Monday, September 8, 2025

Dominic Poliquin | Forces / 2016

staying on

by Douglas Messerli

 

Dominic Poliquin (screenwriter and director) Forces / 2016 [TV film] [8 minutes]

 

Military (Benoit Gauvin), the name given to the young man who volunteers to join the army, and Patrick (Nicola Tomassini) have been “across the river” neighbors since childhood. Military describes Pat as a sexual frustrated pyromaniac, a boy who preferred even as a child to playing with gasoline instead of Military’s toys.


     As the film begins Military has evidently returned from a stint in Afghanistan which has strongly affected him, the film demonstrating that he suffers some of the post-traumatic stress disorders of battle; but he’s simply on leave and will soon be sent away once again.

      Pat is also described as a brute, being suspended from his high school football team for beating up one of the players from the other team.

      These two violent men, who were once good friends, are now dropped into the world they knew as children and young men, attempting to rebuild whatever it was that they had. For Pat, Military’s choice is summarized in one harsh and simple sentence: “You fucked up.”

      Afraid that he will die in Afghanistan, Military asks Pat to drive over his leg, rendering him unfit to return to service. But at the last moment, Pat refuses, simply stating “I’m leaving.”


      A fight follows, ending in Pat attempting to move in on a kiss at least twice, with Military rejecting him and consequently falling into the river below their properties, accidently accomplishing his military severance.

      Pat saves him from drowning, providing him with artificial respiration, but a rock has provided the leg fracture. Military declares that he is “absolutely straight” and that he sees himself marrying and moving into his parent’s house with his wife someday. But as we observe right after the accident, the love Pat still feels for him as he holds and rocks his friend into consciousness, and given the open smile the later recovering Military gives Pat across the stream, we wonder whether Pat might not come see his life has changed in more ways that simply being freed from military duty, that he has come home to a deeper relationship that his bland heteronormative imagination might have imagined.

      If nothing else, Pat has saved his life in more ways than one.

      Along with the effective jumpy cuts of Christian Rivera’s cinematography, Canadian director Dominic Poliquin’s short film is quite powerful. But it might have been even more so if instead of relying on the perceptions and observations voiced by Military for his narrative, he had also further explored the mysterious clashing emotions of Pat. We sense Pat’s conflicts without quite being able comprehend why he has developed these extreme pushes of violence and deep passion. And since he seems to be the narrative focus of the work, we need to better understand why he might deserve Military’s understandably reluctant love.

 

Los Angeles, June 8, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (June 2023).

Kristen Bjørn | Trouser Bar / 2016

on and off panting

by Douglas Messerli

 

John Gielgud (screenwriter), Kristen Bjørn (director) Trouser Bar / 2016 [20 minutes]

 

This campy and charming short film has a script (purposely uncredited by the filmmakers) by the towering actor Sir John Gielgud, and was originally intended to be directed by Peter de Rome, a gay director of early porn films who Gielgud very much admired. According to producer David McGillivray, de Rome died before being able to complete the project which then fell into his hands. 

      He chose the pseudonymous Kristen Bjørn to direct, which he does very much in the manner of de Rome. But McGillivray could not get permission from the Gielgud Trust to release the film. Finally, after years of correspondence back and forth, the Trust claimed that there was no such script by Gielgud, and that the film could only be released if all mention and associations with the actor were removed from the work and its promotion.

    So they were, the film itself suggesting the issue only tangentially by calling the menswear shop in which the trousers are sold, Sir John’s, which in a preface comment we are told to ignore.


     But McGillivray nonetheless had written about the film and his difficulties, and there is evidence that Gielgud, himself having a sort of fetish for corduroy, did indeed approach de Rome with the script. In any event, the film is certainly worth a peek, which is very much what Trouser Bar is all about, promoting delightful voyeurism of its audience on the film’s fictional British street.

