Saturday, July 19, 2025

Micah Stuart | For Years to Come / 2023

untold stories

by Douglas Messerli

 

James Patrick Nelson (screenplay), Micah Stuart (director) For Years to Come / 2023 [27 minutes]

 

Johnny (James Patrick Nelson) is sitting on the front porch of his home, exhausted from the crying “actresses,” (his mother had evidently been an actress) fawning relatives, and others who have attended his mother’s funeral memorial in his father’s home. Having given up his sublet in Brooklyn in order to return home for his mother’s last days as she lay dying of cancer, he now can’t wait until everyone leaves. Nor, for that matter, can his father (played by Veteran TV actor Richard Riehle).

     Two of his own friends bring him a plate of tatters and matzah, evidently the male being someone with whom Johnny once had a gay relationship, but who now seems to be with a female who plans to “peg” (meaning to fuck her companion with a strapped-on dildo) Johnny’s male friend, perhaps that very afternoon. Here was a couple I wanted to get to know more about. You are these friends? Were they originally a gay and lesbian duo who fell in love?


     When he finally returns to the house to find his father puttering around, he also encounters one straggler, his mother’s hospice nurse, Edward (Jason Wayne Wong). Edward soon leaves, but not before handing Johnny his card in case he or his father need any further information or help, both Johnny and his father characterizing him as attractive, the son describing him as “kind of hot.”

      Johnny and his father, it is clear, have never been close, although inexplicably he has told his father that he is gay, but kept the fact from his mother, and he wishes he had shared the information with her, asking his dad if she knew. The question remains unanswered.

      Moreover, when he told his father, the elder’s only response seems to have been that he should be “Will instead of Jack,” referencing the TV series Will & Grace where Jack “was the really queeny effeminate one,” while Will “was the more straight acting one.” Obviously, this is a family who watches a lot movies and television.


      But when Johnny attempts to get to know his father better, wondering what he did each day when Johnny’s mother went off the work, his dad provides only a vague answer. All we know is that he seems to be some sort of writer.

       When the conversation turns to his mother’s final condition, however, and Johnny attempts to know why she didn’t see a doctor earlier, the father describes the fact that she didn’t want to see a doctor and besides they cost a lot of money, which the family didn’t evidently have since they paid Johnny’s own hospital bill (earlier he describes himself as nearly dying, but now is find if he injects himself with a shot every so often, he’s fine; presumably that suggest diabetes).

        Hurt by what he feels is an accusation that he was, in part, responsible for his mother’s death, Jack leaves the house for a short walk and a lot of thinking. What will his father do now, he surely wonders, and how will he return to his own life?

        The next day he does follow through with a call to the hospice nurse, the two getting on very nicely, as the nurse admits that Johnny’s mother actually wanted them to get together (he signifies a sexual relationship by linking his fingers), and indeed that begins to happen that very later evening, as they kiss, both admitting to having enjoyed one another’s company.


        Returning home, Johnny discovers his father still up with his laptop in front of him, and when Johnny leaves the room, the elder opens it up again. What we quickly discern is that Johnny’s father is a porn writer, at work on a porn story or script.

        The short work of 27 minutes is filled with what one might describe as the beginning of a story or stories that we might like to hear, and we have no choice but to imagine various further intrigues between Johnny and Edward, and both men and his secretive father, discovering perhaps that they all have severely misjudged one another.

       It helps to know that Nelson wrote this “film” as a TV pilot, hoping it might get picked up as a series. The work, in fact, has that feeling about it, with all sorts of tendrils and roots already sprouting from a seedling that hasn’t fully developed into a full plant. Certainly, given the excellent acting of the pilot, and the titillating possibilities of blending porn and a traditional love story, this might have made for an excellent series. All we have, alas, is the outline for imagined continuations.

      Rob Watson in the Los Angeles Blade, nonetheless, liked the first episode enough to write:

 

“If you’ve ever laughed through your tears—or cried during a kiss—For Years to Come is the kind of film that knows exactly how you feel.

     This 27-minute gem isn’t just another coming-out tale or quirky indie. Instead, it’s a heartfelt, sharply written slice of queer cinema that blends grief, humor, and romance without ever feeling forced.”

