Thursday, March 21, 2024

Charles Chaplin | The Rink / 1916

merrily rolling along

by Douglas Messerli

 

Vincent Bryan, Charles Chaplin, and Maverick Terrell (screenwriters), Charles Chaplin (director) The Rink / 1916

 

The Rink is a messy double-header of a film, 30 minutes long, that allows us to visit Charles Chaplin as a completely inept waiter and as a roller-skater who alternately is brilliant and disastrous to all those in skating distance. The only interlinking aspects of this film are that some of the restaurant’s customer as well as Chaplin also enjoy the skating rink located nearby.


     One of those regulars, Mr. Stout (Eric Campbell) begins the film as Charlie reckons up the bill by noting the spilled foods upon upper chest, neckline, and even his hair. That is perhaps the last actual bill he is allowed to present, since the rest of the time he causes absolute chaos by perpetually entering the kitchen from the “out” door, whereupon he crashes into other waiters about to serve up dishes to the customers and encounters the wrath of both the restaurant manager (Frank. J. Coleman) and its heavily-bearded cook (Albert Austin).

     At intervals when the food is spilled, Charlie helps to pick items up off the floor, in one case replacing soup, a sponge, and other materials with the former items of food. At another point he opens his hot plate cover to discover inside neither chicken of pheasant, but a live cat. Between the angry gestures and demands of the manager and the outrage of his customers, the waiter manages to drop and spill most of the contents of his plates upon the floor and his customers himself.




       In another instance heavy-set Mrs. Stout (a role performed in drag by Henry Bergman), enters with a diner, the two of them two playing at being adjacent tables before eventually joining up with one another. And at another moment Stout appears to be having an affair with a woman (Leota Bryan) who is a friend to Charlie’s would-be girlfriend (Edna Purviance). 

      But it is Chaplin’s two visits to the skating rink that make this film so very memorable. He first visits it during a work break, alternating with brilliant dancing moves and fall-down-knock-them-all-out antics. If you ever wondered where Fanny Brice (Barbra Streisand) came up with the routine the young Fanny does on roller skates in Funny Girl, you need only watch The Rink, where Chaplin commonly appears to be a skater trying out his first set of rollers before he suddenly takes off into the most daring and stunning of skating routines.


       It is Chaplin’s second skating adventure, this time at a party thrown by his girlfriend’s friend, where he arrives dressed in a top hat and tails, professing to be Sir Cecil Seltzer, that puts the film in cinema history. Introduced to Mr. and Mrs. Stout he is recognized as their waiter and warned to be quiet about all their past histories. By pantomiming their finger-to-the-lips warning, he manages to tell everyone in the room, before skating off in great glory only to engage the wrath of the Girl’s father, which forces him to collide with Mrs. Stout (upon who he is place in such a way that any attempt to rise only knocks both them to the floor again), managing eventually to accidentally pull down her skirt.

    It isn’t long until he has felled so many of the party guests that the police are called to restore order, with Charlie escaping eventually by hooking his cane around a moving automobile which rolls him smoothly off out of harm’s way.

 

Los Angeles, March 19, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (March 2022).

Wong Karr-Wai | 旺角卡門(Wàngjiǎo Kǎmén) (As Tears Go By) / 1988

impossible love

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jeffrey Lau and Wong Kar-wai (screenplay), Wong Kar-wai (director) 旺角卡門 (Wàngjiǎo Kǎmén) (As Tears Go By) / 1988

 

The first film of Hong Kong director, Wong Kar-wai, As Tears Go By is a gritty gangster movie that reveals what will later be the director’s signature style: images of multicolored romanticism revolving around characters trapped by their own failures to be engage in the love they desire.

 

    In this film the lovers are a handsome young mob enforcer, Wah (Andy Lau), who is well-liked by the godfather and other toughs who for him. However, Wah’s younger brother, Fly (Jacky Cheung), as some of the other mobsters claim, is “out of control,” and Wah is forced to spend most of his time getting his younger brother out of hot water, often after brutal beatings from Tony (Alex Man) and his gang members.

      Further complicating his life is Wah’s lover, Mabel, who reveals early in the film that she has just aborted his baby, having not heard from him for several weeks. Even more intrusive is Ngor (Maggie Cheung), his cousin, who visits the city to see a doctor, believing that has a serious disease. Camping out on his living room couch, she quickly perceives how troubled Wah’s life is, finding further evidence of the chaos of his life in his kitchen, filled with broken glasses and unwashed dishes.



