Tuesday, February 20, 2024

J. C. Calciano | Is It Just Me? / 2010

 fantasyland

by Douglas Messerli

 

J. C. Calciano (screenwriter and director) Is It Just Me? / 2010

 

J. C. Calciano’s little gay film, Is It Just Me? tries its hardest to pose as a grand gay romantic drama, but, alas, Calciano just doesn’t have the writing chops nor the directing ability to carry it off.

 

      First, his hero, the good-looking, if not terribly handsome, Blaine (Nicholas Downs) seems at sea in the all-gay community of West Hollywood, in which one has to presume in which he has selected to live (one of the problems of Calciano’s film is that, except for Brice’s “faghag” friend Ronnie [Lynee Chaille] there is not a single heterosexual figure to be found in this movie). Although he’s represented as a successfully gay columnist for a small gay newspaper, USATogay (too too cute for my taste), he seems to be a bit shell-shocked by the open sexual scene in which he finds himself, seemingly wanting a relationship without any sexual exploration beforehand, or, as if the two weren’t truly compatible for a serious gay bonding.



      “Is it just me” he broods, “who is actually seeking a relationship?” Apparently, it is, according to the film’s early scenes. His roommate, Cameron (Adam Huss), even more oddly, is a standardly handsome go-go dancer and would-be actor, hardly ever seen alone in this film but for a few minutes: Brice’s polar opposite. If Brice, accordingly, is “looking for love,” he’s clearly looking in all the wrong places. And everyone around him, quite obviously, sensing his out-of-place feelings, shun him as if he were suffering from the plague.

       Despite all of these neuroses, and the use of his personal computer and even his phone by his sex-driven roommate, Brice does find “Mr. Right” through a computer communication in the good-looking, innocently laid-back young Texan Xander (David Loren). They talk for hours, finding common ground in their musical interests—Xander is a budding composer—and in their approach to love. Like Bruce, Xander also has an odd roommate, but in his case a far more beneficial one, Ernie (Bruce Gray), who spends most of his day cooking for and fawning on his young renter.


       After their second on-line meeting, and a cyber-sexual encounter, everything seems perfect, and they agree to meet—actually having met before at a coffee shop without either of them knowing it. Only problem, Brice discovers after they close off on their chat, is that the man he’s expecting—a fact Brice has previously known nothing about—is Cameron who has posted his picture (not Brice’s) to Brice’s own Facebook site. The situation, called “catfishing,” of luring someone in with fictional information or with a fake picture, is a cruel reality on both gay and straight dating sites, and is seen as highly disgusting behavior—particularly when you’re as gullible and trusting as Xander!

      Yet, instead of immediately setting things straight, the insecure Brice compounds the problem by insisting Cameron accompany him on his first live date. And it is here that Calciano’s film moves off into complete unbelievability.

     Yes, Xander may be a kind of Texan hick (Jon Voight’s Joe Buck all over again) who wants to believe in the goodness of everyone he meets, but mightn’t he still, after speaking for long hours with Brice for two nights, have recognized that Cameron’s internet interests were not the same as Brice’s? Might he not have sensed that the self-assured Cameron, inviting him to visit the bar where he dances at night, is not a bit like the unsure and constantly apologetic man on his computer?


      Of course, things go from bad to worse, as Xander, visiting the bar, gets utterly drunk; Brice suffers a near break-down, and Cameron takes the Texan home—presumably, as Brice, imagines, into his bed—but actually into the bathroom to help him puke out his guts.




      By this time the viewer has almost lost all interest in either of these utterly “clueless” heroes, and begins to admire the more robust Cameron, who at least helps out the two the best he can. Perhaps, we begin to suspect, despite both of their denials, looks are more important than what comes from the heart. Clearly both Brice and Xander have misunderstood each other’s heart, and fallen in love instead with appearances (Brice taken with Xander’s beauty and Xander with Cameron’s chiseled body). By the time, seemingly hours later in this now slow-moving tale—particularly since we know how it eventually must turn out—that Brice gets around to admitting the truth, Xander is ready to throw in the towel, saved only by his “wise,” equally disappointed elder friend Ernie, who finally gets up the energy to repeat to his young roommate the cliché “do not give up on love.”


