Wednesday, June 24, 2026

Adriana González-Vega | Junito / 2017

a protecting hand

by Douglas Messerli

 

Adriana González-Vega (screenwriter and director) Junito / 2017 [13 minutes]

 

A caring and loving Puerto Rican father José (Gabriel Leyva) notices that his son Luisito (Ydiel Cruz) is being dismissed as “effeminate” not only by his grandmother and older brother Juanma (Alex Cruz), but by his own wife. And he perceives how the young boy is not at all interested in the basketball activities of his older brother, and is mocked by the others around him as well.


     José is a welder, who formerly hung out with the local toughs at a nearby bar, but is now working hard to support and protect his family. The relationship he has with his children, particularly with Luisito, is palpable, and the child, in return, adores his father as opposed to his constantly correcting and impatient mother, who only sees his behavior as something flawed which needs to be opposed.

     He is offered a job in Boston, but it would mean completely uprooting his family, and his wife is clearly opposed to a move to the cold north of the USA. He puts off the offer as long as he can.

     But when he notices how suddenly, in the very midst of a pool game, his friends suddenly go after a local man, Junito (Nelson Javier Rivera), whom they describe as the “butterfly,” he is appalled.


     As they begin to beat the effeminate, well-groomed older Junito, José attempts to break it up, but even his friends describe him as wanting to bed the “butterfly” and protecting him for his own interests. As he helps the harmless man to his feet, José realizes just how absurd their hate is.

      In disgust, he returns home, finally determined to make the move where things might be more open and where he own son might grow up without being, as is Junito, harassed and assaulted by the macho culture in which he exists.

      The film ends with his sending his own family off to live with relatives while he plans to travel to Boston and find a home before he calls for them to join him.

       As José establishes right from the beginning in the narration: “"First of all, I'm a man, a real man. You know, just to be clear." But he quickly realizes that that very attitude is behind the hate and dismissal that men like Junito, and perhaps in the future his own beloved son, have to endure.

       Without shouting out any credos, Puerto Rican director and writer Adriana González-Vega establishes that love cuts through all the differences, as this young father grows quickly to perceive the need to protect his son, along with his wife and older son, from the prejudices of a patriarchal culture.

       The child is not necessarily gay, at least not yet, but is clearly just different from the others, and José clearly wants to protect his child to discover what those differences might mean in his life. Judgment is held in abeyance, as unlimited love is proffered in its place.

       Whereas Luisito’s mother is constantly slapping his hands as he reaches out to explore the world in ways she cannot comprehend, José is, metaphorically speaking, a protective hand, willing to help the boy openly explore the world into which he was born.

 

Los Angeles, June 24, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (June 2026).

 

Ettore Scola | Una giornata particolare (A Special Day) / 1977

another day

by Douglas Messerli

 

Maurizio Costanzo, Ruggero Maccari, and Ettore Scola (writers), Ettore Scola (director) Una giornata particolare (A Special Day) / 1977

 

If you can believe that Sophia Loren is a somewhat frumpy housewife and Marcello Mastroianni is a homosexual about to be shipped off to Sardinia by the Fascist government, the two of whom meet in a large public housing complex nearly emptied out by the fact that on their “Special Day” Il Duce is meeting Hitler for a public celebration of their new political pact; and if you can imagine that this unlikely couple—who accidently collide in that vast apartment building because of the escape through an open window of Loren’s pet myna bird—find a moment a solace apart from their own desolate lives through sex (and as someone who has just watched this 1977 film directed by Ettore Scola I believe these fictional circumstances completely), then you are in for a poignant 106 minutes of cinematic delights.


