Monday, February 3, 2025

James Broughton | Adventures of Jimmy / 1950

seeking what he seems to never find

by Douglas Messerli

 

James Broughton (director and actor) Adventures of Jimmy / 1950

 

     James Broughton’s 1950 film Adventures of Jimmy is, in many respects, like Markopoulos’ 1949 film, Christmas, USA, a voyage of recognition—although in Broughton’s work everything the hero says seems to say is the opposite of what he does. Jimmy, having been left alone by the death of his family, has inherited a mountain shack, coming of age but feeling quite alone, expressing, as Broughton does throughout this work, a kind witty expression of the facts: “I had no one to play with. I could play with myself,” etc.


     Determined to find someone to love, Jimmy ventures out into the world, his isolated location requiring him to travel a long time before finding friendly faces. He first encounters others playing in the waters, sailing and sunbathing along what is clearly is a beach community. From his small circular suitcase—one of the several visual jokes of this film—Jimmy pulls out a sailors’ cap, which, when put upon his head turns him almost immediately—particularly given his high reedy voice and his slim, good-looks—into a gay icon. Pulling a telescope from the same small carrying case, he first looks to a boat filled with beefy males, followed up by a small vessel of floating female vamps, obviously out to get him.

      The dialogue in this film is quite clever, suggesting always one thing but saying something else: “Finding what one wants is hard to do,” the young sailor-boy suggests. With camera in hand and shewing off the obviously advancing female figure, he wonders “Could I make fit the picture to what I had in mind?” Obviously, none of these females appeal to our hero, for he is soon off to the city to find what he can there.

      Almost immediately he encounters two prostitutes who each vie for his attention, forcing him to enter a building where he waits for them to follow before making his escape. How can “an awkward fellow with high ideals” find the right person, he ponders. Of course, all of his self-descriptions suggest his sexuality is other than she is seeking, and in between each set of up possible female companions, Broughton imposes various male on male configurations of men wrestling, visiting Turkish baths, or just hanging out together, making it clear that our troubled hero is looking in all the wrong places.


      Indeed, Jimmy is so perplexed and dissatisfied with women, particularly when he tries to turn a plain looking servant into a beautiful woman—hilariously pulling a pair of women’s slippers and a featured hat from his little round carrying case (one can only imagine why he is carrying these items in his luggage)—but, once again, failing in his search for love, that he seeks the help of a psychoanalyst. Again, Jimmy queries: “Was I too refined, too well read that I gave the wrong impression? I was getting more confused.”

      Soon after, we see the well-dressed Jimmy leaving the church with a bride—only this bride has a complete veil hanging over her face, which forces us to speculate what she (or obviously he) might possibly look like.

      Broughton quite wryly refuses to go where the movie has logically taken us. Instead we see him back at his mountain cabin where a woman appears in a window, before another, and another, until several women come together to represent, purportedly, a complete family of cheerful servants. Isn’t this after all, what the American male truly seeks, Broughton seems to be asking? Not a true sexual companion, but a being who, perhaps even with others, can properly cook and clean the house?

      The director, accordingly, turns the obvious desires of the searching Jimmy on their head—forcing us to realize that what Jimmy really wants, he can’t have. At least not yet!

     

Los Angeles, July 5, 2015

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (July 2015).

 

Gregory J. Markopoulos | Christmas, USA / 1949

denying what you say as it’s being said

by Douglas Messerli

 

Gregory J. Markopoulos (director) Christmas, USA / 1949

 

Gregory J. Markopoulos’ 1949 work, Christmas, USA is a “trance film” that pretends, at least on the surface, to be a film about the central figure’s home life. Critic Adams Sitney has described such films as follows:

 

“These deal with visionary experience, protagonists are somnambulists, the possessed, priests, initiates of some ritual system, characterized by stylized movements of actors, movements that are recreated by camera, protagonist wanders through potent environment (symbolically charged) toward some type of self-realization, some type of confrontation with the self.”