      Ah, yes, love wins out—at least for the moment! If only we could believe that there were real humans inside of these sexual simpletons to actually experience it.

     The very idea that Brice has suddenly been offered a job by the Los Angeles Times to write more of his cynical gay sex columns, transformed this film, for me, into a fantasy beyond the bounds of human ties—floating the film off into a fairyland space. I guess I’m just lucky, having had lots of anonymous gay sex and a long romantic love both.

 

Los Angeles, December 30, 2010

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (August 2016).

Lisa Cholodenko | The Kids Are All Right / 2010

adopting a family

by Douglas Messerli

 

Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg (screenplay), Lisa Cholodenko (director) The Kids Are All Right / 2010

 

The feel-good movie of 2010 might be said to be Lisa Cholodenko's comic The Kids Are All Right. Like many another movie of its kind, the writing centers on the well-being of children coming of age within a family that is either having difficulties or is about to fall apart.


      The standard requires everything to turn out all right at the end, and Cholodenko's work follows that pattern precisely. The only difference with this version of the genre is that Cholodenko's family consists of a lesbian couple rearing a 15-year-old boy and a soon-to-college girl, who are just at the age when they begin to wonder who their father was—in this case the same sperm donor for both women. Despite the healthy relationship of the kids to their mothers, the young Laser (Josh Hutcherson) is eager to know what his invisible "father" looks like, and pleads with his sister Joni (Mia Wasikowska) to call the donor center for information.

     With information in hand, he telephones the local man, Paul (well played by Mark Ruffalo) and sets up a lunch appointment with his possible father, himself, and his sister. The man they discover is a slightly empty-minded, but well-meaning chef/restauranteur who successfully grows his own garden, despite his seeming inability to maintain adult relationships with women. His main "squeeze" at the moment is his hostess, Tanya (Yaya DaCosta).

     Meanwhile, the mothers (Nic and Jules, both excellently acted by Annette Benning and Julianne Moore) are beginning to wonder about Laser's behavior, unable to comprehend his relationship with a trouble-making boy, Clay (Eddie Hassell) and wondering, particularly when they discover their own gay male porno lying open by the DVD player, if he might be gay. When they question if he is keeping secrets, he admits to meeting with the sperm donor—a man they've never before seen—which clearly promises various emotional responses from them. But since the children seem to have liked him, like any caring parents, they must open up their lives as well to meet the biological father of their kids.

     Although Nic remains dubious about the whole thing, Jules finds Paul appealing, as he hires her to landscape his back yard. At this point, however, the movie takes a kind left turn that, while creating the drama of this small work, also slightly confused me.

     Perhaps we should go back to that gay male porno tape which the women watch. I have no problem with beings of either sex watching a gay porno tape—indeed I've seen the very tape glimpsed in the movie—but is this common with lesbian sex? I have never watched a lesbian tape, although I know there are gays probably attracted to that as well. But, for me, it seems to indicate somehow the confused sexuality that rears its head once Jules begins working for Paul, particularly when they find themselves engaging in abandoned sex, as if Jules had just been waiting for this release her entire life. I am ready to admit that I know very little about lesbian sexuality, but does Cholodenko really want to confirm the male heterosexual myth that lesbians are just waiting for a truly good cock? I have had at least three women friends who, when I was younger, apparently felt that they could save me from my homosexuality, and were determined to do so. Not desiring conversion, I quickly moved off. But Cholodenko's character apparently cannot control herself.



    What we also discover in Jules's temporary abandonment of her seemingly happy relationship is her own inability to accomplish what she sets out to do, that she is somewhat confused as she stumbles about her life. Nic, on the hand, is utterly controlling in her immense abilities often ready to treat her mate as another daughter instead of a supporting lover.

     Perhaps I should just stop there, and attribute the issues I've brought up to the complexity of the characters. We all know that there are many mixes of sexualities in all of us. It may be that we've now grown sophisticated enough that we can easily assimilate these variations. Upon her discovery that her companion has been sleeping with "the enemy" so to speak, Nic, despite her anger and hurt, and, after telling Paul to go find another family to adopt or to create his own, seems willing to accept her partner's indiscretions. As Jules, somewhat incoherently, admits:


"...marriage is hard...Just two people slogging through the shit, year after year, getting older, changing. It's a fucking marathon, okay? So, sometimes, you know, you're together for so long, that you just... You stop seeing the other person. You just see weird projections of your own junk. Instead of talking to each other, you go off the rails and act grubby and make stupid choices...."

