Wednesday, August 28, 2024

Kevin Rios | Made of Sugar / 2016

garden of eden

by Douglas Messerli

 

Kevin Rios (screenplay and director) Made of Sugar / 2016 [6 minutes]

 

This short film made by USA immigrant from Cuba, begins with home film documentation from the director’s own family movies, backed up with a narrative voice that declares “No one willingly left my country…Because the island was marvelous, a truly blessed land. It was gorgeous, bright, it was like the Garden of Eden!”


    The cut-out animated images, however, tell a slightly different story, as the butterflies and other insects, who evidently love sugar, eat away portions of the “Mom and Pop” story. We hear new reports of changes in US relationships with Cuba, and the fact that Cuban cigars will again be allowed to be imported.

      And then, a far different kind of telephone message: “Hi baby,” obviously a mother calling her son now in New York City. And almost immediately we see him and his friends, and the word Friday laid out on a table made up of cocaine, quickly snuffed up by the partyers, the other days following one by one.


     The mother’s voice claims to know why he’s not calling: he has a girlfriend. We see Tuesday also spelled out in cocaine that disappears up the nose just as quickly. The son, we observe, is engaged in modern dance movements. And another figure of this film, puts lipstick upon his lips. Clearly things are very different in New York from wherever the mother is calling from, the Cuban community in Miami we presume. “It’s hard,” she concludes, but I know I have to let you live your life.”

       In a series of quick frames, we see actors Victor Borbolla, Stephen Chacon, Andrew Herbert, and others, kiss, engage in a drag show, and snort more cocaine.


       The final scene consists of a long telephone call, the central figure’s call-back to his mother, on an answering machine, where he explains that he’s taken several dance classes and he’s now working a real dancing jobs, while insisting that it hasn’t had any effect on his other classes or his graduating on time. As she works in her garden, puts clothes on the line, etc., with hear his further comments that he’s met a lot of nice people who accept him for who he is.

      No, he doesn’t have a girlfriend, but he has met someone he thinks she might very much like. He hopes she’s no longer smoking (we see an ashtray filled with butts), and he states emphatically that he misses her and the dogs, and can’t wait to see her.

      The clever emblems of family and life, meanwhile, get crunched up by consumer insects, but blossom again into flowers and other representations of family, sharing, and life.


     Both mother and son know there is no real way they can return to the same world they once shared, but still hold one another in deep love, affection, and respect. But the ravines between them are larger perhaps than the Appalachian Mountain Range that runs from North to South from Newfoundland, Canada to Alabama, separating the far eastern cities of New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC. from the cities on the western edge of the range such as Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Nashville, far longer that the few nautical miles from Miami to Cuba.

     The son with whom this Cuban-born mother will eventually share a reunion is now fully a gay     American—whatever that possibly means these days.

 

Los Angeles, August 28, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema (August 2024).

 



Mario Prizek | South / 1959 [TV drama]

hurling oneself against a stone wall

by Douglas Messerli

 

Gerald Savory (TV adaptation, based on the play Sud by Julien Green), Mario Prizek (director) South / 1959 [in the British television series “Play of the Week”]

 

On November 24, 1959 British LGBTQ history was made with the TV broadcast of the first known gay drama in England. Based on French gay author Julien’s Green’s play Sud—which producers had hoped to present as a theatrical production in 1955 until was banned by the Lord Chamberlain—openly gay director Mario Prizek cast the closeted gay actor Peter Wyngarde in the lead role in what was to become a milestone of gay history.

      The tape of the production was long thought to have lost, rediscovered in 2013 by curators at the British Film Institute, shocking most commentators who had not even remembered its existence, believing that the first representation of a gay man on film and TV was Dirk Bogarde’s character in Basil Dearden’s The Victim (1961).

 

    Green’s play presents a rather hothouse environment of the days in the South of the United States leading up to the Civil War not unlike something Tennessee Williams might have created, but with a far less poetic language. Nonetheless, Green is able to create a more complex view of Southern sympathies and diversity of behavior than most US films have been able to.

     Plantation owner Edward Broderick (Alan Gifford) has already freed several of his slaves, some of whom have returned of their own accord, and moreover he is currently housing a young Union soldier stationed at Fort Sumter in North Carolina, Jan Wicziewsky (Peter Wyngarde) who he treats like a son, although their actual relationship remains vague having something to do with the young Jan’s father, a Polish man killed presumably during what sounds like a Jewish pogrom. All of it remains vague, however, and it is clear that Broderick would like the young man to stay on at the plantation in a role that resembles that of an older son to Broderick’s far younger boy, Jimmy (Karl Lanchbury).

