Thursday, October 24, 2024

Don Roy King | Jonah Hill Dating Andy's Dad / 2008 [TV (SNL) episode]

a fractured fairy-tale

by Douglas Messerli

 

Seth Myers (head writer) Don Roy King (director) Jonah Hill Dating Andy’s Dad / 2008 [TV (SNL) episode] [4.17 minutes]

 

The March 13, 2008 show of Saturday Night Live began with a meeting with guest performer Jonah Hill and regular SNL cast member Andy Samberg, with the former announcing that since

they met up at a friendly dinner party relating to Hill’s guest performance on the show, Hill was been dating Samberg’s dad.


     Well, it’s a bit more than simply “dating,” it quickly becomes clear. They’ve been having an affair, which quite understandably disturbs Samberg, particularly given the images that the skit calls up, deep tongue kissing and hand holding between the two of them, including Hill’s suggestion that Samberg’s Dad is one of the most fascinating men he’s ever met in his life.

      Understandably, Samberg wonders, “Is this a joke?” Of course, it is, but in the reality of Saturday Night Live-land, it isn’t, and in the myth of the TV fantasy film world in which SNL exists, Hill is truly having an affair with one of the player’s Father.

      “My Dad?” Samberg, shaking his head, inquires.

  “Yes, your Dad, my boyfriend, whatever….”  A moment later, he announces: “It’s gotten extraordinarily physical.”


      “I got to be honest with you. I’m really not cool with this,” Samberg predictably responds. We are, after all in a TV time warp where such impossible things might actually happen.

      “You’re dating my 57-year-old father.”

      “Why is everyone freaking out about the age thing. You sound like you mom right now.”

    Andy’s father suddenly shows up, gives Hill a kiss, and turns to his son: “Andy, I’ve been meaning to tell you…. Jonah and I are dating.” Hill explains that he has already told him, to which the father responds, “Blabbermouth,” Hill rejoining, “I know, I’m the worst.”


      All we need is Bill Hader to show up, and wonder how Samberg happens to know “them.”

      “Ah, he’s my Dad.”

      “Small word,” Hader announces, “We’ve been fucking.”

      Where do you go after an opening skit like that? You’ve entered the strange dimension of time called “the Twilight world of SNL.”

      Of course, gay humor has been a standard of the long-lived comedy show, but this burns down in close to the supposedly private lives of the actors themselves, during a season when, due to a writer’s strike, everyone might have wondered whether or not there would even be a show.

 

Los Angeles, October 24, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (October 2024).

     

Jacqueline Audry | Olivia / 1951

grace

by Douglas Messerli

 

Pierre Laroche (screenplay, based on a novel by Dorothy Bussy), Jacqueline Audry (director) Olivia / 1951

 

Jacqueline Audry’s Olivia of 1951 reminds me some of Leontine Sagan’s 1931 film Mädchen in Uniform (Girls in Uniform). Both take place in well-to-do private girls’ schools, and both involve teachers who compete with each other for their students’ love. Yet, almost immediately, the comparisons quickly fall away. The caring gentleness of one of the head mistresses, Fräulein von Bernburg, interpreted as love by one of her young charges, although filled with lesbian possibilities in the 1931 movie, has none of the more openly queer coding of Audry’s film.


    

     In Olivia—named after the young British girl who arrives to the freethinking and open-minded French establishment directly from a restrictive rather religious institution—the innocent neophyte is almost immediately required to take positions with regard to the two women, the beautiful, pampered, and manipulative Mlle. Cara (Simone Simon) and the pleasant and loving, if more authoritarian Mlle. Julie (Edwige Feuillère), who together run the school, and who apparently were lovers until a young protégé Laura (Elly Norden) came—unintentionally so it appears—between them.

