Monday, October 28, 2024

Mark V. Reyes | Last Full Show / 2005

the moviegoer

by Douglas Messerli

 

Mark V. Reyes (screenwriter and director) Last Full Show / 2005 [19 minutes]

 

Philippines director Mark V. Reyes’ debut film was Last Full Show (2005) in which a wealthy young high school student, Crispin (Francis Villanueva) asks his driver, Bert (Nanding Josef), to stop one evening on his way home and wait while he takes in a movie at a local theater.

      This theater, however, does not simply show movies but caters to gay clients, younger and older who join up in sex in the auditorium proper and in the bathrooms—a sort of grander version of the several gay porno movies that used to exist on New York’s West Side near 42nd street, mostly now all closed for decades due to AIDS.



     This particular movie house, in some senses, is more like a gay bar than a porn theater, showing regular films, mostly in English to a crowd most of whom know one another and are regulars, couples often pairing off into regular duos, probably for most of them the only place where they can go to have gay sex outside of a cheap motel. And here are also the old-timers like Gardo (Sugus Legaspi), a man in his mid-to-late 30s and his friend, the younger Jess (Jeremy Aguado) who introduced him years previous to the niceties of movie palace sex. These days the friends stand mostly behind the seats commenting on the goings-on before them almost like guides to the world with its own rituals and codes of behavior.

    Despite the “No minors” restriction, our young hero seems to have no difficulty with the ticket seller (Mae Paner) in getting in, and the commenting duo note the arrival of the young “twink” who almost the moment he sits in the center of the theater is joined by an older man, his shirt already lifted as if ready for immediate sexual activity. Crispin quickly moves a few seats off, and Jess suggests that perhaps Gardo should try “a dance” just to see if he is what the boy is looking for.

      Gardo takes him up on the dare, and in a few moments the two are kissing, Jess the next day joking with his friend about what a dirty old man he is attempts for find out how big or small the boy’s dick was.


     But there is something different already between Gardo and the boy, and when they accidentally meet up before the movie in the bathroom the next evening, they again join in sex contact, following it night after night. His friend is soon warning him to remember that such relationships are a felony. But Gardo’s relationship with the kid has become a kind of compulsion, and he is not about to stop meeting up every night with the boy whose name to this point is never mentioned.

     Soon after, when the movie breaks down, Gardo suggests the boy join him at his favorite soup house, where they dine on the restaurant’s specials, he asking about the boy’s schoolwork, advising him to study hard, while the younger asks Gardo about work.


     What we see is what often happens in such May-September pairings, or used to occur even in the old days when gay bars did not strictly restrict underage men. The boy, who’s apparently businessman father obviously does not spend much time with his son since there appears to be no restrictions put upon Crispin’s coming and goings. And Gardo offers him not only a seeming introduction into gay sexuality, but serves as a kind of surrogate elder. The boy clearly enjoys their night out finding the food a little “odd” but comments on the surroundings—a place where they are not embarrassed about being seen together—as something truly enjoyable. The boy is spotted in the restaurant, however, by his other caretaker, the driver, who clearly knows what is going on and does not approve. The two ride on a small street gurney to the place where Bert waits in the car introducing Crispin to his new adventures.

       The next time we see the two together it is simply for a date, with no movie involved, when the boy presents Gardo with a present, evidently an “antique” necklace, a gift which we recognize by the way he wears and holds it over the next several frames, that has truly touched the older man.

       But as he cherishes the necklace, so we observe Crispin in his room pinning up yet another movie ticket to his wall filled with hundreds of them in all colors—far more than he might gathered over the nights of movie-going with Gardo. To emphasize this, the camera begins with a “close up” of the tickets, quickly pulling back to reveal an even larger space than we might have first imagined.


     The next evening, Gardo is a bit late for the movie, as Crispin sits within waiting, looking at his watch in consternation. In line, Gardo discovers a man behind him, Bert the driver, who begins to talk suggesting that the “antique” which he proudly displays on his chest, might not be the “real thing” these days. By the time they reach the window, Bert demands a ticket for two, taking Gardo aside to suggest that if he dares the other to go in. “You see, it’s time to finish the dance. Let’s see who will get hurt the most.”   