     The plantation also houses another Northerner, Regina (Helena Hughes) who is evidently related by one of her parents to the Brodericks, and has come to live with them after their death. She is clearly not happy in the South and threatens throughout the play to leave and return North, which Broderick is perfectly happy to allow her to do. Yet we gradually discover she is actually in love with Jan, the two of them left alone on a Sunday morning as the two, Jan and Regina, of the non-churchgoing kind, remain behind.

     In this first scene, and actually throughout the rest of the play, the two play a kind of brutal game of trying to have a conversation without ever saying what’s on their minds. The far better player, Jan keeps trying to corner Miss Regina into telling him the truth about her love for him, but which she continues to resist knowing that he will not—and more important cannot reciprocate. Moreover, their quibbling often forces him to speak in a metaphorical language that no one else on the plantation, and perhaps few other normal men in the community, speak, further adding to her frustrations. His is a logic-ridden language without the proper niceties and a different kind of concealments of most of the other Southerners in this work.

     Outwardly, they talk about the inevitability or impossibility of Civil War, of her determination to return to the North, his intent to simply follow his orders even if it means joining in a battle against Broderick and others like him. In the gaps of those words are insinuations and revelations that soon after lead Regina to publicly announce her detestation of Jan and that he is an evil man of which the household should be wary.

     While the others are at church, we also witness an older black man on the plantation, Uncle John (John Harrison) now blind requesting a young boy (Randolph McKenzie) guide him to Mr. Broderick to warn him of imminent danger of he has heard directly from God which will destroy his house.


      Interrupting Regina’s and Jan’s conversation is the return of what might be described as the truly Southern contingent of the Broderick household, Broderick’s sister who rules the household like a Southern mistress who spends most of her day resting and changing outfits for evening affair, her flighty young daughter Angelina (Karal Gardner), and the young Jimmy.

     Jan appears to be the one to whom all the elders confide their secrets and to whom the younger generation keep their secrets from. For the sister, asking him to rock her in her chair, reveals that for the evening dinner she has invited a young man, Eric MacLure (Graydon Gould) with whom she would like to link up either Regina or the young Angelina.

     The two girls, meanwhile discuss the men, Angelina making up a false tale of receiving a love letter from Eric. Regina warns her against the evil Jan, probing yet again why Broderick is so very fond of him, before she finally admits that despite what she sees as his disdain of her, she is secretly in love with him—clearly the reason why her emotional responses to him shift 180 degrees in a manner of a few seconds.

      In the meantime, Jimmy slaps an elderly black man in the stable who delays in setting up his saddle, an act when he is forced to confess, terribly angers his father who assigns the job of punishing the boy to Jan, who is perhaps the boy’s best friend and, as Regina warns, should never be trusted with their son alone.

      By this time, given Regina’s constantly shifting behavior regarding Jan, the gossip of some of the servants, and the very oddness of his own comments we sense that there something about him—as well as Regina and perhaps even Edward Broderick’s relationship to him—that we are not being told. But then no one actually “tells” anyone the truth about anything in this drama.

      The women insist war will not possibly be permitted while the men, amongst themselves, fear its inevitability, keeping their feelings from the female sex. The men all seem to have a rather benevolent attitude toward their slaves while the women attempt to keep them in the place, Broderick’s sister warning one of them of daring to run away now that war may be imminent. The black kitchen servant is convinced that she is really so light-colored that she might pass for white.

       It is not Faulkner’s wisteria that wafts through these rooms but what Tennessee Williams’ Big Daddy (of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof) describes as the “powerful odour of mendacity.”


     Jan’s self-delusions immediately come to an when the evening’s special guest Eric MacClure arrives, suddenly coming face to face with Jan on the plantation porch. It is as if Jan has been struck by lightning, the young man reminding him of someone he knows, perhaps a fellow soldier he has met at a military dance (hinting that perhaps Jan has had previous gay experiences). When Eric immediately denies it, Jan comes to but still behaves most strangely, obviously struck full in the heart by the pernicious arrow of cupid.

