks organic beer because it’s important not to “fuck up nature”) and become familiar with the vision of the Third Reich. Though the shaved-skulled Hitler youth enjoy such homoerotic activities as wrestling shirtless, skinny dipping and slamming each other’s sweaty bodies together (a.k.a. slam-dancing), they have an unspoken hatred for “faggots.” As Lars points out -- Hitler had Ernst Rohm, one of his closest allies, executed because he was queer. 

Unfortunately for Jimmy and Lars, they fall in love with each other putting their memberships and lives in peril.

Yes, our anti-heroes Lars and Jimmy are extremely bigoted and violent and they certainly don't deserve our sympathy in any way; but Nicolo Donato’s nuanced direction makes certain that we grant it to them anyway. Donato ensures that we experience the human side of Lars and Jimmy as well as grow to detest the predicament of forbidden love that they find themselves entwined within. This places the audience in a very awkward position: Are we being sympathetic toward two gay men or two extreme racists…or both? Considering that neither Lars nor Jimmy show any signs of wavering on their stance regarding the “Pakis,” it looks like we are stuck sympathizing with racists…but we can only hope that they will change their minds.

The National Socialists may not currently have a stronghold in United States’ politics, but it’s difficult not to see similarities between the propaganda in the film and that of the Tea Party (who have yet to release a defining platform, but whose figureheads have expressed anti-immigrant and homophobic sentiments on countless occasions). We may have thought we defeated Hitler and his crazy ideologies in 1945, but Brotherhood is a bitter reminder that judgments based purely on race, religion and sexual orientation still exist (as if we still need a reminder after the passage of bills such as California’s Proposition 8 and Arizona’s SB 1070).

Read more

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: TOM SHEPARD

Harmain Khan in Tom Shepard's Whiz Kids.

Science function

By John Esther


At a time when American teens rank 24th in the world in math and science comes Whiz Kids, Tom Shepard’s delightful documentary about three 17-year-old high school students -- Ana Cisneros, Harmain Khan and Kelydra Welcker -- who compete for the Science Talent Search. The nation’s oldest and most prestigious science competition, these working-class teenagers need some of that precious Science Talent Research prize money in order to afford college


A Science Talent Search finalist himself in 1987, Shepard moved to filmmaking during his years at Stanford. His previous credits include, Scout’s Honor, about gays in the Boy Scouts, and Knocking, a film about Jehovah Witnesses.

Currently living and working in San Francisco, we caught up with Shepard to talk about science, storytelling and red harvester ants. 

JEsther Entertainment: I understand you were in the Science Fair back in 1987 doing something about harvesting ant pheromones?
Tom Shepard: [Laughs]. Yes, I was actually cutting the abdomens off of red harvester ants in Colorado Springs, playing with their pheromones. I was quite the science geek when I was kid. 


JE: How did you mesh the majors of biology and film at Stanford? 
TS: I know there was some research done about those who were finalists in the Science Fair and is was like eighty percent or more of them go on to PhDs in sciences, doctors, working in labs. I felt oriented in that direction when I went to college – maybe I felt a little obligated. Then I took cultural studies courses -- GLBT studies, film studies, African-American studies – and it was more interesting to me. I was definitely more interested in telling stories. I had already taken all the pre-med courses so it was easier to tack on the film degree than scrap the courses.
 

JE: Did you approach films from a biological for scientific perspective?
TS: Only to the extent I took some ethnography classes that were a little bit more like cultural anthropology. That was as close as I got to “scientific” filmmaking. 


JE: In light of the processes of hypothesis, research and documentation, it seems more natural you would make documentaries rather than fictional features.
TS: I think so. I feel like the chance to make changes is greater. Educate people and open hearts at the same time.


JE: You mentioned that before in something I read. Do you find science is often too cold?
TS: I did not learn in a cold, dispassionate way. I learned it in communal ways and going to science fairs. It was always really engaging, working in the lab. We hoped one of the outcomes of Whiz Kids is to humanize science, make it more accessible. We would have work-in-progress screenings of the film and really educated people would come and they would start to hear kids talk about a level of his or her research and you could see the eyes start glossing over. That’s really unfortunate. Look at the issues Whiz Kids raises and issues we’re now suppose to debate. The BP oil spill is a really good example. If you have a background in science, you might know how you want your congressperson to deal with it. It has changed since the time I was in college. Beforehand there was an emphasis on having kids specialize very early and then you go into a PhD program and you are the expert in some very specific, nanotechnology -- at the expense of seeing the larger picture.
 