    Even when I admit, moreover, that Scola’s film does present a fictional world, given the fact that hundreds like the Mastroianni character (Gabriele) were arrested for homosexual activities or even suspicion of it (see Paul Rowley’s 2018 documentary, The Red Tree for a recounting of the Fascist government’s imprisonment, mostly on islands far smaller than Sardinia, of gay and political prisoners) and simply recognizing that there may have been an equal number of overworked and uneducated housewives such as Antonietta, forced by their Fascist-party husbands to stay and home and bear new babies, particularly since a seventh child resulted in a government-sponsored financial perk—we might almost describe this fictional incident as representative of a series of unpleasant truths.

     The interchanges between the gay anti-fascist Gabriele and the dissatisfied Antonietta are at first rather predictable, with the former politely inviting in the would-be intruder and even helping her retrieve her bird who had flown up near his window from the busy housewife’s residence below. What saves this rather mundane gathering of small-talk and sexual misconceptions (when Antonietta returns to her unit, she observes that Gabriele has moved to his phone, presuming he is calling his girlfriend) is cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis’s astounding shifts of the camera’s focus from the cramped internal rooms of Antonietta’s flat as she gathers her husband (John Vernon) and six children for chaotic awakening, dressing, and breakfast before she begins to attend to bed-making, clothes-washing and dishwashing to the open-lensed portrayal of the vast gathering of these familial units as, all called into this super-Fascist celebration, individuals and family groupings come stumbling, marching, and finally running out of their equally Fascist-like residential tower.


     The moment the film has moved into deep focus, particularly given the fact that we are now suddenly left alone with just three individuals, Gabriele, Antonietta, and the nosey gossipy caretaker who, through her radio broadcast, provides us with updates from the world outside, the camera tells us far more about the lives of the couple than their own developing conversations.

      Gabriele, the anti-Fascist who is about to lose all of his freedoms, is busy in his personal warren in sorting books for others to later claim and is making his last contacts with his friend/lover? Although we can easily trace his movements as Antonietta does and, apparently, so has the Italian government, they make little sense without context. A phone call is perceived as being made to a woman, the sorting of books might simply hint at a change of residence instead of imprisonment, and his gentle kindness—he invites his guest to coffee and attempts to offer her a book, The Three Musketeers, Dumas’ tale which speaks of the central characters’ battle against the injustices, abuses, and absurdities they discover in the world around them—yet his actions and inner life remain hidden, unreadable by the traditionally-bound Antonietta donna madre, a mother figure who lives up to her feminine responsibilities.


     Yet, if her life seems all too obvious and stereotypical—because her husband is a Fascist, she keeps a scrapbook outlining Mussolini’s political achievements and his proclamations—with most of her life made easily accessible to Gabriele, who, as she attends to her kitchen duties, seeks out in what appears almost to be a secret evaluation of his new acquaintance, she too, so she reveals has some deeper held secrets: her husband is unfaithful and is currently corresponding with a teacher, a woman far more educated than she; and even more importantly he is arrogant and dismissive of his wife.

     As things progress between them (at least in her eyes), with Gabriele attempting to provide her with a little fun by dancing a rumba and, when later helping her to take down the sheets hanging on the rooftop clothes lines, wraps her momentarily in a bedsheet, she mistakes his playful actions as flirtatiousness, responding in like kind.

     Gabriele grows furious with her misapprehensions, and berates her for the sudden transformation into the male stereotype of all Italian women: outwardly prim but inwardly always ready for sex. And she, perhaps for one of the first times in her life, suddenly realizes just how much she has played along with that and other male-determined roles and duties throughout her life.

     Despite Gabriel’s admission that he is gay and the building caretaker’s aspersions that he is also a virulent anti-fascist, Antonietta seeks him out sexually, to which, if for no other reason than recognizing they are both subject to behavioral rules forced upon them, he responds. Well, with Sophia Loren even I might have tried it with a woman!

     Antonietta is startled by how gentle his lovemaking has been, an experience she has never before encountered. For his part Gabriele—whose horn in religious myth announced the resurrection of the dead—reminds her that the experience with her has not resurrected him, that he remains gay and, although able to have sex with women, will not convert to heterosexuality: “Nothing’s changed.”

