Tuesday, August 25, 2026

Dan Brody | Love Trip / 2009

what is love?

by Douglas Messerli

 

Dan Brody (screenwriter and director) Love Trip / 2009 [9 minutes]

 

Before he goes off to work, a recently widowed father (Dan Brody) wakes up his 7-year-old son (Natan Michael), who has been dreaming, probably about his dead mother.


     The boy asks what love is, and the gentle father sits down on the bed and explains how wonderful love is, as it begins as a warm fuzzy feeling in the heart the permeates the entire body, describing to his young son that love is the feeling when you like someone special, and the “cool” thing about love is that once you feel it, it need never go away.

     After breakfast, the father sees his son off on his school bus before heading off on his own bus to his job.

     The rest of this short film toggles back and forth between the father and his son, and many large and unpleasant people get on, both father and son attempting to prevent them to sit next to them on their respective busses.


      Then suddenly, a beautiful woman (Lina Corollo) enters the father’s bus, and he quickly moves over to allow her to sit next to him, a sort of silent appreciation of each other obviously flowing between them. If you can’t precisely call in love, it is certainly the start of something the may be close to it, and we only imagine them eventually striking up a conversation to meet again.


     The son also prevents a great many unpleasant and girls from sitting beside him until a truly cute boy (Johnny Nutt), enters the bus. He too moves over letting the young boy join him. The two play a slight game of footsie, truly enjoying on the brief trip, one another’s company.

      Of course, young boys generally first discover love through other boys, even if society still doesn’t like to accept that fact. But, of course, this film is suggesting, without claiming, that perhaps the young so might be gay. At the age, one can never know, but always takes many forms in our life, and hopefully adults will embrace them as fully as they do their own emotions.

      It’s true this film relies almost entirely on physical beauty, not popular in many corrective LGBTQ+ movies these days. But let’s face it, we all love still love beautiful people falling in love with other beautiful people, and both the father and son and their chosen next-seat riders with whom they share their momentary love are precisely that.

 

Los Angeles, August 25, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (August 2026).

Guðmundur Arnar Guðmundsson | Hjartasteinn (Heartstone) / 2016

blindness is an attribute of youth

by Douglas Messerli

 

Guðmundur Arnar Guðmundsson (screenwriter and director) Hjartasteinn (Heartstone) / 2016


In one of the most beautiful of landscapes, the fishing village at the center of this truly moving feature film, is nonetheless as bleak as it gets. In this small village everyone know everything about one another, and it couldn’t be worse for poor teenage boy Þór (Thor, Baldur Einarsson) whose two sisters Rakel (Jonina Thordis Karlsdottir) and Hafdís (Rán Ragnarsdóttir) constantly push him into uncomfortable situations, including locking him out of the house nude, filming their escapades. At least Hafdís is a would-be poet, who attempts, from to time to time, to try to offer her family deep insights, which her mother clearly indulges. If there is an underrated character in this film, it is surely Hafdís, whose poetry her more frivolous sister can endure.

     The bully boys of the village Ginger and his gay, always ready to make fun of Þór and his deep friendship with Kristján (Blær Hinriksson), who everyone in this village describe as a “couple,” and Þór’s own mother, Hulda (Nína Dögg Filippusdóttir) who having been left by her husband has now begun seeing other mean and is labeled as the town whore not only by family outsiders, but her children.


     The friendship between the two boys is deep, but they themselves are, as many teenage boys confused about their own feelings, attempting to date to the local girls, Beta (Dilja Valsdottir) and Hanna (Katla Njalsdottir), themselves in a kind of girlish infatuation with one another that keeps them close together at all times. But, it soon becomes clear that Þór is infatuated by Beta, while Kristján keeps Hanna at a distance.

     The movie, as most critics and commentators have argued, despite the charms and beauty of this film, at two hours it is perhaps far too long. Yet I argue that we need this time to experience the problems of both boys as they, without even intending to, move off in other directions, fracturing their intensely close friendship.

   Kristján, plagued by a drunken father (Sveinn Olafur Gunnarsson), who is also intensely homophobic, as nearly everyone is in this fishing village, particularly causes problems for him, beating him for little reason. But even that can’t be as upsetting for the boy than when he begins that he actually loves Þór beyond their platonic friendship, and gradually comes to realize some inadmissible to this world, that he is gay.