JE: Why did you pick these three students in particular?
TS: We were drawn to these kids because they didn’t have those sorts of opportunities and yet there were doing it on their own. They had family and mentors but they were largely pursuing this on perseverance and deep belief in themselves -- that what they were doing mattered. They didn’t come from environments where there had been traditions. 


JE: The film argues we also need to get this country back into a more scientific mode.
TS: Yes, we do need to increase the number of engineers and chemists, but we need to make the whole of society more technically literate -- make science more accessible at an early age. Science is a really cool thing. It’s so creative, intellectual and engaging on so many fronts.

JE: Lastly, what do you think about interviews where you talk about yourself and your work? Do they serve the work? Should the work speak for itself?
TS: That’s an interesting question. It’s great to have both things. The work should speak for itself, but oftentimes a work that’s reduced to an hour or 90 minutes raises more questions than it answers. That’s why people love going to film festivals. They love to talk about film or the filmmakers and understand the choices you made and what would you do in the future.

For information on how to order a DVD or upcoming screenings, go to http://whizkidsmovie.com

 
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

THEATER REVIEW: 40 is the New 15

Robby Newton (Craig Woolson) and Kevin (Tod Macofsky) are at a crossroads

Don’t trust anyone before 1970

By Ed Rampell

The new musical 40 is the New 15 has the distinction of being the first musical produced by the Academy for New Musical Theatre, while a workshop presentation of it was, deservedly, nominated for a GLAAD Media Award. The play features an outstanding ensemble cast in an entertaining, insightful look at not only the aging process, but at gay issues. The musical's concept is that the mid-life crisis triggered by hitting 40 is similar to starting high school, another crossroads in the odyssey and oddity of our existences. Of course, the difference is that for the majority of people, when you’re a freshman, most of life is still ahead of us, while entering our forties generally means most of life is behind us. How have the decisions we’ve made impacted the course of our lives? And, as playwright Larry Todd Johnson notes, “how inevitable some of our life-choices seem, in retrospect.”

Indeed. The introspective story is imaginatively told through a flashback structure, and begins with each of the five adult characters singing how they feel to a shrink. At the sold out premiere (the cast varies in subsequent performances), Dana Meller depicts Sarah with just the right touch of desperation. This none-too-bright girl jock is a former high school star athlete, whose Springsteen-eque glory days are way, way behind her. It’s amusing to see that old saw about the male school sports idol who fails to live up to expectations and amounts to nothing after graduation (consider Biff in Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman or Brick in Tennessee Williams’ Cat on a Hot Tin Roof) turned on its head, by having that cliché transgendered into a female athlete.

John Allsopp, who has an impressive array of stage and TV credits, convincingly portrays another school trope: the geek. Unlike his more athletic, “cooler” classmates, Oren grows up to become one of those successful Silicon Valley high tech types – although with his hectic work schedule he remains romantically challenged.

Of all the characters, Karole Freeman seems to most play against type. Her bespectacled Winter Graham (spelled like “the cracker,” not the unit of measurement, she insists) is a female nerd who, like Oren, the arch-competitor she outshines at the science fair (much to Oren’s consternation, his male pride pierced by a mere girl!) is a science and math whiz. During the high school flashback scenes she’s a sort of female Urkel of  Family Matters.

Tod Macofsky’s character Kevin is a musical theater aficionado and fan of female gymnastics and track events who idolizes Sarah. Kevin is considered to be “flamboyant” -- until he has a homosexual awakening after he turns 15, a disastrous incident with long-term consequences. As an openly gay character coping with an often hostile straight (or seemingly straight) world, Kevin is possibly the most introspective of the 40-year-olds, although he’s had a series of failed romances with partners he always finds fault with them.

Theater and TV veteran Craig Woolson probably portrays 40’s most complex character. The son of a military officer, Robby is putatively straight. Even after he and Kevin are discovered in a compromising position by his father, Robby tries to live up to parental expectations, although he never can, despite the fact that he marries and has a child.