     Two men arrive early to the shop, watching the employees carefully unclothe and re-attire the mannequins in the window. It is hard to know whether they find the boys, the mannequins, or the cloths the most appetizing, but at any rate, they scurry into the shop the moment it opens, tactilely feeling the fabrics they are about to purchase.


     The shop evidently permits only a few clients each day, since the attention provided to them is quite spectacular. Not only do the shop employees   provide curtained booths in which they engage their customers in a complete fitting, but also offer a total massage of all body parts, resulting of course in sexual engagement, which is expected to be viewed by the other customers and employees through the curtains who, in turn, are also nicely serviced.   


     The figures involved read almost like one of de Rome’s titles: Bobby (Denhom Spurr), David (Ashley Ryder), Larry (Zac Renfree), Joe (Craig Daniel).

     Eventually when a third customer, Lee (Hans Berlin) enters seeking horseback riding attire, complete with leather gloves and riding whip, he is offered a special room decked out in S&M accoutrements, and is soon joined by all the other customers and employees for an orgiastic romp.

     The curtains, left just slightly ajar, also bring out a large contingent of streetside onlookers, peering through the shop windows as the action gradually gets hotter and hotter, all very much in the manner of other Peter de Rome films.


     When the blonde employee finally comes to pull down the shades, the streetside voyeurs have already grown so excited that, totally disappointed by the end of their remarkable sexual entertainment, they begin kissing one another in broad daylight.



      The 1970s costumes of garish checks and stripes, the hairdos and sideburns of the period, and the bright pastels of the film all call up de Rome’s works perfectly. Both de Rome and Sir John, I suspect, would have highly approved.

 

Los Angeles, March 8, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (March 2023).

 

Robert Guthrie | Easy / 2016 || Kyle Jackson | Never Too Late / 2016

how to make films without really trying

by Douglas Messerli

 

Robert Guthrie (screenwriter and director) Easy / 2016 [4 minutes]

Kyle Jackson (screenwriter and director) Never Too Late / 2016 [6 minutes]

 

I imagine that I might be able to write a long essay on short films that fall under the category of “How to Make Films without Really Trying,” but I’ll just discuss two works here that represent to me young filmmakers, obviously with some talent, refusing to truly engage the medium in which they have claimed an interest. Both the 2016 4-minute short by US filmmaker Robert Guthrie and the 6-minute work by another US young would-be director Kye Jackson “set up” situations that are never developed, as if further narrative exploration of were of no matter.

     The glibbest of these is Guthrie’s Easy which appears to be almost delighted to say “nothing happening here dude, so don’t worry” in his tale of two biblical friends David and Jonathan. Ensconced in a seemingly perfect urban neighborhood, the two tall boys, David (Connor Gerton) and Jonathan (Zachery Prescott) get dressed in the morning—David, since he wears a small silver image of a Torah around his neck obviously Jewish, and Jonathan, who dons a small cross, evidently Christian—to go about their day. David, walking down the beautifully wooden stairway enters the bright daylight to make his way to work at a local coffee chop, while Jonathan, sliding down a pole near his family’s equally smart-looking stairwell, passes by his father (Barlow Adamson), who, reading his I-phone on the couch, seems a bit grumpy when his son announces, “See you late tonight.” Observing his somewhat disapproving demeanor, Jonathan suggests, “You know, you could be happy for me.” His father, still glowering a little, shoots back, “And you could be grateful for some tolerance.”


     End of story. Jonathan’s father is clearly not as easy about his son’s relationship with David—whose mother, we soon discover, has invited Jonathan over to the house for dinner that night—as is David’s family, the mother (Anne Gottlieb) telling Jonathan when she meets him outside her sons’ shop, how much they are looking forward to the dinner with them that evening.