 

      To me, it sounded a little too much like a TV series, while I might have enjoyed a “quirky indie.”

 

Los Angeles, July 19, 2025

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (July 2025).

 

 

José Antonio Valera | Límites (Limits) / 2020

sex games

by Douglas Messerli

 

José Antonio Valera (screenwriter and director) Límites (Limits) / 2020 [10 minutes]

 

Andri (Jaime Macanás) and Jon (Victor Montesinos) have sex out-of-doors. Obviously, it’s their first and perhaps only time together; both have bicycled to the isolated spot, so either or both of them may have other relationships.


     Jon queries Andri about his fantasies of other sexual encounters, a “golden shower” for example. But Andri seems to never have truly thought about such things. But if Jon wants to play a game, he suggests, how about they meet up 10 times, alternating on the location and situation. The first to fail show up and refuse the sex act the other demands loses; what the loser must give up or the winner is awarded, we are not told.

     At the first meeting, Jon shows up in leather, bringing a pair of open-rear pants for Andri to wear. At the second meeting Andri, who happens to be a photographer, films their entire sexual act. For the third meeting, Jon has chosen a drive-in movie where they will have sex among numerous others in the car. Andri readily crawls atop Jon.



     For the fourth meeting, Adri brings along Victor, who, we observe, is busy putting on a lubed-up rubber glove, obviously readying for a fist fuck. Jon awards Andri his piss on their next meeting.


     For their sixth get-together, Jon demands Andri suck his toes, and when Andri seems rather inept at it, shows Andri just how pleasurable it can be. In another meeting, Andri is forced to play a dog on a leash to Jon, again in the wilds. Andri wears a huge teddy-bear head in their next get-together, insisting Jon call him Florentino Mandarino.

     Jon demands that Andri wear a locked leather mouth gag in his final request. Andri has passed his most difficult challenge, he proclaims, and while freeing Andri from the gag, he bends to kiss him.

     But Andri has one final challenge, binding his friend tightly up with ropes. This time, however, we sense a kind of shift, particularly when Andri declares that he’s tried to Jon running away from him each time they meet. For him the sex has been truly personal, and the game was, in fact, a way for Andri to continue to be with Jon. His last request is that Jon become his boyfriend, and if he leaves, he loses.  

     You know I’m cooperative, Jon answers.

     To what, queries Andri.

     Jon insists that Andri untie him.

     But Andri refuses, fearful that Jon will simply run away, while Jon explains that he just wants to hug Andri.


     Andri leans forward and kisses the man who can only be described now as a victim, for the film ends without Andri making any attempt to loose the ropes around his lover.

     One might describe Spanish director Valera’s short film as a descent into kinky desires—desires centered mainly around power and control—which can end only in one or the other becoming the captive. Yet a man bound in rope, as we know, is difficult to make love to, while he has an even more difficult time expressing his love to the other. As Proust has shown us, the captive and the captor can never be truly happy with one another. They are doomed to an imagination of what might happen if they escaped or changed roles.

     There are limits to everything, most particularly regarding sex. And we now come to realize that the loser of the sex games has had to give up his freedom to fully express love.

 

Los Angeles, July 19, 2025

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (July 2025).

Andrew Y. S. Cheng | 我們害怕 (Shanghai Panic) / 2001

exploring life and death

by Douglas Messerli

 

Andrew Y.S. Cheng and Mian Mian (screenplay, based on the fiction We Are Panic by Mian Mian), Andrew Y. S. Cheng (director) 我們害怕 (Shanghai Panic) / 2001

 

Bei (Zhinan Li), Kika (Mian Mian), Fifi (Yuting Yang), along with Caspar (He Wei Yan) are a loosely structured “family” of three women and a young man all of the so-called jeunesse dorée, (the pampered young “little emperors”—as critic Neil Young describes) them—products of the for communist government’s one-child policy. These Shanghai babies do not simply undergo a mad panic in this film, but have already experienced a life—as they move from one club to another, from ephedrine and ketamine to other combinations of drugs, and from one sex partner to the next—of continued disenchantment, frustration, and failed suicide attempts.


