Tuesday, June 24, 2025

Juan Chappa and Martín Deus | Amor crudo (Raw Love) / 2008

just friends

by Douglas Messerli

 

Martín Deus (screenplay), Juan Chappa and Martín Deus (directors) Amor crudo (Raw Love) / 2008 [15 minutes]

 

This short film from Argentinian directors Juan Chappa and Martín Deus begins with the roughhousing of adolescent boys, these acts being quite self-conscious as they drag down one another, one by one to the ground, shoving a camera into their faces, their peers shouting out their statements to the girls like so many date apps or heterosexual chat room come-ons. They play as if they were compelled by force, but for the most part we can tell the boys enjoy their “tortures.” One younger member of the group smokes what appears to be his first cigarette, coughing on the smoke as his trickles down his neck.

     But two of the boys continue the wrestling even after the others have stopped, one, Jeremías (Valentino Arocena) struggling as the other, Iván (Juan Felipe Villanueva) hovers over the weaker also in false pretense, making it secretly apparent that they enjoy the homoerotic moment.


     Jeremías continues their mock wrestling even as Iván attempts to shower after, Iván pulling the fully dressed boy into the shower with him.

      The two boys soon share Iván’s bed—evidently a regular occurrence—sleeping close together on the narrow bed with their heads in opposite directions, that is until Jeremías asks Iván if he’s asleep; the other listening to headphones, suggests he join him, handing him one earbud as they listen together and for a moment…Iván looking dreamily into the other boy’s eyes.

     At the breakfast table Iván’s mother (Katja Alemann) attempts to pump information from Jeremías about her handsome son’s love life with girls—with no particular success, although it appears that Jeremías is willing to make up girlfriends for his buddy just to please his mother.

      There is more initiatory wrestling among the larger group the next day; it is after all almost the end of the school year. The two boys spend the night together again, but this time after Iván, along with the gang, has almost gotten drunk. Jeremías slowly undresses his friend, pulling off his shoes and finally his shirt before resuming his usual place. This time the younger boy, almost pleading, asks a slightly untoward question, but one he has been seeking to know all along, “Do you love me?”


      The answer he gets is only the expected one, “Of course. You’re my friend.”

       But obviously he has not answered satisfactorily for Jeremías who loves Iván, we realize, more than just a friend. Tears slightly well in eyes. “But what do you feel for me?

       “That.”

       “'That’ what?”

       “That you are my friend.”

       A commentator on the film, Katherine Fieldgate beautifully summarizes the situation:

 

 “Yet as harsh daylight streams into Iván’s cold, blue bedroom, Jeremías does not get the answers he seeks. They lie top-and-tail, their bodies as misaligned as the love of the film’s title, which seems not only raw, but also unrequited. The camera underscores the division: Iván reclines out of focus; Jeremías slowly blinks away his emotions in the foreground. We are offered a brief, bittersweet window to a formative relationship, one never openly declared, even as we move towards the eventual farewell.”

  

       The next day at school, Iván finishes his final exam, Jeremías begging him to stay on at school just a little longer. We’re never shown whether he agrees to hang around; we simply see him walking off, as from Jeremías’ point-of-view the film rewinds some of the roughhousing joys, including a shared masturbatory event we hadn’t previously witnessed.


      It is almost as if the young man is watching his lover leave his life forever. But it is, in fact, even worse for never having been spoken, the full extent and nature of the love never fully having been expressed.      

     Directors Chappa and Deus have created a subtle and emotive study of young love that perhaps occurs more often than we acknowledge, one boy remembering what might have been with the other for the rest of his life.

 

Los Angeles, December 10, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (December 2022).

Trevor Anderson | The Island / 2008, 2010 USA

faggot island

by Douglas Messerli

 

Trevor Anderson (screenwriter and director) The Island / 2008, 2010 USA [6 minutes]

 

The independent filmmaker from northern Alberta, Canada, Trevor Anderson, might as well be on an island as he treks through the snow to tell his comic anecdote and share his animated response.


     Anderson, believe it or not, sometimes gets fan mail. But the most interesting letter he received was actually an email from someone in the US, reading:

 

“You fucking faggots! You’re a disgrace to society. You should all be put on an island so that you can give each other AIDS.”