    The pain and suffering it brings for Kristján, particularly when it becomes more and more apparent that his more immature and re-adolescent friend is actually straight and determined to have sex with Beta, not only willing to have sex, but leading him on. Both of these young girls are for more sexually aware, just as are Þór’s sisters, are for more sexually aware than the boys, and serve strangely as almost metaphorical Eves, constantly tempting the boys to do wrong, at one point even arguing that they should take advantage of the neighbor Sven’s (Søren Malling) absence to borrow his horses and go on a long overnight camping trip with them. Kristján attempts to refuse the temptation, but with the two girls’ insistence and even Þór’s willingness to go along with their desires, joins them, paying for it when Sven and his father come to enact vengeance, taking off the horses and leaving the boys and girls to walk the long distance back to the village.


      At another moment, he challenges Þór to hook up to a harness, where he dangles him by rope from a high cliff over the waters, forcing him to gather eggs from the crannies of the cliff. Þór miraculously survives, but later admits that he though that surely he would die.

      The one failure of the film, pointed out by many critics, is that the director chose the wrong figure upon which to focus.

       As Farid-ul-Haq observes in his Movie Review essay:

 

“While I enjoyed watching Heartstone, I did feel that the story focused a lot on Thor. Considering the lengthy run time, I would have appreciated knowing more about Kristjan and what he went through after making a very impactful decision in the film. There’s a lot of pain in Kristjan’s story and I would have preferred seeing more of it.”

 

     Guy Lodge, in a slightly more complex reading of the film, writes:

 

“The boys’ conflicted, even hostile, relationship to their environment is viscerally symbolized in a startling opening scene, which in which 14-year-old Thor and Kristján), together with a group of pals, savagely cull a school of fish in the local dock, plucking them from the water and bashing their heads on dry land. This kind of hormonally fevered destruction is what passes for fun in their sleepy maritime village, where Thor lives with his single mother—who has recently, to her children’s aggrievement, re-entered the dating scene—and two older, somewhat bullying sisters. Kristján, meanwhile, weathers a consistent stream of abuse from his hard-drinking dad.”

 

     He later expresses a feeling quite similar to Farid-ul-Haq’s:

 

“Sympathetic as Thor’s journey to awareness is, “Heartstone’s” languid, rollingly repetitive storytelling never quite justifies its weighted focus on his character at the expense of his friend’s more active anguish; a more judicious edit could place both in sharper relief. (The question of how assured Thor is of his own nascent sexuality, meanwhile, is only skirtingly addressed.) Later, Guðmundsson returns to the fish motif in slightly more contrived fashion, as a bullrout is briefly taken from the water and thrown back in, plummeting briefly before finding its gills. Not everyone in this thoughtful, lyrical, slightly over-deliberate tour of a beautiful teenage wasteland gets his own sink-or-swim moment of catharsis.”


     In a sense, as excellent of a director as Guðmundsson is, it is as if he has chosen to focus on the easier problem of a normative boy coming of age than on what really might have been far more interesting and, of course, problematic suffering of Kristján. Basically, he simply shows the more complex figure sitting in night sweats as he suffers his slow recognition of his sexuality, without letting us know just what it is he is truly feeling. This is particularly important, when, at a part, Ginger and his friends, get hold of a portrait painted by one of the girls of the two boys together, establishing what Þór has long simply refused to admit to himself, that the two are still perceived as a couple even as he has moved away actually now explored heterosexual sex.

     But blindness is always an attribute of youth, and while Þór seeks out heterosexual fulfillment, his misses the one who actually deeply loves him. Gay history, as many have pointed out, is filled with gay boy’s love of their straight friend, who lose both friend and lover in attempts to reach our for love.

     It ends all too predictably with Kristján trying to commit suicide, and fortunately failing. But since his parents cut him off from all visits, and now plan to move to Reykjavík, he might as well be dead.

 

   Without entry to his former friend’s house, Þór redeems himself, in part, by asking the help of Hanna to distract Kristján’s cruel parents, while he climbs through a window into Kristján’s room, asking whether he can visit him in the capital city and giving him a kiss before he escapes.

     If it is now quite clear that these boys have gone their different ways, it is also quite apparent that they will never be able to forget one another and their intense friendship. Kristján will clearly eventually go on to find someone to love in the far more sophisticated and liberal Reykjavík. And actually, it will be Þór who is left behind as a provincial, how without any female friends and hardly any males one in the fishing village with a mother marked by the community for her attempt to even explore love.