    David finishes up work and heads off to the dinner appointment, meeting  Jonathan on his way home, the two holding hands as they walk off to a pleasurable event. It’s all just easy, I guess, if at the worst your parents “tolerate” your sexual differences and at best, as do David’s folks, they totally embrace them. But then we know parents like David’s and Jonathan’s are not evidently in the majority even today, although we might like to believe everything has changed. Moreover, not everyone lives in such upscale urban communities as do these two boys. And if the majority of parents suddenly grew to accept or, at worst, be benign critics of their son’s gay sexuality, would it be worth making a movie about it? Apparently, even in director Guthrie’s mind, it’s still unusual enough that the situation is worthy of being represented on film.

     One might almost imagine that this glib short work announces the end of, if not LGBTQ cinema making, the gay “coming out” film, since apparently there is no one left to “come out” to.

     Jackson’s University of Southern California filmmaking debut, Never Too Late is, in some respects, the opposite of Guthrie’s “easy” world. This film also is about the coming together of two young men, Charlie (Frederick Hoffman) and Roger (Daniel Bruington) who meet up by the Los Angeles beach where Charlie, alone on basketball court, is fruitlessly attempting to put the ball through the hoop. Roger, with his friendly dog, is passing by when the ball falls from the edge of the hoop in front of him. He stops, bringing the ball back to Charlie and apologetically makes a suggestion of where Charlie might hold his arms before shooting. It works, and Charlie makes the basket, the two introducing themselves to one another and making plans to meet.


     By the time they do meet on the Santa Monica beach we realize that Charlie is working at the basketball court to improve his stamina since he is apparently in ill health. Roger asks if Charlie has a girlfriend, to which the boy laughs, and “tagging” Roger goes on the run, making it clear that he is ready to play on the field of love with his new acquaintance as the film’s soundtrack blares out The Archies 1969 hit “Sugar Sugar.” The two romp for a while in the sand, ending up on the stairs of a lifeguard station for a quick kiss before Charlie pulls away, announcing from a safe distance “I’m HIV positive.”

       In the next very short sequence, Charlie is back on the basketball court, with Roger at his side suggesting how to keep his feet in position to make the basket.

       Obviously, Charlie’s announcement has not ended their potential relationship, but given the seriousness of the issue at hand, mightn’t we wish to explore, at least a little further, how these two might make plan to make a go of it as lovers, companions, or just friends? In Jackson’s anything but “easy” narrative, he has only announced the situation without exploring any of the consequences, which unlike Guthrie’s work, in this story there most certainly have to be.

       These two young filmmakers seem to have a flare for the visual, have chosen excellent actors, and in Jackson’s case even shown a talent for musical accompaniment. Now if only they had a story to tell, which—despite my disdain of traditional ideas of structure—admittedly does require some sort of conflict. For most directors of LGBTQ films that conflict is so apparent it drives the film from the moment the camera lens is uncapped, but these two directors seem to have simply turned off the camera off before they’ve even begun.

 

Los Angeles, July 3, 2021

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog and World Cinema Review (July 2021).

 

Peter Michael | Bro / 2016

chemistry lesson no. 1

by Douglas Messerli

 

Peter Michael and Bailie Reichardt (screenwriters), Peter Michael (director) Bro / 2016 [21 minutes]

 

In this Australian film from 2016, Aaron (Riley McNamara) and Harris (Chris Charteris) are two very unlikely friends, the first boy a truly laid-back long-haired guy with fuzz under his chin who seems to have accidentally stumbled in from the early 1970s, and Harris, a studious, clean-cut young man who might have been at home in the early 1960s. These two have evidently been friends from childhood on, but what they see in one another is a mystery to both the viewer of Bro and seemingly to the characters themselves.



       Aaron, who believes he’s a ladies’ man, is constantly trying to get his friend Harris to join him in heterosexual party situations, which clearly disinterest and bore the good student. At these events it appears that Aaron does generally hook up with a girl, go to bed with her, and fall in love, only to be told the in the next day or two that the woman of his dreams is not at all interested in such a loser.

