Saturday, December 23, 2023

John Greyson | This Is Nothing / 1999

nothing and everything

by Douglas Messerli

 

John Greyson (screenwriter and director) This Is Nothing / 1999 [8 minutes]

 

In many respects, Greyson’s short undercover caper film This Is Nothing, despite its terrifying commentary about the daily NATO bombings of Belgrade in 1999 prompted by Yugoslavia’s ethnic cleansing of Albanians which led to a NATO interim peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, is also an almost comic variation on the numerous CIA missions as documented on television and film.    


    While his former lover Dimitri (Greg Atkins) in Belgrade daily emails Jack Rivers (James Gallanders) about his experiences throughout the bombings, Jack imagines himself as a CIA hero, assigned to take out a Boston professor, war theorist Noam Bombski (Gordon Jocelyn), clearly a reference to libertarian socialist commentator Noam Chomsky. Rivers is furious that he is not being sent to Belgrade, but his handler explains that Bombski is Belgrade, evidently the source of all the evil action occurring in real time.    

     Yet nothing is fully explained ever in this oddly humorous short: “Facts were the targets he chased, but now the facts were chasing him.” And again, the narrator shouts out, “In wartime words become double agents.”



     The actions with which camera reveals Jack is involved—a bucket of water with a lemon twist being tossed into his face, a face-to-face inquiry with two Bosnian-like thugs, and a meet-up with a buxom woman who seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with anything in the discombobulated story—seem anything but terrifying. In quick flashes throughout this film, we see Jack and some other male, shirtless, sitting in high window in a half-hug. “In wartime, words become bombs,” screams out the narrator (Scott McLaren) of what appears to be a film trailer.

      Meanwhile, we hear somewhat coherent messages from Dimitri, while Jack’s hackwork film fantasy becomes increasingly confused with a dying couple on a sideway expressing they last words: “This is nothing,” she responding, “This is everything.” Dimitri’s mother in fact may be dying because of her refusal to go to the shelters in her attempt to call her sister to check on her well-being.

      While Dimitri talks of real bombs, Jack seeks out the meaningless Bombski and writes his friend about his last visit to Canada when they evidently slept on an empty floor of a newly built high rise, now filled with offices. Even in the midst of the crisis Dimitri has been watching on TV the film Wag the Dog, Barry Levinson’s 1997’s work which itself is a dark political satire in which to cover up the President’s sexual indiscretions, a political operative creates a fictional war in Albania—and which Greyson’s work itself is also fast becoming as the ridiculous and the tragic are given equal time.


      Suddenly there are no new messages on Jack’s server. Jack observes that the news of the poison gas factories is “really scary.” Maybe Dimitri’s e-mail simply is “down.”

      Meanwhile the imaginary film Jack has conjured up becomes even more ludicrous as Jack Rivers is announced as being played by Ben Afleck, and the strange woman (Sarah Polley) who keeps appearing is described as Penelope Cruz. With Dustin Hoffman as Noam Bombski.         


     Finally, Jack Rivers puts a gun to Bombski’s head. The frightening theorist responds: “This is nothing,” before muttering “This is everything.” As the narrator continues to scream out about Jack being pushed to the edge and the fate of the world, Jack puts down his gun and turns to the camera, thinking for a moment back to the no message sign on the screen of his computer, before walking off, leaving the narrator in a kind of stunned stutter.

       This short film makes quite clear the difference between everything and nothing, between the real worlds and the fantasy fictions about international battles. Yet it is often hard to tell the difference between the two, except perhaps that one ends in silence, real death, while the other shifts only into a strenuous stutter. And where, in all of this, is love? A few seconds, apparently, give evidence to it, without us fully being able to even determine the reality of even that.

 

Los Angeles, December 23, 2023

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (December 2023).

M. J. Roche | Amour et science (Love and Science) / 1912

alternative realities

by Douglas Messerli

 

M. J. Roche (screenwriter, based on a story “Liefde en Westenschap,” and director) Amour et science (Love and Science) / 1912

 

In this wonderfully clairvoyant short film from 1912, a young genius, Max Pledge (Émile Dehelly) is attempting to perfect his new invention that will enable someone speaking on a telephone to see the person in action, a sort of early imaginative vision of a home cinema or what we now use every day in our cellphone technology.


