Tuesday, May 14, 2024

Dominic Mercurio | He Won't Belong / 2023

the turning point

by Douglas Messerli

 

Dominic Mercurio (screenwriter and director) He Won't Belong / 2023 [22 minutes]

 

North of San Francisco, on the strip of the desolate California coast which is often described as the “lost coast,” Theo (Joel DeCandio) driving on a rainy night on an almost empty road discovers

a young hitchhiker, Connor (Cole Doman), wet and shivering in the cold.

    The young man immediately gets into his van, the stranger immediately taking him back to his lovely house, providing him something warm to drink and a chance to warm up by the fire place before telling him there is a guest room with an already made-up bed for him to stay the night.

 

    In most gay films this hint at the beginning of a sexual encounter or serve the prologue to a night of horror, but here it represents nothing more than kindness. The next morning, after a difficult night for guest, the homeowner Theo offers him up some toast, jam, and coffee.

     Politely, Theo attempts to query his guest about the reason why he was out hitchhiking in the rain without even a bag or backpack, obviously with only the clothes on his back. But all he can discover is that back in San Francisco Connor had a boyfriend.

 

     We get glimpses of that boyfriend, a black, slightly older man named Simon (Seven James) who never speaks in the film but just by his very presence poses as a kind indiscernible threat for Connor. At one point, as the boyfriend stands naked before him in a dream, Connor pushes his finger into Simon’s navel resulting in blood leaking down his leg and onto the younger boy’s foot.

      The viewer can only presume that the two were having difficulties in their relationship. Perhaps the title of this film hints at a sense of discomfort. But we have no way of knowing whether is it Simon or Connor who doesn’t belong in the other’s world?

       Although Connor seems anxious to move on, Theo coaxes him to go searching for chanterelles with him, as once more he attempts to discern where Connor is heading and why? All the young man can seem to suggest is that he is going north, perhaps as far as Canada—although soon after speaking that word, he suggests he just been joking, that he’s not heading that far.

     Theo offers him home-cooked pasta with the mushrooms, and Connor stays on, discovering in a drawer near to the silverware and napkins he’s been asked to fetch, pictures of Theo and another man.

      When asked about the picture, Theo explains that he was his husband who recently died. He briefly recounts that they moved to the beautiful oceanside house from the city, buying it together. At first his friend didn’t feel he could survive apart from city life, but soon found that they had made the right decision. But one night he became ill and before a doctor could even determine what his illness was, he died. Without his husband, Theo says that he will soon have to give up the house since he cannot afford it alone.

    Connor is still convinced that he should be on his way, but suffers another spell of stomach spasms and stays one more night.

 

      Theo takes him to a special place that he and his husband used to go, overlooking the ocean, where finally Connor opens up a little, expressing his fears that since his boyfriend is so quiet and at times impenetrable, he fears that their relationship won’t last. Perhaps he is better off alone, he argues, that he’s better off learning to survive by himself than remaining in a relationship that seems so tenuous.

       Theo attempts to assure him that all love is unsure and seemingly impermanent. When Connor asks him how Theo knew that his husband was the one for him, he simply answers: “I couldn’t get him out of my head.”

       Soon after, Theo drops his guest back off on the road where he found him, the two quickly hugging goodbye.

      We see Connor standing on the right side of the road, heading north away from San Francisco. No car passes. It’s a lonely road.

      A few minutes later, Connor walks across to the other side of the road and begins walking back in the direction of San Francisco. Obviously, he is now willing to return to Simon and take a chance with love.

      The power of this short film exists in its indirectness and indeterminacy. There is no plot, no sudden incident when the two strangers discover themselves falling in love. Both instead are isolated beings, one who has painfully lost his love, the other who, fearful of losing love, is about to give it up. But the fact that Theo has had something so beautiful precious, helps the younger Connor to realize that he should at least give love a chance by returning, transforming his sense of not belonging into a statement of not “being long” gone, as in “he won’t be long.”

 

Los Angeles, May 14, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (May 2024).

