Wednesday, September 25, 2024

James Bolton | Eban and Charley / 2000

illegal love

by Douglas Messerli

 

James Bolton (screenwriter and director) Eban and Charley / 2000

 

We should have known. Even 24 years ago in 2000, critics had already become nervous. How dare a director present such a controversial subject in a film without making the obvious and necessary viewpoint clear: indicating that he totally disapproves of the pedophilic actions of his character Eban. As John Anderson, writing in Newsday put it quite straight-forwardly: “There's not enough judgment being rendered by the filmmaker, who seems happy enough to portray his movie's relationship sympathetically because, after all, these things happen.” In other words, director James Bolton should have taken a totally negative approach to his own story, immediately damning the character he has created precisely in order to question the general societal values.

    Other critics, not wanting to deal with the subject in any manner whatsoever, accused the film of a “numbing solipsism” (Ed Park, The Village Voice) or of “preaching to a sparse congregation” (Elvis Mitchell, The New York Times). Many accused the film of being slow-moving and boring.


     How a subject which you daren’t even speak about might be “boring” I cannot comprehend. If nothing else such a forbidden subject might give some a secret thrill if not the inevitable chill.

     But, yes, Bolton’s film is slow moving, just as are his central characters, Eban (Brent Fellows) and Charley (Giovanni Andrade, also known as Gio Black Peter). They are both children, and act and behave as children, spontaneously and without deep thought and rumination. They come together slowly because, at first, they have no plans or preconceptions. Perhaps only Eban hints at a slow stalking of the beautiful boy he first spots in a second-hand record shop of Seaside, Washington. But even that is based on happenstance. When he runs into him again at a small coffee house, he shares a table with him only for a few moments. And it is not until he meets up, again by accident, on the small town’s boardwalk that the two really strike up a friendship.

      Things move slow, in part, because despite Eban’s eagerness to make Charley’s acquaintance, he is afraid to proceed. And even when the two begin spending time together, Eban attempts to define limits to their relationship, having just been fired as a soccer coach from school where he was teaching in Seattle on account of another inappropriate relationship he had developed with one of his students.

       Eban, age 29, has returned to his hometown of Seaside supposedly as a Christmas visit. But in actuality, it is an attempt to get his life back in order, to reassess his possibilities for a new future without the boy he very much loved.

       The central problem is that Eban has been deadened by his family. Both mother and father are cold and reclusive beings. Although his mother is clearly joyful for his return, she is able to show little emotion, and the father, who, unbeknownst to Charley, has been told of Charley’s behavior by the school principal, is almost hostile to his own son. He hardly speaks except to criticize his son’s lack of communication with them, and clearly has no room in his heart for a 29-year-old failure who might have been arrested and jailed were it not for the school’s attempt to keep things undercover by simply releasing Eban from his contract and insisting that he no longer see his student lover.

      Had Eban grown up in a more felicitous spot, and been simply a few years older he might have been a happy hippie living in San Francisco, but instead he has been frozen out by his own generation at a time when it is no longer hip to spend one’s life composing mediocre songs, strumming a guitar, and writing atrocious poetry.


    When Eban first encounters Charley, the boy is just 14, but soon after turns 15.* The age of sexual consent in the state of Washington is 16, meaning that Charley is a full year away from the magical age when he might legally be perceived aware enough to make a decision about who he loves by himself. We cannot ignore the fact, moreover, that he has previously been living with his loving mother who was deaf and had long ago separated from her husband. The mother has died after being hit in a crosswalk by a drunken driver, after which Charles has been shipped off to a reluctant father who has apparently had no interest in him for years, and who, when he finally discovers that his son is gay and, even worse, has become involved with someone older, is immediately prepared to ship Charley off to his Charleston, South Carolina grandparents who are evidently hard-hearted folk since the father is sure they will “shape him up.” Moreover, he threatens Charley with a psychiatrist (read a person who is likely to send him to a “conversion camp”).

     Charley, as do many disenchanted gay boys his age, is learning how to play the guitar; he too writes poetry, and in his room he worships a world lit by candlelight instead of the cold sunlight that seemingly freezes the heart of most of the town’s residents.


    In short, Eban, who still has the mind and heart of a child and Charley are, in theory, a perfect couple—except obviously for the legal stipulation. And neither of them are truly responsible enough, particularly 15-year-old Charley, to perceive the law from its proper perspective. The two quickly fall in love. Although for the earliest of their outings Eban is careful not to stay with Charley and engage in sex, by the third visit he can no longer resist the boy’s own pleas for him to stay for the night.

