Monday, January 22, 2024

Eldar Rapaport | Steam / 2009

sex after death

by Douglas Messerli

 

Eldar Rapaport (screenwriter and director) Steam / 2009 [15 minutes]

 

With some important similarities to Bruce Jay Friedman’s 1970 play, Steambath, as well as to the Norwegian short film, Shower (2012), Israeli-born Eldar Rapaport’s 2009 short film, Steam begins as a rather predictable gay sex film, with two men, a young cute “guy” (Scott Hislop), sitting next to an attractive, if far more serious-looking darker figure (Julie Zeitouni). Coming on to the more troubled man, the blond-haired figure moves closer, gradually reaching over to touch the other’s cock, and eventually giving him a blow job, the darker figure responding with full pleasure as if he has been waiting for the release forever, while only once reaching out to touch the more experienced blond who cums by himself after the other.



    If it would have ended there, we might only describe the short film as an erotic soft-porn flick—although we know something else has to happen, and we wait to see what that might possibly entail.

      Clearly the darker-haired figure is somewhat troubled, and begins to quickly demonstrate signs of great stress, particularly when he can’t seem to find the door the leave the steamroom, the other simply pointing to a spot, “over there.” But there doesn’t seem to be a way out, and we now wonder whether the work isn’t metaphorically expressing the fact that once he has entered into and participated with pleasurable sex that it might not be a statement of his discovery that there is now “no way out” of his sexual realization, that this sexual release has proven to him that he is, in fact, gay. And in that sense we might imagine it as a kind of coming out film. Although the dark-haired boy suggests they may be in hell, our fair-haired boy counters that it may, rather, be heaven.

     But soon, the fair-haired fellow also can’t spot the door, and although he remains calm while the other gets more and more disturbed and frustrated, we sense something else going on, particularly when, looking at the increasing hysterical behavior of the troubled man, he suggests, “Oh, you’re one of those.”

     Zeitouni’s character understandably demands to know what he means, Hislop’s figure responding “religious people,” hinting at the fact that the man with whom he has just had sex feels immediately guilty for having participated in something he still cannot fully accept. But that doesn’t explain the “no exit” situation, nor the counter response by the more troubled figure, describing the blond now as another type, in this case an experienced homosexual who has apparently seduced him.

      But neither accusation explains the fact that the men are beginning to become overheated and truly cannot find a way of escape. We soon begin hearing voices. Are others coming for them? But we recognize these are both males and females speaking in a public place. Zeitouni’s character finally asks the other what he does for a living, the fair-haired boy admitting he’s a writer, suggesting that, in fact, this might make a good story—if only he had something to write with. But then, as again the voices raise in volume, he suggests that he has the feeling that he has already written the story.

      And now we hear a female friend asking if he wrote anything or was just cruising the boys at the very moment when we begin to recognize the sounds of a coffee shop. He says he finished a story, but has also been cruising, pointing out a man who presumably is the dark-haired beauty with whom he has just had sex. But suddenly they see something in the dark-haired man’s hand and at the same moment Zeitouni’s character presses the trigger of what he realize is a gun which goes off.

       Whether this is truly a hell in which the darker man, through his homophobic act has just sentenced himself and the other he’s killed or whether it’s simply a metaphor of what happens in Hislop’s just-created fable, the result is the same. It has explained the terror of the other, desperate for a sexual encounter but so terrorized by the possibility that he must destroy the person to whom he is attracted as if he were the seducer, the cause of his personal emotional distress, often the situation behind homophobic acts. Such fear ends almost always in destruction, either figuratively or real.

 

Los Angeles, January 22, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2024).

 

Caleb Cook | As the World Sets / 2023

calling back from the moon with regrets

by Douglas Messserli

 

Caleb Cook (screenwriter and director) As the World Sets / 2023 / [12 minutes]

 

Using a stop action animated toy figure, a space man on the moon, as the metaphor of a life chosen by character Jonah (J. Everett Reed), director Caleb Cook makes it quite clear that the young man, deeply in love with is friend Cal (Espen Brante)—like so many terrified young men who cannot accept their homosexual feelings—made the wrong choice in marrying his school girl friend Betty in order to finally please his father and family.



     In a long metaphoric verbal epistle from the moon and in a real letter sent to Cal, Jonah realizes that in giving up his own feelings he has, in fact, become a sort of plasticized action figure, an astronaut of the heart who has sent himself into deep space, preferring the symbol of young heterosexual lovers as an alternative to his darker and more frightening feelings for his schoolboy friend.