     Quietly, Ngor insinuates herself into Wah’s world, cooking for him, cleaning up, and even buying him a new set of glassware. Discovering that she is not ill after all, she departs, leaving a note behind to tell him about the new glasses, suggesting that she knows all of them will soon be destroyed, but that she has hidden one away for later use; she also invites him to visit her someday.

       Haunted by her quiet beauty, Wah follows her back to her hometown, Lantau. She tells him that she is engaged to her local doctor, and he begins the boat trip home before receiving a message that he should meet her by the quay. A love affair soon follows, but time and again the pacific life they live together is interrupted by Fly’s disruptive actions back in Hong Kong.

       Although Wah has tried to find Fly a normal job selling fish from a local cart, Fly hates his job, and returns to Tony’s club, destroying the mobster’s car, and threatening him with a gun. This time even the godfather will not intrude, and both Fly and Wah are severely beaten by Tony and his gang.

       Wah attempts to return to Ngor, but once again he hears of even more serious difficulties: Fly has offered Tony to assassinate a heavily guarded informer, if Tony agrees to release him from his debt. The situation is clearly a suicide mission.



     By the time Wah reaches him, Fly has already shot the informer and several of his guards, but he himself has also been killed. With true sacrifice, Wah finishes up the killing and is himself shot to death.

      So the movie ends. But the description above gives little of the true aesthetic substance of this early work. Already Wong is far more interested in highly-elegant stills, lenses which transform the city into flashes of candy-colored lights, and the inner, unstated fascination with death that so characterize his later films. Fly is like a lit-up piece of dynamite within a society already determined on destruction, and Wah, as much as his desires push him out of that world, he cannot break the familial ties, both real and symbolic.



     In some respects, even in 1988, Wong’s characters’ actions parallel the events upcoming 1990 transfer of the highly westernized city to China. The love the former Colony might have for all things western ultimately will clearly have to sacrificed to the new order. Love, in short, is thwarted in this city, long of the cusp of transition from a culture of openness to the dictatorship that the city faces, and which Wong’s characters so obviously reflect. 

     Wong is not always sure of his focus in As Tears Go By, sometimes prettifying the ugliest of human behavior, and at other moments sentimentalizing and even fantasizing Wah’s and Ngor’s love (it’s unexplained, for example, how Wah, already on the boat to Hong Kong could suddenly get back to the quay in time to greet the waiting Ngor), and, even more seriously, creating plot strings that go nowhere (why was Ngor so convinced of her nonexistent illness, and why?); we can, nonetheless, see that the director’s instincts are spot-on. Besides, if Ngor’s illness is a product of her hometown doctor’s imagination, by the end of the film she has a deeper sickness to face for the rest of her life.

 

Los Angeles, May 24, 2017

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (May 2017).

 

Louis Malle | Vanya on 42nd Street / 1994

tired travelers on broadway

by Douglas Messerli

 

Anton Chekhov (translated by David Mamet, directed as a play by André Gregory), Louis Malle (film director) Vanya on 42nd Street / 1994

 

In his 2012 review of Louis Malle’s film Vanya on 42nd Street, André Gregory’s direction of a production of the Chekov play, translated by David Mamet, The New York Times reviewer, Charles Taylor begins with what he describes as his usual reaction to “seeing actors onstage”: “Oh, come off it.” Such a reaction was almost inevitable to get approval from Gregory who works hard to force his actors to uncover the “reality” of their roles by rehearsing over long years, and producing his plays not on the normal proscenium stages, but in various other kinds of spaces outside of stage lights and traditional costumes.


      Vanya on 42nd Street, staring one of Gregory’s favorites, Wallace Shawn, as well as Julianne Moore, George Gaynes, Larry Pine, and numerous other talented actors, is an almost documentary version of just such a production. For years from 1989 to the early 1990s, Gregory used the vacant but soon-to-be refurbished Victory Theater, which was originally opened by Oscar Hammerstein in 1899 before it became a 42nd street porno theater. During that same period I saw Mac Wellman’s Crowbar there, with the audience sitting upon the stage (my friend Mac allowed me a balcony seat where I could observe both audience and the theater actions).

       For the later rehearsals of Vanya, however, one of which became the movie that Malle filmed, he moved the production down the street to the former New Amsterdam Theatre, whose stage was in such decay—eaten away by rats—that they used what seems to be the lobby, also in grand decay.