 

Gary Halvorson and Mary Zimmerman | Rusalka / 2017 [The Metropolitan Opera Live-HD production]

raping nature

by Douglas Messerli

 

Antonín Dvořák (composer), Jaroslav Kvapil (libretto), Mary Zimmerman (director), Gary Halvorson (film director) Rusalka / 2017 [The Metropolitan Opera Live-HD production]

 

I feel somewhat uncomfortable beginning an essay by talking about water sprites and a dangerous Water Gnome (Eric Owen), let alone focusing on the Gnome’s daughter, Rusalka (Kristine Opolais), who like H. C. Andersen’s famed little mermaid, having fallen in the love with the local Prince (Brandon Jovanovich), wants to be transformed into a human being. The witch Ježibaba (wonderfully performed by Jamie Barton), along with her rat, crow, and half-cat posse, are only too happy to provide her a potion, while assuring her that if the Prince does not take her on as his lover, he will die and she will be permanently outcast from the spirit world—oh, and she has to get him to love without the power of human speech. You might suspect that we are back in the “topsy-turvy” land of W. S. Gilbert instead of Antonín Dvořák’s early 20th century opera.

 

      But act two makes it clear, despite the fact that Rusalka hardly gets a chance to sing, that the heart of this opera is a bit closer to Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde and even, in parts, has more elements of the great Ring than of Hansel and Gretel.

        The Prince does indeed fall in love with the beautiful Rusalka, but given her muteness and her resistance to his kisses, has little choice but to keep another potential love on hand, in this case the Foreign Princess (Katarina Dalayman). The Princess, robed in colors of red, is all ego and fire, while the pale, white-robed Rusalka is as silent and cold as the moon with which she is associated.

        Most of act Two is played out in the form of an elaborate and erotically-charged Baroque-like series of dances (marvelously choreographed by Austin McCormick) which not only appall poor Rusalka but represent the antithesis of her spiritual existence. Indeed, during the first intermissions, singer Opolais described that performing Rusalka was a presentation of a soul rather than of a heart. In their elaborately brocaded costumes these dancers are almost entirely about frivolous flirtation and meaningless passion.


      Worried for his daughter, the Water Gnome appears at the party to reassure her and argue for the necessity of winning over the Prince; yet his daughter can only see how things are. As director Mary Zimmerman suggested, no love can be consummated when one of the lovers is hiding her true identity, and is not allowed to express the truth.

       When the Prince finally determines to transfer his attentions to the Foreign Princess, he is rejected by both women, as Rusalka escapes her palace isolation and the Princess mocks the Prince’s sudden transformation.



        Act Three is simply—or maybe not so simply—a fulfilling of Ježibaba’s warnings. Poor Rusalka, wandering what is now a fallen world, is indeed frozen out of the world’s one-time beauty, yet refuses to possibly save herself by personally killing her former lover.

      Unfortunately, in this last act the composer felt the need to wrap up everything by reintroducing nearly all of the opera’s characters, including the minor servants of Act Two, the dancing water sprites, Ježibaba and her consorts, and the Water Gnome before returning the bereaved and sorrowful Prince, who, even when he is told that kissing his former lover will mean his death, would prefer living with her in eternity than losing forever her embrace.

      Yet even their Tristan and Isolde moment does not release them, as her father explains; in his world there is no such thing as human sacrifice, only death. And, at opera’s end Rusalka, as promised, is now an eternal wanderer who cannot share in the spiritual nor the world of human passion.


      It’s easy to imagine in this opera that the intruder is Rusalka, a thing of nature who insists upon entering the human world, destroying and being destroyed in the process. But the true barbarian, if we think more clearly, is the Prince, who takes up with the natural world only because of its beauty, without realizing that there are consequences for his conquering and then abandoning nature. In short, Rusalka might be read as a work in which mankind’s need to conquer the world around results in his own destruction—a highly prescient subject given our concerns today. 

