Saturday, April 6, 2024

George W. Hill Tell It to the Marines / 1926

the arbiter of wit, sex, and good times

by Douglas Messerli

 

E. Richard Schayer (screenplay), George W. Hill (director) Tell It to the Marines / 1926

 

Although William Haines is nominally the star of George W. Hill’s Tell It to the Marines almost every critic or observer who has commented about this ostensibly heterosexual film, declares that it is Lon Chaney’s movie, primarily because of how obnoxious Haines’ character appears to be. The critic for the Silents Are Golden site’s comments are typical of the general feelings about this film:


“While not the strongest story line, the picture, nevertheless, garnered almost universal praise— and still does today. It was MGM's second highest grossing picture for the year with worldwide box office receipts of $1.6 million. It is most certainly a brilliant performance by Lon Chaney, and, as such, he is the reason the film has stood the test of time, and, in this reviewer's opinion, must have been the driving force behind the film's success in 1927…. Chaney biographer Michael F. Blake noted, ‘The film remains one of his finest performances and demonstrates that he could be a serious actor without any make-up.’

     One can go on and on with laudatory prose about Chaney—he is deservedly one of the most revered actors in cinema history. However, equal screen time (if not more) is given to William Haines as the wisecracking young recruit "Skeet" Burns. Haines excelled at this type of characterization—the obnoxiously egotistical cut-up who takes nothing seriously and, therefore, ends up getting himself in trouble. … Haines certainly plays the cocky, arrogant and obnoxious part to the hilt in Tell it to the Marines. Although he deserves credit for filling the role admirably, author Richard Schayer's creation leans so much toward the obnoxious that it is difficult to muster any compassion for Burns when the story calls for audience sympathy.”

 


    There is no question that actor Haines pushes his character’s “Skeet” Burns’ persona to the limits, not only abusing the travel plan in which the military pays the way to transport it new volunteers to their location of training by taking advantage of the free transportation from his hometown in Kansas to the San Diego Naval base only to escape military induction in order to haunt the race tracks in nearby Tijuana; but when he loses, he returns, using the Marines as a method of survival. He disobeys and evades nearly all of Sergeant O’Hara’s orders, slips away from the military base, basically going AWOL later in the film when his group is stationed on Tondo Island, ignores the pleading of his shanghaied “date” Navy nurse Norma Dale (Eleanor Boardman) to take her home, and comes close to raping her. He is clearly misogynistic and incorrigible regarding nearly all systems of authority. He most certainly, as several commentators have described him, is “a wise guy” in need of a comeuppance.

      Yet I’d argue that he is no more cocky or arrogant than many silent film heroes such as Fatty Arbuckle, Charles Chaplin, and even Buster Keaton when it comes to authoritarian control; and Haines belongs to a long tradition of anti-disciplinarian behavior that gets most thoroughly expressed in a movie such as Robert Altman’s M*A*S*H (1970).

      There was a reason why, year after year, Haines was one of the leading box office draws and MGM’s biggest star. In a time when films openly challenged the bourgeois notions of family and hearth, openly gay actor Haines stood as a symbol to some of a break with a government and society out of touch—particularly with those of the “roaring 20s” generation and even men who had returned with a broader view of society from World War I—with their contemporary concerns. The Prohibition laws and the still basic Victorian approach to policing by many police forces, prisons, and local governments were appropriate targets, for these individuals and others, by figures such as Haines, about whom William J. Mann in his important study of Hollywood gays, Behind the Screen, writes:

 

“His [Haines’] unique screen characterization was merely an extension of his real-life personality: manic, witty, and irreverent. Haines’ humor and values had been honed among the drag queens and gay sophisticates of New York’s Greenwich Village: that what comes through on-screen, and indeed, what made him so popular in the 1920s. …Haines’ campy city slickers were embraced by moviegoers precisely for [his] difference. His queerness, in effect, is what made him box-office gold. He’d ad-lib on the set, with writers inserting his quips as intertitles. His campy asides and comments became part of his screen persona, a gay sensibility at work within the confines of the studio system.”