     But for her everything has changed. As she scurries back to her apartment to serve up a simple meal to her returned family, she takes up the book he has given her, beginning to read until she is distracted through her gaze at his window by the arrival of the Fascist police to take Gabriel away.

     The moment Gabriele turns out the light to his apartment, Antonietta turns back to her kitchen, as the camera returns to its early interiority, the good wife eventually trotting off to her husband’s bed where they will perhaps attempt to produce their seventh offspring, whom he wants to name Adolfo after the Führer.


     The viewer of this film can only perceive that both of these central characters are now imprisoned for their sexual behaviors. If the narrator of The Red Tree is credible, at least the locked-away homosexuals found in one another a sense of community; Antonietta has no such possibility. The only way she might have of escaping her prison would be to abandon her entire family and, despite even what she might learn in books, the values with which she has been indoctrinated remain. The only remaining traces of a new possibility for her exists in her memory of the “special” afternoon with Gabriele, a kind of love she might never experience again, and which her beloved myna bird, a traditional symbol of “undying love,” may now and then remind her.

     Perhaps only Antonietta’s daughters Romana and Maria Luisa (the latter played, ironically, by Alessandra Mussolini, Mussolini’s grand-daughter and Loren’s god-child) might possibility grow up to escape their mother’s entrapment.

 

Los Angeles, August 24, 2020

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (August 2020).   

Wolfgang Petersen | Die Konsequenz (The Consequence) / 1977

against nature

by Douglas Messerli

 

Alexander Ziegler and Wolfgang Petersen (screenplay), Wolfgang Petersen (director) Die Konsequenz (The Consequence) / 1977

 

In the context of today’s absolute hysteria concerning adult/child sex, particularly in the US, German director Wolfgang Petersen, creating the script from a book by Swiss author Alexander Ziegler begins his highly intelligent and emotionally wrenching 1977 film, Die Konsequenz (The Consequence) with a highly improbable hero, Martin Kurath (Jürgen Prochnow), a gay actor/director who has just been arrested and imprisoned for having had a sexual relationship with a 15-year old boy.

     We learn nothing about that relationship, but through the events that occur throughout this film, we presume that there had to be extenuating circumstances and that the boy had consensually participated in their affair.* Yet, given his guilt in the German courts and perhaps the minds of most respectable adults throughout the world, Martin is a child abuser if not a “pervert.” And there is no one on the prison staff who sympathizes with him, he suffering their disdain along with the hostility of several of his fellow inmates.

      Once imprisoned, Martin is approached by a fellow intern attempting to convince him to direct his play within the confines of the prison, a task to which Martin rather reluctantly agrees. His cast made up mostly of prisoners, one playing a female role, also includes the handsome young son, Thomas Manzoni (Ernst Hannawald) of the prison warden (Walo Lüönd). The 17-year old teenager—he tells Martin that his father demands he get a job instead of starting college in the fall, hinting that he is at least of 16, but more likely 17—recognizes himself as gay and immediately develops a crush on the director, despite the warnings of the prison snitch that he should stay away from Martin since he is “queer.”


      We recognize the boy’s eager desire almost immediately after the warning, when Thomas joins Martin where he is sitting and begs for a cigarette, which throughout Petersen’s works becomes almost a symbolic representation of their sexual bonding. As if to corroborate his desires, he asks Martin, “Are you really a queer.”

      The next night Martin, upon returning from rehearsals, finds the almost giddy boy hiding in his prison cell. He immediately warns Thomas of the dangers, but the boy is so hungry for affection that he refuses to leave—besides his father won’t miss him, argues Thomas, since he gets drunk every evening and his mother takes sleeping pills (the boy insists that his father by this time in their bitter marriage has probably even forgotten his wife’s name)—and once the cell has been locked the two are forced to spend the night together, beginning a romantic liaison that includes Thomas providing Martin with a image of himself and secret letters, the boy assuring the elder that he will wait for his release from jail.