    What Sitney doesn’t explain is that the trance is the necessary effort the individual must experience in order to move from the illusionary world of his childhood experience to the actual adult world of his true sexual identity.

     At the beginning of this completely silent film (shown originally without musical accompaniment) we see a handsome male wanderer in an amusement park, “The Cavalcade of Worlds” wandering through the park through the various rides (a merry-go-round, a Ferris wheel, etc.), through the back alleys of freak shows, and past the dance and music halls of “Little Harlem.” At the same time, our young hero awakens, washing, putting on a fashionable bathrobe, and later shaving. He receives a phone call and speaks for some length.

     We observe another boy wandering, this time through a landscape of trees, dressed in a Japanese robe, lighting what appears to be a ritual lamp, while the boy on the phone continues to play with a letter opener and other nearby objects, which also appear, through Markopoulos’ editing, to be somewhat ritual in nature. Are these the same person, including the man we’ve seen meandering through the amusement park?

 


    The family begins to prepare for the Greek Christmas dinner, the mother vacuuming and cooking, the man’s sister reading a book. The ritual Greek foods are laid upon the table.

      The young man enters his house again, this time exiting, candle in hand, in great determination, walking through the industrial fields under a freeway and across a railroad track to encounter another man, shirtless with a beautifully chiseled body. With the candle held high, he greets the stranger, who clearly is a kind of Christ, who with the fervent recognition of his powers, backs up against the landscape before falling in an obviously re-enactment of the crucifixion, the boy playing the role of the Marys in holding the crucified body.


      The hero returns home, as does the father. Christmas dinner is observed, but soon after, to the apparent shock of family members, the young boy puts on a hooded jacket and leaves the house in what appears to be a final farewell.

      Clearly the sleeping figure at the beginning of this film has, through the encounter with his own Christ, come to a recognition of his own being, of his own sexuality which can no longer be contained within the confines of the home in which he lived. The last date, January 1, 1950, seems to declare a date of recognition and freedom. The young boy of the film has become a gay man, and in that representation focuses his film on what might be described as the third “coming out” film of the late 1940s, which I have designated as the version A of coming out movies, the pattern having been already established, strangely, by Markopoulos’s Los Angeles friends, Curtis Harrington and Kenneth Anger.

 

Los Angeles, July 5, 2015

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (July 2015).

 

Howard Hawks | I Was a Male War Bride / 1949

great expectations

by Douglas Messerli

 

Charles Lederer, Leonard Spigelgass, and Hagar Wilde (screenplay, based on a book by Henri Rochard), Howard Hawks (director) I Was a Male War Bride / 1949

 

Film historians have recounted the near-disastrous filming of Howard Hawks 1949 movie, I Was a Male War Bride. Shooting much of it in post-War II Germany, Hawks and his crew managed to capture some wonderful scenes of the still mostly bombed-out cities, particularly Heidelberg. But the cold European Fall of 1948, when the film was in process, resulted in a series of cast and crew illnesses that delayed the production for months, resulting in a total budget of over two-million dollars.

   First, the director broke out in hives over his entire body. Cary Grant, one of the film’s stars, developed hepatitis complicated by jaundice, closing down production for three months until he recovered and gained back the 30 pounds he had lost. When screenwriter Charles Lederer also became ill, he called upon his friend Orson Welles to write part of a short scene that remained unfinished.


     Perhaps this accounts for what several critics found as a diffused and unfulfilling story for the early half of this work. Writing in The New York Times Bosley Crowther, for example, writes:

 

“That gay old Hollywood practice of shooting a picture ‘off the cuff,’ which meant making up the story and the situations as the filming went along, appears to have been the one followed by Howard Hawks and Twentieth Century-Fox in banging out I Was a Male War Bride, which came to the Roxy yesterday. We don't say it was, necessarily. Three writers are credited with the script and the whole thing is said to be based on the actual story of one Henri Rochard. But the flimsiness of the film's foundations and the disorder of its episodes provoke the inevitable impression that it all fell together en route. Not that this mode of construction is incongruous to the brand of farce that is wildly tossed off in this picture when it finally slips into full speed. The illusion of spontaneity that accumulates in the last half is entirely appropriate to the nonsense that glibly and haphazardly occurs.”

