Tuesday, October 1, 2024

Clarence Brown | Kiki / 1926

the feral cat

by Douglas Messerli

 

Hanns Kräly (screenplay, based on the original play by André Picard as adapted into English by David Belasco), Clarence Brown (director) Kiki / 1926

 

Starring an appealing Norma Talmadge as Kiki and the dapper Ronald Colman as stage producer Victor Renal, with whom the Paris street-gamin Kiki is desperately in love, the movie version of based on the original French play by André Picard as adapted into English by David Belasco in 1921 was a great success. Even today the silent film by Clarence Brown in which Kiki determines to become a dancer and singer in the chorus line and when she finds it convenient to shift her goals, to act out the role of mistress to Renal’s household provides a great many wonderful comic moments, particularly given the confusions that arise since he sees that role as a literal one while she dreams it may be a temporary invasion that might open up to the position of wife—although oddly enough the world marriage never appears in the film, not even in relationship with Renal’s supposed fiancée  Paulette Mascar (Gertrude Astor) with whom Kiki must do battle in order to win over the man she loves.


     In this film version, as opposed to the later 1931 film starring Mary Pickford, the play is performed more as a boulevard farce than marital comedy, particularly given Kiki’s double-studded desires to become a theater star and a proper French matron, about neither of which she has a clue of how to behave or achieve her goals. She begins by ruining singing star Paulette’s performance with Fanny Brice-like vaudeville chaos, dancing in the automaton style of chlorines of the day right out of synchronized line and into the lonely space in front where only the star is allowed to perform her number. Literally pushed off the stage by Paulette into an orchestra-pit harp, Kiki scrambles her way back to the stage to take her bows with the star, leading as one might have expected—given the high tempered nature of both women involved—into a knock-'em-out brawl interspersed with composed curtain calls and another of the apparently recurring breakups between Renal and his fiancée.


      Of course, Kiki, despite being immediately fired, pushes her way into the void of Renal’s empty arms. Her first formal restaurant dinner ends with quickly becoming drunk from champagne—and who wouldn’t forgive her that faux pas after Paulette pushes her way with her replacement date, Renal’s theater backer Baron Rapp (Marc McDermott) into a place at Kiki and Renal’s dinner table. Renal has no choice but to hurry Kiki off to a taxi to speed her back home.

      What he doesn’t know is that Kiki has spent her last rent sou on a new dress to get her the chorus-line job and has now no place to call home. Gentleman that he is—a motif repeated throughout the film—Renal has no choice but to take the waif home with him.

       What he doesn’t realize is that this confused and lost kitten will quickly be perceived to be a feral street cat when let loose in his sheik, well-oiled man-cave, particularly by his loving, loyal, fussy, and punctilious—call him for what he is, hilariously sissified—valet Adolphe, played by one of the major models of the soon-to-be “panze” movies of the early 1930s, George K. Arthur.


       Given that Arthur had performed an even more queer sissy as the clothes designer Irene in the film released less than two months earlier, it is strange (or perhaps explains) why none of the discussions of LGBTQ cinema such as Richard Barrios’ Screened Out mentions him in this delicious role in which the good servant is chased about the apartment, wrestled to the floor on several occasions, and generally tortured by this new female cat who has somehow gotten into his clockwork-structured male dominated environment.* It’s not that he might not expect from time to time a woman sharing his master’s bed, but he has never before witnessed his master sleeping on a circular pouffe (the piece of furniture not a nance) in the library while a woman quickly gobbles down his breakfast after staggering out from the master’s bedroom.


