Thursday, April 16, 2026

Nigel Soh and Yvonne Lee | Good Seeing You / 2019

straight out abuse

by Douglas Messerli

 

Nigel Soh (screenplay), Nigel Soh and Yvonne Lee (directors) Good Seeing You / 2019 [25 minutes]

 

Nigel Soh and Yvonne Lee’s Good Seeing You is an Asian movie with some very good cinematic moments about a subject, however, that I’ve simply grown tired of, the meeting up and growing love between two young boys that ends in only sorrow for one of them as the other cannot permit himself to admit that he is homosexual or even willing to explore the relationship that he has almost single-handedly set afire.


      I guess I’ve just grown rather disgusted by charming straight boys attempting to explore and overcome their own sexual desires. Jason (Nigel Soh) is the perfect victim, a truly innocent kid who doesn’t even smoke or drink, who at a party which he probably should never have attended and at which he certainly doesn’t feel comfortable, is spotted by an engaging extrovert Daniel (Jai Kishan) who quite literally brings Jason out of his shell, puts some booze in him, teaches him out to smoke a cig, and takes him home, within a brief time turning him almost into a slave.

     So in love is Jason with this charismatic man that he is willing to do his laundry, provide him with the answers for nearly all of his school tests, and even snuggle up in bed with him most nights. It’s the perfect relationship for Daniel, even if Jason is just a tool in his own self-exploration.


     For the moment that Jason finally demands a return of love, a simple kiss, the self-assured narcissist Daniel is absolutely horrified, so offended by the moisture of any male saliva implanted upon his own lip, in a wild wiping away of the event that almost outdoes Stephen Rea’s vomiting scene in Neil Jordan’s The Crying Game of 1992 after he discovers that the woman to whom he has made love actually has a small cock.

     Daniel rushes off in homophobic horror, leaving the gentle Jason in the lurch.

    Months, perhaps years later, Jason runs into Daniel in a grocery store with a forceful woman at his side (Iffah Rakinah) who in their small chatter Jason discovers is about to marry his old flame.

Off goes Jason into the dark, walking away without the man who helped to make him who is now is. 

   I certainly do not demand that all, or even most, LGBTQ films have a happy ending. But gay nostalgia for an abusive would-be lover without any major significance no longer amuses me anymore. Instead of slouching off to years of heartfelt memories, if Jason had just kicked Daniel in the balls in front of his fiancĂ©e, leaving her to wonder what the hell is going on might at least have made me giggle. But tears for a crass hetero trying out his powers of seduction are beyond me.

 

Los Angeles, April 16, 2026 | Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (April 2026).

Pat Rocco | Changes / 1970

the general barbarism of us culture

by Douglas Messerli

 

Pat Rocco (director) Changes / 1970

 

Pat Rocco (1934-2018) was born as Pasquale Vincent Serrapica to an Italian-American family in Brooklyn, who as a singer and performer in televised talent shows because well-known in Southern California.

     Beginning in the 1960s, after working as a photographer of male nudes, he began making his own male erotic films, one of the earliest along with Bob Mizer who began selling gay nude films, often with erotic narratives at about this same time. But soon, as he films began to create attention for their positive portrayal of the gay community, he gradually began making documentaries about the Los Angeles gay community, including pride marches, gay protests, and some Hollywood figures, gradually becoming a gay activist who ultimately left his vast archive to the UCLA Film and Television Archive.


   Among his early documentaries was the 1970 filming by his Bizarre Productions company of Changes, an interview and open discussion of a transgender woman (described as “transsexual” in this broadcast) Jimmie Michaels before her later total transition into Jennifer Michaels.

     Although there is still something a little exploitative and approaching the tone of “Mono Cane”—the title of Rocco’s production company alone hints of the latter—and the use of the slightly overweight, sweaty William King as interviewer doesn’t always make for non-confrontational tone. Nonetheless, King asks basically straight-forward questions, particularly given how little was known about transgender behavior during this period, at a time where I still have older friends who insist that except perhaps for Christine Jorgensen, they had never even heard  someone transitioning from one gender to another, and certainly had never encountered such a person in their lives.


     Most importantly, Jimmie/Jennifer is an intelligent, soft-spoken woman who clearly can answer for herself and does most ably. She explains in a few quick sentences precisely what a “transsexual” being is (“A transsexual is one who desires to be the opposite sex, either a female to male or a male to a female”), and how she herself felt feminine even as a very young child, and by age six was recognized in her household as being more like a girl than a boy.