       Perhaps we have been so fearful of how Gardo might be treating the boy that we have missed the fact that the boy has turned his habit into an addiction, with Bert having each time when the boy finally determines to break off the “romance.”


       This is the last full movie, at least for a while, for the teenager, who returns to the car looking sad and disappointed, maybe even a bit tearful as he tells Bert, “I just want to go home please.”

        Bert answers with his usually perfunctory “Yes sir,” but for the first time in the film addresses him by his name, “Crispin.”

       The reality hits us, probably mostly movie goers closer in age to Gardo, with a slight punch. It is the elder who is most deeply hurt, for he knows that it is likely that another such boy might never again enter his life. Next time, as he joked to Jess in the very first scene, he will simply be watching the movie.

 

Los Angeles, October 15, 2021

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2021).

 

Antonio Hens | En malas compañías (Doors Cut Down) / 2000

toilet conquests

by Douglas Messerli

 

Antonio Hens (screenwriter and director) En malas compañías (Doors Cut Down) / 2000 [18 minutes]

 

The first film that I discuss in the context of what I have described as “Plastic Paradises” is Spanish director Antonio Hens’ Doors Cut Down, the only truly comic work discussed in this context, although it takes us on a series of journey’s that are equally as compulsive, hallucinatory, and absurd as the others I discuss, representing a ridiculous paradise with little difference from the other six more serious-minded works.

     The young Spanish high school student Guillermo (Israel Rodriguez) is certainly a different species of a teen fag from almost anyone born before 1970, the kind of gay kid we all wish we might have been, gleefully picking up all the boys without suffering any sense of the queerness or oddity of it.

      Guillermo trades his everyday looks for his thin frame, his charming smile, and a savvy sense of knowing how to capture the attention of any traditional male macho beauty of any high school football team (in this case we’re speaking soccer).

      This kid has also traded in his English language lessons for a degree in shopping for mall bathroom sex, picking up men young and old as he pleases while helping to realize that all they have to do is shut up, pull down their pants’ and let him perform fellatio or, once he gets the kick of it, turn him around and fuck his ass. He has all the cockiness certainly that it took me decades to discover with regard to how use the john for a more complex kind of relief. There, if you’re good at it, you can really let go as this boy reminds us.


    We observe him in only a couple of his toilet stall conquests. As even the adolescent wonders, “I don’t know why men pick me up. It might be the way I look back when they look at me.” Our young Romeo doesn’t just sweep his eyes down in a bashful tease, but stares back directly into the lust-ridden eyes of the elder.

       Ernesto (Antonio Álamo) is a young 20-something who, as Guillermo describes, is a real asshole in attempting to find someone with whom to fall in love in a men’s room. The boy clues him in, reminding him with regard to the police and security guards he so fears, that their role is merely observational.

       If at home, he lives with a typical homophobic father, the boy knows the man is too horrified of his son’s exaggerated behavior to actually share the facts with his mother, let alone others. When the couple hire him an English tutor to help him pass his abandoned school studies, Guillermo tries to break the ice by removing his shirt and asking the handsome young bookworm to tell him how to say all the dirty words in English; and when even that doesn’t do the trick, he gets quite specific, demanding to know how to say “Fuck me up the ass.”


     When the tutor proceeds to do so, he opens the boy up for all such future activities. The only problem is that, having forgotten his keys, Guillermo’s father reenters their apartment to hear the creak of the bedsprings and his son’s painful groans, opening up the bedroom door to witness “the horror, the horror” of his son joyfully taking it up the ass. Silence pervades their home for a long while after. “Nonetheless,” he reports, “I passed my English test.”