       The open alliance of the young son of the homophobic leader of an institution with an older resident reminds me somewhat of Swedish directors’ Lasse Nielsen and Ernst Johansen’s film of a year later, You Are Not Alone (1978), in which an even younger boy, son of the rektor of the school, falls in love with a senior student.

       Although Martin might have been released early for good behavior, the prison snitch sees Martin reading the boy’s letters, forcing the prison head to extend Martin’s sentence for the full two and a-half years to which he has been sentenced. Indeed, Thomas is waiting for him upon Martin’s release, the two overjoyed in the possibility of embarking upon the full expression of their heretofore thwarted love.

     Even though Thomas is now clearly of age, Martin wants still to enter their relationship with openness and honesty, and insists the two visit the Manzoni family, despite Thomas’ warnings. The meeting is not only hostile, with the prison warden insisting that Martin is attempting to “covert” his son to his own sexuality—this despite the boy’s insistence that he is gay and has long been so—and ends in the father severing all connections to his son.


      The two, accordingly, joyously set up house, Martin paying for the young boy to take courses at the local college. Left alone, it is clear the two might have developed a permanent gay relationship, or at least one that would last long enough to see Thomas finish his schooling and enter into a productive life in the society.

      What those who pretend to desire normative societal values seldom recognize is that in delimiting outsider behavior they also help to destroy and corrupt their own supposed social values. In this instance, Thomas’ parents obtain a warrant to return their son as their ward to be incarcerated in a Swiss reformatory. Despite Martin’s attempts to prevent the action, his own past imprisonment only hardens the judge to side in favor of the Manzonis.

       Outwardly, the reform school appears to be almost a model of educational enlightenment, but once within, Thomas perceives that there are no choices in this supposed “educational” institution. Under the “guidance” of the sadist counselor Diethelm, Erzieher (Werner Schwuchow), Thomas is offered a chance to become an arborist, but when he refuses, Diethelm sentences him to the infamous Ward “C,” where harsh discipline replaces any attempt at friendly persuasion, and where some boys have committed suicide from the harshness of their treatment.

       Thomas temporarily escapes to call Martin, only to discover that neither of them have received any of the letters they have written to one another. Martin begins to outline a wild plan to help Thomas escape the confines of the reformatory only to have the conversation interrupted by his recapture by Diethelm, who later punishes the boy by putting out a cigarette on his back.

       Martin’s plan is to buy the fraudulent passport of a Swiss psychiatrist—for which payment is demanded in the form of sexual favors, again suggesting the corruption the two “innocents” must endure to enable them their would-be idyll—which permits him entry into the company of the boys locked away in the reformatory. He finds his beloved friend in almost comatose condition, psychologically effected by Diethelm’s Nazi-like control.

      We see just one of the punishments imposed upon the sensitive Thomas as he is forced to join the other boys on their weekly trip to a nearby shed wherein a young girl, Babette (Elisabeth Fricker) willingly awaits to be gang-fucked. The boys attempt to enforce the heterosexual, so-called normative sexual encounter upon Thomas who successfully battles them off. Petersen and Ziegler make it clear that the true criminals are not necessarily the loving gay men who seek the companionship of a younger male, but the brutal “normal” kids simply venting their pent-up sexual desires, an act of which Diethelm thoroughly approves. If Babette, who must be even younger than 15, does not represent sexual abuse then certainly Martin’s nurturing love cannot be described as such.

       Martin’s plan almost succeeds, as the two, meeting up in Germany seek out the help of a lower official in the German government to allow them a permit to remain together in Germany. Yet we recognize what these true innocents only gradually begin suspect: that even here they are being betrayed as the official first suggests they visit his estate, where he obsequiously exhibits a heterosexual sex tape for them, part of his larger porno collection.

