between tragedy and camp
by Douglas Messerli
Matthew Puccini
(screenwriter and director) Lavender / 2019 [10.34 minutes]
Throughout the
1940s-1960s, when it was the dominant expression of how fiction and poetry
should be read and written, Robert Penn Warren’s and Cleanth Brooks’ New
Critical Theory argued for the use of natural, realistic images, actions, and
symbols which enacted by and within the lives of characters objectively
revealed without authorial intrusions created works that most profoundly
affected readers. Short tales, in particular, had a rising and falling action,
ending usually in a cathartic experience that revealed both to the character
and the reader the significance of the proceeding events. Fiction was driven
primarily by character and plot in a rising and falling pattern that resembled
the fluctuations of human thoughts and actions. Structure was primarily linear,
paralleling the hero’s revelations as he moved through the experiences that
defined the work of fiction. Longer works, accordingly, were defined primarily
as romans or romances (translated into English as “novels”) that were
centered on an individual character’s transitions through the objectively
presented mimetically presented landscapes.
With its often desperateness to speak of
alternative truth, to reveal LGBTQ life as something of moral worth, its anger
and outrageousness of the outsider, its assimilation of comic responses to
societal exclusion, and the resultant campy expression of reality through
winks, nods, and complexly coded messages, homosexual, bisexual and transsexual
narratives fortunately seldom obeyed these critical restrictions, creating a
far more fascinating plethora of voices, ideas, and realities than realist
novelists and short story writers could even imagine.
It’s not that all fiction writers beloved
by Warren and Brooks wrote nothing of value: among the New Critical heroes of
the 20th century were Henry James, William Faulkner, Ford Maddox Ford, Virginia
Woolf, D. H. Lawrence, Marcel Proust, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Eudora Welty, and
the early works by James Joyce to name only a few.
Very few of the LGBTQ cinematic works I
have reviewed in these volumes, however, would have met with critical approval
of the New Critics. Their prioritization of sexual identity alone would likely
have disqualified them from the New Critical pantheon, let alone their often
soap operatic-like plots filled with radical and unexpected events and
characters so outrageous in their actions, words, and demeanors that for many
ordinary observers they might appear to be unbelievable. Filled with
directorial intrusion, moral outrage, outré costuming, nudity, and perverse
humor, LGBTQ filmmaking was the anathema of New Critical Theory and helped in
tumbling its academic walls.
Imagine my surprise, accordingly, after
watching a little LGBTQ gem by Matthew Puccini titled Lavender from
2019. This film was so very unobtrusive in its expression that, at first, I
shook my head it a brief whirl of confusion, pondering for a few seconds what I
had just seen really meant—so used had I grown to having the directors of these
films make it quite clear what they were saying, despite the complexities of
their works. So little of the film’s meaning had been conveyed through dialogue
that a viewer not used to having characters argue out their ideas might have
wondered what actually happened by film’s end.
Puccini’s beautifully filmed story took
place primarily in a lovely brownstone house with two quite happily married
good-looking men, Arthur (Michael Urie) and Lucas (Ken Barnett), who begin the
film singing Irving Berlin’s “Call Me Up Some Rainy Afternoon” which the couple
perform with loving attention to a young man sitting next to Lucas on the piano
bench. It’s a perfect song to reveal the warm and loving the relationship
between the men and the younger boy, Andy (Michael Hsu Rosen) with whom they
clearly are polyamorously entwined.
Their stylish apartment with contemporary
art of the walls obviously intrigues the attractive kid of apparently biracial
parentage. What is clear in the way he stares into the paintings and objects of
their rooms is that he has entered a privileged white world he previously could
not have imagined and that, along with their clear adoration of him, he is a
bit overwhelmed.
Moreover, as anyone can imagine in such
a situation there are tensions that arise simply given the situation. These are
only hinted at in Puccini’s film, but a scene in which Andy wakes up early in
the morning to find himself lying a bit apart from Arthur and Lucas asleep in
an embrace says a great deal about the fact that, although he shares their
physical love, he still is kept apart from their far deeper commitments with
one another. He brushes his teeth, dresses, and returns to his own apartment
via taxi with a somewhat troubled look upon his face.
It’s strange after all of these years to
suddenly realize that I myself have been in two such polyamorous relationships
(I had no such name for these situations in those days) when I was 20 or 21 and
was living in New York. And I recall that although one felt the responsibility
to like both of the partners equally, there was in both cases one who was more
attractive and, quite frankly, sexually active. And although I went out of my
way to try to balance my attentions, I am sure it was quite obvious to the
other which of them I preferred. Did they resent each other or argue after my
departures? They never needed to tell me, in either case, when it was time for
me to move on.
Something similar happens to Andy when he brings Arthur a birthday present of a program for the play The Changing Room signed by the entire cast; he awards the boy a deep kiss, followed immediately after with Lucas wrestling him into bed as he fucks the kid alone.
Even more surprisingly, when Andy
returns to his apartment we discover that a cute boy is lying in his own bed.
At first he turns away from the sleeping boy, but when the friend mutters some
a greeting, “heh,” he turns toward him, embracing him into a hug. Obviously,
his experiment in love is over and he can now return to face his own budding
relationship, hoping to build it into the kind of rich marriage he has just
experienced with Arthur and Lucas.
Puccini himself seems to indicate his
awareness in how his oblique, well-crafted tale lies somewhat outside of the
usual constructs of LGBTQ filmmaking. He cites Andrew Haigh’s Weekend and
Ira Sachs’ Love Is Strange as naturalistic precedents as well as work by
John Cassavetes and the Dardennes brothers. Puccini describes his desire to
give the work significance through “small, seemingly insignificant but
carefully constructed moments.” But his final statement I would argue almost
fully embraces the “New Critical” values which I have described above:
Lavender will strive
to present a queer story that is still so rare:
occupying a space between
camp and tragedy, where quiet
naturalism and tender
romance, no matter how brief, are enough.
His film won the Here Media Award for Best
Queer Short Film at the Provincetown International Film Festival.
Los Angeles, April 14,
2021
Reprinted from My
Queer Cinema blog and World Cinema Review (April 2021).


No comments:
Post a Comment