Monday, July 21, 2025

Arvind Caulagi | Taps / 2023

an uncertain future

by Douglas Messerli

 

Arvind Caulagi (screenwriter and director) Taps / 2023 [15 minutes]

 

There’s not much to Indian director Arvind Caulagi’s short film Taps. Rohan (Ullas Samrat), a medical doctor, is off for a year’s residency in Baltimore in the US, and his lover Akshay (Rohit Mehra) has been working hard to pack his bags and wrap gifts for the people who have helped him attain the position and others. But he has forgotten one important thing, the “five taps for Rohan.”

    We don’t quite know what the “taps” are or mean, except that they clearly remain an in-joke for the couple, presumably something sexual, but also necessary for Rohan’s safe journey and their continued love while he is away.



     But Akshay, clearly troubled by an entire year alone and the fact that Rohan has put all the preparations for that journey in his hands, is clearly upset, not as we might say, “in the mood for love,” despite the fact that it is his and Rohan’s last night together until Rohan’s eventual return.

     We get the sense that even the talk about the fact that Rohan has given Akshay the okay to see others during his absence has upset him. The very fact that he has “permission” suggests a difference that he cannot quite accept in their deep relationship.

     Returning home from work, accordingly, Rohan does not find his usual playful and loving Akshay, but a man that doesn’t what to be hugged and snuggled. He becomes particularly upset when Rohan wants to pack up a bag of pickles Rohan bought especially for Akshay in order to bring it to “Dan,” the person most responsible for help Rohan get his temporary residency, presumably in the famed Johns Hopkins Hospital. In a phone argument with Rohan earlier, he has also accidentally broken the gift Rohan was planning to bring Dan.

    It all ends in words that both men regret, with Akshay telling him to leave already, and Rohan angrily storming off. Eventually, after failed phone calls, they hook up again and wait for the Uber cab to arrive. Clearly this was not the way that either of them imagined they would spend their last night together for an entire year.


    Yet they kiss and make-up—much to the disdain and shock of the Uber driver—Akshay finally revealing something about the “five taps,” as he quickly looks around to see if anyone might be watching, and hits his cock with his hands at least four times before complaining that “it hurts,” sending Rohan off with a remembrance of his source of sexual satisfaction.

     But, in fact, such a long distance from one another will hurt, and can cause damage to a permanent relationship.

     The critic for Gaysi, jhanvi believes, contrarily:

 

“As most short films are, they either show us the journey that characters go through right before something is about to end or begin—but what sets TAPS apart is it’s set right in the middle of Rohan and Akshay’s relationship. It’s already established, and it’s more at a turning point for them. It’s not an ending nor a beginning, just a couple venturing into a different mode of their relationship.”

 

     I can tell you, however, that such a different shift in a relationship can change everything and put to an end to what already seems established. What if the lonely Akshay actually does visit a gay bar and meets someone less demanding that Rohan, or Rohan, in visiting a new world, discovers a more open society that can help him more fully express love? These clearly are the fears of the far more organized and troubled Akshay, while Rohan appears to be self-assured, relying on others like Akshay to make his travels go smoothly. “Out there,” where he is suddenly headed, he may seek out someone to make his life as easy, seek out someone like Dan, which is perhaps why Akshay is not so ready to give up his pickles.

 

Los Angeles, July 21, 2025

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (July 2025).

Radley Metzger | Score / 1974

elivra & betsy & jack & eddie

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jerry Douglas (screenplay), Radley Metzger (director) Score / 1974

 

Having become recognized as one of the best of US erotic filmmakers of the day, Radley Metzger, had already successfully tackled soft heterosexual porn in his Camile 2000 (1969) and The Lickerish Quartet (1970), as well as having distributed several European films that showed causal nudity that deemed them unworthy of being released in the good ole USA, when he decided to dabble with bisexuality, one of the earliest to do so, in Score of 1974, one of the first such US pictures to feature frontal nudity and dramatically present both lesbian and male gay sex. The film received such glowing reviews one might think that Metzger was a kind of cinematic genius.


