Tuesday, June 11, 2024

François Ozon | Une rose entre nous (A Rose Between Us) / 1994

prick of the thorn

by Douglas Messerli

 

Nicolas Mercier and François Ozon (screenplay), François Ozon (director) Une rose entre nous (A Rose Between Us) / 1994 [27 minutes]

 

In Ozon’s early study of sexual experimentation and confusion, a young British woman, Rose (Sasha Hails) enters a hair salon to have her hair colored from its raven tones to ginger or “squirrel-red,” which the young apprentice stylist Paul (Rodolphe Lesage) readily accomplishes. But the moment he’s “finished, she, now speaking only in English, pretends outrage for what he’s done to her, and rushes from the shop in anger without paying, Paul fast on her heels in order to be properly recompensed for his efforts.


     After a street incident, witnessed by his fellow hairdresser Rémy (Christophe Hémon), wherein she finally offers to pay after describing him basically as a fag to his boss, he rejects her money and, winning back her power over him, she invites him to a late night club, The Palace.

     So begins what is basically an evening and morning of sexual-shifting and role-playing, as Rose gradually lures the young Paul into an agreement to prostitute themselves to two older men, she to Robert (Jacques Disse), evidently one of her regulars, while the cute hairdresser will have sex with Yves (Francis Arnaud), promising that they will earn a great deal of money, over a thousand francs for a not so difficult evening.


     At the same time, it’s apparent that Paul is attracted to his hairdresser friend Rémy, who also shows up at the club, eyeing Paul as someone to whom he is deeply attracted but also with a sense of judging his peer’s ridiculous infatuation with Rose.

      Rémy, who evidently sells drugs at the club, faces off with her alone, describing her as a little “con-girl,” while still attempting to sell her drugs which she promises to purchase the next evening when she will have enough money (although we have already seen her be paid for arranging to Paul to have sex with Yves).


     But for these young kids, it doesn’t seem to matter much. The men finally take both Rose and Paul to an apartment, where Rose sings a cabaret-like song as together they all dance, putting Paul in the center a ring they form before he finally passes out from dizziness and the champagne he’s been drinking.

     Rejuvenating the boy, Rose finally convinces him to go with Yves. We watch Yves go down on Paul, while in the next room, the far more seasoned Rose refuses to have sex with Robert.


     As we see Yves toss a filled condom to the floor, it’s clear that he has fucked Paul, despite the boy’s earlier insistence that he didn’t want to be sodomized. What Paul also discovers is that Yves has paid 3,000 francs for him, while Rose has given Paul only a single note. Furious with her, he tosses even that amount back at her before attempting to rape her. But when Robert intervenes by appearing at the doorway, Paul runs off, Rose following after, apologizing for the lie and convincing him to come back home with her, where the two do indeed have sex—but tender sex of the kind of which Rose is clearly not used to. We might even suspect that Rose is Paul’s first woman.


    Finally, he suggests that he is going out for some croissants and will be back soon, she offering him all the money which is still in her purse. He quietly rejects her offer, saying he has enough, as she watches him through the window, stroking her cat, realizing that he won’t be coming back.

    The camera shows him having returned to the hairdressers, working now more comfortably with Rémy, offering him one of the croissants he has purchased, as the two laugh together now in friendship.

 

    What we realize in Ozon’s work which some may read as representing child abuse, is truly a comedy, in that these three, Paul, Rémy, and Rose have used the adults, at different times, to explore their own sexual desires and orientations.

     The young unconfident 18-year-old Paul of the day before has returned to Rémy with a far deeper knowledge of himself. Like the Balthus poster that Rose has on the wall, these “children” have allowed themselves to be sexually objectified each for their own purposes of discovering how to negotiate the adult world and what sex is all about. Despite prostitution, robbery, drugs, intended rape, and sexual longing none of these youths has been truly traumatized, but are joyful in the discovery of their own desires and its expression through their bodies.

      In the 1990s French director Ozon was one of the few brave enough to explore this territory, as had filmmakers as diverse as Louis Malle, Ingmar Bergman, Jean Delannoy, Mauro Bolognini, Carlos Hugo Christensen, Lasse Nielsen, and a few others had in the more open-minded 1960s and 70s.