      Despite conductor Sir Mark Elder’s long devotion to what he describes as a major opera, however, the very subject matter of Ruslka, particularly given its clotted last act, and its rough-hewn roots in folklore, make for a less profound experience than many greater operas. Having said that, this work, and particularly the new MET production, with its numerous beautifully musical and dance moments, lovely sets, and costumes as well, helped to reveal the operas many charms.

 

Los Angeles, February 26, 2017

Reprinted from USTheater, Opera, and Performance (February 2017).

Alex Gibney | Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief / 2015

a murky vision

by Douglas Messerli

 

Alex Gibney (screenplay, based on Going Clear by Lawrence Wright, and director) Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief / 2015

 

A bit predictably and far less complexly and fascinatingly than the Lawrence Wright book upon which it was based, the movie Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, directed by Alex Gibney, explores—as have numerous other such investigations into scientology’s strange beliefs and alleged mistreatments of some of its believers—the history and values of the highly litigious institution.


    In interviews, this work focuses on eight former Scientologists: the Oscar winning director, Paul Haggis, the church’s former second-in-charge, Mark Rathbun; the former head of the organization’s Office of Special Affairs, actor Jason Beghe; church liaison with John Travolta, Sylvia “Spanky” Taylor; as well as three former ordinary members, Tom DeVocht, Sara Goldberg, and Hana Eltringham Whitfeld.

      Divided into three parts, these former Scientologists begin by describing how they came to join the “church,” their reasons being often quite different, but ultimately sharing their “need” to find spiritual fulfillment and their being lured into the group through promises, the attractions of a belief based on confession and self-improvement through readings of the quite explicable E-meter readings, and through the celebrity of certain members such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta.

     The second part gives a far too quick summation of founder L. Ron Hubbard’s very strange beliefs as expressed in his science-fiction books and Dianetics, as well as a series of formerly secret beliefs that are revealed as one continues along the path leading to “going clear,” a process that depends upon paying for years of continued study and E-meter readings. Through that process, moreover, the church comes to know and, apparently records, nearly all the information that its members are encouraged to reveal about themselves, often, as the third part of this explores, using that information against the individuals.


    The film argues, quite convincingly, that church leadership, particularly David Miscavige, has continued abusing church members through verbal intimidating, beating, imprisonment, and exploitation. Some members are forced to sell themselves and their children to the church for decades, and are forced to work for extremely small amounts of money. Others, particularly senior executives who seemingly cross church teachings or rulings, have been locked away on a floor of the large Hollywood Scientology building in an area known as “The Hole.” Others are taken to desert locations and imprisoned for years.

      The film discusses particular situations wherein Tom Cruise’ former wife Nicole Kidman was targeted for wire-tapping by the organization so that they might break up her and Cruise’s relationship. “Spanky” Taylor, personally “in charge” of John Travolta, hints that when Travolta attempted to leave the church, he was forced to remain out of fear that some of his personal life—presumably regarding his gay sexual activities—might be revealed.

      If Miscavige is portrayed as the grand villain of this work, it is Cruise who, in several film clips is shown at major church conventions denying outsider accusations with a broad Cheshire cat-like giggling grin, comes off as a complete fool, utterly taken in by the organization’s incoherent philosophies and brainwashing behavior.

     While I discuss these issues in more detail in my essay about Wright’s more intelligent book, the film successfully—and with a far broader audience, more inclusively—asks people to think about not only Scientology but about organizations which demand such absolute beliefs.





      Yet much of what it reveals has been stated before, in just as frightening details. The fact that the Scientology organization continues attempt to sue directors such as Gibney and Wright, and to put pressure on television networks and even reviewers seems merely to reiterate that what is being revealed, yet again, has behind it a great deal of truth.

 

     In the late 1990s a young man came to me, asking if I might be interested in publishing a work he was planning that would reveal devastating information about Scientology leaders and their beliefs. He had, evidently, served in the executive branch, and had been located in a desert compound (what I now realize may have been Gold Base) where he had seen numerous beatings and imprisonment of church believers who had begun to have doubts. Over several meetings, in public bars and restaurants, he presented a quite paranoid demeanor as he whispered out some of his painful memories. He explained if I were to undertake this book, I would be the subject of church attacks and probably would be sued, but if I was willing to take a chance, he would write up the material. His wife and he had both been threatened, he explained, and the church had attempted to break up their marriage and take away their daughter. “If someone overhead us, we might be in danger for our lives,” at one point he interrupted.