     Watching this in 2021, however, the fact that it was passed off as a “first”—particularly given the fact that in the very same year Arthur J. Bressan, Jr. presented a far more intelligent and sexually explicit vision of gay sex in Passing Strangers of the same year, and that only a year later Sidney Lumet would tackle a far more complex issue of a transgender, potentially transsexual relationship that leads to a major bank robbery and hostage situation in Dog Day Afternoon, without even mentioning the fact that in Europe and Asia filmmakers such as Luchino Visconti, Lino Brocka, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Chantal Ackerman, and others were delivering up far more professional and daring LGBTQ movies—Score doesn’t particularly impress me given its  laughably bad script, acting, and cinematic tricks, as well as its garish sets and silly presentation of its admittedly “naughty” intentions. In hindsight Score looks like an amateurish production of someone determined to wake up suburban married couples who just loved Paul Muzursky’s Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice and are ready to move up to something slightly kinkier.

    Let me be clear, Metzger’s film has very little do with being gay or lesbian, nor does it have anything at all to do with love. Both Elvira (Clarie Wilbur) and Jack (Gerald Grant), the seducing couple of Metzger’s film, admit that they’d have sex with a porcupine if they found the species attractive.

     That is not to say that if you perceive it as a comedy of seduction in the same way that you can read Mark Robson’s Valley of the Dolls (1967) as a comedy of aging actresses and their drugs that Metzger’s film doesn’t provide a great deal of campy fun. The “true” seductress of the couple, Elvira has been busy grooming the young married convent-trained Betsy (Lynn Lowry) for a lesbian encounter, while her husband Eddie (Calvin Culver) seems, unknown to either of them, ripe and ready to try out a fling in bed with another man. He’s even brought home from a convention, along with his several porno mags of females one magazine of male nudes, so we later discover from the devout Catholic Betsy’s bedtime confessions. Why she’s even discovered him masturbating in the bathroom when he should be focused on his morning shave!

     Everything that matters here, accordingly, is how to go about the seduction. Since Jack has a successful career as a porno and fashion photographer and the couple can afford a nice moderne home in a lovely seaside Croatian village where Metzger filmed the movie, they spend much of their time playing the game of who can succeed at seducing heterosexuals for same-gender sex. Ads for tourist couples in the local paper everyday haven’t panned out, the previous evening having produced a lot of empty wine glasses, a pot of roaches, and tossed off undergarments without, evidently, a “score.” And the clock is running down on their bet. Elvira only has 24 more hours to get Betsy into her bed and to put her tongue into Elvira’s “pussy.” As part of their bet, she’ll pick up Eddie on his way out....that is if Jack doesn’t jack him off first.    


     Meanwhile, there’s the telephone repairman (Carl Parker) to contend with, while Betsy has unexpectedly arrived earlier in the morning on the same evening Elvira and Jack have invited the couple over for the “last supper.” Elvira gets the idea that she might get Betsy in the mood by allowing her to watch while the repairman services her personal line. Betsy’s intrigued but runs home out of modesty and almost refuses to come to dinner.

      The fact that Eddie arrives early as well and is already making fast friends with Jack quickly cures Betsy’s headache as the poor girl comes running, willing to play her role for the rest of the evening as a mix of the ditzy blondes who Goldie Hawn’s been forced to play for most of career and the woman “on the verge of a bathroom upchuck” who Sandy Dennis was asked to perform in the film version of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and, even worse, to play “Chopsticks.”   


     A little bit of wine and a lot of grass, however, is the perfect cure, and before Elvira and Jack can even begin to play “Getting the Guests,” Betsy has stripped and put on a negligee that purposely reveals what most such articles of clothing pretend to hide, while Eddie has eagerly pulled the cowboy regalia out of their host’s deeply stocked costume trunk suddenly convinced that he is Billy the Kid.


       Eddie is almost ready to be seduced, but Metzger refuses to hurry the plot, and nearly bores us to death with the stumbling straight couples’ purposeful misreading of event, and with the terrace conversations of the frustrated seducers. And when, finally, things begin to unravel, Metzger’s camera goes all out of focus as it attempts to show us a truly artsy series of doubled images to signify lesbian sex while becoming suddenly terribly shy about showing the two males going after anything but a few French kisses. The seducers of this film evidently believe amyl nitrate to be an aphrodisiac, and spend more time sniffing than smooching, screw-ing, and scrogging. Yet, obviously, both Jack and Elvira eventually score.       


     The next day Eddie has the “morning after druthers,” while the convent girl has evidently been completely converted to the devil’s ways. Indeed Eddie and Betsy are nearly set to go their own ways, as Betsy jumps into bed with both Elvira and Jack ready for a second act, while Eddie is about to wander home to ponder his new homoself.