     From that moment on, Jan is in a world of his own, behaving like a ghost at a table of women, some of whom talk about the possibility of war with the greatest of delight, others terrified by even its mention. We discover that Eric has long ago freed all of his slaves, does not believe in the institution, and has reasonable views in this household of extremists.

       Some of the guests wonder if Jan’s silence and incommunicability is to do the fact that he has just been ordered to return to his post, but he assures them the war and his position in it has absolutely nothing to do with his behavior. After dinner, alone with him for a moment, Broderick tries to get his would-be son to talk, even suggesting that perhaps he too has had some experience with such feelings and might, accordingly, be able to advise him. And we begin to wonder whether one of the reasons Broderick keeps Jan so near perhaps has something to do with his own love for the young man.

       Jan, however, refuses to speak about it, instead asking for Angelina’s hand in marriage, which Broderick immediately denies him, telling him to his face that it will not solve the problem he is facing, and leading to what will perhaps be the last words between the two men who so much admired one another.

       Jan speaks of hurling himself upon the source of the problem who will not even recognize itself as being the cause of his emotional distress. But a moment later he rushes into Regina’s room and begs her forgiveness, praying she might take his hand to convey that she forgives him for his continued abuse. But she proudly denies him.


     Almost perversely, Jan confesses most openly to his friend Jimmy while telling him his nightly bedtime story. "You know, Jimmy, odd times, freedom of will is a crushing weight and it's not always possible to choose. I'm in love Jimmy, as no human being was ever in love before," he says to the bewildered boy. When asked by the boy what he’s going to do, he suggests, “I going to hold myself against fate as you hurl yourself against a stone wall,” adding when the boy confesses his confusion, "It's better not to know what men are thinking, it's almost always sad or shameful. I'm not ashamed, but I am alone. Hopelessly alone."

       Although Jan has begged Broderick not to let him and Eric be alone together, he now faces Eric in an empty drawing room from which the others have all escaped. Jan attempts to tell him of his “problem,” about his love for someone to whom he dare not speak it, and Eric in a wave a youthful empathy seems to finally appreciate Jan, responding that he too knows what that feels like since he also has failed to tell another whom he loves because of current “situation.”

       For a moment, in a brilliant Shakespearian aside, Jan expresses a desire to himself that he might be able to stop the conversation there, imagining at least that the “love” of whom Eric is speaking might be himself. But, of course, Eric, a blind young man disturbed only because he has been unable to tell Angelina that he loves her, must express the truth—he in his utterly awful innocence being the only real truthteller in this world—leaving Jan in a rage for his imagining a youthful failure to express a love that is probably equally felt by the other, can possibly have anything to do with his own desperate impossibilities.


       Going to him, he grabs him by the head and holds him to look into the mirror, an action witnessed by Broderick returning to the room, who demands to know what is going on. Jan reports that he is insulting the guest in his presence, that he is calling him a coward and slaps him across his check, the shocked young man having no choice but to admit that he has indeed been inexplicably attacked. Jan tosses out a handkerchief and the young romantic has no other idea of what to do but accept the challenge.

       Broderick refuses to be involved, and will not stand as a second for Jan, as Jan calls for another, the two preparing for a duel.

     Suddenly, like it was a sports event, Broderick’s sister becomes absolutely delighted by the situation, calling for the slaves to bring out water and unguents for whoever might be hurt, and almost giggling with delight at the situation. Angelina is horrified, fearful that Eric might be hurt, while Regina races to the spot in the woods they have chosen for the duel in an attempt to stop it.

      Standing near, Broderick once more attempts to force the young men to stop the nonsense which he perceives Jan has created for no logical purpose but perhaps his own death.

      And indeed, before Regina can reach the spot, Eric has stabbed his opponent as Jan almost runs into the sword before falling to the ground dead. He has chosen to die from his lover’s own hand.

     As Eric attempts to explain that it looked like Jan almost opened himself to his thrust, Broderick interrupts him to shame him for trying to justify murder. And we realize in his sentiments that he well understands what Jan has done to resolve the problem of his love that cannot be spoken, that he has literally died for love.

      Regina, arriving, not only forgives Jan for being unable to tell her what she already knew, but to hold him in her arms with the love she feels for him nonetheless.

       In short, both Regina and Broderick have indeed known of Jan’s sufferings, of his homosexuality and his inability with the confines of their own society to speak of it.

