Friday, January 31, 2025

Dave Wilson | Dad, I'm Straight / 1982 [TV (SNL) episode]

i am a….heterosexual!

by Douglas Messerli

 

Michael O'Donoghue and Bob Tischler (head writers), Dave Wilson (director) Dad, I’m Straight / 1982 [TV (SNL) episode]

 

Like so many short gay films before it, the September 23, 1982 episode of Saturday Night Live, reversed the standard coming out trope, as the Dad (Howard Hesseman), clearly a gay man who has divorced his previous wife, greets home his college-age student son (Gary Kroeger). To help his son come out to the reality of his life, Dad has even made a date with for his son with a handsome young medical student, Mike.



    The only problem, as it soon becomes apparent, is that his son has returned home with serious news, a problem which he is sure will be difficult for his father to accept: he’s straight.

     The standard outing tropes are used to seemingly new effect here, “Where have I gone wrong,” I should have played with you more when you were younger.” “I never should have left your mother bathe you.”

     It’s all a very smug heterosexual gimmick inverted to suggest perhaps that the standard reactions to a gay son reporting his homosexuality to a bigoted heterosexual father might not be so very different these days from a homosexual father dealing with his son’s heterosexuality.

     The only problem is that we know that the society in which this young boy has grown up would still completely embrace his heterosexuality, and any problems the gay daddy back at home might hint at are merely in jest. The society at large will have already laid its large open hand upon the boy’s back with utter acceptance. This is a total farce.

     Moreover, there’s something disturbingly sleazy about this sketch when Mike calls, the father explaining that the date has fallen through but that he might still come over to watch TV with him.

     This SNL piece simply doesn’t work for anyone truly involved in the LGBTQ community, and its forced laughter of inversion seems more than canned and actually quite offensive. And Hesseman’s prissy straightening up of the couch pillows at the end take us right back to the early days of homosexual stereotyping.

 

Los Angeles, January 31, 2025

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema (January 2025).

Garth Maxwell | Beyond Gravity / 1989

the young man all ablaze in the rays from the sun

by Douglas Messerli

 

Garth Adams and Garth Maxwell (screenplay), Garth Maxwell (director) Beyond Gravity / 1989 

 

There’s something about the movies of the late 1980s and early 1990s that still possess my heart, as they travel straight into the most important issues of LGBTQ sexuality and the problems that we were gradually perceiving with regard to AIDS, while also making reference to past then-unidentified gay films. New Zealand director’s Garth Maxwells truly underground masterpiece, Beyond Gravity does all of that while still allowing a sense of style than allied itself with the French New Wave.


     Johnny (Iain Rea), the “possibly” Italian-spirited hero of Maxwell’s transgressive little gem, is everything you might want in gay cinema. A slightly naughty boy, who, like Joe Orton and Kenneth Halliwell before him, toyed with the public library system, spots the desperately conflicted science nerd Richard (Robert Pollack), and goes crazy as he replaces the science-boy’s overdrawn library card with his own, obviously stolen from a female, who without any difficulty—given his readiness to display his fake “transgender” credentials for the entire library to enjoy—gets away with by offering Richard permission to check out the tall stack of books he is escaping with about the end of the universe.


     If Johnny is a wild thing, willing to lie, cheat, and simply trick his way to get the boy into his bed, Richard is terrified by even living, knowing from his studies of astronomy that eventually it will all come to a tragic end, particularly when the sun turns red and blows up, freezing out our favorite 3rd planet from the Sun.

     With the aplomb of a magic Italian-Kiwi, Johnny, tossing up basketballs and bananas with equal force upon Richard’s high-rise window, where he lives with his sexually distracted sister Billie (Lucy Sheehan) and her dumb-thinking lover and regular bed-member Pete (Alex Van Dam), breaks Richard out of his sheltered horror, takes him to the beach where the two boys madly make love, and spins him off into a world Richard might never have imagined, but is only too happy to participate in—reminding anyone who has seen Nicholas Ray’s 1955 film Rebel without a Cause—in its complete transformation of the nerdy Richard into Sal Mineo playing against Johnny’s own James Dean, sans any insipid Nathalie Wood. These boys go full force into gay sex, allowing the gravitational pull of the sun to rein in the dutiful doubter Richard.


    It’s absolutely joyful to watch the resistant cynical scientist Richard fall into the arms and an accompanying leather jacket provided by Johnny, with Pete finally realizing that his girlfriend’s brother is perhaps just a little queer. Billie proclaims that her Peter should have been a detective.

     Of course, Richard has to get punished, this time by the original leather-jacker owner from whom Johnny’s stolen his beloved coat. Much blood and pain has to be suffered; after all he’s a gay man who can’t simply escape his suddenly open love without some punishment.


     Yet, unlike Ray’s fantasy wherein Mineo must suffer the true wrath of death, Richard is visited in Auckland’s Stardrome Observatory and Planetarium, as a symbolic replacement of Los Angeles’ Griffith Observatory, by Johnny, who pulls him once again out of his desperate sun- based infatuation back into the “real” Kiwi world.