 

    I don’t know whether Crowther was playing on the pun “gay” in his review, but I’d argue that the first half of Hawks’ work, much as in his early Grant film, Bringing up Baby, sets up the story that will be played out in the second half by broadly hinting to an audience in the know, that any shift of the film to conventional mores is an intentional sham. In this case, his soon-to-be marriage with a woman in the later half—which requires him, most queerly, to become his own wife—is necessary to please unknowing viewers and get his gender-bending homosexual story past the censors.

     Indeed, Grant spends the first half demonstrating his absolute distaste for the woman, Lt. Catherine Gates (Sheridan), with whom he has shared a previous “mission,” delivering up her some of the most intimate items of her clothing in one of the early scenes, leading her peers to believe it might be something she left behind, but rather representing the fact that their laundry has been accidently shipped to each other. What has he might have been doing with those woman’s clothes gets comically answered in the final scenes.

     In 1949 when senator Joseph McCarthy was already naming “Communists” in government organizations and looking for them in early red lists of Hollywood figures, as well as preparing to launch, along with others, an organized assault of homosexuals in the US and in Europe which would fall under the rubric “the Lavender Menace,”* it is amazing that Hawks and his writers, Charles Lederer, Leonard Spigelgass, and Hagar Wilde, got away with a screenplay laden with so many gay sexual allusions.

     But then Lederer, nephew of actor Marion Davies, and who had long worked with Ben Hecht who described him as an incessant practical joker often pairing up with Harpo Marx to play jokes on Randolph Hearst’s guests,** was by 1949 a well experienced and respected writer (he worked with Hawks previously on the brilliant movie His Girl Friday); Leonard Spigelgass was the writer in his long career of scripts for 11 Academy Award-winning films and others. Among them was Big Street, Mystery Street, A Majority of One (based on his play), Silk Stockings, and Gypsy, he being quite openly gay within the Hollywood community; Hagar Wilde wrote the original story for and worked on the screenplay of Bringing Up Baby. In short, perhaps that brilliant trio explains their running gags that establish Grant’s French officers’ actual inaccessibility to the opposite sex, which is really what I Was a Male War Bride is all about; or, to put it as they did after the previous World War, “How Ya Gonna Keep 'em Down on the Farm (After They've Seen Paree)?”

      Let us begin with the absolute necessity in any Cary Grant film: a woman or several women make nearly all decisions, dominating and blocking nearly all of his mostly flustered attempts to regain any power, identity, or dignity. In the previous mission, for example, for some misperceived transgression Lt. Gates (Ann Sheridan) has thrown French officer Henri Rochard into a tank of blue dye, the color which is perceived in Russia, for example, as describing someone who is gay, just as in the US gays were defined by purple or lavender. Interestingly, even after several months, Rochard has not been able to wash the blue color out of his skin. Well, once it gets under the skin…as Cole Porter observed, “Don’t you know, you fool, you can never win?”

      In one of the first scenes of the film, Rochard, attempting to determine the various acronyms posted on the doors where he has been called to a meeting, is fairly successful in interpreting some of them (WAIRCO, for example is, he whispers to himself, is probably War Administration Industrial Relations Coordinates Office) until he arrives at a door saying LADIES, in front of which he stands for a few moments attempting to decode its meaning while wondering whether to enter or remain outside.


   When he does find the proper office, he is told by the woman commander that he is to be accompanied by Gates on his new mission. Troubled by having to face the woman with whom he has had so many previous run-ins, he attempts to ask if there isn’t someone else who might accompany him. Gates, apparently, is the most capable as well as being the only one available. As the Major asserts, “Gates, she’s your man!” “Wish she were!” the Grant character mumbles.