 

      Even if throughout Tell It to the Marines Haines’ character “Skeet” is seen constantly chasing the girls, particularly nurse Norma, a woman beloved also by Sergeant O’Hara, we recognize

that—even if he might win the girl by the end of the film, as he does in this movie—he was still a wild card even after making significant changes, and stood fast as not truly being the marrying kind.

    When asked early in the film by Marine officers whether he’s ever been married, “Skeet” quips, laughing and observing (through an intertitle card) “Who me? I’m America’s Sweetheart!”—almost breaking through pretense of the screen in the truth of his statement.

      Mann describes him as swishing a lot throughout the film. I can’t say that I would describe his insistent maneuvers to get around his Sergeant’s injunctions as representing a “swishy” manner, “behaving more like a woman rather than a man,” but “Skeet does seem to attract the Navy sailors in a way that he did in real life as well.

      At one point, as he sails with his Marine crew to their first off-base location, he meets up with a hunky sailor going down the narrow circular staircase just as he begins to attempt to go up. The following conversation suggests a kind of immediate gay link-up between the two, rejected by Skeet because of his supposedly “macho” desires (he is, after all, supposed to be attracted only to women).  

    

Bill Duff: Say, Marine... you almost ran into a murder!

Pvt. George Robert 'Skeet' Burns: Peddle your papers, Handsome! I'm poison to Gobs!

Bill Duff: And I'm a great cure for poison, Mr. Leather Neck!

Pvt. George Robert 'Skeet' Burns: Say, Baby... I think I'll declare war on you!


   If the conversation might sound somewhat like a series of violent statements, it’s actually quite campy: with Skeet’s comments about the other being “handsome,” the suggestion of Duff that “he’s a great cure for poison,”—that is, that he takes on all would-be lovers turning them into happy beings—and that Skeet, addressing him as “baby,” posits the idea that he might declare war on him, a metaphor for engaging in sex, all hint at their immediate attraction to each other. The problem is simply that one is a Marine and the other a Gob, an enlisted Navy man enemy of all Leather Necks since the Marine Corps became an independent branch of the military while remaining subject at sea to the Navy, and therefore technically a branch of the Navy. For Skeet, who cannot control his emotions, that means immediate battle, particularly when he senses that the other is possibly making a sexual slur or even coming on to him.

      Sergeant O’Hara quickly breaks up the fight, but suggests that if Skeet really wants a fight, why not do it in the ring, without telling his soldier that Duff is the Navy heavyweight champion.

    That betrayal is one of many that Skeet later points to in later describing O’Hara as a “double-crosser.”

     On Tondo Island, when Skeet shows some attraction to a local native girl, O’Hara insists that he keep away from her and announces that anyone caught fraternizing with the native women will be punished. Such a challenge, obviously, is just what Skeet has been waiting for. Sneaking out of his tent, he hurries off to a native ceremony which Zaya, the girl, is watching. She quickly takes him away to a private hut nearby, where she begins to try to kiss him, but in scratching her back and then inside her dress, Skeet wonders whether she might not have some sort of hygiene problem and resists her kisses, while she becomes increasingly sexually aggressive. When another native observes Skeet rejecting her advances, a fight ensues, which ends with O’Hara, and Skeet’s roommate Corporal Madden coming to the rescue as all the natives and the three men are forced to engage in battle.

      The Marines, bloodied and done in, carry the day, but when Skeet, appreciative of his saviors, attempts to shake O’Hara’s hand, he socks him in the jaw for disobeying him and putting the entire mission in jeopardy.


