Thursday, April 11, 2024

Jaime Travis | The Saddest Boy in the World / 2006

the justification for suicide

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jaime Travis (screenwriter and director) The Saddest Boy in the World / 2006 [13 minutes]

 

How can one express utter joy and admiration for a film that begins and ends with a young possibly gay, 9-year-old boy about to hang himself? Even if we observe that Canadian director Jaimie Travis’ film The Saddest Boy in the World—much like Canadian director Guy Maddin’s The Saddest Music in the World—is not a realist work. Telling its tale within the context of the various traditions of absurdist black comedy, the travails of young Timothy Higgins (Benjamin B. Smith) are just close enough to life that they chafe the funny bone.

 

    Timothy, small for his age, is surrounded by seemingly normal folk, his tap-dancing Baby Jane of a sister, Isabelle (Hailey Conner), a mother (Lauren K. Robek) who wears stylish cocktail dresses to entertain a party for his mean-spirited classmates who make his daily school-life nearly impossible. Tim has never once found a seat when playing “musical chairs.” When it comes to pick the teams for basketball, everyone, including the boy in a wheelchair is chosen but Tim. The biggest and fattest boy of the class tortures our diminutive hero by forcing him to kneel at the urinals for long periods of time. The  terrible twins (Danika and Paige Martin) mock him. And when his mother seeks the help of a child psychiatrist for her unhappy son—"the saddest boy in the world,” as he describes himself to his mom—he alienates her immediately by identifying each image of the Rorschach Test as a butterfly. The pills she prescribes for him have a side effect that allows him to hear the voices of all effigies of animals in his home repeating “Kill yourself.”


         At one point Timothy is kidnapped by a strange man, and fliers go flying throughout the city on walls and on every milk cartoon displaying the small, good-looking child gone missing. His mother, he tells us, being a single-wage earner is unable to pay the ransom. We see her merrily chomping on her Grapenuts cereal with her favorite child, Isabelle looking not the least bit concerned that someone is gone missing from their breakfast table.

       Not to worry, the kidnapper soon drops the boy off where he picked him up, evidently spray-painting the word HOMO across the wall where the missing boy fliers have been posted en masse before he drives away.

       And I forgot to tell you, Timmy’s pet rabbits, salt and pepper, his lovely bird, and his cat have gone missing. His only friend, an Asian child, has been deported.   


      Is it any wonder that after having gathered together all of those who have maltreated him through the years for his ninth birthday party, that this tiny Tim refuses to blow out his candle, asks to be excused from the table to visit the bathroom, and retreats instead to his oddly green-colored bedroom and sticks his head in the noose he has long ago prepared for this day.

   

     He is distracted by the sound of ringing bells, and, after pulling away the rope, momentarily pulls out his piggy bank to take out its content before exiting through the front door to head for the ice cream truck parked on the street in front of his house; but as he almost reaches his goal, the truck speeds away. He turns back in utter resignation only the see every single birthday celebrant, including his mother and sister, licking their delicious looking ice cream cones.

 


     What choice does he have? He returns to his room and puts his head back into the noose as the film goes black.

      Sadly, The Saddest Boy in the World is great fun, representing volume two in Travis’ comic trilogy of the saddest children, the other two titled Why the Anderson Children Didn't Come to Dinner—a film about the rebellion of a mother’s children—and The Armoire—which concerns the permanent disappearance of a young boy’s friend while playing hide-and-go-seek with him.

 

Los Angeles, January 4, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (January 2022).

 

Jamie Travis | Why the Anderson Children Didn't Come to Dinner / 2003

queer beings

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jamie Travis (screenwriter and director) Why the Anderson Children Didn't Come to Dinner / 2003 [16 minutes]

 

Already in his first, film school offering, Why the Anderson Children Didn’t Come to Dinner, Jamie Travis was impressing the critics with his offbeat, formal, surrealist fable-like filmmaking. Although the two films that followed it in what would become his “Sad Children Trilogy”—The Saddest Boy in the World and The Armoire—might both be superior to this first offering, there is perhaps no stranger work in his still youthful oeuvre, and this movie remains, outside of the three Pattern shorts, seemingly impenetrable to many viewers.