     Pledge is so involved with his work that several men who come to call on him are turned away by his butler. And so too are his fiancée, Daisy, who has arrived with her friend Maud to discuss their wedding plans.

      In the meantime, Max, tinkering with his telephonic-cinematic invention, discovers that it actually works, and he immediately calls his sweetheart to schedule a telephone conversation later that afternoon.

      Still upset and angered by Max’s seeming disinterest in even discussing a definitive date for their wedding, Daisy decides to play a trick on Max.

      Trimming off some of Maud’s beautiful bangs, she suggests that her friend dress up as a man, using the trimmings for an outrageously large moustache. At first Maud refuses, but as the two engage in dressing her up as a male, they so laugh and enjoy themselves in the process that for a few moments it appears that real focus of the film might almost be said to demonstrate the pleasures of drag, the process of dressing up as someone far different from the self you have been born into and never fully explored. In all the films of the early 20th century, dressing in drag was never again revealed as being so much fun. RuPaul would love this prescient short movie.


       In the telephone conversation we see the screen split, another cinema first, showing both Max on his end of the line and Daisy in her bedroom. As the two speak, Maud, dressed as a gentleman caller, suddenly appears in the background and moves closer to Maud to begin to kiss her fervently—which almost takes this short film into lesbian territory—seeming to affirm that Max’s fiancée is two-timing him.

       The revelation is disastrous, with Max destroying his invention before he falls into a faint, over the next few days remaining into a kind of semi-catatonic trance of depression from which the doctors are unable to restore him. One of the doctors suggests that only by re-witnessing the scene might Max return to normal life.



        We see Daisy consult a filmmaker in his studio to convince him to film just such a scene. Visiting Max in his workshop, where she has set up her cinema version behind the very machine which he had created, Daisy and others bring in Max and seat him before the “screen.” As Daisy hides, we observe a similar scene in which, as Daisy is speaking on the phone to Max, her suitor (Maud in drag) suddenly appears. But this time Daisy begins to giggle, which again turns into hearty laughter as she tears off Maud’s whiskers, Maud pulling off her wig and waving it like a trophy, the two finding the whole stunt hilarious.

 

        Max, at first, doesn’t even view the screen, but hearing Daisy’s voice turns toward it to witness the same horrors as early before finally perceiving that it has all been a stunt. He returns to his normal self, as Daisy reappears to hug him. All is forgiven.

        Not only has this early film used drag to explore a science fiction-like new media of the future, but further takes cinema into its future, and perhaps unfortunate role, as a device for altering reality—or in this case, altering a misconception that the medium had earlier conveyed. Roche’s short film explores how the movies themselves might be used to present alternative realities.

 

Los Angeles, June 16, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (June 2023).

 

Alfred Hitchcock | To Catch a Thief / 1955

to catch a husband

by Douglas Messerli

 

John Michael Hayes (screenplay), Alec Coppel (contributing writer, uncredited), Alfred Hitchcock (director) To Catch a Thief / 1955

 

With the recent multi-million jewelry robbery at Cannes—at the Carlton Intercontinental, the very hotel featured in Alfred Hitchcock’s 1955 movie, To Catch a Thief—I determined to revisit that film, which I have seen many times in my life.


      The general feeling about this film is that it is nothing but a light entertainment, a romantic caper that has little, if any depth. And, indeed, that is, for the most part, the obvious way to read Hitchcock’s early work, particularly in light of the far greater and complex works such as Shadow of a Doubt of 1943 and his deft cinema of only the year before, Rear Window. Yet, there are far deeper issues at play just underneath its witty script and the tourist-like documentary of its surface.