     These two incidents, among others, convince Skeet that O’Hara is arranging so that he can win over nurse Norma. But we know that Norma’s real reason for rejecting Skeet is probably closer to being racist, just as, sadly, are the scenes with the Tondo natives. Dale has heard, through gossip, about Skeet’s supposed courting of the native girl, and refuses now to even talk to him or write. It’s clear that despite her ability to accept even his untoward behavior to her, she cannot tolerate his interracial involvements with a native woman. One suspects that had it simply been another nurse, she might have forgiven him, but with Zaya he has gone too far. As she writes her insistent courtier: "I'm returning your letters unopened. Your affair at Tondo Island is common gossip and I thoroughly resent your writing me after that. Norma Dale."

      We know, furthermore, that although on the outside O’Hara is tough, he is deeply sentimental and loving on the inside, devoted not only to his nurse—who he knows, at heart, he’s not good-looking enough to truly win over—but deeply loves every Marine he has trained, particularly Skeet, whom he has attempted to reform despite Skeet’s insistent infractions.

 

      Later in Shanghai, the two men meet up with Norma once again, she refusing to even acknowledge Skeet. In a restaurant with O’Hara, she implores him, “Don't you think I'm right to never see him again?" But even here, where he could fairly bad mouth Skeet, the Sergeant demonstrates what a softie he truly is: "Never? Are you sure that's what you mean?" When she insists that is precisely what she means, O'Hara suggests, "I think you're turning him down just when he needs you most."

        It is these events that make Chaney as O’Hara such a loveable figure compared with the impetuous selfishness of Haines’ character.


      The two men come together again, this time to release the nurses, now located in an isolate Chinese city where disease has spread, from the control of warrior bandits. It ends, as such films inevitably must, with O’Hara being wounded ordering the others to retreat, while this time Skeet stays the course and fights on the save Norma and the other nurses as well as O’Hara.

        And accordingly, by film’s end with Skeet’s four-year enlistment finally over, he and Norma buy a ranch, now inviting O’Hara to join them as a “partner,” whatever that might mean. If nothing else it implies a kind a polyamorous adventure way before such things were common knowledge. The veteran obviously recognizes, however, that he and the Marine Corps were made for one another.

     As Skeet turns to go, he too has second thoughts and returns to the base, obviously ready to live out a few more years with his male companion in arms instead of his female partner in bed.

        No one else might have gotten away with such an obvious switch after having pretended to fight so hard for the hand of the female lead in a movie.

        But Haines could get away it, at least throughout the 1920s, because he was authentic and honest about his sexuality. Toto le Grand, the nom de plume of The Gay Cookbook author and former California chorus boy Lou Rand Hogan (born Louis Randall), mentions seeing Haines out at night being “crude, brash, and rowdy!” just as were many of his characters.

       Today, in a frankly more conservative era, we praise the gruff but loving representative of duty, while dismissing the arbiter of wit, sex, and good times who lived a life free of bluff.

 

Los Angeles, March 5, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (March 2024).

Friday, April 5, 2024

Jerome Elston Scott | Connor & Jayden / 2022

fairy tale

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jerome Elston Scott (screenwriter and director) Connor & Jayden / 2022 [33 minutes]

 

US director Jerome Elston Scott’s short film of 2022, Connor & Jayden begins as a “meet cute” flick as Bueller High School football hero Connor Tucker (Christian Barba), now on crutches after a football injury that will keep him out of the game for his senior year, joins the home economics’ cooking class, hoping for an easy A.


     The only other male in that class, Jayden Sansbury (Ty Newcomb), the school outcast, is immediately paired up with the newcomer. Even if the rumor is that Jayden is “gay,” he’s also good-looking, smart, and funny, and daring enough to ask the school jock why he has joined a nearly all-women’s class. Is he hoping to find it a better way to hook up with girls?

     Connor assures him that he has absolutely no problem with the girls, and, in fact, seems to know everyone of his female classmates by name, whereas Jayden, the outsider, has no such ability.

      Yet, the two boys, basically assuming the worst stereotypes of the other, hit it off, Jayden carrying his new “partner’s” books for him to his car, and Connor even offering him a ride home in his red souped-up SUV, the complete automotive specifications which Jayden lists off the top of his head (“411 horse power, a 6.2 Liter V-8 with a hill descent control system, automatic locking rear differentials and an upgraded 3 link suspension with bottle shocks) wondering if he missed anything besides mentioning that it’s bad for the environment. When asked how he, of all people, knows so much about cars, Jayden explains at home he has five brothers.