    Soon after when Gates attempts to describe to a colleague just how terrible it has been to work with Rochard, whom she defines as someone who will “run after anything in skirts,” Rochard protests: “Why did you say I run after any girl in skirts?” Gates shoots back; “I say anything in skirts,” suggesting perhaps that Rochard is equally interested in any male in drag, the issue that will soon be the major subject of the picture.

    Of course, there are no jeeps available for their planned journey, so they have to commission a motorcycle with a sidecar for riding. Rochard, being a foreigner, does not have the proper license, but Gates has the proper document in hand, and off they go, leaving behind the sidecar with the displeased Rochard much like a skit in a Marx Brothers movie.

    Later, after losing their way—one of the sub-themes of the film is not being able to find one’s way among the coded messages and lack of proper signage—almost being hurled down river through the rapids of a powerful damn and numerous other indignities suffered primarily by Rochard, they finally wind up at their destination in Bad Nauheim and find an inn for the night.

     After all their adventures by motor bike and boat, Gate’s back and neck are aching, and Rochard is about to bring her some rubbing alcohol, a towel, and his gentle messaging fingers. As he knocks on her bedroom door she at first contemplates refusing entry to the man she suspects of being a rude and improper lecher. Finally, she asks: “Who is it?”

 

                                         rochard: Cinderella.

                                         gates: What do you want?

                                         rochard: My slippers.

 

     When he does finally manage to slip in and successfully allow her to slip away into sleep he discovers that he has not left behind “his slippers” but his route of exiting the “ball,” as the doorhandle falls off both inside and out. For propriety’s sake and to simply not awaken this mad lioness, he is forced to sit up the entire night in a most uncomfortable chair. (It’s strange having seen this film, just after watching Paul Morrissey’s Flesh where poor Joe Dalessandro after a hard day of hustling finds it nearly impossible to get a good night’s sleep; and another of Hawks’ subthemes is the impossibility of Grant’s character to find a bed anywhere in which he might rest his worn-out body). Of course, when she awakens to find him still in her room, there is hell to pay until the proprietress of the inn reveals that the doorknob needs to be fixed.


     From these few examples, anyone might get the idea that the first half of the film only attempts to set up the fact that when Rochard finally does marry Gates it is only a convention created to please the conventional-minded audience. Yet once the couple have exchanged rings, three times in fact, the writers, having made it apparent about Rochard’s disqualifications for being a proper heterosexual partner, turn their attentions on the ways in which the society, using the synecdoche of the military establishment, defines not only marriage, but sexual identity, and gender, thus making it clear just how such a marriage might be totally inappropriate.

     Just as they are about to celebrate their wedding night, Gates’ military attachment is ordered back to the US, which means that her new husband must become the male equivalent—of which there appear to be no previous examples—of a war bride. In short Mr. Rochard must become Mrs. Rochard in the many forms they are required to fill out. As a military lawyer advises them, “I was thinking of you [pointing out Rochard] as the bride. It says spouses not sex.” Rochard’s rejoinder is one of the last gestures to clear the cobwebs away from anyone’s imagination that this character is mimetically available to marry a woman: “The process of turning into a woman is enormously complicated.” Evidently Cary had carefully considered the difficulties of becoming transgender!

      As they begin to actually fill out the paperwork it becomes clear to the always befuddled Grant that “I am my own wife,” long before Doug Wright’s 2003 play by the same name based on the famed German lesbian, Charlotte von Mahlsdorf.


      Rochard goes on, in filling out the application, to knock down any gender limitations—and here you have to give Hawks and his writers credit for totally breaking through the barrier of even their own clever codes—insisting Gates fill in one box that he is “expecting,” a joke used later as a coded way of hinting about Rock Hudson’s homosexuality in Pillow Talk of a decade later and of declaring Jacques Demy’s bisexuality in his 1973 film A Slightly Pregnant Man.

