Wednesday, August 14, 2024

Luiz De Barros | Clubbing / 1994

confessions

by Douglas Messerli

 

Luiz De Barros (screenwriter and director) Clubbing / 1994

 

South African director Luiz De Barros’ (using the name Luiz Barros) explores the Johannesburg area of Hillbrow—at the time, a major neighborhood of night life and gay clubs—in the 1994 film, a period in which the country was still involved in deep prejudices but was also gradually shifting to more diverse viewpoints among younger people. The younger group that gathers for a pre-club attendance at the apartment of two openly gay boys in this film (whose actors, not listed with character names, include alphabetically Karen Coetzee, Justin Cohen, Thandi Davids, George Dzerefos, Jennifer Fenton, Wayne Fick, Stephanie Kronson, Dominic Lee, and Brendan Pollecutt) represent a wide range of viewpoints, all connected in rather vague ways with friendships to the two gay men whose apartment is the starting point of a meaningless journey.


   A handsome young “straight” man—who seems to be a closeted gay boy—has insisted his girlfriend join him. She confesses to not liking gays, and in a short “off screen confession” that interrupts the narrative—one of several by different characters throughout the film—admits that she doesn’t like about gay men is that she has no power over them, having none the effects she can rely upon with straight men. “Bi guys” really freak her out, she suggests, because she doesn’t know where she stands in relationship to such men. But, she claims, “I don’t really have a problem with blacks.”


       Although at the party the couple speak out for joys of heterosexuality, in the car beforehand they argue, mostly about the differences of their groups of friends, obviously pointing to the fact that they gravitate each to a very different subset of individuals. For a young man such as this good-looking post-teen to claim a close friend with an openly gay couple in 1994 already suggests 

       The gay boys are in the midst of ecstatic sex when two women ring their doorbell, a slightly cheeky woman (who brings Andrew, one the gay boys, a condom—“the perfect gift for the post-AIDS generation) and Anna, a black woman who Andrew has evidently met long ago and with whom he had some vague communication problems.


       In an shout out of story confession from the forceful white woman we discover that she, quite contrary to several other viewpoints, has refused to take an acting class suggested to her by an agency, and insistent that she will leave the country, believing that the violence is simply going to get worse—“So why stick around for this shit; I don’t have to feel guilty about that.”  She sees a country pretty much like a job, if you get bored and grow to dislike it, you move on.

       Later at the party we discover Anna to be in a relationship with a racist black man who doesn’t like her to have white friends. Yet the other woman, despite her sense of privilege and the fact that she has a black maid, is her best friend, and she feels trapped in her relationship despite her love for her man. She and one of the gay boys get into a nasty argument as the gay man talks about current events in terms of theory while she speaks from the view of direct politics. Indeed, the young gay boy seems to be rather smug, if not outright boring, in his rather academic viewpoints of all things.


       Another woman on her way to the party is a drug addict, supposedly recovering, and her boyfriend. She is determined to pick up someone of the street to bring along, and finally finds a young skin head, a true racist who she lures to the party with the offer of drugs. And indeed, despite her supposed reformation, she interrupts her partygoing to snort a large amount of cocaine with the white racist boy before making out with him in the bathroom.

    No one at the party likes the racist, who claims he doesn’t hate blacks, but just doesn’t like them around because they’re dirty and they ruin the country. To further rub in his bigotry, the two gay boys suddenly begin to kiss, bringing out his strong homophobia. Everyone is startled somewhat by his presence.

      Even the gay couple argue at several points, suggesting that no one in this group truly loves and enjoys one another—except for the insistent heterosexual couple, who we know are somewhat lying. The gay couple, in fact, clearly are still in love and reaffirm their love as the others gather to carpool it to the club.



      As for the clubs, which they only briefly discuss, none of the them appears to be of that great of interest, many of them according to various reports being filled with still half-closeted individuals who are ill-at-ease in such a public outing. Despite the neon signs promising “Fun,” the clubs don’t seem to provide that to any members of the gathering. And when they all finally group at their automobiles, they realize they have still not chosen a particular destination for their “clubbing.”