      Indeed, Kiki shows him a great deal he doesn’t want to see or know, as he watches her gradually take over the apartment, steal any letter from Paulette he carefully tucks in beside the master’s coffee cup, and insistently threatens one day to discharge him. Over the course of her stay, Adolphe is so terrorized that as he enters the main living room, he cowers in terror, his eyes skirting over the lay of the land to see if the wild cat is anywhere in site. Together, he and Kiki seek approval and pats from Renal like constantly squabbling teenagers desperately in need of his love as they vie for his attention. Whoever cast Arthur in the role—and given Clarence Brown’s excellent work later that same year with the remarkable ménage-à-trois of John Gilbert, Greta Garbo, and Lars Hanson in Flesh and the Devil he certainly knew how to choose and work with larger-than-life actors—was brilliant, Arthur often stealing scenes from Talmadge. When after everyone, including Renal, has tired of her tricks, Kiki pretends to have been struck down by catalepsy and the doctor claims that the only way to prove that she has no feelings left is to either put hot irons to the soles of her feet or poke a large needle into her arm or foot, Adolphe quickly steps forward, his eyes dilated with absolute delight at the idea of stabbing the tool into her.



      Renal finally steps forward to end that deserved moment of revenge, obviously coming to realize that he truly loves the zany woman who on lays on the couch with one arm and foot in the air. Soon after he leaves Paulette in the lurch once more, worried for Kiki’s well-being far more that attending another of his now former fiancée’s performances, which he realizes, have consisted of nothing but well-studied acting techniques. Kiki, so it appears, may indeed someday get her opportunity to discharge poor Adolphe, this time as the true mistress of the Renal household.

      Both this film and Alfred E. Green’s Irene—as well as Howard Hawks’ Fig Leaves, Sam Taylor’s Exit Smiling, and Brown’s Flesh and the Devil of the same year, directors gave their obviously gay figures far larger and more complex roles than the “panze” films that became the craze beginning only 4 years later, which looked to these films, in part, as their models.

 

*Surely the most important reason that this film was ignored and has been written about so little is that it was thought to have been lost, no full film available until it was restored from three incomplete copies in English, French, and Czech in 2006. Barrios’ study appeared in 2003.

     

Los Angeles, January 8, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (January 2023).

Alfred E. Green | Irene / 1926

the ooze

by Douglas Messerli

 

June Mathis and Rex Taylor (screenplay, based on the stage play by James Montgomery), George Marion, Jr. (titles), Alfred E. Green (director) Irene / 1926

 

Like Fig Leaves (1926), The Masked Mannequin (1927), and in a few respects but with very different consequences, Palmy Days (1931), Alfred E. Green’s Irene (1926) concerns a young woman who enters the fashion world in order to make money and, in some respects, enter a new societal world unavailable to her in her previous homelife. Based on the hit 1919 Broadway musical, this work was revived in theater in 1923 and again in 1973, and was remade as a film in 1940.

    Obviously a great deal of its appeal has to do with the character of Irene O’Dare (Colleen Moore in this film version) who is a dreamy, someone clumsy girl of a lower class Philadelphia family, whose father is a drunk and whose clothes-washing Irish mother dominates her home life and one day sends her out not to return without a job. Immediately fired from her first position as a department store window-sleeping model, who wakes up each morning to extol the night she has just spent in bed.



     Her very next job, a bit like the delivery business which leads Victoria astray in Viktor and Victoria, takes Irene to New York and eventually to the mansion of the wealthy Donald Marshall (Lloyd Hughes), whose friend is attempting to convince him to explain the new fashion line, of which he is part owner, to his fashion-conscious mother. The two—the waylaid Louise Brooks look-a-like Irene and the disinterested young businessman Donald—meet up and fall immediately in love: end of story. Except of course there have to be a great many complications before they can even propose their inevitable matrimony; how else to fill in the spaces between flashing eyes, tremulous hands, sidelong glances, misunderstandings, batting eyelids, tears, and more misunderstandings before their first real kiss?


     Our luck is that the major complication in this case involves Donald’s friend’s fashion shop, run by Madame Lucy (George K. Arthur), a true sissy of the grand style who keeps this film afloat for the next hour by convincing Irene and us over and over just how inadequate she is as a human mannequin and how unfairly, given his overly-refined sensibility and obvious superior talents as a costumier—self-cognizant gifts necessary for his proper queer sniffles at the rest of the human race—he is treated by the world around him.

