Wednesday, August 7, 2024

Marco Zanoni | Jain / 2012

pounding his way out of the closet

by Douglas Messerli

 

Maco Zanoni (screenwriter and director) Jain / 2012 [15 minutes]

 

Benni (Karim Khomiakov) wakes up in bed with Fabi (Stefan Mascheck) after a night of sex. Evidently, this has been going on for some while now, but Benni still insists he’s not gay, and only has gay sex when he’s drunk. Fabi points out to him that five-hours before he certainly wasn’t disinterested in sex, but Benni, who is a motorcycle rider and bike race contestant, clearly isn’t ready to face the truth.

 

  He does, however, invite Fabi to the motorcycle riding content that day, but Fabi resists the invite, knowing that nearly all of Benni’s friends, particularly Maik (Timocin Ziegler), hate him because he’s, as they put it, “a fag.”

     His mother, who also evidently knows of the situation suggests he just has to cut it off; she wants him to be happy again. But Fabi’s male friend, evidently a former bed partner, argues that he should go. He sees it as a clear invite to enter Benni’s world, an opportunity to further cement their relationship. With camera in hand, Fabi attends the event, getting some great pictures of the contest. There he also meets up with a woman who had once had a crush on him, who also argues he should let Benni go, just as she as learned to live without Fabi.



   Benni’s macho friends basically ignore Fabi at the race, but Benni insists he also attend the celebratory party afterwards, where Fabi is certain, he is sure, to run into Maik and others of his homophobic friends. Benni promises they won’t do anything with him there, and besides, he jokes, I’ll protect you. Fabi doubts that.

      And indeed, the friends sing the most sexist of German songs about straight boys getting all the girls. And when Maik enters he pulls the beer out of Fabi’s hand and insists, “We don’t allow fags here.”

      Fabi’s weak comeback makes it only worse, “Well if I see any, I’ll let them know.”

      “I’ll give you something to suck on,” he moves menacingly even closer.

      “And I bet you’d enjoy it,” quips Fabi.


      The slugs begin, right to the nose, bloodying it; but this time, true to his word, Benni does come to rescue, slugging Maik to the floor. Maik and the others now call Benni a “fag” as well and leave the place.


       Alone, the two boys hold hands, and Benni leans in to kiss Fabi. Benni has come out in the most macho and public way possible, defending his lover.

       This is most certainly a slightly different variation of the standard gay coming out story.

 

Los Angeles, August 7, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (August 2024).

Ron Peck | What Can I Do with a Male Nude? / 1985

an abbreviated history of male nude photographs

by Douglas Messerli

 

Ron Peck (screenplay and director) What Can I Do with a Male Nude? / 1985 

 

A decade after his seminal treks through British gay bars in his 1978 film Nighthawks, in this 23-minute short Ron Peck chooses a fussy, somewhat prissy photographer of gay male nudes who has apparently not heard of the passing of The Sexual Offenses Act of 1967, although to be fair British law still had a great many anti-LGBTQ laws on the book, including the payment of money for sexual acts and what one did in one’s own home with a third party present. And some of the police who continued to harasses gay men had evidently not heard of the changes in the previously draconian English laws against homosexuality.

     Moreoever, as the narrator (John Levitt) makes clear, even by 1985, the date of this film, feminists and even sympathetic LGBTQ figures began to see photography itself as a denigration of the human body, and public reaction to male nude photography in Britain was still often a matter of outrage as the Photographer makes clear in a little satiric diatribe with which he begins.


      But still, this man, having locked all the doors, sealed up the windows, blacked-out every crevice, and turned out the lights is quite overcautious in his behavior toward his own activities. When he turns the lights on, we discover a muscularly attractive young man (John Brown) waiting to pose, as the Photographer basically recites a history of male nude photography, beginning with nudes with covered crotches posing between Greek columns, peeking through drapes of fabric and curtains, and hiding their crotches behind every possible object available: bowls, flowerpots, bedsheets, furniture, books, beads, paintings and the heads of other males, as well as partially clothed in any costume imaginable, from cowboys, sailors, Indians, and Scotsman in kilts to doctors, leather boys, and nude males draped in cascades of chiffon. Even he is amazed the contortions they put their models through.