      The diversity of this gathering certainly hints at some progress and hope of communication between the various divisions of South African society. But, on the other hand, none of these diverse individuals seems to like the others. And although they all proclaim deep friendships, they appear to be at a loss to explain their friendships, but just as fearful of losing them. Their pre-clubbing event seems strangely purposeless, just as they all appear to be individually. Race, sex, drugs, all seem to be various ways they have of coping a world in which most of their countrymen are at war with one another, none of their identities or desires fulfilling the emptiness they suffer. But the film itself, with its seemingly rough and raw honest “confessions” appears to offer a viewpoint that is rare in 1994 in the larger society, and itself represents some variation of hope.

      It took me several years of searching, after having seen De Barros’ remarkable short film Hot Legs (1995), to track down this short movie. I hope I can eventually see others of his works such as Pretty Boys (1991), Different Strokes (1995), and Metamorphosis: The Remarkable Journey of Granny Lee (2000).

 

Los Angeles, January 15, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (January 2023).

 

Stephan Elliot | The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert / 1994

bloody abba

by Douglas Messerli

 

Stephan Elliot (screenwriter and director) The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert / 1994

 

If the Australian film industry is to be believed, the 1977 tour of ABBA, when they performed in front of more than 160,000 fans, totally changed the country’s personality. Certainly, that is one of the unusual premises behind Stephan Elliot’s Dadaist-like road trip adventure, The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.


     Priscilla, incidentally, is not a human being, but a broken-down bus which speeds two Melbourne drag queens (Mitzi Del Bra/Anthony “Tick” Belrose, played by Hugo Weaving and Felicia Jollygoodfellow/Adam Whitely played by Guy Pearce) and one transgendered individual (Bernadette Bassenger/Ralph Waite, portrayed by the still elegant and stately Terence Stamp) into the desert. The mimed singing performances of Mitzi and Felicia are so stale that they’ve been booed off stage. Bernadette’s young boyfriend, Trumpet, has been asphyxiated while dying his hair and has himself died. There seems no better time to get out of town and see the wondrous Australian outback that these three have seemingly never before encountered.

     And what fun! We get to go along, watching them strut about in small desert towns in outrageous drag costumes with volumes of ostrich plumes, sequins, spangles, beads, bangles, and bows. Although these three may seem like ultimate victims, vulnerable outsiders in a world of pioneer-like homesteaders and native aborigines, they soon show their pluck: first by revealing unexpected aspects of themselves to each other, then by demonstrating even further surprises to the narrow-minded townspeople and dangerously bigoted miners.


     The least able, and youngest of them, Felicia (whom the handsome Pearce plays with a crazed abandonment), simply needs to expand his/her experiences, and gradually does that as they move forward into space. Fixated on empty-headed gay concerns, he is literally left out in the cold by the other two until he can comprehend his ridiculousness. As the eldest of the group, Bernadette responds early in the trip:

 

                     I’ll join this conversation on the proviso that we stop bitching about

                     people, talking about wigs, dresses, bust sizes, penises, drugs, night

                     clubs and bloody Abba!

 

     Tick’s response says it all: “Doesn’t give us much to talk about then, does it?” Felicia is even more obsessed: one of his/her greatest possessions is a small vial wherein floats a piece of fesces—belonging to Abba singer Agnetha Fältskog! Felicia may be funny and even, at times, fun to be around, but she/he is also still a child who endangers all their lives by dressing up in drag and parading before a group of small-town miners, men who suffer most of their lives deep underground. Bernadette comes to the rescue by kicking the most threatening of them in the groin and forcefully finger-wrestling him to the ground.      .  


      Earlier, at another small and not so accommodating community she out-drinks the most renowned drinker, the hostile owner of the hotel establishment. When their bus breaks down, Bernadette bravely ventures off into the desert, ultimately bringing help. The man who finally comes to their rescue is Bob (Bill Hunter), whose mail-order wife has the most unusual talent—far more pleasing to the males of this outpost—of being able to expel ping pong balls from her vagina. Fortunately, the three cross-dressing performers find a far more receptive audience in the native aborigines, who readily join in on their dancing revelries.