 

      The rest of Anderson’s short film consists of his contemplating, “Why not?” as he imagines a “homo utopia” on the tropical island of his imagination, a gay Israel, a kind of “ass-munching diaspora.” He recognizes that the idea of an “island” for gays is not exactly something new. He grew up with it, he contemplates, being part of the “rhetorical landscape of his small-town prairie childhood.” The sentence, “They should send them all to an island,” being a common expression of gay dissatisfaction in the local bars.

      But this new island, where gays are supposed to all give one another AIDS, he argues, is “a way better idea.” The very idea of “humping” all day long intrigues him. “It would be like the ‘70s all over again,” he argues, “but better because it’s on an island”—an animated scene from the film displaying a warm, tropical space, filled with coconuts and bananas. Finally, gays could make up all the rules.     

     When people do get infected, their status would be immediately raised instead of finding themselves as outcasts, becoming celebrities in the society. They could be given the “coolest tree-huts,” provided with ape-masseurs. We could secure free universal access to life-prolonging retrovirus cocktails served in coconuts with little umbrellas—with rum!


     He even imagines, should someone not survive, the pleasures the island might still provide him, gathering around him at twilight, covering him with moonflower blossoms and decorating his skin with “rub-on sailor tattoos.” And as the pounding tide sounds in the background, to sing him a last song and jettison him into the mouth of the volcano “to worship him as a god.”

      Those who suffer from AIDS and the millions of us who lived through the AIDS epidemic might not be so very amused by Anderson’s somewhat cynical satire. And even Anderson admits that despite the charms of such a “faggot island” it seems, well—as he continues to tromp through the vast open space of snow alone—"kind of lonely.” Presumably, he, like most of us, needs the heterosexual world as well as they need us to define the complexities of the human race.

 

Los Angeles, April 25, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (April 2023).

Matthew López | Red, White & Royal Blue / 2023

without any apologies

by Douglas Messerli

 

Matthew López and Ted Malawer (screenplay, based on the novel by Casey McQuiston), Matthew López (director) Red, White & Royal Blue / 2023

 

Women and young girls have long had a glorious, never-ending series of  rom-com movies that have fantasized the marriage of women living in the common or everyday world to become the beloved companions of handsome, wealthy or at least the poverty stricken titled, sometimes royal, metaphorically and occasionally real princes in movies from Stanley Donen’s Royal Wedding (1951) and Leo McCarey’s An Affair to Remember (1957), to later such works as Garry Marshall’s Pretty Woman (1990), and numerous Hallmark movies about such brides. In Nora Ephron’s Sleepless in Seattle (1993), the straight males describe such films as “chick flicks.”

     Straight men perhaps shall never have such movies; only raunchy bromances will do for them.


    Gay men have long had their hundreds of tales of woe and coming out movies. But now they also have what I shall describe as a new genre, “prick licks,” movies in which ordinary American males can fall in love with a gay prince of England and live happily ever after without any of the camp and circumstance it might once have involved. In the new film by Matthew López, Red, White & Royal Blue, the two lovers, despite a bad start—which is generally required for the chick films as well—just get hard-ons and go at it, ignoring all those ridiculous issues of political implications in the USA red states or, in the case of the Brits, the traditional royal ways of doing things. In this film we’ve entered a gay fantasy every bit as strong as a movie heroine's determination to marry a pretty man of leisure who can still financially support her.

     These boys, the US president’s son, Alex Clarmont-Diaz (Taylor Zakhar Perez), delicious eye-candy to both men and women, and the British Prince Henry (Nicholas Galitzine), with absolutely no chance of becoming the King—a cute twink right out of the British Private School system, which allows him later to brag when the two finally get down to serious business, that he has learned everything there is to know about buggering—are nothing more or less than an endearing couple who both the audience and the movie’s director want to hurry into bed as soon as possible.

      This is still a gay film, and this Prince Henry is an obvious reference to Prince Harry, if he had been gay and remained under the thumb of Buckingham Palace; there’s even a passing reference to Prince Charles, a look-alike of whom stands in the waiting line to be greeted by Princess Beatrice (Ellie Bamber) and Prince Henry on the occasion of pompous sissy-like Prince Philip’s (Thomas Flynn) marriage. But don’t worry, the satire doesn’t go any deeper than that, and the central characters are so wonderfully stupid that their major dislike of one another is based on the stereotypes of all Brits being snobs and Yanks being unread and uncouth beings without a shred of a classical education. And, of course, in this whirl of fantasy, they are both right.

