Thursday, November 28, 2024

Fred Schepisi | The Devil's Playground / 1975, US 1982

minding the body

by Douglas Messerli

 

Fred Schepisi (screenwriter and director) The Devil's Playground / 1976, US 1982

 

Australian director Fred Schepisi’s 1976 film The Devil’s Playground concerns the repressive world, particularly when it comes to sexual matters, of a Roman Catholic juniorate administered by the De La Salle Brothers in 1953. It begins, as Flash critic Clancy Sigal puts it, with a view of the school’s young teenagers, mostly 13, splashing in a small lake like a Thomas Eakins painting, several of the school’s brothers looking on with obvious delight.


    And the major subject of this film is the male body, the movie itself filed with highly homoerotic images, particularly when boys come together to shower—although this school is so very repressed that they are not even allowed to display their naked bodies and must shower in swim wear—or even sometimes in chapel singing but secretly whispering and jabbing at each other. One young boy constantly pushes the film’s central figure, 13-year-old Tom Allen (Simon Burke) to wrestle him, purposely losing as he declares the winner can do anything they want with the loser, hoping, praying perhaps that Tom might kiss him or even demand he display his cock or actually touch it. Tom, a seeming heterosexual, suggests that winning itself is the award.


      And for all the older Brothers’ complaints about sexual repression, they not only go along with the Church’s doctrines, but preach it constantly to the young boys.

    Yet this film is not a deep revelation of how the Catholic Church’s sexual repression leads to pedophilic behavior. Almost all the Brothers, the children’s teachers, seem to be frustrated heterosexuals, and overall, this film demonstrates little of queer interest, except for a small group of boy fanatics, which I will discuss in a moment.

       Schepisi’s film, apparently somewhat autobiographical, is not a denouncement of Catholicism or even religious fundamentalism. Yet it does reveal yet another way the Church had of destroying lives, separating the body from mind in a way that often tears the soul apart.  

     Throughout the Brothers discuss the difficulty of their own lives to remain celibate, particularly in a world where even masturbation is a sin. Brother Victor, when he occasionally is allowed to take a day off, is attracted to the local female factory workers and toys with the possibility of sinning, even though he never makes sinful plunge. Brother Francine (Arthur Dignam) a stricter authoritarian, actually explores more lurid territory by taking in the town bathing pool, voyeuristically observing the women and later suffering nightmares in which he pulled down into the waters by naked women. Unlike Victor, who has, despite its restrictions, come to love the community in which he lives and works, Francine hates life, not for the innocent body but for the evil ways the mind.


      But even worse, as the Brothers perceive, are the restrictions on the truly innocent bodies of the boys under their care, who are naturally developing pubic hair and beginning to compare cock size with one another. Even the elderly Brother Sebastian mumbles “What does it matter if they masturbate? It comes out anyway.” The Brothers, meanwhile, find other ways to abuse their bodies, mostly through alcohol consumption.

     The visiting Father Hanrahan (Gerry Duggan), appearing like a leprechaun liberator and encouraging the boys who are about to enter in three-day retreat of silence to come to him about any problems that they be facing, nonetheless preaches a sermon that might have made Jonathan Edwards cringe, instilling his young audience of the horrors of hell if they do keep to the doctrines of the Church.

       Poor Tom, from whose point of view this work is primarily seen, not only wets his bed, but has been secretly masturbating 3-4 times a day, refusing to confess his sins while still remaining devout and praying endlessly in the chapel, something his older friend Fitz (John Diedrich), with whom he works in the kitchen, admits he is not very good at: “Praying in not my thing.”


    Tom, in fact, appears like a good recruit for what the elders describe as the fanatic fringe of their young charges, young boys who enter into mad bouts of flagellation, one whom pours boiling water on his legs and is now testing the ice cold waters of the lake late at night. He drowns in the process. Fortunately Tom demurs.