     We’re never completely filled in with the details of how these two charming and caring women suddenly pulled away from one another; we know only that, according to the young girls who try to explain things to Olivia, the school is now divided into “Julistes” and “Caristas.” Olivia, after her rather harsh learning experiences of the past, would love them both. But Cara, who seems to be endlessly suffering from migraines, and as often as she calls her young admirers to her, just as quickly sends them away, gradually takes second place to the far more outgoing Julie, who engages each of her students in very personal ways (vaguely recalling the manner of the influential teacher in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, prognosticating her student’s futures). Julie describes Olivia’s major asset as “grace.”


     Yet it is her teacher’s voice, as Julie nightly reads scenes from Racine and others, that first enchants Mlle. Julie’s impressionable pupil. The first time Olivia hears her teacher read she quite literally falls into a kind trance, the other Julistes snickering that the new girl has quite definitely joined their “camp.”

     But it is also the little things that Julie does, regularly asking Olivia to sit in the chair closest to her as she reads, commenting somewhat positively about Olivia’s quick mind, and, finally, taking her on a semi-educational day-trip to Paris which ends up, on the train home, with Julie gently touching her knee and stroking her student’s hand.

     If all the girls in Sagan’s movie cannot wait for their nightly kiss from Fräulein von Bernburg, for Olivia the gentle kiss proffered by Mlle. Julie sends her into near ecstasy and a heady spin into an off-kilter world that we can only perceive as something deeper that a typical school-girl crush for a caring teacher. Time and again throughout Audry’s brilliantly filmed work (cinematography by Christian Matras), we recognize that the relationship between student and teacher betrays, as reviewer Caden Mark Gardner wrote in Hyperallergic Weekend that the girl’s “attraction runs deeper, is knottier” than others who feel for their beloved teacher.

     When Laura briefly returns to the school for a visit, Olivia asks her whether she loves Mlle. Julie, to which the girl replies “yes.” Olivia continues, “but doesn’t your heart stop beating when her hand touches yours?” No, responds Laura, “I love her; “nothing more, “it’s just that simple.”

     Soon, after, Laura again leaves the school with the belief that it would be “better for Mlle. Julie,” signifying that Julie’s love towards her continues to stand in the way of Julie’s and Cara’s relationship. But it will be no better with Laura gone, suggests the Italian teacher to Olivia, because now there is you.

   This movie’s climax occurs during the school’s annual Christmas party, when select girls in remarkable costumes pair up with other girls dressed as young men, together dancing at the seeming pleasure of the two school masters sitting near the tree.



   Despite Olivia’s stunning Indian garb, it is Cécile, dressed in the stars and stripes of her US homeland, a dress she herself has designed, that receives Julie’s praise, ending with an intense kiss to the girl’s neck.

      Observing Olivia’s jealousy of seeing another girl elevated from her own place in Julie’s affections, Mlle Julie whispers into Olivia’s ear that after the party she will visit her room, bringing her bon-bons. Olivia is so delighted in the prospect that she cannot even sleep; yet Julie never appears, the teacher telling the student the next day, while resisting with great difficulty placing her hands upon Olivia’s waist to comfort the child, that she is sorry she has hurt her last night.

 

                    I always try to do my best. My best for you, and for me.

                    [she goes to the door, and turns her head back into the room]

                    I like you, my dear. More than you think.

 

     The next day Julie announces that she is leaving the school for a new teaching position. But we know that the true reason is Cara’s jealousy and the temptations that Olivia presents, all fanned by the flames of Cara’s quite evil minion Frau Riesener (Lesly Meynard), who is currently caring for a new round of migraine’s her mistress is suffering.

     Exhausted, the elderly teacher temporarily gives over Cara’s care to Reisener’s arch enemy, the always hungry and somewhat comic figure, Mlle. Dubois (Suzanne Dehelly). Julie travels to town on business—presumably, after what we hear near film’s end, transferring all of her financial interests in the school to Cara.

     Soon after Julie returns, Cara is found dead.

     Through a brief series of questions by an intruding patriarchal panel, who put suspicion on both Mlle. Dubois and Mlle. Julie, we perceive that Cara has taken up the key which Dubois has mistakenly left behind, and overdosed on her medicine.

