Friday, January 16, 2026

Daan Bunnik | Headbutt / 2017

the change

by Douglas Messerli

 

Daan Bunnik (screenwriter and director) Headbutt / 2017 [10 minutes]

 

Something has happened in the close relationship between the two brothers at the center of this short Dutch film from 2017. The younger brother Tobias (Felix Osinga), age 15, seems to no longer exist for this now always moody and basically unhappy older brother Lucas (Nils Verkooijen), age 18.


    The internet games they have long played together frustrates him. Even playing catch with a small football in their room, obviously a regular activity, seems of little interest to Lucas. Instead he plays alone, tossing the ball up and catching it for long periods of time in silent contemplation. Lucas has even seemingly abandoned one of the former favorite mutual challenges to “break the record,” a game which they stare down one another at close range until one of them blinks or turns away and then count down the moment until they butt heads, sharing their mutual pain.


    Tobias occasionally visits his magazine of female beauties to masturbate, but is now basically left alone, while obviously something is deeply eating at his brother. He watches him sitting on their balcony, hanging his body over the ledge of the high rise railing and fears for the worst; might he even kill himself? What could be ailing him? Why the sudden change in their deep love?


     One night he even attempts to enter his brother’s bed, as he probably has often in the past, to curl up to him and offer his bodily sympathy, but Lucas immediately pushes him away. At another point when they momentarily do play catch, Tobias accidently hits his brother’s lava lamp, evidently a prize possession, which his brother angrily throws at him.

     We are never told what is going on in Lucas’ head; and in some respects, not knowing him as well as Tobias does, we have even less evidence for any postulations that might explain his behavior than does Tobias.

     Except as older individuals, we do comprehend that not only is Lucas undergoing a vast hormonal change at the age when teenagers experience wide shifts in emotional responses, but since it seems to be a little later than the usual age of 16 or 17 that it is likely not just standard issues of sexuality. We can only suspect that it’s probably has nothing to do with a girlfriend since there is no mention of love or even a temporary infatuation, no frustration over a breakup.


     In particular, since Tobias fantasizes that Lucas may even commit suicide, dropping from his high perch to the street below, we wonder whether it might be a far deeper matter, possibly having to do with his perception that he may be simply different from the others of his age, gay or bisexual, or even trans. If nothing else, Tobias is experiencing what all close younger brothers must, the change in their relationship as the other attempts to discover himself apart from family love.

     Realizing finally that Tobias has become frightened for his survival, Lucas finally agrees to play their old favorite, “break the record,” counting down the moment when they will butt each other in the forehead producing a kind of mutual release of their fears and frustrations. The film ends before they make full contact, but we know at least they have momentarily come together again in a symbolic form of bodily communication if not an intellectual sharing of his problems.


    The brotherly love Tobias offers him, in fact, may truly be one of the things that helps Lucas to survive in the cruel world he is facing.

      I remember that a couple of years before Lucas’ age, I too began needing time to be alone, to suffer my own unspoken and even unrecognized fears, moving out of the bunkbeds I shared with my brother and into a basement cot, where hanging fruit shelves served as a place for my personal library under which I placed a desk. We had a shower in the basement as well. So I could come and go without having to offer any explanation to a curious brother or a sister down the hall, or even to my worried parents. It was not until a year or two later, in college, that I finally resolved what was troubling me, coming out to myself and soon after engaging in male sexual encounters.

 

Los Angeles, January 16, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2026).

 

 

 

Louis Malle | Au revoir les enfants / 1987

the silence of complicity

by Douglas Messerli

 

Louis Malle (screenwriter and director) Au revoir les enfants / 1987

 

I’ve now seen Louis Malle’s moving portrait of World War II lost childhood innocence three or four times, and I believe I comprehended the film the very first time I saw it, probably soon after its premier in 1987. But seeing it again the other day, in the context of the Trump administration’s continued attacks on immigrant life, it seemed suddenly to be a very different film, its lovely tribute to Chaplin’s early film The Immigrant framing it in a way I had not previously perceived.


      There has always been something facile about the film, a kind of late-life mea culpa for a childhood friendship that may or may not have resulted in a betrayal a childhood friend to the Nazis. If nothing else, the mamma’s- boy, Julien Quentin (Gaspard Manesse)—a stand-in for the director at age 11 himself—seems a nastily intelligent child, attempting to bluff his way through the sometimes brutal difficulties of living through the tough student world of a Carmelite boarding school in occupied France, that itself—despite its best intentions—plays out some of the very militaristic and anti-Semitic attitudes of the society at large. 