     As critic Michael Bronski, writing in The Gay Community News puts it: since their acts are described in the context of homoeroticism, sadism, and masochism, “the message of the film is clear—sexual repression turns the boys into s/m queers. …It is a cheap point to score and clouds the other issues the film is raising.”

       What really is at heart here, although never said, is that all the figures associated with this religious institution, the boys and their teachers are being forced to live closeted lives, unable to represent to each other or even to themselves was is truly natural concerning their sexualities, whether it be heterosexual or gay.

       From time to time throughout the film, boys disappear, sent away for crimes that are never elaborated. When Tom’s best friend Fitz suddenly disappears, the Brothers refuse to even let know

where he’s gone and disallow any communication with him.



      Tom realizes his full love for Fitz by finally running away himself, hitchhiking presumably back home. But finally on the last leg of his escape, Victor and another Brother stop for him. For a long moment he refuses to rejoin them, but they promise to take him to the semi-final soccer game, before they call his parents to tell them he is safe. Yet clearly now Tom has been strong enough to stand up the hypocrisy of his deep beliefs, and in a sense to free himself from the closeted life.     

      Schepisi when on to make two almost classic outsider films, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith and Barbarosa, and Six Degrees of Separation.

 

Los Angeles, November 28, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema (November 2024).

John Gorrie | The Picture of Dorian Gray / 1976

a narcissus in edwardian england

by Douglas Messerli

 

John Osbourne (writer, adapted from the fiction by Oscar Wilde), John Gorrie (director) The Picture of Dorian Gray / 1976 [TV movie]

 

There have been dozens of film adaptations of Oscar Wilde’s 1890 novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray, several of which I have reviewed in these pages. But there is little doubt the one that most hints at the central character’s queer behavior is John Osborne’s 1976 made-for-television adaptation by the British Broadcasting Company (BBC). Arguably, in fact, “hint” is not the proper word since all of the versions imply far more than they actually tell. But this production—with the beautiful young Peter Firth playing Dorian, John Gielgud playing the corrupting aphorist Henry Wotton, and Jeremy Brett acting the role of artist Basil Hallward who, having fallen in love with Dorian, paints the picture that reveals what Dorian’s face does only upon his death—almost shouts that character’s queerness to the rafters.


      What becomes quite evident in this version is that despite Dorian’s chaste relationship with Sibyl Vane (Judi Bowker), who kills herself when he suddenly leaves her after recognizing her true inability to act, and the rumors of his destroying the lives and reputations of numerous other women in and outside of London, he is no ladies’ man, but a beautiful male with whom Basil and Henry fall in love and who quite evidently had a homosexual relationship with his university friend, Alan Campbell (Nicholas Clay). Indeed, his ability to “love them and leave them” when it comes to women—which in the fin de siècle society required women evidently to immediately imitate Hamlet’s Ophelia, scandalizing the society in general—his behavior is far less representative of his growing immorality in the mind of work’s creator than is his lovely villain’s horrifying impact on the men in his life. One might argue, from Wilde’s perspective, that Dorian’s sexist attitudes with regard to females is largely a result of his closeted homosexuality and his narcissistic fixation upon his own image. To put it simply Dorian Gray is Narcissus brought to life in Edwardian England.

      But then everyone in Osborne’s adaptation of Wilde’s fiction is totally narcissistic in their absolute adoration of surfaces and appearances. The most complex of these narcissi is Basil, who while painting the beautiful Dorian falls in love with him so much—reporting to Henry that “it’s better in life to not be too different,” surely a justification for his own closeted love—that, not being able to express it through sex (even kissing another male was a crime) achieves the very opposite of the Cypriot sculptor Pygmalion whose kiss brought his ivory sculpture to life. Basil instead has killed the soul of his beloved friend by breathing life into his portrait.

     Once he has finished the painting, the “simple, affectionate” boy and friend suddenly finds himself bereft of any true human emotions, just in time to be intrigued by Henry’s ridiculous twists of human values into two-part sentences such as his description of “romance”:

 

                         One begins by deceiving oneself and ends up by deceiving

                         everyone else.