      While the other two “Sad Children” films readily fit into a LGBTQ category, moreover, this one, at least at first viewing, seems to lie outside of any sexual or gender concerns. Indeed, none of the three Anderson triplets, Chester (Michel Kurliak), Eliza (Katherine Eaton), and Godfrey (Colton Boreen), seem to have ever even imagined that there is another world outside of their seemingly wealthy mansion-like dwelling, and it appears they have been locked away in the insanity of their home in a manner that is not far removed from the children in Giogos Lanthimos’ Dogtooth (2009). If these children don’t speak a parental-created language, they certainly are employed in odd playtime activities when they’re not spending their time at their maternally controlled affairs described as breakfast, lunch, and dinner.


    Chester, surely a future plumber, spends most of his time attempting to flush strange objects down the toilet such as his rubber bathtub duck, a series of pens and pencils, numerous pieces of silverware, and entire wardrobes of clothing, etc. He is ready with his plunger for the backup of water after the flush, but strangely the toilet in their home swallows up everything—just as the triplets are expected to do at mealtimes.

    Godfrey, the only overweight child among them strangely, is likely to become a gardener, since he spends his off-meal moments planting seeds in pots and in the yard, watering them, and waiting for them to turn into flowers. Just as soon as the nasturtiums and geraniums flower, however, Godrey pulls off their buds, tosses them into his mouth and devours them. Even found objects around the yard get swallowed up in his odd hunger.


     Eliza is perhaps the most inscrutable. She will perhaps become an artist, since she spends her time off with paintbrushes, an easel, and canvas. But her canvases are all paint-in-the-numbers, nothing original whatsoever. And the subjects are of a girl on a swing and other banal scenes. In between painting, moreover, she spies on her family through a window telescope. Perhaps she can yet determine whether she wants to become an artist or a family gossip when she comes of age.

     Yet the true psycho among them is Maud (Patti Wothrespoon) their made mother who spends her days as all model fairy-tale mothers are supposed to, cleaning (the house is spotless) and most cooking. The only oddity is that the thin Maud is hooked, most of the time, to an IV unit—perhaps to remind us that she truly is sick, or, perhaps, her veins are being pumped with special kind of drug. For she never eats.



      But for her children nothing is spared. For every meal she serves up each of them a full treats such as a cooked piglet, stuffed with various fruits, as well as masses and masses of eggs, breads, fruits, sweetmeats, vegetables, and juices. At one point for a birthday treat, she even attempts to cook, live, one of the several family cats.     

    At each meal she serves up the equivalent of what Charles Laughton consumed in Alexander Korda’s The Private Life of Henry the VIII (1933)—although not with his gusto since the children, under careful watch of mamma, are forced to eat conventionally and properly what might take them hours to consume, reminded that there are starving children in Africa if they attempt to leave a drop of food behind on their plates. Godfrey seems to have the most difficulty at the table, probably because of his other even stranger eating habits.


      Beyond all of these eccentricities, moreover, is Maud’s total inability to deal with “difference.” As an egg-cooking specialist she daily opens carton after of carton of fresh white eggs, becoming furious whenever she encounters a brown one. And increasingly as the movie progresses, she finds her cartons filled with higher numbers of the detested brown egg. When she encounters one, despite her spick-and-span kitchen she immediately tosses it to the floor. At one point, she stomps on such an egg on her spotless floor.


    If she is a strict parent at the table, she is truly intolerant regarding brown eggs. And when she discovers during one meal that Godfrey has consumed just such an object when, unable to finish his pork roast, upon which he regurgitates a brown egg up out of his mouth, she can hardly contain herself as she rushes off to the kitchen, propelling it into a kitchen cabinet as she screams.

      If she cannot accept difference, she has certainly chosen the wrong children to so diligently care for. And the triplets themselves realize that, if they may not be sexually “different” from others, they most certainly are queer beings.

 

   They may truly resent the over-bounteous feasts she forces upon them morning, noon, and night, but their true resentment arises with the brown egg breakdown. Godfrey packs two suitcases and places them in his red wagon which he pulls out into the garden, turning the sprinkler on. Chester writes a hot pink lipstick message on the bathroom mirror, “good-bye,” and the Eliza finishes her paint-by-the-numbers work, letting go of the balloons she constantly holds with other hand, the green helium-filled balls having found their way to the ceiling.

      Maud sits alone at the table since the children have fled the house and are now swinging together in some far away park.

 

Los Angeles, March 11, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (March 2024).

Woody Allen | Café Society / 2016

bathed in gold

by Douglas Messerli

 

Woody Allen (screenwriter and director) Café Society / 2016

 

What to think of Woody Allen’s newest beautifully imaged (by noted cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, of The Conformist and Last Tango in Paris) but quite empty-minded comedy-drama, Café Society? One is tempted, of course, just to ignore it, which I almost did, refusing to attend it until weeks after its release.