      As the children gather about Cara’s door, hoping to see her body, Julie stridently demands they leave. Cara is the only one she ever loved, she declares, let me be alone with her coffin tonight.

      So is Olivia sent home, to her haunted world of religiosity in which the joys and pains of love which the girl has experienced would surely be described as “unnatural,” but which our protagonist unapologetically declares in a printed quote at the beginning of the film: “Love has always been the key matter of my life. May the Gods grant me not to have profaned such a pure and cherished memory.”

      Mlle. Julie, true to her intention of leaving, will soon follow.

      Cara has left the school to Riesener in her will, but with only a few, if any students remaining, the harpy is left with little support. Even the magnificently earthy cook, Victoire (Yvonne de Bray), who begins this film with observations of the joys the school experienced in the “old days,” determines it is time to move on.

      Audry made 13 feature films after working for years as director Max Ophüls’ assistant. Olivia, one of her most outstanding works, has now been restored, and finally can be recognized as one of the most important films made about lesbian love.

 

Los Angeles, July 19, 2020

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (July 2020).

Jean Genet | Un chant d'amour / 1950

impossible intimacy

 

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jean Genet (screenwriter and director) Un chant d’amour / 1950

 

It’s strange today, 70 years after its original release in 1950, that I might wish to describe Jean Genet’s Un chant d’amour as one of the most truly romantic movies ever made.

     Upon the attempt to show it by Sol Landau at Berkeley in 1966, the local police wrote that if he actually screened it, the film "would be confiscated and the person responsible arrested." Landau immediately filed a suit, which, after watching the film twice, the Alameda Superior Court declared it as “explicitly and vividly reveal[ing] acts of masturbation, oral copulation, the infamous crime against nature [a euphemism for sodomy], voyeurism, nudity, sadism, masochism and sex," rejecting Landau’s suit while describing it as "cheap pornography calculated to promote homosexuality, perversion and morbid sex practices." The strange thing is that none of these acts in this film are actually portrayed but simply suggested.

 

    When the case was heard by the US Supreme Court, a 5-4 per curiam decision declared that the film was simply obscene. It had already been banned in other countries.

      It is true, the prisoners locked away in jail, do rather go crazy at the hour their sexual desires reach their peak, particularly for the hirsute gay man (André Reybaz) who is in love with the boy next door, a look-alike James Dean (credited simply as Java), and attempts to entice the young man into symbolic sex—since the two have little possibility of actually meeting in the flesh.

      We perceive all of this, moreover, by the voyeuristic peeping’s of a horny prison guard who through a tiny eye-hole looks in upon the two would-be lovers, as well as observing through larger openings two other sexy prisoners, uncredited by Genet (the dancer Coco Le Martiniquais) and another masturbating figure.

       But the guard is clearly more taken by the frustrated lovers, Java and Reybaz. Reybaz attempts to entice the younger through a long open straw through which he blows his cigarette smoke, along with gentle knocks on the wall, surely hardly heard by the other (I should mention that this is basically a silent movie with musical accompaniment). And why shouldn’t he be, seeing them through their prison windows attempting to woo one another with a gathering of flowers.

      Where Reybaz might have obtained the flowers is inexplicable, but it serves, as in Genet’s original fiction, Our Lady of the Flowers, as a potent symbol of their unrequited love.


       The couple’s frustration is the true subject of the film, as in many of the early scene’s the handsome young man seems more in love with this Betty Boop-like tattoo than with the man improbably attempting to engage him.

     And yes, penises do become erect and come out of the clothes in which they are trapped. If the young hot Java, at first, seems more interested in his feet, arm-pits and other body parts than in his penis, he eventually succumbs, reaching into his own stock of straws to pick the largest one—and, of course, in their mutual acts there could be no more potent symbol of the sexual intercourse between the two men—so that we almost literally imagine that their shared smoke represents a kind of “blow job,” each pouring out and sucking it the vital connection it suggests.