     There is little other to their story, except to carefully watch how their love develops and blooms. They quickly become so dependent upon one another for emotional support in a world where Eban’s parents have basically removed themselves from the picture, and where Charley’s father refuses, at one point, to even buy new shoes for Charley after his previous pair are stolen by homophobic thugs. The father’s level of concern extends to the fact that Charley has embarrassed him in front a female guest by appearing with red nail polish on his fingers. We later discover that he has stolen the money that Charley’s mother had left him.


     So yes, Bolton is understandably sympathetic to his characters, who in many ways have no other possibilities of love, perhaps even recognizing that most of his viewers of this will refuse find any empathy. Society is convinced at this time in history that children are not mature enough to properly determine or even comprehend sexuality, and that anyone older to whom they have become attached is a villain for daring to return their love.  

       LGBTQ films have brought up these issues over the years regularly, and I have discussed some of the problems and the extreme illogic of the of the various ages of consent internationally and even in the US, state by state in the next series of essays which follows this one and elsewhere in later volumes.

    Charley has apparently lived for while in the Netherlands with his mother, and realizes that in Denmark the age of sexual consent—as it is also in Ireland, Portugal, and other countries—is 15.

     But we are in Washington, and can merely wait for the other shoe to drop. Which is does with a thud, when Charley’s father, realizing that his son has not come home for the evening. tracks down the location of his boy, which happens to be in Eban’s bed.

    I have already stated above what Charley’s punishment might entail. For Eban, if Charley’s father comes to perceive the full extent of their relationship, it will be far more serious, with years of imprisonment—particularly should his other relationship be revealed—along with a life-long punishment of being named a child-abuser, many of whom cannot even find a place to live given the restrictions put upon them.



      Bolton may certainly be sympathetic to the emotional involvement of the boys, but he nonetheless, allows Eban’s father (Ron Upton) to calmly and quite gently lay out the realities to his adult son, as he attempts to make it clear that Eban’s love of young boys defines him as a pedophile and that he if cannot immediately put a stop to his behavior that he is doomed to a horrific future. He insists that Eban stop seeing Charley, explaining that if he does not, he himself will turn his son into the police.

      For the younger boy, Eban’s attempt to pull away and once more rethink his feelings is an impossible alternative. He demands that Eban live up to his determination to love and protect him, knowing that now his own future in the hands of his grandparents and psychiatrists only be untenable but cruel and painful. It is clear that they are gay deniers. As his father has already proclaimed: “I did not raise my son to be queer.” Indeed, he did not even raise his son.

      Charley has no one to turn to except Eban. And when Eban finally will not even let him sneak a visit through his bedroom window, the boy determines to run away from home. We know also where that will possibly lead: a life on the streets and likely prostitution in order to survive.

      There are no good alternatives in this world for people like Charley and Eban who have found a love for which the society has no mercy.


      Eban not only finally perceives that fact but realizes that he also has no future in the cold, narrow bed of his parent’s Seaside, Washington house. He goes in search of Charley, finding him, once more, by happenstance, sitting on a park bench overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Both now agree they have any no other choice. Eban presumably having some money saved up from his previous employment and Charley having stolen back from his father the money his mother had left him catch a train to Seattle and, with passports in hand, are headed for Denmark or Ireland where can live legally as lovers.


      We can only imagine the dozens of possible impediments ahead: Charley’s or Eban’s father need only alert the police. The couple themselves may look like a suspicious pair to various authorities. Eban can now be accused of kidnapping if apprehended. If the couple does reach Denmark, they may be not permitted to remain in the country for any period of time other than a short visit. Living together, they may find that they are not truly compatible. Will Charley, as he matures, realize Eban’s failures? And what will they do for a living, even if Eban were able to find a job without any recommendations?

      Yet their love has compelled them to take the leap to chance seeking a world which will allow them the simple (but also so very complex) joy of love.    

 

* In Washington individuals who are 16 or older can legally engage in sexual activity with other consenting adults, as long as they are five years or less older than him. However, if the older person is in a position of authority at the time, such as a teacher or a coach, the age of consent is raised to 18. Clearly at 29, Eban would have been arrested and imprisoned for several years for both of his offenses.