      Fortunately, the telephone repairman always rings twice, returning just in time to take along Eddie and Betsy on another call, forcing the slightly disappointed Jack and Elvira to look elsewhere, finding a new object of possible interest in a male waiter they’d never before spotted at a local café. 

 

Los Angeles, December 31, 2021

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (December 2021).

John Waters | Female Trouble / 1974

where these people come from?

by Douglas Messerli

 

John Waters (screenwriter and director) Female Trouble / 1974

 

Dawn Davenport (Divine), furious for not receiving her desired “Cha-cha heels for Christmas,” pulls the tree down upon her mother and punches out her father before “leaaavin’” home forever.   


       In her escape she catches a ride with low-life garage mechanic Earl Peterson (also Divine), is raped—mostly with great pleasure—and left pregnant, bearing the baby by herself, forced even to cut the umbilical cord with her own teeth. Without payment from Peterson or any other source of money, Dawn joins her friends Concetta (Cookie Mueller) and Chiclette (Susan Walsh) as a robber and sometime prostitute, raising her “retarded” daughter Taffy (Hilary Taylor and Mink Stole) with hate and punishment before falling in love and marrying her hairdresser-neighbor Gater Nelson (Michael Potter).


     When she and Gater are about to split, she falls into the clutches of the Lipstick Beauty Salon owners, Donald and Donna Dasher (David Lochary and Mary Vivian Pearce), who voyeuristically photograph her with the intention of proving that beauty is commensurate with criminal behavior.     

      Providing Dawn with drugs, money, and even more radically ugly clothes and hairdos, they make her so famous that she loses all sense of reality and sanity, refusing to even feed Taffy, let alone care for her, and warring with her neighbor, Gator’s aunt Ida, who blames Dawn for her beloved Gator’s escape to Detroit to work in the auto industry, and in revenge tosses a bottle of acid into Dawn’s lovely face.

      Now even more hideous looking to the average eye, Dawn is convinced by the Dashers that she is more beautiful than ever and prepares for a nightclub act while the Dashers put Ida into a birdcage encouraging Dawn to chop of her hand with an axe in punishment.


      Dawn, finally ready for her act, kills Taffy in the green room for having joined the Hare Krishna movement before stumbling on stage where she models, sings a song, and does somersaults on a trampoline before taking out a gun and killing several of the audience members.

       Is it any wonder that even though her lawyer argues for insanity, Dawn is found guilty and sentenced to the electric chair, where she fries with the satisfaction of having been able to give one last grand performance before her fellow inmates and audience, her imagined public who take such great pleasure in watching her one last performance?


      I’m glad I got all that off my mind. Now perhaps we can really talk about Waters’ hallucinatory side-show of a movie, made obviously only for those who truly enjoy the circus freak show or get their jollies from anything truly perverse. As gay critic Rex Reed not so very innocently asked: “Where do these people come from? Where do they go when the sun goes down? Isn't there a law or something?”

      The question, however, might be recontextualized by asking who he means by “all these people.” Is he talking about the film’s several trios such as the classroom dropouts Dawn, Concetta, and Chiclette; the three queer hairdressers of the Lipstick Beauty Salon Wink (Ed Peranio), Dribbles (George Figgs), and Butterfly (Paul Swift); the social representatives such as incompetent school teacher (George Hulse), the cop who shoots more members of the audience in order to control their terror than does Dawn, or the sleazy courtroom prosecutor (Channing Wilroy)? Or is Reed talking about the movie’s desperate duos: the sicko/psycho Dashers; Gator and his Auntie Ida who is so very disappointed that her son has not become gay and settled down with nice male beautician; Dawn’s absolutely clueless parents (Betty Woods and Roland Hertz); the two disapproving bailiffs attending to Dawn at the film’s end; or Dawn and her monstrous “Bad Seed” child Tammy? No one gets off free in Waters’ 1974 vision of the American nightmare.

      His world, in fact, is simply that of the cinema world of the 1950s and early 60s just a little more exaggerated than it truly was, as if like Divine herself, the movies, their themes, and their actors were simply enlarged, given steroids, and colored with deeper hues of the technicolor lens.