      The momentary “panic” they first undergo in Andrew Cheng’s version of Mian Mian’s banned fiction, is former ballet dancer Bei’s sudden fear that he is HIV-positive. He has fevers that don’t go away, a semen-like liquid in his urine, and a general feeling of dread—all having descended upon him without any evidence that he has had any gay sex, or even heterosexual intercourse for that matter.

     Despite the worry of, in particular, the group’s leader Kika, he refuses to go for a check-up, having heard the rumor (highly possible given China’s draconian control over its citizens) that the government ships off its HIV-positive citizens to an offshore prison island. The only answer is women friends offer up is more clubbing and more drugs, all to no avail.

     When Kika finally drags him off to a doctor who promises them that no such actions will occur, Bei is tested only to discover that he is negative.


    As one critic suggested, his AIDS scare may have had to do with the fact that he has been long considering that it’s time to explore homosexuality, and with the help of Kika, who seems to have property both in Shanghai and at the beach, shacks up with the very best friend, fellow dancer Jie (Zhou Zi Jie) to see if he might seduce him into having sex.

      The two loll about, do some kissing, and a great deal of talking before Jie finally refuses him, in part for fear that after having sex he’ll lose his friend forever, but also because, as it appears, both of them are really straight.


      The closest we get to sex is Jie dancing to some studio music in a manner that all recognize as truly sexy and original. Indeed, one might describe Cheng’s film as a fake lure for gay desire. All you need to do is focus the camera for a while on a couple of cute boys taking about having sex, and the entire LGBTQ community will welcome your film into our hearts!

      In reality, as it becomes apparent, Bei seems now more interested in the pedophile images he’s discovered on a “Lolita” site, without even knowing what the name Lolita refers to or what a pedophile might be. Like his other sexual identities, it may, hopefully, be only one which he is momentarily exploring.

      We know that their various anxieties are serious business, however, because director Cheng films this fictional work as if it were a documentary, asking his actors to mostly improvise as they go along, resulting in long passages of talk upon a couch or quick suggestive asides in the midst of illegal shopping sprees (Fifi, for example arousing the interest of a policeman, allows him to buy her a new wardrobe before she runs off from a local Starbucks with her “presents” in hand). Cheng’s club-movie imitations, his hand-held camera fluttering around rooms—as Young puts it, “he can’t seem to get enough of the blurry, jerky slow-motion facility on his video-camera”—now seem as stylized as Michelangelo Antonioni’s characters wandering across islands, deserts, and city streets or Federico Fellini’s circus-like creatures parading down the strand.


      Yet, we do encounter in Cheng’s version of the wild Shanghai kids, a city which at the time was seen to be far more interesting to the young than Hong Kong, a vision of youth that we might never before have imagined. The reviewer from Time Out postulated that it might “Very possibly [be] the start of a new chapter in Chinese cinema.”

      But, alas, we know where that ended with rise of Xi Jinping to the role of general secretary in 2012 and to President in 2013. Whenever Cheng’s film might have taken Chinese cinema, he and others quickly met up with a brick wall. Cheng made only one further feature film, the futurist 目的地,上海 (Welcome to Destination Shanghai, 2003) with the city now crumbling and filled with poverty and social decay, featuring “male prostitutes, aging hookers, and other sex-trade workers.”

 

Los Angeles, August 27, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (August 2023).

Glenn Gaylord | Boychick / 2001

master debater

by Douglas Messerli

 

Glenn Gaylord (screenwriter and director) Boychick / 2001 [12 minutes]

 

The Yiddish expression of affection for a young boy, boytshik, anglicized as boychick is something parents or grandparents used to call their sons and grandsons. But in this basically TV-like sketch a contemporary mother (Andrea La Bella) can’t stop using the term in calling into her son’s room where, when she doesn’t hear a sound, she imagines her son is “pulling his pud.” Not that she has any problem with that. Being a “hip” mother, she shouts after him, as he leaves the house for school, “It’s okay to masturbate in your room.” The neighbors aren’t amused. 