 

Or Henry’s definition of the self—a definition to which even the current US president might subscribe—“To realize one’s own nature as perfectly as we can, that’s what we are for. One’s first duty is to oneself.”

     If it may seem, much later in the story, that Dorian kills his beloved Basil because, in seeing the changes of Dorian registered in his painting, he must die to protect the now soulless, unchanging Dorian from the truth. I’d argue, however, that Dorian murders his friend because of his admission of love which is expressed not only in words—Basil having just admitted to him that “he worshipped him” upon first sight—but in the painting itself. The art reveals his love of Dorian far more that any words might express it, and Dorian clearly cannot admit to loving Basil in turn, particularly since he is now incapable of it.


     Henry also loves Dorian, at least enough that he desires to remain friends with him as long as possible, taking him to dinners, the opera, and his club regularly as if he were married to the younger man. Women are almost always a topic of disdain for Henry, but for the ever beautiful young man he has only affection. However, when it comes to Henry, love is a difficult topic since his true amour is his own words, his self-expression of his almost always cynical and corrupting nature. Henry, much like Dorian is a dead soul when it comes to others. He is not at all shocked by Dorian’s seemingly diffident response to Sybil’s suicide or even his uncaring attitude toward Basil’s disappearance, although everyone else in town seems to be gossiping about it. Woman, including his wife, are not beings for Henry worthy of discussion—except when trying to dissuade his companion from developing any true relationship with them. And Gielgud (himself a gay man who in the 1950s was sentenced in British court for "persistently importuning men for immoral purposes") in subtle inflections in his voice and through gestures of his arms and hands, plays Henry as a dandyish gay elder. Yet even he is abandoned by his young lovely, as he admits to Basil in his last meeting with him. And after his last encounter with Dorian the young beauty—“the only thing that’s worth anything”—Dorian, metaphorically speaking, dives into the pigments of his own horrible gaze, drowning in his tears of regret.

     As for Alan Campbell, Firth as Dorian literally flits around his old friend’s body, reminding him of something in their past that so terrifies Alan if were revealed that he is willing even to eradicate any trace of the artist’s body with chemicals—if only Dorian will leave him in peace. Little question in this production is left to the imagination that the two have previously committed perversions that might land them both in prison, particularly if the younger Dorian claims that he was forced to participate in the act, which is surely what the letter he has already written insinuates.


     When Alan appears to reject all involvement, Dorian moves over to the seated friend standing closely before him as if ready to receive fellatio saying, “I’m sorry for you Alan, but I can’t help myself. You are the only man who is able to save me.”  As he undoes the cloth belt, opening up his short dressing gown, he sits closely next to him, almost as if to purr words of love into his ear, continuing, “I am forced to bring you into the matter. I have no option, Alan. You are scientific....” What else would bring a former university friend to commit such a dastardly act that he would later commit suicide by hanging himself? 

     If Sybil takes her poison because Dorian has abandoned her, attesting he will never even think of her again, Alan hangs himself because his long ago lover is still demanding his unrequited love.

 

Los Angeles, Christmas day, 2020

Reprinted from My Queen Cinema blog and World Cinema Review (December 2020).

 

Serge Gainsbourg | Je t’aime moi no plus (I Love You, I Don’t) / 1976

where women are not welcome

by Douglas Messerli

 

Serge Gainsbourg (screenwriter and director) Je t’aime moi no plus (I Love You, I Don’t) / 1976

 

The landscape of French composer, singer, actor, and filmmaker Serge Gainsbourg’s 1976 picture Je t'aime moi non plus (I Love You, I Don't) is filmed in a countryside landscape so desolate and isolate and filled with bumpkins that one might be naturally assume the garbage dumps, gas station, and hamburger joint central to this movie were in some rural midwestern or a western locale in the US, or even the industrial wilds of New Jersey—particularly given the fact that the two actors central to this work, Joe Dallesandro and Jane Birkin, are English-speaking.