      After many further “complications,” including a Private from Brooklyn suggesting that if the now utterly exhausted Rochard were already in New York he could have slept with his old man, all the plot truly requires is the tried and true cinematic trope of cross-dressing, Grant appearing with a horse-tail bob in a long skirt and silk hose—not a very pretty sight, but like Jack Lemmon in Some Like It Hot, just enough to wow any sailor and get the expectant couple on board the ship sailing to New York. Having tossed any sense of reality out the window with it the key to unlock their prison door of gender or to explain the logic of this plot, the couple sails past France’s gift to the open arms that may be awaiting them. Now if they can only get through Customs.

 

*Leslie Feinberg catalogues just a few of the events that shortly after this film led to increasing attacks on gay Americans and Europeans:

 

“In the 1950s, more bombshells were to detonate in the overall offensive against the "Lavender Menace," which had become a foil for the right-wing in the domestic Cold War.

     In 1951, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, two gay double-agents working in British intelligence, fled to the Soviet Union. This was grist for the mill, linking homosexuality with communist "treason."

     In 1952, worldwide publicity accompanied the entrapment and arrest of British mathematician and computer innovator Alan Turing. He was one of 1,686 men rounded up and charged with "gross indecency with males." Turing had risen to fame during World War II after he deciphered a Nazi secret code.”

 

** Hecht wrote: "I have met a new friend. He has pointed teeth, pointed ears, is nineteen years old, completely bald and stands on his head a great deal. His name is Charles Lederer. I hope to bring him back to civilization with me.”

 

Los Angeles, October 1, 2020

Reprinted from World Cinema Review and My Queer Cinema blog (October 2020).

 


Julien Duvivier | Au Royaume des cieux (The Kingdom of Heaven, aka The Sinners) / 1949

itching to sin

by Douglas Messerli

 

Julien Duvivier and Henri Jeanson (screenplay), Julien Duvivier (director) Au Royaume des cieux (The Kingdom of Heaven, aka The Sinners) / 1949

 

The 1949 French film Au royaume des cieux, known in some markets as The Sinners, has all the ingredients of later lurid lesbian reformatory and prison films made mostly for heterosexual male audiences. Director Julien Duvivier’s film is set in a reformatory where fifty post-pubescent girls are housed for crimes ranging from revolutionary anarchistic activities, immoral behavior, and robbery, to prostitution and even murder. The girls, some of whom demonstrate lesbian desires, are often seen dressed in their underwear and generally grouped closely together in busy, crowded frames, bantering, verbally fighting, and, at one point, engaging in an out-of-control cat fight in their vast group bedroom.  



    The director of this institution, clearly a frustrated man-hating lesbian, sadistically punishes and tortures her charges, at one moment participating in an incident that today might be described as rape.

     Although all of these things do occur in variations throughout The Kingdom of Heaven—the English title (closer to the original French) which I prefer—is a far more interesting and complex work than it first may seem, and has little in common with the Grade B movie genre I described above. While there is no question that this film belongs to the girl’s boarding school (Mädchen in Uniform and Olivia) / women’s prison dramas (Caged) genre, the film far transcends it as it centers upon the lives of some of the local townspeople and, most importantly, a true-love heterosexual story between the newest inmate, Maria Lambert (Suzanne Cloutier) and her lover on the outside who comes to her rescue, Pierre Massot (Serge Reggiani).


     Just as intense as the pent-up human lusts and hate boiling in the inside of this institution, outside the rivers and streams roil up with the annual rains in this land of water and mud, threatening to drown the townspeople just as the emotional pressures rise within the old fortress transformed into a what has become a young womens’ prison. It is no accident that when the dam walls break, so too do the women inside rise up and rebel against their sadistic director, bringing together the redeeming heterosexual love story and the internal “queer” emotions that have been kept under lock and key within the institution, creating a perfect symbiosis between the normative and queer forces at play in this work.

     Duvivier, moreover, is a classy, “A” list director, and with his cinematographer Victor Armenise is perfectly able to alternate his inside/outside maneuvers in a manner that reveals that the two are innately related. The most notable of these scenes is when the inmate Maria describes what “rain”  means to her as she recounts a sports event she attended with her lover Pierre in Paris which a downpour halted, while the two lovers, escaped to a shelter under a porch. There, a man nearby turns on his car radio playing a song to serenade their hidden love-making. Duvivier’s camera swings back and forth in the telling of this event from Maria, laying on her bed in the reformatory telling the tale to her fellow prisoners, to Pierre, relating the same story at the table of the Barattiers where he is boarding, each time between swings pausing at an image of a window with rain pelting upon it.