     Part of the problem is that the plot, such as it is, is centered upon a very weak conceit: several former jewel thieves, mostly working separately, came together during World War II to work for the underground, earning pardons from their numerous post-war crimes in return for their commitment to live crime-free lives. Some of them, such as the noted “Cat” John Robie (Cary Grant) have ended up quite well off, he living in a lovely stone house above the Riviera, tended by a loyal servant, where he grows grapes in his vineyard, and tends to other garden plants. A former crime friend, Bertani (Charles Vanel), now owns a posh restaurant serving up meals to wealthy tourists, with another former thief, Foussard (Jean Martinelli), working as his restaurant assistant. Others, now serving in the restaurant’s kitchen, have made little financial progress in their lives, despite their straight living, and are still quite bitter about the apparent class differences. More importantly, someone has again begun to steal from Cannes’ wealthy visitors, using the same methods of the famed Robie; both the police and his former friends suspect he has gone back into business.

     Realizing his predicament of having every day to prove his honesty, Robie decides to go “under cover” in order to find out just who is the “copycat.” In truth, any suspense about who is the actual thief, hardly matters. What Hitchcock slowly reveals to us is that almost anyone and everyone of the film’s numerous figures might as well be thieves, from H. H. Hughson (John Williams), the insurance agent whose company has insured most of the jewelry, and has no problem about stealing soap and towels from various hotels and deducting free meals from his expense account, to Foussard’s daughter, still in love with the dashing Robie—who has taught her English—and is perfectly willing to run away with him to South America. Nearly all of his old associates are equally suspects.


       Although we know they are not guilty of the crimes, we might equally be tempted to call the two American women, Jessie Stevens (the wonderful Jessie Royce Landis) and her beautiful daughter, Frances (Grace Kelly) as being thieves themselves, one the wife of a wonderful American rogue on whose Oklahoma land oil was discovered, while her daughter, whom she declares was “finished” in finishing school, is on the hunt for a wealthy husband, and, quickly seeing behind Robie’s cover as an Oregon lumberman, is only too ready to become the “cat’s” new “kitten.” Even Robie’s servant has once strangled a German with her bare hands. In short, there is not a single character in this “comedy” who is entirely admirable, which is, in part, what makes it more fun and more complex as a work of cinema than it first appears. Each character wants more out of life than he currently has—except, perhaps for Robie, who admits:


                               Why did I take up stealing? To live better, to own things
                               I couldn’t afford, to acquire this good taste that you now
                               enjoy and which I should be very reluctant to give up. 

        The world of To Catch a Thief is less interested in finding the thief behind the recent jewel heists than it is in acquiring the good things of life and, in the case of the authorities, of saving face. And everyone in this film, as Hitchcock makes clear, is only too ready to “gamble” :


                            Frances Stevens: Maybe Mr. Houston doesn’t care for
                                         gambling.
                            Jessie Stevens: Everyone likes to gamble in one way or     
                                          another, even you!
                            Frances Stevens: I have an intense dislike for it.
                            Jessie Stevens: Francie, dear, when the stakes are right,
                                          you’ll gamble!

     And gamble she does, high-jacking Robie as he attempts to check out wealthy and jewel-rich families, offering up a chicken picnic:

 

                            Jessie Stevens: You want a leg or a breast?

                            John Robie: You make the choice.

     Taunting Robie with her own diamond necklace (which he immediately recognizes as an imitation), she offers herself up to him in a verbally rich fusillade of sexually suggestive comments—recoiling only in this consumer-based paradise when the “cat” steals her own mother’s diamonds! Hitchcock’s women, apparently, are all ready to gamble as long it isn’t the family jewels. Only her utterly down-to-earth and honest mother admits she does not miss the baubles—as long as they’re insured!


       Despite Francie’s new disdain of her “Robin Hood” hero, she is still willing to play along in one final caper, in which Hitchcock again reveals not only the consumerism (Kelly dressed in a gold bullion gown), but the complete sexual surrender that goes along with such societal behavior, demonstrated in his wonderful after party scenes at the mansion, where the variously costumed attendees are portrayed as if mimicking some Hollywood version of “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.”      

     Once more the bisexual Grant as Robie, as in so many of his films, brushes off almost all of Francie’s sexual advances:

 

                            Frances Stevens: I’m in love with you.