     What her son (Ben Lang) is really doing in his room, however, is far more pernicious. His favorite singer and dancer, Ashley Hart (Linsey Girardot, a kind of cartoon version of the living cartoon Britney Spears) has come down from her wall poster and is attempting to teach him to get into the rhythm of things so that he might impress the boy of his dreams, captain of the Debate Club (Greg Siff).

      In class, Boychick does everything he can to find a reason to bend down just to get a better view of Debate Boy’s butt. Not that his gay teacher (Nic Arnzen), discussing gay Hollywood stars and their “beards,” minds in the least. But Debate Boy himself is completely oblivious.


      In the hall, Boychick imagines an encounter with Debate Boy in which finally gets up his nerve to put what Ashley Hart has taught him to a test, and yes, Debate Boy strips off his shirt and joins him in a raucous recreation of something that might possibly be found in movies such as the movie Staying Alive (1983), but stays in his head only as he discovers, waking from his trance, that Debate is still chatting with two chicks by his locker.

 


      Boychick tries to put all his fears behind him, walking in back of the Debate Boy, casually running his hands across his ass; but the busy straight guy is oblivious. Poor Boychick returns home, occasionally taking a sniff of his hand, but once more all alone with only Ashley Hart for a friend.

      At the end, this silly little sketch tells us what we might have expected:

 

      “Debate Boy married his high school sweetheart and runs a successful motivational speaker seminar. He has been known to experiment with homosexuality…which he adamantly denies.”

       “Boychick went to college, but comes home to visit his mother quite often. He is currently living with his life partner and is a big faigelah.”

 

 Faigelah is the Yiddish word for a gay person, although it’s far closer in meaning to the word “fag.”

     The corny title I selected for this short essay characterizes the substance of this film.

 

Los Angeles, April 18, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (April 2023).

Lawrence Ferber | Cruise Control / 2001

turn off

by Douglas Meserli

 

Lawrence Ferber (screenwriter and director) Cruise Control / 2001 [6 minutes]

 

In 2000 Lawrence Ferber wrote and directed a rather charming film, Birthday Time, about a young gay boy who simply couldn’t wait any longer for his birthday so that he might have legal sex with other gay men. And by the end of that decade he had written a script for another fairly popular feature gay film, Bear City, directed by Douglas Langway.

     But the film in between them, Cruise Control (2001), I have to report, is hardly worth discussing; one might describe it as a rather embarrassing one-liner.



     Gary and Mark (David Drake and Kelvin Walker), neither of them great-lookers, are out at their local bar, Flapjax, both of them in “cruising mode,” one on the hefty side ready to go home with nearly anyone who’s willing while his scrawny and nerdy looking friend intends to be somewhat more selective.

      Both spot a new man with a nearly perfect body, his workout breasts clearly defined by his tight T-shirt, a good-sized box, and a nice, friendly, if a bit ordinary face. He catches their eyes, and they go for him.

      Unfortunately, this would-be prize, Josh (Scott Wooledge), has a strange habit. As he grows sexually interested in others his mouth suddenly shifts into contorted positions turning him into a figure straight out of the distorted mirror images of an amusement park. They are startled and stunned by the sudden transformation and immediately turn away with disgust.


      Soon after, another boy (Jay Corcoran) spots Josh at the urinal in the bathroom, checking him out. He too is attracted but when he looks up to see Josh’s response he’s terrified as well by the man’s contortions.

      Josh simply cannot figure out what’s happening, why people seem at first attracted and them pull away at the last moment. He looks long and hard at himself in the mirror and can’t spot the obvious flaw since he apparently is not “turned on” by his own image.

      After a rather meaningless encounter with two drag queens who have gossiping in a nearby stall, equally horrified by his sudden distortions—are we supposed to believe he’s trying to come on to these two as well?—flutter off in horror.

      Back at the bar, Josh, by this time quite dejected, encounters yet another cruiser (Linas G. Vytuvis) who looks over Josh’s body, noting the well-developed pectorals and the outline of his cock and balls, looks up at the now distorted face, and then scans once more the man’s well-developed breasts and penis. He pulls Josh toward him, puts a bag over his head, and leads him off, actualizing the cliché about men endowed with gifts other than their facial beauty.