      How could they not, given the Pétain rule and the even worse Nazi control of Paris and other major cities? The fact is that this particular Carmelite school took in, willingly, several Jewish children, under different names, and valiantly attempted to protect them, ending in their leader’s, Father Père Jean’s, arrest and eventual death in the Mauthausen camp.

       This was also a school supported by some of the wealthiest of French families, and accordingly, their spoiled children did not represent, perhaps, the best environment for the very intelligent Jewish children hidden among them. As in any provincial and well-endowed school, the best of the students were seen as “ass-kissers” or simply dismissed for their very intelligence.


      The Malle figure, Quentin, previously the golden boy of this school, now has a new challenger, and is both frightened and excited by the brilliant newcomer. At first, he, along with the others of his classroom acquaintances, tries everything they can to make the newcomer, Jean Bonnet (actually Jean Kippelstein, played by actor Raphaël Fejtö), an outsider. As a born figure on the outside of French society, Bonnet/Kippelstein knows perfectly well how to deal with it, even though, at his young age, he is clearly and almost unbearably lonely and isolated. But his searing intelligence and his insistence of being one of the group, prevails, eventually convincing the equally questioning Quentin to form a bond with him and to begin questioning what is going on in world around this somewhat isolated societal viewpoint, which makes this film something special.

      Malle helps us understand the gradual education of Quentin through both of the boys’ sharing of literary texts and, then, through a remarkable scene wherein Quentin’s wealthy  mother, his elder brother, and his new friend, attempt to share in a meal at a nearby posh restaurant during family day, in which the local French collaborators enter, and try to oust a gentle, long-time customer who is Jewish; a reaction from Jean Quentin’s elder brother might almost have meant the wealthy French family’s expulsion, except for the intervention of the actual Nazis in attendance, who have been quite attracted to the Jean’s beautiful mother, and oust the local Nazi supporters, saving the day, if not the Jewish customer’s continued visits to the place.


      These lessons are not lost on the young Jean, who gradually begins to perceive that he does not now believe what he seems to have been taught; he even questions his own family’s relationships to the Jewish faith. It is a poignant moment, when he questions his mother about their Alsatian aunts, a conversation which is quickly hushed up; but the facts are immediately perceived by the quieter Bonnet, who realizes what is happening in his world. Yes, he is an outsider, but he exists in a tangled prejudicial society that has stood for French culture for centuries, even as many in the society refuse to embrace those connections. Bonnet’s quietude says everything at the very moment when the young Jean Quentin suddenly begins to perceive the reality of his own culture.

      But even a growingly perceptive child, quite obviously, cannot control the destiny of such a totally destructive society—or even the growing perceptions of that society’s adults—particularly when that society is controlled by a dictatorial government (please take note, and I should make comment on the increasing anti-Semitic actions in our own daily news)—and the inevitable betrayal is quickly revealed, as the Gestapo, clued in by a disgruntled kitchen worker—fired for his involvement in black market sales of the school’s kitchen food (while the children nearly starve)—results in a terrible attack on their schoolrooms as well, where even a glance toward a friend reveals the horrible truth. Bonnet, accidently, glances the way of his now beloved friend, ending in his arrestment, despite the fact that so many others in this actually “blessed” Catholic institution have attempted to save individuals from the concentration camps.  All died, most of them at Auschwitz, and one can only imagine the endless guilt of the innocent young children, particularly of the director himself.


      I don’t know whether or not the events of the film are entirely representative of the truth, but in Malle’s version, the Bonnet/Kippelstein figure does forgive his young colleague by simply admitting that they would eventually have discovered him, no matter what. It doesn’t quite feel comfortable—might the Nazis truly have uncovered everything without the innocent childhood glances? Perhaps Bonnet is correct, no matter what they might have done, he’d, along with all the others, would have eventually been tracked down, just as he had been in their scout games, where he was temporarily caught, tied up, and eventually escaped.

      Yet others, miraculously were not. The gentle wave of goodbye (the Au revior of the title) is, alas, not enough. The totally innocent Bonnet was sent to death simply because of his birth by religion, and, finally, the young Jean Quentin had to come to terms with that. This is a film that does not say “goodbye to a childhood friend,” but goodbye to childhood itself.