        Meanwhile, one day in his mall sprees the boy encounters the handsome 21-year-old mechanic Asier (Pablo Puyol) who used to attend his school, who impresses all the girls by taking apart and reassembling motorcycles, a contemporary equivalent of what where I grew up we used to call “greasers” because of the vast amounts of Vaseline they applied to their hair and for their mechanical abilities, but which Howard growing up in Baltimore knew as “drapes,” a word I didn’t believe until John Waters brought it back into the language in his 1990 film Cry-Baby, defining it as a “rebel, the opposite of a square.” Whether called greasers or drapes their wore a uniform, in our days, of a white crew-neck T-shirts and denims, and long carefully combed black hair, all of them looking to my eager eyes like Marlon Brando and James Dean, guys who terrified me and with whom I knew I can never have anything to do.



       Our young hero, who has a theory that if you stare at the back of a guy’s head long enough they have to turn around and see you, does his magic, Asier turning to find the cute kid licking a banana ice cream cone; and within minutes they’re visiting the mall bathroom truly enjoying a taste test. Unfortunately, the mall security guards must have gotten bored or been told by someone to keep the young chickens away from the hawks, and go pounding on the stall doors, arresting both the mechanic and the well-oiled machine he was enjoying straddling. Once out of the bathroom, Asier goes on the run, while Guillermo is brought down to police central where his parents are called and told not only what he was doing but that it wasn’t his first time.


       When the worried parents trot him off to a psychotherapist of the year 2000 he praises the boy for “accepting himself and meeting other gay men,” and scolds Guillermo’s parents for being the ones the ones who need therapy. “My father went berserk,” Guillermo calmly reports in the narrative voice over. “It was the first time I felt proud of myself.”

       That’s a simple line that might be missed in all the other action of the film, yet it is of vast importance. I might never have heard such words in the entire history of LGBTQ cinema before the year of the new millennium.

        Guillermo forgives Asier for bolting, and two become a couple, kissing in front of the school before setting off on the mechanic’s bike like any love-possessed straight couple in the dozens of high-school based films of the 1950s and 1960s. 


     Occasionally, they still haunt the mall, teasing the guards by openly kissing in front of them, the boy evidently having come of legal age. But the kid’s curious if the bathrooms are still filled with the same queer boys, and they take a look only to discover that all the stall doors have been cut down on top and cut up at bottom. In those stalls with which I was familiar, the authorities simply tore off the doors of every other stall, presuming no one would want to do anything sexual being so exposed; but a lot of guys found it preferable, using the glory hole while being able to observe the others greedily eye them as they passed. No one went to have sex in a public bathroom who was afraid of public sex.

       Asier and Guillermo leave the men’s room with a bit of nostalgia for the old days, but happy in their relationship—until the boy catching a cute guy walking in the direction of the men’s room asks Asier to wait for him for a moment as he goes on the chase.

       Hens’ comedy is no less driven by uncontrollable urges which force the individual into uncharted territory than the others I describe. Perhaps it is simply that the adolescent of Doors Cut Down more fully enjoys his manias—something that in the past queers were simply not permitted.

 

Los Angeles, October 17, 2021

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2021).   

Till Kleinert | Boys Village / 2011

kissed by a ghost

by Douglas Messerli

 

Till Kleinert (screenwriter and director) Boys Village / 2011 [22 minutes]

 

Till Kleinert is one of the most provocative the 21st Century filmmakers who embrace gay themes. His works, such as the brilliant Cowboy (2008), often involve horror and adventure genres, but they are much more poetic and suggestive than the standard works in these forms.


    Boys Village was a village-style holiday camp in West Aberthaw, in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales. Opening in 1925, it catered to sons of coalminer’s families of South Wales, offering them a place to play and freedom from difficult homelives and pollution.

     Founded by David Davies, the philanthropist president of the Ocean Coal Company and his Welfare Officer Captain J. Glynn Jones, the village consisted of a dining hall, dormitories, a gym, swimming pool, workshops, and a church.

      During the war it used for military use, but returned to civilian use in 1946, and in 1962 was somewhat refurbished to include a youth hostel and facilities to teaching work-related skills. With the increasingly ability for coalminers for inexpensive trips abroad and the general decline in Welsh valley coalmining in general, it was finally closed in 1990 by the Boys’ Clubs of Wales which was responsible for running the camp.