 

Los Angeles, June 11, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (June 2024).

Marc Heustis | Miracle on Sunset Boulevard / 1977

let it be

by Douglas Messerli

 

Marc Heustis (director) Miracle on Sunset Boulevard / 1977

 

Marc Heustis’s seven-minute film Miracle on Sunset Boulevard advertises itself as a sped-up version of Sunset Boulevard, but in fact has almost nothing to do with Billy Wilder’s film except that it features an aging actress shopping in Beverly Hills on Wilshire Blvd. where unexpectedly she is greeted by a fan wanting her autograph. So horrified is she in being reminded of her long ago career that she lets the wind whip the piece of paper which she attempting to sign out of her hand as she goes on the run.


     Late at night, a bit like Norma Desmond, she watches her old movies, but once again grows terrified by the process of re-living passionate love scenes from decades earlier and cries out several times (silently of course) “STOP!”

     Utterly devastated to be so continually reminded of her age, she is suddenly visited by the vision of a lovely woman who, a bit like a cartoon vision of a figure just escaped from a Maxfield Parrish painting shows up and evidently serves as a sort of mother-confident, campily reintroducing our troubled movie star to the four elements of earth, air, wind, and fire. Suddenly our washed-up hero materializes a young female child which the actress takes into her arms. Either the mysterious seer is pimping as a provider to agèd pedophiles or reintroducing our elderly wunderkind to her younger self, but either way, the result is a true miracle as the actress seems suddenly entirely content as she walks off into the woods with her new child.


     Starring Gregory Cruickshank, Viva DeLuxe and Marzipan with a background mix of music by Mahler and Prokofiev, Heustis’ film is simply silly, its redeeming quality providing seconds of bearable camp. We are told it captures the spirit of the early films, of which Heustis was a founder, of the San Francisco Frameline Festival.

 

Los Angeles, August 28, 2021

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (August 2021).


Guy Maddin | Night Mayor / 2009

imagined history

by Douglas Messerli

 

Guy Maddin (screenwriter and director) Night Mayor (2009)

 

With his tongue planted firmly in cheek, genius Canadian filmmaker Guy Maddin documents in 14 memorable moments how Bosnian immigrant Nihad Ademi found a way to harness the power of the Aurora Borealis so that he and his family members, Allan, Selma, Dado, Alma, Sasha, and Bojanna (Mike Bell, Timna Ben Ari, Darcy Fehr, Audrey Neale, Brent Neale, and Shalini Sharma) might broadcast historical moments from the vast landscape of his beloved newly adopted home, Canada.


     The major irony, one of many, is that the most colorful show of lights in the earth’s atmosphere is represented here in black-and-white.

     The method itself is a true madness, and it takes no time at all before Canadian authorities show up at his door to close his idealistic operation down, the way art generally is always silenced since it has not paid its proper dues to commerce.

      But for a short time, Ademi has become the “night mayor” of the underground TV broadcasts, creating a network of his own that circumvents all the foreground noise to present the truth of what’s happening in his world in the background and underground.

 

     Maddin’s work is about mad originality and creativity, always perceived as a danger to society. And in that respect perhaps the highly metaphoric description of this film by a commentator by the name of “brotherdeacon” that appeared on the Letterboxd site, is appropriate:

 

“Somewhere alongside Paracelsus, Nikola Tesla and Nokomis (Daughter of the Moon), Guy Maddin's inventor Nihad Ademi and his immigrant family create mechanical poetry to harness rhizome sap from the knees of wolverine kitts, as well as images from the Aurora Borealis' ticker-tape parade cake-walking the sky route above Peguis, Manitoba. Mostly it looks as it sounds, which is like titanium grass being mowed before dawn. Similarly to most false truths, Nihad Ademi runs afoul of the more judicial population (ones with uniforms and coronation sashes) of his adopted land-locked Province, leaving him and his family to practice a more clandestine method so as to amaze their new brothers and sisters of the Robertson Davies laboratory subscription base. But, don't you fret. Maddin's Telemelodium becomes buried so deeply into Man Ray's limpid black and white glands that it swells sweetly into pre-world-war II sonatinas dedicated to Nihad's naked-breasted daughters of Bosnian-Boreal lore. It intones, even grates, generally well enough to be compatible with kilowatts and megahertz, those twins to whom preachers pay the rent and eulogies bid ghastly recaps. It's a tidy film. It was plainly made for you and me. It hopes and dreams as it must. . . being assiduously Canadian.”