      If you’re up for an extended one-liner that isn’t truly funny in the first place, this is your movie; otherwise, I’d put the screensaver to use before viewing.

 

Los Angeles, May 9, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (May 2022).

 

Todd Stephens | Gypsy 83 / 2001

going their own way

by Douglas Messerli

 

Todd Stephens (screenplay, based on a story by Stephens and Tim Kaltenecker, and director) Gypsy 83 / 2001

 

Todd Stephens’ Gypsy 83 takes us into the teen goth subculture of the late 1990s and early years of our current century—at least as Stephens tells it; and I have a strong feeling that his vision of the Goth subculture is a bit limited, particularly since the hero of these young high school Goths is Stevie Nicks, hardly a performer I associate with the post-punk Gothic rock groups like Siouxsie and the Banshees, Bauhaus, the Cure, and Joy Division or even the later the Birthday Party, Southern Death Cult, Specimen, UK Decay, Virgin Prunes, and the Damned among others.


     It doesn’t matter since, as these young kids, Gypsy Vale (Sara Rue) and Clive Webb (Kett Turton), later reveal, they’re not fully up-to-date in their Sandusky, Ohio high school regarding either Goth music or Stevie Nicks for that matter.

      What this film did make clear for me was just how logical it was for certain teenage girls and boys, who might feel some sexual differences from their peers to align themselves instead with an outre music fetish. With Clive’s long jet black hair and Gypsy’s blond frizzy curls, along with their Goth jewelry and clothing, they are able sublimate their feelings of alienation in a manner that, if it made them no less of outsiders among their classmates than if Clive had hidden his gay sexuality and Gypsy had attempted to cover up her physical sexual maturity, it at least saved them from sexual bullying. If they are mocked for their attire and alien interests they can nevertheless deflect their sexual longings, even sometimes from themselves as Clive does—imagining at moments that although admitting he is gay he declares that is not “really into messy sex”—without setting off the hormonal and homophobic rage of so many of his peers.

     Despite their costumes and their musical preferences, their denigration of the world around them, and their fascination with death, Gypsy and Clive differ little from the standard gay boy and bestie female friend that kept a far straighter Steven Carter in Simon Shore’s Get Real and Eric in David Moreton’s Edge of Seventeen on edge, both movies from only 4 years earlier.

    Although, given Gypsy and Clive’s self-awareness and their quite purposeful statements of alienation, we don’t quite have the same dynamics in the film as the other two about “coming out” (of which I’ve long argued Get Real and Edge of Seventeen and a couple of slightly earlier films stood as the models of the B version of that genre) we nonetheless do find ourselves in a similar situation in which the central characters both need to come to full terms with their sexuality, just as the two central figures of Shore’s 1998 work did. Instead of staying home and trying to come to terms with their parents, these two—discovering that there is a Stevie Nicks concert featuring a Night of a Thousand Stevies, encouraging would-be singers such as Gypsy to audition before a New York audience—take to the road.

      Clive’s family, who we never meet, seem to be a liberal somewhat well-to-do couple, while Gypsy lives alone with her father, who once performed in a band with his wife who has since disappeared or perhaps is dead, her father remaining vague about her long absence. Actually, we discover along with Gypsy as she and Clive finally dare to try out a new life, that her mother left her daughter and husband to pursue her own dream of becoming a singer, leaving her family cruelly behind.

      With her own car (she works in a drive-up photo shop in the days when films were still developed from negatives) and with Clive’s encouragement Gypsy and the young 17-year-old are soon on the road to self-discovery.


     Their first encounter, a washed-up popular singer named Bambi LeBleau (Karen Black) seems basically disconnected with the story and their own lives, being only tangentially related. Stopping by an Ohio roadside eatery made up of redneck hicks that almost make Lawrence Welk seem sheik, they find Bambi singing in the motel lounge. Gypsy, in particular, is amazed by the woman’s voice, despite her conservative repertoire, and both she and Clive wonder why she hasn’t had a career. Bambi assures them that almost made it big in New York, recording one record album, which she plays for them.