      Fortunately in the l950s and 60s photographers discovered the posing strap, putting their muscular men on full display and producing hundreds of nude-boy collections that the narrator satirically claims father, junior, and sometimes even mother could openly peruse with the excuse that they were studying muscular development and exercise techniques. Suddenly you could buy pictures of the male nude even in some local grocery shops, but certainly at any news kiosk featured alongside The Guardian, The London Times, and The Observer.

     Our rather retrograde photographer is still not sure what to make of the 1960s when suddenly a whole slew of US magazines begin to picture male nudes with penises in full view. One suspects that this photographer prefers the posing strap.

      He still doesn’t quite know, in fact, what to do with his own nude, finally at the very last moment, briefly revealing the cute boy’s penis.


      While the boy dresses, out photographer wonders if 100 quid is enough, since that’s all he has on him. Perhaps a dinner. He begins to plan what he might serve as the model dresses, finally appearing to his evident surprise in the uniform of a British bobby, writing out what apparently is a ticket for the photographer’s arrest for financial procurement of sex—despite the fact there has been no bodily contact. I’d like to think he’s leaving his name and address?

       Frankly, although Peck nicely summarizes the tortured history of male nude photography forced by societies to hide the fact of the simply joy of the human body, this film today seems terrible dated, as it probably seemed even in 1985. Porn was already being popular, a full erections with masturbation and male sexual engagement were available to almost any American viewer in a major city who dared to enter a porno movie or in the larger cities, the hundreds of porno video shops.

       This film might be very nicely paired with the slightly more adventuresome movie of six years later, Constantine Giannaris’ Caught Looking (1991), which covers in a far more engaging way much of the same territory.

 

Los Angeles, August 7, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (August 2024).

Satyajit Ray |Ghare Baire (The Home and the World) / 1984

bringing things together, tearing them apart

 

by Douglas Messerli


 Satyajit Ray (screenwriter, based on a novel by Rabindranath Tagore, and director) Ghare Baire (The Home and the World) / 1984


Bimala Mukherjee (Swatilekha Sengupta), a beautiful and intelligent woman, raised in the traditional Hindu customs, which includes the cloistering of women, might be said to be the perfect wife. Her husband, Nikhail (Victor Banerjee), moreover, is a liberal, wealthy landowner, who hires both Muslims and Hindus, and, for a while, years earlier, in reaction to the late 19th century the British Lord Curzon’s partition of Muslin and Hindu states, has even attempted to support the policies of Swadeshi, the production of Indian-only goods that would break the British control over Indian economics. Through his own factories he has discovered that the Indian productions cost much more than the British and are inferior. So, in his own small community, he now refuses to demand Swadeshi practices, despite his close friendship with the radical leader of that movement, his school-friend Sandlip (Soumitra Chatterjee).

      The open-minded Nikhail also encourages his wife to learn how to play the piano and to sing English music, as well as to wear Western dress. Pushed by his friend Sandlip, about to visit his palace, he encourages his wife to break purdah (the cloistering) and to meet the attractive Sandlip. In part, he is proud of his wife’s beauty and talents and wants to display them to the world, and he also knows that, since he is the only man she has ever met in their arranged marriage, he can never be sure of their love until she gets to know another man.



      Although she has been isolated, Bimala is not unknowing, and, when queried by Nikhail, she reveals that she knows a great deal about the political issues going on around her, and that, despite living in a household where nearly everything is foreign-made, that she is fairly sympathetic with the cause—although she has no knowledge of her husband’s earlier involvement with Swadeshi.

      The viewer is hardly surprised, accordingly, when, after hearing an impassioned and straightforward speech by Sandlip, that when she later meets him, she is attracted to him and his political bravery. In relationship to Sandlip’s savvy interchanges and total commitment to his cause, her gentle husband Nikhail seems to Bimala as timid; and despite her love for Nikhail, the impassioned outbursts—both political and sexual—of Sandlip make her seemingly be compelled to accept the advances of the man, who at the same moment, we are gradually beginning to perceive as a self-congratulating dissimulator, who often cannot see the larger picture, and, as much as the British, helps breaks apart the working relationships between Hindus and Muslims.



     These scenes, inevitable as they are, seem to slow Ray’s film down in order to catch up the slower pace of the effects of Sandlip’s political arguments set against the sun-dappled rooms of the Murkherjee house, into which Sandlip has determined to move so that we can write his manifestos and political songs while surrounded by what he calls his “Queen Bee.”