      True to is his anti-theatrical perspective, Gregory and Malle begin with the characters arriving via subway on 42nd Street, the lead, Shawn, devouring a knish from a food stand that spells indigestion at first sight. The actors, gradually moving into the dilapidated grand theater, begin talking as Shawn curls up on a couch for a nap. Without our really knowing it, the play begins. As Taylor notes, Shawn wakes up as Uncle Vanya.

     Let me just repeat, however, before I begin to discuss the results of Gregory/Malle’s methods—in many ways as far away from “method” acting as you can get, but a “method,” nonetheless that attempts to get to “the heart of things” and a kind of “realistic” acting style—that I actually like theater-acting and don’t at all mind a theatrically-conceived production. But then, I also love opera, melodrama, and even over-the-top camp theater. The very idea that we have to chew the play down to the bone to get to the everyday-ness of the playwright’s meanings seems, to me, to be utter nonsense. Chekov, like Ibsen, and hundreds of other playwrights before and since, meant their works to be staged imitations of life, not actual representations of what life might be or have been. I’ll go with Wilde any day: theater is not real life, and that’s what makes it so illuminative and marvelous. Unhappy families who, as Tolstoy argues always lead to a different kind of life, are not necessarily any more interesting than “happy” ones; they’re just different. And they have little to do, most of the time, with everyday life. I like beautiful people on a stage, nicely lit, beautifully designed, saying things that you might not hear in your ordinary experience. And sometimes these strange and unordinary goings-on say more about what we might define as “truth” than any “real-life” revelation might tell us.

    

     Nonetheless, there’s something to be said for Gregory’s method, caught on screen in Malle’s excellent filming, for the actors to get so comfortable in their parts that they’re not afraid of being truly boring. In fact, all of Chekhov’s figures in Uncle Vanya (and some of his other plays) are precisely that, absolutely boring figures who go about pretending that they are something other, not only to others, but to themselves. Certainly the awkward, Sonya (Brooke Smith), daughter of the “great” art scholar/thinker, is precisely that. She has beautiful hair and nice eyes, so she is told, but men—particularly the neighbor she loves, Dr. Astov (Larry Pine)—while enjoying her presence, basically ignore her, not even perceiving that she might have deep emotions within.

      Her uncle, with whom she has long lived alone as the caretaker of the house in which they live, like almost all of Shawn’s characters (as recognizable now as Woody Allen) is a shrill whiner, a kind of nebbish who might have been but will never be, a man of some interest and worth. I say this, recognizing all of Shawn’s immense talents as both a playwright and actor of both film and stage. Shawn, as a real individual, I can assure you, is an utterly fascinating intellect. But, at least in his Gregory-directed productions, he generally plays a suffering fool.

     Although Astov is represented by all those around him, particularly the women in this play, as a superior being, a man who is trying to save nature, and—amazingly far ahead of his own time—attempting to change the natural world, climate, and human behavior (in creating this character, Chekhov, at least as translated by David Mamet, seems to have looked deeply into our own hearts), he is also a kind of pedant, a man who can’t see his beloved trees for the forest; if nothing else, in his somewhat fatal attraction to Yelena (Moore) he has missed out in the woman who might most help him to achieve his goals, Sonya. But she is too modest to attempt to suggest to him how boorish he truly is, and no one else in this play is strong enough to help him perceive anything different. As Sonya recognizes, he simply doesn’t see her as a living being.


     The beautiful Yelena, who attracts all the males, is also recognized by all as so simple-minded that she would sacrifice her love—and quite willingly—to the elderly Serybryakov (Gaynes). Even she admits her disinterest, despite the fact that we do perceive her intelligence, in anything that even begins to seem profound. If she is unhappy in her choice of lovers, she refuses to give up her commitment, and seems truly to be locked into the sour relationship to which she has abandoned her soul. While being the only figure who truly offers something to all the other inhabitants of this terribly unhappy house, she does absolutely nothing to extricate herself from her disastrous relationship. And, by play’s end, she leaves her would-be admirers with little to face in the future. Yet through Moore’s lovely acting, Yelena is the one who comes most alive in this production.

     The worst in this crowd of boorish beings (figures to whom Chekhov was often attracted) is the so-called genius, Serbyryakov, to whom both Sonya and Vanya have devoted their lives. Yet, gradually, as they print out and translate his life’s work—believing always that he was a man of great insight and intelligence—gradually discover that his “great” ideas are merely hackneyed responses to others, along with a great deal of appropriation. When and how they came to that perception is never explained by the playwright; but by the time Serbyraykov and his wife Yelena have entered their domain, certainly Vanya has turned from a committed follower into a bitter cynic about his brother’s genius.