Robby lives life as a lie, and the closeted character has one of the show's best songs, Better Left Unsaid, about how his alcoholic mother and soldier father always hold back and never say or talk about what they really feel. Don’t ask, don’t tell, indeed. (By the way, Kevin is often called “K.P.” by the other characters -- this may be a sly military reference, to a persecuted gay doing “K.P. (kitchen patrol) duty,” which has been a form of punishment in the armed forces.)

My favorite number is called 25 Years From Now. Sung by the entire ensemble, in their freshman year the quintet optimistically imagine a world a quarter century hence, when horrors like poverty, war and world hungry will be things of the past. Alas! With two contemporary wars and a deep recession, we all know how that wistful dream turned out. Since they were singing during the 1980s, I am somewhat skeptical that 15 year olds were so optimistic during the Reagan era. It seems like an anthem more fitting for my ‘60s/’70s generation, but it’s nice to think that perhaps youth is eternally hopeful. Anyway, if this middle-aged scribbler knew when he was a 15-year-old revolutionary how things would turn out today, his too, too solid flesh would probably have melted then.

I had the most questions about Freeman’s character. Her anti-stereotypical Winter takes a 90 degree turn after graduating and becomes more of a familiar type of African-American image with show biz panache, although, to be fair, her mid-life crisis leads Winter back to her nerdy roots. Of course, this stretch demonstrates the range of Freeman’s acting talent. While the play excels in delineating homosexual issues, it does little to shed light on racial issues, which, alas, remain a major issue, even in Obama’s America. Race is only mentioned in passing in 40 is the New 15 and an interracial romance is not even commented upon. Perhaps this is because bookwriter Johnson is gay, and both he and his longtime collaborator, composer Cindy O’Connor, are Caucasian.

Another point: the way the adult Kevin and Robby resolve (or don’t) their relationship a quarter century on also raised this critic’s eyebrows. Really? The musical ends on a high note of optimism, as the desperate, disparate characters, who have reunited after having gone their separate ways over the years, face life and what it has to throw at us with a renewed upbeat attitude.

O’Connor’s music, accompanied by a live band, is pleasantly enjoyable, although there are no toe-tapping numbers I hummed walking out the theater’s doors. Johnson’s lyrics are bright and playful although I frequently was able to guess the oncoming rhyming word. Kevin Traxler’s set and lighting design includes images projected onto a screen that cleverly uses Rorschach Test pictures, which coyly suggest the characters’ therapy and psychoanalysis. The ensemble is deftly directed by Michele Spears, while the play is produced by Scott Guy, Executive Director of the Academy for New Musical Theatre.

40 is the New 15 runs through Aug. 22 at the NoHo Arts Center, 5628 Vineland Ave., North Hollywood, CA 91601. For tickets and showtimes: 818/506-8500; www.anmt.org
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

OUTFEST 2010: PAULISTA


A makover and masked Suzana (Maria Clara Spinelli) in Paulista. 

Brazilian bi-ways

By Miranda Inganni

What happens when a transgender, a drug addicted sexy singer and a horny actress meet at a bar? Well, in Roberto Moreira’s São Paulo-based film, Paulista (Quanto Dura o Amor?), you find that out.

Marina (Sílvia Lourenço) arrives in this dazzling city to pursue her acting career while living with a friend of a friend’s, Suzana (Maria Clara Spinelli). As Suzana falls in love with a colleague, she struggles with the decision of letting him in to her secretive life. Meanwhile, Marina meets a chanteuse, Justine (Danni Carlos), while bonding with her new friend over a beer. Smitten with Justine, and thanks to a chance encounter, the two beauties hit it off, then get each other off.

Lest I forget, male characters feature in this romantic, touching flick as well: Jay (Fábio Herford) as a neighbor who idealizes the search for true love; Gil (Gustav Machado) as the chiseled nightclub-owner and Justine’s husband; Nuno, (Paulo Vilhena) the handsome lawyer who is faced with a predicament because of his partner’s love, trust and honesty.

This sweet (double) love triangle is quite well written by Moreira and Anna Muylaret and acted by all. The Brazilian film moves along at a quick enough pace to keep things exciting, while allowing a glimpse into the inner workings of three friends in search of something more from love.

Recommended.  