     When Bob’s wife leaves him (“I no like you anyway. You got little ding-a-ling”), he joins up with the dancers. Having seen “Les Girls,” a group with which Bernadette performed years earlier, he is, it becomes apparent, smitten with her, and the two celebrate with a night in the open air. The interchanges between to two are some of the best in the movie. Describing Bob as a “gentleman,” Bernadette remarks: “[to Bob] Believe me, Bob, these days gentlemen are an endangered species. Unlike bloody drag queens who just keep breeding like rabbits.”

     Tick has the most revelations of the three, revealing not only where they headed—the resort town Alice Springs, where they are scheduled to perform, but sharing his secret that he has been married—has, as Felicia quips, “been playing for both teams”—with the consequences of a young son. As the manager of the hotel in which they will perform, his wife has requested that he take the son for a while so that she might find a few weeks of deserved vacation.

     Suddenly, with that revelation we begin to see this silly set of figures as real human beings. The duality of their lives, represented by their real and fictitious names, becomes even more apparent as these cartoons pop out into real space, joining us. It is not a profound reality, and the believability of Elliott’s transformative tale is, to say the least, shaky. But it is, nonetheless, meaningful, and changes the tone of the entire film.

     Received by both wife and child with open arms and utter joy for their absurd performances, their dance becomes almost a war-whoop of retribution as they go through their paces—particularly Bernadette, who Stamp plays as a tough, war-weary figure who’s been through it all before. They are truly “Dancing Queens.” And we finally realize that these apparent “losers” have all the time been holding treasures of a sort that reveals their true abilities: the least of these, obviously, is Felicia’s bottle of a turd, yet it reveals his totally adventurous spirit and his willingness to do anything to fulfill it; for Bernadette, it is her strength of her arms and hands which assure us that she has a full grip on life; and finally, for Tick it is his son, a new spirit in the world that quickly embraces the new while remaining somehow still wide-eyed and innocent. The boy sees life in a new way that we can hope will help heal the hurts suffered by such outsider beings as these three travelers and those like them in the future.


     Bernadette and Bob determine to stay on at the hotel, managing it while Tick’s wife is traveling. Felicia—a now somewhat calmer and less flamboyant figure—falls in with Tick’s son. He is after all a somewhat elderly child who can readily play the role of older brother.

     In the final scenes the three are back in Melbourne, performing at the local bar, the son happily helping out with the lights. What began as a kind of extremist parody of gay life has now been assimilated into near normalcy.

 

Los Angeles, February 4, 2012

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (February 2012).

 

Pedro AlmodĂłvar | Le ley del deseo (Law of Desire) / 1987

loving the wrong people

by Douglas Messerli

 

Pedro AlmodĂłvar (screenwriter and director) Le ley del deseo (Law of Desire) / 1987

 

It some respects it's hard to say exactly what AlmodĂłvar's 1987 film Law of Desire is truly about. True, there is a lot of "desire" spread around the movie's few figures: handsome, middle age film director Pablo Quintero (Eusebio Poncela) clearly desires his current young "boy-toy" lover, Juan BermĂşdez, and, apparently, sleeps with him on a regular basis—despite the fact that the young man is "straight." It is apparently for that reason that he sends the boy away, hoping to cure himself from his infatuation with Juan.

     Pablo's sister, Tina Quintero—a transsexual played by a woman, Carmen Mauro—desires a career on the stage and falls in love, at present, with women, living in quasi-lesbian like relationships. She also dearly loves the daughter, Ada (Manuela Velasco) of her former lover, also named Ada (performed, in a typical AlmodĂłvar switch, by the beautiful transsexual Bibi Andersen).