     In short, none of this play’s figures can rise above the mediocrity that was perhaps destined for them. And that is the real tragedy of the work, which Gregory’s method of wearing his actors down, illuminates. Like Shawn in the very first scene, they all seem desperately tired of living; certainly they are tired of one another’s company. In other productions, with more authoritative acting, we might possibly think that Vanya, Astrov, or even Serbyryakov might still rouse themselves into something of greatness. Perhaps even Sonya might, through her suffering, redeem the others. But Gregory makes it clear that the only hope these characters have is their acceptance of their sad conditions and the illusions they might still be able to maintain.

      In the end, however, Malle’s very lovely movie, his last before his death, also seems tired, full of people so filled with ennui—despite their obvious talents—that they cannot even fully illuminate their characters. Gregory sought out the characters’ boringness so fully that the play, despite memorable moments, cannot quite rouse itself into a full theatrical event. Yes, it’s very everyday, but is it truly like us?

     On the other hand, the way Gregory takes the play off the stage, inter-connecting it with the contemporary—coffee cups from local New York City corner stores, passing automobiles glimpsed through a window, and other such anachronistic inclusions—actually helps to make his version more theatrical, or, at least, makes us aware that we are constantly seeing a play that exists in a different time and place, undercutting the plays “realistic” intentions. And that I truly admire.

     What seemed most to be missing in this production was Chekhov’s sense of humor. These are all, in one sense or another, comic figures, failed human beings not because of their boredom or boorishness but because of their illusions. Does Serbyraykov really believe he is a great thinker anymore? Is Yelena truly convinced that she is still in love? Is Astrov actually convinced that his forest is more real than the human beings he keeps seeking out? Does Vanya truly believe he might have had another calling, another life? Is Sonya so convinced of her invisibility that she cannot even see the value of her own life? Yes, I would argue, the characters are all fools—just like the rest of us—but need they also be such tired boors?

    

Los Angeles, May 8, 2017

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (May 2017).

Jonathan Demme | A Master Builder / 2013

knocking at the door

by Douglas Messerli

 

Wallace Shawn (screenplay, based on the play The Master Builder by Henrik Ibsen), Jonathan Demme (director; after the unstaged direction by Andre Gregory) A Master Builder / 2013

 

Adapted from Ibsen’s late play by Wallace Shawn, directed for years in workshop productions by his often time collaborator, Andre Gregory, and directed for film by Jonathan Demme, A Master Builder, as critics have noted, demonstrates the influences of not only these three creators, but of the brilliant acting throughout, particularly by Shawn as Halvard Solness, Julie Hagerty as his long-suffering wife, Gregory as the elder architect whose career Solness has destroyed, and, most notably, Lisa Joyce as Hilde Wangel, the young woman who expressly remembers Solness’ promises from 10 years previous, when she was just 12 years of age.


      Ibsen is one of my very favorite of 19th early 20th century playwrights, but his plays, if not carefully directed, are often talkative and stagey, with their realist conventions not always making a perfect fit with their often shockingly didactic explorations into everything from inherited syphilis, rising feminism, and, in this play, a series of egotistical and manipulative actions, including what today we would simply describe as child abuse, by the play’s presumed “hero,” Solness.

      Like many plays, however, Ibsen’s hero is a terribly failed man, even a scoundrel who has made himself wealthy not necessarily through his great architectural achievements, but for his careful recreation of towering “castles” for upper class families. These often fantastical museums to nostalgia might today be compared to the projects of mansionization that are crumbling many well-to-do neighborhoods from New York, Chicago, to San Francisco and, particularly, Los Angeles. The goal is to destroy perfecting charming, “ordinary” homes—the kind of “box” in which Solness’ wife grew up—and turn it into a kind of fairy-tale villa (which even the “master builder” mocks) where the residents can live out lives of fantasy wealth, wealth alone, apparently, not being enough.

 

     Yes, the beautiful 19th century mansions of Nyack which the movie presents as stand-ins for the Norwegian turn-of-the-century creations, do look, today, quite impressive. But even at the time of their building, they were already privately-built museums dedicated to the past.