      In the witchcraft transformations of Water’s cinema laboratories, he tosses a smidgen of Blackboard Jungle (1955), with just a drop of East of Eden (1955), teen angst, bad girl and boy classroom behavior, along with a prostitute mother denied by the would-be preacher dad, along with a good stir of Rebel without a Cause (1955) just for a little more angst, sexual confusion, and unlikely allies on the run along with a heavy dose of the aforementioned Wild Seed (1956) just for Tammy’s sake! And while Waters was at it he obviously threw in Godzilla (1956), Creature of the Black Lagoon (1954), and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), all stirred up with an entire stick of The House of Wax (1953) and a handful of Caged (1950) for the cheesy horror of everything we witness upon his screen. As for the cinematographer, surely Waters must have hired Diane Arbus, from whom he admits he stole the idea for some of Divine’s hairdos.

      The important thing is to get a drag queen like Divine to play your central character and a whole host of nonconforming, larger than life figures that define the Dreamlander performers of his many films such as Edith Massey, Cookie Mueller, Mink Stole, George Figgs, Ed Peranio, and David Lochary, who are trans, gay, lesbian, and just confused but, nonetheless, agree with the director that up is down, in is out, and normal very strange. Waters’ world is inverted from one you read about in textbooks.        

     They come from the streets of Baltimore and every American town, large and small, where people are made to feel uncomfortable for being who they are. So there are a very great many of these unreasonable freaks, Rex, walking the US streets just looking to get into trouble—not only female trouble, as Cookie Mueller described her pelvic inflammation which named this movie, but the kind of trouble involved with sex, drugs, and art all mixed up. They’re very silly and, if you put away any sense of reality that may have accidentally brought with you to the movie house, they are a great deal fun in their larger-than-life presentations of the American experience. Like Albee’s George and Martha, Ginsberg’s “best minds” “destroyed by madness, running hysterical naked,” or Williams’ “pure products of America” who go crazy, and those who performed in Ronald Tavel’s and Charles Ludlam’s “Theater of the Ridiculous.” Waters’ characters go racing through the streets in twos and threes just waiting to greet you. So, Rex, as Ed Woods advised, “Be afraid, very afraid.”

 

Los Angeles, June 13, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (June 2022).

 

Ulrike Ottinger | Laokoon & Söhne (Laocoön & Sons) / 1971-72, premiered 1975

the widow, the ice skater, and the gigolo

by Douglas Messerli

 

Ulrike Ottinger (screenwriter, based on a text by Chiquita Brook [Xavier Arrovuelo] and Ottinger, and director) Laokoon & Söhne (Laocoön & Sons) / 1971-72, premiered 1975

 

Subtitled “The Story of the Transformation of Esmeralda del Rio,” Ulrike Ottinger’s Laocoön & Sons like her later Freak Orlando is inspired by Virginia Woolf’s fictional “biography” based on the imagined life of her lover, Vita Sackville-West. The focus of Ottinger’s first cinematic work is her own lover, Tabea Blumenschein. In this instance, Ottinger foregoes the historical contexts, locating her work more in the world of the fairy tale, a territory wherein female figures often dominated. But already realizing her personal vision, the director does not place her narrative into a rational or even temporal imaginary world, but allows for the various assemblages of what Patricia White has described as the “referential tableaux, rituals, and performances shot on location in places layered with disjunctive cultural histories” that so dominate most of her early work. Moreover, Ottinger sets down her heroine, Esmeraldo del Rio (not at all so very different from Bette Midler’s later comic mermaid persona Dolores del Rio) into the mythical all female land Laura Molloy, which has its own myths, rituals, and customs:


“Once upon a time there was a country known by the name of Laura Molloy.

Laura Molloy was the name of this country. Only women lived in Laura Molloy. Esmeralda del Rio was a woman. One day Esmeralda del Rio had the idea to undergo a series of transformations, which were to take her very far.

So far did she go that she had no way of knowing how far she had gone.

Two things were certain: Esmeralda del Rio was blond and in her own way she practiced a kind of magic which I would like to call 'blond magic'.”

 

      What we also immediately recognize in this early work is that Ottinger will focus not only on outlandish customs, costumes and behavior but reclaims the world of magic and witchcraft which as many feminists are argued over the years has traditionally been associated with the female outsider and, in particular, with lesbian behavior. Throughout this film, women will be observed not over boiling pots brewing up strange mixtures but also looking through the glass orbs of fortune tellers.