 

Los Angeles, March 5, 2023

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (March 2023).

Adrien Dezalay, Emmanuel Delabaere, and Simon Philippe | The Red Drum Getaway / 2015

in a spin

by Douglas Messerli

 

Adrien Dezalay, Emmanuel Delabaere, and Simon Philippe The Red Drum Getaway / 2015

 

For the duration of about 4 minutes, Adrien Dezalay, Emmanuel Delabaere, and Simon Philippe’s The Red Drum Getaway patches together scenes from Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window and Vertigo with scenes from Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wide Shut, and 2001. The result is somewhat silly, but given the supernatural and violent elements these six movies share, the mashup sort of makes sense.

 

      As the video explains, “Jimmy was having a rather beautiful day,” checking out the women from his apartment window—until suddenly he catches a glimpse, in the window across the way, of a murderer even more dangerous than Raymond Burr’s Lars Thorwald: Jack Nicholson from The Shining madly gazing back at him.


      Already a bit on the dizzy side after performing his “I look up, I look down” scene in Vertigo, James Stewart encounters horrible visions in every direction he turns, running into the gang member droogs of A Clockwork Orange down one San Francisco street, after catching another glimpse of the insane Jack Torrance. With nowhere to turn, he ducks into a club, The Red Drum, wherein he immediately encounters the circle of naked women of Kubrick’s last and worst film, Eyes Wide Shut.


      The whole experience is just too much for the former cop, Scottie, who immediately spins into his own vertiginous madness, falling into the desert plain where our simian forbearers from 2001 beat him to a pulp. Even the now tortured Malcolm McDowell screams in horror at the spin of events, while other Kubrick and Hitchcock figures look on as if witnessing it on their television sets.

       If this is all rather trivial, it’s so well done that we almost wish the two directors, Hitchcock and Kubrick, and actors, Stewart and Nicholson, might have gotten together to make a grand spooky entertainment. In some ways, it almost seems that they might have enjoyed the results.

 

Los Angeles, May 24, 2016

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (May 2016).

 

David O. Russell | American Hustle / 2013

on thin ice

by Douglas Messerli

 

Eric Warren Singer and David O. Russell (screenplay), David O. Russell (director) American Hustle / 2013

 

David O. Russell’s 2013 film, American Hustle, concerns a fraudulent and demented vision of the American Dream that has long been a staple of American film and drama, from Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Arthur Miller’s All My Sons to numerous of Edward Albee’s plays centered on characters who, through whatever means possible, are determined to reinvent themselves and financially “succeed.” In film, we perceive a more comic variation of this theme in Preston Sturges’ The Lady Eve, in which Barbara Stanwyck and her gambling father con a naïve Henry Fonda, she later transforming herself into a British heiress to get her revenge.

 

    Two down-and-out losers, Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale)—a small-time con-artist and owner of several dry cleaners throughout New York—and Sydney Prosser (a stunningly beautiful Amy Adams)—a former stripper—meet at a Long Island party. Although neither is what one might describe as a good “catch”—Irving is overweight and already married and Sydney is a clever manipulator—they recognize themselves in one another and immediately fall in love.

       With Irving’s long experience with conning (he runs a small art-gallery featuring fakes out of his dry cleaning business, and takes others “to the cleaners” by offering them loans which are never paid out) and Sydney’s brains, good looks, and her suddenly acquired British accent (along with a new name, Lady Edith Greensly) the two quickly escalate their petty thievery into a thriving business. That is, until they are suddenly caught in the act by a rookie FBI agent, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper), in the midst of the transaction.

      Every one of the figures in this film of the late 1970s and early 1980s is obsessed with clothing (outrageously patterned and brightly colored or just as outrageously sexually revealing), hair, and makeup, as if the outside of their bodies might represent something that they knew they were not within.