      But it doesn’t matter since it is clearly meant to be a kind of symbolic space, far enough from true civilization that its characters are forced to live demeaning and meaningless lives endlessly longing for love—a story told worldwide whether it comes from the pen and camera of Gus Van Sant, Derek Jarman, Werner Rainer Fassbinder, or Gainsbourg. These figures’ words are all dubbed into French so it must be an isolate Gallic landscape where they’ve forgotten the arts of fine cooking, architecture, and romantic sex.


       Into this forgotten landscape drive Krassky (Dallesandro, who describes himself as an American Pollack) and his male lover Padovan (Hugues Quester) who evidently is originally from Italy where he’s recently served time in prison. The neighborhood is also seemingly related to a world imagined by Jean Genet since on the way from the dump in which Krassky and Padovan have just emptied their truck, they encounter four other gay boys whose car has broken down and offer them a ride in their empty dumpster while a peasant (Gérard Depardieu) on horse passes, who these boys declare is gay as well. We can only wonder on just what planet we’re landed.

      Inexplicably, the moment they announce that fact Krassky stops the truck and pulls the lever to lift the backload to rid him of the apparently unwanted hitchhikers. In this film, we quickly realize, the unexpected is all that you can expect, and explanations are neither Krassky’s nor Padovan’s forte.


       The duo arrives at a drive-in, order up a couple of cokes and burgers (horsemeat we later discover), and before Padovan can even finish his slot-machine game, the garbage collector Krassky as fallen in love with the boy named Johnny behind the counter, who it turns out is really a girl who with her short-cropped hair, her androgynous face, flattened bust, and small boyish bottom has been waiting for any man good looking enough to come along to take into his bed. Dallesandro, accordingly, is a feast for her eyes. In fact, Johnny’s really Jane Birkin, the girl who tumbled with another of her sex around David Hemming’s feet on purple paper in Blowup (1966) and who, by this time Gainsbourg had made famous all over world for singing with him the song with the same name of this film which he had originally written for Brigitte Bardot, whose husband got jealous when she and Gainsbourg tried to record it. So this film already had a kind of history before they even turned on the projector.

     For most of the rest of the film, the bubble-butted, muscular porn-star Dallesandro tries to find a way to get an erection long enough to fuck this new-found boy-like beauty over, understandably, his handsome and hairy bottom Pandovan’s protests.


     Reviewers have all described the “love affair” between the two, Johnny and Krassky, as representing a groundbreaking examination of gender fluidity, with many declaring that the two are truly in love, even if their love is doomed. Budd Wilkins (writing in Slant) goes further to argue that Gainbourg “chooses here the almost taboo topic of heterosexual anal sex.” “In Je T’Aime Moi Non Plus, it’s a gesture of physical connection and mutual gratification that flagrantly defies what’s considered natural and civilized.” He goes on to argue that “his instantaneous attraction to her remains undiminished even when she turns around.” The writers for Criterion describe the duo’s connection as “a carnal attraction, even when it runs up against the practical physical barriers of genitalia.”  Sounds nice to me.

      But  I’m sorry, I think either these folks missed something or I saw a different movie. In fact, despite the wonderfully framed scenes of these two beauties throughout by cinematographer Willy Kurant, and the brilliant gamin-like expressions of vulnerability and fragility that Birkin displays whenever the camera lets loose of Dallesandro’s butt, the game of “He loves me, he loves me not,” which she willingly plays—hoping that he might even break through to provide her with something that might feel like love—resolves itself in only the second part of this anaphoric paradox.

        Surely Krassky comes to recognize in her willingness to give herself over as a kind of slave, something to which he’s attracted. After all, this is a homosexual who cannot tolerate the idea of being called a “poof.” And in his macho sensibility he realizes in her gender difference a kind of challenge. If there were any female with whom he might ever prove himself a real man, it is with Johnny.