        The next day, he suggests that Martin travel back to his play rehearsals, while he travels on to Bonn with Thomas to settle things with the authorities. Yet Thomas never appears at Martin’s theater, only calling him again months later to say that he has been forced to be the lover of the government figure, but has finally been abandoned and has worked even as a male prostitute. To these two men seeking love, even the gay world has taken advantage of them. Authority of any sort, given their relationship, cannot be trusted.

       Recognizing that none of their good intentions have come to anything, Thomas is prepared to return to the reform school and suffer it out. Surely it cannot be worse than what he has previously had to endure. Before Martin can even begin to try to convince him to return to him, the boy has hung up.

     Time goes on, and Martin has by now acquired a lover of his own age. The ring of his doorbell throughout this film has come almost to symbolize unhappy news, so when it again rings, Martin lets his friend answer it. The boy at the door, Enrico, a school-friend of Thomas, is startled to find another man at the door, but when he finally is admitted tells Martin that Thomas is about to be  released, explaining that his friend would no longer recognize him. First, he has a scar running across his face with which Diethelm awarded upon Thomas’ return to the institution. Thomas is also emotionally unrecognizable, docile, and obedient to authority, with no longer any will of his own. He has even joined the boys on their weekly trip to Babette.


       Martin meets Thomas at the train station near the school, taking him home only discover that his beloved young lover is now nearly alcoholic, bitter, and utterly cynical about their being any possible future between him and Martin. Apologizing for his actions, he leaves Martin apparently forever.

         We already know—since we witnessed the scene early in the film, which, from that perspective has presented the rest of the film as a sort of flashback—what happens. Having taken an overdose of pills, Thomas falls into a lake, to be saved, Martin brought to his side again, after the police ring his doorbell once too many times. Thomas does not respond to Martin’s voice this time, and the convicted former child-abuser can honestly answer the hostile suspicions of authorities: he knows nothing about why Thomas has done this. Yet of course he knows everything, but what can be said: how the bourgeois world with all their good intentions have driven the handsome young boy with whom he fell in love to attempted suicide.

       The doctors diagnose deep depression, but suggest that after a few weeks in their institution he is sure to recover. Over the TV Martin hears a late night report: a young man institutionalized at a mental sanitorium has disappeared. The public is warned that if they see him to approach and “treat him gently.”

       Obviously, you can interpret the lost boy’s condition as representing “the consequence” of what Martin and he have done by plotting out a life different from the societal norm. Yet those words depend upon from which perspective you are looking. I would argue that Thomas’ condition is instead “the consequence” of no one except Martin ever treating him gently, let alone with empathy, sympathy, or love. Labeled as rebels simply for loving one another, Thomas and Martin, like Nicolas Ray’s characters Jim Stark and the boy who loved him, Plato, had no particular “cause” for which to fight except for the dignity of their own lives.**

 

*One needs to comprehend that the law under which Martin was convicted is far from consistent in German history. Since the penal law reform of 1994—which we might imagine was influenced, in part, by this film—the age of consent is 14 “as long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit a 14- to 15-year-old person's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination, in which case a conviction of an individual over the age of 21 requires a complaint from the younger individual.” However, male homosexuality was illegal since 1872, and was only legalized in 1969. In 1975, the age of consent was changed to 18 years of age, and the seduction of an “unblemished girl under the age of 16” was prosecuted upon complaint of parents or a legal guardian only. Yet male homosexuals could be prosecuted if the offender was over 21. Martin’s crime had as much to do with his gay sexuality as with the age of the boy with whom he evidently had sex.

**Ziegler’s and Pettersen’s work is almost a mirror image of John Henry Mackay’s 1926 German fiction, Der Puppenjunge, also about man-boy love. The older man in this fiction, Hermann Graff and his young boy hustler Gunther’s brief love affair ends up very similarly as the young boy is imprisoned (also twice) and returns from Berlin to his rural homestead, as I wrote in a 2015 review of that title, “having been left, through his incarceration, without any will or desire; a walking dead man, he has been destroyed not through the sexual attentions of his johns, but through the inattentions of the prison system.”