     Unfortunately, King keeps addressing her with the male pronouns. But his very next question gets right to the issue: “Tell me, do you consider yourself as a male or female?”

      Michaels is almost painfully honest: “Well, that’s pretty hard to say.” The majority of the time, she explains, she feels as a female and acts like a female, but there are times when, caught off guard or depressed, she doesn’t know what to do accept to attempt to gain societal acceptance by trying to be a little more masculine.

      Asked if she is going for the “full operation,” she posits that is her intention.  

    The next question moves closer to the issues of sexuality as opposed to gender: “Which do you prefer most, the company of men or of women.” Without missing a beat, Jimmie/Jennifer makes clear that most of the time he seeks out to company of women to share their perspective and interests, but she makes it quite clear she is not romantically interested in women, but in men, so she also likes the company of men when they are accepting of her difference. It might have been interesting to have her elaborate further on that, simply how she does master approaching men to whom she might be attracted who wouldn’t be so accepting of her. She does make clear that outside of her closest friends, the hecklers on the street usually say “What is this?” or they become obscene. She also talks about the cruelty of school children and the general barbarianism of US culture.

     Asked a rather stupid question, given her comments, whether she considers herself a homosexual, she quickly squelches that subject by suggesting that would be beside the point, since homosexuals love the same sex, whereas she, who sees herself a as woman, is attracted to men.

     One of the most interesting series of questions and answers helps us to perceive just how intelligent this transgender woman is. We recognize her clearly as a woman of true independence when she is asked, rather coarsely by Williams, “Tell me, do you prefer wearing women’s clothes?” He soon after specifies his query by asking “Dresses, bras, panties, the silk hose, or nylon hose? Girdles?”

     Refreshingly, at least from my point of view, Michaels answers: “I hate nylons. I hate girdles. I do not like to wear bras. I don’t necessarily like to wear dresses except now and then, I get this mad urge to do the town….But I really have no craving to flaunt, you know, with the makeup. I don’t like makeup. Or spending two hours in a beauty salon which is a complete waste of time.”

     Regarding the hormones she is already taking, she wittily comments: "If you think LSD is a trip, you should try taking hormones."

     Asked where her eventual goals might lead her, she answers that she, like so many other women, would like to get married, and although she cannot have children, they could adopt. This is, one must remember still the 1970s, and she imagines she might like to live in the suburbs, precisely the world where young gay men like myself wanted to escape.



    The big difference in this film is that once the interview is finished, the film doesn’t stop, but continues in a kind of idyll as Jimmie/Jennifer walks down the Los Angeles streets almost literally “smelling the roses,” in this case the carnations from a flower vendor. She picks our a few and meanders, like all somewhat sentimental LGBTQ love stories, off into a local park. Stopping at a small stream, she even unbuttons her blouse and in semi-nudeness feels her breasts, welcoming her new gender with joy. Few films have been as generous and open-minded about a subject which even day is still highly controversial in conversative USA and is now an anathema even among some liberals. Why transgender individuals, who have already suffered so much from their sense of displacement of their bodies, taunted by their peers, lectured to and ignored by adults should be met with such complete cultural dismissal and horror by a large part of the population stymies the imagination.

     There would not be a movie as sympathetic to transsexual behavior until Doris Wishman.s 1977 movie, Let Me Die as a Woman.

 

Los Angeles, April 16, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (April 2026) . 

Wednesday, April 15, 2026

Halo Rossetti | Pony / 2022

necessary changes

by Douglas Messerli

 

Halo Rossetti (screenwriter and director) Pony / 2022 [15 minutes]

 

This film is a kind of transgender fantasy in which a young girl, Zoe (Jayden Rolling) is desperate to become the male that her twin brother Tony wanted to be in his secret desire to become a female named Pony.

    The poor mother (Mandy May Cheetham) in left after what appears to have been the suicide of her Tony/Pony, with a daughter who clearly is unhappy in her own skin, terrified that the surviving twin will also do harm to herself.

     The film grows even more problematic as Zoe’s best friend Kayle (Emi Curia) begins to fall in love with the far more male-identifying Zoe, mistaking her behavior as being lesbian.


      The movie begins with Zoe locked away in the bathroom about to cut off her long pony tail, the mother banging on the door, terrified that her daughter also might be in the process of harming herself.