     The son reiterates his support for his mother's relationship with an unintentionally humorous observation:


Laser: I don't think you guys should break up.

Nic: No? Why's that?

Laser: I think you're too old.

Nic: [wryly] Thanks, Laser.

[Jules grins and puts a hand on Nic's knee, and Nic covers the hand with

her own.]


     At film's end, Joni is off to college and Laser has given up his mean-spirited and problematic "friend." The kids, indeed, are all right. We must ask, however, how about the mothers?

 

Los Angeles, January 11, 2010

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (January 2010).

J. C. Chandor | Margin Call / 2011

people without choices

by Douglas Messerli

 

J. C. Chandor (screenwriter and director) Margin Call / 2011

 

As the camera winds in and out of the population of the offices within the glass-lined offices and halls of a downtown New York City office building, we are quickly swept up into a world that we immediately recognize as being both exhilarating (even the window views, when we get a glimpse, are vertiginously beautiful) and extremely claustrophobic (not only can everyone see each other, but the camera scans the row upon row of computers where the lowest of company employees must daily sit shoulder to shoulder as they convince their favorite customers to buy and sell). All in all, it is a most unpleasant world; yet everyone in view is well dressed and groomed and apparently eager to go about his or her daily business. And, so we soon learn—mostly through the inquiries of the youngest and most junior man on the company payroll, the brash self-centered Seth Bregman (Penn Badgley)—they have good reason, in their own thinking, to be so well-dressed and eager: they each make a lot of money, from hundreds of thousands to millions! These are the Wall Street investment traders of whom we have read so much about in the past few years because of the myths surrounding them, dished up mostly in overwrought films, and the effects they have had upon our lives, related through newspapers and the television news medias.

 

      Almost before we can completely assimilate the world in which he have suddenly discovered ourselves, several younger employees, including Bregman and his associate Peter Sullivan (Zachery Quinto)—having just caught a glimpse of a small herd of hired henchmen, about to fire a large percentage of their co-workers—mutter to their soon-to-be senior supervisor, Paul Bettany (Will Emerson)—“They’re going to do it right here, in front of everybody?” He suggests they simply hunker down, pretending that they don’t exist, as the evil-minded squadron call out individuals one by one to meet with them. We follow the firing of Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci, Head of Risk Management) where he observe the impeccable scouring process: he has 49 hours to accept their benefit program and must immediately collect his personal belongings and leave the building; his computer access, and codes, and even his personal cell-phone have been deactivated.

      A long-time employee, Dale meets the situation with a kind of saddened resignment. Certainly, he’s seen it all before, but he cannot resist mentioning that he is in the middle of important computer research. All activities will be taken up by others who remain, he is told. Even though Bregman and Sullivan have been told beforehand of what was about to “go down,” they are startled by the turn of events—particularly since Dale has taught them nearly everything they know—and attempt to apologize to their former colleague. At the last moment, as he is about to take the elevator down into a metaphorical non-existence, he hands Sullivan a USB drive, warning him to handle of the data he may find there carefully.


       By the time Dale and other company regulars have been axed we have already journeyed from a kind of documentary-like presentation of the back halls of companies like Lehman Brothers, which brought down the US economy in 2008, to a kind of would-be horror film in which the monsters are not as mythic as they are disturbed and troubled fellow human beings. As the other late-workers clean up their desks, Sullivan remains, obviously intrigued by Dale’s warning. Opening up this new Pandora’s Box, he discovers a series of imaginary projects of the volubility of his company’s accounts which quickly reveal that, in their combination of good and outright rotten securities (failed loans and other investments without any real money behind them) have already resulted in possible losses far beyond the worth of the entire company. In short, if any of their trades had come up for question, the entire company would have immediately gone into a bankruptcy that would affect the world stock market. Indeed, they have in the past week reached days in which the bad securities have outweighed the good. By day’s end, it is suddenly suggested, the entire financial world may collapse because of their activities.