                            John Robie: Now that’s a ridiculous thing to say.

   

      And throughout Robie seems more comfortable with the British insurance agent, who he quickly invites up to his bachelor lair than with the American female beauty. Indeed at the fancy costume party where they finally hope to catch the thief, the fussy Brit actually becomes Robie's double—what else but a Nubian slave serving the gold-digging Yankees, as Robie stalks the rooftop in wait of his cat bandit, as far away as he can get from Francie's domestic treacheries. 


       Time and again, he defuses Francie’s sexual swoons, moving throughout the film in a calm demeanor against her and Danielle’s sexual insinuations. In this work, more than in almost any other of his career, Grant’s self-conscious bemusement and seeming absence of sexuality makes him even more attractive to anyone who might be drawn to his beautiful exterior. Everyone knows he’s ripe for the taking, except himself. And his final capture of the new “cat,” Foussard’s daughter Danielle, suggests his own emasculation: he has been quite successfully replaced by a female protégé.

        Hitchcock culminates his consumerist satire with the final purchase, Francie rushing up to Robie’s lair immediately after his innocence is confirmed, insisting, just as had Carole Lombard in My Man Godfrey years before, her purchase of a new world: “So this is where you live? Oh, Mother will love it up here?”

 

Los Angeles, July 31, 2013

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (July 2013).


Friday, December 22, 2023

Yasujirō Ozu | 非常線の女 (Hijōsen no Onna) (Dragnet Girl) / 1933

conventional objects

by Douglas Messerli

 

Tadao Ikeda (screenplay, based on a story by Yasujirō Ozu [James Maki]), Yasujirō Ozu (director) 非常線の女 (Hijōsen no Onna) (Dragnet Girl) / 1933

 

Although made in the 1930s Ozu’s Dragnet Girl was not truly rediscovered until the mid-1970s, long after the great Japanese director was known for his domestic dramas filmed with what is often described as a “meditative, nonintrusive approach to storytelling,” wherein the camera, as Eddie Muller describes it, is held “typically at a level simulating the eyeline of someone kneeling on a tatami mat.”



     This 1933 gangster film, self-consciously engaging with Hollywood noir and gangster movies, shows Ozu as a very different kind of director, the story told from the very personal viewpoints of its central figures, the ex-boxer now gangster Joji (Joji Oka), his gangster moll, Tokiko (Kinuyo Tanaka) who by day works as a seemingly innocuous typist in a firm where the bosses’ son is desperately trying to woo her into his bed, and Kazuko (Sumiko Mizukubo), a far more conventional woman working in a record shop whose brother Hiroshi (Kōji Mitsui) gets involved not only with boxing but with the gangsters who have come out of the boxing club, particularly Joji.

     Unlike Ozu’s later works, his camera in this film is a curious tool that takes the viewer everywhere, from standard head-on shots of the characters, exploring their bodies and faces as well from odd angles, while traveling endlessly over objects, hanging male hats, punching bags, typewriters in action and covered, teapots, yo-yos, record players, American Boxing posters, and even the RCA mutt Nipper. The director’s camera darts in and out of street stroller’s legs, cuts bodies away from their heads, and, in general, presents the viewer with an absolutely dizzying sense a reality that at times results in near vertigo, particularly when late in the film, Tokiko and Joji attempt to escape capture as they climb out over a roof of their nearby apartment building.

      That busy camera, in fact, often stands in for the real action strangely missing from this tale. We see Tokiko in her workplace; join Joji on a return to his old home in the boxing gym where the coach continues to try to lure him back to the ring; share with the couple, Joji and Tokiko, a night on the town in a restaurant dancing to jazz and where Joji, in a back room, slugs out one of his major gangland opponents; and return with the couple to their flophouse of a flat. Other scenes are played out in the record store where Kazuko works, on the streets, and in a poolhall. But by and large the plot seems almost attenuated. Although Joji is described as a gangster we are not completely clued in to what kind of unlawful activities he is actually involved. And he seems to derive most of his income from the money Tokiko takes home and perhaps from the sale of expensive rings and necklaces the bosses’ son keeps awarding her for her potential sexual services.



