Friday, March 20, 2026

Ulrike Ottinger | Dorian Gray im Spiegel der Boulevardpresse (Dorian Gray in the Mirror of the Yellow Press) / 1984

that’s entertainment

by Douglas Messerli

 

Ulrike Ottinger (screenplay and director) Dorian Gray im Spiegel der Boulevardpresse (Dorian Gray in the Mirror of the Yellow Press) / 1984

 

Beginning in the early 1970s German artist and film director Ulrike Ottinger began making her own fantasy, slightly surreal films that involved elaborate stories, often stolen from myth, the cartoon world, fiction, and other works of cinema. Her earliest work, from 1972 was Laokoon & Söhne (Laocoön & Sons), and by the late 70s she was ready to embark upon her great Berlin trilogy with Ticket of No Return (1979), followed up by the second episode Freak Orlando (1981), and the film I discuss here, Dorian Gray in the Mirror of the Yellow Press (1984).


     These films were not directly linked, but together presented an emblematic vision of the German city that somewhat like Alfred Döblin’s masterwork Berlin Alexanderplatz, was adapted to film at least once before Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s important TV adaptation in 1980. Instead of being dominated by the male views of the everyman Franz Bieberkopf and the evil villain Reinhold Hoffmann, Ottinger’s works were focused upon women, notably feminist and lesbian, presenting views which might also be broken down into issues of good and evil, but were played out for more eccentrically in elaborately costumed and scenic works involving various genres.    

     The last work of her trilogy, Dorian Gray, for example incorporates a kind of murder mystery-detective story, opera, and elements of cabaret, while overall approaching something close to an anatomy of the Berlin world from those in the highest echelons of society—the evil newspaper chain executive Frau Dr. Mabuse (the remarkable actor Delphine Seyrig) and her socialite friends, Dorian Gray (the actor Veruschka von Lehndorff in drag), and others—to those in the lowest depths of the society who Dorian encounters through an amazing voyage with Mabuse into the underworld.

      Even in the names of her major figures, Ottinger has tipped her hat to notable works of cinema and fiction: Mabuse, of course, is a reference to the fictional villain of Norbert Jacques’ 1921 fiction—the character itself a version of other cinematic villains such as Dr. Fu Manchu, Svengali, and the figure of Fantômas, as well as Dr. Caligari of  The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari—made even more famous by Fritz Lang’s three films Dr. Mabuse the Gambler (1922), The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (1933), and The Thousand Eyes of Dr. Mabuse (1960); one of Ottinger’s assistants is named Golem (Magdalena Montezuma), a reference to the Hebrew folklore of a clay figure brought to life and to Paul Wegener’s and Paul Boese’s 1921 film version of that myth The Golem; and, of course, Oscar Wilde’s The Picture Dorian Gray, re-recreated in dozens of cinematic representations.

      But while Ottinger’s characters may call up all of their previous personas, they are not at all imitations of the original figures, but merely inhabit their names, females who have hatched out of the male shells to become utterly transformed and interesting in far more complex ways, often, than their original male identities might have permitted. Although Ottinger’s Mabuse is most certainly evil—Seyrig speaking in a mumble of languages and letting out from time to time one of the most hilariously terrifying cackles ever captured in motion pictures—she is also a truly dynamic force, as imaginative and inventive in her interlinked plots as not only Mabuse but the more recent Ian Fleming’s James Bond villains Buonaparte Ignace Gallia (Mr. Big), Dr. Julius No, and Auric Goldfinger.

    The plot is far too complex to outline here, and its variations are not truly crucial to fuller comprehension of the film, but basically it involves a transition from reporting the major celebrity gossip stories of the day to actually making them up, a simple alteration that Mabuse argues to her various newspaper executives will raise the sales significantly. Planning to employ the wealthy and narcissistic playboy Dorian Gray, Mabuse hopes to involve him in a romance that becomes a scandal ending in tragic death, selling millions of copies of her various papers worldwide.     