        As for the ride home, Jayden explains that he has choir practice.

    Their first day, accordingly, ends it appears with Connor saying that he’ll see his new friend tomorrow, Jayden jocularly responding, “Not if I see you first.”

     The unexpected happens when Connor suddenly cannot get his beautiful car to start up, and is forced to interrupt the choir practice by asking for Jayden’s help. Jayden quickly fixes the auto, Connor finding the nerve to ask Jayden, “So what’s your deal. I mean like, are you gay?”

       “Why? Because I’m choir?”

       “No, I’m just asking.”

       “Is that what people around school are saying?’

       Connor pauses. “I’ve heard it.”

       Jayden cockishly winks, “Pretty much. Does that bother you?’

       Connor immediately denies any negative view. “Live and let live I say.”

      Jayden responds that, in fact, Connor is the first person who as even had the courage to outright ask him, Connor wondering if he has a boyfriend.


      What we quickly learn is that Jayden has had no gay sexual encounter.

      “Then, how do you know you’re gay?” Connor seeks to learn.

      “You just do. Did you need a girlfriend to know you were straight?”

      “Fair enough.”

      Again, Connor asks Jayden if he needs a ride, Jayden again jokingly responding “Are you sure that’s what you want to ask me?”

       And before either boy knows it Connor is asking if Jayden wants to watch a movie with him the next evening, a Saturday, which Jayden immediately argues sounds like he’s asking him out on their first date, which Connor, obviously needs to deny, but which Jayden keeps insisting certainly sounds like a date. A movie. Saturday night.

       They miss the movie (Connor, having been cocooned in football all of his life presumes they begin at 8:00, despite Jayden’s continued attempt to get him to set their meeting at 7:00). But they, nonetheless, drive Connor’s red car to the nearby railroad lines (what else is there to do in small-town USA; in my hometown community, which used to be a railroad center, I suppose young girls and boys did the same) to talk. In an almost chivalrous action, Connor offers his football jacket to his chilled new friend as they begin a conversation about their future career possibilities, with Jayden attempting to imagine some likely future vocations for the former footballer (real estate agent, gym teacher, etc.), Connor himself trying to imagine, perhaps for the first time in his life, what else he might be good at.

        He finally turns to Jayden and asks, quite simply, “Could I be your friend.” From there, without a skip, he asks rather startlingly, “Could I be your boyfriend?”  Before we know it they are experimenting with kissing, enjoying it, and falling in love. After only the first kiss, Connor is already imagining all the others’ reactions when they see the two of them at the school prom (8 months in the future at this point.) And already one of their classmates, the movie ticket seller has spotted them kissing.

 

     What follows is what happens far too many times in such otherwise perfectly charming gay movies, which this short film has become: the boys go on a sugary binge for the next 10 minutes of the film, traveling together, dining out, running across fields, rowing, racing across the beach, and even darting through the Los Angeles County Museum of Arts’ installation of Chris Burden’s city streetlights, Urban Light, which is rather curious since the movie theater they attempted to attend a few weeks earlier was in Maitland, Florida. 



        The boys have sex and begin to post hearts with their names on it on nearby campus lights, instead of trees. These boys are quite apparently absolutely and truly in love. And we keep waiting for the film’s metaphoric other shoe to drop, as having been discovered in a gay relationship, Connor must now experience what Jayden has, being outside the community of which in which he was once the center. All we can hope is that like the boys themselves, their fellow students can lay down their stereotypes and discover that perhaps their football hero was gay all along.

           But no such event happens. Except for a very short hiatus in their love-making suggested by Connor, nothing happens, and that’s the problem. It may be utterly heartening that in this 2022 film finally the boys attend the prom without anyone any of the other boy’s bowties getting crooked. In the huge auditorium of Bueller High no one even seems to notice, expect perhaps the interviewer to whom they explain how they met and fell in love all over again, as if we needed a recap.

