Monday, September 30, 2024

Unknown filmmaker | How Long Can You Keep a Secret? / 2018 [commercial advertisement]

a scent

by Douglas Messerli

 

Director unknown How Long Can You Keep a Secret? / 2018 [2.12 minutes] [commercial advertisement]

 

Having featured in 2015 a series of ads titled “Love of All Kinds,” the Philippine clothing company Bench, which also had its own line of perfumes, released an ad in 2018 that featured a father, son, and the boy’s would-be high school popular "straight" boyfriend.


     The ad begins with the father dropping off his son at school, the cute boy immediately spraying himself profusely with Bench’s “So in Love” body perfume (an ungendered perfume). As JR parades down the school hallway with his female best friend and another outsider boy, the school hottie comes toward him, greeting him by name and saying “You smell good.”

     When the son returns home at the end of the day, even his father notes that he smells “Like you have a girl.” The closeted queer kid suggests it’s just some girls at school getting friendly.

     The next day the school jock goes even further, the two actually sharing a bench, JR telling him “You smell good,” the cutie responding, “You smell better.” That evening his father teases him, “So is she your girlfriend yet?”


   The next day as JR is checking a class list on the wall, the school hot boy joins him, even putting his hand on his shoulder. The father’s evening response: “Someone smells like a winner.”

      But when JR goes to spray on “So in Love” the next morning, he discovers that the bottle’s run out. This time as JR walks down the hall, the cute boy is waving not at home but at the girl next to him, who greats the school charmer with a hug, JR slinking past them with the feeling that the possible relationship between them is now over.

      That night home his dear dad immediately inquires, “Hey, what happened? No more? When are you going to tell me about it?”

      His son brushes him off, afraid to say anything about his brief school romance.


     In his room, however, the boy finds a fresh bottle of “So in Love,” along with note. “Son, I know your secret. Love you.”

      This is another commercial advertisement which I can’t imagine being aired in the US. Can you imagine an American father providing his son a sissy perfume whose fragrance turns on a straight jock?

 

Los Angeles, September 30, 2024 / Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (September 2024).

 

Ira Sachs | Little Men / 2016

losing it

by Douglas Messerli

 

Ira Sachs and Mauricio Zacharias (screenplay), Ira Sachs (director) Little Men / 2016

 

Through the past decade Ira Sachs has made a movie about every 2 years (with the exception of five years between Married Life and Keep the Lights On), each one better, or at least as good, as the one before it. Little Men seems to me to the apotheosis of his thematic concerns and his quiet, melodramatic style—and I mean that in the best sense of that word, in the way that one can describe the films of Douglas Sirk as melodramas, dramas of human feeling.


     The specific issue here, as many critics have noted, is loss, in particular urban loss. What is being lost in vibrant cities as they become overwhelmingly a space for the young, predominantly white rich, is the question behind his last two films, along with the social and personal losses that come along with those changes. Although Sachs has generally been focused on New York, this new film and his last, Love Is Strange, might easily have been filmed in San Francisco, Seattle, or even the more culturally diverse Los Angeles.

      Clearly Brian Jardine (Greg Kinnear) has had his share of losses: his father has just died as the movie opens, and as an actor with a once promising career has gone nowhere; he hardly makes enough money to pay the bills. Although he cannot quite bring himself to admit it, he is embarrassed by relying on his wife Kathy (Jennifer Ehle), a psychotherapist, for his small family’s survival. And he probably has visited his father so little during his life because of that very fact— we later discover that his father had refused to attend family events because they were paid for by Kathy, not his son. Sachs reveals all of this in a few seconds when, taking down the garbage after a low-keyed memorial gathering in their father’s Brooklyn brownstone, Brian breaks down into sobs. What’s more, he must face the fact that, as we see in his portrayal of Trigorin in Chekhov’s The Seagull in an off-off Broadway theater, that he is simply not a great actor.


     Kathy, as the breadwinner, has lost her youth, and is now losing customers. In short, the Jardines are in financial duress, and are delighted to leave Manhattan by moving into the dead father’s brownstone.