      Mabuse not only worms her way into Gray’s fairly organized and aesthetic life (made of up lectures, charity events, and interviews controlled primarily by his incredible cook / butler / secretary Hollywood (Toyo Tanaka), inviting him to a memorable open air opera where he falls in love with the work’s star Aldamana (Tabea Blumenschein), and soon after taking him through a night-long tour of the underworld where he smokes opium, and observes the mutual murder of two sailors. The meeting up of the two young lovers, Dorian and Aldamana, their breakup out over his nightlife affairs, and their eventual reunion and marriage is also secretly and openly filmed by Mabuse’s spies. Ultimately, Aldamana’s death is arranged (in part because of her willing involvement in Mabuse’s plot to manipulate Dorian and the fear she might reveal the truth) and the murder of Dorian himself when he has outlived his usefulness.   

     But the real substance of the film are the major two events organized by Mabuse: the opera about the Happy Islands and new ruler Don Luis de la Cerda and the various set vignettes of the underground tour. In these central elements of the film we perceive that Ottinger’s cinema does not behave at all like more traditional European and American subtle psychologically-centered fictions, but didactically emblematizes and frame major moral issues of Western culture in a manner more associated with Bertholt Brecht.


    Just as the major frame of the story, Mabuse and her newspaper syndicate clearly signifies the control of the media on our daily lives, revealing its manipulation of the everyday man through the seeming populist evaluation of gossip and celebrity culture over politics and the independent analysis of information, so does the opera convey the story of how the major nations colonize and abuse native cultures throughout the world.

      Composed Peer Raben (the creator also of many of Fassbinder’s film scores) the opera features a young naïve man just made the Prince by the Pope and Spanish King to rule over their new colony The Happy Islands. There he discovers another King already in a power, a beautiful, almost naked ruler Aldamana. Briefly the two battle over their positions, but soon sitting down together to get to know more of one another, fall in love and begin living in the native manner, much to the disconcertion of the local priest, sent to the islands by the Pope. 

       Before they know it the months pass by and so too the date by which the new Prince must pay 400 gold guilders or lose his kingdom. Before long, a ship arrives bearing the young Prince’s uncle, the Grand Inquisitor of Seville, whose soldiers round up the natives to convert or kill them, demanding the island’s natural foods and spices be marketed, and the Prince himself dethroned, Aldamana killed.

       With beautiful natural sets of nature, marvelous costumes, and glorious voices we become engaged with in the opera itself, spinning before us much if its tale that has little do with the nefarious plots of Mabuse—except to introduce Dorian to the actor who plays Aldamana—takes us into another world that to many viewers might seem not only interruptive but extraneous. Yet most of the pleasure of this film lies in our patient observation of these long set-pieces, as if other films, more in the manner of Fellini or even Marcel Carné in this first example, were dropped into the original like pop-up illustrations in the midst of a larger storybook.

       So too is our long tour through the underworld led by Mabuse as if evil herself were guiding the mostly innocent Dorian through what the general population mistakenly perceives as evil, but is really simply a kind of comic rendition of various deadly sins. The evening begins with a lavish feast by a fountain, where the servers of large platters of rare foods place them, one by one, in the small waterway, floating them down to their diners, Mabuse and Dorian.

     A much abused bureaucrat comes every night to sit in a bathtub waiting passersby who might torture and abuse him, a pleasure unfortunately that his lost the interest of the general crowd. How delighted he is when one man appears to piss on him before going on his way again.

    A leather-clad lesbian couple engage in a kissing session for everyone to watch.


    In an episode that might be right out of Genet’s and Fassbinder’s Querelle, two sailor boys kiss, pull away, and pull out knives, alternately threatening each other and embracing and kissing before returning to their violent fight which ends in their stabbing each other to death.

     A Haitian woman casts a spell and stabs a voodoo doll in front of a startled virgin Mary, Mary herself perhaps being the incarnation of the doll since she screams so loudly and horridly that Dorian cannot bear it and speeds away.