      

    But love, as Tina Turner has made clear, has nothing to do with it. He already has a lover in Padovan, despite his frustration with what might almost be described as the boy’s male hysteria. Looking at her face, even her chest, if Krassky blurs his eyes just a little, he can imagine a boy, but when he looks lower he loses his erection.        

     He can only attempt to fuck her anally, and she is a small-boned woman who suffers significant pain with each thrust of his penis.

     In fact, there is a great deal of humor in this film as he attempts to transform her, somewhat as in Hitchcock’s Vertigo, into the boy he first glimpsed. They try it out in several hotel rooms to be kicked out each time on account of her horrific screams; and they end up trying it even in the back of his garbage truck. But even there, when she tells him that despite the pain, she loves him, his answer is that true love is simply  a matter of coming simultaneously, as if a mutual climax was the goal of any relationship. This a world in which guys take their dates to a violent all-girl roller skating derby, where a barn dance generally includes a competition among the local heterosexual hags for full-monty stripping.  Krassky cannot even bear seeing Johnny in a dress. Johnny is purposely deluding herself since the world in which she exists offers no other alternatives. Women are not welcome here. Sadomasochism is better than no sex at all.


      This is not a film about heterosexual anal sex, in other words, but about a gay man engaging in anal sex with a woman whom he attempts to imagine, unsuccessfully, is a virginal boy. You might as well describe Je T’Aime Moi Non Plus as being a study in pedophilic desire. 


     Almost all the critics see poor Padovan, moreover, as the crazed, uncontrollable villain, but after all this fool has nothing else but his relationship with Krassky to define his existence. He’s beaten up by the hitchhiking gay gang he mocked; and even the pretty peasant he seeks out denies him the pleasure of his cock evidently because of its immense size which has so punished other willing boy butts that he’s been locked up by the cops. Padovan is understandably jealous, and I might argue that that fact encourages Krassky in his endeavors to prove himself “flexible” as well. But Padovan knows that a relationship with Krassky and Johnny, even if it developed to that extent, must come to an end.

       A bit like a Hitchcockian psychopath, he simply wants to hurry it along, not in the shower but in the bathtub, not with a knife but the plastic bag he carries with him as if it were some kind of special charm, a bit like Johnny’s dog or the stuffed doll Krassky has given her. Again something totally inexplicable, the bag at least we observe offers him a warning sign of his arrival, a hat to wear in the rain, and, just to scare off his rival, something to wrap around her face to strangle her to death.


       Krassky appears on the horizon to save the day, tossing away the eatery’s tables and chairs as if he were entering a bar to disperse all the other gunslingers on his way to his final destination in a Sergio Leone movie. Only this time, when he reaches the endangered girl, he merely bends down to make sure she’s still breathing. He does not even move in the direction of her molester. In fact, he takes Padovan’s hand and leads him away, the girl shocked by the absolute turn of cinematically “normalized” events.

     The boys go off into the sunset together as the girl, still naked, falls to the concrete like an urbanized version of Andrew Wyeth’s Christina’s World, having lost her way from what she once knew as her homestead. He’s finally broken her.


      Enough of experimenting with all this gender fluidity, Krassky seems to say, as he crawls back into the cab of his truck with Padovan, happy to have someone into whom he can comfortably fit his cock when they find their way home at night.

      Gainsbourg’s work is perhaps one of the most beautifully filmed comedies ever made.

 

Los Angeles, December 15, 2021

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (December 2021).

 

Michael Apted | The Collection / 1976 [TV movie]

the smell of olives

by Douglas Messerli


Harold Pinter (screenplay, based on his stage drama), Michael Apted (director) The Collection / 1976 [TV movie]


Harold Pinter's brilliant short play of 1961, The Collection, is a work about two couples, Stella (Helen Mirren) and James (Alan Bates), married for two years, and Harry (Laurence Olivier) and Bill (Malcolm McDowell), living together for a number of years. Both pairs are clearly dissatisfied with their relationships or, at least, interested in sexually exploring alternatives—but fearful, also, of destroying the commitments they have made. Although James runs his wife's dress business, it is clear that she is the designer. Bill, as Harry tells both James and the audience, has been picked up in the slums, and is obviously completely dependent upon his older lover.