      Time after time, much to the increasing irritation of Harris, the same pattern is repeated, which ends with Harris having to restore Aaron’s sense of well-being. But once the depression is over he is on to the next brief encounter while trying to interest his friend to seek out girls as well. He even offers, as if it were some sacred gift, to be his “wing-man.”

       But Harris is finally fed up, and like so many of the girls Aaron meets tells him that he needs to grow up and seek something other than these endless lightweight situations which leave him stupidly devastated.

       This time, however, Aaron is tired of Harris’ refusal to participate in his world and more than a little irritated by his friend’s lack of support and lectures on how he should reform. Besides, why should he care if he seeks out women, one of his great joys in life, since Harris is obviously so shy that he won’t even try to find a date? What does Harris know about love?

        Inadvertently Harris blurts out that he’s truly irritated with Aaron and tired of trying to buoy him up since he himself is in love with him!


        Aaron simply cannot assimilate the news, and immediately leaves. The two do not see each other for several days, perhaps weeks, as Harris strangely seems to fall into a jumble of potato chip wrappers and frozen dinners which usually characterize Aaron’s apartment.

         Finally, Aaron appears with a speech rehearsed. He has indeed been startled by the revelation that his best friend was gay and, on top of it, startled to discover that he is in love with him. He admits it’s hard for him to understand since he is straight.

        Harris simply apologizes. He had not meant to say that to Aaron, not meant for the truth to have come out of his mouth.

        Yet Aaron continues, his speech saying that nonetheless he can’t imagine life without his best friend and is willing to try a relationship for some period of time. In short, he’s offering to date his friend as if they were both gay men just to see if it’s possible that love can bloom.

        It’s a funny and very strange turn of events. There are been numerous films where a straight learns to tolerate his best friend’s sudden announcement of being gay. But very few to my knowledge in which the straight guy is willing to convert to being gay just to remain with his best bro.

        Unfortunately, we don’t believe it. There is no way on earth that the inveterate chaser of girls is going to find happiness in gay sex, and as I suggest in my first paragraph, it is nearly impossible to comprehend how Harris could be in love with such a total loser. Certainly, they may truly care for each other, but love is a very different thing. And if you begin with types, opposite types at that, and expect to comprehend what else that stereotyped individual has to offer that the other stereotype finds worthy of great sacrifice and love, you don’t understand the literary phenomenon of character, which writer and direct Peter Michael appears to never have even questioned. Aaron is not liked by girls for the very same reason, I’m afraid, that why we wouldn’t be liked my most gay boys, particularly the straight-arrow type that Harris has been portrayed as being.

      Something in this film seems to be missing. It might be described as chemistry.

 

Los Angeles, October 6, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2022).

Dan Fry | The Gay Dad / 2008

awkward love

by Douglas Messerli

 

Dan Fry (screenwriter and director) The Gay Dad / 2008 [10 minutes]

 

Given what I have seen now in four films (The Gay Dad, Bruise, Dancing Around, and My Son’s Best Mate) I might suggest that Australian director Dan Fry has “daddy” problems, particular since this film, taken from a feature film of the same year, 2008, title Dutch Courage, also features other of the directors real family members, his wife, daughter, and son.

    Dan Fry, playing the central figure of this film, Paul is a married man, father of two children. Paul is having problems and seeks out in his next door neighbors apartment, some time to think, while the neighbor, evidently a composer, intensely plays the piano, which obviously becomes the score of this short work.


    He first actually meets his neighbor in the elevator, introducing himself. The male neighbor, returning with his small dog which he’s evidently been walking, greets him but carries the conversation no further, not even proffering his name.

    Back in his own apartment, Paul watches his two children playing a video game. Their mother enters, a woman dressed in an outfit that appears to suggest she is an airline pilot. She sends the children momentarily from the room for a “meeting” with their father, admittedly a rather formal term to describe her need to discuss his “child-minding.”