      For a while after its closure it was used for a short while as a residential place for Bible studies, and then in 2000 it was sold to a new order who rented it out to a family who lived in the caretaker’s cottage, using the yards for farm storage.

      When they moved out, airsoft enthusiasts, people who use replica firearms that shoot non-metallic pellets to simulate military combats. But without any security, the site, as we witness in this film, became a place for metal theft, gang vandalism, and arson. In 2008, due to extensive fire damage the dormitories were demolished, and after, when the swimming pool roof collapsed, it too was removed.

     In June of 2011, the date of this film’s release, the area was cut off with gates and fences, along with boulders and rubble to deter vehicles from entering. According to a “Derelictmisc. Organization” report of 2012, rumors and myths still remain the nearby area about the village being haunted or plagued by a troubled past, which may, in fact, have been stimulated by Kleinert’s own film, shown on BBC in 2011.


     In short, it’s the perfect place for Kleinert to have filmed is semi-ghost story where a young boy of another decade, Kevin (Benjamin Thorne) seemingly has been left behind in the Village, if not quite literally, certainly spiritually and because a possible relationship with another childhood boy. What happened to the original Kevin we can’t know. He seems to still be waiting for his parents to return, all these years or even decades later, perhaps even from the 1930s, but possibly as late as the 1950s.

      Wandering the now derelict Village day after day, he rights the chairs and tables, prays at the old Church alter, and puts flowers in the doorstep of one of the burnt-out dormitories, recreating his childhood straw-and-fabric doll “friends,” endlessly waiting. Did this 12-year-old child’s mother and father never return for him? Did he die in the Village? Was he punished for young-boy love? Or was what he describes himself to be, “a beautiful boy,” an encouragement to be abused there by a teacher or priest? Did he perhaps lose his mental wellbeing rather than his physical life in the experience of living in the Boys Village?


      Kleinert is a far too clever director to definitively answer those questions. But perhaps is equally far too clever in imagining an encounter between the 12-year-old ghost and one of the teens who each day come to the place to spray-paint and further wreck havoc upon whatever is left, including the lost boy’s dolls, rock chimes, and tiny rock-memorials he daily creates. One of the teenagers, Alex (Andrew McQueen), vaguely notices the existence of the young boy, especially when the young ghost throws a few tiny rocks at him to simply get his attention. For Alex, unlike this thug-like beer drinking friends, is into drugs and has a beauty unlike any of his peers.

     When one night Alex sneaks back to the Village with his would-be girlfriend, Brenda (Hannah-Rose Jones), he hands her Kevin’s dolls claiming he has created them for her. She is not impressed, and certainly not at all interested in a date who dismisses her own fears and apparently is not ready to properly snuggle up to her with love and kisses.

     She leaves in a huff, and it appears that Alex has his own ghosts. Perhaps he also attended the Boys Village as a child. If nothing else he is probably a gay boy attempting to lay to rest his who fears. The ghost, necessarily, is attracted to him, particularly when, now alone, he attempts to masturbate.  

    The interruption leads him on a wild chase to find the “young perv” who he perceives has been watching him. And in a wonderful scene of magical drama, helped along by the film’s eerie score by Conrad Oleak, Alex goes on the chase.


      But we soon discover that he can’t truly even see the ghost by the light of his cell-phone, and only vaguely hears the murmurs of his voice. He too seems to be trying to trace remnants of a fraught gay childhood. And when Kevin finally bends over to kiss him on cheek, his world collapses as a brick wall knocks him to the floor, soon after killing him.

      His death perhaps releases the other boy’s own childhood memories, since his parents now come to pick him and take back into their own darker realities.

       But even here, Kleinert won’t entirely permit us to see his work simply as metaphor. The tractors to tear down the camp’s remnants appear, one of the workers discovering, in the realistic setting, the body of the beautiful high school vandal. Being gay seems always, in one way or another, to demand society’s vengeance. In fact, perhaps the newer generation offers even less permission and acceptance for queer transgression than those of the earlier decades. The brutally macho world in which Alex lives evidently offers even less protection than the heterosexually-dominated romantic one in which Kevin existed.