     In the end, you surely can’t blame the children, but you must blame their parents for not properly protecting those children with the truth. Although Jean’s mother suggests that no one with any sense can support Pétain, she is perfectly willing to see the important socialist politician Léon Blum, a staunch opponent of Vichy France, hanged. Hedging the political bets, she has put her child into total chaos, and certainly helped to destroy his mental ability to realize the moral worth of his society’s and his own personal actions.

       Malle was a great director, and always a loving moral force; but this film truly does reveal his own youthful hesitation, and perhaps admits to his later lack of true commitment to innovative cinema. Although I love his films, they were never quite as adventurous as this one personal statement.

 

Los Angeles, February 21, 2015

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (February 2015).

 

John Schlesinger | Midnight Cowboy / 1969

losers in love

by Douglas Messerli

 

Waldo Salt (screenplay, based on the novel by James Leo Herily) John Schlesinger (director) Midnight Cowboy / 1969

 

Including its 1969 premiere, I have watched John Schlesinger’s film Midnight Cowboy numerous times over the years, but for several reasons never to choose to review it until now. Certainly I recognized upon first seeing it was performed by two wonderful actors, Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman, along with some fascinating other minor figures Sylvia Miles (who I’ve since met several times at Sherry Bernstein’s New York apartment), Brenda Vaccaro, Bob Balban (just a kid in those days), John McGiver, and Bernard Hughes. Its subtle gay narrative is generally quite powerful, and its major song “Everybody’s Talking at Me,” written by composer John Barry and sung by Harry Nilsson, is one of the hauntingly best movies songs, winning several awards.


      Schlesinger, moreover—who also directed Darling and Sunday Bloody Sunday—is clearly a more than competent director. I was living and working in New York City with film was first shown.

      Later I even met the gentle gay author, James Leo Herily,* residing in Silver Lake area of Los Angeles, who wrote the original novel upon which this film was based. What wasn’t there to like?

      For one, I did not like the black-and-white dreams scene which recounted gradually the naïve Texan dishwasher, Joe Buck’s past; nor the future dream sequences of Enrico Salvatore “Ratso” Rizzo’s imaginary life in Miami. Schlesinger’s somewhat expressionist use of certain images such as the constant MONY sign and the explosive tearing down of a building—presumably the Claridge Hotel where Joe stayed in his first days upon arriving in New York—rubbed me the wrong way in their overstatement of the themes, where the difference between the desirous starving losers and the overstuffed rich losers was already quite obvious.

    And then, the over-the-top performances by Miles (always rather tawdry in her acting), McGiver, Varraco, and other minor figures such as the drugged-mouse lady, dragging a plastic or perhaps even real mouse across her daughter’s face, all detracted, it seemed to me, from the core of the story which concerned a growing unnamed but obvious gay love between the central heroes, Buck and Rizzo, even as they continue to insist they are straight, and it is Buck’s intention, dressed up in what Rizzo describes as his “faggot” cowboy suit, to service the New York women for large sums of money.

      Both Hoffman and Voight, I’ve since read, went to Schlesinger, asking him to be clearer in the script’s delineation of their gay love, but he refused, insisting that it would delimit their audiences and probably get it a R rating. 

      But this time seeing it, I forgave some of these “flaws,” noting instead just how subtly screenwriter Waldo Salt gradually built up the homosexuality which finally blossoms into full love with Rizzo’s death as the two travel together by bus to Miami.



     Some of these hints are double-edged, as when early in the film a transgender waiter queries Joe and Rizzo: “How is he going to get his hands into your pockets,” given Joe wears the tightest of the cowboy’s pants. At one level, obviously, she is suggesting this dying con-man will somehow find a way to get money out of Joe (in fact, Joe has already given him $20), but it can also be read as  sexual desire, sticking his hands in his pocket in order to jerk him off.

      And it isn’t long after that Rizzo lures Joe to his derelict, empty building to share a bed next to him. Joe is shy about the deal, and is determined to leave before Rizzo admits that he wants him to stay. He even steals Joe’s boots so that he will not run off.


     When his relationships with women don’t pan out, Joe even picks us a young boy (Balaban) who sucks the cowboy off in a movie theater. But when it comes to payment, the adolescent admits that he has no money.