      And finally, beyond all of these layers, is simply a great deal of comic, almost adolescent goofiness that, at moments, turns into pure narrative genius. Indeed, as the narration adds, “Is not Laura Molly a country of small absurdities?”

      To begin with Esmeralda decides one day to transform herself into a widow, Olimpia Vincitor.

Unfortunately, her lover had died without Olimpia remembering who she was, why, and when. Accordingly, this new Ovid-like figure must go on a search of the past. Desperately seeking out her much-missed lover, Olimpia finally is forced to commit necrophilia: “Even gravestones have their charm. They let themselves be caressed.”

      Finally, tired and worn out of seeking a past that she cannot find, Emeralda determines to make another significant transformation, well-chosen particularly given the cold, arctic conditions, so we are told, of the country of Laura Molly. She now becomes the ice skater in the manner of Sonja Henie, named Linda MacNamara. Throughout, Linda stands upon the ice-cold beach in the positions of ice-skating champions, although we never see her from the waist down.

      A circus comes to town, which involves nearly all Laura Molloy’s citizens involving being embraced by a large python, a paper snake that several of the carney people hold as they run around the others, embracing them and capturing them within their prop. “And now they are snaking -it’s unbearable, it’s unbelievable!”

     At other points the narrator describes a Duchess and a Countess: “While the Duchess and Countess discussed their silly ideas in all detail, their daughter, lover of gestures that were unjustifiable from a strict theatrical perspective, stepped onto the balcony to let herself be booed by the peasant women who found her to be frankly decadent.”



     And finally, tired of skating, Esmeralda del Rio puts away her skates, becoming Jimmy the gigolo who courts one of the older members of the Laura Molly community who in order to maintain their roles in society inexplicably become pederasts, the figure here played by an effeminate gay man speaking in a high female-like voice. Eventually, even Jimmy, interested only in the older pederast’s money, has to go on the run.

     In short, even the fairytale runs dry and the hurries to its end. Some of the figures such as the carnival folk reappear in Ottinger’s far more complex 1981 Freak Orlando. But throughout one can perceive this as an early dry run for the later exploration of being forced to live in a world of constant metamorphosing in attempts to fit in the various evils of society at large.

 

Los Angeles, November 30, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (November 2022). 

Fernando Arrabal | L'arbre de Guernica (The Guernica Tree) / 1975, USA 1976

images of terror

by Douglas Messerli

 

Fernando Arrabal and Francesco Cinieri (screenplay), Fernando Arrabal (director) L'arbre de Guernica (The Guernica Tree) / 1975, USA 1976

 

As Roger Ebert pointed out in his 1976 review, Fernando Arrabal’s 1975 movie L’arbre de Guernica was the first film about the Franco era actually made in Spain. And even then, this powerful study about the early days of the Spanish Civil War is presented more as a De Sadeian fantasia than a realist picture of the terrible takeover of Spain which brought that country into horrific decades of fascist rule—far longer than its neighbors Italy and Germany.


     In Arrabal’s version, we see the terrible events of Franco’s takeover from various viewpoints: including that of the wealthy Count Cerralbo (Bento Urago), whose family for generations has demeaned, starved, and punished the poor citizens of the small village of Villa Ramiro and whose thuggish three nephews continue the abuse; his only son, Goya (Ron Faber) whose major actions have been artistic interventions before he joins the underground; the radical woman leader Vandale (Mariangela Melato) based on the real-life Civil War hero La Pasionaria; the pacifist local school teacher, who passionately believes in freedom, but is hesitant about the local’s abilities to control their violence; and the wild and raucous peasants who dance out their long frustrations and anger in various de Sade-like maneuvers.


      Hardly any of these figures is free of blame, although it is clear that Vandale and Goya, who finally meet up in Guernica, under the Guernica Tree, a symbol of the area’s commitment to independence and freedom, are the film’s heroes. That is, of course, the very moment when Franco’s forces chose to bomb and kill the attendees, and as with Pablo Picasso’s famed painting, Arrabal’s cinematic presentation reveals all the horror of those events.

      Much of this director’s presentation of “reality” however, is revealed in a manner that one might describe as a kind of terrifying mix of Federico Fellini and Pier Paolo Pasolini (particularly Pasolini’s Saló). The Count’s nephews attempt to rape Vandale as she rides into the village on a donkey; she escapes by throwing a handful of vipers at them.