     The building also contains a rent-paying dress shop, run by a former Chilean seamstress, Leonor Calvelli (Paulina GarcĂ­a). However, the rent she pays is incredibly low given the recent gentrification of the neighborhood. Brian’s father, knowing that her business brought in very little, kept the rent low, and sought out the strong-willed woman as a friend and confident. Leonor’s husband is seemingly on a permanent trip to Angola, where we never discover what he is doing—except as Leonor’s son Tony (Michael Barbieri) imaginatively speculates, he is on an endless safari. He too, has lost his father, which he admits at first hurt him, but the fact of which he has now assimilated.

     This tiny family of two suffers the loss of income which might help them to survive. And now that there is a new landlord, Leonor sniffs out the future like a lioness determined to protect the only things she has left in her life: her hard work and her love for her talented son.



     At the center of this tale, however, are the “little men,” the two boys, the Jardines’ son, Jake (Theo Taplitz)—an introverted, almost speechless young man who wants to be a visual artist—and Tony, a rather fearless boy who wishes to become an actor in the vein of Al Pacino or Robert De Niro. They are both 13, and they bond almost immediately upon encountering one another.

     Sachs is careful not to describe their relationship as having anything to do with sex or real love, but we only have to watch the soulful stares of Jake upon his new-found friend, or to see the boys racing through the Brooklyn streets together, Tony on a foot-scooter and Jake rollerblade skating slightly behind or aside him, to know that these kids share something special together. If they are opposites, together they reinforce one another as yin and yang. Both want to be able to attend the arts school Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School. And both immediately are beloved by each other’s parents allowing them to share meals and weekly sleepovers.


    If the fast-talking Tony (in one wonderful scene he even talks down his acting teacher in a theater exercise) also plays sports and is attracted to a girl, we know that the shy Jake is focused only on Tony and his own art. Sachs says nothing else about the sexual interests, but knowing boys at their age, it should come of no surprise, if they might also be exploring one another’s bodies. If nothing else, their friendship is, at this moment, at the center of their lives. And when a fellow school mate hints at Jake’s possible homosexuality (“he wears dresses at home,” taunts the boy), Tony slugs him, receiving a beating in return. These little men might have become friends for life—if it weren’t for the insensitivity and class differences of their parents.

     Prodded by both his wife and his obviously greedy sister (Talia Balsam) (“What am I getting out of this?” she laments), Brian determines to triple Leonor’s rent, a sum she simply cannot pay. She, in turn, battles him back, refusing to even read his new rental agreement and goading him with stories from his father’s mouth. She even advertises for new help. As film critic Sheila O’Malley writes: “She's terrifying. She's terrified. When she crushes her cigarette out on the sidewalk, you can picture Brian and Kathy's faces underneath her shoe. She is not a villain. She is fighting for her life.”


     When the little men awaken from their rapture to realize what is happening, they determine to enact a kind of passive aggression, both refusing to speak to their parents. But when it becomes clear that Leonor will be evicted, losing her only possibility of income, Jake breaks his silence beseeching his parents to change their tactics.

       It is too late, and regret is all any of these figures have left. In the last scene we see the painful isolation, once again, of Jake, now sporting a ponytail, on a visit to an art museum where he is sketching a painting, the traditional way in which artists hone their own craft. Across the way, he suddenly spots Tony with a group of other students viewing the art. For a moment he rises to get a better glimpse, but as Tony moves away with the others, Jake returns to his floor-bound location, focusing on the only thing he now has left, his art.

      The terrible feeling at the bottom of our stomachs as we leave the theater is that both boys may have lost, in the severing of their bond, almost everything except their personal imaginative desires. Will they, like Leonor and Brian, similarly be failures in their chosen endeavors? That, we can never know. We can only hope not. Or let me say, we can only believe that they may find the happiness that has so eluded the bigger men and women around them.

       The acting in this film is as excellent as the direction, and the music by Dickon Hinchliffe is a delightful counterpoint to the sadness of the film’s subject. This is a movie I might like to own to be able to see it again and again.