     Writer and first-time director J.C. Chandor has done such a remarkable job in these few scenes to set up the entire situation, that despite the terrifying encounters we know must occur throughout the rest of this story, we can now almost sit back and watch—with some comic relief—how this truth plays out as the evidence slowly makes it way up the corporate ladder, where each person of high rank knows less than the one before him. Sullivan calls back his junior partner, Bregman who confirms his findings. Together the two call-in the not very bright street-fighter Emerson, who demands they find the now missing Dale, and takes the information up to his supervisor, Sam Rodgers, Head of Sales and Trading (Kevin Spacey), perhaps the most likeable and conscience-stricken of the all this film’s characters. Rodgers has been with the firm nearly longer than anyone except the company’s CEO. We first meet him in tears as he suffers the loss of his dog from cancer, and he receives the information with all its due terror, recognizing that, despite whatever decision they make that night, it will change everything for everyone.

     Jared Cohen, Head of Capital Markets (Simon Baker), a self-loving, obsessed individual involved in wheeler-dealer international deals recognizes the implications without really being able to understand the consequences. Chief of Risk Management, Sarah Robertson (Demi Moore) has long recognized the consequences, and has even warned of the implications previously, but has refused to admit the reality of the situation actually taking place. Even the fact that she has warned against it will ultimately be held against her, as she finds herself, in the end, asked to play the company fall-guy. By slowing his film down and restating, each time in slightly different terms, what the problem is, as difficult as it is for those not in finance to understand, the director allows us to engage with each of these rather despicable figures and the realities they suddenly come to perceive. Yes, they are all greedy, and they would kill each other to keep their positions in the firm, but they are also all very human, much like business men and women in every field of endeavor. Even if we do not want to quite admit it, they are visions of people somewhat like us, men and women trying to find and maintain the good life.

 

    The sound of a helicopter announces the arrival of company CEO, John Tuld (a reminder, obviously, of Lehman Brother’s head Richard Fuld) brilliantly acted by Jeremy Irons. Tuld knows little of what Sullivan has actually discovered, despite the fact that he has intentionally created the very circumstances in which this situation could occur, while denying that he has ever “cheated.”    

     His job, he assails, is not to know the details of company actions, but to imagine


a future in which the company can continue to survive and financially exist. Although every individual introduced to us has already perceived the only choice with which the company is faced, none of them has the effortless disdain of the human species that Tuld exudes. For him, everything can be reduced to an inverted truism, a kind of illogical maxim that justifies his acts. Even destroying his own customer base by selling them bad products and, in that process, destroying his own company and the lives of thousands throughout the United States and abroad is preferable to losing the lionized position as the man at the top; besides, he knows that no matter how much money is lost, how many lives are destroyed, the company is—as we later learned in reality—too big to be allowed to completely fail, that, like a phoenix, it will rise again. He will receive a whopping bonus, moreover, for just having remained at the helm.




       In one of the last scenes of this emotionally tense film, we return to the men and women shackled (a bit like the oarsmen in Ben Hur to the chains of a Roman warrior ship), who knowing they are losing everything, friendship, admiration, self-respect and their own jobs by selling out the bad company wares to the very customers who have previously lined their and the company’s pockets. How did such individuals return home to look into the faces of their families that night, one can only ask?

        The fired Dale is rounded up, and told that the company will destroy his benefit package if he does not return to the company to serve as another head to be rolled out to trustees and government inspectors. For a moment, even the long-term denier Sam Rodgers, realizing that he does have a conscience, rushes up to confront Tulde, demanding to be let out. Tulde threatens him with withholding all his benefits. What is an individual to do without the money to pay for his new house? By film’s end even the firm’s rocket scientist, Sullivan, offered and accepting a promotion in the company, has been corrupted.

      This sad film ends with Sam, having returned to the home in which once lived and where he his ex-wife continues to reside, is found digging the yard in the dark. Earlier he has told a colleague how he began life as an engineer, building a bridge between two local cities that saved the citizens of the regions thousands of hours of automobile time in their daily travels. Perhaps, he postulates, he was meant to be a digger, a man who makes his mark in the world by creating a deep nothing, a hole. At least it would be something real, something you can see, he muses. Into the hole he now digs he will put something, his beloved dog, perhaps the only “thing” he has truly been able to love.                  