     It is that same rain that ultimately endangers everyone’s life but also permits the escape of Maria and Pierre, and helps, with the sacrifice of her life of the anarchist inmate, to foment the inside revolution that results a permanent change with the establishment of a new, kinder director, Miss Guérande (Monique Mélinand).

     The interconnecting between what happens in the larger world and within the prison walls is also played out in the character of Margot (Liliane Maigné), who in her regular escapes and returns from and to the institution plays the role of the Greek Hermes or the Roman Mercury, who links the inside and outside, those of high position and those of low. It is she who delivers Pierre’s letter to Maria, describing his plans to help her escape and relaying his expressions of his love for her.*

     As the girls indirectly introduce themselves to the “newbie” Maria, they also reveal their own  crimes and sexual preferences, some clearly heterosexual, others obviously lesbian, as when one girl, advertising her natural breasts asks Maria to touch them in order to prove that everything within her bra is real, while another greedily attempts to grab a feel for herself.

     Another resident, nicknamed Gaby “Invoice” apparently for her use of her body for monetary purposes, appears to be bisexual, raising her skirt to show her thighs: “The left thigh is for men.  The right one for lonely ladies.”

     These variations of sexuality are presented as the director as normal, even if for his audiences they may have appeared to represent the rough lives these young girls have had to endure in order to survive their broken home lives and the criminal actions of their own parents. Yet the girls wear their differences like badges of honor, even allowing one girl to cry in response to almost everything since it clearly makes her feel better. And there are few hard feelings about their personal desires or past actions.

    The major issues of conflict that arise between these young women relate to their present survival and future acts. They all dislike the anarchist among them who appears to constantly seek out dissension in order to foment revolution, which as I suggest she eventually accomplishes. Their fights with one another, however, are mostly about how to proceed, not about their core values or the acts that brought them all together. And their major topic of discussion is how to survive until they are released, particularly given the most recent developments regarding the directorship and regulations of Maison Haute Mère.

      It is perhaps not so strange that it is the arrival of the innocent Maria—her major crime being to attempt to escape from her assigned employment with a family whose father and son both attempt to force her into sexual relationships—that sets off the series of events that completely alters the order of these girls’ lives as well as those who themselves seek to be free of such malevolent control.

      Things begin rather benignly, as the current director of Maison Haute Mère, Madame Bardin (Paule Andral), meets the young woman just brought to her. Although she greets the new girl with a rather menacingly interrogation of her past record, she soon after assures her that she recognizes these as minor infractions and attempts to explain that she is not being locked away in a prison—the doors and gates remain open, although there are punishments for those, like Margot, who abuse their regulations—but rather will hopefully be given the skills to work upon release in professions that do not entail the kind of indentured situations in which Maria has been placed. Complaining of the cold and damp of the former fortress which serves as the girl’s home, she suddenly receives a call from authorities saying they’ve have finally found new quarters for the institution. But hardly has Madame Bardin had a moment to share the good news, before she falls to the floor, dead apparently of a heart attack.

      Given the speed with which she takes up the telephone conversation and her seeming disinterest in what has just happened to Bardin, Miss Chamblas (Suzy Prim), we cannot help but suspect, that she may have involved in her predecessor’s death. Suddenly having been given command of the reformatory, she orders the open doors immediately bolted, the girls’ playtime be taken away until she discovers who has broken a drinking glass, that the nearly rabid dog Goliath be untethered, and, after abruptly re-interrogating Maria, that she be locked away in basement cells that have never been previously used.

     Somewhat like the wicked stepmother in Snow White, Chamblas immediately recognizes that Maria, in her beauty and innocence, represents everything she is not. And whereas, she can quite easily intimidate and dominate the other girls, even possibly sexually satisfying her desires with some of them, Maria, in her moon-struck innocence is incorruptible.