     

Los Angeles, October 28, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (October 2024).      

 

 

Lewis Milestone | Two Arabian Knights / 1927

ritual baths

by Douglas Messerli

 

Wallace Smith and Cyril Gardner (screenplay, based on a story by Donald McGibney; George Marion, Jr., titles), Lewis Milestone (director) Two Arabian Knights / 1927

 

Lewis Milestone’s 1927 film, Two Arabian Knights was long thought to be lost, even though it had won the Academy Award for best Comedy Direction in 1929 (before that category was deleted). But upon Howard Hughes’ death in 1976 a copy was discovered in his collection, he having been one of its producers along with John W. Considine Jr.  The film was preserved by the Academy Film Archive working with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas in 2016.


     Fortunately the film was saved, primarily because it is an excellent comic work with particularly good acting by his heroes, William Boyd*—best known for his late 1930s and 1940s role as Hopalong Cassidy—playing W. Dangerfield Phelps II and Louis Wolheim—who later performed in Milestone’s All Quiet on the Western Front, but was perhaps best known for his earlier Broadway roles in The Hairy Ape and What Price Glory?—as Sergeant Peter O’Gaffney. Mary Astor plays the Saudi Arabian princess Mirza, but she serves only as a female interest for the two men, in part to establish their heterosexual credentials. Boris Karloff, in one of his first roles, plays the minor character of a ship’s purser, and you might miss him if you blink.

      Moreover, this work, like Raoul Walsh’s What Price Glory? of the year before, is a “buddy movie” par excellence, a genre that has remained extremely popular over the years, more recently growing into the bromance movies of the 1990s to the more recent bromances such as Phil Lord’s and Christopher Miller’s 22 Jump Street (2014), works centered upon the deep camaraderie and love between two heterosexual men.

      But it also an extremely important film for LGBTQ film history, since such relationships often actually revealed the stirrings of the queer heart.

       The genre perhaps goes back to the 17th century—Alexandre Dumas’ 19th-century fiction about the 17th-century The Three Musketeers immediately comes to mind—or even earlier since we might define Homer’s description of the warriors Achilles and Patroclus as representing such a genre in literature. Such relationships are generally described as developing from the close relationships established in male military confinement and later in the locker rooms of sports events. In the case of Homer, the two were merely “tender” friends, but in other literature and legends they were lovers, a situation paralleled in Hebrew literature in the story of David and Jonathan. In the film history leading up to Milestone’s movie, we have already witnessed such instances of male bonding that veers over into possible queer sexuality in John G. Blystone’s Dick Turpin (1925), Clarence Brown’s Flesh and the Devil (1926), and in that same year as Milestone’s film in William A. Wellman’s Wings. In the first instance, the two “friends” were both highway bandits, but in the latter pair it was the military that brought the men together. And the following year, in William Dieterle’s Sex in Chains the location would be extended the all-male institution of prison. Hitchcock, in the 1927 film Downhill hinted that it such friendships might also be established for adolescents in all-male schools. 


        But Milestone’s version does not suggest anything more than deep male bonding; the few sexual teases come only in the form of a prison de-lousing process which, as in Wellman’s film, openly features male dorsal nudity, and in a later scene where their stolen Arabian thobes, after being exposed to the cold snow and icy water, curl up as if they were wearing dresses or the kind of entari and tennure worn by Turkish Dervish dancers.

     At one point Phelps wears O’Gaffney’s military pants under his own, but before you imagine that this is similar to sheepherder’s Ennis Del Mar’s shirt worn under his fellow sheepherder Jack Twist’s own blouse in Brokeback Mountain, I need explain that in Phelps’ case it is only a ploy to keep his friend away from the Arabic girl, Mirza, whom they have just saved from drowning and both of whom on intent upon romancing.