      We’re supposed to believe that their intense dislike of one another, which goes back to their previous meeting at an international conference, is really just a cover up of their still-closeted attraction. Why the British and Americans are sending their sons instead of experienced politicians to these august gatherings is never explained.

      And it doesn’t need to be. We have entered into the cinema world that so many female fantasists and male escapists have helped to make financial fortunes for their filmmakers.

      Although there have been a large number of reviewers whose minds have so deteriorated that they were utterly delighted (all irony aside) by this film, and a fewer number of nasty, catty take-downs of the movie, I took special joy in Coleman Spilde’s review in The Daily Beast:

 

“I’m ecstatic to report that the day has finally come: Red, White & Royal Blue is a movie content with being absolutely nothing. With this film—which premiers on Prime Video Aug. 11 and was adapted from Casey McQuiston’s bestselling 2019 novel—queer cinema may finally be level with its heteronormative counterparts. At last, we gay people are allowed to be boring, have absolutely no chemistry with our romantic co-leads, and exist as walking archetypes. Red, White & Royal Blue throws the desire to be special or come first out the window. Now, gays can just be cockamamie and utterly vacuous. Equality is here!”

 

      Beyond his sarcasm, as he admits, there is something quite serious about his comments. This film, for the first time, finds little reason to question its absurd pretentions, its assumptions about its own right to exist, or even its lack of a coherent “LGBTQ” message, while at the same time totally committing itself to the gay cause.


      The hostility between the two young men ends in an utterly ludicrous battle in front of Prince Philip’s lavish, multi-layered, wedding cake making us immediately aware of the Mack Sennett possibilities, about which this always ready-to-be-likeable comedy doesn’t disappoint. It takes only a couple of misintended pushes and shoves, like those all hyper-testosteroned boys of their age, to bring the mightily expensive cake down upon them, scandalizing British decorum and resulting in an uproar in British-US relationships.

     The logic of the US president, Alex’s mamma, Ellen Claremont (Uma Thurman) defies even the narrational consistency of a 1930s pre-Code bawdy tale: send the boy back to England to make nice with Prince Henry, thus solving any sense of their rivalry. And, of course, the boys finally and quite literarily get together when a fire-cracker scares the British secret service who push them into a small closet where the boys are forced into a kind of mouth-to-mouth recitation of their gripes with one another as well as their mutual affection. That doesn’t mean that either of them has grown any more intelligent about one another’s cultures; but it at least it permits them a nice press conference which cements a relationship that quickly transforms into what we were all praying it might.

      Meanwhile, back on the ranch—sorry the White House—Alex is convinced that he has some very intelligent views regarding his mother’s reelection campaign in their home state of Texas. But, gee willikers, no one is willing to listen to him or read his reports. Indeed, we soon learn that just as Henry is committed to the traditions of his family, so is Alex taken by politics, intending—without apparently knowing anything about politics and having read little of American history—to become a politician who might make a serious difference for ordinary people. warning: This is most profound moment of the movie.

      Before you know it, Henry has flown over for Alex’s special New Year’s party, where the self-infatuated US President’s son has gathered a bevy of girls around him who keep begging him to dance while all the time—just as in the scenes from West Side Story and, interestingly enough, the first full-fledged type "B" coming out film, the British gay work (also an early rom-com) Get Real—the noisy crowd is cinematically screened out, in this case as the other dancers simply temporarily bend out of the scene, so that across the crowded room the two boys eyes link up with one another, ignoring the “Lil Jon” musical chaos which muffles out their contact.

     Angry for having traveled across the ocean basically to be ignored, Henry leaves the party, wandering into the fantasy land of the White House’s back yard—surely a no-man’s land in reality—with Alex hot on his trail.


     By this time Henry truly perceives that with regard to sex Alex is a true dunderhead, and when the two finally meet up, he makes his attentions clear by suddenly turning toward and kissing the President’s stupid son, who is more than a little intrigued by the incident, but is also utterly confused, since, as he goes about the rest of the movie declaring, he is really a “ba-sexual” (that's his Texan accent)—this despite the fact that we never see him with another woman, that he is subtly being black-mailed without even knowing it by a journalist who has once spent a few naked hours with him in a hot tub and wants more of the same, and that, as his confidant Nora ( Rachel Hilson), points out, the two boys have been so obviously infatuated with each other the whole evening that they might as well have sold tickets to their affair on line.