     Throughout the entire movie, Johnny has been insisting that he needs to travel to Rome to visit the disapproving and unforgiving father who has left him and his mother behind upon Johnny’s own “coming out.” The reformed Richard is now all in tears, and Beyond Gravity seems to be slipping once more into an out-of-control universe, until, in his lime-green Japanese microcar of the late 1980s, Johnny bumbles back to Richard, having (purposely?) missed his flight to Rome.

     As nearly everyone who has visited Maxwell’s little film now recognize, this is a true gem of LGBTQ cinema of the 1980s, which actually appeared in 1989, despite IMDb’s insistence that didn’t get its outing until 1990.

     I believe the Kiwis, whose several gay films have always made a believer.

 

Los Angeles, January 31, 2025

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2025).

Francis Papillon | Je m'excuse (I’m Sorry) / 2022

start again

by Douglas Messerli

 

Virginie Nolin (screenplay), Francis Papillon (director) Je m'excuse (I’m Sorry) / 2022 [20 minutes]

 

Louis (Emile Dufour) seems to have everything. He has a handsome businessman lover, Sam (Dany Boudreault) who has just bought him a new suburban house. And he has friends in the Village back on Montreal. He plans to return to a party there hosted by his friend, Nadine (Noé Lira), but when he mentions the invitation to Sam, his boyfriend reminds him that he will just be returning from a trip to Toronto, and he would like to spend the night alone with him.


    Louis agrees. But in Sam’s absence he grows increasingly lonely, separated from the world he left behind and which, evidently, contributed to his being HIV positive. Even a walk through the wealthy suburban streets ends in a negative reaction from Sam. Louis had left his phone back at the house, and Sam became worried when he couldn’t contact him. Oddly enough, this neighborhood still has an old-fashioned pay phone on a nearby street.

     Yet we sense that there is something else about Sam’s concern, his overprotective caring for his lover, and his determination to keep Louis away from all his old friends. And when he comes back from Toronto somewhat early to discover that Louis has not only bought a new car, but is planning to split out that evening for a party at Nadine’s house, he grabs Louis’s cellphone and refuses to return it, as if the 24-year-old were a child. He insists that Louis remain home.


     Their argument leads to Louis pushing Sam away, with him falling to the ground. And soon after, when Louis refuses to stay at home, with Sam slugging Louis.

      This is a film, quite obviously, about domestic violence between gay men. But in this case, we have so little history, so little understanding of either figure, that we can only say that the incidents might be described as exceptional, a result of childish behavior on both their parts. Certainly, we can sympathize with Louis’ feeling of being something like a locked-up trophy wife. But we can also perceive why Sam may wish to ween his friend away from his old gay friends and certainly might be appalled by the sudden purchase of an expensive sports car and Louis’ inability to simply stay in for the night of his lover’s return.

       In short, this film seems to record an incident rather than a history of abuse. And, although the film appears to side with Louis, we can also comprehend much of Sam’s anger. French-Canadian director Francis Papillon’s short work also leaves us with a question of what truly will now happen between the couple, Sam arguing just before he has struck Louis that they “start over,” that perhaps they are simply at a point of misunderstanding.

     But for Louis, it appears, the relationship is over, and that he can no longer trust Sam. We don’t know either man well enough to know whether what has occurred may become a regular pattern and an issue they can perhaps easily settle by setting up some sort of boundaries for both them, Sam granting Louis more independence, and Louis, having perhaps taken into account Sam’s disapproval of his previous life, attempting to find some meaningful activities other than partying at Nadine’s house.


      As this short film stands, it appears to be a warning about domestic abuse without fully considering the issues which led to this perhaps momentary violence. Perhaps Papillon’s work is simply meant to be a warning of violence being employed in any relationship, but someone I don’t get that feeling. I suspect Louis and his attempts to control the other man’s life is meant to show how he is a villain. Maybe, the film simply needed to be longer, to further explore what was behind the unfortunate event.

     I may also be asking these questions to some degree because of my memory that when my husband Howard and I first met in 1970, at about the same age as this couple, we were also involved in incidents of violence, both of us still immature and needing to learn in a world that doesn’t teach gay men about relationships that, being both very different people in some respects, we would eventually have to give up certain behaviors which we felt defined our own sense of being. Yet we survived, and lived together for 55 years, our anniversary coming up five days from the date I wrote this piece.

     I think that it might have been more interesting for such a film as I’m Sorry to explore the fact that men in many societies are unfortunately taught, through competitive sports and patriarchal attitudes defining gender, to be violent. And both Howard and I, moreover, had encountered some childhood bullying, being told by our parents that we needed to learn how to “fight back,” to stand up for our own rights. Violence is never acceptable in a relationship or marriage, but it also might be expected. And to immediately turn tail with horror would end so many ultimately positive gay male relationships. This couple, it appears, doesn’t necessarily need to “start over,” but to “start again,” with both men realizing the dangers of attempting to resolve differences with fists.

 

Los Angeles, January 31, 2025

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2025).

 

 

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 ...