       Now playing Joe’s pimp, Rizzo arranges for an encounter with a gay man (McGiver). Joe is ready for the sex, but when the loon opens up his bathroom door backed with a plastic Madonna and demands he get down on his knees and pray, the cowboy angrily flees.

       Yet love is still love, and you have to take what you can get in this film. When Joe does finally return to Rizzo’s “apartment,” discovering his friend in a feverish condition, and Rizzo insists “We got to get out of here,” Joes picks up his own male trick to obtain enough money for their trip.

      He gets his money this time, but there is a suggestion that he might have killed him to obtain it. Whether or not the closeted gay boy who still thinks of himself as purely heterosexual also killed the man after sex is open to question. It’s one of the troublesome issues of Herlily’s dumb and bigoted character who would hate himself even more if he were able to comprehend who he is. And this, of course, is the problem with regard to LGBTQ representation of Schlesinger’s film, which pretends to be radically opening up the door to cinematic gay presentation while offering up an even more stereotypic vision of homosexuality than John Houston’s Reflections in a Golden Eye of two years earlier.


      After the sudden and expected death of Rizzo en route to Florida when the “cowboy” is told by the driver that they still must travel forward to Miami, Joe consummates his love by carefully sliding his arm around his dead friend’s shoulder for the remainder of the trip.

      Everywhere in Schlesinger’s Midnight Cowboy people are losers, losing in love and slowly losing their minds.

 

*Sal Mineo, I might mention here that Mineo very much wanted to the role Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy. In his infamous interview with Boze Hadleigh, Mineo responds to Hadleigh’s question:

     BH: Somebody in L.A. told me you'd wanted to be in Midnight Cowboy?

    SM: I was, once, interested in buying the rights. Did you ever read that novel? James Leo Herlihy—nice guy. The book's fuckin' fantastic, man. Even better than the movie. Anyway, I'd wanted to play Ratso.

 

Los Angeles, June 3, 2020

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (June 2020).

 

 

 

 

 

Volker Schlöndorff | Der junge Törless (Young Törless) / 1966

irrational numbers

by Douglas Messerli

 

Volker Schlöndorff and Herbert Asmodi (based on the fiction by Robert Musil), Volker Schlöndorff (director) Der junge Törless (Young Törless) / 1966

 

In his first film, Young Törless of 1966, filmmaker Volker Schlöndorff takes Robert Musil’s 1906 novella and subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, interconnects the actions of the characters with the behavior of Prussian Germans and Austrians not only in World War I, but in the Nazi Germany of World War II.


     Through the increasingly brutal actions of the Austrian schoolboys of the Neudorf military academy, the director—along with his central character figure, Thomas Törless (Mathieu Carrière, who years later married Howard and my artist acquaintance, Jennifer Bartlett)—explore how ordinary human beings, in this case Reiting (Fred Dietz) and Törless’ friend Beineberg (Bernd Tischer), suddenly veer from petty class and caste ridicule and humiliation of fellow, incidentally Jewish, classmate Anselm von Basini (Marian Seidowsky) to homosexual abuse, beatings, and finally, outright torture.

      Basini may be an unlovable braggart, whose acceptance of a subservient relationship with Reiting leads him to petty thievery, but he has done nothing serious enough to bring down the wrath of his fellow students—particularly the passive dismissals of Törless, who, in his often over-sensitive and intelligent questioning of his lessons concerning the use of irrational and imaginary numbers in his mathematical lessons, might just as well have fallen into Basini’s position.

      If at first, one might think of Musil’s work as being related to other studies of rebel students caught up in unthinking and uncaring systems such as Jean Vigo’s Zéro de Conduite and Lindsay Anderson’s later If…, Schlöndorff makes it clear that, in fact, these beastly behaving students are not at all rebelling against the system in which they are entrapped, but use that system and its often implacable and inexplicable values to justify and support their “experiments” on their fellow beings.


     If at moments Törless is disgusted by his fellow student’s actions, in his empirical observation of their behavior he also becomes a paralyzed participant and accomplice, and when he does attempt to stop their hanging their victim upside down from the gym ceiling where he might be beaten to death, it is too late. His classmates circle round the victim to prevent Törless from taking any action to save Basini, and the boy survives only becomes schoolmasters, hearing the hullabaloo in the gym break down the doors, whereafter Törless escapes the entire situation by leaving school for a couple of days before being expelled.