      Not only has Bimala now become totally committed to Sandlip’s cause, but even against warnings by Nikhail’s loving sister-in-law (Gopa Aich), becomes sexually involved with the charlatan, a man who even his admiring young soldier—who himself has given up his own education to follow Sandlip—mocks for always having to travel “first” class. From her own husband’s safe, Bimala steals the equivalent of 5,000 rupees in gold coins, and is ready to leave with Sandlip when the time comes.

       But when Sandlip’s actions have begun to result in attacks by Muslims on Hindu temples, the patient and wise Nikhail can no longer stand by, and orders his former friend out his house, Bimal, suddenly discovering through the discussions between him and others, just how destructive Sandlip’s version of Swahedish has been, and perceiving her husband’s logic for not having joined with him.

      If the intense scenes portraying her sense of betrayal and guilt move into the territory of melodrama, instead of the far wittier interplays of personalities, the moving, silent-picture like, representations of Bimala’s sorrow as she admits to her husband her actions and her continued love for him, save Ray’s film from bathos. As in all cases Nikhail embraces her with complete forgiveness, as well as his own sense of guilt for having somewhat unintentionally, and unfairly, tested her love.

      If Sandlip cannot be honest, his young soldier is incredibly so, stealing 2,500 rupees to pay for Sandlip’s escape, while returning Nikhail’s gold coins and Bimala’s jewelry, which she has given him to sell in order to repay her debt to her husband. Sandlip, himself, returns to restore the stolen loot, perhaps the only good deed we have seen him accomplish. But even as he prepares to move on to another city, the sounds of the revolution can be heard.


    We know that no matter how much Bimala, Nikhail’s sister-in-law, and his former school teacher plead with him, Nikhail will refuse to stay away from trying to reverse the separatist actions of his fellow countrymen. The people who love him most have no choice but to sit out the night until his body, in formal procession, is returned home the next morning.

       In fact, there is no separation in Ghare Baire between the Home and the World, both having helped to destroy the man who had worked so hard to keep them together, to bring the world gently into the daily lives of those around him, and to bring the best of home life onto the world stage. And, in that sense, everyone in this film is guilty in what will later result in the larger destruction of the Indian Continent, the results of which the entire world are suffering in the partitions of India and Pakistan still today.

 

Los Angeles, May 1, 2014

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (May 2014).

Carl Theodor Dreyer | Vredens Dag (Day of Wrath) / 1943, USA 1948

 the power of life and death

by Douglas Messerli

 

Carl Theodor Dreyer, Poul Knudsen, and Mogens Skot-Hansen (screenplay, based on the fiction Anne Pedersdotterm by Hans Wiers-Jenssen), Carl Theodor Dreyer (director) Vredens Dag (Day of Wrath) / 1943, USA 1948

The time is the early 17th century in Denmark, where the church is busy, as it has been throughout the world, accusing elderly busybody housewives and young women of the whom the community women are jealous of witchcraft. Witchcraft can be claimed, evidently, for almost any inexplicable occurrence in this time of superstition and community small-mindedness. An older woman such as Herlof’s Marte (Anna Svierkier) can be seen in league with the Devil merely by speaking evilly of a friend or neighbor, particularly if she might wish that woman’s death. Once one has been accused, moreover, there is little one can do to defend oneself, particularly in an uneducated community where the women themselves may believe they are guilty just for perceiving their unsocial tendencies. Certainly Marte might be described as that, a woman who in the very first scene is represented as cooking up herbs gathered from below the gallows that might do harm to others or protect oneself. For once one is proclaimed a witch the major proof is through torture, in which the accused, in terror for pain the eminent death, often admits to crimes she has not committed.

 

      Women like Marte, however, are not stupid, and she perceives her best way out of being accused of witchcraft is not denial but gaining the protection the church elder, Absalon Pedersson (Thorkild Roose), who protected another woman—the mother of his second wife, the young Anne (Lisbeth Movin)—from charges of having the power over others of life and death. His motives, as he takes the young girl to marriage without even consulting her, are certainly questionable, and perhaps eviller than anything either woman was connected with, particularly since the elderly pastor did not even seek that Anne love him and that he truly loved her, determining merely to marry her because of her lovely, pure, and innocent eyes, which Marte describes as being full of fire, like her mother’s.