      Even the tough girls into whose quarters Miss Guérande, in rebellion against her superior, releases Maria, know that the new beauty is living in a reality unavailable to them which they jocularly refer to as “living in a movie in which locomotives fly the skies.” Yet it is her specialness, the fact that, despite the hard times she too has suffered, that she has remained untouched by them that attracts these women to her. When they finally are convinced through her and Pierre’s relationship that love does “still exist,” the only way they can imagine helping her—at least a first—is to turn to the spiritual world in which none of them any longer believe. Having even forgotten how to pray, they make up their own prayers to a God in which they don’t believe, chanting the word “Amen” each time their designated priestess says the world “thumb.” It is such a lovely scene that one tends to forgive Duvivier for so sentimentally connecting it up with Christmas, a day in which miracles always happen in motion pictures.

      But first Maria must endure the torture and temptations that the newborn Christ won’t have to face for 33 more years. Having heard from a prison snitch that a man is headed to the prison to release his lover, Chamblas personally challenges the young girl in a scene so salacious that it almost wipes away any taste of Christmas cookies still lingering on your tongue.


      Determined to discover what the wisp of a female being possesses in order to bring a man to their doors, as well as attempting to witness her beauty for her own delectation, the furious matron strips off the girl’s blouse as her fingers appear to itch in midair to get her hands on “the skin” which makes a man follow her “like a dog.” In an utterly over-the-top performance Prim strokes that skin in self-gratification thrusting her face so close to the girl’s that their lips almost touch all the while knowing that if they actually had the whole scene might have been cut. Certainly, I can’t imagine that these frames would have made it through the US or British censor of the day.

      Maria’s outrage and declarations of hatred are so deserved that even Chamblas is speechless, as she sentences the girl to return to the dungeon, as if we needed further proof that in the perverted version of love represented by Chamblas, desire can only be expressed through power and pain; this character obviously has long been a student of de Sade.


     Using the excuse of the annual girls’ Christmas choral presentation at the local church, Guérande once more intercedes, freeing Maria so that she might meet up with Pierre at the Christmas mass.

      Oddly, God himself is presented in this film as an even more malevolent force than Chamblas—if you believe that nature is an expression of God’s will. The damn breaks and the flood waters come crashing into the church, rendering any actions of the priest almost meaningless as he calls for the roughly hewn rowing boats to be brought into to the sacred stone structure to save his parishioner’s lives.

      After hiding out in the church steeple Pierre and Marie finally escape, but only after a chillingly dangerous run through the local fog and bogs in a police chase that almost takes away the frail child’s life. We can only hope that this time the police, wherever the two end up, will not yet again intervene in their relationship.

      Meanwhile, the girls, finally realizing there are fifty of them compared with four elderly administrators, take over the reformatory, as Chamblas and her only true supporter lock themselves inside their office. The half-starved girls vandalize the institution’s kitchen, most of them getting drunk on the wines stocked for the pleasure of the staff. Once more her associate intervenes, allowing Chamblas safe passage out of the building where she is severely bitten by the brutal dog she has previously unleashed. Guérande is ordered to take over as director and the girls’ lives return to semi-order—although given that these young women have now come to realize their power, it seems doubtful that they will ever be fully ruled again.

     It appears that “the kingdom of heaven” that this film proposes is attained only through challenge and disobedience, laying as it does outside of any self-described normative attempt to define, control, or delimit behavior, including sex and love. This sounds suspiciously close to Milton’s description of the great angel Lucifer to me. Maybe The Sinners is not such a bad title after all.

 

*It is difficult to believe that Stephen Sondheim had not seen this film prior to writing the lyrics of his song “Maria” in West Side Story given that his message to Maria ends with the repetition of her name—“Maria, Maria, Maria”—with a final emphatic “Maria” at the end.

 

Los Angeles, May 10, 2021

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog and World Cinema Review (May 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 ...