       There is one final strange moment with possible sexual resonations, but I shall speak of that later.

    Throughout most of the film, Milestone goes out of his way to make it clear that Phelps and O’Gaffney become friends only in the heterosexual sense and even that mostly out of necessity. Indeed, they begin the movie by hating one another, both trapped in a World War I trench hole in German territory. Assured that there is no way that they can survive, Phelps throws over his rifle in order to beat up the Sergeant who has made his life hell until that moment. 


     Phelps, we soon discover is an intelligent fellow with apparently a quite proper upbringing—his father’s name, he later tells O’Gaffney will get them into the American Consul’s Office in the Saudi city in which they are trapped—while the Sergeant is a foul-mouthed ex-con arrested so his rap sheet suggests for molesting women. Moreover, Phelps is an attractive fellow, with a sly smile, while O’Gaffney is a heavy-set thuggish figure, even if from time to time his face breaks into puggish look of a teddy-bear.

        Before the two can settle their grudges, however, the Germans have surrounded them and marched them off to a northern German prison camp embedded in deep snow. Because of his service record, O’Gaffney is once more put in charge to Phelp’s despair. But when the Sergeant gets caught holding a caricature of one of the German soldiers sketched by Phelps, the always chivalrous Phelps admits that he was the artist, saving his enemy from punishment. And at that very moment the two lower their ruff, becoming such fast-friends that you can almost see, even in black and white, O’Gaffney blush, shyly admitting to a real liking for Phelps almost in the way a young girl might express her appreciation for the attention of an older boy—perhaps another of the film’s sexually teasing moments.

         But their friendship remains a competitive heterosexual romance, the kind we’ll see soon see in the films of Laurel and Hardy (who also often cross the sexual line), Abbott and Costello, and ultimately Bob Hope and Bing Crosby in their many On the Road movies from the 1940s and 50s. Indeed, Two Arabian Knights might be described a far more sophisticated model of the Hope-Crosby tours of exotic locations, since the boys in this case chose to escape their German camp in white thobes they steal off the bodies of two latrine-going Arabs in order to better blend in with the snow.

       From a cold pond where they hide from a German calvary troupe, they escape back into the hands of German soldiers leading a group of Arabs to a train whose destination is Constantinople, from where they jump near the Turkish capitol to hide in a haycart whose contents, in turn, are dumped into the hole of a ship sailing off to Arabia. 


       On deck they manage to escape the chains of the surly Skipper (Michael Visaroff), save an Arabian woman from a small, capsized boat headed to deliver her to the ship, and once their clothes have dried off, attempt to woo Mirza as she hides behind her requisite veil.

       Obviously, only Phelps is pretty enough to get her to momentary reveal her beautiful face and get himself and his friend in trouble when the Skipper and Mirza’s male companion observe that she has broken with all decorum.

        Having used the little money he’s hidden in his shoe to pay for their own voyage, Phelps and O’Gaffney have no money when the Skipper demands the same for Mirza. Beating up and robbing the ship’s Purser (Karloff) they manage to free the girl, but once again must dive into the ocean and swim off to save their own hides.

       When they finally attempt to visit Mirza and her father, the Emir’s (Michael Vavitch) palace, they are arrested and taken off the be killed for having dared to look into the face of beauty. Upon reading the note Mirza has tossed down to them as they entered, they suddenly realize they are facing a sentence of death. Once more they make a miraculous escape, with Phelps leading with his intelligence and O’Gaffney cleaning up with his brawn.

      Worn out and starved from their numerous exploits, the ex-Sergeant is ready to take a well-deserved rest, but Phelps calls upon his deep friendship yet one more time: they must go back to the palace, he insists, to help Mirza escape from her unwanted wedding. For the first time, O’Gaffney momentarily resists, but his sentimentality for his “deep friendship” finally wins him over, and he’s off for yet another adventure, even berating his pal for his “cracks about splitting up.”