(Paulista screens July 16, 9:45 p.m., DGA Theatre 2)
Read more

OUTFEST 2010: EARTHLING

Slowly but surely, comes Clay Liford's Earthling.

The seed pod that fell to earth

By Don Simpson

A spiky ball resembling a naval mine or oversized seed pod from a sweet gum tree drifts in space towards a space station. The station’s three-man crew picks up the strange object. One of the astronauts, Sean (Matt Socia), comes in contact with it; a strange pulse rings out, instantly killing the other two astronauts. Sean survives the encounter, but returns to Earth in a comatose state.

Back on Earth, a temporary brown-out triggers Judith (Rebecca Spence) to suffer an epileptic seizure while driving, thus resulting in a car accident. Judith wakes up in the hospital with no recollection of what happened. The doctors change her anti-seizure medication, assuming that she has grown immune to her previous dosage, and send Judith home.

Distracted and confused by very vivid dreams (or suppressed memories) of a young girl in a swimming pool and also of the astronaut who we now know as Sean; Judith, a respected school teacher, begins to breakdown mentally. She is slowly drifting away from the person Judith used to be, doing things that she would have never done before the accident. Her devoted husband, Stephen (Chris Doubek), becomes frustrated with Judith’s sudden inability to communicate with him. Is she emotionally scarred from her recent miscarriage (presumably from the car accident) or is Judith stressed about something else?

Judith no longer knows who she is -- even her mirror image appears foreign to her. She has developed strange bumps on her forehead and her skin peels off when she scratches it. Water mesmerizes her and Judith seems to be able to create waves in liquids merely by focusing with her mind.

It is not long before Judith discovers a strange group of people who appear to be following her. At first she does not recognize them; however, it turns out that they share many of the same traits as Judith -- seizures, strange bumps on their foreheads, vivid dreams -- yet these kindred spirits seem to have a pretty good understanding of what is going on. We soon discover that the brownout “rebooted” Judith and her rediscovered brethren, reminding them of their true identities and purpose. That spiky pod from space is somehow linked to them, as are the strange slugs, as is Sean.

At times, feeling more like a rich existential character study a la John Cassavetes’ A Woman Under the Influence or Michelangelo Antonioni’s L’avventura rather than a sci-fi flick, the concept of pod people invading Earth harkens back to Don Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers and there have multiple remakes, as well as Shaun Cassidy’s underappreciated short-lived television series, Invasion.

The difference with Earthling is that the humans never become aware of the presence of the pod people. The aliens have assimilated into society convincing even themselves that they are human. Judith and her fellow parasitic alien friends are not on Earth to cause harm or steal its precious resources; they are on Earth to experience the human condition, like experience love. Unfortunately, since this alien species cannot successfully procreate with humans their time on Earth is limited.

Some people might be confused (and frustrated) by the slow and tranquil nature of Earthling. The pacing, atmosphere and tone are reminiscent of Nicholas Roeg’s The Man Who Fell to Earth and Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris -- both are films that sci-fi fans love to hate, because they play in stark contrast to the kinetic-pacing and overabundant special effects inherent to most sci-fi films. There are also some low-fi special effects – done in true B-movie fashion – reminding me of some of David Cronenberg’s early films such as Scanners.

Writer-director Clay Liford does not shy away from referencing different genres of cinema -- such as the aforementioned Cassavetes and Antonioni --; in doing so, the resulting creation is something very unique and special. Grounded almost entirely on earth, Earthling is purely a cerebral brand of sci-fi functioning as an intense meditation on humanity. Is a human being defined purely by biological make-up or can it be a state of mind?

Recommended.

(Earthling screens July 10, 2:30 p.m., REDCAT; July 17, 5 p.m., REDCAT)
Read more

LA FILM FESTIVAL 2010: DOG SWEAT

Underground Iran: Dog Sweat.

Filmmakers boldly go where imams fear to tread

By Ed Rampell

Hossein Keshavarz’s Dog Sweat, which he says was clandestinely shot in Iran, was one of the LAFF's four films with LGBT themes. It follows eight young rebels who dare to not follow the party line and made me reflect on how difficult it must be to break taboos in a so-called Islamic Republic. Whereas political, religious and sexual transgressors in the West often confront customs and culture, as well as sometimes the government itself, imagine what it must be like to resist a theocratic system where religious zealots rule and run the state apparatuses of repression, enforcement, etc.