      The gamble on Marte’s part does not work; although Pedersson has saved Anne’s mother, who is now dead, he is not willing to intercede in Marte’s trial. Despite her pleas, to which he turns a dead ear, he agrees to meet with her, only to make certain that she does not reveal his connection to Anne’s mother. Terrorized of both torture and death, Marte, however, keeps her silence, while Pedersson’s guilt leaves his mind open to Godly accusations. Perhaps he knows that on the Day of Wrath, it is he and Marte or Anne’s mother who must face Christ’s judgment for his evil acts.


      His wife, Anne, trapped in a household where she finds little love from her husband and discovers absolute hate from his elderly, domineering mother, Meret, overhears the statements about her mother with great interest. In a world in which women have utterly no power, might she, like her mother, be secretly able to wield power even over life and death in men?

     Certainly, Marte, as she is thrown upon the burning pyre believes she has that power, damning a younger pastor, Laurentius (Olaf Ussing) to an early death, and cursing the young Anne to a scandalous relationship with Pederrson’s son, Martin (Preben Lerdorff Rye), a boy who has just returned home from his schooling, which will destroy his father.


      Upon seeing one another, the two, in fact, do fall immediately in love with one another and quickly begin a sensual relationship that, in this film of dark and irrational pessimism, stands out through Dreyer’s depiction of the lovers sleeping among the grasses, lounging under apple trees, and luxuriously floating down the farm’s hidden waterways on low rowing boats. If being in league with the Devil can help one to control the lives of others, so Anne discovers, just being a beautiful young girl with whom a man falls in love can permit her a power beyond anything which she has previously imagined. Indeed, it is not hate that allows her to control other lives, but natural love, a love unfouled by the bedsheets of dirty old men like her husband who give nothing in return. Is it any wonder, as Anne soon confesses to her lover, that she sometimes imagines the death of her husband, a death allowed through the hand of God to allow her and Martin to establish a truer and purer relationship.

      But in this closed society, even an educated man like Martin is subject to irrational fears, to the belief that in his loving the beautiful Anne he is simultaneously sinning again his father. In terms of that society, of course, he is truly creating a scandal, as his grandmother describes nearly everything outside of her narrow focus. No matter that the society itself has created a perverse and unnatural world in which they live!

 

     Dreyer’s powerful film of dichotomies explodes when Pederrson is called out into the night to administer the last rites to the dying Laurentius. A fierce storm is brewing in the landscape, symbolizing the inner storms suddenly facing Martin for the guilt he feels in having made love to his own mother, and the rising flush of hatred and scorn of Anne by Pederrson’s unforgiving mother. As Anne admits to Martin her desires for him and her wishes that Pederrson might die, freeing them to their own predilections, the pastor, returning home suddenly feels the hand of death upon his neck, and returns home to discover his son and wife sitting up in which her assumes is their wait for him.

       Out of guilt for her lies, Martin retires to bed, while Pederrson, describing what he has just felt, queries her about her feelings for him. He admits that he has never considered her own desires in the matter, but still expects her reassurances of love. When, instead, through her bitterness of the way he has destroyed her youth, she lashes out in honesty, the old man screams out in horror, falls to the floor in what appears to be a heart-attack or stroke; since throughout Pederrson has shown little evidence of a heart, we have to presume it is the latter, perhaps a “day of wrath”-like stroke from the hand of God himself.

       With that cry, both grandmother and grandson come running to discover Pederrson dead. In his now absolute sorrow for his own behavior, Martin rejects further communication with Anne; yet, as he sits in watch over the body, he agrees with Anne to protect her from being proclaimed a witch by Marte.      

       At the funeral, with all members of the family clad in black, accept Anne, draped in white Pederrson asks for forgiveness for his unstated acts, yet proclaiming that no one, in the end, has been responsible for his father’s death. When he has finished, however, Merte stands to accuse Anne as being a witch, and Martin, weaker than even the audience might have expected, joins his grandmother. The head pastor now has no choice but to ask Anne to defend herself over the casket itself.