     Another young man, Antonio BenĂ­tez (Antonio Banderas) seeking a career in acting, almost explicably becomes obsessed with Pablo, seeking to replace Juan's role in Pablo's life. Like Juan, he too appears to be "straight," but is completely ready and willing to make love to Pablo, getting fucked for the very first time upon their second encounter. In AlmodĂłvar's fuzzy screenplay, however, it is hard to know whether he truly sexually desires Pablo or whether he desires the career Pablo may offer a good lover. In any event, it does not pay off; Pablo's next project is a stage version of Cocteau's The Human Voice, basically a monologue for a woman; the director offers his sister the part, with the young Ada playing a delightful minor role. Pablo's script, Laura P., is never completed.      

     As in nearly all of AlmodĂłvar's often masterful films, the colors and decor are beautiful, the characters equally attractive or, as in the case of Carmen Mauro, fascinating to watch. But in Law of Desire these figures circle round each other with little apparent logic, creating sexual or psychological flashes that, at times, seem more voyeuristic in their effect that dramatically essential.

     The central dramatic thread is kept alive by the young Antonio who moves in and advances on Pablo with all the force and skill of a trained commando group taking over a terrorist compound; snooping through Pablo's correspondence, reading his scripts, overhearing conversations, and ingratiating himself with the filmmaker. Perhaps AlmodĂłvar is telling us something about his own personal experiences. Certainly, the film seems to have no possible direction but the route it takes, creating a kind of Fatal Attraction-like subplot, where Antonio stalks Pablo's former lover Juan, first attempting to rape him or, at least, to possess him as an accessory to the director (he has also purchased an exact copy of a shirt Pablo wears), but eventually killing the young boy in the process.

      With that act, it appears, AlmodĂłvar did not have clue where to take the plot, creating an inexplicable detour where Pablo, having determined to visit Juan, is chased by the police and, after crashing into a tree, winds up in the hospital with temporary amnesia. There has always been something soap-opera-like about AlmodĂłvar's stories, and often that is part of their charm. But this time, the unexpected twist of the story seems to have been created only so that Tina, in an attempt to bring back Pablo's memory, reveals that she has been responsible for their parents' separation, having had an affair with their father while still a young boy, and transforming her sexuality after their parents' divorce in order to go on living with him—introducing a strange Freudian wrinkle that takes incest about as far as it can go. At least we now understand why Tina has become a lesbian!



    Oh, but I forgot to mention, she now has a new boyfriend. Although Pablo regains his memory, he fails to ask the boyfriend's name until it dawns on him who Juan's murderer might be. Negotiating with the police and Pablo by holding Tina and Ada as hostages, Antonio wins an hour alone with his former lover. Another quick jump into bed closes with Antonio shooting himself, Pablo bent over the dead body with what appears to be new remorse. Had he really come to love this intruder?

     It really doesn't matter, of course, since the entire film has been little but a dance of figures all in love with the wrong people.

      Fortunately, the very next year AlmodĂłvar swung back with a new finely tuned farce that was comically brilliant, Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown.

 

Los Angeles, September 19, 2012

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (September 2012).

Scott McGehee and David Siegel | The Deep End / 2001

the perfect mother

by Douglas Messerli


Scott McGehee and David Siegel (screenplay, based on the novel by Elizabeth Sanxay and the film by Max Ophuls, The Reckless Moment), Scott McGehee and David Siegel (directors) The Deep End / 2001

 

The gay directorial team of Scott McGehee and David Siegel chose in 2001 to rewrite Max Ophul’s woman’s’ melodrama, The Reckless Moment, producing in The Deep End a credible and skilled film production, which, although it had long been part of our large DVD collection, I had not seen until other day, after viewing their less successful What Maisie Knew.


       By shifting the Ophuls’ film into a contemporary story where—instead of a young girl dating an older man, we have an almost underage gay boy, Beau (Jonathan Tucker) under the emotional influence of a sleazy 30-year- old owner of a Reno gay bar called The Deep End, Darby Reese (Raymond J. Barry)—we immediately recognize it today as a far more problematic situation—or perhaps we should simply say it better helps us to comprehend the difficult situation with which the original version’s mother, Joan Bennett, had to deal when faced with her teenage daughter Bea’s dominance by the older man of The Reckless Moment, Ted Darby.