    Paul wonders what there is to discuss, since he is there and already “minding” his children. She will be working night flights for the next couple of weeks, Paul joking that he will then become a “night owl,” a comment that does not go well with her. She also wants to discuss money matter as well.

    We watch the children, on the other side of the door, carefully listening into their conversation.

He tells his children, when the door finally opens, that he will be seeing them in a couple of days, clueing us in that he and his wife are actually separated and that the so-called “child-minding” has been arranged because of her job requirements.

    The children giggle, telling him, “We love you, you piss-head,” which suggests, as the father later comments, a term they obviously picked up from their mother, who has just previously also described him as pissing off.

    The term, he admits, despite the humor of it, truly repulsed him.

    Immediately after, we see Paul at the door of his neighbor, asking if he might come in, the man answering, “If you really want to.”


    Wondering about the visit, he asks, “Am I too loud?”

    “No, quite the contrary. Well in the beginning yeah, but now I kind of like it. It’s been helping me to think a lot.”

     He’s not sure that his other Doris will be able to think a lot through the noise, however, the neighbor responding, in a rather odd accent, “she’s deaf.”

     “I would offer you something to drink, but I don’t have any alcohol,” responds the neighbor, who obviously knows that Paul drinks quite heavily. But suggests water is just fine.

     “What makes you think I might want alcohol?” he rightfully asks.

     The neighbor has seen him come out of the local pub, although quickly making it clear that he’s not been following him.

     And now we finally catch the neighbor’s name, Karl (Johan Venter), Paul reintroducing himself, explaining that his “not-specific” accent is Dutch, since he is from the Netherlands.

     Karl wonders if he might him to play the piano, since he’s working on a new composition, while Paul thinks.

    And so begins a quite strange relationship, Paul quickly learning that Karl lives only with his little dog. But soon Paul gets what might be described as “cold feet,” particularly when Karl asks if he might be going to the pub later. There seems to be something else afoot in both their unstated interests in each other, particularly when Paul suggests that perhaps he might come over again tomorrow and have Karl play for him, “It really does help me to think.”

    As the two stand facing one another over the dog at their feet, Karl suggests that this would be when a musical interlude might be appropriate, a funny comment given that a cellist is busily at work in providing just such an interlude for Fry’s film.

    In fact, we begin to realize that this short is really quite comic in that Paul’s excuse to get to know his neighbor is a ruse for—just as Karl’s piano playing is an unstated attempt at—a sexual encounter.

    In the next scene he, in fact, at the pub, considering skipping his appointment at the Dutch man’s apartment to “hear him tinkle.” He observes that he really enjoyed hearing him play the piano, but that he is most uncomfortable with the “awkwardness,” without realizing that much of the awkwardness is of his own doing since he cannot yet possibly even explain to himself what has truly prompted his visit.

     Paul does visit his friend again, who openly admits, over his tinkling of the keys, that he couldn’t even sleep for imagining his next visit and he imagined the two lying in bed together listening to music and touching each other, needing each other—only his words are spoken entirely in Dutch, and Paul obviously has no clue of what he’s saying.

     In the next scene Paul is back in his own apartment watching his two children once more playing video games. And finally, back in the pub Paul admits that he hasn’t yet been able to comprehend what went wrong with his relationship with his wife Ashley, while simultaneously admitting that their separation is related to his feelings, and that he knows what the “feelings” are about because he’s had them before.

     When Paul returns yet again to visit Karl, his neighbor responds that he’s glad he came, fearful that he might be in the pub all day. Obviously, things have come to a head at home, Paul having admitted to his wife that he needed time to think. But here, in the now, Karl touches his new friend’s had, explaining that in Holland people are quite tactile. “We are not scared to show passion between people, not even between men.”


   Paul finds that it’s getting warm in the room, but Karl reminds him that it’s autumn, and at that moment the neighbor half stands and plants a kiss of Paul’s lips.

     Ashley tells her husband, in the next frame, that she has known for quite a while, she arguing that he will be okay.