 

Los Angeles, January 3, 2021

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

Andy Milligan | Vapors / 1965

 

flowers from the asylum’s clown

by Douglas Messerli

 

Hope Stansbury (screenplay), Andy Milligan (director) Vapors / 1965

 

Andy Milligan’s 1965 half-hour film, Vapors, is or at least ought to be an absolute disaster. Shot on a 16mm Auricon newsreel camera, the film roars through a series of what critic Michael Koresky describes as hisses, “camera whirs, and echoing room ambience” filmed in a seedy empty building near his apartment on Prince Street that pretends to be the Saint Mark’s bathhouse, wherein two men, one middle aged (Robert Dahdah, the director of the then-off off Broadway venue, The Cino West Village theater) and the another younger man with thinning hair (Mulligan’s  roommate, Gerald Jacuzzo) sit on a bed and a chair in a cubical that, in such places stuffed with gays for a weekend series of transient trysts, is usually reserved for the joys of a good fuck.

     These two, both evidently new to the place—although the Jacuzzo character at first lies, claiming that he comes there regularly—do little but share in a long rather melodramatic conversation, written with what almost appears with camp intentions by Hope Stansbury, whose claim to fame is that she, so legend goes, helped create the Candy Darling superstar persona for the transgender actor who played in Warhol films such as Trash and Women in Revolt and later on stage in a Tennessee Williams play Small Craft Warnings.

      Indeed, many commentators on Milligan’s film describe the dialogue as sounding a bit like warmed-over Williams, although one might say that many critics of the day felt Williams’ own plays to be warmed-over or at least consisting of leftover ideas that didn’t live up to his great plays. As I’ve written elsewhere, I find his late plays as being often somewhat surreal and almost always very funny (see my review of his last play, In Masks Outrageous and Austere, in My Year 2012.)

    But, in fact, Stansbury’s script reminds me less of Williams than it does of Edward Albee, particularly his 1960 play The Zoo Story, although obviously without Albee’s humor, wit, and, most importantly, the bitterness of the character Jerry for all things mundanely heterosexual. But if one were to turn the tables, so to speak, allowing the Peter figure to be the central speaker while imagining the bed to be a kind of park bench upon which the Jerry character, the youthful homosexual, sits, you might observe numerous similarities between the two short works.


      Like Jerry in the Albee play, Mr. Jaffee as he prefers to be called, interrupts Thomas (the Jacuzzo character) while he is waiting, door open, for a trick, before he unceremoniously enters and proceeds to endlessly talk, with the affable Thomas sitting out—or in this case reclining throughout—his new friend’s onslaught of heterosexual blather.

      After explaining that his only reason for visiting the baths represents an attempt to get away from his wife, he also makes it apparent that he doesn’t at like the place in which they are now encamped. Just as the “park” in which Albee’s homosexual figure suggests the police are out in full force bringing down the fags out of the trees and bushes, so Mr. Jaffee declares that he finds his new surroundings to be like “an insane asylum for mad homosexuals.”

      Nonetheless, after they clear the way with a few awkward introductions, together they proceed to transform the usual den of iniquity—which throughout their conversation four queens intrude to remind them of the proper necessity of opening and closing the door and the more common use of that space—into a kind of confessional box.

      Indeed, after a quick drink of communal wine (coke and 7-up in this case), Mr. Jaffee gets down to business, like Albee’s Jerry telling two stories, the first about his terrible wife who each night puts her hair up in curlers and lathers her face in “lard.” After 19 years in this unhappy relationship he would simply like to be free of her ugly feet  pocked with bunions since she insists upon squeezing into the smallest of shoes; he has even suffered a dream about her feet of which he shares with Thomas, a nightmare that has made him unable to even share the same bed with her for several nights.

