Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Allan Dwan | The Poisoned Flume / 1911 [Status unknown]

river of poison

by Douglas Messerli

 

Allan Dwan (screenwriter and director), The Poisoned Flume / 1911 [Status unknown]

 

This early short of Allan Dwan’s is not at all a gay film with regards to its story, which, since the film now seems to be unavailable, I will briefly describe, based on the Moving Picture World synopsis.


     A window, Mrs. Kendall (Louise Lester) finds the management of her ranch difficult. Her daughter Hazel (Pauline Bush) has recently returned from an Eastern boarding school, and is now far too refined to be of much help. Although the ranch hands stand loyally behind her, she needs a ranch foreman.

    A neighboring ranchman, John Morgan (Jack Richardson) who has long been desirous of gaining control over the Kendall cattle, offers to help manage her affairs, but the widow distrusts him and refuses his offer.

      She finally finds the right man in Jim Stevenson (J. Warren Kerrigan), described as “a manly young cowboy,” introducing him to the other ranch hands, who agree to take him on the range so that he can become acquainted with his new territory. On route they meet up with John Morgan, who is ordered off the range by the new foreman.

     Morgan, in retaliation decides to force his attentions on Hazel and hurries off to the ranch house, where he finds the young girl alone. He attempts to kiss her, but at that very moment Jim returns, witnesses struggle and rescues her from the “distasteful caress.”

      Mrs. Kendall orders the intruder to leave her premises forever, and Morgan leaves with a seething hatred and plans a truly diabolical revenge. The Kendall cattle drink from the flume that runs through her ranch. Morgan determines to poison the water just above where it enters her range, accordingly killing her entire herd.                       

      When Jim discovers some of the dead cattle and fearful that an epidemic has broken out, calls for a veterinarian, who finds the cattle to have been poisoned, suspecting the water in the flume to be the problem spot. Testing the water, he finds his suspicions confirmed.

 

       Jim is nonplused in imagining who might have committed such a dastardly deed and hurries up the flume to seek out the source. He finds a sack floating in the water and has just removed it when Morgan rides up fires, wounding Jim in the shoulder, but sending him back into the poisoned water. The sound of the shot startles the other ranch hands still with the veterinarian and they hurry off to find their manager severely wounded and a horseman just disappearing over the top of the hill. The veterinarian picks up the sack of poison, showing it to the cowboys. They go in pursuit of the fiend, leaving one of their younger hands to carry Jim back to the ranch house.

       They soon come within sight of Morgan, and the race is on, as they close off all means of escape, forcing the desperate man to return to the flume. Dismounting from his horse, he climbs to the waterway in an attempt to escape along a high trestle, firing at the cowboys below as he runs.

       Finally struck by a bullet, he falls, with a shriek of terror, falls into the poisoned water, the victim of his own plot.

       Meanwhile, through the careful nursing of Hazel, Jim recovers, leaving the viewer to suspect that a romance is in the offing.

       As I suggested, there doesn’t seem to be much of interest of the LGBTQ community in this heteronormative film. But in this case the hero is played by J. Warren Kerrigan, in a role among the dozens of Westerns and feature films he made, soon after this film becoming one of the first true Hollywood stars, the heartthrob of thousands of movie-going females and perhaps some homosexual males as well; in fact, he was not only voted the most popular actor in the 1913 Photoplay magazine and 1914 Motion Picture pool but was named the most popular the same year by what film critic William J. Mann describes as the “curiously named” Pansy Motion Picture Correspondence Club of Buffalo, New York.


      This despite his rather stocky frame and the fact that Kerrigan was a quite effeminate homosexual, living at home with his mother and his lover, actor James Carroll Vincent. In his important study Behind the Screen: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood 1910-1969, Mann writes:

        

“What made Kerrigan more appealing than other cowboys, allowing him to transcend the genre, was an elusive appeal that some historians have called ‘boyish’ and others ‘light and breezy.’ His cowboys were gentler than most, sensitive, refined. Sure, he could still look pretty mean gazing down the barrel of a gun, but he smiled more than William S. Hart, and Broncho Bill Anderson never had that twinkle in his eyes.”

 

      The Poisoned Flume is important, not because of its gay content, but for the fact that it represents one of the first examples on record of directors and crew bullying gay actors. The director of the film, Allan Dwan would admit years later that he purposely prolonged the scene where Kerrigan’s head was submerged under the poisoned water “for as long as possible,” with the hope of giving the company and crew a good laugh at the effete actor’s expense. As Mann summarizes: “It’s a tale as old as time and as familiar as any childhood playground: the bullies taunting the queer.” In this case, what we actually witness on screen is evidence, without our even knowing it, of just such bullying.