The German Communist psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich wrote about how a key for totalitarian control of the individual is through manipulating his/her sex life, and we clearly see this in Dog Sweat. Two of this underground feature’s characters are young would-be lovers simply looking for a private place to have sex. But far more daring is the film's candid look at the love that dare not whisper its name in Iran. Readers may remember Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s dubious remarks about gays at a Columbia University forum in 2007, and in Dog Sweat Keshavarz dares point his camera directly at the homosexual scene in Tehran, where same sex relationships are probably more controversial than gay marriage is here.

Hooshang (Rahim Zamani) and Hooman (Bagher Forohar) appear to be more than “just friends,” although their relationship is never clearly defined and remains ambiguous. Are they same sex lovers or is theirs a non-consummated homoerotic type of relationship? Be that as it may, in theocratic Iran parents seem to have lots of control over their children, and Hooman’s mother pressures him to marry (and I don’t mean to Hooshang). He enters into a more or less arranged marriage with a female singer, Mahsa (Maryam Mousavi), whose musical career is frustrated by theocratic limitations on women and singing. (I wonder what the Islamic Republic’s ayatollahs would make of Lady Ga Ga?) Without knowing each other very well, and seeking a measure of freedom from their meddling parents, they wed and move into their own apartment.

Hooman avoids Hooshang, whom he has trouble facing. There is an interesting glimpse of Iran’s underground gay life at a park which seems like a gathering point for Tehran’s persecuted homosexuals. In any case, Mahsa eventually realizes she has “made a mistake,” but the film is unclear. Did she make a mistake by giving up on her recording career or does she realize she’s married a gay man? Dog Sweat remains ambiguous on this and other points, and it’s difficult to follow eight different characters, especially for non-Persian audiences who don’t speak Farsi (The susbtitles sometimes whiz by).

Presumably set against the backdrop of the mass protests of the so-called “Green Revolution” which is never actually seen per se, the film deals with other forms of rebellion, such as drinking. The title seems to refer to alcohol, another taboo topic in the Islamic Republic. Adulterous characters also stray from the straight and narrow path prescribed by the imams. The most direct form of resistance comes from Massoud (Shahrokh Taslimi), a heterosexual pal of Hooshang and Hooman who confronts religious zealots for cramming their ideology down people’s throats.

Overall this supposedly secretly made feature provides a fascinating inside glimpse at today’s Iran and youthful rebellion there. What a pity that one of the main opponents of U.S. imperialism and policies is a society that so represses its own citizens. After the film's screenings Keshavarz participated in Q&A with screenwriter Maryam Azadi.

By the way, Dog Sweat was so well received at LAFF that a fourth screening was added.

Read more

THEATER REVIEW: CARMEN MIRANDA



The soul of Carmen Miranda

By Ed Rampell

Here’s your Miranda warning: You have the right to be charmed, beguiled and to go bananas during the Hollywood stage production of Carmen Miranda, The Lady in the Tutti Frutti Hat. Magi Avila incarnates the 1940s dancing and singing sensation of stage, screen and nightclubs who personified Latin America for many Americans. Like the more risqué Josephine Baker clad in her banana leaf skirt (and little else) who represented “deepest darkest Africa,” Carmen was garbed in often midriff-baring garments and outrageous haberdashery with, and was surrounded by, fruit motifs, suggesting the supposed agricultural bounty of those sun drenched lands south of the border.

Tutti Frutti as originally written by playwright Sam Mossler has undergone a number of permutations; its current version is pretty straight forward, taking the form of one of Carmen’s fabled acts at Las Vegas’ El Rancho club. Avila uncannily impersonates the star from Brazil, expertly performing various rhythmic Miranda dance and song numbers from her live acts and films, such as “Chica Chica Boom Chic” and “I, Yi, Yi, Yi, Yi, I Like You Very Much” from 1941’s That Night in Rio. There are more costume changes than at a runway show, and between musical routines performed live by the six piece “Carmen Miranda Orchestra” led by musical director Dennis Kaye, Avila/Miranda recalls Carmen’s rags to riches life story.