     The heart of this film lies in the actions and personalities of its central characters rather than in their actions. As Joji, Oka’s handsome profile along with the sneering allurement of his facial gestures dominate the film. He is clearly dangerous but simultaneously loveable and even kind to those who are loyal to him.

      Tokiko is also a kind of double-figure, at the office playing a hard-working, almost giggly office girl, while after work dressing up in sleek gowns and turning into a tough dame who knows only too well which women are after her man and which men might be a threat. She’s a tough-talking woman that gangsters like Joji and many a Hollywood thug depend on to sometimes pull them away from their own naiveté.

      Joji’s wonderful assistant Senko announces all arrivals and departures with the kind of dance that seems like an odd mix of Michael Jackson and the clumsy “postman” in Pier Paolo Pasolini’s film Teorema as he signifies his role as a marionette. It is he who introduces the “featherweight” boxer Hiroshi to Joji, changing the young student’s behavior and altering the lives of all the other film’s characters.

     In short, each of these characters is highly conflicted in dress, gesture, and behavior. The young student Hiroshi is perhaps the most complex. Still living at home with the sister, Kazuko, who has raised him alone, as the film begins the boy is still mostly good. But it’s clear that he desires to enter either the boxing world or the gangster society not because of any particular fascination with illegal activities, but because of the macho figures he associates with those worlds.


     As Ozu quickly portrays him, Hiroshi is absolutely in love with all things masculine. He secrets away in his schoolbook pictures of boxers, particularly the image of Joji, the way boys of a later generation might collect physique images and magazines; and he clearly perceives the very touch of another man’s boxing glove as a kind of love pat. Throughout the film, Hiroshi, his hands in near constant motion, reaches out for quick touches and embraces the men who surround him. He clearly almost deifies the male body, and even later in the film, when Joji slugs him for his thievery, he begs him to slug him again. He is a boy so desperate for the touch of a man that it has been transformed even into seemingly sado-masochistic gestures. It doesn’t seem as important to Hiroshi that he is being punished or even what he is being punished for as it does that his hero has actually laid hands on his body.

      In his essay for the 2014 San Francisco Film Festival, Muller summarizes the situation:   

 

      “Hanging heavily over this otherwise lightweight melodrama is the story of Hiroshi…Kazuko’s brother, who longs to be a boxer and yakuza—because he’s in thrall to the dashing Joji. Ozu comes daringly close to abandoning his usual obliqueness when depicting Hiroshi’s ardor for male companionship and camaraderie. It’s clear Kazuko isn’t trying to save her brother from a criminal life, but from a different ‘deviant’ lifestyle.”

 

      It is Kazuko’s worry for her brother that finally leads her to contact Joji, begging him to cease any contact with Hiroshi, and to free the boy of his association with men of his type. Dressed in traditional kimono and speaking in a gentle, pleading manner that macho men have always found irresistible in women whom they recognize they can easily dominate, Joji immediately dismisses the boy from his services, Hiroshi now being far too intoxicated by the all-male society in which he has entered to possibly give it up. As he has previously told Joji, no matter what he does, he will not give up his admiration for him, reacting to him much as Tokiko later does to Kazuko with words to the effect, “I really like you,” the affection perhaps being much stronger than the English language translation hints.

      But our attention shifts back to Joji who begins visiting Kazuko’s record shop and listening to the classical music on a newly purchased phonograph at home. Recognizing what has happened and determining to keep her man, Tokiko packs a gun and makes an appointment with Kazuko on the street, not unlike Kazuko’s previous meeting with Joji.

      The meeting does not go as planned, the girl reacting with smiles and kindness when Tokiko pronounces that she is “Joji’s friend,” clearly, even in this silent film, delivered in a tone that makes it obvious that he’s her man. But Kazuko only gushes over his kindness about Hiroshi, no territorial envy on her mind. Tokiko, unable to believe her naiveté, responds sarcastically, “That doesn’t mean that I’m your friend. Chances are we’re enemies.” Tokiko crosses the street, presumably preparing to leave what she would like to imagine as her victim, but observing only the confusion of the girl, particularly when she follows her, takes out the gun, challenging her, “Don’t you want to shoot me?”