     In the film’s final scene, we finally get the gay dad’s confession as he lays in bed with the Dutchman hovering lovingly over him: “I tried this many, many years ago, but I couldn’t go through with it. And then I got married and had the kids just to obliterate any unwanted feelings that might pop up. And lo and behold they did again. And now I’ll probably fuck their lives up.”

     Karl responds, “But they love you, don’t they? They’ll understand when they are bigger. They just want you in their life. That’s all a child wants.”

     The neighbor, now Paul’s lover, suggests, as if it might be a stage cue, “You can laugh now.”

     Paul turns to the camera, and for the first time instead of the frown of contemplation on his face, only slightly smiles.


   I’m not sure that the children will be able to later assimilate such an alteration in their father’s love life; but perhaps with the openness of their mother and her blessings for his husband’s future they will grow up to be able to embrace and understand the sexual differences among people. Certainly we’ve seen the pain that such forced marriages have resulted in, the subject of several films. Fry’s film at least gives us new hope that a youthful mistake by a man unable to accept his sexuality does not always end in a disaster.

     Now if only Fry could move his camera a bit further back from the intense closeups he enjoys, resist pushing his figures at the very edges of the fame, maybe find another actor other than himself to play his central characters, and change the color settings so something richer than his usual beiges and browns, we might have a truly excellent film in the can.

 

Los Angeles, September 7, 2025

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (September 2025).

 

Jamal Caesar | Posi+ive / 2009

revenge tragedy

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jamal Caesar (screenwriter and director) Posi+ive / 2009 [8 minutes]

 

If there was ever a film in which you almost felt that the homophobic villain received his due, it would be Jamal Caesar’s 2009 short work, Positive. Yet no one wishes that anyone might have to suffer the dread results of becoming HIV-positive, even at a time when there are drugs to help protect the infected individual from suffering AIDS.

     Tony (LoDeon), a furious young black man, has evidently received the address of where his young brother has spent the night, and is determined, since it apparently involves sharing the bed of another boy, to correct the situation and alter his brother’s gay behavior.

     Elena (Taina Elena) attempts to stop him, to make sure that he knows what he’s doing, but Tony proceeds, forcing his way into Stefan’s (Daniel Dugan) apartment past his elderly mother (Sonseray Reed) to discover his younger brother Jamie (Jabari Brisport) in bed with the other boy.


    He proceeds to beat Stefan, despite the attempts to protect him by all the others involved; but there is no stopping the brutal vengeance of Tony, as blood is spilled over the room, Stefan’s frail body, and upon Tony as well.

     Jamie keeps trying to insist that they were simply laying together, not engaging in sex, but Tony cannot comprehend that there might be a difference until the others finally reveal to him that Stefan is HIV-positive, and that not Tony also might be infected.

      There is something almost anti-gay in the fact that director Cesar has used this disease to revenge homophobia, as if all the lies about AIDS being a gay disease and that even coming into contact with a gay man might infect others were truth. By 2009 we had long realized that in some countries, females were more commonly the carriers than males, and that HIV as transmitted sexually by both men and women, not simply by gay men.

      Yet, as I suggested in my first sentence, there is something satisfying that such hatred, in this particular case, ended in the infection of a man who mistakenly presumes he is safe from such a disease because he is straight.

      It might have been far more interesting, however, if we had seen some of the incidents that led to these violent few minutes which built up such utter fear and anger in Jamie’s older brother? Had Jamie been sexually active for some while, with Tony attempting to control him. Was this simply a sudden discovery which resulted in such a mad rush to protect his sibling? And who is Stefan, and how has Jaime come to know him? And finally, why is he in the bed of a man who is HIV-positive? We can certainly imagine all sorts of scenarios, but it would help us to know who these characters are in order to understand their behaviors.

 

Los Angeles, September 8, 2025

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (September 2025).

 

Index R-Z

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