      Although I was fascinated with his stories, and would have been willing to even suffer the attacks against me (although, now at an older and wiser age, I wonder how I might have responded to the attacks about which I have since read), as a single-person publishing house with hardly any money, I would not have been able to deal with their litigation, and, I was afraid the book might never be published. Moreover, I feared that this particular individual just might be able to properly write his story; and I had no way, finally, of vetting the truth of his tales.

      Wright’s book, along with Gibney’s film, accordingly, represent important steps in revealing the corruption of this group—which is clearly misusing the religious exemption granted to it after years of attacks on and lawsuits threatened against IRS government investigators—but I fear that this wealthy cult will continue in its activities, particularly when Hollywood celebrities such as Cruise blindly continue to help fund it. But whereas Gibney’s film is merely a documentary about the church, Wright’s book represents a deep entry into a world which Paul Haggis described as “madness,” and it is ultimately that “insanity” of this “church’s” beliefs that help make Scientology such a spiritual riddle.

 

Los Angeles, November 7, 2015

Reprinted in World Cinema Review (November 2015).

Ryan Murphy, Anthony Hemingway, and John Singleton | The People vs O. J. Simpson: An American Crime Story / 2016 [TV series, 10 episodes]

the man who got away

by Douglas Messerli

 

Scott Alexander, Larry Karaszewski, Jeffrey Toobin, D. V. DeVincentis, Joe Robert Cole, Tom Rob Smith, Maya Forbes, and Wallace Wolodarsky (screenplay), Ryan Murphy, Anthony Hemingway, and John Singleton (directors) The People vs O. J. Simpson: An American Crime Story / 2016 [TV series, 10 episodes]

 

The ten segments of The People v. O. J. Simpson—let’s forget the “American Crime Story” moniker, which clearly demeans this powerful multi-series, presenting it as a series along with the later dark dramas of Dominick Dunne’s determined and salaciously melodramatic crime sagas—is a remarkably, dramatic work that reveals so much about American culture in the late 1990s that it is truly painful to watch.


      Let us begin with the fact—and despite the circus of the “American dream team’s” ridiculous theatrics, these are facts, given the DNA evidence and obvious O. J. Simpson self-evidentiary actions and statements—that O. J. Simpson actually murdered two people, his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and waiter Ron Goldman. Perhaps the truth hardly matters, given the bitter anger of the Los Angeles black community, after years of harassment from Los Angeles police and other authorities. Facts in this situation, much life today in Trump’s administration, give way to “alternative facts.” Reality does not exist. And I remember, so very clearly, that every white person I knew thought Simpson was absolutely guilty, and every black I knew (admittedly a smaller community of my friends) insisted upon his innocence. 

       Despite any bridging of the divide we might have thought we had accomplished after the terrible events surrounding the Rodney King trial, in this instance it had completely eroded.  This was not a simple difference of opinion; this event became a cultural divide that, in a sense, made it clear about the differences in Los Angeles between being black, Mexican, and white. And I am afraid that, even today, these vast cultural wounds have never quite healed.


     There is no question that the Fox version of the story supports the white version of events, although the writers and directors have gone out their way to show and demonstrate why the black community was committed to their  “other” vision. For years, police had—and we might add continue to—harass and even kill blacks arrested for the slightest of altercations. The very fact that police detectives such as Mark Furhman (performed by Steven Pasquale), with his deep racial hatred, even existed in the police force was abominable, and remains so still today: we all know that such racial anger and hatred has never quite gone away, and we should be outraged by its existence.