A humble barber’s daughter, she rose to stardom in Brazil and was brought to Broadway in 1939 to appear in Streets of Paris. After a star-crossed return to Rio, Miranda realized that, as Thomas Wolfe put it, you can’t go home again. La-La-Land beckoned, turning her into one of moviedom’s most popular and (along with her nightclub shows) one of America’s (North as well as South) wealthiest women.

How does Avila -- a Mexican actress with big and little screen credits, such as guest starring in the cable police drama, The Shield -- stack up against the real Miranda? Well, the voluptuous Avila is more, uh, stacked than Carmen, who was slimmer. Like many comics Miranda had a sort of funny face, while Avila is prettier, but with her winning ear-to-ear smile (which threatens to slice her low hanging earrings off) Magi succeeds in projecting Carmen’s easygoing humor and warmth. Avila can samba and mambo with the best of them, and has Carmen’s kitschy choreography down pat, along with her lovely singing and accented voice. (Although the Tutti Frutti lady reminds us that it’s really all those Norte Americanos who speak with funny accents.) Magi does Miranda proud, and is to Carmen what Hal Holbrook is to Mark Twain.

Beneath Carmen’s perpetual grin and obsession with gaiety and laughter, one senses she may have had a sort of manic personality using frivolity to shield her from life’s slings and arrows, which Tutti Frutti hints at, but doesn’t dwell on. Magi/Miranda relates her disappointment at returning to Brazil after her Broadway debut, only to be criticized in the press and high society for being “Americanized” and an “over-sexualized” misrepresentation of Latinas.

Yet, Carmen Miranda actually was not actually Brazilian – as a 1995 documentary subtitled Bananas Are My Business pointed out, she was a European born in Portugal, whose family migrated to Brazil. In addition, during that homophobic period, as Tutti Frutti alludes to, she was accused of being a lesbian because she was an unmarried woman in her early thirties (absolutely scandalous!) and was derided as a “queen” by the tabloid press. Toward the end of her career, Carmen became a campy caricature, if not a figure of ridicule. Perhaps these contradictions led to Carmen’s unhappily ever after ending and early death. She burned briefly but brightly.

In any case, it’s hard for a stage play, especially a low budget one in a 99-seater, to compete with the big screen’s big casts and bigger budgets, production values and special effects, epitomized by Busby Berkeley’s eye-popping, colorful extravaganza in the number where Carmen sings "The Lady in the Tutti Frutti Hat" in the 1943 musical, The Gang’s All Here. Nevertheless Magi Avila’s version of Carmen Miranda acquits itself well, providing an unforgettable, highly enjoyable evening at the theatre.

Carmen Miranda, The Lady in the Tutti Frutti Hat runs through June 27 at the Hudson Backstage Theatre, 6539 Santa Monica Blvd., L.A., CA 90038. For more info: 323/960-7740; www.carmenmirandashow.com or www.plays411.com/carmen
Read more

FILM REVIEW: PRECIOUS: BASED ON THE NOVEL "PUSH" BY SAPPHIRE

The Oscar race has begun? Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire opens tomorrow.

Trials and tribulations in the hyper-real ghetto

By Don Simpson

Set in Harlem, Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire is the heart wrenching tale of Clareece “Precious” Jones (Gabourey Sidibe), an obese, illiterate, abused and molested 16-year-old African-American girl.

Impregnated for the second time by her otherwise absentee father, Precious is expelled from high school; but her principal, who recognizes Precious’ true potential, refers her to an alternative school (Each One Teach One) with an intimate student-to-teacher ratio and teachers and counselors who are appropriately trained to work with troubled students.

As things improve at school, matters at home spin ferociously out of control. Precious’ welfare queen mother (Mo’Nique) has always treated her as a slave and a human punching bag, but the abuse escalates tenfold once Precious brings her second child home from the hospital.

We know that Precious does not want to follow in her mother’s footsteps; she frequently escapes to another life in daydreams in which fantasizes about wearing fancy clothes and dancing and being happy. Precious is an amazing young woman with an unyielding desire to break out of her hellish predicament – she is the victim of practically every bad thing that could ever happen to a person. There are several occasions where one would expect Precious to give up, but no matter how bad things get, her strength and tenacity shine through. This is a story of perseverance and hope. I guarantee that not one viewer will leave the film thinking, “my life is worse than Precious’.” The moral is: if Precious can succeed in life, why can’t you?