     If Chandor’s film does not openly offer an alternative, I’d argue it certainly does suggest one. None of the money-loving creatures the film presents surely truly believe in their object of desire. They, better than anyone, realize just how meaningless money is as an actual object: a piece of paper with painted figures upon it. It is only as a kind of commodity, a symbol of something else that lures them on. Yet one by one, they proclaim—just like the Nazi soldiers and ordinary citizens after World War II—they had no choice but to do what they did. If my metaphor is seemingly exaggerated, I apologize. Yet these people—and all of the others of us—who insist upon choosing the minor and larger lies and frauds of daily business over honesty and fairness, who swindle our friends in the very process of pretending to provide them with something necessary to their lives, might well proclaim the same thing: we have no choice; it’s the way of business. But, of course, we do have choices, if only we are willing to forego, even temporarily, the reward of allegiance to that empty cause.

     Given what happened in the years following this brilliant film, both in terms of business and politics, the cynicism that has perhaps helped even destroy democracy, this film is a must see for one who might still care enough to dig a hole in their backyard in which to bury a beloved pet.

     

Los Angeles, November 5, 2011

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (November 2011).

Jean Renoir | French Cancan / 1954

recreating the past

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jean Renoir (adaptation, based on an idea by André-Paul Antoine), Jean Renoir (director) French Cancan / 1954

 

It might be fascinating someday to compare and contrast the various versions of films centered around Montmartre's famed Moulin Rouge and the various figures involved—from John Houston's 1952 Moulin Rouge, focusing on the life of Toulouse-Lautrec, to Renoir's French Cancan of two years later, from the 1960 stage-inspired film musical Can-Can to Baz Luhrmann's extravaganza of 2001, also titled Moulin Rouge. All of them perhaps have the word excess in common. Moreover, it is quite revealing to compare Renoir's love-letter to Parisian bohemian life and Walter Lang's rather insipid movie tribute to a dance: while in the American version, the can-can is presented as a revolutionary, scandalous dance fought by the forces of moral reform, Renoir treats the same as a revival of an old-fashioned dance that faces only the obstacles of love and money. For the Americans, accordingly, the cancan represents a radical step forward in sexual freedom, while Renoir's French Cancan is a recreation of a romanticized past.



     In my estimation, however, only Renoir's movie represents truly great film-making. Unlike the other versions, fettered by psychological revelations, ridiculous turns of plot, and casts of thousands, French Cancan almost entirely dispenses with story in order to present the viewer with a spectacularly colorful image of a bygone era.

     Henri Danglard (wonderfully played by Jean Gabin) is a down-on-his-luck owner of a small club featuring his lover, Lola de Castro de la Fuente de Espramadura, "La Belle Abbesse," a lovely but somewhat talentless belly dancer. One night, slumming it, as we might describe it today, Danglard, "La Belle Abbesse," and friends visit a small Montmartre café where the locals still dance the cancan and other peasant-like trots.

     Spotting a beautiful young laundress, Nini (Françoise Amoul) in the crowd, Danglard dances with her, angering his lover, who quickly begins a fight, but not before Danglard arranges a meeting with Nini for the next day.

      The impresario suddenly has an idea; he will build a new club, the Moulin Rouge, in Montmartre and reintroduce the cancan as the French cancan, attracting just such people as he and his friends to a safe haven in a somewhat rough, down-and-out neighborhood, alluring his customers by hinting, as the Follies Bergère had and later Ziegfeld follies would, at sexual licentiousness. From the beginning we know that the place is destined to be a great success!


     The only other events that occur are those which center around Lola's jealousness and revenge, the difficulties in raising enough money for the venture, and Danglard's inevitable romancing of Nini, frustrated by her love for her innocent boyfriend and the attentions of Prince Alexandre (Giani Esposito).