       The utterly loving mother in this film, played brilliantly by Tilda Swinton (as Margaret Hall), is clearly not so disconcerted that she has discovered her son’s homosexuality, as that he has linked up with such a despicable being, who, having also introduced her son to alcohol, has been partially responsible for a recent accident, wherein Beau has been arrested—perhaps with the drunken Darby sitting next to him in the front seat.

        In the very first scene of the film, we see the level-headed Margaret knocking at the door of the Reno gay establishment, demanding to see Reese, who she demands must stop seeing her teenage son. He, apparently, is willing to do so for a payment of $5,000, which, when she confronts Beau about his offer, the troubled and, surely, duped young boy refuses to believe; Reese has already telephoned him even before Margaret has been able to return home.

       Although Beau refuses to discuss the relationship with him, despite her attempts to openly talk about it Margaret pushes on, dealing, despite her Navy husband’s absence (he is stationed somewhere on a distant military ship), with another son and daughter, cooking the family meals, and, with other friends, chauffeuring the younger children between their school, soccer, ballet, and other activities. Swinton plays this contemporary-mother role with great aplomb, refusing to turn it into melodrama, while representing her character’s personality, nonetheless, with a steely, if nearly impossible, managing of what it takes to me a liberated woman. If, in the original, we perceive Joan Bennett, as I have argued, as an isolated woman, protected in her suburban culture from all of the urban pressures of nearby Los Angeles, here, in the glorious environs of Tahoe Lake, Margaret is put-upon by nearly everything. And she cannot even reach her husband to discuss her emotional and, later, real-life dilemmas. And, in this respect, like Ophuls’ original film, this is very much a woman’s story, despite its early gay perspective.


     McGehee and Siegal almost convince us that the two are part and parcel of the same thing: a caring, dominant mother and a missing father surely have encouraged the confused young son seek out some emotional replacements in his life, and Reese may, despite his despicable qualities, be an attempt to find the seemingly always missing father’s love.

      Fortunately, the directors do not attempt to psychoanalyze their characters. Mostly these figures, despite their familial love, simply cannot communicate with one another; they are all too confused, too hurt, and too much in love.

      But that condition, of course, also results in misconceptions for all involved, and creates the intense drama of the film’s plot. When Beau is visited late-night by Reese at his home, he attempts to quiet his lover with a visit to the boathouse, where he challenges him about his love and questions the older man about his mother’s accusations. Discovering that, indeed, his mother has told him the truth, and that he has, in fact, taken her up on her offer of money to keep him away, even the believing Beau recognizes something is “rotten in Denmark,” and pulls away from the older man, who hurt by the young man’s refusal, attempts to punish him. Like the fight between the young girl in Ophuls’ film and the older man, Reese is slightly stunned (both physically and psychologically) by his violent rejection, and, after Beau leaves him, he stumbles out to the pier, only to fall into a rotting fence into the water below, killing him (in both stories, improbably, he falls into an old anchor which impales him, and I do not comprehend why McGehee and Siegel had not attempted to update that absurd situation).


    Beau, knowing nothing of the aftermath, returns to his room, like any ruffled teenager, refusing to discuss any of the events he has just undergone. So, accordingly, when the next morning his mother discovers the horrible accident and the body, she can only presume—or perhaps one should say, she tragically and mistakenly, assumes the worse: her son has killed his aggressor. 

    Of course, that is the problem; although Reese has, indeed, become an aggressor, it is only because of her actions that he has become a “dangerous” one. But neither movie feels open to really discuss that. Margaret, after all, is also an innocent, who cannot easily comprehend the complex events she has just encountered. Her instincts are those of a loving mother: get rid of the evidence. And with a remarkable resilience and almost fantastic ability, she manages to pull the body into a nearby speed boat, and toss him off into a removed spot, later even returning to that spot, nearly drowning in the attempt, to retrieve his car keys so that she might move the victim’s car to a far-away location.