     The play begins with a late night/early morning telephone ring to the Belgravia house of Harry and Bill by a caller who refuses to divulge his name, a man seeking Bill. This call, in turn, sets off a series of calls and, soon after, visits by James to the house in search of Bill, who, he has been told by his wife, sexually molested her in her hotel room during a meeting of clothes manufacturers in Leeds.

     We never discover whether or not such an encounter actually occurred; both Bill and Stella change their stories several times in the course of the play. But it hardly matters, for the true energy of this play occurs not in the discovery of any "truth," but in the opportunity for new encounters—for James it might almost be described as stalking—with other beings, and the danger that their interchanges represent.

     If indeed Bill and Stella met in Leeds, even to simply talk about sexual possibilities, as Bill insists late in the play, there is a parallel pattern in James' visits to Bill. Both of these rendezvouses are highly sexually charged and physically threatening. Yet both also began and end in a war of words. Despite his position as intruder, Bill invites himself to drinks, demanding olives—in a typically brilliant Pinteresque non sequitur—and a place to sit, while gradually insinuating himself into James' life, going even so far as to query him about Harry and his supposed allergic reaction to rabbits (those animals which so prolifically fuck).


     It all ends, quite absurdly, with Bill lying prone on the floor, James standing over him in an overtly sexual position while the "conquered" man alternately denies and confirms James' imaginative recounting of the "rape" of his wife. Although Bill denies nearly everything, in the very last moments of their encounter when James reports that he called his wife while Bill was still sitting on the bed, Bill corrects him, "Not sitting, lying," hinting that there was truth in most everything the seemingly jealous husband has reported.

     Although nothing is spoken about James' visit to Bill, Harry certainly suspects something, and tension arises as he attacks his lover the next morning while endlessly reading and re-reading the newspaper, demanding he given it up only to insist that he has no desire for it, the kind of Pinter-like maneuver performed by those wanting to vent a problem when they cannot openly do so. Possession of the newspaper becomes a substitute for the possession of the truth and, ultimately, of their sexual rights and physical control of the other.


     Meanwhile tensions are also mounting between James and Stella, played out in a meaningless discussion of biscuits--which James argues will make his wife fatand his desire for olives, which she also doesn't have in the house, hinting to James that she has never cared about his likes or dislikes. James carries the game somewhat further by admitting that he has already visited her Leeds "lover," admitting that he enjoyed his company and found him quite attractive, although lying about his being quite forthcoming. James focuses on his respect for Bill and the fact the he too is an opera man, just as James himself is, although he always kept it a secrethinting perhaps that he has hidden his homosexual interests. (Aren't all male opera connoisseurs gay? Certainly they might been presumed to be in the 1960s.) James concludes, "It looks as though, by accident, you have opened up a whole new world for me."

     The second visit by James to Bill actually seems like an arranged "date" between the two, since James has prepared a cheese board and put out a bowl of olives. As the two verbally spar, the conversation turns to a discussion of each other's bodies which ends in a shared stare in the mirror, and a witty repartee in which the offered olives are denied by James, despite his insistence that he be served them on his previous visit:


james: I don't like them.
Pause.
bill: Don't like olives?
Pause.
What on earth have you got against olives?
james: I detest them.
bill: Really?
james: It's the smell I hate.*


     It doesn't take a Freudian psychologist to make one realize that they are not talking about the fruit of the Olea europaea, and that James, although clearly attracted to the other man, has some reservations when it comes to acting out what he feels.


     Harry, meantime, pays a visit to Stella, asking her if she knows Bill Lloyd. She doesn't and has never heard the name, she insists. But as the two continue in conversation, she claiming that her husband has made up a fantastic story, she does admit knowing that Bill was in Leeds even though she never met him. James has been overworked and seems quite mentally ill she insists. Harry suggests that she might take James on a trip to the South of France to cure him. He leaves, presumably satisfied that the relationship between Stella and Bill has been all made up.
     Back at the meeting with Bill and James, since James has expressed his abhorrence of olives, Bill suggests he have cheese, having a "splendid cheese knife."