     We know from the start, however, that eventually things will take care of themselves and that Danglard will have his way: the Moulin Rouge will eventually open; and Renoir speedily takes care of any fragments of the plot so that he can devote the rest of his film to a spectacularly visual recreation of the theatrical event, not perhaps as dizzyingly over-the-top as Luhrmann's massive choruses of shifting torsos, arms, and legs, but still a splendidly beautiful series of performances of whistling, singing (by the incomparable Edith Piaf), and, after removing the onscreen audience, chairs, and tables, presenting an exuberant cancan.

     In this, the second of the director's trilogy about love and art, Renoir, not only captures a past world, but seems to call out for a time gone when art was at the center of living, was one of its major avocations. Love may be beautiful, he argues, but it is, even for "La Belle Abbesse" and the randy Dangland, only a past time; art, music, dance, literature, these are the forces that keep one alive!  Will Nini find happiness? Will her boyfriend, who has refused to accept her if she sets foot upon the stage, be able forgive her? In Renoir's nostalgic creation, it doesn't matter, for Nini has had the joy of performing, an act that transforms life. Living is, after all, so much less interesting!

 

Los Angeles, February 23, 2010

Reprinted from Green Integer Blog (March 2010).  

Pierre Stefanos | Bedfellows / 2010

ken dolls

by Douglas Messerli

 

Pierre Stefanos (screenwriter and director) Bedfellows / 2010 [15 minutes]

 

Told as a fairy tale, Pierre Stefanos’ Bedfellows is essentially yet another fantasy of the heterosexual American Dream played out with gay figures, like a closeted child playing with toy men trying to plan out how he might exist in the future.


     Narrated by Tim Gualtieri, it tells the story of Bobby (Paul Caiola), whose heart was broken by a cheating boyfriend. Bobby only now, after eight long months, has returned to a gay bar to pick someone up, thoroughly depressed for even having to reenter the gay bar world. But from across a crowded room, a handsome stranger, Jonathan (Bret Shuford) buys him a drink.


      The two go home, have great sex, and stay the night together, while Bobby—obviously desiring a similar life to his own parents but obviously even better—dares to dream of his mock-heterosexual future. The two fall in love, get married, adopt a black son and attempt to have a surrogate child. The only tragedy seems to come to the female surrogate who loses the baby. But don’t worry, they soon after adopt as Asian girl. They obviously have high paying jobs living in a mansion that seems to be located in some posh neighborhood in Long Island, and their children grow up, the boy Damian heading off to college while the girl Li having a baby, although it’s Bobbby who cries over the loss of “their” baby. Even the roles of gender seem not to be altered. No hidden feminist message here. Women are made to have babies. 

    Sure, the boys argue, but they bring each other flowers and make up. Their love is strong and they end the film by sitting on the terrace sipping cocktails, hands around each other’s waits.

      Waking up, Bobby finds his cuddling friend gone. It’s clear, so the narrator tells us, that his meeting with Jonathan was just a one-night stand. But when he enters the kitchen, there is Jonanthan who has made Bobby and a himself a full breakfast, scrambled eggs, French toast, bacon, and orange juice. This could be the start of something big, so the narrative hints.

 


     The only original aspect of this heteronormative fantasy is that it was made in 2010, five years out from same-sex marriage becoming legal in the US.

       Of course, a great many gay men want to live out just such a fantasy, and in some senses, I, who have been now married nearly 55 years, have lived in such a world, sans the perfectly diverse little family Bobby and Jonathan have created. But today many a gay couple have, in fact, made their lives over in the very image this tale dreams of.

       I have to ask, however, why does this appear on a disk called “Best Gay Shorts?” What is gay about Bobby’s life and why does this little fantasy represent one of the best short films of the gay world? Except for the fact, as the narrator mentions in the very first line of this film, that the lovers both have penises, what does their being “gay” mean in this fairy tale? What does their being two men in love really matter? Something like this dream must cross the minds of millions of straight couples every year.

       Frankly, the difficulties my husband and I have had as being two males living together is far more interesting that Bobby’s imagined reality. The feeling of not being part of the normative straight world has made me a more complex figure than the toy men Bobby and Jonathan appear to be, like two Ken dolls with all the benefits of Barbie and her friends. Seeing this film in 2024, I see nothing original in this picture.

 

Los Angeles, February 20, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (February 2024).

Index [listed alphabetically by director]

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.