 

Los Angeles, September 25, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (September 2024).

Jan Krüger and Oliver Schwabe | Freunde (Friends, aka The Wiz Kids) / 2001

dangerous love

by Douglas Messerli

 

A.M. Homes and Jan Krüger (screenplay, based on the story “The Wiz Kids” by A.M. Homes), Jan Krüger and Oliver Schwabe (directors) Freunde (Friends, aka The Wiz Kids) / 2001 [21 minutes]

 

Two sixteen-year-old-boys, Marco (Marlon Kittel) and Johannes (Martin Kiefer) are long time friends, and now spend most of their days racing toward one another, only to intensely wrestle and fight when they make contact.


    We immediately recognize their battles as not only representing the testosterone-based male games shared by many young men of their age, but perceive them as something deeper. First of all, there is a true sense of violence in Marco’s behavior toward his friend, as a scene in their chemistry classroom reveals. Whispering the word “cocksucker” in Johannes’ ear he attempts to force him to swallow a chemical in a beaker, an act finally broken up by the teacher.

     The battles between the two, we quickly perceive, are not simply struggles for dominance, but sexual encounters that particularly Marco obfuscates by using their bodily contact as occasions for a seemingly loveless groping.

      If they often engage in the “normal” childhood activities of watching videos or even playing hide-and-seek-like games at night, they often include heterosexual porno tapes or night-time gatherings that border on real abuse.

     The two also come together in quieter, more intimate, and tender moments when they seem about to communicate something deeper—although Marco often breaks up these moments with rightist political comments or through suggesting meaningly activities such as counting raindrops after the boys have escaped into a derelict ruin of a house to get out of the wet.


      Yet later they even bathe together, and at one moment; while later in Johannes’ room, the door open, Marco begins to masturbate. “I like the danger,” he insists, although Johannes mocks Marco about just how terribly “dangerous” his mother might be. When Marco finishes, he moves over to Johannes and demands he lick him dry.


        Finally, after yet another night-wrestling session which appears like sexual frottage than a wrestling bout, they get together for a truly sexual afternoon. And for the first time they both willingly and readily engage in what we might describe as normal gay love.


       But soon after, however, Marco insists they meet in an isolated area, Johannes clearly expecting that they might again join up in sex. Marco has instead invited a girl to the spot, Tanja (Rose Bender), with whom he begins to make out, having invited Johannes to “watch how it’s done.”

       Yet the making out session quickly turns into a kind of rape, as the girl first complains and the resists. Marco pushes her to the ground and pisses over her before she finally escapes.

        This time, in his attempt to prove his heterosexuality, Marco has gone too far. And Johannes walks away disgusted. It’s clear that their “friendship” can go no further.

         One commentator on Letterboxd (Rhys) observed: “i think it is strange how some people interpret this film as a sweet queer romance. the character marko [stet] is sadistic and abusive as can be seen in the end scene. he doesn't seem to care much about johannes after they'd had sex.” Rhys goes on see it was a representation of the fascist Germany of the past (Marco) as opposed to the contemporary Germany (Johannes), the latter moving on from but never forgetting the past.

        I don’t think one need, however, relate Krüge’s film to a symbolistic retelling of German history. All cultures have thousands of young men just like Marco, so terrified to admit to their own homosexual feelings that they attempt to prove their masculinity and sexuality through both the sexual abuse of women and homophobic bullying actions against gay males. The brutal wrestling we have observed throughout this film is a mixed message, an attempt to express his hatred with regard to his own self-loathing for his homosexual friend and an attempt to get closer to the one he truly desires. When the proof of his masculinity is threatened by Tanja, he has no alternative but to brutalize her for the rejection. Finally, Marco is left with no one, a being who because of his upbringing and his inability to shed those values, can love no one and is equally doomed to be unloved.

     I myself experienced just such behavior when I was young, working in a restaurant with a tough boy in my class who regularly attempted to get me alone so he could pretend to physically abuse me. I was frightened but yet intrigued since I could almost smell in the headlocks, pushes, and pulls in which he engaged me, a pheromonal hint of sexual desire which I was terrified of responding to since I knew if I submitted he would have to turn the game-playing into actual anger and even hate. It has since fascinated me how these sadly torn sexual beings could spot gay boys before they themselves even knew they were gay.