     Oh the impossibilities of being a model mother! For moments after she has accomplished the “murdered” man’s ocean burial, but she has to curry her daughter and younger son to their current events as she is, simultaneously, visited by the surely evil Alek Spera (Goran Višnjić) demanding $50,000 in blackmail for a porno film between her son Beau and the dead man, which, if turned over to the police, will surely involve him in the disappearance—and, more frighteningly, the murder of Reese—whose body has now been discovered by police.

 

     What’s a good mother to do? And, if nothing else, Margaret is the perfect mother, attempting to get loans (which if her husband were there, would be no problem) and remove monies from their joint accounts (always needing the missing husband’s signature)—all of which further reveals these director’s quite feminist perspectives. No one can help a busy woman, a mother, a housewife, to deal with such life-altering changes; only a man can accomplish it, evidently, in the sexist society in which even 2001 she lived—despite her endless and startling accomplishments.

      Strangely, only her blackmailer, Spera, seems to comprehend her situation, trying, despite threats on his own life, to negotiate a smaller deal with his handler, Nagel. It is only fate, an accident which kills Nagel and, moments later, Spera himself, whom Margaret tries to comfort in his last death throes, that ends in her and her family’s salvation.

 

   Beau, resilient as most children are, has applied for a music scholarship at Wesleyan, and will probably receive it (he has been asked for 2 trumpet on-line recitals). At movie’s end, the telephone rings out once again; this time, presumably, reporting on news from the ever-missing husband, suggesting that the normality of society is about to return. Yet, of course, one must question, what will that “normality” consist of? Surely the memories which the entire family must now face—sublimated or still present—may never be erased. And, in that respect, like Ophuls’ film, the McGehee and Siegel work is a kind of American tragedy about which no one dare speak.

 

Los Angeles, September 21, 2016

Reprinted as World Cinema Review (September 2016).

Ferzan Ă–zpetek | Le fate ignoranti (The Ignorant Fairies), USA aka (His Secret Life) / 2001, USA 2002

truth that cannot be told

by Douglas Messerli

 

Gianni Romoli and Ferzan Ă–zpetek (screenplay), Ferzan Ă–zpetek (director) Le fate ignoranti (The Ignorant Fairies), USA aka (His Secret Life) / 2001, USA 2002

 

Written and filmed in Italy, Turkish-born director’s Ferzan Ozpetek's Le fate ignoranti begins with a beautiful woman, Antonia (Margherita Buy), strolling through an ancient art exhibit, where she is, so it appears, accosted by a handsome man, Massimo (Andrea Renzi), who attempts to pick her

up, Antonia telling him to go away. She is waiting for her husband, she proclaims, who is quite late, to which Massimo reacts with shock that he should leave such a beautiful wife alone. The two go off together for what appears as a night of sex at her posh Rome apartment.


      In fact, the two are husband and wife, playing a sort of romantic game, she playfully chiding him for his lateness, he apologizing in the role of a stranger, the first of a series of this film's dramatized "lies."

     Antonia, we later discover with the help of her mother, is a woman "not very curious about life." Marrying her schoolmate, Massimo, she has given up her post-doctoral ambitions, working instead as a doctor in an AIDS laboratory. Her life in an upper-class villa is a pleasant one, and her marriage seems near perfect.

     Massimo is killed by a passing car, however, a day or so later, and Antonia, bereft and in shock, begins to gather up his possessions from his office, painfully trying to piece memories of their life together. In the process she accidentally uncovers, on the back of one of his office paintings, the following hand-written message:

 

                    To Massimo, for our seven years together, for that part of you that

                    I miss and I will never have, for every time you said I can't, but

                    also for every time you said I'll be back... Always waiting, can I call

                    my patience love? Your ignorant fairy.

 

     What does it mean? Clearly Massimo's wife is in shock, is desperate to seek out the truth, contacting Massimo's former efficient secretary to determine the source of the art. The secretary reveals an address, to which Antonia drives, attempting to return the painting, but encounters only a neighbor who tells her where the “lover” works and when she will return home.

