Sunday, January 14, 2024

Nans Laborde-Jourdàa | Léo la nuit (Leo by Night) / 2021

a child of sensual pleasure

by Douglas Messerli

 

Nans Laborde-Jourdàa (screenwriter and director) Léo la nuit (Leo by Night) / 2021 [24 minutes]

 

This truly lovely short film by French actor and director Nans Laborde-Jourdàa is a work for those who can forgive the most outrageous behavior of gay men who in their sexual activities still behave mostly as children themselves.

     We know little of the gay man Paul’s (performed by the director) past, but clearly he, at some time in the not so long ago in the past—his child Léo (Cyusa Ruzindana Rukundo Marcou) is now 8 years old—created a son with Assa (Marie-Sohna Condé), an intelligent, responsible black surgeon, years older than him, who has completely taken over the care and raising of the boy, and who has a remarkable sense of humor that allows her to amazingly cope with her childish-like former lover.


      Because of a series of circumstances, a demand for doctors and the sudden non-appearance of one of her babysitters, she demands that for just one night her one-time lover Paul pick up his son at school and care for him for the night before sending him off to school again the next morning.

       For anyone other than Paul this should have been a wonderful chance to reconnect with the beautiful young boy who absolutely adores his adolescent and long missing father. His mother expresses how excited the boy is, and once we see Léo , we recognize that his deepest love is for his impossible father.



     But even as Paul seeks out a gift for his beloved son, two male and two female mice—although though the pet shop owner advisers him to get only males—Paul is suddenly grabbed by the balls by the owner, who vaguely implores “Stop me if I am out of line.” For Paul, clearly, any sexual activity is never “out of line,” even though even he knows it will make him late in picking out Léo at school. A child himself, when it comes to sex, Paul does not know how to say no.

      When he goes to pick up his son, he discovers the child has already been retrieved by a non-nonsense music teacher, who emphatically is unwilling to give the boy up to a man she has never met, and whose credentials she cannot establish, particularly since Assa is now unreachable. The wonderful kid attempts to tell her not only that Paul is his father, but is not married nor in love with his mother, all to no avail. The music teacher is adamant, until her other student pretends to have swallowed “a key” (perhaps purely a musical metaphor) which so totally distracts her attention, that the father and son easily escape.



         But even then, he seeks out a woman friend who might take care of his son, and when she rejects his pleas, he parks the delightful Léo with a bar-hotel concierge of a presumably irreputable establishment while he runs out to a local public park to fuck a fellow late-night queer pick-up. Despite the irresponsibility of the entire affair, director Laborde-Jourdàa presents it as a highly sexual event while the young boy, although obviously impatient for the return of his father, complains primarily about being unable to find a way to turn on the TV set, although wondering when his father might return. 



       At 10:00 at night, finally Paul arrives, gift in hand, as the two and his female friend Sonia (Margot Alexandre) hide out in the room as the hotelier deals with an unexpected “real” client. Paul presents Léo with the gift the mice, the boy opening up the box to find them suffocated in the plastic in which Paul has kept them wrapped, Sonia and Paul pretending they are simply asleep, arguing they’ll wake them up in the morning.












  

     As the boy pretends to have forgotten something in the hotel bedroom, the adults all reveal their shock over the gift of dead mice, finally breaking out in horrific laughter for the absurdity of the whole affair.

       Paul goes to the room in search of his now missing son, and the two, after a sort of hide-and-seek-affair, pretend to finally discover one another, giggling in a loving encounter on the bed, revealing that despite all of Paul’s irresponsible behavior, the two still have a lively rapport. Carrying the sleepy child off to Sonia’s car, Paul declares that tomorrow they will escape for a day or so on an undeclared “vacation,” despite Assa’s previous insistence that he return the boy to school.




      Surely, the situation ahead does not bode well, and it promises to consist of a great many difficulties for the adults in the child’s life, but equally suggests that the joyful Léo will escape for just a while longer into their father-son idyll where responsible adults are not permitted, offering up the boy a true birthday gift he will long remember.