       True innocents, they attempt to convince her to join them on their voyage in order to resuscitate her own career. But in the bedroom of the house to which she’s invited them to stay the night, Gypsy discovers a full hideaway closet of the albums which have been paid for by Bambi herself. She has had no career in New York, but is, as they also quickly perceive, a middle-aged alcoholic who has used the two in an attempt to escape her life of performing in just such venues in which they discovered her. They drive off without her as soon as the sun  rises.


       Although they’ve justifiably left their scarecrow behind, a little further along their yellow brick road they encounter an even stranger figures, an Ohio Amish boy, Zechariah, hitchhiking in an attempted escape from his Amish life. Both Clive and Gypsy are attracted to the cute hunk, stopping along the way at a graveyard to have a picnic.

       Nearby they encounter yet another group of hidebound traditionalists, a bus of frat boys forcing their pledges to go through ridiculous maneuvers.


     Clive believes the young man might be attracted to him, but soon discovers, much to his disappointment, that Zechariah is not only straight but is very attracted to the zaftig bosom of Gypsy. Embarrassed for his presumption, Clive runs off as Gypsy and Zechariah try out the women’s room of a highway gas station plaza for a thoroughly lusty round of sex that might remind some older viewers of Tom Jones’ sexual encounter with Molly Seagrim in the Tony Richardson film of 1963.

        Clive doesn’t go unrewarded as one of the upperclassman frats sneaks away from the torture bus and catches Clive’s eye. These two try out a toilet stall of the men’s room with equally successful results, Clive suddenly discovering how wonderful sex is for the very first time as Stephens’ peeping tom camera now shifts from the floor of the ladies’ room to a stall in the men’s toilet to let us watch Clive’s deflowering.


       Although both sexual encounters are fulfilling, they also both end badly. Zechariah tells Gypsy that, although he loves her, he’s decided to return home to his pregnant wife. Like all the other men she’s met up with, it’s another case of “love ‘em and  leave ‘em.”

        Clive, hardly sensitive to her terrible disappointment, selfishly recounts his sexual pleasures. But soon after, meeting up again with the frat bus, they discover that the frat boys have written “queer” and “freaks” across both sides of their car and when Clive attempts to stand up against their stupid bigotry, he is beaten while his friend from the night before looks on through the bus window without a word.

        The Tin Man stuck in a life frozen in time and the Lion who is too meek to speak up are clearly not making the trip with them. The duo prefer to chance it alone. And before long the New York skyline looms up as it has for so many thousands of hopeful young men and women as a beacon that calls out for all who witness its Emerald City-like towers to enter and become everything they ever wanted to be.

        Further difficulties, however, face them. They’ve arrived too late for Gypsy to audition and win a place on the program. When she finally discovers someone who knew her mother, she discovers that her mother is dead, having committed suicide four years earlier. She also uncovers the fact that her mother has been sending her letters regularly, emphasizing her love of her daughter, but that her father has kept them from her.

         Meeting up with a couple of cute fellow Goth boys, Clive makes an unforgiveable faux pas of confusing a literary work with a new record, and is mocked for being a poseur—an outsider even in this world—whose relationship to them is mere pretense.


        The friend of Gypsy’s mother, however, goes to bat for the girl and gets her on the list. With Clive photographing the performance, Gypsy finally gives it her all, the audience in thrall of her performance.

       By film’s end, Gypsy has decided to stay on and, like her mother, to give a career a try; while Clive, who hasn’t stopped thinking about tomorrow, realizes he has to return home via Gypsy’s car, graduate, and move on to college—now with the realization, however, that he is gay and quite enjoys it.

     Gypsy visits her mother’s grave which appears to be in Queens, given the distant Manhattan skyline.       

        If Stephens’ fanciful tale of coming of age seems a bit too familiar and coy, it is nonetheless near perfect for the youthful audience for which it was spun. And it’s nice, for a change, to have the youthful figures face their own dilemmas without all the turmoil of adult parental shock, turmoil, and eventual acceptance. These figures make it down the road quite well, despite some bumpy moments, all by themselves.

 

Los Angeles, October 28, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2023).   

       

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...