      By creating a cartoon-like alternative of the handsome young man we see at moments in this film, director Cook has made all too apparent what often happens when young gay boys refuse to listen to their hearts and attend to their real feelings, and instead attempt to enforce themselves into the constrictions of heteronormativity.



     Usually when they finally realize their mistake, it is far too late and psychologically impossible to communicate their failures back to the young boy they once loved. That act, moreover, as we seen from the telephone game played out in Mart Crowley’s play, The Boys in the Band, brought to cinema in 1970 and 2020, is a torturous one for both parties, the original loved one and the one who refused his love, that seldom results in a resolution of the situation.

      Queer film is filled with men who finally come out in marriages that end in pain for the wife and their children. The consequences of such a mistake, accordingly, are enormous, as we observe in this metaphoric short work when, as he watches the world he once loved from afar, his artificial body turns into skeletal remains.



      In this case Noah sits at the dinner table with his two handsome sons and beautiful daughter, looking at any moment as if he were about to burst into tears and leave the table, perhaps the saddest of family dinner gatherings I have observed in a long while in cinema—a vision of a Norman Rockwell family dinner from the other end of the telescope.

     Yet, as sad as it may be for Jonah (now played by Steve Aaron), it seems just as devastating for the lovely young children and his now middle-aged wife Betty (Margaret Thayer) to have to suffer the distance he feels for his youthful mistake. They life in a real world with a father who feels he’s on the moon. They cannot comprehend his distance as surely as he cannot recognize their needs to help through perhaps similar dilemmas in their young lives.

 

Los Angeles, January 22, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2024).

Jean Renoir | The Diary of a Chambermaid / 1946

the upstarts

by Douglas Messerli

 

Burgess Meredith (screenplay, based on a fiction by Octave Mirbeau and a play by André Heuzé, André de Lorde and Thielly Nores), Jean Renoir (director) The Diary of a Chambermaid / 1946

 

I must admit, the first time I saw this film—one of the great Jean Renoir’s from his US period films—having already seen Luis Buñuel’s 1964 version, I was somewhat disappointed. While Buñuel accentuated the bizarre and dark aspects of Mirbeau’s eerie fiction, Renoir seemed to be trying the convert the perverse series of events that occur to an ambitious chambermaid, into a comedy. The casting of the light-hearted Paulette Goddard as Célestine, and the overt comedy actors Burgess Meredith (who had also written the screenplay) and Irene Ryan—both long-time American studio character actors—appeared to remove this work from any of the horror-like elements of the original. Renoir’s version, as most critics have agreed, looks forward to his later works in which artifice and theatricality definitely dominated. Moreover, The Diary of a Chambermaid often has the look and feel of a studio product. The French, in particular, perceived this Renoir work, despite the master’s reputation, as the product of an exile who had rejected the very qualities, the perverse, satiric humor, that the French literary work had made famous.

 

      Seeing it again on Netflix just this morning, however, I begin to see the logic of Renoir’s direction, which parallels the determined, pre-feminist young Célestine with the wonderful comic posturings of Louis (Irene Ryan)—who cannot even walk across the room without the bearing the weight of her sense of worthlessness—and the hilarious volleys of the mad-man neighbor, Captain Mauger (Burgess Meredith), who not only hates the Lanlaires, literary throwing rocks at their glass houses (the gardening sheds), but is proud of his ability to eat anything and everything. Captain Lainaire’s (Reginald Owen) occasional rebellions against life at the Lainaire estate, moreover, adds to the fun. They are perfect foils for the young Célestine’s innocent, yet ambitious attempts to move up the social ladder while simultaneously remaining in her position as a seasoned chambermaid.

      Throughout much of the film, the villain appears to be Madame Lanlaire (the terrifying Judith Anderson, a few years after her own frightening portrayal of a serving woman in Hitchcock’s Rebecca.) For much of Renoir’s film, the light-hearted, flirtatious chambermaid brilliantly plays out her mobile aspirations against these exaggerated types.

       The other figure of her world, the valet Joseph (Francis Lederer), hovers in the background. To Louise and others Célestine jokes that he is an “undertaker,” but his slavish obedience to Madame Lanlaire, and his refusal to reveal himself, seems to render him basically ineffectual. If, like Célestine, we blanch a bit when his method of killing geese is described—he pokes them in the neck with a long needle to prevent their loss of blood—he remains, nonetheless, a valet, something both Célestine and Madame Lanlaire insist is permanent in his personality.