   A set got up as a strip club features three overweight, large-breasted women who dance, one marching like a Nazi with workers looking on who eventually joining the women on stage to dance, Dorian dancing inexplicably with a leather boy instead of one of the girls or even a sailor.

   And finally, Mabuse leaves him with dancing Siamese twins who eventually move down from a platform to join him, Dorian soon after finding himself in a small circular bin among others smoking opium.


    These tableaux vivants or living statues brilliantly demonstrate aspects of a world apart from the ordinary lives of the bourgeoise who make up Mabuse’s audience. No judgment is made about these “types,” and indeed Mabuse and Dorian find them all interesting to observe and, in Dorian’s case, to engage with. But it is apparent that these kinds of “sins” are fascinating to Mabuse’s audience because of their difference and abhorrence.

      By comparison, Mabuse and her three wonderful assistants—the already mentioned Golem, Passat (played by Fassbinder regular Irm Hermann), and Susy (Barbara Valentin)—trapped in their plastic-covered world of TV screens that display journalistic updates around the world and in a board room with its fatuous and unthinking members seem almost insignificant in its functioning control of the most of the world.

      That is not to say there are not hilarious situations and images there as well. Besuited in a chic plastic black and white suit within which is a hidden phone which except for its constantly rising antenna might almost be perceived as a cellphone long before its day, Mabuse breakfasts American style (a plate of pills) as opposed to continental style and speeds about town with the grace cackling broom-stick-laden witch (rhyming words apply), a figure with which we are also spellbound. Indeed, the first long take during the credits of the evil feminine quartet, heels clacking at the entrance of the headquarters that looks over the Paris sewers with a small flotilla of plastic-covered objects (presumably some sort of electric devices) floating through the winding caverns is an absolutely stunning introduction to the world in which we about to enter.


    And not only do we find in the more mundane world of everyday evil marvelous figures such as Hollywood, but a world of the journalistic elite in a newspaper ball, the walls covered with a papier-mâché collage of old newspapers, board members that attend a meeting in head coverings in the form of roosters, and Dorian’s chauffeur, a dog.

     In short, Ottinger’s film, in its visual overkill, is an astounding experience, difficult even to rationally explain. After a while, we hardly care about the plot, but readily and expectantly—much like Mabuse’s newspaper readers—await the next bit of entertainment it provides.   

      Like all good cartoon-like fables, evil is seemingly routed by film’s end, as Dorian, not as stupid as he seems, recognizes the death in store for him and instead of swallowing up the breakfast American-style-pills, shows up at Mabuse’s doorstep, single-handedly killing off her and her chicken-headed board.


     Soon after he interrupts his own sham burial by driving through the mourners, mowing them down as well. He now is the head of the once evil empire, and we can hope that the three ancient virtues of journalism, Independence, Impartiality, and Objectivity, might be taken out of the archive and brought back into the news room. But given how easily Dorian has been manipulated and the evidence of his own rather empty shell of a life, we certainly must retain our doubts, even given that the well-organized and clever Hollywood will certainly be asked to take up the slack.

 

Los Angeles, November 21, 2022 | Reprinted from World Cinema Review (November 2022). 

 

Marek Kanievsky | Another Country / 1984

disappointing gods

by Douglas Messerli

 

Julian Mitchell (writer), Marek Kanievsky (director) Another Country / 1984

 

It’s a bit hard to comprehend what director Marek Kanievsky or the original playwright, Julian Mitchell, are actually trying to say in Another Country. It appears, at least from the opening scene, that in telling his story about his Eton years in the 1930s, British-born Russian spy Guy Burgess—in the film called Guy Bennett—is somehow explaining why he became the notorious spy he has become. But despite all appearances, it seems fairly ridiculous to blame it all of Bennett’s inability to become one of the head prefects, called “Gods,” at his institution, as the reason he has turned against democracy.