      This is another film as beautiful as it is painful to experience. The provinces certainly may have their beauty, but they lack the heart to be able to accept their own citizens, who are punished for any deviation. Is it any wonder that gay boys are almost always attracted to urban centers, leaving behind the straight boys to live out their lives in closed-off lives.

 

Los Angeles, August 25, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (August 2026).

 

Luther Reed | Rio Rita / 1929

birds of a feather

by Douglas Messerli

 

Luther Reed (screenplay, based on the musical by Guy Bolton and Frederick A. Thompson, with music by Harry Tierney and lyrics by Joseph McCarthy), Luther Reed (director) Rio Rita / 1929

 

The 1927 Ziegfeld-produced musical Rio Rita, with a script by Guy Bolton and Frederick A. Thompson, music by Harry Tierney, and lyrics by Joseph McCarthy, was fairly successful, with a run of 494 performances—a long run in its day. Although Bolton continued to write with his partners Thompson and P. G. Wodehouse, working with Jerome Kern, Ira and George Gershwin, and Cole Porter among others, it was clear to many in that very year, after the premiere of Oscar Hammerstein II and Kern’s Show Boat, that musical theater was about to change. Yet Bolton went on writing his frothy, nonsense musicals featuring exotic locales, college coeds, and young voyagers for the rest of his life, helping to move the US and British musical theater world away from the operettas of the day, but offering little of profundity or coherence in his narratives.

      Rio Rita was transformed into a film musical, directed by Luther Reed, in the important year of 1929, an early sound musical with half of it in Technicolor. It was RKO’s biggest success until King Kong in 1933, and was named by Film Daily as one of the 10 best films of the year.

      Watching the film yesterday, 40 minutes of it now permanently lost (The Museum of Modern Art in New York once had a copy of the entire movie, it was evidently stolen or lost as well) I suddenly realized why after just two or three years, film musicals suddenly lost their credibility and clout. If filmmakers of the day might have been curious as to why their audiences suddenly lost interest in the cinematic wonder of a musical talkie, in the courtroom trial of history I would put forward this film as exhibit number A. Watching Rio Rita was a painful experience—and this comes from someone engaged for more than 65 years in Broadway musical theater history who deeply loves the genre.


      The exotic locale in this case is the border between Texas and Mexico along the Rio Grande, allowing the work to engage a whole chorus of Texas Rangers; a beautiful Mexican landowner, Rita Ferguson (Bebe Daniels); her mysterious brother, Roberto (Don Alvarado) who stumbles along in a serape, part of his disguise to hide the fact that he is working for the Mexican police; another stranger stumbling along in a serape, pretending to be a regular Mexican who is actually Capt. Jim Stewart (John Boles) of the Rangers; the surly local self-declared General, inexplicably a Russian named Ravinoff (performed by French actor Georges Renavent); a dizzy American male, Chick Bean—who has gone to Mexico for a divorce and marries another girl, Dolly (Dorothy Lee) before he discovers that the US doesn’t accept Mexican divorces—and his shyster lawyer Ned Lovett (of the comedy team of Bert Wheeler and Robert Woolsey); dozens of peasant chorus girls and boys; and a mysterious bandit Kinkajou, who everyone seems to be seeking but at different times is thought to be Roberto, Jim, and even Chick, but who is really Ravinoff, the villain of the piece. I won’t go much further with the plot since when you have a bill of characters such as these there can be no further logic.

     Other than the threads of the search for Kinkajou and Chick’s search for a divorce, the events of this work consist mostly of various songs and dances in different styles depending upon whether they occur on pueblo streets, in Ravinoff’s mansion, or on a gambling barge tethered to the Mexican side of the Rio Grande. In the missing frames there was evidently some forest scenes where the Rangers chased after Kinkajou, but in the musical that part of the plot is basically dropped until the very end. The songs, except perhaps for the title song, “Rio Rita,” sung at least three times—but then every song in this work is reprised—are unmemorable ditties. Although I love the lyrics of "The Rangers' Song":

 

                           We’re all pals together

                           Birds of a feather…

                           Good pals rain or shine.

                           We’re rangers man to man. (abbreviated lyrics)

 

      Indeed the two threads become so untethered, like the barge line at the end, that one might almost say there are two movies, one with Rita, her brother, the Rangers, and Ravinoff, and the other with Chick and Ned and two girls to whom Chick is married, his former wife necessarily showing up at the last moment to provide Ned with a romantic interest, particularly since she has just inherited 3 million dollars. Chick doesn’t seem to care since he’s got his Dolly. In fact, the boys don’t seem to really care about their women, Chick at one point singing about his difficulties in hanging on to them.