      If he is a sexual outsider as a gay man—although Vito Russo argues that his type is not even sexual given his role as a comic arbiter of the male world of which he knows nothing—he is treated just as dismissively by the women over whom he rules. One just has to note the otherwise sweet Irene’s giggles upon her first encounter with him. But while one can only laugh at his type’s puffed-up sense of self, we also realize that he is a great creator of sorts, able, as even Donald quickly perceives, of transforming even a stick into a thing of great beauty. He makes women beautiful, which helps men to love them, which serves as the glue to the survival of the species. But given the species upon which he does his magic, is it any wonder that he often shutters for the impossibility of his role, particularly since personally he gets so very little out of the magical forces he conjures up?

      If at heart Russo despises sissies, critic Richard Barrios loves them, writing of Arthur’s performance as representing the near tabula rasa of such figures. As he quotes another critic: “There is nothing fresh, vulgar or objectionable about the way Arthur plays it, just ‘sissified’ and funny, so even the average lay mind will absorb it as desired.”


      Madame Lucy’s very first reaction to Irene summarizes his endless series of limp-armed responses: “As I live and hemstitch, she’s impossible.”

      Soon after, as he tries to weave a dress around her terrified inert body, he tells her, “I’ve seen sausages with more style than you.” As he soon confides to her sponsor, “Even I cannot make Peach Melba with Prunes!”

      Later Madame Lucy attempts, almost fruitlessly, to train Irene and her two girlfriends how to perform as mannikins: “The most important thing is carriage. You mustn’t walk—you must ooze along.” After Irene attempts to ooze her way across the room, Lucy bows her head in despair, “You’re impossible—you walk almost like a man!”

     If we could imagine Irene has having an ounce of cleverness in her bourgeois-inbred brain, we might imagine her next statement as a retort instead of a lame attempt at an honest complement: “So do you!”

     Practicing for a grand salon charity show at the Marshall estate under the watchful eye of Donald’s mother (Ida Darling), whose son has convinced her that the models are all society girls, a rat suddenly appears, terrifying Irene, her friends, and Madame Lucy equally; but, of course, it is Irene upon he falls, ripping her special costume whipped up by Lucy for the evening. And suddenly, like Cinderella, she is banned from the grand party at which she hoped to shine for her not-so-secret lover.



      Fortunately, Donald stops by before the event, finding Irene all alone, reinstating her as a central figure in the event. And in the overall traditional Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter technicolor showing (the same process repeated for the fashion show later in George Cukor’s The Women of 1939) Irene comes off as a very pleasing colleen indeed; but it ends badly as her mother and the mothers of Irene’s two friends, discovering the whereabouts of the girls suddenly become terrified for how high society might endanger their daughter’s virgin thoughts and come crashing like vulgar interlopers upon the very proper party just at the moment when the models are signaling out their new versions of undergarments beneath their stylish winter coats, dooming the final moments of Madame Lucy’s resplendent justification for his existence.

      Mrs. Marshall is horrified by her son’s lies; but he is undeterred and follows Irene back to her poverty-stricken familial roots, joining her on the fire escape, and convincing her that it’s finally time for that film-ending smooch. The lens closes them into a predictable nutshell.

      Thank heaven, we can only say, that Madame Lucy is still out there somewhere trying to get his wits and dresses all together again for his next cinematic rendition of the powerful transformation of little girls into societally desirable vamps.

 

Los Angeles, October 10, 2021

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2021).

Monday, September 30, 2024

Unknown filmmaker | How Long Can You Keep a Secret? / 2018 [commercial advertisement]

a scent

by Douglas Messerli

 

James Mendoza, Chino Jayme, Melvin Mangada, and Denise Oyog (creators), Chris Martinez (director) Amoy Kita (How Long Can You Keep a Secret?) / 2017 [2.12 minutes] [commercial advertisement]

 

Having featured in 2015 a series of ads titled “Love of All Kinds,” the Philippine clothing company Bench, which also had its own line of perfumes, released an ad in 2018 that featured a father, son, and the boy’s would-be high school popular "straight" boyfriend.