    Krüger’s short film is a powerful statement about how loving such a torn individual, as Johannes learns, is a danger you have eventually to resist.

 

Los Angeles, September 25, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (September 2024).

João Dall'Stella | Stalls / 2019

bravo!

by Douglas Messerli

 

João Dall'Stella (screenwriter and director) Stalls / 2019 [3 minutes]


In this grand opera house, even bathroom glory holes are hidden by gold plated toilet paper dispensers and tinted in gold. But our mid-act gay man, Jonathan (Andrew Abelson), desperately seeking action, is having no luck.

     The first visitor (Matt Gogin) asks for his cock but then promptly farts; not a very promising sexual partner.


      The second bathroom opera patron (Timothy Scott) moves his foot closer to Jonathan’s foot as is toilet etiquette to announce you’re interested; and Jonathan eagerly moves his a few inches over as well, the two beginning the usual “tap” that means I’m available and ready, resulting in this case in a full toilet tap dance. But when the neighbor takes a look under the stall, he apparently doesn’t like what he sees, zips up his pants, and hurries off.

     Jonathan pulls up his pants and leaves the stall, to wash himself at the sink, while in the background the janitor (Matthew Jain) goes merrily about his business of cleaning up. Yet a moment later the janitor’s eyes meet the opera patron’s with approval, and he quickly enters the last stall, Jonathan returning the middle, both kneeling as they pull their pants down. It’s a hit! Bravo!



      Although I attend opera in Los Angeles quite regularly, the city in which this movie was filmed, I’ve never imagined such activities at the Civic Center downtown. I guess at my age, I prefer the opera to bathroom sex activities. And I’ve never visited the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion men’s room bathroom stalls.

 

Los Angeles, October 21, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2022).

Chadlee Skrikker | Arrangement / 2019

the next step

by Douglas Messerli

 

Chadlee Skrikker (screenwriter and director) Arrangement / 2019 [6 minutes]

 

Rex (Laurent de Froberville) is waiting in his car to pick up, as usual, his friend—whether or not Jess (Hagar Joubert) is just a close friend, his girlfriend, or even wife we never discover—as he checks out the security guard for Jess’ workplace.

     In fact, the good-looking guard Graham (Matthew Barrett) is at that very moment texting him about meeting up in the bathroom, evidently a usual Friday night occurrence. Jess arrives, apologizes for being late, and appears to even joke with Rex about his checking out the cute guard, which suggests that she knows he’s gay and hints that they are probably just close friends.



    Rex, however, remains noncommittal, but suddenly declares that has to go to the bathroom, also a common event apparently, since Jess complains, with some frustration, “every time.”

     Rex promises to be back in a moment. And immediately when the two men meet up the bathroom, they hurry into a stall where the guard quickly fucks him, ejaculating after just a few thrusts.  But when, after, Rex attempts to kiss him, he pulls back reminding him that he doesn’t do that, Rex slightly laughing, “We hook up every Friday and you still won’t kiss me?”

     “I don’t want to be unfaithful.”

      Rex wonders “Seriously?”

      “I work the graveyard shift man. I need some kind of release and you guys…you are just easier.”

      “Do you even love your wife?”

       Graham pauses, using the phrase that so many-closeted gay men trot out at such moments, “I’m not even into guys…just…it’s….” as he puts hands to his face and slides to the floor, unable to stand anymore to deliver his self-deluded statements.


      Rex quickly joins him, as Graham spills out the difficulties of what appears to be a dead relationship, beginning with an important admission, “She made me feel safe.”

       But by the time he finishes his short litany of difficulties, we can see that he is no longer safe in his relationship. Obviously his feelings for men, for Rex perhaps, in particular, is taking over his life.       

     Rex puts his arm around him as the poor man repeats his mantra: “I think I love her….just not the way I’m supposed to.” He leans in finally for a kiss with Rex, but Rex’s cellphone rings.

       It is obviously Jess, impatient. Rex stands, saying he has to go, wondering if he’s “going to be okay,” while Graham thanks him for the short listening session.

       Back in the car Jess asks, “Did you get lost in there,” as if she might not imagine what has been going on. But Rex clearly doesn’t want to explain, as he drives on with her into the night.

       One wonders about Rex’s own lies, or his own desires. Does he truly want more from the troubled guard, or is it now the guard is asking form more than Rex can give him. Will there be another Friday night or was this the last stand.