         This one as well promises to be a disaster, as Phelps is caught in Mirza’s quarters by Ben Ali and challenged to a duel. He offers a choice to two pistols, one without bullets the other one filled with rounds. Phelps chooses and when Mirza strikes the gong three times shoots first. His gun was apparently the empty one, and Mirza, unable to bear the inevitable, leaves the room, with Ben Ali finally pulling his trigger.

         Phelps, however, still stands, Ben Ali admitting that he wouldn’t have chanced his own life with such a “dog,” but also knowing that Phelps and his friend will be taken care of by the palace guards and that Mirza, having heard the second shot, will suppose the American dead.

         So he’s off the claim his prize, having ordered up a coach to take her off to wedding somewhat like an Arabian Cinderella out of A Thousand and One Nights. True to form, O’Gaffney appears at the window with guns he’s stolen from the guards who tried to arrest him below at the very moment Phelps is about to be led away, accordingly allowing for their inevitable escape.

         In the penultimate scene Ben Ali and Mirza are about to enter the carriage only to discover a gun-toting Phelps already inside, Ben Ali commenting in his own chivalrous manner that he should at least be thanked for escorting the woman to the American.

         Mirza steps inside as O’Gaffney as the driver sets the horses off on a trot. Finally, we realize, his last actions on behalf of his love for Phelps result in the closure of their friendship. In a more conventional story, he might even get all teary-eyed. But here something strange happens as he spots and for a few second focuses on something just out of camera range, the camera finally following the line of his vision to reveal a man in an Arabian robe standing alone in a dark alleyway, papers in his hand, staring back at O’Gaffney’s gaze.


          Surely this is one of the strangest images with which a movie has ever closed: a question mark seemingly without a possible answer. Is O’Gaffney, now having lost his best friend and companion to another person’s love, seeking for a replacement? Does he find this stranger somehow attractive, having become so used to male companionship that he can no longer imagine having success with the female gender? Is the incident related to his suspicions at a man staring at him in the café—in reality Ben Ali playfully observing the two for whom he has just sent his soldiers? In that instant, when he asked Phelps why the man staring at him, his friend suggested, off handedly, that it was probably Mirza’s eunuch, a word which was definitely not in O’Gaffney’s vocabulary; when Phelps whispers the definition in his ear—clearly words that cannot be spoken aloud to the film’s audience—his friend’s mouth drops open with amazement. Has he suddenly found his own eunuch, someone with whom he might sexually engage without requiring reciprocation?

           Looking into that face, with its startled large-lips, a bulbous nose plastered into its center, I wondered, just in passing and with no surety of recognition, whether it might be Victor McLagen, who played the equivalent of Wolheim’s character in the hit film What Price Glory? the year before. Critics have long compared the two movies, Philip Kemp, for example writing about Milestone’s movie in the World Film Directors, Volume 1: “The film’s cheerfully coarse tone and bickering buddies were clearly inspired by What Price Glory?, Raoul Walsh’s recent smash hit.”

And Wolheim played the very same role on Broadway years earlier. Just perhaps the writers and director decided that having just lost his beloved buddy, they needed to offer O’Gaffney a new best friend. If McLagen performed this cameo I think it might have been one of those marvelously self-mocking, post-modern moments that happen with great regularity in the On the Road series. And it would be yet another example of how “buddy” films often take off in totally unexpected directions, the most notable example, perhaps, being Thelma and Louise’s automotive leap off the lip of the Grand Canyon in Ridley Scott’s 1991 film. 


Photo of Victor McLagen

        Amateur commentators and professional critics alike keep referring to pre-1934 movies as being “pre-code,” but I’d argue that is a serious misnomer. Hollywood films had always had unspoken codes, and open expression of homosexual behavior was just not possible in US films. By 1927 the studio heads had already issued a list of “Does” and “Don’t,” and although homosexuality was not specifically talked about, it was clearly presumed to be included under the provision on “sexual perversions.” In 1930, as I write elsewhere in these pages, Irving Thalberg met with Martin Quigley, editor of the film trade newspaper Motion Picture Herald, and Jesuit priest Father Daniel A. Lord, who together had already submitted a code of standards to the studios, to establish what was described as the Hays Code; and studios did, in fact, attempt to keep relatively close to those guidelines, which partially explains the sudden appearance beginning in the 1930s of “pansy” figures, featuring brief appearances of stereotypical gay types for the purposes of humor and to remind us, perhaps, that such poor fragile creatures did indeed exist outside of the confines of movieland reality.