     Yet I agree with critic Timothy Corrigan, whose essay accompanies the Criterion DVD of this film (and who was a former colleague of mine at Temple University) that for Schlöndorff, at least, Törless’ passive participation in the group brutality is not the message of the film.


     If nothing else, Törless does come to recognize through his observations of good and evil, that those qualities do not exist in an either/or situation, but simultaneously co-exist; accordingly, as he blandly comes to perceive—with little more involvement than if he were speaking of “irrational” numbers—that one “has to be on one’s guard” against such human behavior. Törless still appears to blame the victim for allowing himself to become a “slave.”

    Nonetheless, he is the only one who does escape the institution that will help to create the generations of future monsters who will come to kill irrational numbers of their own kind. And, in that fact, he quite evidently will not participate in the Weimar and Nazi worlds. Törless, a bit like Proust’s Swann—the subject of a later Schlöndorff film—will more likely turn to the past as a model for his behavior, escaping into the world of the belle époque—an already dead world—rather than embracing to the raucous brutality of Post World I and World War II.


    The film ends, indeed, with the handsome and precocious young escapee, smiling into the face of his well-bred, beautiful, and somewhat aloof mother, suggesting, perhaps, that Törless is likely to grow into an effete being, saved from the brutality ahead by his refusing to even recognize it.

    

Los Angeles, November 9, 2015

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (November 2015).

John McTiernan | Die Hard / 1988

how to live with a mistake

by Douglas Messerli

 

Steven E. de Souza and Jeb Stuart (screenplay, based on the novel Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp), John McTiernan (director) Die Hard / 1988

 

I never think of myself as a moviegoer even slightly interested in what is generally called “action” movies. I abhor violence, I am a firm believer in gun-control, and have never been interested in what I perceive as the macho-boy-American shoot-em-up, beat-em-up, kick-butt genres of American film-making that seems to do just fine at the box-office despite my inevitable indictments. Clint Eastwood’s early “make my day” moxie and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s rustling muscle-headed Austrian accented insinuations have left me cold.

      How to explain, then, my delight in films such as John McTiernan’s Die Hard or Wolfgang Petersen’s Air Force One, both motion pictures which I have watched numerous times with intense pleasure. I might explain away the second as a kind of political thriller—which I may explore in another essay— but the first….? There are always exceptions when one loves movies! Perhaps even my title of this essay might explain it, “How to Live with a Mistake,” a line from the film itself.


      In fact, every single figure in this tautly written film about a seemingly “terrorist” takeover of a high rise tower in Los Angeles’ Century City—a building I daily glimpse from the street behind my condominium—must ultimately ask that question, from the failed man at the center of this film, New York cop J. M. McClane (Bruce Willis), to the wizard terrorist-thief Hans Gruber (the wonderful Alan Rickman), from the Twinkie-loving (please note: I did not say “twink-loving), perceptive black-and-white policeman, Sgt. Al Powell (Reginald VelJohnson), to the idiotically blind, manual-reading LA policeman and F.B. I. agents!

      Certainly the “story,” as in many such films, is of little importance. A group of pretend German terrorists takes over the 30th floor—the offices of the Japanese Nakatomi Corporation, where the staff is busy celebrating Christmas Eve—in order to steal the corporations’ 600,000 million in bonds in its safe. What does very much matter, however, are the intense details of the plot the team has hatched in order to accomplish the task, and part of the joy of this movie is the precision in which the villains employ their complex machinations as they move from simple takeover, to the involvement of local L.A. police authorities, to the appearance of F.B.I. agents—all calculated with evil relish in an attempt to capture the complex codes to the safe, in the end, by forcing the governmental agents to close down the entire electrical gridwork to the Westside Los Angeles neighborhood—on Christmas Eve nonetheless!

      Of far greater background significance is the fact that the New York policeman McClane has determined to come “home” for the holidays to his estranged, super-capable executive wife, Holly Gennaro-McClane (Bonnie Bedelia), whom he has, in a standard 1980s sexual stand-off, refused to comprehend as the superior income producer, preferring to remain entrenched in his New York police activities. McClane, in short, is an outsider visiting what he perceives as a very strange new world of Los Angeles—a man feeling completely incapable of fitting into that new world he encounters. But, of course, once all hell breaks loose, with the terrorists-thieves imposing themselves upon this alternative space, he feels right at home, determined to save the day, and finally coming to the realization through his involvement with the local authorities—particularly with the personable hometown cop—that is needed and belongs.