      Unfortunately, director Halo Rossetti doesn’t know quite how to logically express the transgender feelings of her central character, and hasn’t a clue in how to develop Zoe’s character or explain much of anything about her brother Tony except through a brief clip of the boy putting on eyeliner in his own attempt apparently at gender transformation. How he came to feel he was a girl in a boy’s body or why this ended in his death is not explained.

      All we get is a shrine in the garage that Zoe has created for her brother, and bits and pieces of her mother’s desperate attempts to recreate some sense of normalcy.


       When Zoe reveals her secret shrine to Kayley, the girl finally comes out, so to speak, declaring her love of Zoe. But when Zoe takes it several levels further describing her brother as her sister and herself as a boy, things grow so strange that she runs off in terror.

       Somehow, so it appears, Zoe conveys the truth to her mom, and finally cuts most of her long braided pony tale off. But the films ends there, with no sense of resolution of full explanation, and no clue about how much the mother knows of her daughter’s resolution to become a male or how she might feel about it.

       And frankly, although it is certainly intriguing, is rather unbelievable that both twins would have felt born into the wrong gender bodies, as if they were magically switched in the womb.

       By film’s end we still don’t know how anybody involved is truly dealing with the radical changes the film seems to broadcast. Does Kayley come to accept her best friend as a male? Is the mother able to accept, after her son’s death, such a transformation of her daughter? And is Zoe herself ready to undergo the long transformation from female to male? It seems almost as if the author/director, who identifies as non-binary, had not yet thought enough about how the radically  new identity Zoe is ready to embrace might affect those around they/them.

     I can only report that the mother appears to be almost a saint, having suffered and loved through it all. Has she also lost her husband in the process? Once again, nothing is fully explained. But in the final shot, Zoe is able to chop off her locks.

 

Los Angeles, April 15, 2026 | Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (April 2026).

Christy Cabanne | The Midshipman / 1925 [Difficult to find]

nice boys do not always make the best lovers

by Douglas Messerli

 

F. McGrew Willis (screenplay, based on a story by Carey Wilson (screenplay), Christy Cabanne (director) The Midshipman / 1925 [Difficult to find]

 

Make no mistake, this difficult to see silent film from 1925—a copy of which does exist in George Eastman Museum Motion Picture Collection—is a heterosexual romance with no obvious LGBTQ content.

   I’ve included it here, however, not even because it stars the very gay Mexican actor Ramon Novarro as the movie’s star, James Randall, and features actor William Boyd as midshipman Spud, long rumored to have had an affair with Howard Hughes with naked pictures involved, and a possible later relationship with gay actor Randolph Scott, despite Boyd’s five heterosexual marriages and his famed portrayal later in his life of the clean-living upright cowboy Hopalong Cassidy.


    Neither of these actors portray figures in this film that are even hinted to be gay, although Novarro’s beauty does most certainly dominate the story.

    This film, after all, was mostly filmed on location at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis and was authorized by the Department of the Navy, allowing the use of an entire brigade of midshipmen as extras There is not even a sustained coded message in the plot which mostly involves Randall’s attraction to and courting of his young mentee’s Ted Lawrence’s (the freckled-faced Wesley Barry) sister, Patricia (Harriet Hammond).

    What this film does reveal, however, is a few of the tropes that would later appear in Brown at Harvard (1926) and even, in more subtle ways, in William A. Wellman’s classic Wings (1927) and William Wyler’s later Tom of Culver (1932). Of course, anytime you gather a mass of young men living together night and day, the tensions and relationships between them often hint at homoerotic possibilities, particularly when you match up someone like the beautiful Novarro with the fit but intellectually inferior Tex (Harold Goodwin).


     Early in the film, the resentful Tex is matched by the pansy dance teacher who assigns him a “ladies” role in relation to Randall’s “male” position. Yet here the dance, instead of a similar scene in Tom of Culver in which the dance releases the expressions of the two men’s friendship and possible love, ends in a kind of comic and clumsy march of the two across the screen.

     There’s also a very strange moment early in the film when an uppperclassman asks the freshman plebs, gathered around the table for their meal, two strange questions, which in fact do seem quite coded. The first: “Why do they call a battleship ‘she?’ Tex Wilson has no answer. But Randall immediately comes back with what seems to be a clever riposte, “Because it can’t grow a beard.”