       Certainly, we have seen her capable of that; she has previously defended her desire for her husband’s death as conditional, never a direct intention, over the dead man’s body and bible, in order to convince Martin. But just as she is about to argue her innocence, we see that Martin’s cowardice has so completely unnerved her that she cannot go forward: there is no longer anyone there to wipe away her tears, she argues. Any power of life and death that she might have imagined for herself has disappeared. Without love, death is the only alternative, and she invites herself into Death’s arms by the logical admissions of desiring the end of her abusive husband’s life. This is a society that permits no allowance for women, for the weak, for the poor. Only the strong of faith and self-aggrandizement easily survive. And Dreyer’s great psychological study ends with what we know will be another body burning on the pyre.

      When Dreyer’s film was first shown in theaters both in Denmark and England, critics found its bleak message nearly unbearable, and criticized the work on just that account. Many viewers, moreover, saw the film as a kind metaphor for the political events of the day, particularly German Nazism and the Holocaust. Dreyer denied those parallels, but did feel it was prudent, given these interpretations, to leave his country for the neutral Sweden for much of the rest of World War II.

      In fact, the solemn dictates of the old men of this Danish community, as ugly and harsh as they are, might be seen far more sensible and tamer—particularly given these men’s own spiritual doubts and fears—than anything the Nazi’s did, and particularly the attempted extermination of an entire religion and ethnicity. Dreyer’s world may be a miserably dictatorial and immoral world, but those destroyed are not masses of human beings, and the comparison, is accordingly, a weak one, which diminishes the tragedy of the 20th century.

     I would rather see Dreyer’s work as a brilliant proto-feminist work that argues for education and knowledge over superstition and paternal dominance. If the elders of Dreyer’s Day of Wrath control the lives of their closed society, that control is ultimately laughable since they too must face the Dies Irae. Surely the Nazi’s never imagined facing an eerily terrifying “day of wrath”

 

                                     that day

                                     Will dissolve the

                                     World in ashes

                                     As foretold by

                                     David and the Sibyl!   

 

                                     How much tremor there will be,

                                     When the Judge will come,

                                     Investigating everything strictly!

 

Los Angeles, April 27, 2014

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (April 2014).

Orson Welles | The Trial (Le Procès) / 1962

a landscape of waiting

by Douglas Messerli

 

Orson Welles (screenplay, after Franz Kafka) and director The Trial (Le Procès) / 1962

 

Orson Welles’ 1962 film The Trial begins with a pinscreen scene recounting the story of the man waiting to be invited in before the doors of justice for an entire lifetime before discovering that the door in front of which he waited was only for him. That brief beginning parable (which is referred to in Kafka’s fiction) and the narrator’s following statement about the work possibly being a dream immediately takes this movie out of Kafka territory and into the world of a kind of academic essay that delimits the original book’s meaning.

     In Kafka, the arrest of Josef K is so very terrifying precisely because it is not a dream, but a kind of perverse reality that only a paranoid mind could imagine. Kafka’s is a world that cannot be, but is nonetheless, a world that is unimaginable but—with awful prediction—did come to pass, as we know, in the worlds of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin created in the decades after The Trial was written. 


  

     Given that misleading introduction, it is no wonder that Welles’ The Trial is very different from Kakfa’s surreal work. Anthony Perkins’ K is far more clever and argumentative than Kafka’s hero as I remember him, and the world he inhabits, unlike Kafka’s almost claustrophobic city, consists of vast spaces, filmed mostly in the then-empty Gare d’Orsay of Paris, outside Zagreb, in Dubrovnik, Rome, and Milan, which instead of closing in the terrified K, opens up the world to him and the viewer. All women in Welles’ film seem absolutely ready to have sex with Perkins’ handsome K, and the story ends, not in his death by being stabbed in the heart, dying “like a dog,” but with K., as if he were the hero of a World War II action film, scooping up several sticks of dynamite and hurling them back, in a blast of smoke and a mushrooming cloud, at his assailants. While Kafka’s K, despite his pleas and attempts at placating the authorities, is doomed from the outset, Welles’ K, despite his nervous twitches of fear and guilt, seems to win out, perceiving that there is no meaning at all to the accusations against him.