      Thomas’ feet, on the other hand, he finds beautiful, asking if he might touch them, absurdly reciting the Mother Goose song of “This little piggy” as he manipulates the toes, as if his new acquaintance were like a child—“This little piggy went to market, This little piggy stayed home…,” etc.

      His misogynistic accounts of his wife are indeed very similar to Jerry’s story of his landlady and her dog, a kind of nightmare beast who, like Cerberus guarding the gates of hell, makes his voyages back and forth to his tiny apartment wherein he resides next door to “a colored queen” who does nothing but pluck her eyebrows, equally nightmarish.

     Jerry’s flirtatious landlady is described as a “fat, ugly, mean, stupid, unwashed, misanthropic, cheap, drunken bag of garbage,” which, by comparison, makes Mr. Jaffee’s wife almost a beauty; yet both are clearly disenchanted with their relationships.


      Soon after Jaffee comments about Thomas’ soft skin. My son had soft skin, he states, asking if he might touch his friends cheek. Thomas grants him permission to do so.

      In the Albee the play, Jerry’s second story is about his day at the zoo, clearly not a very pleasant day, but the tale of which he is never permitted to finish. We suspect, however, since Jerry declares that Peter will soon be hearing about it on the nightly news, that it must involve something rather horrific concerning Jerry’s actions. He has previously described attempting to poison the dog owned by his landlady.

      Mr. Jaffee’s story is more of a kind of urban legend such as the repeated fable of alligators living in the New York City sewers. After carefully describing the absolute beauty and athletic prowess of his son, Jaffee describes how his boy and a couple of friends went to a nearby water hole to cool off, his son diving in first. Almost immediately the others knew something terrible had happened as they waited for him to return to the surface. It was like a vacuum, Jaffe reports, that had sucked his body down.

      When the water is siphoned away by authorities later that day, the find the boy surrounded by thousands of snakes who had literally eaten away his body.

       The story I grew up hearing repeatedly in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was about three country boys who also sought out comfort in a local swimming spot, the first one diving in and drowning, In this case it was dozens of water moccasins who bit the swimmer to death.


        Thomas, however, believes Jaffee’s story and is pained to hear it, as the father, who clearly adored his son, goes on to express the fact that he burned most the flowers which were sent for his child’s burial, unable to face being reminded of his son’s beauty. But one flower, in particular, he found truly appropriate, a sunflower sent by an unknown admirer. The sunflower, we recall, represents the adoration and unconditional love of the sender, and, obviously, here there is the pun of sun/son.

       Unable to go on any longer, but touched by Thomas’ empathy for his loss, he tells his cubicle mate that he has a gift for him, and will be right back as soon as he retrieves it.

       This is perhaps the most surreal of all events in this extraordinary series of confessions. But Thomas, always seemingly ready to play along, waits patiently until the gaggle of queens returns with a box in hand, ribbon wrapped around it, a gift they tell him which the man who suddenly left the premises asking them to deliver it.

       Why would the stranger have brought along a gift, one can only ask, for a man he has never before met? In any event, Thomas opens it, discovering within a large Papier Mâché sunflower. Thomas is so touched that he weeps for moment or two.


       But, as viewers of this strange series of happenings, we are not only puzzled by the question of why anybody might have brought a sunflower to a male bathhouse, but simultaneously almost laugh at the outsized flower reminding us of those large and smaller flowers which are regularly sported by circus clowns.

     It also calls up for me a scene from another Albee play, where after a rather violent scene between George, Martha, and their guests, George suddenly pulls out a rifle, pointing it at Nick, who has just come down from Martha’s bedroom; he shoots while all watch in terror, as a smaller bouquet of just such flowers pops out from the end of the gun’s barrel.

     It is almost impossible, accordingly, not to take Mr. Jaffee’s offering as anything other than a kind of comic jest, as if he had suddenly become the clown in this asylum offering his new boyfriend a silly simulacrum of what someone once sent to the man’s dead son, alerting us that in Jaffee’s mind Thomas symbolically speaking, has now become his son.