     Antonia tracks down the other “lover” in the market, presuming it is the beautiful woman standing next to a handsome young man. But when she returns to the apartment, there is no beautiful woman, but only a room of gay, transgender, and other figures, including the young man, Michele, whom she has spotted at the market. Bit by bit, the truth comes storming over her uncomprehending mind: Massimo's lover was Michele, another man.

     Revealing part of the story to her mother, Antonia tries to gather the strands of remaining reality together; but her mother has seemingly more sympathy for the lover than for her own daughter, revealing that she also spent most of her life loving a married man. The irony is, at first, comic, but is also revelatory of just how self-centered Antonia has been. She has never noticed anything unusual about her mother or her husband! If Michele has characterized himself as "the ignorant fairy," it is, in truth, Antonia who has lived in ignorance, in a fairy-tale world. The small community of Michele's rooftop apartment was completely aware of Antonia's presence, of her robbery of the man they all clearly felt was one of them.


     Clearly if she wants to discover all the things she never knew, she must return to Michele's house, joining in his and his friends' witty lunch and dinner time conversations, and gradually she does so, discerning some close connections to her rival. When Michele reports how he and Massimo met, both of them desiring the same rare book by the Turkish poet Nazim Hikmet, she reveals that the book was a gift to her, that Massimo had never read Hikmet, quoting an entire poem she has learned by heart.  Michele's open and joyful manner, moreover, attracts her. He has even given out a room to a friend, Ernesto, dying of AIDS, to whom Antonia begins to minister. In short, while Massimo's and her relationship has been a cloistered one, Massimo's and Michele's love has been shared with a supportive community of outsiders. And in that sense, the film becomes, symbolically speaking, a discussion of insider and outsider love, of truth-telling and a world in which the truth cannot be spoken. Which is which may often be hard to say, but it is clear that Antonia's life has been lived with a deeper sense of separation than Michele's. If Michele has had Massimo only for a few hours each week—a time when Massimo claimed he was attending soccer matches—it has been a far more open proclamation of love than her marriage.


    All the more amazing, accordingly, is the fact that Antonia gradually fits into this community, vicariously falling in love with Michele, even giving him as a gift the precious book Massimo has bought for her. As Ozpotek reveals in a scene where Michele publicly and later privately has sex with two other men, it is a love that Antonia cannot truly have, just has she has not truly had all of Massimo's love. Learning to share is perhaps at the heart of this gently witty cinematic work.

      Throughout the film, Antonia flits back and forth between her former and new reality as if she were in a sort of fever, never fully breaking through the net in which she has found herself. Finally, however, it dawns on her that something else is happening to her very body, as she discovers she is pregnant with Massimo's child. Excited by the news, she buys a bottle of champagne to celebrate her announcement to Michele and his friends. As she enters the apartment, however, she overhears catty comments about her, freezes, and exits, determining to leave Rome for an undetermined destination and period.


     Her final actions can be read in several ways. In some senses, she has come to realize that she has no real place in this "new" society, that she will forever remain an outsider to these outsiders, the villain who kept Massimo from his lover and dear friends. In a sense, it is as if she herself was suddenly an outcast, as if she—in a conservative straight society (very close to the one in which she has existed) had contracted AIDS. Her child can certainly have no place in such a world.

      But one might also read her exit as the recognition that, finally, she has a part of Massimo that none of them could ever have, a result of the reproductive possibilities of a heterosexual life. To tell them of that would perhaps emotionally devastate them more than even losing Massimo.

     Ozpetek gives us no answers. She may return with the child, gradually integrating it into her husband's other half of his life. What eventually we do know for certain is that Antonia cannot ever return to the deep incurious ignorance (can never again be "the ignorant fairy"), the condition in which she spent so much of her life.

 

Los Angeles, March 31, 2012

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (March 31, 2012).

Index O-Z

Dave O'Brien Straight Boys / 2005 Nick Oceano El primo ( The Cousin ) / 2008  Ken Ochiai Phoenix / 2006 Carlos Ocho RelaciĂłn Abierta ...