     Yet this film also reveals another kind of terrible hypocrisy and dishonesty in the figures of Robert Shapiro (John Travolta) and Johnnie Cochran (Courtney B. Vance), who, along with their colleagues, the almost always drunken F. Lee Bailey (Nathan Lane), the doubt-ridden Robert Karadashian (David Schwimmer), and the slightly disinterested, but seemingly mean-hearted Barry Scheck (Rob Morrow), reveal the true cynicism of the American justice system in a way 

that anyone with a sense of honesty can only protest with tears and cries of injustice. The “Dream Team” were determined to take the justice system and the American public hostage so that they could never, ever know what truth might be. The pain of their actions is palpable, and Cochran’s self-aggrandizement is matched only by Shapiro’s disappointed loss of self-advertisement. At least Cochran has a seemingly moral outrage having to do with his many years of encounters with police as a black man. Shapiro had no excuse except his own ego. Yet Cochran—with even a bigger ego, and no sense of compromise, was willing even to possibly send the whole city of Los Angeles into another race riot if he didn’t get his way.  He almost succeeds.


      If Simpson walks away a free man, nobody else in this movie gets off so easily. All suffer terrible falls from power. Cochran, Shapiro, Scheck and even the overly acclaimed Allen Dershowitz are shown up as greedy lawyers who will do anything to release their clients—particularly when they have deep pockets to pay them. All are presented as truly despicable figures, Cochran revealed as having the same wife-beating tendencies as Simpson. It is impossible, after seeing this film, to sympathize with any of them. 

      My companion Howard relates a story wherein, soon after the trial, Robert Shapiro entered the famous Beverly Hills restaurant, The Grill, and the entire place, filled with Hollywood executives, suddenly grew quiet; today I might, having watched this film, jeered him as a fool.

      Marcia Clark (played quite brilliantly by Sara Paulson), along with her decent and loving assistant attorney, Christopher Darden (Sterling K. Brown), despite their valiant attempts, were clearly in over their heads, and were no match to the “Dream Team’s” theatrics. Yet these two, above all, can be seen as failed heroes in their attempts to represent “the people,” when all of us had lost our rational heads in the process of listening to this daily national soap-opera.

     The fact that Clark was, at the very same time, experiencing the most difficult aspects of a divorce from her husband—a man determined to take her children away from her—is an even more startling fact in this film of larger-than-life revelations; and that she might have developed a near-romantic relationship with Darden truly reveals her need and humanity. The beautiful scene in which she joins him on a trip to Darden’s old friend in Oakland shows us a Clark that might never have been imagined during her duty as a trial lawyer. She knows how to engage people and to truly tell them a narrative (one of the sub-themes of this movie) better than anyone.

     The kind and considerate Darden cannot bring himself to take advantage of his sexual possibilities with his boss. Maybe he should have. But, nonetheless, he forged with Clark a relationship that outshines any other in this film. We grow to admire them even as they grow to hate themselves.

      A close friend of mine, who shall go unnamed, told me a story that, when he worked as reporter, he’d seen Clark enter a specially hired bus (where she was going, he never revealed), whereupon she immediately begin to have sex with several of the busses’ occupants. How he might have known what was going on inside the bus as he stood outside seeing her off, was never explained. But what I know today is that the sexism which Clark had to suffer is so far beyond the pale that it’s hardly even expressible. The fact that, despite being raped early in life, she represented raped women, and built up a career in a male-dominated world (in one of the funniest scenes in the movie, Los Angeles head of attorney’s Gil Garcetti tries to hint that she should get a complete make-over), is astounding. Maria Clark, who soon after this trial (along with Darden) left her position, is quite clearly this movie’s hero. And is Darden, even despite his terrible decision, against Clark’s warnings, to have Simpson put on the gloves, which didn’t quite (purposely) fit.


       These two were destroyed by the Simpson trial, as surely were the careers of the self-serving Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro, and F. Anthony Bailey, even if they continue to work as lawyers still today. The saddest of all fallen angels was Robert Kardashian, a close friend and ally of both Nicole and O. J. As the evidence mounts, only he, of the defendants, begins to actually wonder or, at least, imagine: was O. J. really guilty? As the series proceeds and the amount of testimony reveals Simpson’s guilt, he grows more and more uncomfortable with the facts. By the time Simpson (a not very comfortable-in-the role Cuba J. Gooding) is freed, he discovers he has also his close friendship with Kardashian and others, who guesses the truth which even O. J. cannot admit to himself. 