    Small boys dance naked, girls wave flags and sing on their way to mass. A dwarf has sex with a beautiful woman, while around him others of his kind voyeuristically look on.

     The villagers’ celebration of Guernica day is more like a mad Mardi Gras than a recognition of what Guernica and its tree truly represents. The elderly local woman see Vandale as a witch. The peasants’ passion for freedom results in the invasion of the Count’s estate, his wife and servants led off to death. The Count escapes only through the good graces of the school-teacher who hides him simply because “it is the right thing to do,” refusing to take the money and jewels the Count offers him.


      The villagers overtake the church, desecrating most of its holy symbols, including the cross with Jesus upon it, as they shoot it apart with guns, pissing on other holy symbols.

     But even more horrifying are the images of their deaths after the Falange, aided by Hitler and Mussolini, take over the small village which Arrabal has created to represent all Spanish villages.


       After a blessing by church leaders, which includes a full outright tongue-kissing episode between the presiding priest and his male assistant, the rebels are painfully punished with the dismembering of their testicles, numerous absurdist shootings, and, eventually, the dwarfs being tied to small vehicles who, one by one, a well-dressed matador impales while an aristocratic audience looks on with applause.

       Let us just say that, as beautiful at times his images are, Arrabal’s film is not an easy one to witness. But then neither was the Spanish Civil War!

       Beneath the lovely color images, the director is comprehensibly angry, and as in Pasolini’s Saló, the degree of the torture of human beings is commensurate to the passing of time.

       No solution in this film seems totally possible. The aristocracy and church members terrorize the villagers, the villagers are stupidly brutal, the fascists are murderers. Even the pacifist teacher is trapped into non-action.

       Arrabal’s own father was imprisoned during the Second Spanish War, attempted suicide, and escaped from a hospital in his pajamas, never to be seen again. If that doesn’t make one a Surrealist, then you’re simply unable to comprehend life.

 

Los Angeles, April 17, 2020

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (April 2020).

Ernst Johansen and Lasse Nielsen | La’ os være (Leave Us Alone) / 1975

childhood games of murder

by Douglas Messerli

 

Carsten Nielsen and Lasse Nielsen (screenplay), Ernst Johansen and Lasse Nielsen (directors) La’ os være (Leave Us Alone) / 1975

 

For those who have seen Lasse Nielsen’s and Ernst Johansen’s groundbreaking gay youth film Du er ikke alene (You Are Not Alone) (1978) and Nielsen’s several subsequent works on boy love such as Lek and the Waterboy (2010), Happy Birthday (2013), The Kite (2016), The Game (2017), and Tim and the Fluteboy (2018)—all works which represent the underage gay sex desire from an idealized perspective in which boy-on-boy sex is represented (although notably not portrayed in the films) as absolutely normal and a beautiful thing to witness—might be surprised if they were able to track down a rare copy of Nielsen’s and Johansen’s first feature film La’ os være (Leave Us Alone) of 1975, where the androgynous, long-haired innocents featured throughout Nielsen’s oeuvre are revealed to be potentially as culturally stratified, normatively dominated, and violent as the world of adults. If in almost all of Nielsen’s latter films the young correct for their elder’s blind selfishness and hatred of difference, in this film the young have already been infected by their parents and teachers.

      Leave Us Alone begins with a fairly positive message. Left alone during a teacher’s strike for higher wages, the students, male and female, of an urban “Children’s School”—obviously a governmentally run institution for children whose parents have died or are temporarily unable to care for them—meet to discuss what they are going to do, having been denied their annual summer trip to a student camp. Their decision and plans seem, at first, to be almost a model of what a group of those clearly abandoned by society, left to their own ingenuity, are able to accomplish. They organize and execute their plans fairly capably. Determining to escape to an uninhabited island not far from the Danish coast, the children borrow tents from a local public organization, they steal money from a local shop and carefully buy provisions for stay of a week or more, and they carefully gather small amounts of blankets and clothing from those who still live at home without drawing attention to their actions. They take a train to a small beachside embarkment, rent a boat, and arrive in their new paradise where the previously black-and-white film turns, almost as in The Wizard of Oz into somewhat muted color (the 70s faded-out browns, greens, and blues seem to deter any independent LGBTQ film of that decade from blooming into wondrous technicolor).