This strange and enigmatic reply actually makes sense in the homosexual vocabulary: in gay slang “a beard” is a person—usually a woman—who knowingly or unknowingly dates or marries a gay man to provide him with heterosexual cover, helping to conceal his true sexual orientation. The ship, filled with men, is a beloved cover for the presumable behavior of the men within. Tex simply doesn’t get it, but Randall is praised for his “brilliant” answer.

     The second question seems even more confusing: “Why are battleships painted gray?” Randall’s seemingly absurd answer also receives commendation. “So the fish will know they’re not radishes.” This perhaps refers to the Vermont term “had a radish,” referring to the fact that wild radishes are poisonous to sheep and rabbits, suggesting that anyone who eats such an underground product will not survive the encounter. It relates, also perhaps, to another underground idiom referring to something that’s no longer worth anything, that has no meaning or purpose. Gray, in short, is not red, bloody, and dying, but something that belongs to areas of life that are not fully understood or accepted by mainstream society. In the water, the unknowable gray beast is alive and purposeful, even dangerous, not worthy of taking a bite.

     The fact that these coded messages suddenly appear out of nowhere hints at where this movie might have ventured, but due to circumstances doesn’t go there. Wilson simply shakes his head in confusion, the conversation seemingly having washed over his and most of the audience’s head.  

     From now on, so the script seems to warn us, everything will be quite literal. A simulation of ships moving together in dangerous waters, soon after, ends up not in what might have been an important example of bodily contact, but in a brooding call by Tex for Randall to stand up and fight it out just because his symbolic boat has been crashed into by the men manipulating Randall’s play craft.

 


      The fight, encouraged by an upperclassman, does reveal a kind of male-on-male admiration of the body, if nothing else. As they both strip off their shirts, the young man overseeing their battle is at first quite impressed by Tex’s impressive pectorals and chest, but when he looks over at Randall’s even more beautifully developed thoracic cage, he almost smirks in utter appreciation of his physical beauty.

     Against his will, Randall quite easily defeats the more brutal and coarser Tex, but even then he shows sympathy with the man he is beaten up, and is quite angry when his fellow midshipmen attempt to congratulate him for his prowess. Quite obviously, he has been raised as a peaceful man.

But again, whereas Wyler or Wellman might have pushed their warfare and its closure as an almost romantic gesture, director Christy Cabanne turns it almost in a grudge which Tex continues to hold through most of the film until he finally discovers that the villain of the piece, Basil Courtney (Crauford Kent), has sent a woman to visit, against regulations, the on-duty guard room to ruin Randall’s career, while actually destroying the innocent Lawrence’s chances to graduate.

     He saves the day in reporting the truth, in short, not because of any deep feeling he may have developed for his fellow classmate, but out of sense of duty.

     An earlier scene in which the young midshipmen are learning how to row, which in Conway’s Brown at Harvard becomes an expression at their youthful beauty, a truly homoerotic scene in that film, is in The Midshipmen turned into a comic scene, the men remain fully dressed as the boat begins to sink.


    Even Randall’s growing fondness of the young midshipmen Lawrence whom he comes to mentor and help find his role among his high achieving schoolmates, which in the other films I mention might have suggested perhaps an inkling at least of romantic interest, is here simply a gesture of good will, Randall apparently so disinterested in the young boy’s looks that when Lawrence asks him to help fill out a dance card for his sister, Patricia, at the upcoming dance, he, imagining her to look like her brother, bows out of any participation in the dance.

    She is, of course, the stunning woman with whom he falls in love, the relationship that dominates this movie, which allows no time for these young boy’s admiration for their fellow peers.

     What is fascinating is how this film uses similar tropes in the other films I mention that help to indicate that there is some subtle homosexual relationships going on, to push away from that very possibility. In the process the handsome man at the center of this film, Randall (Novarro) becomes a kind of unapproachable virgin, as the villain describes, the “unkissed” hero.

      Accordingly, even though it is quite clear in the plot that Randall has fallen in love with Patricia and will do everything in his power to save her from Courtney’s clutches, it is difficult for us to imagine what his love consists of other than the dedicated love of his elderly mother which consists of tears and chaste kisses.

      Is this man really capable of sexual love? We certainly have clue of any sexuality behind the beautiful body he inhabits. And even at film’s end, when insists that Patricia marry him, she pushes him away, he demanding that she has a duty to love him, coming close to a kind of misogynistic view that characterizes Coutney’s virtual attempts to lock her up and rape her.