      The true criminal acts here are not presented in their desperate attempts to share love, but by the prison guard, who cannot bear their impossible intimacy. Like the Berkeley police, he dares to finally unlock the door of the sweaty gay lover, pull out his gun, and remove his belt to beat the older man before putting the gun, which we obviously understand is a version of his rusty cock, into Reybaz’s mouth. This is, in fact, sadism, the reason, most certainly, why the courts could not allow the screening of this film: it portrayed them!


     While Reybaz is being beaten, moreover, he fantasizes a lovely outdoor celebration with his would-be lover, where the two romp in a forest wilderness, chasing one another around trees and into the bushes before the elder literally carries off the younger for a deep romantic entanglement in the grass. Their love, we realize, is pure, sensual, and caring, while the prison guard’s passion comes from an embarrassed and violent attraction. His love is perverted while the prisoner’s version is almost innocent.

      We can never know whether in his own moment of desire, the guard actually shoots into the mouth of Reybaz. The nearly 26-moment film ends before we can discover the results. But it doesn’t quite matter. Java and Reybaz have imaginatively had their romantic encounter, despite the definitive refusals of the so-called authorities.

       I was only 3 years old at the time of this film, so I can hardly imagine the significance of Genet’s work, and the bravery of Sol Landau and his failed attempts to allow people to see how gay men felt in their cultural—and often literal—imprisonments. It took over 20 years more for some of that to stop in the US. Yet in many countries still today it ends in death.

 

Los Angeles, February 18, 2018

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (February 2019).

Jean-Pierre Melville | Les Enfants terribles / 1950

a world apart

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jean-Pierre Melville and Jean Cocteau (screenplay based on Cocteau’s fiction), Jean-Pierre Melville (director) Les Enfants terribles / 1950

 

Having seen director Jean-Pierre Melville’s first major film, Le Silence de la Mer, French writer and director Jean Cocteau asked Melville to direct a movie based on Cocteau’s fiction, Les Enfants terribles.

       Despite some problems with the final result—particularly concerning numerous narrative voice-overs, read by Cocteau himself—Melville was a remarkable choice. While latter versions and a recent dance-opera feature far more lurid and literal scenes, Melville, given the sexual restraints of audiences of the time, allows more to the imagination, which, in turn, helps to create a kind of dissociation between the two central figures and the rest of the world.


       Why, we can only wonder, might a snowball lobbed into his stomach—even with a rock embedded into it—bring the young teenage student, Paul (Édouard Dermit), to a collapse with blood dribbling from his mouth and resulting in the need for a long period of home rest? And what is Paul’s true relationship with the boy who tossed the snowball, his friend, Dargelos (played by the actress, Renée Cosima)? And, even more importantly, what is the true nature of Paul’s relationship with his sister, Élisabeth (Nicole Stéphane)?


       Even the overtly “pretty” appearance of the actor playing Paul (acted by a young protégé of Cocteau who Melville thought was not right for part), suggests a kind of frailness and bisexuality, thus hinting that Paul is purposely bluffing, attempting to find a way out of his school to be nearer to Élisabeth. The fact, moreover, that he carries with him a photograph of Dargelos, dressed as a woman for an all-male school play in which he performed, further suggests that Paul’s love for him is a homosexual one. And the fact that brother and sister sleep in the same room, fighting like lovers, and sharing in a series of secret games—games the complete nature of which are never revealed—casts an eerie spell of what is obviously their incestuous-like relationship. In short, by not spelling it out, Melville engages us in deep speculation, casting an almost mythical spell on everything in which they are involved. The siblings’ drawers of “treasures” become something like fetishes which engage and ultimately kill them. And the fact that Dargelos and, later, Agathe, are played by the same woman, explain Paul’s sudden infatuation with the latter, even though it is apparent he is a gay boy entirely dependent upon his sister’s love.