     Certainly, conditions in the wealthy school were not truly democratic. Kanievsky goes out of his way to show us a repressive and snobbish school society that, at moments, looks very much like the Soviet Kremlin-controlled world. The youngest of the schoolboys are forced to polish lamps, shine boots, and do the most menial of jobs. But even the older schoolboys, played by actors who are far too old to really be called schoolboys, are subject to the whims of the “Gods” and intrusions of their teachers. And this schoolboy nightmare world, like Bennett’s home, is obviously “another country.”

      Even the discovery of a couple boys mutually masturbating ends in the tragic suicide of one of them. Prayers are ordered by the dislikeable head prefect, as the senior students try to hush up the event. House captain Fowler (Tristan Oliver) is fond of militaristic maneuvers that do remind one of worst of dictator-controlled societies. These years, after all, did lead to World War II.

      Clearly, the only joys these boys have are of the sexual kind—mostly with one another. But we know that, just as have their fathers, most of them will grow up to be brutal and self-controlled heterosexuals in the manner of those portrayed in fictions by Evelyn Waugh, E. M. Forster, and others. All well-educated British schoolboys simply went through such a seemingly “homosexual” period in their lives. Those who didn’t grow out of it, like Forster, Alan Turing, and thousands of others were threatened with exposure and imprisonment.


      Guy Bennett (Rupert Everett) is most definitely gay, and has evidently had sex with nearly all of his peers except his best friend, Tommy Judd (Colin Firth), who, as a Marxist, is apparently more interested in politics that sex; that does not mean that Bennett does not try get him into bed. Everett plays Bennett with great panache, and Kanievsky’s beautiful scenes of him and other beautiful boys, particularly the somewhat younger, James Harcourt (Cary Elwes) give the film, at moments, the quality of a James Ivory movie, a pretty-to-look-at box of historical accuracy.


      Given the nastiness of the feudal order of the school, however, it is difficult to comprehend why Bennett should ever aspire, himself, to become a “God,” or for that matter why it should so destroy him when he is passed over, primarily for his homosexuality. With the young Harcourt, Bennett seems so romantically inclined—the young couple mostly sitting on boats, Harcourt’s head laid upon Everett’s handsome body—it is hard to imagine that what he is truly seeking is power. Perhaps the director and writer, somewhat subtly, are alluding to the attraction of many German homosexuals, during the same period, to Nazism.

      Bennett’s behavior is so “out there,” that it is no surprise that, after the young masturbator’s death, the “Gods” are out to punish him. He escapes the cane by threatening to tell that nearly every one of them has enjoyed his company. Only when the young Harcourt might be “outed” does he accept his punishment.

      How he went from his desire to “rule” the other boys to become a diplomatic spy is never explained, only intimated to the above. The Marxist, meanwhile, so we are told in the epilogue, has gone on to die in Spain, fighting for Spanish democratic cause, suggesting, perhaps, that they both went in different directions than what seemed to be their natural courses.

      If nothing else, we recognize that a dictatorial education surely leads to desire for just such a world as an adult. But then, Robert Musil had shown us that, far better, in his 1906 novel The Confessions of Young Törless.

 

Los Angeles, September 4, 2017

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (September 2017).

Glenn Jordan | Mass Appeal / 1984

the priceless lunatic

by Douglas Messerli

 

Bill C. Davis (screenplay, based on his own play), Glenn Jordan (director) Mass Appeal / 1984

 

I come from a church-going family. Both my mother and father were Elders in their local Presbyterian church (the ecclesiastical equivalent of the local version of the US government’s Congress) and two of my mother’s male siblings became ministers, one Presbyterian and the other Methodist—which might suggest something about the Lutheran Church in which they grew up. As the first born child in a family which would eventually produce something like 36 first cousins, I used the banister of my grandmother’s staircase as a pulpit where I pretended to sermonize at family gatherings to the joy and laughter of several aunts and uncles. I dreamed of becoming a missionary—not because, I soon realized, I had any desire to spread religious doctrine but rather because I imagined it as an opportunity to travel to all sorts of exotic places throughout the world. I still love to travel, although long voyages no longer love me.