 

        As I suggest, it’s almost earth-shattering that not one of their classmates has seemingly even blinked at the notion of the odd couple holding hands and mooning over one another every day in their classes. If only gay critic Vito Russo were here to see it. He’d be so proud.

         But this movie—unless it is hinting at an irony that I’ve somehow missed—has become almost pointless, a valentine that keeps reproducing, over and over again, a series of “I luv you hearts.” What was a charming and quirky movie, in the end, has become a kind of pointless love story where everyone ends up so happy “ever after” that its audience can only blush and tiptoe out of the theater to leave the happy couple to their own bedtime joys.

        We can only imagine the happy couple a few years later, Jayden busily cooking up a meal for his always late lover, Connor, out working every day as a real estate agent, something which as the dreamy young boy he thought sounded so boring, but which was, in the end, the only thing he could truly imagine as an adult vocation. He could have taught gym, but the salary was simply not enough, since Jayden’s restaurant had gone bust. But now they live in a nice house and have good gay friends and are even thinking of adopting a baby. So what went wrong? Why are we so very disinterested in this perfect couple? And why are we almost offended that all of this might be seen to be of interest as a movie?

 

Los Angeles, March 5, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema (March 2024).

       

William Wyler | The Letter / 1940

forgiveness

by Douglas Messerli

 

Howard E. Koch (screenplay, based on a story by W. Somerset Maugham), William Wyler (director) The Letter / 1940

 

The changes forced upon Americans films by the Hays Office and Production Code were generally dreadful, based as they were on absurdly limited notions of moral behavior and ethics. Indeed, William Wyler’s 1940 version of W. Somerset Maugham’s story, The Letter seems a candidate for one of the worst intrusions into Hollywood scripts.


     In the original, Leslie Crosbie (Bette Davis), the wife of British Rubber Plantation manager in Malaysia, is a murderer who, primarily because of racial attitudes and the class-conscious British community, gets away with the crime. The movie opens with a sensuous scene that only Hollywood movies could call up: a cloudy, moonlit night, the rubber dripping from the trees, and the native workers attempting to sleep in clapboard, open hovels surrounding the manor house on a hot night. A shot rings out, another, and we witness a man grasping his side, having been shot. He falls, and Leslie comes out of the house and shoots him several more times until she has emptied the gun’s cartridge.            With cold-blooded lucidity, she orders the servant and others to bring back her husband, working at another nearby plantation through the night, and calls for a doctor and her lawyer. She locks herself in her room, and they come together, as she expertly tells the story that she will repeat several more times: a friend of hers and her husband Robert (Herbert Marshall), Geoff Hammond had tried “to make love” to her, and she has shot him in self-defense.


     Soon after, the couple and the lawyer, Howard Joyce (James Stephenson) head off to Singapore, reporting the murder to the authorities, which lands Leslie in jail for a short period until the trial. All are quite certain, however, that justice will prevail, and she will be found innocent. Leslie, in particular, does well in jail, spending her time as she has many a lonely night, knitting an intricate lace table cover. But Robert is depressed and worried, and moves in, temporarily, with the lawyer and his wife.

      A few days later, however, a young Chinese attorney, Ong Chi Seng (Sen Yung) reports the existence of a letter written to Hammond by Leslie the day of his death. The existence of letter alone is troublesome, since Leslie has reported that she had not seen Hammond for some weeks before he showed up at her home to molest her; but, more importantly, the contents of the letter reveal that she has called for their meeting and hints that the two had been lovers. When Joyce notes the existence of the letter to his client, she at first denies having written it, but finally admits the truth; and soon after, he, a reputable man, is put in the unconscionable situation of having to buy the letter back from Hammond’s wife, an Eurasian woman in this censored version (while in the original was of Chinese extraction). To save Leslie and to protect his close friend Robert, however, Joyce agrees to the payment, withdrawing the sum of $10,000 from Robert’s account.