      Pilgrims to a new world, the band of mostly teenage males with two older females and a few young boys and girls—14 children named Martin, Meyer, Jens, Sven, Kenneth, Søren, Tine, Anja, Henrik, Svend, Bo, Helle, Hanne, and Bjørn (the given first names of all the actors)—set out on a pilgrimage to discover and establish their new tent kingdom. Some gather firewood, setting out plates and pots, while others erect the tents. One young man, obviously quoting an old wives’ tale he has heard from an adult, declares that it is always important to dig a large hole on any such outing, and taking up a spade begins to dig for the next several days. Another boy has brought along a radio, hearing the news that authorities believe the missing children have traveled to Sweden, when, in fact, they have traveled, so they believe, in the other direction.

      While there are some signs of the difficulties ahead—one young man declares they are missing a sack of bread, butter, and cheese—they seem to have done remarkably well on their own in setting up a camp similar to the ones they’ve been trained erect in their previous outings.


      One has brought a guitar which he begins to play, while another boy insists on tickling him with a long weed which ends, as in many a Nielsen film (see, for example, my review of The Kite) with them wrestling in what one recognizes is really an attempt to bring their bodies into touch with one another. Two of girls take off their blouses to sunbathe half-nakedly as they gigglingly read aloud a romance novel they’ve obviously purloined from one of their mothers. The girls cook up a stew which one young boy spoons out, unfortunately, in unequal portions. When night falls, the boys tell horror stories to each other, laughing at the macabre events; two boys crawl under the same blanket and strip off their underwear, obviously to cuddle up and masturbate together. A young boy cries out, frightened by the darkness, to be stilled by the gentle comforting of an older girl. This brave new world might almost be said to represent the domestic activities of a Danish version of Our Town.

      The very next morning, however, they discover that their boat has drifted off. They blame Henrik—as they had for the missing grocery sack—for having forgotten to properly tie it down. Although Henrik tries to swim out a ways to bring it back, the others recognize the dangers of trying to do so and pull him back, also perceiving the utter seriousness of the event. Several youths  hit and mock Henrik for his failure and one, forebodingly, hurls a small rock at him. He has suddenly become a kind of scapegoat for their growing problems.


      Yet soon after we see the young boys throwing small branches at one another, two in particular bonding as they leap about on a rope they have strung from a tree. The entire settlement joyfully waddles out to go bathing in the ocean waters. Several of the boys attempt, unsuccessfully, to fish; the girls boil up a nettle soup so that the young kids can add some nutrients to their diet. Later, the boys find eels and a fish in their nets, cutting off their heads, before they bring them back to the group.

      Clearly, however, the directors are setting up a situation that is moving into the territory of Peter Brook’s Lord of the Flies (1963). For soon after, Svend goes missing, his best friend asking the group if they’ve seen him, to which they nonchalantly respond with jokes that reveal their own feelings of entrapment such as “Maybe he caught the train out.”

      The evening meal is almost inedible, so some complain. Plates are broken, others impossible to clean. Their fecal matter is beginning to make their camp smell. A fight breaks out between one of the boys and Henrik, the two wrestling but this time, we recognize, not in a symbolic sexual joust, particularly when the other boy draws out a knife holding it over the conquered Henrik before he hurls, point down, in the ground nearby.

      Between one boy and girl a heterosexual relationship begins as the two kiss alone in a cover, only to be doused by another boy with water. When soon after the two wander together along the beach they suddenly encounter the drowned body of Svend. Together they try to revive him, without success, the two reporting back to the others what they’ve found. 



     Various of their members discuss death, attempting to explain to a younger child who cannot understand how God can find a body when it’s buried underground, what happens in death. Some consider the differences between burial and cremation. But the next day they place Svend’s body into the deep whole dug by one of their members. They follow the rituals of the society in which they were raised, tossing shovels full of soil over the dead boy, planting a handmade cross on the covered grave, and, in tears, tossing freshly picked wildflowers over the plot. One boy, obviously in love with Svend, runs off from the others to tear down the branch and leaf covered hut they had built together, collapsing into tears of grief. At another point he stands as a lone mourner at the grave, others trying to encourage him to join them, but he demanding for time alone with his loved one.