      One can argue, of course, that this televised film is simply another work in a long line of gay-oriented dramas in which the queer must die. But Green explains to us that in such a mendacious world there is no other possibility. Even the truthtellers in such a world cannot recognize the full truth.

    And course some of the critics of day chose to continue lying to themselves, describing homosexuality as a terrible sickness that needed to be expunged from the world: The 1959 reporter of the Daily Sketch was typical of this response:

 

"I do NOT see anything attractive in the agonies and ecstasies of a pervert, especially in close-up in my sitting room. This is not prudishness. There are some indecencies in life that are best left covered up."

 

     On the other hand, the review from The Stage, argued that "Green's dialogue was so full of compassion, understanding and tenderness that his subject didn't seem distasteful, and Mario Prizek, a new Canadian director, toned down his production so much that it kept perfect pace with the script.” He goes on to note, “Peter Wyngarde as Jan, the man who couldn’t talk of his life like other men, gave a stunningly brilliant performance, controlled and delicately pitched.” As numerous critics have pointed out, Wyngarde was brave indeed to have performed this role with such honest intensity, particularly given what we now know, that he was in was in a long-term relationship with actor Alan Bates, which might have outed then both and perhaps even led to their arrestment.

      Mark Brown, writing in The Guardian, adds: “None of that was known at the time, with Wyngarde going on to be a star and housewives' favorite from 1969 as Jason King, an agent in the secretive Department S. With his handlebar moustache, enormous hair and largely unbuttoned shirt, King was the ultimate ladies' man and was one of the inspirations for Mike Myers's Austin Powers nearly 30 years later.”

 

Los Angeles, October 31, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2022).

Claude Chabrol | À double tour (Leda) / 1959

penelope’s reign

by Douglas Messerli

 

Claude Chabrol (dialogue), Paul Gégauff (writer) (based on a novel by Stanley Ellin), Claude Chabrol (director) À double tour (Leda) / 1959

 

Chabrol's third film, À double tour, is the first in which he begins to find his métier of the psychological thriller. While it may lack the intensity of his later films, it is still a self-assured work that has worn well over the years. Looking at it once again upon learning of his death on September 12, 2010, I found it totally enjoyable. When it originally appeared in 1959, the film was compared extensively to Hitchcock, whose Vertigo appeared just the year before. Indeed, Chabrol's film even contains a mesmerist's wheel, which produces images similar to the whirling credits of Hitchcock's masterwork. 

 

     Chabrol's work, in retrospect, while sharing Hitchcock's fascination with psychologically-driven acts of mayhem and murder, moves much more horizontally than Hitchcock's winding and spinning narrative. By film's end, À double tour turns into a fairly standard "who dunnit," as opposed to Vertigo's incorporation of an entire society in Madeleine's and Judy's deaths. In Hitchcock, murder is most often a societal act, a collaboration of several individuals, often involving authority itself; while in Chabrol it remains the province of the individual, or, in this example, an event within a family. The absolution from personal confession, so important to Chabrol's early film, has little significance to Hitchcock's work (with the exception, perhaps, of his I Confess of 1953).

     Indeed the Marcoux estate near Aix-en-Provence, France, is, by and large, a private paradise, whose only "outsiders" consist of Roger, the milkman—sexually teased, along with the gardener, by Julie, the maid—and the Marcouxs' daughter Elisabeth's fiancée, Laszlo Kovacs (wonderfully brought to life by a young Jean-Paul Belmondo). Scandal is the worst fear of Marcoux's wife Thérèse (brilliantly acted by Madeleine Robinson), and her bourgeois values are ultimately shared with her daughter, son, and even, to a great extent, by her husband.

     As the drama opens, however, we perceive her husband, egged on by his future son-in-law, is having some difficulty with family life, particularly since he is engaged in a not-so-quiet affair with a woman living in sight of his chateau, Leda (Antonella Luaidi). If the Marcoux house is all vertical, an upstairs/downstairs world of purposeful hierarchy, Leda's is a horizontal, Japanese-like construction, flooded with seemingly eternal daylight and a view of the Marcouxian "paradise."


     Although the affair is the center of Marcoux and his wife's endless quarrels, they both delude themselves that their grown children know nothing of it, despite the fact that at table in the backyard Marcoux can be seen kissing his lover goodbye.