      Richie, like the other two, is also out to transform himself by rising up in the agency ranks. Accordingly, he offers freedom to the two in return for their help in a bigger con that might catch at least four bigger con-artists. At first the couple consider taking their money and running off. But one redeeming quality, his love of his wife’s young boy, puts a damper of that decision. And then there is the wife, herself a dangerous ditz who—with her alcohol-induced accidents, including a house fire and, later an explosion of a microwave—puts the boy’s life in danger. Although he has long begged her for divorce, Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence) is a passive-aggressive manic who cannot abide any change in her pampered life.


      The success of Irving and Sydney’s past scams has depended on what Irving describes as “working from the legs up,” gradually reeling in their suckers, often by saying no, and keeping their robberies relatively below radar, mostly by asking only $5,000 to help people at the end their rope to open foreign accounts and obtain loans. Suddenly, working with Richie, the two quickly discover themselves out of their league, so to speak, as the FBI agent keeps upping the ante by involving, at first, a fake Arab sheik and a local northern Jersey mayor, Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), who, hoping the sheik will invest in the Atlantic City casinos who will hire the people of his Camden to find jobs, is convinced, after originally rejecting it, to the take the bribe. He promises, and we believe him, to make good use of the money.


     When it’s determined that the sheik must become an American citizen before he can invest in the casinos, Carmine suggests he might pull strings with several New Jersey congressmen and senators; all hell breaks loose, as Richie, smelling success, now sees a way to entrap several even larger prey. Before these clever small-time con-artists even know it, they are involved with the mob, with their very lives at stake.

      Beyond that, there are the FBI higher-ups, refusing at nearly every point, the tools of entrapment, from a suite at the Plaza, to a helicopter for the arrival of the fake sheik, to say nothing of the millions and millions of dollars used for the briberies. When major mafia mobster, Victor Tellegio (Robert De Niro) circles the hook, Richie nearly salivates, suddenly perceiving how he might make one of the biggest catches of all time! The small-time hustle, however, as Irving and Sydney perceive, has turned into an unmanageable fiasco. Both want out, but are no so intensely caught up in what later would be described as “ABSCAM,” that, for different reasons, they determine to go straight, beginning to rid themselves of all the lies and prevarications of their lives. Even more complexly, Sydney becomes sexually interested in “Richie,” while Irving bonds deeper and deeper with Carmine and his family.


 

    Even more disastrously, Irving’s jealous and lonely wife Rosalyn falls in love with one of Tellegio’s men, spilling the beans about the impending FBI sting and almost assuring her husband’s murder—along with her own and her son’s. Indeed, things grow so out of control that Russell’s film reminds one, at moments, of a screwball comedy like Bringing up Baby—only, as we are told in the very early credits of the film, “Some of this actually did happen.”

      Some of the logic and even relevance of the film’s scenes, just as in Russell’s previous film, Silver Lining Playbook, gets lost in the director’s clearly improvised antics of Jennifer Lawrence in the later part of the film. By film’s end the actress has taken her character so humorously over the top, there is hardly anything left of her stick-figure stereotype, as she drives off with her mobster lover into the Miami sunset.

     Yet in the final twist of these American hustles, the director and screenwriter magically pull several more rabbits out of their hat that stave off mobster hits and release Irving and Sydney, and even commute Carmine’s prison sentence by spinning up a tale that takes Richie down again to the lowest peg on his office totem pole by implying that he either exhorted the missing 2 million dollars or was fooled by the con-men he employed to do the job.

      Throughout the film, Richie’s disapproving boss, Stoddard Thorsen, attempts to use a private story to warn his young assistant of the dangers of his acts. Growing up in Duluth, Minneosta, Thorsen recalls, he, his brother, and father used to go ice fishing. On cold winter days they would dig a hole, drop a line, and wait in the cold air for a nibble. He remembers it as a beautiful event. But one October, after a brief frost, his brother wanted to go out fishing, and he had joined him, the father warning that it was not yet time, suggesting that the ice cover was still too thin. The first time he tries to tell this story, Richie interrupts him, suggesting he knows the moral of the story, that Thorsen fell in and nearly drowned. Thorsen denies that that was the story.