        South African film director Chadlee Shrikker, who has now produced several interesting gay short films, provides no answer. All we can see is that both beautiful men are seeking something which seems intangible, as unfulfilling as their “arrangement.” Both must answer to themselves what is the next step since tonight they seemed to have graduated from bathroom sex into something potentially more serious.

 

Los Angeles, October 21, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2022).

 


Erik Clemensen | The Men's Room / 2019 || The Men's Room 2 / 2019

unsuspecting tearoom guests

by Douglas Messerli

 

Erik Clemensen (screenwriter and director) The Men’s Room / 2019 [2.44 minutes]

Erik Clemensen (screenwriter and director) The Men’s Room 2 / 2019 [4 minutes]

 

In April of 2019 Erik Clemensen posted, on YouTube two short films without any credits and still not listed in IMDb or other on-line informational sources, two short films entitled The Men’s Room and The Men’s Room 2.


     These two satiric shorts might almost be read as a reaction to Jane Pickett’s The Men’s Room, and if nothing else almost wipe the first one out by using the same title. However, the film also plays very nicely in relationship to the long heterosexual male phobia about using public bathrooms because of the quantity of gay action going on within. That was truly an issue back in the days (1970-1990) in the bathrooms of New York City’s Grand Central and Penn Station where there was such a long que of gay boys (and heterosexual men) ready to jack off in the urinals that it was nearly impossible for a disinterested man to find a place to urinate.

      But in this fantasy world, the director depicts the happenings in what appear to be a college or university library, also common well-known sites for gay encounters.

      In each of the two films a young, not particularly good-looking straight boys have to urinate or, in the second film, defecate badly and rush into the bathrooms to relieve themselves, whistling and singing as they do so.


      A very good looking shirtless gay man suddenly appears and starts moving toward the kid at the urinal, leering so heavily at what he observes that the pisser wonders whether or not he’s all right. Nothing is said and he moves in on his prey, making the young man feel most uncomfortable. He quickly begins zipping up, when suddenly four feet come pounding to the floor in the stalls behind him, the doors opening up to reveal two other fit young gay boys who now as a trio move in on the terrified boy, trying desperately to tell them that he’ll just leave or stay whatever they want.

      Suddenly out of the disabled stall comes a fully dressed gay boy, clapping his hands together as in a high-pitched voice he screams out “Boy!”

      He comes directly up to the kid, asking “You know what’s going to happen to you now?

      “I’m going to walk out of here lickety-split?”

      “Wrong answer. You’re in a world of trouble brother.”

      The screen goes black with a holler of pain and fear emanating from the dark screen.

 

*

 

In the second, slightly longer short, another young man, closing a strange “business deal” just outside the building, also has a sudden urge and runs to the bathroom, entering a stall and beginning his toilet as he sings “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star,” which he soon followed by someone whistling the jingle.


     He laughs, encouraging the sing along until he sees a shirtless hunk peering in through the crack into the toilet stall. And when he looks up, he suddenly perceives two other gay books looking down over the edge of adjacent stalls, the third having also scaled up the front of his door to peer in.

     He quickly finishes and pulls up his pants, trying to exit the bathroom and the three follow. As he moves toward to door, moreover, he suddenly spots another cute, shirtless boy whom he seems to recognize, querying his presence, “Dino?”

     As the four gay men stop his progress, the same individual as in the first part calls a halt to their actions, sniffing out the smell fresh bodies and he moves in on the prey. “You probably thought you could escape! Many have tried. None have succeeded.”


     He literally blows the boy to the wall, shouting out, “Relax. You won’t remember a thing.”

    “Please don’t do this. I don’t want this.”

    As the leader and his tribe move in on the boy, he spits out the words: “Yes you do!”

    Blackout. A scream.

    In both of these short films there is a sense of mind control being exerted against the unsuspecting heterosexual boys, almost a quality that one senses on the horror films such as in Invasion of the Bodysnatchers or the later Night of the Living Dead, with elements of the phalanx of vampirettes in Dracula. Surely bathrooms in the world which these films present are no longer safe for straight boys who if nothing else might be tempted to behave in a manner they never thought possible previously.

     I should mention, that I do not find rape to be a laughing matter, but here the film is not a realistic portrait, but a satiric vision of what a fevered heterosexual might ridiculously fear in such bathroom encounters.

 

Los Angeles, October 21, 20022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 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 ...