     In later films of the early 1930s such as Diplomaniacs and Hips Hips Hooray they developed entire vaudeville sketches involving queer jokes, but here they only encounter a wine steward who when he believes Chick to be the renowned Kinkajou, keeps kissing him on the cheeks and finally on the lips, whom they join in a late-film scene, where after having met up with their respective female mates, to reprise the song "Sweetheart We Need Each Other" while basically squeezing and slapping elements of each other’s necks and faces before they kiss one another on the lips and fall off the boat together, leaving their two companions on either side of them to fall in backwards after. Presumably the surprise of cold water helped them to get everything right again.


    Clearly these skits are queer, perhaps even meant to suggest the sort of permanent relationship these two vaudevillians have with one another, but to describe them to be of significant LGBTQ interest is to stretch it a bit. Perhaps queer film commentator Richard Barrios sums it up best: “The musical theatre of the time was full of such comic traditions, giving wide latitude to jokes and behavior that today might seem too gay for many contexts. In some cases, it was just a matter of being fey and whimsical in ways that burlesque and television comics rendered obsolete.” And soon after such films themselves became dinosaurs.

 

Los Angeles, August 12, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (August 2022).

Juliana Mango | Fragile / 2014

a fairy tale

by Douglas Messerli

 

Juliet Juliana Mango and Juliana Mango (screenplay), Juliana Mango (director) Fragile / 2014 [8

minutes]

 

This film about a young boy, just slightly exploring his gender, begins in an obviously suburban community, where Alex (Alex Bryans) sits at a filthy bus stop, flower in his hand, waiting for the bus that will take him to school. He puts the flower behind his ear, but just before it arrives removes it and stomps on it, grinding it with his foot against the asphalt. He clearly know he is not safe displaying his love of such a beautiful thing, already sporting a cut upon his lip, and perhaps signs of other beatings around his eyes.


    He arrives home with small note posted to the wall by his father: he’s gone to the pub suggesting his son eat fish and chips at home that evening, signifying that his dad is probably an alcoholic; and we can already predict some of the gentle boy’s many dilemmas.

    After his couch-bound dinner, Alex takes out a precious box from which he retrieves a beautiful white gown (perhaps his now divorced mother’s wedding gown), but he quickly hides it again under the bed as he hears his father returning.


    His father Jim’s (Russell Lambe) first words are a tough “I caught you again, didn’t I?” and proceeds to lecture him on toughing up or he’ll always get the shit kicked out of you. No kindness, no love, nearly a slap in the face as if tough drunken “love” was all he might be able to offer.


    The following day, with a Barbie doll in hand, he realizes that he must have missed the bus, and instead rushes off to a local playground where to his delight, he smells the flower he has in his hand and plays contentedly with his doll. Somehow he applies some eye-shadow and paints his nails purple, without any possible explanation where he got these supplies and could possibly wish to do so in a playground, knowing that he might have to return home to immediately remove all evidence. But then, we have to assumes, is a kind of child’s fantasy, a representation of who we would like to be, not a literal presentation.

    This time, when he returns, his brute of father is marching around their kitchen/dining space, checking out their refrigerator, when his son arrives home with doll in hand. As the boy drops the doll, his father erupts, slugging him in the face. Alex rushes out of the house, aghast; yet we gather he has been treated the same way at his school and home previously.

      Bottle of beer in hand, Jim sits down to ponder what he has just done.


     Meanwhile, we find our young dreamer sitting at the bus stop where he waits most mornings to catch the bus to school. He is now joined by a seeming friend woman, Hollie (Jasmine Nibali), who watches him with a flower in hand. Alex tosses it away, perhaps in expectation of punishment for so full showing his fragility; but she picks it up and simply hands it back to him. She introduces herself and asks what his name is: he replies “Alexia,” to which she responds that the name is “very pretty.” As if by magic in this fantasy tale by the Mango twins, Alex/Alexi now packs up his back pack and seeming returns home, presumably, as the film’s tag description explains, “embarking on a voyage of self-discovery and contentment.”

     Yet we all know that in the suburbs of Perth, Australia such a journey is simply myth-building, and probably has very little to do with painful trip this young future woman will have to make. If only the writers could have found a more solid ground on which to place their story. It does no one any good, anymore, to tell fairy tales.

Los Angeles, August 25, 2026 | Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (August 2026).



Index of Titles (director, title, and date) A-Q

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