      Mann does report that by only a year later, 1912, Kerrigan had gained enough notoriety to get his revenge, suggesting to producers that if Dwan wasn’t replaced, he might leave the company. Talking to Peter Bogdanovich seventy years later, Dwan was still stung by the incident, reporting “Kerrigan put a knock into the company [Flying A] saying I was getting out of hand. Unless I was replaced, he was going to leave the company.”

       Moreover, since Jack was so popular he had already been able to get his twin brother Wallace made the business manager of the company, so his threat was serious, and Dwan was forced out. As Mann quips: “Rack this [victory] up for the sissies.”

       Dwan, of course, when on to a distinguished direction career, while by World War I, for several reasons, Kerrigan’s career had begun a nose-dive. One possible explanation is that after the War there a change in the moral tone of Hollywood, which didn’t so easily reckon with his being so obviously unmarried and living another male in his “Kumfy Kerrigan Kottage,” with his dear mamma managing his career—although Kerrigan’s own comments about his refusal to sign up as a soldier for the War certainly didn’t help:

 

“I am not going to war. I will go, of course, if my country needs me, but I think that first they should take the great mass of men who aren't good for anything else, or are only good for the lower grades of work. Actors, musicians, great writers, artists of every kind—isn't it a pity when people are sacrificed who are capable of such things—of adding to the beauty of the world.”

 

     Even the most diehard of fans quickly turned against him. He quickly after attempted to play it straighter, in October 1919 adopting a six- or nine-year-old Polish war orphan who made the trip alone under the guidance of the French Reconstruction Bureau, which the press readily reported, but the child evidently never showed up in the Kerrigan Kottage, and in the 1920 Census was not listed as living with Kerrigan and his family.

      Kerrigan did find favor again in playing in The Covered Wagon (1923) and Captain Blood (1924), but soon found himself offered smaller and smaller roles. In late 1924 he was in an automobile accident in Illinois, which scarred his face so deeply that it was clear he could no longer make movies.

 

Los Angeles, March 12, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (March 2024).

 

Mark Robson | The Inn of the Sixth Happiness / 1958

beloved infidel

by Douglas Messerli

 

Isobel Lennart (screenplay, based on the book, The Small Woman by Alan Burgess), Mark Robson (director) The Inn of the Sixth Happiness / 1958


After I saw Mark Robson’s The Inn the Sixth Happiness, perhaps for the sixth time since it premiered in 1958, I decided to check out the comments about the film on Wikipedia, and was amused by the article’s list of grievances by Gladys Aylward, the British woman on whose adventures in China the film was based. Aylward, a small, dark-haired Brit was played in the movie by the rather tall Swedish blonde, Ingrid Bergman (although Bergman does attempt to be as dowdy as possible, trying hard to hide her natural beauty). Although in reality, Aylward and her family worked hard to pay for her China trip, the movie has her employer “condescending to write to ‘his old friend’ Jeannie Lawson,” and her complex and dangerous train trip on the trans-Siberian railway is summarized by the appearance of a few rowdy Russian troops. The near impossibility of her reaching the northern Chinese city of Tsientsin is summarized in a single scene. The names of places and people were changed, and the fact that Colonel Lin Nan was portrayed as half-European (by the German-Austrian actor Curt Jürgens), when in reality Lin Nan was Chinese only outraged the true hero; the Mandarin ruler was played by British actor Robert Donat. Aylward was also angered by the fact that the movie suggested a love interest between Lin Nan and her character, and that she returned to him at the end of the film, when in fact nothing of the sort ever occurred. In truth, the missionary continued to work with orphans until she was 60 years old.

      In the very next line of the Wikipedia entry, the author notes, perhaps with intended humor:  “The film was the second most popular movie at the British box office in 1959.” Obviously the writers and directors, with all of their falsehoods, had done something right.

      Despite the fact, moreover, that even from my childhood encounter with this film, I recognized it as an epic soap-opera, full of empty pieties, and that I have always detested its too oft-repeated theme-song “This Old Man,” I too still enjoy this 50s flick, which is what drew me to see it one more time the other day.



     Some of my interest in this film surely has to do with my childhood fascination with missionaries. My family went to church each Sunday, but we were hardly what you might describe as a religious family (this, despite the fact two of my mother’s brothers were ministers, one Methodist and the other Presbyterian). In the Presbyterian church which we attended I don’t think I ever once heard about missionaries being sent out to convert or even help peoples of other countries. Yet many a Sunday afternoon, I took to my grandmother’s staircase endpost to present my sermon to the “natives.” I was the firstborn child of what would become a brother and sister and dozens of cousins, and my grandmother, aunts, and uncles, encouraged my exaggerated performances, which, of course, delighted me. Later, when a bit older, I even wrote a musical about a missionary family in the Congo (see My Year 2010).