       The shift that everyone describes as “The Code” took place only because the members of the Hays committee were relatively fair and open-minded until 1934 when the insatiable sex reformer Joseph Breen took over. In short, we can recognize that if there had been no code whatsoever and directors and writers had been open-minded about homosexual behavior, far more of the buddy movies might have gone over the cliff of sexual transgression. While a German director like Dieterle could tell his gay buddy story rather straight forwardly—although it still ended sadly—Blystone and Wellman coded their tales, filling it in with potential and actual heterosexual relationships for its central figures which deflected their audiences’ attention away from the gay relationships which were at the heart of their films. When Laurel and Hardy got so chummy with one another that their relationship became suspect, the directors could always point to the tradition of comic cross-dressing, which had never inevitably had anything to do with sex.

        Milestone clearly didn’t intend to even consider the idea of positing the notion that these deep friends were anything other than heterosexual guys who bonded because of their need to survive. Yet even his work moves naturally into some strange territories other than what I have described as the film’s “sexual teases.” The film’s major structural motif consists of a series of seeming ritual baths which begins with our friends being forced to shower before their prison camp delousing, which is followed by their jump into a freezing pond to hide from the German calvary, a dive into the ocean waters to save Mirza, and a final leap into the ocean waters to escape the confines of the ship on which they have been sailing to Arabia.

         These bathing ceremonies have absolutely no religious connotations, but do require, each time, their stripping off their clothes and standing around together almost naked as they wait for them to dry. At one point when O’Gaffney would like to scurry off to flirt without Mirza without the presence of his buddy, he pulls down Phelps’ drying clothes, runs a bathtub of water, and soaks his military duds in it before hanging them up again to dry, purposedly forcing his “friend” to remain in his long johns for a while longer, representing an earlier version of Phelps’ later robbery of O’Gaffney’s outer pants.

         A baptism, derived from Greek concept noun βάπτισμα ("washing, dipping"), also carries with it the connotations of complete immersion or “going under” which hints at what the two men have done in pledging their eternal friendship, a kind of private initiation or symbolic “marriage.” By reenacting this “pledge” time and again throughout the film’s narrative, they reestablish their commitment to one another, a tie which is broken only at film’s end when we recognize that Phelps will soon be making a new commitment to Mirza as his wife, hence leaving the film’s loveable dumbbell with the problem of having no friend with whom he “carry on” into the future the film has promised.

        The director, realizing his dilemma, chose to hint of at least one possibility with the film’s comical last scene, jumping off the cliff of cinematic logic to make, if my theory is correct, a pop-culture reference. The form simply demanded it.

        Milestone’s wonderful “dramedy,” accordingly, is the perfect example of why the “buddy genre” is so important for queer film lovers. It allows even straight men to enter the room of same sex relationships without necessarily having its characters pull off their clothes (although they certainly do that often in this film) and lie down in bed together.

 

*I should add that although Boyd married 5 times, he was also long rumored to have replaced Gary Cooper as Howard Hughes’ (the producer of Two Arabian Knights) male lover. The “Gay Influence” blogspot, for example, reports what was recounted in a couple of Hughes biographies: “Bisexual actor Richard Arlen was hosting an all male nude beach party at a secluded cove on Catalina Island, and Hughes asked William Boyd to tag along with him. Somehow a photographer got close enough to snap nude photos of Hughes and Boyd, which became the talk of Hollywood. RKO, Boyd’s studio, was having apoplexy (an interesting aside is that later, in 1948, Hughes took over the reins at RKO and ran it into the ground; they were out of business ten years later).”

 

Los Angeles, February 8-9, 2022

Reprinted in World Cinema Review (February 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 ...