    If only Randall might have kissed one of the boys, we would at least have known that his hormones were in good shape and he was ready for love. Here, the virgin king seems as stand-offish and unready for any kind of relationship as the innocent pleb he was on his first day, tutored to enter the institution only because his mother insisted he emulate his dead navy-serving dad.

     Howard and I had a neighbor when we first moved in Washington, D.C. in 1970, Bob Orr, a lovely gay man who became a beloved friend and helped us to discover opera. He was a professor at the Annapolis Naval Academy who had been cited several times as an outstanding and highly admired teacher. Bob died the following year of recurring Leukemia, which I now suspect might have been an early case of AIDS. (He regularly stalked the stacks and bathrooms for young men of his age in the Library of Congress so he told us and, as we learned in helping to clean his apartment, he had been a lover of Anthony Perkins). How marvelous it must have been for the midshipmen of the day to have such a loving, sensual being as a teacher.

    In The Midshipmen we get no glimpse, other than the pansy dance teacher, of these “future admiral’s” teachers. The higher-ups simply proclaim new rules which they must obey. For a movie supposedly about heterosexual love, accordingly, we get no indication of what that kind of love consists of or what it even means. These boys seem to remain utterly innocent.

    The only lust that is even hinted at in this work is that upperclassman’s broad smirk when he catches a glimpse of Randall’s naked chest. And the only real bodily contact that occurs in this film are the arms the boys put around one another in their dancing lesson and the slugs which Randall regrets having to inflict on Tex. Surely somewhere in the mass of male flesh someone, I hope, must have sneaked into another boy’s bed and discovered what he might define as love.

    This film almost becomes an exemplar of why filmmakers sometimes need to involve their characters in homosexual relationships just to learn about and prove they’re capable of heterosexual love. At least the British always understood that boarding school and even university was a learning ground for young men to explore sex. These American boys are clearly unready to settle down and have families, which may be why so many USA men gather each weekend at their local bar in an attempt to reclaim their schoolboy days.

 

Los Angeles, April 14, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (April 2026).

    

 

 

 

Tuesday, April 14, 2026

François Ozon | Regarde la mer (See the Sea) / 1997, USA 1998

love, look away!

by Douglas Messerli

 

François Ozon (screenwriter and director) Regarde la mer (See the Sea) / 1997, USA 1998

 

Sasha (Sash Hails), of English birth, lives with her husband in the idyllic seaside village on France’s ĂŽle d'Yeu. But although her life may seem charmed, her business man husband is often away on trips, and Sasha, who we soon come to see as a young sensualist, is left alone to care for their infant daughter, Siofra, which does not leave her much time to enjoy the landscape and beauty around her. Sasha obviously loves her daughter, but is also clearly uncomfortable with her constant needs.


    We see her frustrations in the very scene of the film when, awakened by her infant daughter, she has difficulty, with child in hand, to even make herself breakfast. A call to her husband fails, and another in which explains that he will be longer away than he originally planned, makes clear her disappointment and loneliness. We might even suspect, and perhaps she does, that his business trips involve some other sexual tryst, but that would turn this film into a soap opera, which Ozon never allows his quirky films to become.


     Enter a young female drifter, Tatiana (Marina de Van), who simply asks for permission to camp in the yard for a day or three. Unlike Sasha, Tatiana is not tied down by familial burdens, and seems to be totally independent, something which we already suspect Sasha admires. But, at first, the married woman is wary about giving permission, particularly since her husband is not home. When assured that it will be only a quick stay of a night or two, however, changes Sasha’s mind. Moreover, she is obviously quite fascinated by the woman who seems to completely in control of her own life. It’s clear that she reminds Sasha of her former self, before the commitments she has now undertaken.


     Tatiana sets up her tent, and Sasha proceeds with her day. But when dinner arrives, she invites the girl in, and begins a rather reluctant friendship, while yet noting the oddities of her new guest, particularly her almost animalistic manner of eating, swallowing down her food as if she has been starved, picking up the plate and licking it clean.


      She behaves in an equally bestial way when she uses the house bathroom, leaving her turds in the toilet, unflushed, wiping down some of the debris with Sasha’s toothbrush. As Tatiana has expressed it, when asked by Sasha whether she gets scared in her travels: “No. I do the scaring.”