 

     The plot grows a bit thicker yet when Hammond’s wife (an imperious Gale Sondergaard) demands that Leslie bring the money to her, an encounter which ends up with Leslie literally groveling at the woman’s feet to retrieve the letter.

      Despite Joyce’s struggle with his moral conscience, he, nonetheless, speaks eloquently enough in court to free Leslie, who returns to the Joyce home for a celebration with all their friends, as they joyfully great her back into their fold. Just previous to the event, however, Robert has become determined to move away from Malaysia to Borneo, where he plans to buy his own rubber plantation; Joyce and Leslie attempt to dissuade him, finally admitting that they have drained his bank account to buy the letter.

       Although Joyce has known of letter’s existence, he has not read its contents, believing it was a simply friendly correspondence between his wife and the dead man. But now, shocked at the turn of events, he demands to read it, and Leslie is forced to admit the relationship, her jealousy of Hammond’s wife, and her murderous reaction. At the party, the formerly loving and gracious Robert becomes drunk and garrulous, spinning stories about his now impossible Borneo plantation.


     The film might have ended there, with Leslie having been exonerated and celebrated, while nonetheless, destroying all the men around her. But the Hays Office, determined to protect the American public from the possibility of a criminal escaping punishment from both adultery and murder, demanded that she be killed off. Accordingly, in an attempt to exact their own petty morality, they ruined the irony of Maugham’s story, which suggested that even seemingly good people, in their narrow prejudices and class systems, protect and even encourage evil acts.

     To solve the dilemma, the screenplay asks us to believe that this strong-willed murderess, evidently to atone for her crimes, walks off into the night prepared to be murdered by Hammond’s wife and her henchman—a seemingly ludicrous proposition.

     But Koch’s change, in some ways, actually improves the original. The message of the story is still intact, while the new version, in which Robert is ready to forgive his wife for her sins if only she promises that she loves him, now reveals a new dimension. Leslie simply cannot bring herself to lie one more time, and adamantly admits that she still loves the man she murdered. Suddenly we realize, despite his kind gestures and love of his wife, just how boring and inattentive Robert has been all along. Leslie has been forced, night after night, to sit crocheting while he has worked on the extraction of barrels of the white, viscous substance, which film critic David Thomson argues, is inextricably linked by the viewer with semen in the film’s very first scene. Leslie is not even allowed in the kitchen; they have a servant for that. It is a man’s world akin to the world of the homoerotic sperm whalers portrayed in Melville’s Moby Dick, which has no place for a forceful woman, a theme of which the gay author Maugham was most certainly conscious.


     The beautiful, vivacious Leslie has clearly sought out a more exciting world for herself in Hammond, a man whom even the males admit, was attractive to women and men equally. While the original tale pointed its finger at the society and Leslie as equally guilty parties, this new version points its finger at her husband and the society of men just like him in which women are left at home like beautiful objects, with no thought of their being needful, thinking, and desiring beings. Leslie’s murder of Hammond is triggered by her recognition that his rejection of her means that, metaphorically speaking, she must return to her lace, to live out the rest her days as old woman in glasses, crochet needles in hand. 

      By rejecting her husband’s “forgiveness” and embracing the dark night with murder in the air, Leslie reveals her powerful strength as a woman, becoming a proto-feminist figure who is unafraid to take a direction different from the one her husband proffers. It is only just, after all, that she, who has destroyed her own alternatives, must be destroyed by the woman whose love was also taken from her. In a sense, they are similar: both women are forced by the society around them to wear a mask of femininity beneath which their power and vitality are necessarily hidden, much like the moon disappearing between the clouds, an image which brackets the beginning and the end of the film.

 

Los Angeles, March 17, 2016

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (March 20

Titles Index A-N

https://myqueercinema.blogspot.com/2023/12/former-index-to-world-cinema-review.html Films discussed (listed alphabetically by director) [F...