Being that the content of the film is so dense with the stereotypical problems of the ghetto (drugs, incest, rape, abuse, welfare queens, Down Syndrome, HIV/AIDS) and director Lee Daniels opts to portray the images in such an unreal fashion (with oversaturated yellows, oranges and reds interjected with wildly lavish dream sequences), one might expect Precious to click her heels three times while saying “there’s no place like home” and suddenly she returns to Kansas. Precious is essentially a hyper real tale, in which everything from the characters to the plot to the visuals are exaggerated to the point that all of this could only exist in the world of Hollywood. It is also worth noting that the source material (Sapphire’s 1996 novel, Push) was also criticized by many for being exaggerated and overburdened with stereotypes.

Watching Daniels’ film, I continued to dream of a film much more toned down than Precious, maybe even shot on gritty black and white 16mm film stock (a la Charles Burnett’s Killer of Sheep) – something ripe with realism and honest to the world that it is attempting to represent. Instead, Precious is purely a work of fiction; an emotional roller coaster (a tearjerker, if you will) and true Hollywood fodder – and with Oprah’s seal of approval the possibilities are endless.

Many critics are already predicting that Sidibe and Mo’Nique will be strong contenders during the awards season. Sidibe’s portrayal of Precious, with a blank expression and a glimmer of intense curiosity sparkling in her eyes, is enough to moisten one’s eye sockets. The events unfolding around Precious seem to build and intensify inside her, yet she rarely shows the pain on the outside. Sidibe simply exemplifies restraint while being Precious while Mo'Nique’s gripping performance as Mary Jones (Precious’ mother) is the polar opposite, yet no less worthy of praise. All of the rage and intensity becomes her and Monique plays Mary Jones as the crazed loose cannon that she truly is.
Read more

AFI FEST 2009: A SINGLE MAN

Jim (Matthew Goode) and George (Colin Firth) in Tom Ford's A Single Man.

Heart attacks

By John Esther

A gala selection at AFI Fest 2009, fashion designer-turned-filmmaker Tom Ford's adaptation of Christopher Isherwood's novel of the same name is charged with anger, angst, ego and eroticism.

A US premiere, after credits continue-um with a naked male underwater, A Single Man shifts in a dreamlike state blending eros and thanatos as George (Colin Firth) walks toward a wide-eyed dead Jim (Matthew Goode) laying in bloody snow and kisses him. It is a haunting scene of love and lost shattered by the dreamer denied as George wakes up to his miserable existence.

Miserable existence? On the surface, George seems to have his life in order: money, style, architecture, art and some solitude. Yet this means little to George.

In one of the most gripping film scenes this year, we quickly discover George has lost the love of his life, Jim. He is paralyzed by the loss. Being what they and the times were, the man "light in the loafers" is not permitted to attend Jim's funeral.
His mourning must be done alone.

Set over the course of a day, we watch George losing his grip with the present through flashbacks of his past. Stricken by what he no longer has, George is incapable of realizing what the future could hold. With young men flirting with him under the golden California sun, fate may have something good in store, but uptight, determined George continues to plan his demise. The former Londoner who now lives in Los Angeles accepts the inevitability of death, but why, or so why not, hurry up with it?

A
lthough minutely flawed with pretentiousness and filled with a ghastly glamorization of cigarette smoking (plus I would like to see the car crash scene again -- in retrospect, the model of the car seems more recent than 1962), Ford's feature directorial debut bursts with radiant images of love, loss and lust in rather equal measures. Rather than making our lives hell, sometimes other people are the only heaven we will ever know and Ford designs this sentiment like a fine suit. (A Single Man reminds one a lot of last year's The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.)

Firth's portrayal of a man of his times and times loves lost is brilliant.
It is probably the best performance I have seen this year (I imagine he had a little help from Isherwood's novel if not Isherwood's longtime lover, Don Bachardy, as well). Co-starring Julianne Moore and Nicholas Hoult. (Recommended)

(A Single Man is scheduled to screen Nov. 5, 7 p.m. at Grauman's Chinese Theatre, 6925 Hollywood Blvd. For more information: 866/AFI-FEST; www.afi.com)

Read more
Get paid To Promote at any Location
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...