     It is now clear to me that all my fascination with missionaries had little to do with bringing religion into other people’s lives, but was simply a “profession” that was filled, in my young mind, with adventure and, particularly, with travel, something that I have always longed for. Although I’ve been to many countries, there are still far more I would like to visit; it’s strange that I chose to marry a man who today refuses to budge outside the boundaries of the southern part of the state of California, who’s terrified of air travel, and has no interest in leaving home for more than a day.

      Yet clearly it was the adventure of Robson’s work—the same director who brought us other cinematic soap-operas such as Peyton Place, The Prize, Nine Hours to Rama, and Valley of the Dolls—not its spiritual message, that so attracted me. Even today I cannot resist the moment when Bergman, momentarily acting as the Mandarin’s foot inspector, asking for the children’s feet to be unbound, is terrified as a village elder becomes determined to unbind her own feet. Bergman screams out with something like “No, you musn’t; the pain will be too great!” Bergman as Aylward seemed to contain such fortitude and strong will that she could even quell a prison riot by promising the interns better meals and a few hours outside of the gate when they might work on gardens.


       Who cared about mule trains being fed and converted with Bible stories? Not I. Only when she began to collect children in the inn, did the tale become truly interesting. And in my 11-year-old mind—although the film was shot mostly in Wales—it was when the movie moved out into the Chinese landscape that I was truly awed: those mountains and rivers and those terrible Japanese invaders (truly barbarians) who were willing, so it seemed, to kill even 100 children; they did, in fact, kill her loyal aid Li (Burt Kwouk)! The entire voyage reminded me of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, with Bergman as the Piper leading the children out of or perhaps into some heretic sect. But it really didn’t matter what she believed, because I had already fallen in love with the beautiful Bergman—a kind of worshipful half-motherly, sublimated sexual love of the actress which I still feel today.

     Finally, there’s no question that screenwriter Isobel Lennart can whip up a great story, Anchors Aweigh, Two for the Seesaw, The Sundowners, and Funny Girl (both stage and screen versions) being among some of her numerous other credits. In Lennart’s telling, the woman who was told she was “unqualified” for serving in China, proves herself so remarkable that, in a world terrified of outsiders, she is awarded Chinese citizenship and given a special Chinese name which defines her as a person loved by the people. Even if we never truly comprehend what lies behind Aylward’s determined love and stoicism, Bergman convinces us with her gentle smile and pleading eyes to believe; and believe we do, in her less than in her religion.

 

Los Angeles, May 20, 2017

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (May 2017).

      

Harper Bilash and Tristin Hurst | Drive Safe / 2023

an uber driver with a grudge

by Douglas Messerli

 

Tristan Hurst (screenplay), Harper Bilash and Tristin Hurst (directors) Drive Safe / 2023 [11 minutes]

 

A young man, (Jaden Davis) makes un uber call, and when the car shows up he recognizes the driver, Max (Tyler Fewin), as a former high school class mate.

      The passenger, who’s in town for a wedding immediately recognizes Max, but the other boy seems more reluctant about bringing up old times. When asked how Harvard went, Max proclaims, “Harvard didn’t work out.” Actually, he flunked out, he admits.

      When Max hears that his high school classmate is getting married, he attempts to imagine all the women who she might be, but the passenger finally answers, “It’s a guy, actually.”

      

     The passenger admits that high school was a “shit show” that he really hated himself, but eventually he worked it out, changing himself and his life. He even apologizes to Max, explaining, “I was different then.”

       Max, on the other hand, has some serious reservations which he is about to spill onto his passenger’s lap:

 

“Isn’t that great! Well not great. Not great as you calling me homo every chance you got. Not great

as you writing “die” on my locker every single fucking week. Not great as you faking e-mails to my parents, outing me. Not great as fucking me up so bad that I couldn’t get out of bed, let alone do Harvard.” Now fully screaming, he adds, “Not great as ruining my fucking life!”

 

     The rider suggests that Max just drop him off, but Max refuses, declaring “I’m fine man!” Again, the passenger apologizes and suggests Max just drop him off, but Max declares that he’s going to deliver him up to his perfect life while he goes on a life of suffering and failing.

      The former high school bully demands he drop him off immediately, but Max calls him a “pussy,” reminding him that was another word that he used to call him in high school.