      Some English translations of Cocteau’s original work titled the book The Holy Terrors, but these adolescents are neither “holy” nor “terrors,” but are, as in the French, “terrible infants,” adolescents who have obviously grown up without proper adult supervision (the mother, like a southern belle, has early in her life retired to her death bed, and is killed off early in the film). And if they love and deeply care for one another in their adolescent alliance, they fight with one another more like Martha and George in Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

      That behavior also helps to explain the couple’s need for others around them: in order to properly play out their tortuous relationship, they need an audience, which Paul finds in the presence of the handsome Gérard (Jacques Bernard) and Élisabeth discovers in her fellow model friend Agathe. In many ways, these two become mirror like images of the brother’s and sister’s desires and love. And it is only logical that when they threaten to truly intrude upon the dream-world that the young siblings have conjured up, that the stronger of the two, Élisabeth, must destroy them.


      Expressing his love for Agathe, Paul attempts to ask her to marry him. But even in this longing for something outside of his bedroom fantasy, he is too weak to engage her directly and writes a letter to someone staying in the mansion of horrors that Élisabeth has inherited from her short-lived husband. Intercepting that letter, Paul’s sister tears it up and tosses it into the toilet, creating a web of lies that marries off Agathe to Gérard.

       The sudden introduction of a highly toxic poison sent to Paul by Dargelos—the two, we are told, long shared an interest in poisons—is like a love potion to the now forlorn and lovestruck Paul. It may seem to be a kind of pointless deus ex machina, but it is necessary for this permanent insider to kill himself before he truly suffocates in his sister’s embraces.


       His suicide, moreover, paves the way for her own, as, a bit like Hedda Gabler, she brings out the gun to end her own life.

       Melville’s work reveals Cocteau’s own operatic tale as a kind of fable that speaks of a private world of the imagination (not unlike Cocteau’s own hothouse films, Beauty and the Beast and Orphée) in which the characters struggle hard to keep the real world—however one defines that—at bay. These two children are determined, as Peter Pan puts it, to never grow up, dying for a world where together they magically lived out their lives surrounded by a perceived toxic adult world.

 

Los Angeles, February 18, 2018

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (February 2018).

Michael Curtiz | Young Man with a Horn / 1950

the sound of brass

by Douglas Messerli

 

Carl Foreman and Edmund H. North (screenplay, based on the novel by Dorothy Baker), Michael Curtiz (director) Young Man with a Horn / 1950

 

There are a great many works of art that require a “willing suspension of disbelief,” but thankfully only a small number that require a “willing suspension of attention” to provide the viewer or reader anything of value. Such a work is the 1950 film Young Man with a Horn, directed by the esteemed Michael Curtiz, who created such classics as Casablanca, Mildred Pierce, and White Christmas. With a story-line that is loosely based on the life of jazz trumpeter Bix Beiderbecke and with notable actors Hoagy Carmichael, Kurt Douglas, Lauren Bacall, and Doris Day, it’s hard to imagine that this film might not be a huge success. Alas, it’s a long haul before you get a few lovely witty moments previous to sinking into long scenes with Douglas playing trumpeter Rick Martin stumbling through the streets of lower Manhattan and Harlem until, in its last 20 seconds, the narrator, Willy “Smoke” Willoughby (Carmichael) announces that the film’s fallen hero reformed himself and became a famous musician—far from the tragic end Beiderbecke and even author Dorothy Baker’s character faced. Beiderbecke died of alcohol-induced pneumonia at the age of 26.


      It’s not that there aren’t a few pleasurable moments in the first half of this film. Although most of it is simply devoted to laying out the structure of the plot, the young Rick played by Orley Lindgren is a real blond charmer as slipping out of his sister’s apartment he discovers music at a local Salvation Army mission and listens in to jazz concerts headed by famed black trumpeter Art Hazzard (Juano Hernández).