      As Shawn’s version begins, we see the “great” Solness suffering what we might think as a heart attack, hooked up, in a grand but purposeful anachronism to a modern heart monitor. Nurses, dressed of the period, move in and out of what appears to be part bedroom and part of his architectural offices. Evidently, the suffering builder will survive, so suggests Dr. Herdal (Larry Pine), also a regular confidant to Solness’ wife.


      A former architect, Knut Brovik (Gregory), whose son, Ragnar (Jeff Biehl) works for Solness as a draftsman, visits him, along with Ragnar’s fiancée, Kaia Fosli (Emily Cass McDonnell), who works as Solness’ bookkeeper. All descend upon him, trying to get the master builder to allow Ragnar to design a lake-side villa, helping him to establish his own career and to be able to finally marry Kaia. But Solness, putting down Ragnar’s accomplishments, will have no part in it. He, like so many a bitter old man, is terrified that the “younger generation” will do the very same thing that he has to Brovik, ending his career.

     What he doesn’t know, nor do we—at least immediately—is that Solness is truly on his death bed, and that most of the rest of the play will consist of his own personal wrestling with a guilty conscience for his most definitely evil ways.

      Both Ibsen’s and Shawn’s versions, despite evidence to the contrary, are really plays about the three beautiful women in Solness’ life: his more than loyal bookkeeper, Kaia, his beautifully aging wife, and the soon-to-be interloper, Hilde, who after waiting for 10 years for Solness’ promise to return to her provincial home and take her way into a castle, decides to visit him and his wife—in this instance dressed in a pair of white shorts with no other clothing to her possession.

 

    To make all of these females’ attentions to the elderly master builder believable, I suspect, the role should be entrusted to a still handsome agèd matinee idol, someone like Clark Gable in  The Misfits or, at least, Humphrey Bogart, despite his whistling dentures, in Sabrina—or better yet, Harrison Ford in the remake of that film. The short-statured, slightly pixie-like, now elderly, Shawn cannot quite convince us that he might be so very attractive to any of these women, even if, 10 years earlier, he might have cut a more-dashing figure. But then Ibsen, himself, who based some of his play on his own infatuation with a young 18-year-old Austrian-Tyrol girl, was never a beauty either—at least to my knowledge. And Shawn gives the role his all, imbuing it with a kind of straight-forward commitment to both his delusions and his guilt that does great justice to his character and material. After all, he has gotten where he is by guile, smarts and celebrity, never by true sexual appeal.

     He has used the devoted Kaia to keep Ragnar close to him, the assistant he insists has no natural talent, but upon whose husband’s real talents he relies. He has used his wife, perhaps even unintentionally, as a tool to begin his career, selling off the vast property on which her family home once stood—after a fire has destroyed it along with their two baby sons—in order to create many of the middle and upper-class properties upon which he built the houses that made him famous. And he has used the young Hilde for his sexual desires—even if he was not able to consummate that relationship. Certainly, he now is intrigued by that possibility. Solness is a kind of monster who explains the strangely fortuitous events that have occurred as emanating from a kind of strange mental power to make things happen: the destruction of his early competitor, the fire of his unloved home, the servitude of Kaia and Ragnar, and, now that she has reminded him, the seduction of the young Hilde.

        Coincidence has been converted by the egocentric master builder into a kind of mysterious will-power, a calling up of the supernatural that fascinates him, while haunting him as well. Like Strindberg’s Spöksonaten (The Ghost Story), Ibsen’s earlier Bygmester Solness of 1892 is a play of spooks and ghosts that now haunt the architect’s mind.

      Yet despite the symbolic gestures of both Ibsen’s plays and Shawn’s adaptation, this work is very much in the psychological tradition in which most of Ibsen’s later works functioned. As critic Michael Sragow, writing in an introduction to the Criterion edition, notes, Ibsen’s play and this film rendition is perhaps closer to Bergman than anyone else. Despite its dream-like quality, the truth is that Solness is suffering the guilt that many fear just before they are about to leave the living. And, although Hilde might appear to him as a teasing female magician—Joyce has a marvelous ability to convert every serious accusation about the past into a suddenly delightful giggle of conspiracy—she is, most definitely, also the angel of death come to visit Solness, helping rectify his former behavior, just as Sragow argues, like the ghosts come to save Ebenezer Scrooge.