      What follows, pure fantasy of course, are dozens of flights by the two back and forth from the US to England that must have cost the Royal family and US taxpayers a fortune, the boy’s love finally coming to a head, so to speak, at a US affair for the British Prime Minister (Sharon D. Clarke, in another wonderful moment of wishful thinking), an event at which, as Los Angeles Times critic Matt Brennan writes today, Alex clasps the Prince of Wales’ bottom: “Alex’s lighthearted handful of royal tush couldn’t have come soon enough—if not for the film, then for pop culture at large. If I’d had to see another gay romantic comedy built around two straight men, I was sure I was going to scream.”    



      You see what I mean? There’s something different about this dumb genre breaker! It does everything the straight films do with quite equal impunity. In the scene after, Henry makes his way, without any secret service interruption, to the second floor of the presidential mansion where, as Alex has promised, he does something nasty with him. The two are discovered the next morning by the White House Chief of Staff, Zahra Bankston (Sarah Shahi), who is so nonplussed when she finds the Prince Henry of England hidden in the clothes closet that she simply cannot catch her breath for a several moments before she demands Henry get his royal ass on the very next plane back to Britain, all without being noticed by anyone else. Did I tell you this film is a fantasy?

       The two meet again in Paris, and at several moments throughout the film they rush into sexual interchanges that promise a true presentation of gay sex on screen without ever fulfilling our expectations. Their sexual grindings are as a pure and innocent, ultimately, as those of the female rom-coms. The sex is after all, truly just imaginary “prick-licks,” no real sex required in such a fantasy world, although we do get a very nice few of Alex's lovely butt.

       Alex goes to Texas to win his mother that state, at one point taking the Prince along with him, who gets drunk, sings karaoke, and enjoys the barbequed pork ribs about which Alex previously has declared he would lick the sauce off his face. Alex’s liberal-minded parents, despite the fact that everything has to remain under cover, accept their son’s coming out and don’t seem to give a second thought about inviting the British Prince to their hidden-away vacation spot. But finally, the now totally smitten “buh-sexual” is so head over heels in gay love that he’s talking about a metaphorical rope pulling him closer and closer to an eternal life with Henry, a possibility which despite the Prince’s constant emphatic explanations has never entered his little brain long enough to have figured out such a relationship is highly unlikely given Henry’s continued commitment to British tradition.


      But even the Prince’s silence ultimately does not stop him—remember this is a fantasy—from breaking into his Buckingham Palace bedroom to demand that the Prince come to terms with their love. Just as the British Press broke into all of the e-mails and private communications of the royal family during Prince Charles and Princess Diana’s unhappy life together, so have they now broken into the series of e-mails between the two lovers. Alex gives a lovely standard gay lecture about the difference between the loss of privacy and his unembarrassed sense of entitlement for his being buh-sexual.

      In the last moments of the film, we even meet the true menace of British society, the King (in the form of Stephen Fry), who demands that Henry agree to accept their explanation that  everything that has been broadcast was an act of enemy warfare, nothing but lies created to destroy what’s left of the Empire. 

      With Alex at his side, Henry refuses the King’s demands, finally released from his total allegiance to the British tradition by the fact that masses of young Britishers all over the country have been gathering to celebrate the news of Henry’s gay relationship with the American pretender. Too bad it didn’t work for Harry.

      Masses have gathered at the gates of the palace grounds, and Henry and Alex go to meet them on the balcony as many a newly married royal couple and numerous grieved royals have greeted the commoners throughout the history of the British reign. And Henry has finally retrieved the first and last names of his inherited moniker, Prince Henry Mountchristen-Windsor-Fox. It is a Henry Fox that he now waves to his fellow countrymen, having become his own man and found another to stand beside him for the rest of his life.

     By film’s end, despite any rational attention one might wish pay to this film, one has to recognize that it’s a joyous celebration of gay sexuality as empty as the usual gay movies are filled with attendant ideas and manifest concerns.