      Yet when Titiana admits that prior to her hiking trip without a destination that she worked as a nanny to a wealthy family, Sasha herself decides, the very next day, the leave her daughter in the care of the child while she runs for some needed groceries, and a very few moments at least, some time to enjoy herself, a simple visit to a nearby cafĂ© for coffee and a sweet.

      She quickly returns home, however, somewhat worried about Siofra, but finds the child safe and well-cared for.

      The next day, she even invites her new yard guest on a trip to the nearby beach, planning to enjoy the sun with her new friend in a nice lunch and conversation. But she discovers that Tatiana has little conversational skills and instead of looking, as would most beachgoers, toward the sea, looks back to the surrounding woods, watching the gay men enter for illicit sex, scene that could be right out of the Alain Guiraudie’s 2013 film Stranger by the Lake. When asked by Sasha what she sees, her answer is blunt: “Some guys fucking.”

      Titiana shows absolutely no interest in anything the beachgoers, male or female, might offer. “I’m bored. I’m leaving,” she declares.


       It has become apparent, even before this scene, that Sasha is curious about Tatiana not only as an individual but as a sexual being. And now, we discover just how much of a sexual being Sasha really is, as she wraps the sleeping Siofra carefully to protect her fun the sun, while she sneaks off the woods, discovering a man there who perfectly willing to engage I heterosexual behavior. She has a quickly sexual rendezvous that is not at all so very different from the quick fucks and suck offs which gay men seek out in such a place.


     That Sasha is so tempted by the allure of that woods that she is even willing to leave her child alone for a short while, indicates something we soon have affirmed when the next day, when she speaks with Tatiana about child birth. Tatiana cannot imagine the pain a woman has to suffer to bear a child and asks if Sasha has had a cesarean rather than a vaginal birth. Sasha argues that she wanted to feel the experience of the pain, insisting upon a vaginal birth with no drugs.

     Tatiana continues to question her about vaginal tearing, where she shat or not, etc., all questions which Sasha suggests will lead the young girl to never have a baby. “I already had one,” Tatiana blurts out. When asked where it is, the girl simply answers, “Dead.” When the empathic Sasha expresses her sadness, Tatiana simple declares she had it aborted.


     That statement again stresses the complete difference between these women. Earlier in the day, while Titiana was out, Sasha has snuck into the woman’s tent, noticing a day book within which is written over and over, a repetition of words and drawings of hangings and other symbols of death.

    Sasha, as I mentioned earlier in this essay is nearly all sensation, while Titiana seems to be almost asexual and emotionless. She does not dine in delight, she devours food like a beast. She does not watch the sea in wonderment but turns her back on the endless waves and the people they attract equally.

     Janet Maslin’s summary the scene above in The New York Times well expresses the horror underlying this scene:

 

“Ozon, whose eerie exactitude owes strong debts to Chabrol and Polanski, builds this simple film to unexpected heights of irony and horror. Late in the story, for instance, the two women share dinner as Tatiana abruptly asks Sasha what childbirth was like. In complacent yuppie fashion, Sasha proudly answers that she took no drugs because she wanted to experience the pain. All Tatiana has to do to set your hair on end at a moment like this is simply to listen, her expression perfectly blank, her eyes dead.”

 

     Even Sasha suspects there is something very different about this woman; but that too attracts her and before the night is out, she offers the girl a bed in the house instead of another night on the ground. By this time, we also realize that Sasha has grown so intrigued by Titiana that she would not at all mind exploring her body in sex.


    And, despite her insensitivity, even Titiana now clearly perceives that fact. For a while both women lay in bed in their respective rooms. But later we see Titiana rise, enter Sasha’s room and remove her blouse as if preparing for sex.

     The next day, the husband (Paul Raoux) returns home, a young handsome man who we realize might be the perfect mate for the attractive Sasha. But his wife and daughter are nowhere to be found.

     He finally discovers the tent in his backyard, unzips its flap, and finds there his wife’s bound naked body, her vagina sewn shut. You may want to look away yourself from what you now witness. This is a world in which both women look away from love

      We watch a ferry on which Tatiana now rides with the couple’s continually crying child now in hand. She has found a way to have a child without having to suffer sexual intercourse or the pain of birth. She has found a child without daring to love.

 

Los Angeles, April 14, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (April 2026).

 

 

Titles Index A-N

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