        Without ever preaching, nor entirely forgiving Paul for his appalling behavior, director Laborde-Jourdàa generously portrays the compulsive homosexual misfit through of his incomprehensible behavior as simply representative the man’s pleasure in the delights of the body’s endless capacity for play and sensual pleasure. And somehow we know that with such a father hovering in the distance, the child will inherit his father’s joy of the sensual life.

 

Los Angeles, January 14, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2024).

Anthony Schatteman | L'homme inconnu / 2021

a literary sexual fantasy

by Douglas Messerli

 

Anthony Schatteman (screenwriter and director) L'homme inconnu / 2021 [23 minutes]

 

For several years now Flemish Belgian director Anthony Shatteman has been writing and directing significant short gay films. I’ve previously written about Kiss Me Softly (2012), Hello, Stranger (2016), and Petit ami (2017), all interesting in their own way. But L’homme inconnu, in French and Dutch, seems to me to be his most profound work to date.

     This is a film about the creative imagination, and until the very end of the short film—which feels almost like a feature work—we are never quite sure of the reality of events. Certainly, this is not the first time we have seen this transposition of the creative mind upon what poses as realist experiences. There are many films which query an author’s fecund imagination, and Hitchcock forces the viewer in numerous of his works to question his central’s characters vision of the reality there are supposedly encountering. And only a year after this film, in 2022, French director Olivier Peyon demanded that we compare a writer’s vision of a past world with something closer to the original through an encounter between the older writer and his central character’s son in Lie with Me.

 

   In this film, writer Louis (Geert Van Rampelberg) begins the movie by arriving in his snazzy red sports car at a small seaside villa, filled with a library just for the occasion, on Côte d’Azur. Louis hardly gets time to unpack his typewriter before he picks up his binoculars to encounter a beautiful heterosexual couple below on the rocks making love.

      Before he even can closet his clothes, Louis himself trots down to interrupt the couple, finding them to be a truly friendly young locals Tommy (Samuel Suchod) and Melanie (Anna Sacuto). Both are perfect specimens of youth, but for the quite obviously gay Louis, Tommy is the only one that matters.


      Not only does Tommy quickly share his concern over Louis unprotected torso, but lends him his shirt and a backrub, as well as flirting with the newcomer, suggesting that he loves the Flemish man’s French accent. Louis’s eyes take it the yellow speedos just covering Tommy’s cock and the bronzed shape of his beautifully shaped body, as Schatteman’s camera voyeuristically caresses the boy’s body so that we might share in the spoils. Any gay man might well comprehend Louis’ nighttime fantasies of Tommy’s masturbatory maneuvers.

       Suddenly, the previously blocked writer lets loose with a flow of words on a new manuscript titled, what else, Tommy. And on his next visit to the couple, Tommy seems to go even a bit further, massaging Louis’s now reddened back, and in real time—and in real time, not just in Louis’ imagining—moving his hand down to also massage what’s under that skinny yellow bikini.



       Louis has even managed to send some early chapters back to his publisher, with whom he may or may not be having an affair back in Antwerp. It doesn’t matter, here all things revolve around his new character.

       Is it any wonder that when he observes the couple out swimming that Tommy’s kisses planted on Melanie’s lips are just as quickly being relocated to his own. And that during a moment when Melaine appears without Tommy that Louis, flirting with her, embraces her into a drowning to get her out of the way.


        Tommy wonders whether he’s seen Melanie in the past few days. But it doesn’t really seem to faze the pretty boy, who is just a soon frolicking with Louis in the water, imitating a sea gull, and finally giving the older man a gentle seaside kiss? Even we must now guess which scenes might be real and which are total fantasy.

 


        When Louis punches out “The End” to his fiction, running off to the local post office to mail it off, he almost bumps into a young man looking a great deal like his Tommy with his girlfriend. Louis apologizes, the boy turning toward him quizzically to ask, “Have we met?” His girlfriend calls to him, “David,” as the confused young man keeps looking back in Louis’ direction, trying to place where he might have seen the man whom clearly he has met only in the writer’s fantasies.