      My parents were not particularly religiously-inclined in our home, but we did attend church nearly every Sunday, and I sang throughout my high-school years in the church choir. Even during my first couple of years of college I continued to attend the campus religious center because I loved to sing chorale music and had a fairly-well trained tenor voice, participating in university chorale groups as well. But I had long since lost all interest in the sermons and other aspects of the service. Ministers, I had concluded, spoke a language to their congregations that invoked clichéd words of consolation and repeated moral homilies that had long ago lost any real meaning. I was convinced that many students had delivered better talks in my Speech 101 class. And soon after, when I realized finally that I no longer shared any of my fellow attendees’ religious beliefs, I stopped church-going altogether. As a humanist agnostic I have never since entered a church except for weddings and funerals.



       I begin with this confession to give some context to my feelings while watching, the other day, Glenn Jordon’s 1984 film Mass Appeal, based on a play by Bill C. Davis, in which a Catholic priest, Father Tim Farley (Jack Lemmon) does precisely what I describe above in his pre-mass lectures: appeal to the masses with folksy asides and commentaries that give a sense of inclusion by dropping the names each week of many of those in attendance. If he occasionally takes up serious issues, such as ”Should Women Become Priests?” he immediately dilutes any open candor and challenges with clever asides, wrapping his entire discussion within a comic riff:

 

                           Last night while I was thinking about our three C’s series [Current

                           Crises in Catholicism]...and I fell asleep. No, I was straining over the

                           most recent crisis that has faced our church today. and consequently

                           I dreamed that Bette Davis was ordained a priest. ...Of course I

                           remember when the big moral question was should we chew the

                           host or let it melt in our mouths.

 

     Meanwhile, a young man (Željko Ivanek) on his daily jog through the neighborhood who has dropped into Father Farley’s sermon turns the priest’s comedic toying on its head by pushing the priest’s postulations into a straight-forward challenge: “What do you think of women becoming priests?” Once more Farley attempts to deflect the question at the heart of his moral dialogue: “What do I think....I wouldn’t want to sway anybody’s viewpoint, so I’ll plead the fifth.”


     The intruder continues: “I think women should be priests.” “Well, that’s one opinion, isn’t it?” the slightly flustered priest snips back. “Don’t you want to know why I think women...” “By all means, don’t be shy,” Farley interrupts. “When Christ was crucified, only three people stayed with him until the very end, and two of the three were women. At the foot of the cross was his youngest apostle (“yeh, John” Farley quickly inserts to assure his congregation that he has not forgotten his biblical studies), his mother, and an ex-hooker. On his way to being crucified it was a woman who pushed her way through a very hostile crowd and wiped all the blood and male spit off his face. And the first person he appeared to after his resurrection was Mary Magdalene. Now don’t you think that the courage and loyalty that these women showed the actual person Jesus is in his image?”

     Farley’s nasty response summarizes his anger for this stranger having upstaged his act (which is later compared by the same man as being somewhat like a nightclub comedy routine): “You really should invest in a portable pulpit.”

     So we recognize in this interchange that beneath whatever large tale this story might wish to tell, the real focus of Mass Appeal is the crisis soon to be faced by this popular priest, who, after some bitter times, worked hard to transform himself into someone his parishioners love through white lies, pleasant banter, “stupid” consolation (Farley’s own words, arguing “Consolation should be stupid. That way a person in grief can realize how inconsolable their grief really is.”), equivocation, and escape (often through the wine he regularly consumes in his church office, giving Lemmon an opportunity at moments to reprise his role in Days of Wine and Roses).

    The young man who has just challenged Farley is a local seminarian, Mark Dolson, asked by Monsignor Thomas Burke (Charles Durning) to attend the priest’s mass. The faculty of the seminary have also been troubled by Dolson’s questions and moral intractability which has made them and Burke seriously wonder about ordaining him as a Deacon, the last step before entering the priesthood. Perhaps Farley, the Monsignor will soon suggest, might mentor him, helping to smooth away the rough honesty of his faith.