      When Orley finally gets enough money to buy his trumpet and take free lessons from Hazzard, growing up to be Kirk Douglas, there’s some wonderful solo riffs dubbed by Harry James. And even if you’re not a fan of jazz coronet, composer, singer, and early jazz pianist Carmichael—who actually performed with Beiderbecke, introduced him to Louis Armstrong, and wrote music for him—tickles the ivories very nicely. In one of her finest roles, Doris Day isn’t required to be endlessly sweet and perky—although she generally remains so throughout this movie—and gets the opportunity to show off her quite formidable singing talents as Jo Jordon, the singer under the baton of Jack Chandler’s (Walter Reed) strictly-by-the-score orchestral renditions. She’s got such a beautiful voice, but you can’t but wish that someone might have taught her how to actually “interpret” music. She purrs out her anthems so sweetly, however, that we hardly notice that she can’t express any other emotion. 


      The rapport between Douglas and Hernández is enjoyable. But unfortunately, as a character “married to his trumpet” Douglas isn’t given a significant range in which to express the acting talents we witness in other works. He mutes his trumpet to the shuffle of dancers’ feet before going on to play the music he really loves in his room alone. Even when he moves on to New York, now featured in Phil Morrison’s (Jerome Cowan) band, the only time he gets to say anything is a few one-liners during afterhours at Louis Galba’s (Nestor Paiva) village nightclub where he helps his old mentor Hazzard keep his job by showing up each night to entertain the after-hours crowd. As great of a writer as Carl Foreman was, he was hardly given an opportunity to pen a line until Lauren Bacall walks into Galba’s club.

      It is at that very moment that Young Man with a Horn finally wakes up. Jo (Day) has taken her to club which she frequents, and after a few minutes with Amy North (Bacall’s character), we have to wonder what on earth is Jo doing with this queer figure. And this time I mean that in every sense. As Rick, whom she alone insistently calls Richard, this sexy woman in something incomprehensible. As flat as Rick’s character is—a stereotypically possessed jazz musician who wants nothing but to hit a note that’s never been played before—Amy is a doll blown-up to such enormous proportions that she almost literally floats above all the other film’s figures. She and Rick are the perfect Yin and Yang, opposites who attract one another, but in this case merely out of curiosity. As she puts it soon after meeting the man with a horn under his arm, “I envy you Richard but I don’t quite understand you.” His reply says it all: “That goes double for me.” A misunderstanding of enormous proportions is just what intrigues them and almost ends up destroying them both.


        Yet Amy is quite clear about her oddities from the very first moment they meet. She hates jazz and has come to the club only to study the people—she’s studying to be a psychologist at the university*—since she believes that “jazz is a cheap, mass-produced narcotic.”

      A second later she quite openly reveals—at least to anyone who can read the alphabet backwards—exactly where she sexually stands. In the longest monologue the script permits her, Bacall taps out a cigarette, looks over at Day who’s just begun singing, and with a well-tuned oily alto pretense of adulation voices: “Jo’s wonderful, isn’t she?  So simple and uncomplicated. It must be wonderful to wake up in the morning and know just which door you’re going to walk through. She’s so terribly normal.”

     Yes, this is slightly coded language, but just in case you didn’t get it, in the very next scene she invites Rick back to her penthouse apartment, pours him a drink, and suddenly recalls that since she’s got an early class the next morning she has to hit the sack. This is not coded language. She encourages him to finish his drink but not to forget to turn out the lights, before promptly entering her bedroom and slamming the door shut.


      In a follow-up scene she weasels her way into Rick’s rickety flat, where, when she refuses a drink, he finally figures out its time to make his move. He hugs and kisses her, only to have her pull away, gasping “No. It’s not you,” followed up with what, self-admittedly, is the most honest line that writers Foreman and North have put in her mouth: “Instead of being angry, you should be grateful. You think you’re falling in love with me. Well don’t. Don’t take any chances with me. ...I feel a half dozen things at the same time.” Code for, “I’m so confused about my sexuality.”

      Again she leaves him standing cold in the dark as the elevator speedily takes her down to the lobby. The only reason, after pausing at the front desk, that she makes a U-turn to Rick’s place is to wipe the smirks off the faces of the clerk and the elevator boy.

      The two marry, without Rick even knowing it, for another of her psychological experiments, an attempt, after a life lived “like an intellectual mountain goat, jumping from crag to crag, trying everything,” to see if the musician’s absolutely grounded vision might help her to return to the normality of settling on a single rock.