       The return home, however, of the long-absent son, Georges, changes everything, as suddenly the monstrous Madame attempts to warm up to her chambermaid, having purchased expensive Paris gowns for her, demanding that she change her hair to fit current Paris fashions. Célestine remodels herself in Madame’s image with both delight and a great deal of hesitation, not unlike Madeline’s acceptance of Scottie’s remaking of her image, a few years later, in Hitchcock’s Vertigo; and at the same time, the film shifts, gradually transforming itself from a kind of gold-digger comedy into a story of almost surreal proportions.


     Despite all the of the enforced “acting,” Célestine proceeds to fall in love with Georges, even though his reaction seems inexplicably contradictory, as one moment he signals desire and responds to her gentle ministrations, and the next rejects the girl as an agent of his mother’s suffocating love. What the film reveals, but seldom speaks of, is that Georges is dying of tuberculosis; accordingly, he loses energy in the very moments of great stimulation and fears, worried, we later discover, that the young chambermaid cannot dare kiss him for fear of infection. That Renoir keeps this important aspect of their relationship covert helps to create a tension that the young, head over-heels-in-love girl, cannot explain. Does he love her or hate her? Does he, so manipulated by his overbearing mother, love women at all?

      Accordingly, Célestine is not only confused, but angered, as she is forced to look, in her aspirations for a way out and servitude and assurance of wealth, to the elderly neighbor or, in an even more frightening plot development, to accept the attentions of Joseph, who has secretly bought a bar in Cherbourg where he intends to implant his new wife as a draw for soldiers and sailors. Like Célestine, he is attracted to the Lanlaire vault of silver and other treasures they bring out only once a year to celebrate against the French revolution. Joseph sees the chambermaid, in her plottings and desire for upward mobility, to be of same kind of person he is; and, in some respects, he is right. Except she knows, in her heart, that he is perceiving only the worst of her instead of good girl, despite her misconceived aspirations, she has always attempted to be.

      Unlike Buñuel’s version, where the valet is an ogre whom the chambermaid attempts to reveal to the society at large, Joseph is a clever manipulator, willing to fulfill her demands of real cash with by any means available. When he is overheard by Madame Lanlaire in his plots to steal their secret cache, he determines to find another source, through the robbery of their feisty neighbor, Captain Mauger, who has money hidden away in his house.

       After having locked up his housekeeper-mother-lover, Rose (Florence Bates), Mauger has run off to the small neighboring town to meet with Célestine, where he plots to marry her in Paris. Returning home for his money, he is met by Joseph and murdered. Renoir’s light-hearted work has suddenly turned sour, as everything that was light and playful has become a desperate fight to the death. When Joseph reveals that he has raised the money, Célestine suddenly perceives, through the appearance of Rose, the criminal acts Joseph has committed, he, on his part, insisting that she is equally involved in the crime. The sudden shock of her unintentional entwinement in the murder tumbles Renoir’s film over a kind of cinematic cliff where what has been desire and flirtatiousness shift into deep metaphysical guilt, perhaps turning Renoir’s work, in some sense, into a more horrifying world than Buñuel’s. What follows takes the movie almost into the world of the absurd.

 

      A Lanlaire tradition is to have a late-night drink, in their anti-celebration of the Revolution, with the servants. The servants, including Célestine and Joseph, are toasted at the very moment when all emotions have come to the surface, including Georges', when he once again is made to face off with Célestine. Joseph announces that he is leaving—with Célestine, to which Georges responds with total disbelief. Can she really love this monstrous man? Demanding that she kiss Joseph to demonstrate her true love, Georges realizes, as she springs from the room, that she is not at all in love with Joseph, and chases after her.

       In one of the most disgusting pieces of human brokering, Joseph bickers with Madame Lanlaire over their cache of their silverware, plates, tureens, and even snuff boxes (studded with rubies and diamonds), in return for his promise to take Célestine away, in order to leave Georges in her arms. At first, we believe that she will choose the meaningless objects even over son, as she willingly gives up only a few tureens, a few tokens. He insists upon it all, she attempting to negotiate a split. He wins. The battle between the two is one of the most devastating satires of the linked interest of the wealthy and the aspirant upstarts ever committed to screen. Having won everything he has sought, Joseph now descends to the potting sheds, to where the real lovers, Georges and Célistine have recovered themselves. 