     

Los Angeles, October 4, 2016

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2016

 

 

 

 

Shirley Clarke | The Connection / 1961

waiting for the cowboy

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jack Gelber (screenplay, based on his stage play), Shirley Clarke (director) The Connection / 1961, general release 1962

 

Yesterday afternoon I finally got an opportunity to watch Shirley Clarke’s 1961 film, The Connection. Milestone re-released this UCLA restoration back in 2012, but their price was somewhat prohibitive, and Netflix never picked it up for their library. I finally found it on Filmstruck.


       Based on the 1959 play by brilliant off-Broadway writer, Jack Gelber (see my piece in My Year 2003), Clarke’s film uses the characters who are supposedly filming  the men waiting in a run-down apartment for their next fix, creating a sense of watching a documentary about a documentary, particularly when the unseen cameraman (with the voice of Roscoe Lee Brown) refuses to turn off his camera while the director (William Redfield) coaxes the addicts to “just be themselves” and adjusts the various lights and microphones strategically positioned throughout the room.

       The apartment, belonging to Leach (Warren Finnerty), is filled with Ernie (Garry Goodrow), a former saxophonist who has sold his instrument to purchase drugs, Solly (Jerome Raphel), Harry (Henry Proach), and members of a jazz quartet, Freddie Redd, Jackie McLean, Michael Mattos, and Larry Ritchie, who perform throughout the long wait.


        The angriest of these is Ernie, who challenges and taunts the director, Dunn, and, along with others, insists that if he is going to watch them shoot up, then he also—pretend hipster that he is—should take a dose of heroin. And later, Dunn does just that, immediately growing sick even as he continues “capturing” the events.

       Perhaps the oddest of this group is Solly, who is highly educated, speaks two languages, we are told, and, apparently, since we see him leafing through the pages of a male magazine, is gay. Leach is described as a closet queer.



       Each of these figures gets a chance to talk, just as the jazz musicians all get an opportunity to show off their musical talents before Cowboy (Carl Lee) arrives, surprisingly along with an elderly woman called Sister Salvation, who might, we first might imagine, be hooked as well, but whom, we soon perceive, is completely unable to even grasp what is going on—which merely emphasizes the strangeness of a group of men all gathered together in a small room, pacing in anticipation. Dunn, evidently, has paid for this fix.


     The amazing thing about Gelber’s play and Clarke’s brilliant filming of it, is that none of these social outcasts is chastised or punished for their drug habit; even though Leach, who obviously has been on drugs for years, almost dies when he demands more heroin; Cowboy temporarily saves his life. But none of them truly regret their habit, nor are they expected to. The police never show up—although at one point, Redd plays a joke on his cast members by asking a real policeman to knock on the door of the set. Their only anger comes from having to suffer one another’s company and spend their day waiting, a bit like Beckett’s characters, for their version of Godot.

      It is hard to imagine in 1961 (and even earlier at The Living Theatre in 1959) that such a no-nonsense approach to drugs would be even possible. Clarke’s gritty film however was banned after just two performances, not because of its subject but by of the use (about 12 times) of the word “shit,” referencing the drug not its bodily meaning. Yet, of course, it is in the bathroom where each of them gets their shot by Cowboy, and their degradation in that act is apparent.

      Clarke appealed the court decision, and eventually won, but by that time the film has lost its underground appeal. And it was reviewed badly in The New York Times, despite having garnered acclaim in its original showing at Cannes. 

      Today, we might almost be witnessing an historical encounter that thousands of middle-class people now intact, in cars, shopping centers and restaurant bathrooms, and at home, apparently, every day. But in 1961 most Americans had never before even imagined such a scenario, let alone seen it played out in a film or on a stage.

      A strange note: in the original production, which included some audience involvement, actor Martin Sheen played “the man in the audience.”

      I’d love to have seen that play, and I wish I might have included it in Mac Wellman and my anthology, A New American Drama: 1960-1995; Mac had wanted to include The Connection, but I stubbornly held to our arbitrary 1960 date. Today I cannot imagine a better production than Clarke’s, whose black-and-white rendering parallels Sidney Lumet’s film of Long Day’s Journey into Night, an even earlier tale of drug addiction, of the very next year.

 

Los Angeles, March 16, 2017

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (March 2017).

Index [listed alphabetically by director]

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