     This may be the most poignant relationship in the entire film. How does a close friend admit to himself what he doesn’t really want to know? His pain is palpable throughout the last several parts of the series. His combed-back hairdo seems to get higher and whiter as the “Dream Teams” accomplishes their goals. But he can only go forward, reassuring his ex-wife, now Kris Jenner, that when it is over, they might be free. But we know, only too well, the terrible effects of such cultural saturation.

    In 2003, Kardashian died of esophageal cancer. His excited kids, as presented in this film, later became the totally self-absorbed characters of the Keeping Up with the Kardashians reality television series, a terrible transformation of his own offspring that he might never have imagined, with ultimately, the family’s new father, former Olympic champion Bruce Jenner, transforming into the transgendered female, Caitlyn.

     It’s these strange twists and turns of this film which make it seem almost impossible to believe, even though we know this fictional rendition is actually history. How might we have imagined that the judge himself, Lance Ito, might almost have been brought down by Furhman’s reactions to Ito’s wife, describing her as a monster? How to imagine that Cochran was himself a wife-beating abuser?

      And then, how might we imagined that, after his freedom, Simpson himself, would enter a room to reclaim his trophies, gun in hand, resulting in a 33-year sentence of imprisonment? Well, we might have imagined that. After all, he had gotten away with murder.

     The author of the book on which this series is base, Jeffrey Tobin, proffers up his views on numerous other political lives many days on CNN, and just now appeared on my television set again. Perhaps we all caught up in a major pyscho-drama that may never end?


       Simpson, as this movie portrays, altered nearly every life in which he came in contact. I first thought of describing this film as a kind of “American Tragedy,” and of comparing it with Dreiser’s novel. But no, now I don’t see this as a true tragedy; rather, I see it as a strange monstrosity, a “toxic” world (as the movie itself describes it) from which there is no perceptible exit. Simpson, the grand American football hero, was a fiend that those playing fields all too often produce. We have far too much of the record of those “heroes’” abuse and their own mental deficiencies for their torturous beatings on that field—not so very different, frankly, from the military fields into which we send out young soldiers. No, I no longer think of this as a tragedy, but of a vast American failure, a part of a much, much larger failure of American imagination.

      Two innocent people died. And their killer got away. And all of my black friends, with good reason, will always believe “he was innocent.” I’m afraid the entire American system suffered in that long-ago decision.

      I might just add, my dear friend and former editor, Diana Daves, appeared for several episodes as a juror, who was later dismissed because, without her knowing it, she shared an arthritis doctor with Simpson. I believe her replacement on the jury was the character described as “the demon,” who, despite her belief that Simpson was guilty, was convinced by the majority that she should change her verdict.

 

Los Angeles, February 14, 2017

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (February 2017). 

Monday, May 13, 2024

unknown filmmaker | Penn Pals / 2004

straight history and gay nghtlife

by Douglas Messerli

 

Director unknown Penn Pals / 2004 [30 minutes] [travel advertisement]

 

As we watch a man dressed in a white 18th century blouse with pen in hand, a voiceover tells us

what he is writing: “My dearest beloved. How I long to be with you, to see your radiant smile. Please journey to Philadelphia, where we will be at liberty to meet this Monday, at Independence Hall, as the clock strikes 6.”

 

    In the next frame we see a handsome man waiting outside of Pennsylvania Hall, an attractive young woman flirting with him as she passes. Another man enters the scene and meets up with our young man, the two walking off together.

 

    As this all occurs, a woman’s voice notes: “Philadelphia and its countryside have a long history of making everyone feel free. Philadelphia—Get your history straight. And your nightlife gay.”

      The short advertisement was part of a larger attempt to bring gay visitors to Philadelphia by The Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corp (GPTMC), who found that gays were avid travelers and spend more money than straight tourists.

 

Los Angeles, May 13, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (2024).

Index R-Z

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