      But before that issue, the Monsignor has called a meeting to discuss the fate of two other soon-to-be deacons, good friends of Dolson’s, who are suspected of having a homosexual relationship. We never meet these seminarians, nor are we given any evidence of their relationship (although Dolson does attempt to defend them by suggesting that Christ may have had a “loving” relationship with John), but we are assured that, when ordained, they were committed to living celibate lives.

      One is tempted, obviously, to wonder how a church that has so long hidden and supported hundreds of gay men who later abused children could be so troubled about a possible homosexual affair between the two grown students studying to become priests. But that, in fact, may explain, in part, Burke’s position; he cannot abide any sexuality to exist within the confines of the church, which anyone might argue is at the heart of the problem with which the Roman Catholic Church is faced. People are born (a religious person might say “created) as sexual beings; and despite church desires, people are seldom saints. To deny them any sexual expression is a kind of sin of omission one well might argue.

      Yet, Jordan and Davis’ film, in the manner of the glib priest Farley, makes no attempt to truly explore these issues, instead putting any more level-headed considerations in the mouths of the ineffectual Farley and the rabidly righteous Dolson, as, against his inclinations, the Monsignor allows Dolson to become a Deacon on the condition that Farley make him over within the small time-frame of one month.


      Indeed the film turns its full attention, soon after the presumably gay seminarians’ dismissal, to the interchanges between the older and younger, affable and irascible opponents, Farley and Dolson. At first it appears to be a study in annoyance, as each of the two refuses to bow to the other’s demands; but obviously in such a structural set-up we know that both men will gradually discover values in the other from which they can benefit. From the beginning the more experienced Farley perceives Dolson as a “priceless lunatic” which, he argues, the Church needs in order to survive, while recognizing that such lunatics have little ability to sustain their own survival.

       Farley attempts to re-frame and refine a written sermon that Dolson has created, explaining the tactics of delivery and strategies of communication: when the listeners begin to cough, he warns his pupil, it is a sign that the sermon is not going well. Dolson’s first sermon results in nearly a contagion of coughers and hackers, but instead of retreating he moves frighteningly forward with passages that Farley had previously asked him to cut. The result is a near revolt from Farley’s parishioners with complaints filed to Burke.


       The intolerant Monsignor now suspects that in his support of and friendship with the two expelled seminarians, Dolson himself might be gay, in short arguing not just without evidence but positing guilt simply by association. Finally, Farley is forced to recognize the injustice of the situation, the priest, in turn, indirectly confessing to his disciple that as a child he had been beaten by his father who left his family, his mother remarrying a man he hated which resulted in his inability to show his mother any love until, too late for him to express it, she died.

     For his part, Dolson admits that before he entered the seminary he had explored love with both sexes, but unable to find the kind of love he was seeking took refuge in his commitment to the God.

      Both men, in short, have failed in love. And Farley gives the young man an opportunity to explore that topic in a final sermon in his church which he believes will convince both his congregation and the Monsignor of Dolson’s abilities.

     The sermon—in which the young Deacon reveals his failure for having lost the ability to hear the voices of those to whom he most sought to speak, namely the audience to whom he is presently presenting his message—is finally a successful one, with many of Farley’s congregation highly evaluating it, proof Farley believes that will convince Burke to change his mind.

     But it is already too late. Ignoring his mentor’s advice to keep his previous explorations of love a secret, the naïve “lunatic” openly tells Dolson that he has had sex with both men and women.

     By the time that Farley helps him to perceive that he has sealed his own fate but possibly endangered Farley’s own future in the parish he loves, Dolson has returned to his seminary bedroom to pack up his clothes, another victim of the Monsignor’s and perhaps the Church’s homophobia.