      A second time Thorsen tries to tell the story he mentions that he and his brother were fishing, when they saw their father approaching them, he going out to meet his father before the elder discovered his brother fishing on the lake. Again Richie interrupts: “All right, so the brother fell in and died!” No, Thorsen again proclaims, that isn’t what happened. By brother died years later.

     The running gag is not repeated, and we never do discover what the true story was meant to reveal. I’d suggest, however, that the third alternative, the father falling in and drowning, is, at least, what might have happened. Certainly, in the end, that is what happens to Richie, who, in his surety of righteousness himself suffers at least a symbolic death, a return to his miserable apartment where he lives with his mother, visited every day by a plain-looking mother-selected fiancée to whom he is unattached and of whose existence he cannot even admit. In a year in which so many major films that feature characters who are failed and flawed, even despicable beings, the righteous, those who cannot see, as Sydney argues, in the very fact that they are lying to themselves, inevitably become the true villains.

 

Los Angeles, December 26, 2013

Reprinted from Nth Position (January 2013).


Henry Koster | The Bishop’s Wife / 1947

the face of a murderer or the face of an angel

by Douglas Messerli

 

Leonardo Bercovici and Robert E. Sherwood (screenplay, based on a novel by Robert Nathan), Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett (uncredited writers), Henry Koster (director) The Bishop’s Wife / 1947

 

On the surface Koster’s handsomely filmed picture is a pleasant, if somewhat glib Christmas fantasy, replete with a harp-playing angel, a singing boy chorus, a sweet young girl, an ice-skating taxi driver, a troubled Episcopal Bishop, and his stunningly beautiful wife. With a cast that includes Cary Grant, David Niven, Loretta Young, Monty Woolley, James Gleason, and Elsa Lanchester, the film was a cinch to please its audiences from the day it was canned. At our home, we watch it every Christmas with pleasure.

      But this time, seeing this film a few days before Christmas, I was struck at just how odd this fable truly was. Grant, as Dudley the angel, has never given a smoother performance, Niven, playing Bishop Henry Brougham, has never spoken his lines in a more precise British accent, and the dulcet-voiced Young has never beamed more gloriously; you can almost swim in her gaze. Only the stentorian-voiced Woolley and the gravelly-throated Gleason bring any seeming variation to the tones of the work, but even their words mostly reveal their kindness and caring. The plot and acting seem defined by everyone’s utter placidness.


      Yet early in the film, upon first meeting the Bishop, the angel sent to help him in his difficulties in creating a new cathedral, says something rather shocking. Explaining to the Bishop that there are many angels visiting people every day, Dudley notes that while walking the streets of the city you may look into the face of stranger; “It may be the face of a murderer or the face of an angel.” This Manichean reality presented in a film in which the most villainous person portrayed is a stubborn wealthy woman who wants the cathedral built, in part, as a memorial to her late husband, seems out of place, even jarring. Are there that many murderers wandering the streets of what is apparently New York, which appears in the Goldwyn studios as a small, New England city?

      Certainly there are a lot of dangerous traffic hazards to be witnessed. A blind man can hardly get across the street until Dudley takes his arm. A woman with a young daughter nearly loses her child in a baby carriage to a collision with a truck—again until Dudley grabs the carriage moments before it is struck. Cars lurch to a halt several times as Dudley crosses streets, almost striking Woolley’s Professor Wutheridge. It is certainly dangerous city, whether or not there are many murderers and angels stalking it.

 

     Suddenly I began to remember and observed over the course the film, all the strange things that do occur in this work, events that seem in opposition to the seemingly gentle spirituality of the tale. One of the first dialogical encounters in the film, for example, involves the Professor and an Italian shopkeeper (Tito Vuolo) haggling over the price of a Christmas tree, even stranger given the fact that the Professor is a non-believer. Soon after, Dudley introduces himself to the Professor as a long-time friend, an out-and-out lie. An angel caught lying?

     Perhaps not so strange when we soon perceive that this particular angel quickly falls in love with the Bishop’s wife, and she, perhaps unknowingly and feeling neglected by her busy husband, in turn, nearly falls in love with him. But then Dudley generally has that effect on women; even the maid Matilda (Lancaster) and the slightly old maidenish Bishop’s assistant, Mildred Cassaway (Sara Haden) develop crushes on the stranger who quickly takes on the job as the Bishop’s secretary. The Bishop’s little daughter, Debby, clearly falls for the angel.