       The next morning the four boys in one tent begin by throwing everything inside out, and carefully dismantling their tent as they move away from the others. They might seem like outsiders unhappy with the normative society of the others, but in fact, we soon discover, these are the Alpha males moving away from the females, children, and those boys they consider weak or who are developing heterosexual and homosexual relationships

       While the maturing girls and boys of the original settlement discuss the possibilities of a communal society, a truly “communist” culture in which all are seen of equal stature and expected to help in the decision-making and governance—ideas which one of the girls had heard expressed in a lecture she once attended—the males of the new tribe create working bows and arrows, hunting down and shooting a pheasant. Identifying themselves with the Indians and white converts to the Dakota tribe in A Man Called Horse (1970), they ritualistically exchange blood, and commit to warrior behavior. In large sense, these are still teenage boys who, having not yet completely grown out of childhood, are merely still playing “cowboys and indians,” one of the enculturating tools used by the dominate culture of the day to define normative male behavior. While those of the original group appear to be shifting from childhood to boy-and-girlhood in the case of the very young, and from prepubescence to young adulthood—the boys of the tribe, like Peter Pan, refuse to grow up and, accordingly, have no ability to separate their fantasy world from the real world in which they unknowingly have been trapped on the island where it appears no one might ever come to their rescue. The film’s title, I would argue, reflects their sentiments. They no longer want anything to do with either their former world at the school or the newly developing society the others are working toward—if only they can survive. Despite their failure to create, upon their first attempt, a raft capable of transporting them back to the mainland, we believe, as one of them argues, that eventually the original group might be able to create a vessel seaworthy enough to transport them back to the “real” world with which they might share the questions and answers they have explored.

       Those of the tribe, however, know only how to play out their childhood war games, precisely how one of their members, Jens, previously reacted when one of the females had intentionally flirted with him by rubbing his thigh. His reaction was to tackle her, and tear open her blouse as if he were about to rape her, a response the very opposite of her signal for him to show her some attention and love. His was a reaction of a fear of sexuality the way he might later react homophobically if approached by a male. Rape, by definition, is a plundering, violating, or carrying away of someone as a warrior—precisely as these boys have come now to define themselves. Accordingly, when the innocent Henrik wanders into their now declared “territory,” they chase him down and capture him much like the boys run down Simon in Lord of the Flies. But here the boys are simply playing a game with no intention of killing their prey, despite the fact that they tie him up to a three and put a noose around his head. It is a symbol of their power which they have not yet intended to be actualized as a real sacrifice and death.


       Yet, as we recall, this boy has stood all along for the true fool and outsider among them, and their behavior, even if symbolic, apes their inner hatred for him. If there is any true “weakling” of this tale it is the almost totally isolated and guilty-feeling Henrik, who has seemingly caused the severance from their pasts.

       As they sit crunching on their barbecued pheasant, one of them points out that if Henrik were to fall to sleep he might accidently strangle himself, the leader, chewing away on the sweet meat of the bird, suggesting that if anyone wants to go check on him he’s not stopping them. The boy goes back into the woods to see how their captive is only to find out Henrik is indeed dead.

       The others, similarly, have finally begin to check out what might have happened to their Henrik, calling out his name and finally discovering him tied to the tree, strangled by the noose. Moments later they stand on the hill overlook the outlaw tribe with the intentions clearly to call out their horrible deeds. The “Indians” quickly scatter, but Martin chases after Jens, running him down and challenging him to a fight, no wrestling match this time but a real fight to determine who might actually be the superior. Martin has the cause of right on his side, but he is not as strong as the young warrior, and is soon struggling to catch his breath and wrestle down his foe. In the very last frame of this now terrifying movie, we see Martin pick up a large rock about to smash it against Jens’ head as we hear the boy who was Svend’s lover call out in horror “Martin!”



       Violence apparently has won, like a virus taken over these innocents destroying them all in its wake. Any possible rescue from what has now become a hell of bigotry and hate, with two boys dead and possibly a third about to be, no longer has any meaning. Their worlds have already crumbled. There is no longer any young girl or boy on this island. And each being is suddenly more alone than he or she could ever have imagined.

      One of the brief commentaries on this film—I’ve been unable to uncover any full reviews in English—describes these “unformed young people” being stranded on an island “no civilizing adult presence to restrain them.” I’d argue, the problem is that these developing young folks did alas precisely bring their missing parents’ and teachers’ ideas with them, which is what ultimately destroyed them. It’s little wonder that in Neilsen’s future films the children find a way around all the received ideas with which their parents and institutions attempt to civilize them.

 

Los Angeles, April 8, 2021

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog World Cinema Review (April 2021).


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...