     But that would be too simple, and besides Allen himself seems to have almost ignored his own film by awarding it with a flimsy plot that goes nowhere—except to twitter back and forth between his always warring cities of Los Angeles and New York—and totally forgetting what moral ground, if any, he might have wished to lay out.


     This film is about getting what you deserve of the American dream—as in so many of Allen’s films, the right companion (in his male-dominated world, usually women), success, and fame—without having to feel too much guilt about just those desires. But, of course, that’s impossible from Allen’s self-infatuated, neurotic perspective. If you get what you want, you have the right to obsess over it and feel the proper guilt so that you might truly never get “over it” and move on. In movie after movie, Allen’s guilty heroes contemplate their involvement in selfish acquisition, inappropriate sexual behavior, and even murder—so insistently, in fact, that one has to wonder (even beyond his possible assault on his 7-year-old daughter Dylan Farrow and his affair with and marriage to his daughter through marriage, Soon-Yi Previn), what he might actually have gotten away with.

    If Crimes and Misdemeanors is, at least, a film grounded in moral questions, the newest film merely hints at them, and asks hardly any questions at all. Why, for example—other than the fact that he no longer likes working in his father’s jewelry business—has the wide-eyed Bobby Dorfman (Jessie Eisenberg) even come to Los Angeles? Presumably, he plans to take advantage of his uncle Phil’s (Steve Carrell) position as a major agent of motion picture stars. Uncle Phil puts him off for a couple of weeks, despite a call from Bobby’s manic Jewish stereotype of a mother (the quite humorous Jeannie Berlin), and then attempts to spin him off into the mail room—“if anything should ever become available”—only, at the last moment, to give into family ties (despite Bobby’s father’s claim that Phil, who has converted to Hollywood values, is no longer Jewish—which presumably is Allen’s sentiment about all the thousands of Jewish Hollywood producers and workers who had left his sacred haven of New York—using him, first as an errand boy before allowing him to “read scripts,” perhaps the most arduous and unrewarding job in all of Hollywood. After all, as many a Hollywood producer proclaimed, writers are unnecessary hacks!



     Uncle Phil, in perhaps a smidgen of sympathy, also assigns Bobby his assistant, Vonnie (Kristen Stewart), to tour him around as well as inviting his “deer in the headlights” nephew to several Hollywood brunches and dinner-parties where he might meet the powerful and rich. Allen presents these as totally meaningless and absolutely boring affairs, despite all the Hollywood name-dropping that goes on in them (and I can tell you, from personal experience, they truly are). But nonetheless, Bobby does meet a friendly New York-based couple at one affair who promise, if he returns to New York, to introduce him to beautiful and available young women—which, it becomes clearer and clearer, is what Bobby is truly seeking.

     Vonnie takes out our young lothario, touring him around as if she were a personal “tour-of-the-stars” driver to see the homes of the great figures, including the homes of Joan Crawford, Spencer Tracy, and others, all of which—reminding one of Allen’s own outsider status—they view from the gates. No wonder the young woman from Nebraska and the boy from Brooklyn can’t find much pleasure in the vastly wealthy Beverly Hills estates. They remain outsiders, and they soon find solace in one another’s outsiderness—the position Allen has taken in every single one of his movies.

 

    Yet Vonnie keeps the romantic Bobby (a clear imitation of a young Woody Allen) at arm’s length, hinting that she has a boyfriend, Doug, with whom she’s romantically involved. Allen, however, forces Bobby to move forward—simply because, as his hero, Bobby deserves the beautiful woman—planning a dinner evening when he will surely pounce. But that same evening, it turns out, Vonnie has an important date with her lover—who turns out to be none other than Bobby’s Uncle Phil, who, announcing that he is ready to leave his wife, gets cold feet and cancels their affair. When Vonnie arrives in tears, like a wet dog, at Bobby’s doorstep you can almost hear this now clearly selfish young man cheering about the failure of her relationship. He might now marry her, return to a tiny apartment in Greenwich Village and live out his life with his trophy wife—even if he has absolutely nothing to offer her; in Allen’s world, always, the nebbish fool wins out, simply because he is more serious, more introspective, more neurotic, and self-consumed. Women who might seek out a relationship in order to simply “survive”—to put it in Donald Trump’s terms, are “losers.” After all, the male Woody Allen characters often survive and are even rewarded—despite their nefarious activities—while the women (think of Jasmine Francis in Blue Jasmine and the Anjelica Houston figure in Cries and Misdemeanors) are horribly punished.