     The ad begins with the father dropping off his son at school, the cute boy immediately spraying himself profusely with Bench’s “So in Love” body perfume (an ungendered perfume). As JR parades down the school hallway with his female best friend and another outsider boy, the school hottie comes toward him, greeting him by name and saying “You smell good.”

     When the son returns home at the end of the day, even his father notes that he smells “Like you have a girl.” The closeted queer kid suggests it’s just some girls at school getting friendly.

     The next day the school jock goes even further, the two actually sharing a bench, JR telling him “You smell good,” the cutie responding, “You smell better.” That evening his father teases him, “So is she your girlfriend yet?”


   The next day as JR is checking a class list on the wall, the school hot boy joins him, even putting his hand on his shoulder. The father’s evening response: “Someone smells like a winner.”

      But when JR goes to spray on “So in Love” the next morning, he discovers that the bottle’s run out. This time as JR walks down the hall, the cute boy is waving not at home but at the girl next to him, who greats the school charmer with a hug, JR slinking past them with the feeling that the possible relationship between them is now over.

      That night home his dear dad immediately inquires, “Hey, what happened? No more? When are you going to tell me about it?”

      His son brushes him off, afraid to say anything about his brief school romance.


     In his room, however, the boy finds a fresh bottle of “So in Love,” along with note. “Son, I know your secret. Love you.”

      This is another commercial advertisement which I can’t imagine being aired in the US. Can you imagine an American father providing his son a sissy perfume whose fragrance turns on a straight jock?

 

Los Angeles, September 30, 2024 / Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (September 2024).

 

Ira Sachs | Little Men / 2016

losing it

by Douglas Messerli

 

Ira Sachs and Mauricio Zacharias (screenplay), Ira Sachs (director) Little Men / 2016

 

Through the past decade Ira Sachs has made a movie about every 2 years (with the exception of five years between Married Life and Keep the Lights On), each one better, or at least as good, as the one before it. Little Men seems to me to the apotheosis of his thematic concerns and his quiet, melodramatic style—and I mean that in the best sense of that word, in the way that one can describe the films of Douglas Sirk as melodramas, dramas of human feeling.


     The specific issue here, as many critics have noted, is loss, in particular urban loss. What is being lost in vibrant cities as they become overwhelmingly a space for the young, predominantly white rich, is the question behind his last two films, along with the social and personal losses that come along with those changes. Although Sachs has generally been focused on New York, this new film and his last, Love Is Strange, might easily have been filmed in San Francisco, Seattle, or even the more culturally diverse Los Angeles.

      Clearly Brian Jardine (Greg Kinnear) has had his share of losses: his father has just died as the movie opens, and as an actor with a once promising career has gone nowhere; he hardly makes enough money to pay the bills. Although he cannot quite bring himself to admit it, he is embarrassed by relying on his wife Kathy (Jennifer Ehle), a psychotherapist, for his small family’s survival. And he probably has visited his father so little during his life because of that very fact— we later discover that his father had refused to attend family events because they were paid for by Kathy, not his son. Sachs reveals all of this in a few seconds when, taking down the garbage after a low-keyed memorial gathering in their father’s Brooklyn brownstone, Brian breaks down into sobs. What’s more, he must face the fact that, as we see in his portrayal of Trigorin in Chekhov’s The Seagull in an off-off Broadway theater, that he is simply not a great actor.


     Kathy, as the breadwinner, has lost her youth, and is now losing customers. In short, the Jardines are in financial duress, and are delighted to leave Manhattan by moving into the dead father’s brownstone.

     The building also contains a rent-paying dress shop, run by a former Chilean seamstress, Leonor Calvelli (Paulina García). However, the rent she pays is incredibly low given the recent gentrification of the neighborhood. Brian’s father, knowing that her business brought in very little, kept the rent low, and sought out the strong-willed woman as a friend and confident. Leonor’s husband is seemingly on a permanent trip to Angola, where we never discover what he is doing—except as Leonor’s son Tony (Michael Barbieri) imaginatively speculates, he is on an endless safari. He too, has lost his father, which he admits at first hurt him, but the fact of which he has now assimilated.