      In short, we recognize from the beginning, Welles’ The Trial, unlike Haneke’s The Castle has, in many respects, little to do with the original. Perhaps we should just describe Welles’ work as “suggested” by or “in the manner of Kafka”—although even that would be a kind of exaggeration—and leave it at that. For, although Welles’ Trial is not nearly as absurdly effective as Kafka’s version, it is a certainly a moving piece of film-making—one of the very few in which Welles had complete artistic control—which does present us with many of issues of guilt and innocence, logic and illogic, sanity and paranoia that are dealt with in the great writers’ work.


     In some senses, moreover, Perkins seems to be the perfect Josef K, his lanky handsomeness with his large eyes and nervous demeanor, calling up a more presentable K than I imagined from my long-ago reading. What he seems to lack in terms of the characters’ timidity and  general apprehension, Perkins makes up for his obvious sexual discomfort (something Hitchcock immediately recognized in his Psycho of two years earlier) in the arms of Jeanne Moreau (as his neighbor Marika Burstner), Romy Schneider (as Leni), and Elsa Martinelli (as Hilda). If he stands up to his male colleagues far more than Kafka’s figure, his fascination with but complete befuddlement regarding the women he encounters reveal him also as a conflicted being, perpetually “sorry” for even being in their company and fearful of being “caught.” The wonderful scene in which he visits the artist Totorelli (William Chappell), where dozens of young girls luridly peak through the spaces in the wall like a gaggle of teenage-girls trying to get a view of their favorite rock-star, sets Perkins’ K into a horrifying frenzy, only to have him discover that the rickety construction in which the artist lives is attached to the court itself. It is almost as if K were being tried for deeds he has not yet committed. Certainly, the court is somehow behind everything.

      But even more than through his characters, Welles’ drama comes alive in its landscapes, the vast staircases and spaces of the various sets, particularly in the director’s strange mix of domestic and the official, as when K first visits the court, outside of which we see a woman doing her laundry before the camera, crossing the threshold of a door, reveals a vast room of laughing justices. K’s office, simulating the immense office spaces of King Vidor’s 1927 silent film The Crowd, hints also of the inhumane working spaces of Elmer Rice’s The Adding Machine and Billy Wilder’s The Apartment (also of 1960).

     One of the most spectacular scenes is in the apartment of the Advocate, Albert Hastler (played by Orson Welles himself), where in one room K encounters the beautiful assistant to Hastler, Leni, among piles of paper seemingly as far-reaching as the possessions left behind by William Randolph Hearst at the time of his death in Welles’ Citizen Kane.

 

         Similarly, Welles’ eerie and often creepy use of shadows and pointless transverses of space brings Beckett to mind, particularly in the long scene in which his neighbor’s crippled friend drags Fraulein Burstner’s luggage across a bleak urban landscape only to nearly repeat her steps, all the while arguing with the seemingly guiltless K, who realizes suddenly that, indirectly, he has been responsible for his neighbor’s displacement. As in a hall of mirrors—or perhaps we should say, as in the house of mirrors Welles used so spectacularly in his 1947 film, The Lady from Shanghai—tiny closets in which the men who originally arrested K are being beaten, lead into seemingly never-ending rooms, gothic cathedrals hover over tiny squares, small lean men like K are reflected as towering shadows. Welles’ world may not be precisely Kafka’s, but it is certainly a menacingly Baroque world able to terrorize everyone—both those with power and those without.

     And finally, Welles’ world is one of waiting, revealing long lines of patiently waiting figures (described as “Jews”) nearly everywhere K goes. But in this world, ultimately, it is not just the Jews who must wait, but nearly everyone: K, himself, admits that all who visit him must wait, sometimes for several days, including his innocent cousin Irmie who attempts to see him at his office.

      If in Kafka, we have no real evidence whatsoever that K has done anything “wrong,” Welles’ K slowly reveals his “guilt.” In being so thoroughly a man of the system, Perkins’ K represents just what has turned against him as an individual. From the very beginning, the police involve not only his neighbor but his office mates, whom they invite in to see K’s “arrest” like leering voyeurs, perhaps to observe what may soon also happen to them. In short, while Kafka attenuates nearly all to confuse and confound us, Welles hits us over the head. It may hurt a little but it’s all quite powerful nevertheless.

 

Los Angeles, April 3, 2013

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (April 2013).   

 


Index [listed alphabetically by director]

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