     When Kazuko merely shakes her head “no,” again confused by the question, Tokiko tries once more to rouse the girl to anger, “Then I’ll shoot you.” Tokiko looks down, as if fated to accept whatever comes her way. It is only then that the tough moll realizes how foolish she has been, walking back towards Kazuko as she announces, “I hate to say this, but I like you.”

      She moves close to Kazuko, plants a kiss on her lips, and quickly backs away. Having angled his camera to the close placement of their legs, we do not witness the kiss, but as soon as Tokiko backs away, we see Kazuko touching her face in startlement of the gesture.

      “In subsequent scenes,” Muller observes, Tokiko giddily reveals that she now shares Joji’s infatuation with Kazuko, and throughout the rest of the film, even when she and Kazuko meet up again, she has nothing kind words for the woman and smiles when she sees her.

 


     Behind this strangely perverse lesbian scene, obviously, is perhaps an equally perverse love of their own traditional Japanese culture as symbolized by Kazuko, a pre-World War II clue of a general desire to return to the lost traditions and values. Certainly it explains Tokiko’s almost immediate attempt to become the “other,” to replace what Kazuko represents to Joji. Tokiko brings home food which she probably is unable to cook and insists that she too can be the good girl, the image of femineity which has so completely and suddenly altered her man.

      Joji is rightfully skeptical, which ends in an argument and her leaving, Joji tossing after her all of her clothing and the housewife goods she has purchased, as close as putting a grapefruit into his moll’s face as Japanese cinema will ever get—my reference of course being the US gangster film, The Public Enemy (1931).

      Suitcase in hand, Tokiko returns to the nightclub which she and Joji attended most nights, standing with a drink in hand while tears stream down her face. There she meets up with the business owner’s son, Okazaki (Yasuo Nanjo), whose pleas that she finally spend the night with him finally reach her—at least so it appears.

      Admitting that she is none of the things which she pretends to be, she is accepted by Okazaki nonetheless and taken back to his apartment. Tokiko, however, is still savvy enough to realize that such a relationship will never survive the bed of a few weeks or nights, and quickly leaves him, returning to Joji in admission of that she is still a delinquent, a punk like him.

       The two almost make-up until Kazuko again shows up to his door, wondering if he might have seen her missing brother. He rudely sends her off, explaining to Tokiko that he had to speak to her that way in order to get her out of his system.

       But she has still obviously changed them, as Tokiko attempts to and finally succeeds to convince Joji to give up his life as a criminal and move somewhere else where they can begin again. They seem also ready to begin a new life until Hiroshi finally shows up, admitting that he has stolen a rather large sum of money from the record store cash register which he cannot pay.

       Suddenly Joji is convinced that he must live up to his responsibility and help Hiroshi. And they plan one last heist, this against the very business where Tokiko works. It is quite obvious, however, that it is not Hiroshi they are hoping to protect, but his sister who will surely lose her job and her reputation when the fact of the missing money is discovered.

       In an almost comic scene, the two rob the bosses’ son in his office, forcing him to pay in cash.

The heist goes awry, however, and the police are quickly on their tail. Tokiko is charged with returning to their flat to pack their suitcases, whole Joji delivers the money to Hiroshi. But when he returns she is not packed and refuses to help him escape, insisting that the only way they can

truly begin over is to turn themselves in, serve their sentences, and come out as changed people.

 

     Joji refuses, attempting to escape while dragging Tokiko along with him. But finally, she shoots him in the leg and, unable, to continue their escape, they are forced to wait for the police, as they huddle together in their last gasps of passion for a very long while.

      In the end, accordingly, despite the several social and sexual abnormalities of Ozu’s work, nearly all of its figures are brought back into the fold of normative society—all presumably because of the traditional icon of Japanese conventionality Kazuko.  