     Murder is clearly in the air, as Joseph beats Georges, Célestine intervening, again and again. Yet each time Georges, the natural weakling, rebounds to fight another bout. He loses, and his life is saved only by Célestine’s acceptance of Joseph’s demand to go along with him. Beating the horse, Joseph moves toward the station, but is stopped by the celebratory revolutionary crowds, who, once again, are happy to see Célestine among their midst. Taking advantage of the situation, the former chambermaid abandons the cart to offer up all their silver lucre to everyone at the event: she is no longer, clearly, interested in its financial worth or even its sentimental value. The crowd pushes forward, further impeding Joseph’s escape. When Georges shows up once more, a battle ensures, where Joseph attempts to kill, yet again, with the long needle he has stuck into the necks of geese and Captain Mauger. The crowd finally captures the villain; we are not sure whether or not he is dead. In a strange sense, the whole scene has appeared to be related somewhat to the crowd reactions in the movie Frankenstein, having finally captured the monstrous beast.

      The final scene restores the film's comic viewpoint, as leaving the territory via train, Georges tells Célestine how to close her diary—with the wedding vow. Even if he has somewhat regained his health, however, we know he is doomed, given the intensity of his illness, to live only a few years. But then, it is clear, the worthy Célestine will inherit all that Lanlaire wealth.

 

Los Angeles, September 4, 2012

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (September 2012).

Tyler Rabinowitz | See You Soon / 2020

being there

by Douglas Messerli

 

Tyler Rabinowitz (screenwriter and director) See You Soon / 2020 [16 minutes]

 

The 16-minute short by Tyler Rabinowitz is so lovingly filmed and expressive that it feels almost like a feature work. See You Soon released in 2020 is definitely a product of a new age when young boys do not need to explore the halls of their local high school or— since the central figures of this film are slightly older—check out the local gay bars. All you need is a computer and a good internet dating application.

 

    Before the film even begins the two beautiful young men of this film (James Cusati-Moyer and Jonny Beauchamp) have already been communicating for some time and obviously have become interested in and attracted to one another; perhaps they have even had mutual on-line sex. All they really need now is to meet, which—since they one is a student and the other working without a lot of money and they live on opposite shores of the US, Los Angeles and New York—is not an easy undertaking.  

   The movie begins a few hours before Vincent’s flight to New York, both impatient to actually come into physical contact with one another. And one of the first narratives that the New Yorker tells his California friend is how when you get a new fish for your aquarium you need to keep it in the plastic bag for a while to allow him to acclimate to his new world, which he suggests is a bit like them, recognizing and knowing something about each other, but still uneasy in the actual physical presence of the other.

      Walking the streets, they play games with one another in order to discover their similarities and differences, uncovering the that that Californian had gone to bible school while his New Yorker friend had gone to Hebrew school. An open piano on the street reveals that the New York boy is an accomplished pianist—at least as it applies to one piece he has learned of Chopin’s. Yet, by playing a piece with two hands, they discover that the California boy can also play the piano sufficiently to reveal he has had lessons. So even their meager musical accomplishments reveals that they are a good pairing.

    When the Californian later teases his friend for making him take pictures in Times Square, the New Yorker reacts, I was just being a good host. It’s like the Grand Canyon (something neither of them has ever seen), you’ve got to see it at least once. And suddenly, both lying on a hammock, they each admit that they have “never done anything like this before,” which is a bit hard to interpret. Do they mean that neither of them has previously actually had sex with another guy, or simply not had sex with someone they had not previously known in the flesh?

     It’s hard to imagine either of them as virgin gay boys, and with the camera revealing their deeply erotic sexual activities soon after it certainly appears these boys are fairly experienced. Perhaps they have just gained knowledge through their desire to explore each other’s bodies. In a sense Rabinowitz packs his quarter of an hour work with a sense of their discovery of each other’s minds and bodies, allowing us to comprehend their attraction and, before the film is finished, their deep love for one another.      


     As they engage in sex, however, we discover in their discussion of who will “bottom” or “top” that indeed they have had sexual experience. Their sense of virginity relates to the way they have encountered one another, not to their previous sexual activities. It is the strangeness of having met “virtually” than “actually” that makes them a bit shy at first, establishing perhaps that the popular “truism” that young people cannot differentiate between the computer world and reality does not represent the facts. Moreover, when the director determines to present the usual “top” permitting himself to be fucked, he dismisses another popular myth that couples generally break down easily into “tops” or “bottoms” instead of being naturally versatile. These boys surely know that they both have an anus and that it feels good to make use of it.

     If the after-sex scenes of a few cinematic images of them running on the beach and jumping into one another’s arms are perhaps too similar to a hundred other short films depicting young boys in love and a dozen Hallmark images of youthful pleasure, we can forgive Rabinowitz for having just previously so effectively created a mature erotically-charged gay sexual scene.