     The cop, like McClane, has made a mistake: Sgt. Powell has accidentally killed a 13 year-old boy, and consequently has never been able to use a gun again. Every last one of the authorities and individuals of this film, in turn, share McClane’s dilemma: all are men who make ridiculous mistakes. Only he, as the film’s hero and the local former street cop get the opportunity to correct their ways. And that is, quite obviously, the center of the film’s frenetic action.



     Throughout most of this work, McClane, playing out a kind of Roy Rogers cowboy sensibility while dressed as a barefoot, white tee-shirted tortured Christ—growing more and more bloodied as the scenes progress—finally redeems himself. Willis plays the role with a kind of macho sarcasm that is so endearing that you’d have to be a Grinch to hate the man. And he is, in the end, a true hero, along with his slouching beast of a limo driver, Argyle, waiting in the building’s underground garage to carry his fare to Bethlehem. Along the way, the film shows that not only the terrorists, but local news reporters and even phone police responders are equally incompetent—none of them having been prepared for the evil intrusion upon holiday events.

     But the truly important elements of this film have little to do with those interesting plot resonances. For at its heart McTiernan’s film is an abstract portrayal of a single man against the industrialized complex. Even the company head, Nakatomi executive Joseph Yoshiobut Takagi (James Shigeta), shot to death early in the movie, has no control over the company computer codes nor the dark computerized controls of the spaces of the building in which his company is housed. In fact, no one—employees, the cop McClane, the local police, nor F.B.I agents—seems to comprehend the extensive limits of the world they are facing. Only the so-called terrorists have recognized the extent of the inhuman forces the society has created, and they easily make use of this in their attempts to close it down and control it. What McClane must single-handedly discover is just how dark that world is and to 

discern a way to turn it into a situation which he might, as a single human being, control.


      I watched this film, this time around—I’d previously seen the film on the large screen and on television several times—on a Netflix DVD played on my computer. Every time I stopped the film for a bathroom break, a glass of wine, or a telephone interruption, I came back to a scene that was hardly recognizable: a shadow of a being spread across the space of a concrete wall, an eye peering through a strange concrete structure of a horizontal slit, McClane staring down the shaft of an endless elevator well. Time and again, individuals are placed along a corner of descending steel walls, cornered against cascading electrical cables, forced to propel themselves against panels of glass. At other times McClane even uses his symbolic penis (his stolen machine gun) to pinion himself along a strap dangling, spider-like, into what seems like interminable space. Bodies are spewed from crashed-through windows. Entire floors of empty offices neatly set up in rows of computers are machine-gunned down into the glass components of their capsuled entities. As much as this is a battle of man against man, this film portrays—far more effectively—a world in which man is at war with the societal constructs he has created, a world of concrete, glass, and fiber-optics.


       The actual encounter with the enemy, McLane and his wife against the evil Gruber, is a comic one, the ridiculous “Roy Rogers” facing off his evil opponent with an absurd Christmas greeting, his wife finally loosing Gruber’s grip so that he falls from that 30th floor into empty space. Film lore recounts that McTiernan let Rickman fall several moments before the time he was to have been released, the shock of that early abandonment clearly registered on the actor’s startled face.

     Most of the film, accordingly, has not been just a battle of man against man, but a man against an environment he might never have expected—a high-rise creation that has been made to operate by itself, systems perverted by clever manipulators. In a strange sense, Die Hard is a kind of prelude to the attack of Taliban-captured planes on The World Trade Center. Everybody—the C.I.A, the F.B.I, the entire American government—had not perceived the possibility of such an immense attack; they had made a vast mistake with which we still must live today, which explains, perhaps, the three other sequels of this masterful film. We are still surely haunted by such a grand mistake.

      McClane, strangely enough, is a quite innocent hero. His only real failure was to have given up a relationship with his wife out of generational male role preoccupations. In McTiernan’s fantasy, he saves the day—and saves his relationship in the process. But in real life, the Grubers of the world—both real terrorists and Wall Street robber barons—can easily destroy our societies, through the very constructions pre-determined to control the world in which we live. 

       

Los Angeles, December 13, 2014

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (December 2014).

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...