        Visiting him in that room, Farley admits that he has been ineffectual because of his inability to give up what he has worked all his life to achieve, being loved and admired. “I need them,” he admits. “I really do.” Dolson assures him that he truly understands and consoles him (not so different from Farley’s own attempts at consolation) that he will find another place where they might take him—perhaps even in Iowa, the standing joke that Farley has made about where Monsignor Burke may relocate him. Actually, Iowa, my home state, might be a good place for an outspoken lunatic like Dolson; maybe he might convince younger versions of me that religion is not simply a dangerous farce.

         As a wizened, hopefully wiser old queer, I can only wish that all the Dolsons might return to the everyday human race to search out the love they never found. If the church is in need of such “priceless” lunatics so are our secular cities and towns.

        If nothing else, this young runner has jogged some sense into his head: “During those 3 years [when he was exploring love] whenever I was with someone I loved loved me, I did everything I could to keep it constant. Bit by bit I learned all the rules. What to say, what to give, what to withhold so I could keep that love constant. ....I found out that the constant was up to me. Promises are broken. Friends will be fickle and love goes its own course. And all of it has to finally not matter. [Shifting the conversation to the priest] What you believe has got to be more important than what your congregation thinks of you.”

        The problem lies, as Farley reiterates, in knowing what you believe.

        I believe this well-meaning film is not as profound as it believes itself to be.

 

Los Angeles, January 11, 2021

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

 

Amanda Overton | T / 2008

the homoneurotic world

by Douglas Messerli

 

Amanda Overton (screenwriter and director) T / 2008 [6 minutes]

 

This film takes place in the future, in a dystopian society where government has controlled the lives of it citizens (any day soon), and now reinforces strict gender binaries and demands heterosexual behavior through memory deletion and reprogramming.

     Jade (Jenn Page) finds herself almost in a trance staring at a statue of a woman, and then as the general announcement of the 9:00 hour of the family Freedom act commands her to seek shelter since the neighborhood task force is about to restore safety to the streets, being forced to scurry away, set on the run as two soldiers (Jeff Hersh and James Crawford) march in lockstep behind her.

     Suddenly arms pull her in, a hand placed over her mouth. Almost as if she is being kidnapped, the other being, also a woman, Kiley (Abby Eiland), drags Jade inside an apartment obviously belonging to Kiley, whom we quickly recognize works as a photographer.


      There, behind doors, she gently strokes Jade’s face, and after a few minutes, Kiley returns the gesture, a bit terrified by her own actions, but obviously lost in the sensual moment. Almost immediately Kiley attaches a device to her temporal lobe, a spot critical in hearing, memory, language comprehension, and emotional processing.

      Over the next few moments, Jade experiences blips of memory from the past when she sees herself kissing the other woman and making love. It is quite apparent that before the governmental reprogramming efforts, these two women were lesbian lovers.


      Even as they come alive again, momentarily reliving the past, there are pounds on the door, demands to open up. Kiley quickly hides Jade in a backspace behind the door and opens it, as the task force breaks in having acquired the “deviant.”

      Weeks later Jade encounters Kiley now as a patient, having been fully divested of her memory, being dragged along the halls as Jade passes by. Only a slight smile of memory is what Jade can permit herself. Her friend has obviously given up her own life so that Jade can repossess the past of their deep love.


      Overton, now a noted television writer with series credits for Marco Polo, Severance, Edge and other popular works, notes that T was her first film at the University of Southern California as a student, shot on 16mm film. She admits, “I had not clue what I was doing!!” Yet her talent was obviously visible in this short sci-fi film.

      The biggest question of this work is what the “T” of the title represents: truth, the telling or transmitting of it, transgender, or perhaps just the image of the “T” itself, like a body shouldering the history of the past. We can only hope that Jade can someday nab Kiley back our of the conformity of this brave new homoneurotic world and reveal her their past all over again. In other words, the clue to salvation lies in discovering just how successful are the government’s attempts to wipe all memory from the individual mind.

 

Los Angeles, March 20, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (March 2026).

 

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...