 

james: Is it sharp?

bill: Try it. Hold the blade, it won't cut you. Not if you handle it properly

(moving closer). Not if you grasp it firmly up to the hilt.



     It is obviously a coded message of seduction. Only a few minutes later, however, James has picked up another cheese knife, challenging Bill to a duel, Bill playing "the sissy" by refusing to act out the phallic challenge that James has offered up, putting down his cheese knife. But James picks it up, not only now, as Bill points out, having two knives, but claiming to have another in his hip pocket.

     Bill wonders, what does he do? "Swallow them?"

     James' comeback is hilariously campy: "Do you?"

    This time, however, James impetuously propels his words, for the first time in the play, into action: tossing the cheese knife into the air and cutting Bill's hand, producing, perhaps, something tangible in the way of a small scar, which Bill has proven not to have in the first visit, despite talk of James' wife's attempt to keep off her assailant by mildly scratching him.

    In a world only of talk, finally something has happened, someone has at least been palpably touched. Harry, observing this scene behind the doorway—having returned from his conversation with Stella—knows quite clearly what the sword play means. Pinter seems to be hinting at the older and younger attractive interloper playing with knives in Roman Polanski's 1962 film, Knife in the Water. Pouring his guest another drink he tells him that James that he has met with his wife and she has admitted that she has made the whole story up. "Women are most strange...if I were you I'd go home and hit over the head a saucepan or something." and lashes out in an emotional outburst of hate against the "slum-boy slug" he has brought into his proper home:


“There's nothing wrong with slugs, in their place, but he's a slum slug, there's nothing wrong with slum slugs in their place, but this one won't keep his place, he crawls all over the walls of nice houses, leaving slime, don't you boy?”

  The older Harry is clearly fighting to keep his young lover the only way he knows how. Like James he dominates the passive Bill, but unlike James his is only a world of words, and he can only wonder when action may again break out. Ultimately, of course, James must also retreat, as the civilized British society insists. They all return to talk, meaningless politeness. The talk utterly defeats any acts of love. Love, after all, in this world has less to do with action, than accretion, is something held together through time and repetition. As Harry says to Stella about James: "I found him in a slum, you know, by accident"—as if he were an object he discovered in a shop to be brought home to add to his collection.

   Yet behind their language looms terror. James returns home to reassure himself that his wife did indeed do nothing but talk to Bill that night in Leads. "You didn't do anything, did you?" he almost pleads. "That's the truth, isn't it?" Her silent look, "neither confirming nor denying," "her face friendly and sympathetic," with, in the television version I saw, an ever so slight smile upon her lips, tells us nothing. As Pinter knows, silence is so dangerous.

     We cannot know "truth" in this world of linguistic games. Did Stella make up the story simply to make her inattentive husband jealous? Was James truly attracted to the homosexual he discovered who had supposedly had sex with his wife, or was simply out to make sure the "fag" got what was coming to him? He could as well be repelled and attracted both, unable to act on his own desires, which explains his wife's dissatisfaction. Perhaps only Harry's motivations are apparent, his attack on his lover merely meant to keep him in his place, beside him in his bed. He is forced to clean up the mess Bill makes behind him, smoothing over the labyrinth of lies and ineffective actions that he collects around him in his relationships with others.

     Although this version of Pinter's remarkable play seems a little busy in its fruitless attempts to leave the drawing room of the playwright’s purposely claustrophobic setting—the sets themselves are perhaps a bit overwrought in their attempt to create a sense of stylish realism—one couldn't ask for a better cast.

 

*Olives are a slang term for a man’s balls.

 
Los Angeles, December 27, 2008

Reprinted from USTheater, Opera, and Performance (December 2008).

 

 

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 ...