      At almost the same moment a new man enters Thomas’ cubicle to wonder why he might be crying. At first it appears that the young man is going to send him away, but he quickly calls him back, asking him to close the door, the proper expression that those within are engaging in sex.

     The new guest, (the role credited to Matt Baylor in the British Film Institute’s DVD credits) according to Koresky, was Gary Stone, whom Milligan described as “very attractive street guy…known for his big dick” and whom Milligan first met “hanging upside down in a doorway” at an S&M party on Prince Street. Stone quickly disrobes revealing in the original that reportedly large cock, which, during the premiere showing of Milligan’s film at the Bridge theater on St. Marks resulted in a police raid, resulting ever since a large black bar blocking our view.



      It doesn’t really matter since we are more than assured that Thomas will finally get what he was seeking. Yet, oddly, we now perceive that his odd encounter with Mr. Jaffee was far more sexual that we first might have perceived. What Jaffee has performed in his simple touches of the younger man’s feet and cheek plays out a deeply Oedipal dream that permits Thomas to return to the physical world. The confessional box has reverted to its carnal purpose.

       Milligan when on to make at least 29 other films, most of them concerning deviant behavior with titles that included words like “bloodthirsty,” “degenerate,” “torture,” “incest,” and other incidents of slasher-like gore, as if his genteel conversation between the spiritual father and son in this film let loose some inner depravity. In the future, I’ll see if I can obtain a copy of his drama of incestuous murder, Seeds.

 

Los Angeles, September 16, 2020

Reprinted from World Cinema Review and Queer Cinema blog (September 2020).

Sasha Argirov | Personals / 2021

behind the plastic curtain

by Douglas Messerli

 

Sasha Argirov (screenwriter and director) Personals / 2021 [12 minutes]

 

A young, highly anxious gay boy (Riley Davis) responds to a Craigslist ad for a glory hole encounter, only to find the shadow of a large, almost monstrous man, behind a pasted up sheet, with a small hole in the middle cut out for the encounter.


   Frankly this film by Canadian filmmaker Sasha Argirov plays more like an idea for a film rather than any real sexual encounter. No matter how unsure the young man is about his appearance, his bitten nails, or even his ability to get an erection, he reality if he had even a tiny bit of self-survival instinct left, he would have quickly turned and run.

     In fact, when the man behind the sheet (Dimitri Vantis) growls at him for tearing away even a corner that is precisely what the young man does. He leaves the place.

     That he returns is pure fantasy, a kind of demonstrative statement of the desire for any encounter rather than none.

      Fortunately, as the camera makes the shift to the other side of the curtain, we perceive that the real problem here is not that the man behind it is monstrous, but simply an overweight, not very good looking individual who is as socially anxious as the boy on the other side.

      If sex is now quite out of the question, simply touching one another through the dangle of fingers through the glory hole and pressing their bodies up against one another as they place their hands on the imaginary chest of one another serves to allow them both a sense of relief and comfort.

     If I cannot imagine this happening in real life, it works nicely as a metaphor for the intimacy they each desire but can seldom find with people in the real world.

     The metaphor actually makes for a nicely visual expression; but it is still the stuff out of a dark fantasy that for the average viewer has little direct meaning. Yes, we all have our insecurities, or fears of facing one another face-on. But only the most disturbed of us would go to this level. One ultimately must ask, accordingly, who was this film really made for? Those of us in the world who truly see ourselves as monsters?

     These two lost individuals cannot be described as having truly “come out,” but remain in their closets, even if the door is simply now covered over with a plastic sheet with a glory hole cut out for possible pleasure.

     The LBGTQ+ community in general has long grown out of this perception of itself. So why must we suffer it yet again? Societal anxiety can be better expressed in thousands of other ways.

 

Los Angeles, June 24, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (June 2026).

 

Index A-H

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.