 

Los Angeles, December 22, 2023

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (December 2023).

Al Christie | Making a Man of Her / 1912

changing sex to get a job

by Douglas Messerli

 

Al Christie (screenwriter and director) Making a Man of Her / 1912

 

Canadian-born US director Al Christie’s 1912 10-minute silent film Making a Man of Her, although in many respects simply another crossdressing comedy, seems to also imply that economics and social conventions can work to alter the existence of a beautiful young woman played by Louise Glaum, who arriving at the employee office discovers that the job that might be perfect for her—a cook on a ranch—is demanding a male only. We get some evidence of the problem behind the decision to seek out only a male employee; it appears that the ranch has now had 4 cooks, all of them women, who have married some of the ranch workers or other local hired hands and left the hungry ranch men without their most necessary resource.



      Faced with unemployment the girl begins her slow walk home past a nearby streetside clothing salesman; suddenly to his surprise, she stops and requests a pair of male pants and coat along with boots made for a man. Although she doesn’t have enough to pay, the sympathetic purveyor takes what she can offer. At home she changes before returning to the employment office where she is quickly offered for the job from which a newly arriving black woman, clearly an experienced worker, is turned away. In a seemingly racist-like gesture the now male transformation of Louise briefly mocks her competitor as she leaves.*

     Soon “he” is in the ranch kitchen busily baking; his biscuits are evidently good enough that the foreman or ranch owner approvingly tastes one the minute they are removed from the oven.

     Later that afternoon the ranch matriarch and her visiting niece arrive at the ranch, and are told of the nice new young male cook who has been hired as the 5th cook. Getting a good look at him, they immediately leave their males companions, Donald, Jack, and Lem (Donald MacDonald, Lee Moran, and Eddie Lyons) to further check out the new kitchen employee and are quite pleased by what they see. They momentarily distract him, however, and he accidentally cuts himself; as they apply bandages he falls back in a slight faint losing his cap, Louise’s long hair spilling out from underneath.

      She pleads with the girls not to reveal her truth, and they agree, ready to take her/him horse riding on the ranch. The young chef asks he might not also get a pair of cowboy chaps for the ride, and the men quickly provide him with a furry set which he tries on before pulling himself upon the horse and riding off.

 


     Upon encountering a rather larger gathering of ranch hands, however, he is treated rather abusively as the unproven newcomer. One pushes the young newcomer to the ground, and they demand he prove his worth by boxing the one who has picked on him.

      Terrified of the situation, the new cook tries his best to defend himself, but is quickly pummeled, the new boy breaking away in fear. Some tell the boy to try harder, and the young would-be male stands up to the boxer yet again, finding himself immediately defeated before he hardly begins. He breaks down in tears and the women come rushing over to protect him, he finally revealing his real sex.


    The men, given their sexist upbringing, immediately are embarrassed by their male-on-male harassment, and are now absolutely delighted to realize that the fragile, perhaps in their minds a weak, effeminate young man, is really a beautiful woman. One of them, in fact, follows the group back to the ranch and once she has redressed in her simple white laced gown, spends the rest of the day courting her.

      Dinner is called and the rough ranch hands sit down to a long table, ruled over with a strong arm it appears, now by the black woman who was previously told she was unqualified. She serves up the chow while correcting their wild behavior like a mother finally in control of her motley crew.

      In several respects this rather delightful comedy of mistaken gender is similar to Ernst Lubitsch’s film I Don’t Want to Be a Man of six years later. But Lubitsch’s far more complex and serious film involves the young woman transformed into a gentleman attracting another man, not those of her own sex, which obviously takes the work into far more dangerous territory.

 

*It also appears that the “black woman” may be performed by a man in blackface, but I can find no proof of this.

 

Los Angeles, July 12, 2001

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (July 2001).

 

Index R-Z

Angelo Raaijmakers I, Adonis / 2021 Peeter Rabane Firebird / 2021   Tyler Rabinowitz Catalina / 2022 Tyler Rabinowitz See You Soon / 20...