     This tiny family of two suffers the loss of income which might help them to survive. And now that there is a new landlord, Leonor sniffs out the future like a lioness determined to protect the only things she has left in her life: her hard work and her love for her talented son.



     At the center of this tale, however, are the “little men,” the two boys, the Jardines’ son, Jake (Theo Taplitz)—an introverted, almost speechless young man who wants to be a visual artist—and Tony, a rather fearless boy who wishes to become an actor in the vein of Al Pacino or Robert De Niro. They are both 13, and they bond almost immediately upon encountering one another.

     Sachs is careful not to describe their relationship as having anything to do with sex or real love, but we only have to watch the soulful stares of Jake upon his new-found friend, or to see the boys racing through the Brooklyn streets together, Tony on a foot-scooter and Jake rollerblade skating slightly behind or aside him, to know that these kids share something special together. If they are opposites, together they reinforce one another as yin and yang. Both want to be able to attend the arts school Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School. And both immediately are beloved by each other’s parents allowing them to share meals and weekly sleepovers.


    If the fast-talking Tony (in one wonderful scene he even talks down his acting teacher in a theater exercise) also plays sports and is attracted to a girl, we know that the shy Jake is focused only on Tony and his own art. Sachs says nothing else about the sexual interests, but knowing boys at their age, it should come of no surprise, if they might also be exploring one another’s bodies. If nothing else, their friendship is, at this moment, at the center of their lives. And when a fellow school mate hints at Jake’s possible homosexuality (“he wears dresses at home,” taunts the boy), Tony slugs him, receiving a beating in return. These little men might have become friends for life—if it weren’t for the insensitivity and class differences of their parents.

     Prodded by both his wife and his obviously greedy sister (Talia Balsam) (“What am I getting out of this?” she laments), Brian determines to triple Leonor’s rent, a sum she simply cannot pay. She, in turn, battles him back, refusing to even read his new rental agreement and goading him with stories from his father’s mouth. She even advertises for new help. As film critic Sheila O’Malley writes: “She's terrifying. She's terrified. When she crushes her cigarette out on the sidewalk, you can picture Brian and Kathy's faces underneath her shoe. She is not a villain. She is fighting for her life.”


     When the little men awaken from their rapture to realize what is happening, they determine to enact a kind of passive aggression, both refusing to speak to their parents. But when it becomes clear that Leonor will be evicted, losing her only possibility of income, Jake breaks his silence beseeching his parents to change their tactics.

       It is too late, and regret is all any of these figures have left. In the last scene we see the painful isolation, once again, of Jake, now sporting a ponytail, on a visit to an art museum where he is sketching a painting, the traditional way in which artists hone their own craft. Across the way, he suddenly spots Tony with a group of other students viewing the art. For a moment he rises to get a better glimpse, but as Tony moves away with the others, Jake returns to his floor-bound location, focusing on the only thing he now has left, his art.

      The terrible feeling at the bottom of our stomachs as we leave the theater is that both boys may have lost, in the severing of their bond, almost everything except their personal imaginative desires. Will they, like Leonor and Brian, similarly be failures in their chosen endeavors? That, we can never know. We can only hope not. Or let me say, we can only believe that they may find the happiness that has so eluded the bigger men and women around them.

       The acting in this film is as excellent as the direction, and the music by Dickon Hinchliffe is a delightful counterpoint to the sadness of the film’s subject. This is a movie I might like to own to be able to see it again and again.

     

Los Angeles, October 4, 2016

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2016

 

 

 

 

Shirley Clarke | The Connection / 1961

waiting for the cowboy

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jack Gelber (screenplay, based on his stage play), Shirley Clarke (director) The Connection / 1961, general release 1962

 

Yesterday afternoon I finally got an opportunity to watch Shirley Clarke’s 1961 film, The Connection. Milestone re-released this UCLA restoration back in 2012, but their price was somewhat prohibitive, and Netflix never picked it up for their library. I finally found it on Filmstruck.