         I suppose if you were a gay fiction writer, there could not be a better place to find a way to escape your writer’s block. Young men have always worked far better than any Viagra pill to get a queer writer’s blood flowing and his fantasies running amok. Louis can return home fully fulfilled without even the heartbreak of love lost since it’s never been truly experienced.

 

Los Angeles, January 14, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema (January 2024).   

Louis Malle | Zazie dans de métro (Zazie in the Metro) / 1960

in search of the underground

by Douglas Messerli

 

Louis Malle and Jean-Paul Rappeneau (screenplay, based on the fiction Raymond Queneau), Louis Malle (director) Zazie dans de métro (Zazie in the Metro) / 1960

 

Like the “naughty” boys of Jean Vigo’s Zéro de conduit, the bad-behaving Zazie (Catherine Demongeot) begins the story with a train ride on her way to her uncle’s place in Paris. Her mother has dumped her on the perfume dabbing, female impersonator Gabriel (Philippe Noiret) so that she might have a short time her new lover, and the girl, well aware of the situation, clearly intends to “misbehave.” Zazie’s major desire is to ride the Metro, which is on strike and closed during the girl’s visit.


      Accordingly, Malle, using Queneau’s story, sets up a situation in which youth, represented by Zazie, knowing who they are, seek out a world of the underground—a world below and apart from the normalcy of city life—while the adults, pure pretenders, have no idea who they are or even where they are. The film begins, in fact, with Gabriel noting—in the slang, neologisms, and argot that dominate this work—that something stinks. While driving the girl to his house, he points out, time and again, famous Paris sites which are not what he names them, as if he has never even visited the city in which he resides.

     His beautiful wife, Albertine (Carla Marlier), seems at first almost saintly, but we soon perceive her as being utterly placid and cold—the total opposite of her loud and foppish husband. She seems to be hiding something, and later in the film undergoes her own kind of transgender transformation. Others, such as the seeming pedophile Trouscaillon (Vittorio Caprioli), are even stranger. But none of them are up to the bad-girl tactics of the young rapscallion Zazie.



      Once Zazie escapes her uncle’s environs, there really is no plot, as Malle’s film turns into a kind of comic cops-and-robbers chase—reminding one at times, in its cinematic splices, cuts, and photographic impositions, of The Beatles’ movies, scenes out of the Monty Python series and, of course, Godard’s Breathless. Malle’s film, unlike any movie he made after, literally takes one’s breath away as Zazie runs wild in a world in which anyone and everyone is on the make, including a sex-starved older woman, Madame Mouaque (Yvonne Clech), and a half-busload of young German tourists who are desperate to get their hands on Gabriel.

      Symbolically representing a body in action, Zazie is filled with one-liners, most famously “My ass!” Her only major question is whether or not her uncle is a “hormossuel,” which, despite his profession, is never truly answered; but then nobody is who he or she claims to be—except Zazie, of course. And it is precisely who she is, a liberated youth, why the others so desperately desire her. Perhaps Zazie is absolutely right in her wish to get away from them.

      As the various chases and Gabriel’s performance come together, everyone and everything explodes into a brutal brawl. But by that time Zazie, tuckered out, has fallen asleep, she misses the entertaining brouhaha. As critic Leo Goldsmith expresses it: “After fomenting a revolution, she misses the war.” The next morning, she is whisked away by her now sexually satiated mother just as the labor strike ends, and the Metro opens up its gates.

 

Los Angeles, February 25, 2013

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (February 2013).


Paul Wegener and Stellan Rye | Der Student von Prag (The Student of Prague) / 1913

conflicted selves

by Douglas Messerli

 

Hanns Heinz Ewers (screenplay and adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe’s “William Wilson”), Paul Wegener and Stellan Rye (directors) Der Student von Prag (The Student of Prague) / 1913

 

I believe it would be mistaken to describe Paul Wegner and Stellan Rye’s 1913 film The Student of Prague as primarily an LGBTQ movie. Yet I would also be remiss if I didn’t include it in my discussions in My Queer Cinema volumes since it contains so many elements of the important tropes in queer filmmaking, theater, and fiction.