      An entire boy chorus comes together to beautifully sing at his bidding. A taxi driver, picking up Julia Brougham (Young) and Dudley, mistaking them for husband and wife, turns off his meter and joins the couple as they frolic in a skating rink in a public park. As the couple briefly hold hands at a local restaurant, three elderly women from the church quietly tsk their behavior until Dudley invites them to join him and Julia.


     The Professor, we later learn, has been lying about his completion of his great history he has claimed to be writing: he has not even begun the research. There must be something in the air that forces these figures to not fully reveal their lives.

      Perhaps in reward for his lack of focus, Dudley provides Wutheridge with an endlessly refilling bottle of sherry. The ancient coin that the Professor thought was worthless, so Dudley tells him, is an historical treasure, minted to celebrate the arrival of Cleopatra in Rome. Soon after the slightly inebriated Professor can suddenly read a text previously indecipherable to him, a strange magic delivered up by an ambassador from God! In this odd film, spirituality and love get confused with miracles, while religion is associated with greed and selfishness. It’s almost surprising that, upon its 1947 premiere, American clergymen did not rise up and denounce the work as slightly satanic.

      The Bishop has lost all his sense of pleasure in life through his determination to build a new cathedral. His first words of the movie are critical of his ever-loving wife. The force behind the building of the new cathedral, Mrs. Hamilton (Gladys Cooper) is presented as a kind of witch, determined to get her way or ruin the career of the Bishop himself. Finally defeated, the Bishop visits Mrs. Hamilton only to find that apparently Dudley has been whipping up another magical trick. As Henry rises to leave, he cannot rid himself of his chair, an almost surreal suggestion that he is now permanently attached to the old battle axe with whom he has continually fought. It is, in an odd way, almost a sexual event. Ultimately, he must call home to ask for a new pair of pants!

 

    Dudley’s visit to her is even more unusual, as he almost courts her, playing the song of a young lover whom she has rejected years before she married the husband whom she never truly loved. Helping her perceive that her grand plans have been hatched primarily out of guilt, Dudley now completely betrays his employer, convincing her to charitably give her great wealth to the needy instead of constructing the grand religious temple she had planned. To be fair, when Henry states he was praying for a cathedral, Dudley reminds him: “No, Henry. You were praying for guidance.”

      In short, what at first seems like a placid Christmas fable must be recognized as a kind of insidious battle between a different kind of good and evil from what we might have expected, almost fulfilling the dichotomy that Dudley first laid out: the indistinguishable faces of the murderous and the angelic. The first seems to be aligned with power, money, and religion more than with death, while the second embraces love and the magic of everything in life. By the time the film reaches is strange conclusion, all the characters’ memories have been wiped away, as Dudley determinedly leaves, having begun to envy his human counterparts. The Bishop reads the homily sermon, written for him by the angel, without even recognizing that it is not his own words.

     The Christmas we are left with, as in that other Yuletide fable of the same year, Miracle on the 34th Street, less concerns the Christ child whom the Bishop sermonizes should be our focus, than the “gifts” this all too human angel has left behind: a lovely Christmas tree, a new hat, a pleasurable lunch in a favorite restaurant, the new-found acceptance of a young girl, an never-empty bottle of sherry, and a final masterwork in an scholar’s long career. Oh yes, and the enduring love between the Bishop and his wife. Aided and abetted by the angelic visitor, this is the world of Santa, not of the Holy Spirit.

     Apparently there was no trailer for this film, so the actors suggest in a brief introduction to our tape. The producers wanted to keep the secrets of the film until the audience watched the movie in the theaters; I suggest they kept some even darker secrets from themselves, for the angel of this film, as he himself admits, has no wings, and almost symbolically murders the love he was sent to protect. One can only wonder how much of this script was the product of the original writers—whose film, so Hollywood lore has it, was disdained by its audiences—or created by its uncredited writers whom Goldwyn brought in for rewrites, the later highly successful director Billy Wilder and his collaborator, Charles Brackett.

 

Los Angles, December 18, 2012

Reprinted in World Cinema Review (December 2012).

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 ...