     But now comes the difficult part. Like a soon-to-be-engaged couple they take a bicycle tour of the neighborhood, the homeboy pointing out his favorite New York brownstones; but the time for leaving is soon approaching and, after hearing that the change fee for the trip back to Los Angeles would be $200, it is impossible, it becomes clear, for either to remain in paradise for much longer.

     The two recognize as one of them puts it, that they have become “attached” and that their situation in which one is at school and other working will be hard for them to get together again, that their sudden recognition of a perfect relationship is all for naught. As they both try reassure each other that they are both “okay,” we recognize their pain and realize just how unhappy these young men are and can imagine the emptiness they will surely face.

      In this film there is no difficulty of coming to terms with their sexuality, no impossibility of finding the right person, no intrusion of family or friends, no bullies haunting their hallways. Everything is perfect except for the realities of everyday life: being born in and tied to a certain place, needing to support oneself and develop one’s life, and the lack of financial support to make other choices—these are the real things that often stand in the way of love.

      The New York boy asks the “shot in the dark”-question: “Would you every consider moving here?” The LA boy answers him in kind: “Would you ever consider moving to LA?” Their mutual silence says everything. “Yeah, this is scary,” says the California boy. “This is scary.”


     There is no way to simply “chill,” as the New Yorker oddly suggests—isn’t that what everybody imagines a California boy might say?—they can only hug and comfort one another for their imminent loss.

      No one in this film risks losing touch with family or friends, there is no threat of being forced to give up gay life, of dying of AIDS, or of being destroyed by homophobic others. This is a film without a happy ending simply because of the most ordinary of facts. And the tears the two of them and their sympathetic audience shed at film’s end are genuine, an expression of the knowledge that there is no way to truly develop a relationship at opposite ends of a continent, even with the wonders of the internet.

 

Los Angeles, June 19, 2021

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

Bernardo Bertolucci | Il conformista (The Conformist) / 1970

seeking normality

by Douglas Messerli

 

Bernardo Bertolucci (screenplay, based on a novel by Alberto Moravia, and director) Il conformista (The Conformist) / 1970

 

Prismatically told, mostly in flashbacks, Bertolucci’s great film The Conformist is a devastatingly complex and ironic work about Fascism—both Mussolini’s Italian version and fascism in general—focused upon the figure of Marcello Clerici (Jean-Louis Trintignant). From the very beginning of the film, Marcello admits to a priest that he is marrying a course, bourgeois woman in order to gain “normality”:

  

                         Marcello: I’m going to build a life that’s normal. I’m marrying

                                         a petty bourgeois.

                         Confessor: Then she must be a fine girl.

                         Giulia: Speak out. Go ahead.

                         Marcello: Mediocre. A mound of petty ideas. Full of petty

                                         ambitions. She’s all bed and kitchen.



And with his friend, Italo (José Quaglio), he reiterates the connection between the petty bourgeois and fascism:

 

                         Italo: A normal man? For me, a normal man is one who turns

                                   his head to see a beautiful woman’s bottom. The point is

                                   not just to turn your head. There are five or six reasons. And

                                   he is glad to find people who are like him, his equals. That’s

                                   why he likes crowded beaches, football, the bar downtown….

                        Marcello: At Piazza Venice.

                        Italo: He likes people similar to himself and does not trust those who

                                  are different. That’s why a normal man is a true brother, a true

                                  citizen, a true patriot…

                        Marcello: A truce fascist.

 

In fact, Marcello has petitioned the Italian Fascist government to allow him to join them as an underground spy and informer.

      Yet, as the Fascist head rightly perceives, Marcello is not at all a “normal” man. His father, living in Munich, took him to a bierstube as a child, in which “a nutty man” spoke about politics. “They’d buy him beer and encourage him. He’d stand up on the table making furious speeches. It was Hitler.” As an adult, the father is committed to an insane asylum.

      Marcello’s mother lives in a decaying villa, where she is having an affair with her chauffeur, who brings her morphine to maintain her drug addiction.

         By bits and pieces, through memories and confessions, Marcello reveals that as a child he was not only abused by local boys, but sexually accosted by another family chauffeur, Lino (Pierre Clémenti). After the sexual event, the child, Marcello, grabs the accoster’s gun and shoots him, believing he has killed him.