     The plot of this 1 hour and 25-minute-long film is rather simple. It begins in the university at which Balduin (Paul Wegener) is a student. He is known by his companions as one the finest of swordsmen, as well as the wildest young man in the student body. But at the point we meet him Balduin is anything but a wild, drunken lout as he sits alone, refusing to participate with his fellow students who are drinking and celebrating with the women servers and a Gypsy girl who sings and dances. The student has come to the end of his finances and is pondering what to do to raise the money upon which he depends to support his excessive behavior.


     Out of the proverbial blue, a coach arrives bearing a shriveled-up, scowling being who taps the unhappy boy upon the shoulder vaguely whispering in his ear something about a large inheritance that may be in store for Prague’s finest fencer and most unruly scholar.

     Balduin rebuffs the strange man, jesting that he’d do better to bring him “the luckiest ticket in the lottery or a dowered wife.” The old man chuckles and moves back into the shadows in which so many of the film’s characters spend their time lurking, matching the dark scowl of worry that remains on the student’s brow.

     Meanwhile, the local Countess Margit Schwarzenberg (Grete Berger) is off with the hounds, meeting up with her cousin, Baron Waldis-Schwarzenberg (Fritz Weidemann), who once again attempts to court her, she rejecting him, repeating that since her father has declared she must marry him she will obey, but that it has nothing to do with love. She pulls her horse quickly away, and the horse, obviously sensing the jolt, runs wild through the field, ultimately throwing her into the local river.

      By coincidence, so it appears, Balduin finds himself at the very same spot and rushes into the waters to save her by pulling her ashore. Her hunting companions and the Baron, arriving on the scene, award the boy a purse of coins for his good deeds.

      In fact, the student has been compelled to visit the scene by the evil sorcerer, Scapinelli (John Gottowt), who he had just previously rejected at the beer garden. Now, taken with the beauty of the Countess, Balduin almost immediately becomes involved with her and her family, visiting her father the Count’s castle to inquire about her condition. He is forced to depart almost immediately, however, when the Baron arrives with a far more ostentatious bouquet of flowers than the simple garland he has purchased from the Gypsy.

       Distressed with his still relative poverty he is tempted once again by Scapinelli, inviting him into his room to discuss his promised “inheritance.” Displaying his magical powers with a few quick sleight-of-hand tricks, the old man asks him to sign a document which will sell him all the contents of the boy’s spartan room. Balduin looks around the dreary place and, seeing nothing of value, gladly sells the contents of anything the old fool might desire.

       Scapinelli quickly pays him with a shower of gold before, looking around the room, he spots the student’s reflection in the long mirror, and calls forth Balduin’s image, walking out the door with the student’s shadow self.

        Quite horrified with what he has just witnessed, but also a bit bemused and even more delighted by his new wealth, Balduin quickly moves forward with his attempts to court the Countess, the Gypsy girl, now clearly in love with the student herself, following him to the castle and stalking him for most of the rest of the film.

       Countess Magrit is rather charmed by his attention, and even agrees, over her own doubts, to meet him the next day in public spot near a cemetery. She finds herself falling in love with the boy, but each time she encounters him he is stalked not only by the Gypsy girl—who neither of them even seem to notice, suggesting perhaps her invisibility because of lowly social status—but by Balduin’s double, a confounding phantom who so terrifies them both that they break off their encounters in each instance.

      The Gypsy girl, meanwhile, meets with the Baron to tell him of Balduin’s rendezvous with Magrit, and in anger the fiancé confronts the student, rashly challenging him to a duel with swords without realizing Balduin’s skills. The Count, terrified that Balduin will not only kill his daughter’s future husband but in so doing will kill off the last male heir of the von Schwarzenberg family, meets with the student, pleading with him to spare the Baron’s life. Reluctantly, Balduin agrees. But as the intertitles are quick alert us:

 

                                           The dead he swore

                                           to not do,

                                           the other did.