     Vonnie, when it is finally revealed that her secret lover is Bobby’s own uncle, choses the easier route to happiness, allowing her entry into a world which she had never before imagined. But in Allen’s vision, she is now a throwaway, a “nobody” who has abandoned all of her values.

 

     Never mind that, in returning to New York, Bobby also abandons any moral compass, working as the head of a nightclub owned by his Mafia-member brother, Ben (Corey Stoll). Little Bobby quickly gets savvy, knows every important person in the New York political and social scene, and grows rich. His earlier temporary LA friends invite all their friends, and everyone is perfectly happy—in a way in which Allen seems unable to see with any irony. After all, the café society in which Bobby is now encased in the beautiful, artificially lit glow of New York skyscrapers, is definitely to be preferred, in Allen’s vision, to the golden glow of the California sun—both perfectly re-created in 1930s detail by production designer Santo Loquasto.


      If his family seems unable to even perceive the terrifying activities of the elder sibling, the police try to, at least, warn Bobby, who—if he recognizes the “dog-eat-dog” world of Hollywood life, cannot comprehend the murder and mayhem his gangster brother encompasses. Even Bobby’s sister, whose Marxist, peace-loving husband cannot effectively confront their violent next-door neighbor, calls in her brother Ben to give him warning of their neighborly complaints—which results, as is Ben’s usual calling card, with a burial in cement. And when her husband Leonard (Stephen Kunken), the only socially responsible figure in this film, discovers her actions, the others refuse to deal with their guilt of their neighbor’s sudden disappearance. Ben is tried and publicly executed for his murderous activities (although he evidently gets away with this one murder). Such horrific deeds are tossed off by Allen with a kind of endnote joke, as the Jewish Ben converts to Christianity so that he may have an afterlife. Even if the family is not explicitly involved, it appears that only Leonard can perceive that they truly have been complicit, and are therefore guilty.

       Now grown-up Bobby seems perfectly at home in his new work, having married another beautiful Veronica (Blake Lively) and already produced a baby, another on its way. Yet when he encounters his original Vonnie at his now famous nightclub, he is utterly outraged by her new persona—a woman now seemingly at home in the Hollywood world she had once dished and he has abandoned. 

 

     But gradually, he becomes once again attracted to her and, now playing a role that is not so very different than his Uncle Phil, meets with her over a few days, resulting, at the very least, in a reaffirmation of their earlier love in a few stolen kisses. If he does not, literally, cheat on his wife (the movie shows no evidence of them actually engaging in any sexual act), he does most assertively lie to his beautiful wife, just as Phil had done to his wife, Karen (Sheryl Lee).

       As the New Year arrives, both Bobby and Vonnie are seen, at separate New York events, to be dreamily thinking of one another, conjuring up, perhaps, just such a golden and truly nostalgic world that Allen has achieved in creating this and so many others of his later films. Yes, as Allen argues, love is often a “mess,” a confusing series of events that one regrets and yet must accept. But the entitlement he again and again permits his characters is something else. Perhaps there comes a time when you simply must cut off the past and move on into a more morally responsible future. In his old age, Woody Allen seems quite incapable of that, as he desperately tries to relive a past he perhaps should perhaps never have embraced in the first place. And if there are such dark secrets, perhaps it is time to speak openly of them, instead of silently hovering over them in what he defines as his art.

          

Los Angeles, August 7, 2016

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (August 2016).

 

Nagisa Ōshima | 絞死刑 Kōshikei (Death by Hanging) / 1968

body and soul

by Douglas Messerli

 

Nagisa Ōshima, Michinori Fukao, Sasaki Mamoru, and Tamura Takeshi (screenplay), Nagisa Ōshima (director) 絞死刑 Kōshikei (Death by Hanging) / 1968

 

Like so many of the best films, Nagisa Ōshima’s Death by Hanging of 1968, represents several genres in one. It begins as a kind of mock documentary, showing a large prison complex before taking us inside to see the death chamber. As the narrator’s voice (the director himself) announces that a larger portion of the Japanese public wishes to maintain the death penalty, the camera, as film critic Jake Cole has observed, “…calmly establishes an execution chamber and its efficiency in such a way as to tempt the audience to accept, even admire, the dispassionate letter of the law.”


      But soon after, when the terrified shaking prisoner R (Yung-do Yun) is brought in and we catch a glimpse the hanging noose over the trap door through which the prisoner will soon fall to his death, that objective-like perspective immediately shifts as we recognize that we are about to witness an actual death or—to put it another way, a state-sponsored murder.