       Even as an adult, now assigned to journey to Paris with his new bride, Giulia (Stefina Sandrelli) where he is ordered to seek out a former professor, Quadri (Enzo Tarascio), and kill him, Marcello finds a world that is anything but “normal.” Although they know the reason for Marcello’s visit, both the Professor and his beautiful young wife, Anna (Dominique Sanda), entertain the couple and toy with them, the result of which Marcello falls in love with Anna, while Anna sexually attends to a delighted, and not so ordinary, it appears, Giulia. Consequently, Marcello is unable to act, ultimately giving up his gun to the Fascist thug, Manganiello (Gastone Moschin), who has been assigned to follow him. As desperate for conformity as he may be, wherever Marcello turns he is met with what he perceives as decadence, eccentricity, and perversion.

      Bertolucci, accordingly—although sympathetically committed to the anti-Fascist Quadris—links one to the other, the decadence and perversions of the culture, just as in Pasolini’s nearly unbearable Salò, to the conventionality and conformity of Fascism. Mussolini rose to power, the director suggests, precisely because of the sexual and social extremes of a failed society.


      If Bertolucci’s and Moravia’s psychological assumptions appear, at times, far too simplistic, in the example of Marcello they become more complex simply because he is a man caught between these two seeming extremes. Both a product of the pre-war decadence and a man seeking moral simplicity, he cannot live in either world. Throughout most of the film he is observed attempting to chase down and save his new lover, Anna, Quadri’s wife; but when he finally catches up with her, he is forced to become—at least, has no other choice than to remain—a passive voyeur to the Professor’s and her deaths as Manganiello and other Fascists chase them down, slashing them over and over again with knives. Perhaps the most painful moment of the movie occurs when Anna, perceiving her own danger, races from the car, hoping to be saved by the car following them, wherein Marcello sits. Her former lover, however, will not even open the window, as she turns in horror towards the woods, betrayed by the very man whom she and the professor were convinced was far “too serious” to be serious.

        At Mussolini’s downfall, we once again catch up with Marcello, now a conventional Italian, with a wife and child. He has been asked to meet with his old friend Italo—who we now recognize was another exceptional being, in his blindness, of Marcello’s past. Guilia begs him not to go out, fearful that, as a former Fascist, he will be in danger:

 

                              Giulia: What are you going to do now?

                              Marcello: The same as everyone else who thought like me.

                                            When there are so many of us, there’s no risk.

                              Giulia: Marcello, don’t go out. They could hurt you.

                              Marcello” I won’t be in danger. After all, what have I done?

                                           My duty.

                              Giulia: But why do you want to go?

                              Marcello: I want to see how a dictatorship falls.

 

     As he encounters Italo, the two overhear a conversation between a starving young man and an older man who claims that at his house they have lots of provisions, quietly attempting to seduce the boy with a gentle stroking of his foot. Suddenly Marcello recognizes the older man: it is Lino, the chauffeur who made love to him. Like a rhinoceros out of Eugène Ionesco’s dramatic fable Rhinoceros, Marcello roars out, defaming him as a Fascist, a homosexual, a pervert—even turning upon Italo with his public declarations.

 


    Both Lino and Italo race away into the night, while the man who would have liked to have been a Fascist, a conformist, one of the everyday men in life, remains, hovering against a street fire as he stares into the face of the young boy Lino has left. Marcello is an outsider no matter which way he turns, but, more importantly, he is now a man who cannot return to the conventionality he has attempted to embrace.

     Bertolucci’s beautifully filmed fable, recreating the costume and feeling of the time, alternatively engaging us in subtle variations of dense color and cool black-and-white, has transformed Moravia’s more polemic work into a rich tragic-comedy in which Marcello comes to be seen, almost as in Fellini’s films, as a well-suited clown, a man both seemingly at home but completely at odds with the world in which lives.

* David Melville Wingrove, in response to a posting of this film pointed out some of the most serious problems with novelist Alberto Moravia’s and director Bernardo Bertolucci’s notions of sexuality as argued in the film. Wingrove writes: “The Conformist is an undeniably brilliant film but its sexual politics are really rather odd. It asks us to believe that A) an early incident of sexual abuse can 'turn' a person gay; B) being gay and repressing it will predispose a person to become a fascist; C) a repressed gay man will feel an overpowering sexual attraction towards lesbians; and D) lesbians spend their days (and nights) trying to seduce heterosexual married women and their husbands. As far as I know, not one of these ideas has even the slightest basis in fact. But The Conformist is still a great movie!

 

Los Angeles, January 4, 2013

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (January 2013).

 

Index R-Z

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