       Based on the 1959 play by brilliant off-Broadway writer, Jack Gelber (see my piece in My Year 2003), Clarke’s film uses the characters who are supposedly filming  the men waiting in a run-down apartment for their next fix, creating a sense of watching a documentary about a documentary, particularly when the unseen cameraman (with the voice of Roscoe Lee Brown) refuses to turn off his camera while the director (William Redfield) coaxes the addicts to “just be themselves” and adjusts the various lights and microphones strategically positioned throughout the room.

       The apartment, belonging to Leach (Warren Finnerty), is filled with Ernie (Garry Goodrow), a former saxophonist who has sold his instrument to purchase drugs, Solly (Jerome Raphel), Harry (Henry Proach), and members of a jazz quartet, Freddie Redd, Jackie McLean, Michael Mattos, and Larry Ritchie, who perform throughout the long wait.


        The angriest of these is Ernie, who challenges and taunts the director, Dunn, and, along with others, insists that if he is going to watch them shoot up, then he also—pretend hipster that he is—should take a dose of heroin. And later, Dunn does just that, immediately growing sick even as he continues “capturing” the events.

       Perhaps the oddest of this group is Solly, who is highly educated, speaks two languages, we are told, and, apparently, since we see him leafing through the pages of a male magazine, is gay. Leach is described as a closet queer.



       Each of these figures gets a chance to talk, just as the jazz musicians all get an opportunity to show off their musical talents before Cowboy (Carl Lee) arrives, surprisingly along with an elderly woman called Sister Salvation, who might, we first might imagine, be hooked as well, but whom, we soon perceive, is completely unable to even grasp what is going on—which merely emphasizes the strangeness of a group of men all gathered together in a small room, pacing in anticipation. Dunn, evidently, has paid for this fix.


     The amazing thing about Gelber’s play and Clarke’s brilliant filming of it, is that none of these social outcasts is chastised or punished for their drug habit; even though Leach, who obviously has been on drugs for years, almost dies when he demands more heroin; Cowboy temporarily saves his life. But none of them truly regret their habit, nor are they expected to. The police never show up—although at one point, Redd plays a joke on his cast members by asking a real policeman to knock on the door of the set. Their only anger comes from having to suffer one another’s company and spend their day waiting, a bit like Beckett’s characters, for their version of Godot.

      It is hard to imagine in 1961 (and even earlier at The Living Theatre in 1959) that such a no-nonsense approach to drugs would be even possible. Clarke’s gritty film however was banned after just two performances, not because of its subject but by of the use (about 12 times) of the word “shit,” referencing the drug not its bodily meaning. Yet, of course, it is in the bathroom where each of them gets their shot by Cowboy, and their degradation in that act is apparent.

      Clarke appealed the court decision, and eventually won, but by that time the film has lost its underground appeal. And it was reviewed badly in The New York Times, despite having garnered acclaim in its original showing at Cannes. 

      Today, we might almost be witnessing an historical encounter that thousands of middle-class people now intact, in cars, shopping centers and restaurant bathrooms, and at home, apparently, every day. But in 1961 most Americans had never before even imagined such a scenario, let alone seen it played out in a film or on a stage.

      A strange note: in the original production, which included some audience involvement, actor Martin Sheen played “the man in the audience.”

      I’d love to have seen that play, and I wish I might have included it in Mac Wellman and my anthology, A New American Drama: 1960-1995; Mac had wanted to include The Connection, but I stubbornly held to our arbitrary 1960 date. Today I cannot imagine a better production than Clarke’s, whose black-and-white rendering parallels Sidney Lumet’s film of Long Day’s Journey into Night, an even earlier tale of drug addiction, of the very next year.

 

Los Angeles, March 16, 2017

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (March 2017).

Index R-Z

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