      A few seconds later, after R has been “hung” and is found to still have a beating heart, the film changes once more, moving into a work of a series of moral dilemmas as the Warden (Kei Sato), the Education Chief (Fumio Watanabe), the Doctor (Rokko Toura), the Security Chief (Masad Adachi), Chaplain (Toshiro Ishido), and Prosecutor (Hosei Komatsu) crowd around the would-be corpse, arguing what further should be done. While some argue for an immediate re-hanging, others point out that, since the prisoner is now unconscious they may be charged for killing an outwitting man. The Chaplain, in particular, argues that R is no longer R, for he has lost his soul, and is, therefore, no longer guilty. “The prisoner's awareness of his own guilt is what gives execution its moral and ethical meaning,” he argues.


       Finally, as R is revived and it becomes clear that he is suffering amnesia, one of them determines that in order to re-hang R they must help him regain his conscience, to discover who he is. It is here that the work becomes a kind of black comedy in the tradition of Kafka’s The Trial and other such works. These men, in a kind of mini-Brechtian drama, begin acting out various of R’s crimes, his attempted rape of a young Japanese schoolgirl and his murder of another young woman soon after. If their ridiculous play-acting begins rather clumsily, they quite soon grow into their roles, absurdly humping one another, strangling each other—one, in particularly, almost succeeding in murdering his colleagues—and re-enacting, in general, what Ōshima titled his film of a year earlier, “bawdy” behavior.


       When even those enactments do not seem to rouse R’s memory, they begin to recreate events from his poverty-stricken childhood, attempting to remind him his many hungry nights, of how, as a Korean living in Japan, he was abused and kept apart from the advantages of the Japanese-born citizens, thus proving their own cultural awareness of how R and the many like him have been abused by the culture at large. Seeing this today, we can only be reminded the lopsided incarceration particularly of blacks and Hispanics in US prisons today, along with the further recognition of there being more minorities than whites sentenced to death.



       When even those tactics do not work, they rush to the streets to provide R with a short visual tour of his own past world, returning to find the ghost of his older dead sister (a sister who may or may not have existed), who also attempts to restore R’s memory—but this time so that he can recognize his murders as being in retaliation for the suffering all Koreans in Japan have had to endure, basically the radical and Communist positions. One should recall that this story is based on a real event, wherein the prisoner wrote a brilliantly popular book which moved many Japanese readers.

      Finally, it is only the ghost who begins to help R understand. He and the ghost talk while all around them the prison employees begin a drinking bash, which quickly turns into an even darker bacchanal, as some recount war-time crimes, others revealing smaller sins.

      The drunken Chaplain goes even further, attempting to sexually molest each of them, madly kissing, licking, and groping his male colleagues, at one point even trying to attack the upside-down bottle one of the officers has tied to his waist to portray it as a penis. For a few long moments, as one officer attempts to explain a solution to their dilemmas, the Chaplain quite absurdly spending the entire time licking him all over his body, the officer responding, “So you’re a dog tonight. Lick away.” When another one of the other officers speaks, the Chaplain turns to put his arms around him as well. The alcohol and the events surrounding their prisoner has clearly brought out his and perhaps other’s homosexual predilections.



    By this time Ōshima has brilliantly made his satirical themes without even needing to further side with any particular view; and immediately after, R, recognizing his crimes, is summarily hung for a second time.

      Death by Hanging, restored in DVD and Blu-Ray disks this year by Criterion, is certainly one of the best Japanese films of the 1960s, a work which uses theater to its advantage while revealing that film need not resist its roots in staged works. As Howard Hampton writes in the liner notes to that Criterion edition, if Ōshima is often compared with Godard, “it would be more accurate to call him the reverse-angle JLG: instead of converting flesh and blood and tragedy into glamorous abstractions, Oshima’s “renders ideology in skeptical, frank, and expressed in kitchen-sink terms.” Given his contrarian nature, Ōshima remains “committed to the human condition,” with all of “its full kaleidoscopic, unsanitary overabundance.” 

     If nothing else, Ōshima is a filmmaker who is not afraid to express his anger and rage over political issues, and in that sense, perhaps, he has a closer kinship to Britain’s angry young men (and women) of the late 1950s and 1960s. Yet, unlike them, Ōshima is seldom a realist, preferring instead to use all the theatrical tropes available to him; and it his inclusiveness which help make his films so very different from those of nearly any other filmmaker of the 60s decade.

 

Los Angeles, October 26, 2016

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2016).

 

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 ...