       Max finally stops the car and the rider gets out. But almost immediately, he thinks better, suggesting that he drive Max back to his home and that along the way they talk, like two adult individuals trying to work the anger out.

       His first question is a justifiable one: “I’m the reason you flunked out of Harvard? Who the fuck to do you think you are to tell me I fucked up your entire life and not tell me any reason why?”

        But Max tells another story about how the two were friends until suddenly one day it was all over without his former friend ever explaining. “I always thought….”

        The driver finishes the sentence, “…we liked each other. That’s the reason I hated you.”

        Max insists none of this is helping. “Good for you man, you got the perfect life ten years later and I’m still a loser with no friends and no future.”

        The new driver insists he’s not a bad person. “I’ve spent the past 10 years wishing I could have done things differently, being a jerk to everyone, but most of all to you.”

         He attempts to kiss Max, but Max pushes him away. “How many times do I have to say this man. I’ve changed.”

         “I haven’t” answers Max, who gets out of the car, as the other drives away in his Max’s uber car. A few blocks later we see the young man, having realized that fact, stopped and pissed off for again seeming to take advantage of Max.

         We all know that bullying has long-lasting effects. But my first reaction to this short film by Tristan Hurt, the writer and co-director, is that Max was a loser not simply because of bullying but because he was never able to grow up; as he himself admits, he was never able to change. His whining list of unforgiveable grudges were those of a high school boy lost in an ocean of teenage angst.

         But, upon my second viewing, I realized that the movie itself shared my view, adding almost as an appendix a maxim: “You don’t have to forgive and you don’t have to forget; you just become different and then you move on.” Max clearly can’t enact the second part of that sentence.

        This film reads as a sort of gay self-help movie, a bit like its title, a contemporary version of the kind of work shown to classes by well-meaning teachers in middle and high schools across the nation in the 1950s about sexual predators and other dangers.

 

Los Angeles, October 9, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2023).

 

 

Charles W. Allen and Francis Trevelyan Miller | Diana, the Huntress / 1916

the dancing diana

by Douglas Messerli

 

 Charles W. Allen and Francis Trevelyan Miller (directors) Diana, the Huntress / 1916

 

Charles W. Allen and Francis Trevelyan Miller’s 1916 retelling of the Diana myth is primarily a dance performance in which Paul Swan plays Pan and Percy Richards and Lionel Braham alternately play Acteon and the stag which Diana (Valda Valkyrien) eventually shoots, killing him.


     Diana is captured by the moon, and her nymphs, sitting in a wooded glen with Pan, are saddened that they have lost her. But Diana, witnessing their dejection, shoots an arrow to earth where it blossoms into flowers, signaling her return. In joy of her reappearance the nymphs dance, accompanied by Pan’s flute and lyres in celebration.

      Meanwhile, Pan goes dancing through the woods, jumping from trees, leaping, and eventually throwing himself into a pond before he falls asleep in exhaustion. In the course of the film, Acteon appears and watches the nymphs and Diana bathing. Angered by his voyeurism, Diana transforms him into stag and ultimately runs him down with her hunters and hounds, killing him with an arrow.



      But the 29-minute film ends with the restoration of Apollo and Diana in their respective homes on the Sun and the Moon.

      Obviously the relationship between Diana and her female nymphs suggest sapphic love and adoration. Their dances were choreographed by the noted dance pioneer Ruth St. Denis, who at this time in her career was still highly influenced by the exercises of François Delsarte, and accordingly the early dances consist mostly of the nymphs surrounding Diana in a circle and gesticulating with arms raised.

      As Pan, Paul Swan presents another, far more innovative dance pattern, although also highly influenced by the Delsarte’s aesthetic laid out in his Society of Gymnastics and Voice Culture. By this time, however, Swan had already done some of his entirely nude dances which intrigued and scandalized dance admirers and which would later find a ready enthusiast in Isadora Duncan, with whom Swan may have had an affair.



     Although he does not appear nude here, the young Swan, billed as “the most beautiful man in the world,” represents a Pan who is sufficiently undressed to make his movements appear scandalous to some viewers of the 1916 short.

     This work is particularly interesting in connection with Swan’s noted homosexuality, and the fact that he continued to dance in the outdated modes which we seem him perform here for the rest of his life. From 1939 to 1969, Swan performed dance recitals every Sunday evening in his Carnegie Hall studio, attracting notables such as Andy Warhol (who also filmed him), who thought the dances of the aged performer to be the very definition of camp.

      Most of the extant prints of this film are 4.13-minute extracts from the original 29 minutes, including the version on the DVD compilation of Unseen Cinema.

 

Los Angeles, July 20, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (July 2022).

 

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 ...