      Almost the moment they’ve signed the marriage license, however, she has become determined to return to her studies, and given her day-time classroom requirements and his late-night performances, the two hardly ever again get the opportunity to see one another.

       When they do pause for a word or two, she admits that she has failed her courses and suggests that she has met a woman artist with whom she might travel to Paris.

      If Rick and Amy have forgotten why they even married, so has Curtiz forgotten most of his previous characters, and now quickly brings up the fact that Rick hasn’t played at Galba’s for months, probably costing his old friend Hazzard his job. And Jo, now a renowned singer, who warned him that Amy was a “strange girl,” is suffering from her motherly instincts in her worries over Rick. 


         But by this time Rick has forgotten the old cast as well, and he’s suffering so deeply about the fact that Amy has utterly rejected him that even Douglas’ dimple is quivering in pain. Smoke’s words don’t move him away from the bar and even a visit by his mentor makes him explode in anger. A moment later the elderly black trumpeter is hit and killed by a passing car.

        Only then does Rick briefly return to sanity, taking in Hazzard’s funeral and blowing off a little steam by performing a tribute to his remarkable teacher on his horn. He returns to the get-together Amy has pleaded with him to attend just as the party’s over, even her guests admonishing him on their way for having missed the event.



        As he goes to open the door, his wife appears with her artist girlfriend Marge (Mary Beth Hughes), commenting “I’m dying to see the rest of your sketches,” to which Marge replies, “We’ll have dinner out and go back to my place.” In case you live you live on Pluto, I’ll remind you that “come up and see my sketches sometime” is a campy quip that translates into an invitation for gay boys to get together for a little fun.

      Even the whisky-headed cornetist finally puts two-and-two together: if he’s married to his horn, Amy has chosen a woman of tuck under her arm. It’s amazing how hard the film’s creators had to work during the good-old-Hays days to wink to the audience that Amy was a lesbian, who, as she puts it in the next few frames, is “sick of [her husband] trying to touch [her].”

      She’s equally sick of “the sound of brass,” and destroys his rare collection of jazz recordings to prove the fact.

        It’s almost funny, but so awfully sad, that to protect themselves the director and his writers are now required to describe the only fascinating figure in their film through Rick’s last words to her: “You’re a sick girl, Amy. You need to see a doctor.” At least they didn’t literally kill her off. But they might as well have, for we never see her again, and their film falls apart for that very reason. Ironically, a few minutes earlier Amy shouted at Rick: “I’d like to kill you,” to which Rick replied, “You almost did.”


           I’d argue she succeeded. For the rest of the film we watch only a dead man, as I mention in first paragraph, trudging the New York City streets in a drunken stupor. He purposely buys a trumpet from a pawnshop clerk—unlike the beautiful instrument he bought as a boy—that’s broken and will no longer play, as if the filmmakers were openly commenting on the rest of their movie.

        Despite Smoke saving his pneumonia-stricken friend from dying, and Jo rushing to his bedside to buck up with the man with whom she’s not so secretly in love with her sunny predictions for his future life, Rick and the story never quite roll back into action. We hear the good news of his recovery second hand, and we don’t believe it for the moment before the screen announces The End.

        If nothing else, Young Man with a Horn proves queers make things happen. Everything else, as good as it is, is just theme music. Maybe Smoke is right, young kids want the lyrics not the music.

 

*Quite ridiculously, the university at which Amy is attending classes is UCLA. At one point, from the dark streets of New York, she and Rick are seen heading up the brick stairs to Royce Hall, outside of which they stand for a few moments while she describes her father’s role as a doctor and her lover of her mother. I’ve taught a couple of courses in that beautiful building and attended many a concert in its auditorium. And I’d recognize those steps leading to it any day, since I once fell down them one dark night in search of my temporarily lost car.

 

Los Angeles, March 16, 2021

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog and World Cinema Review (March 2021).

      

     


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 ...