      Brennan summarizes it nicely: “A Trojan horse—well, a Magnum one, if its thirstiest line is to be believed—at the doorstep of the White House, Buckingham Palace and studio C-suites, López’s film smuggles queer ideas and images into spaces traditionally populated by straight people and shaped by straight tastes. Which is, to be clear, no more the ‘right’ way of updating the genre for the 21st century than any other.

     It’s just nice, for a change, to come in through the front door.”

 

Los Angeles, August 14, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (August 2023).


Max Larsson | Hela byn har lämnat mig för avgrunden (They Left for the Abyss) / 2024

staring into emptiness

by Douglas Messerli

 

Max Larsson (screenwriter and director) Hela byn har lämnat mig för avgrunden (They Left for the Abyss) / 2024 [25 minutes]

 

Gay couple Felix (Casper Clöve) and Elliot (Jacob Ehlers) have left their home in urban Sweden behind by moving to a small town on the border of Norway. Here, living in “post-traumatic stress,”

Felix has retreated to a small, but comfortable cottage, where he keeps the blinds closed and does not leave the house.


  In fact, we don’t truly know, at least at first, what the relationship between Felix and Elliot is, and why Felix is still suffering an experience that Elliot evidently also shared. All we know is that each day Elliot visits Felix, bringing provisions and sharing his meals as they talk about the loss of a woman friend and Felix’ mental well-being. Whether she was family, a lover, or a close friend, we never discover; but from Felix’s troubled visions and dreams we sense that there was an abduction, and the incident involved being tied up with duct tape.

   But we can’t even be sure of this, since a great deal of Swedish writer and director Max Larsson’s film is cloaked either in metaphor or the strange therapy that it appears Elliot has cooked up to jilt his lover out of his frightened isolation.


    A small sink-hole has developed in the city park, which has attracted several viewers, which Elliot mentions one day upon his visit to Felix, exaggerating a bit to suggest that the park was so crowded that it explains him being late. Other strange things have been happening. Felix’s radio has stopped transmission, and cell-phones work only outside the city limits.

    Before his next visit to Felix, Elliot calls, himself seemingly in terror, to find out if urgently demanding to know if his friend is alright. Upon arrival he describes that the entire center of the village, all the major shops have been consumed by the hole, or as he calls it, “the abyss,” calling up Nietzsche’s concept of “gazing into the abyss,” the deepest part of oneself.


     He observes that he has also seen a woman with a child in hand standing at the edge of the abyss before jumping in.

   It is only that evening, in total isolation, that the couple make love, supporting our suspicions that they are indeed a gay couple with a past, which makes the dead woman even more mysterious. Are the images that Felix keeps calling up also in code, do they perhaps represent a wife he lost when he fell in love with Elliot; has she perhaps done harm to herself? Perhaps I have just seen too many gay films at this point, but since Larsson refuses to provide us with further information, he leaves us only pure speculation to fill in the blanks of his story.


    As the couple awake the next morning, Elliot, somewhat inexplicably, says that he now must leave; and despite Felix’ pleas to stay, leaves the house with door open as he enters his car and drives away.

    The act, in a sense, tests Felix’ love for him, as facing the open doorway, he finally again enters the world, walking to the park only to find the original small sink-hole the film has first shown us. There has been no disaster in this small village, no horrors. Elliot’s act has simply brought Felix out of his self-imposed isolation.

     Where Elliot has gone, we don’t know; but any sentimentalist such as myself can only imagine that he will soon show up again, and the two men, having looked hard into their own beings, can move on with their lives. Of course, the possibility remains that perhaps in looking inward, Elliot has perceived that indeed he must leave this orphan of the storm.

     This film, in its missing information, seems to be seeking a more profound story than many another LGBTQ film; but we are not sure, in the end, whether this cinematic tale is as deeply thoughtful as it pretends to be, as we sometimes get confused for its dearth of information.

     But the cinematography, acting, and music are all quite excellent, and one can only commend Larsson’s work, ultimately, for attempting to take on larger issues than the usual short gay flick.

 

Los Angeles, June 24, 2025

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (June 2025).

My Queer Cinema Index [with former World Cinema Review titles]

https://myqueercinema.blogspot.com/2023/12/former-index-to-world-cinema-review.html Films discussed (listed alphabetically by director) [For...