     She alone helps him to realize that instead of closing the door to the young, that he must open it; that he must sign his approval for Ragnar’s designs, thus allowing him a possibility, despite his assistant’s seeming passivity, to create his own business. He must let go of Kaia she convinces him; and most importantly, and despite his acrophobia (an extreme fear of heights), he must allow himself to climb the highest steeple of his newly conceived home built for his long-suffering wife and missing children (for whom, a bit like George and Martha in Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, they still maintain empty spaces)—the steeple from where, we now know, he has fallen and is dying from the results.


      This angel even attempts to redeem the life of Mrs. Solness, attempting to help her understand how to move on with life, despite her husband’s obvious daily failings, something Julie Hagerty conveys in her every movement, even as she cuts fruit for her husband’s morning breakfast.

      Throughout this film, Demme allows his roving hand-held camera to zoom in and out of rooms, focusing on the easy excuses for Solness’ own behavior while seeking out any sunny corner wherein the inhabitants of this house of subliminal horrors might find a sunny space in which to sit out their remembered past terrors: a front lit-up room where Solness excitedly rediscovers his almost forgotten past, a kitchen where Mrs. Solness finally gets up the courage to tell her husband of her own suffering, and a sunny window seat where she and Hilde sit for a few seconds to discuss the endless failures of her husband.

     If Joyce is a wonder simply for her constantly shifting expressions of the tragic and a giddy wonderment, Hagerty, in her last film role to date, is a marvel in her subtle portrayal of a woman who has lost everything but her own self-respect. Let us hope she soon returns to stage or film again.

 

Los Angeles, April 29, 2017

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (April 2017).

Charlie Schultz | Out / 2017

returning to normal

by Douglas Messerli

 

George Coult (screenplay), Charlie Schultz (director) Out / 2017 [9 minutes]

 

It’s almost as if the young British Bournemouth University student who made this short film has never before seen a gay film, given the unoriginality of both the title and the subject of his short work. We have to presume it’s based on a personal experience of either the writer or the director that they simply couldn’t resist sharing. But it also reveals, yet again, just how potent the coming out phenomenon is to young gay men.

 

     In this case, the young man, Andy (Jaime Lee-Hill) does not willingly confront his rather curt and generally critical father Joshua (Nick Bankiyan-Monfard), obviously a widowerer confused in how to raise his own son. Andy mistakenly leaves his cellphone in his coat pocket as he returns home from school. When the phone rings, the father intercepts the call from his friend Luke that not only speaks about their relationship but chastises the boy, writing “You need to stop hiding this.”

      When the young high school student discovers that his cellphone is not in his room, he races downstairs to retrieve it, too late. He is confronted by his father who demands that he explain himself. Andy grabs his coat and school bag and runs, unable to face his angry father, who continues to demand his son answer him as the boy makes his escape.

      In a rather sentimental incident, the father’s head goes crashing against one of the photos in the hall, a picture of him and his son, which reminds him how much he loved—or at least previously loved—his son.

     Andy, meanwhile, sits for hours on a park bench debating what to do, where to go. He has enough money for a train or bus ticket, but what is he supposed to do wherever he gets there? What choices does he have as a 16- or 17-year-old? It’s the he problem that all gay runaways must face. Our young “hero” certainly doesn’t look like he’d last long on the streets.

      Although he calls his friend Luke, it’s clear that Luke’s not quite ready to run off with him, apparently having an important family event to attend to first. As the runaway oddly agrees, “Family comes first,” although in his case he has just severed family ties.

       The father, meanwhile, talks to the boy’s sister Zoe (Gina Holloway), who explains that she’s known about her brother’s sexuality and attempted to get him to talk about it with their father, but he has simply been too terrified to do so.

       He argues that he “doesn’t have anything against them (presumably gay people), but when it’s my own son. I can’t just pretend.” When he asks his daughter what her mother might have said, Zoe argues she would have been happy that he was simply healthy and happy. And magically this convinces the foul-tempered man.

       Eventually, of course, Andy has no choice but to return, explaining that actually he’s happy his secret world is over. “I’ve spent years of my life walking through that front door, thinking my head would explode every time you asked me where I’d been.” As with many young men in his situation, he wants to feel “normal” again, presumably by that world meaning “accepted,” that the relationship between him and his father will return to what it was before he realized his sexual difference.

       A surprise hug from his father changes everything.

       No such hug was ever offered by my father even though I realized that he continued to love me; but nothing could ever return to “normal,” nor perhaps had it ever been. But it’s always nice to think, as many of the current “coming out” films seem to confirm, that there is far less hysteria about the issue than there used to be.

 

Los Angeles, March 21, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (March 2024).

Index R-Z

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