     Life, nonetheless, might continue on as it is were it not for the rambunctious anarchist who insistently commands Marcoux to pack his bags and leave his wife behind and orders up full meals for his lip-smacking delectation from the flirtatious Julie. One of his first acts of the film is to undo his mother-in-law's knitting, forcing her to play a kind of Penelope before Odysseus' voyage has even begun.

     For a few moments Chabrol's film almost seems that it will take up a theme similar to Pasolini's Teorema as we glimpse that all in this family, save the harpy matriarch, are enamored by the intruder. The father and his daughter both speak of their love for him. And for a long period late in the movie, Laszlo stands with his arms draped over the shoulders of the uptight mother's boy, Richard (André Jocelyn), who seems quite at ease in the embrace until he self-consciously removes Laszlo's hand.


      But the evil queen of this estate is vengeful, threatening, like a Fricka in full force, to do everything in her power to stop her husband from going through with his plans to leave; and, in her moralistic declarations and pleas, she requires her children to take sides. Accordingly, Elizabeth attempts to send her fiancée packing while Richard turns inward, attempting to calm his somewhat adolescent sexual confusions in his beloved music. Only Henri—who, like Julie "can't help but feel happy" (he is symbolically, if not literally, drugged by Leda as they cavort through a field of poppies)—seems to be able to make a break, and travels with Leda into town in order to create the scandal his wife so fears: "Leda and I want to be seen!"

     As the family comes together for what may be their last supper, Laszlo ratchets up the unhappy family's hurts, until the dam breaks as Julie suddenly runs in to report that Leda has been found dead, murdered.

     The police investigator quickly arrests the least obvious of suspects, the milkman, as the viewer can't help but feeling this is a huge mistake, and Laszlo, with the help of his uninvited dinner friend Vlado, becomes convinced that he knows who the real murderer is. Discovering the son Richard standing before what seems to be a funeral, while serenaded by the music of Berlioz, Laszlo wrestles him into a nearby pond, in a clearly homoerotic embrace, forcing him to admit Leda's murder. Richard claims he has committed the act for his mother's sake. Lazslo, offering him another kind of love, declares he will keep the secret within the family coven.

     Thérèse, in what may be her most obviously evil speech of the film, demands the family cover up the truth, but Laszlo and Elizabeth urge Richard to tell the police what he has done, while Henri sits passively, destroyed by what he conceives as "beauty's" death. We realize that for him there will be no odyssey, no escape.

      Gradually Richard perceives that he can never be freed of his mother unless he admits his crime, and marches off like a crippled Frankenstein to Leda's house. Madame Marcoux sits stoically, comprehending, as Laszlo has told her earlier, her "reign" is over.

      One can only hope that Elizabeth and Laszlo may be able to transverse the worlds of their universe with the utter abandonment of youth, but at least Laszlo has broken the dam of the family pent up sexualities and emotions, offering, after all, like Pasolini’s vagrant angel, a kind of angelic peace. 

 

Los Angeles, September 24, 2010

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (September 2010).

 

Claude Chabrol | Le boucher (The Butcher) / 1970

beauty and the beast

by Douglas Messerli

 

Claude Chabrol (screenwriter and director) Le boucher (The Butcher) / 1970

 

Despite the statements of numerous critics that Chabrol's film Le boucher is filled with questions that are slowly answered over the course of the movie and, as Netflix's site quotes Adam Gai, "The audience is kept in suspense up until the last shot," I would argue that in this work Chabrol has created his most unthrilling thriller. For it is a work that has utterly no surprises, and because of that fact Chabrol is freed to show us film-making at its most abstract. We witness the process without having to be emotionally involved in plot.


     Some of this lack of suspense occurs because, basically, there are only two characters in the film. The young married couple of the first scenes appear only briefly, despite the fact that the male is supposed to be a teacher in the same school where the central character, Helene Daville teaches.

     Although some of her students are more memorable than others, particularly the young man to whom she is trying to teach mathematics one late night, they are, nonetheless, as are the inhabitants of the small village near the Cougnac Caves where she lives, ancillary figures, unimportant to events. Even the mildly bothersome Police Inspector Grumbach offers little in the way of substance. Other than the beautiful and emotionally reserved Helene (Stéphane Audran) there is only her suitor, Popaul (Jean Yanne), a war-veteran who has just returned to his hometown to take up his father's business as a butcher.