     Horror-stricken by witnessing his other self kill the challenger, Balduin rushes off. When he recovers, he attempts to visit the Count to explain the situation, but the gates are closed to him. Desperate to declare his lack of complicity with the Baron’s death, Balduin finds a ladder and climbs into the room where Magrit sits reading. Upon seeing him, she turns away in anger, but as he attempts to explain his innocence she gradually is swayed by his declarations of love. When the student attempts to further prove his innocence by demonstrating in her mirror that he has no shadow, she backs off from him, more consternated than she has been previously, and at that very moment his double reappears. Balduin, now abandoning any hope of wooing the Countess, runs off in a kind of frenzied flight through the woods of the estate and the shadowed streets of Prague, turning frequently back to make sure that he has lost sight of his double. Out of breath, he finally reaches his room, checking the windows and finally reopening the door just to be certain his other self has not followed him home.

      Finally, infuriated with the situation, Balduin opens a box and pulls out his firing arm to await the phantom’s arrival. When it appears in his room, smiling at him as it strides forward, Balduin shoots and it disappears. A few seconds later, the student himself falls to the floor, blood gushing from his stomach as he dies.



      The story is based primarily on the Edgar Allan Poe tale “William Wilson,” but obviously it incorporates elements of Faust (in some British theaters it was titled A Bargain with Satan) and Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1886 fiction The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, along with references to Alfred de Musset’s poem The December Night.

      In each of these cases, a being is troubled by the existence of a mirror-image of the self who separated from the original being works against the other, sometimes for good but most often for bad, ending in the destruction of both the body and the soul which the two beings symbolize.

      In selling himself for wealth and social status, Balduin has destroyed the carefree, joyous young student he once was. The two aspects are simply incompatible, since the joyful, goodhearted boy cannot coexist with a scheming and plotting being determined to have everything previously unavailable to him. And in this sense the Gypsy girl and the Countess Magrit are also doubles, one representing the birthright of the student Balduin, while the other symbolizes what by birth lies outside of his reach. On one level, accordingly, the story is really about a man who has lost his soul in his search for being something other than he truly is, the double standing in for the avaricious and womanizing adult he would become, and which, accordingly, must destroy the youth.

     But on a far more profound level, this tale tells us something else about the conflicted self. The world to which Balduin aspires is clearly the normative vision of the wealth and heterosexual marriage promised in every culture’s version of what US citizens describe as the American Dream. But inside himself it is clear that Balduin cannot embrace that. There is a part of him that obviously detests the very idea of marriage and the heterosexual hegemony which he subconsciously works in various ways to resist.

      If there is no obvious homosexual interest in this tale it is because Balduin’s true love is the self, within the image in the large mirror lies his most treasured possession, himself. At the very heart of this tale lies the vision of the self that Dorian Gray first encounters in the portrait that Basil Hallward paints of the beautiful youth. In Dorian’s devotion to that idealized self he must destroy almost all the other individuals he meets since they cannot live up to his own image and, moreover, in order to hide the fact that he is so infatuated with himself, he must hide away the portrait which now reveals the truth. This, in turn, is merely another version of the myth of Narcissus. And it is no accident that early psychologists and medical practitioners once defined same-sex love as being a version of infantile narcissism.

      It is as inevitable that in stabbing the canvas on which his now corrupted image exists, Dorian must die just as Narcissus must drown in his attempt to kiss the beautiful image he sees before him in the sudden ripples of the formerly still pool of water.

      Deep in the heart of homophobia is the belief that loving someone of the same sex is an outward manifestation of one’s ability to love oneself—a terrifying concept for those inflicted, as most homophobes are, with extreme self-loathing, being individuals far too often unable to accept their own homosexual fantasies.

    

Los Angeles, April 15, 2021

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog and World Cinema Review (April 2021).

 

 


My Queer Cinema Index [with former World Cinema Review titles]

Films discussed (listed alphabetically by director) [Former Index to World Cinema Review with new titles incorporated] (You may request any ...