     From the earliest scenes in the film, we recognize Popaul as being facile with knives—at the wedding ceremony with which the film begins he insists upon slicing the large roast by himself—and early on we recognize that he has been embittered by the gruesome violence of his war experiences:

 

        Popaul: I've seen a corpse or two—their heads in the wind, cut in half, mouth

            open. I've seen three or four piled together. Kids with their eyes punctured.

            Indo-Chinese as old as Madame Tirrant completely torn to bits. I've seen pals

            of mine rotting in the sun, being eaten by maggots.

 

Were we to encounter Popaul today, I would guess that many of us might suggest he seek help from a psychiatrist for post-traumatic stress disorder.

     Accordingly, despite his gentle demeanor with Helene, when word of a brutal murder reaches the village, we have no choice but suspect Popaul. There is literally no one else to suspect, and any "reader" of such a work knows that it would a ridiculous and absurd tale if the murderer was someone whom he had never met. It is as if Chabrol has taken the old whodunit story and emptied it of all save two figures, one of whom we cannot imagine as the murderer, and whom we know cannot have committed the second murder since she is on an outing with her students when she and they discover the body, its blood dripping from it, almost comically, upon a young girl's sandwich.

     Chabrol takes this even further by having Helene discover at the scene of the crime a lighter (or one exactly like it) that she has given as a gift to Popaul. Since we know it must therefore be Popaul who has committed the two murders, any suspense of the film must depend less upon the discovery of the killer than the gradual discovery of who these two people are. It is their inner selves, not their grand actions that bring any meaning to the work.

     Chabrol carries this idea of "no surprises" even further, comically commenting on it when, at the funeral of the second woman killed, Popaul, exiting the church, looks up at the rainy sky to say, "What a surprise!" Helene may have been surprised; she does not have an umbrella. But he and everyone else does, which they simultaneously open, recalling a similar scene from Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent, a parallel to the earlier reference, with the discovery of the lighter, to Hitchcock's Strangers on the Train. No, it is no surprise that at such a sad occasion, rain should fall. And the natives have expected it.

     What is surprising in this film is that Helene pockets the lighter without mentioning it to anyone. She is not only tampering with evidence but, by squirreling away the object, she is endangering her own life.

      She has already spoken of the importance of Cro-Magnan man to her students, noting that if he had not brutally killed out of a need to survive that modern man would not be there today. We can only suspect, accordingly, that she sees her courtier-murderer, Popaul, as a necessary evil, someone who must do what he does in order to save the world, perhaps restoring the love she has relinquished.

     Yet it makes no logical sense, and when she does encounter him that same evening, she is clearly terrified. Only when he produces a lighter exactly like the one she has found, can she again breathe easier, laughing behind her tears in relief.

      If Popaul is psychologically disturbed, we now perceive that, in her inability to begin another relationship, she is psychologically scarred by her past as well. While she remains emotionally and sexually aloof from Popaul, she is also a kind a seductress, a woman seeking love despite her denial of it. As she quite straight-forwardly answers Popaul's challenge:

 

                  Popaul: But, shit, if I kissed you now, what would you say?
                  Helene
:  I'd say nothing, but please don't.

 

     In short, she will not out rightly reject love were it to make its demands; she is simply attempting to protect herself so that love will make no demands. She is, in other words, a passive being; unlike Popaul, who makes things happen, who brings her food, fixes her lights, paints her rooms, who, in fact, admits that he wants to "look after her," Helene can do nothing but exist, glowing in her beauty much like the light(er) she gives him. It is no accident that she provides the fire for the cut of meat he has brought her.



     Only when Popaul discovers the hidden lighter, and, perceiving suddenly that she has found him out, steals it back, does Helene accept the reality that we have known all along. And it is only then that she can begin to function for herself, madly racing from door to door to lock herself away from the beast calling out. It is at that moment also when we perceive that Chabrol's tale is not that of a murderer on the loose, but a kind of fable like Beauty and the Beast.

     It is not her murder he seeks, but out of embarrassment for being the beast, ritual death. Even his sudden plunge of his knife into his own belly is not a surprise as much as an inevitability. It is only now that Helene can truly come into her own, reaching out to save him, to protect him from himself, just as she has mothered her students.

     This time she allows him the kiss, but it is the kiss of death—despite her lifting and carrying him to the hospital, her dress remains untouched by his blood—too late to redeem the animal within.

 

Los Angeles, November 20, 2010

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (November 2010) and Reading Films: My International Cinema (Los Angeles: Green Integer, 2012).

Titles Index A-N

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