Saturday, September 28, 2024

Douglas Messerli | TV Heart Throbs [Introduction]

tv heart throbs

by Douglas Messerli

 

The British romantic comedy-drama series Heartstopper was written and created by Alice Oseman, based on her webcomic on Tumblr and Tapas and her graphic novel of the same name, featuring primarily the gay love between two grammar young school boys, Charlie Spring and Nick Nelson. The series also explores, to a lesser degree, the lives of the two boys’ friends Tao Xu, Elle Argent, Isaac Henderson, Tara Jones, and Darcy Olsson.

   The first season was released on Netflix beginning on April 22, 2022, receiving almost immediate acclaim, receiving nine nominations and five wins of the Children’s and Family Emmy Awards. And it has continued its success through its second season which began on August 3, 2023. As I write on the first two seasons, the third season is about to begin, premiering on October 3, 2024.


    The series’ charm relies, quite apparently, on its two leads Joe Locke and Kit Connor. Although all of the actors are good (Nick’s mom is played by the incomparable Olivia Coleman and the voice over the school’s loudspeaker is Stephen Fry’s) it is Locke and Connor’s good looks and engaging personalities that make this TV series so different from others. Critics have also cited the straightforwardness and honesty of Heartstopper, which over time certainly does reveal the dangers and problems of being gay and out as a student; but yet presents us with basically good-natured kids who represent youth in a truly positive way.

    As the reviewer for Variety, Aramide Tinubu nicely summarized the series: “Blissful and euphoric, Heartstopper is a reminder that life is about living for yourself. More than that, those who have caused harm, whether they’ve offered an apology or not, shouldn’t automatically regain access to safe spaces or the people they’ve hurt. After all, coming out or allowing people in is an intimate gift, much like the series itself.”

    Below I treat each of the season’s episodes as separate films, commenting and indexing them as I would separate short films. The various episodes run from 26 to 30 minutes.

 

Los Angeles, September 28, 2024

Richard Louprasong | The Man Crush / 2016

misreading behavior

by Douglas Messerli

 

Richard Louprasong (screenwriter and director) The Man Crush / 2016 [10 minutes]

 

Somewhat obnoxious Trevor (Ryan Prohaska) is convinced that he has a relationship going with an actor with whom he’s worked, Dave (Josten Rositas). And tonight, at Dave’s birthday party, to which he’s been invited, he’s determined to tell him just how much he loves him, having had a crush on him all the time they’ve been working together.


     Arriving at the party in a white round-necked shirt with a black bowler hat—apparently a version of his everyday costume—Trevor’s greeted by his friend and talks for a few moments, while the cinematic narrative retells the time of their meeting and, with voice-over, describes how he imagines he’ll tell the handsome Dave that he loves him from across the room. He comes back to reality a few seconds later, drink in his hand still babbling over nothing to Dave, but realizing this is the moment.

      His friend first wants him to meet someone, and calls over—you guessed it—a woman named Bradley (Briana Patnode), not only someone who Trevor has never heard about but, so Dave tells him a few seconds later, his girlfriend.   


     Astonished, Trevor pulls away bumping into another party goer, Luke (Burak Tekin) who spills his drink all over the departing man. Dave runs to find out what the problem is, with Trevor reporting, finally, that he thought they’d had a relationship, and that his gaydar had definitely picked up the fact that Dave, who flirted with him constantly, was gay. Dave apologizes if it’s seemed that way but insists that he’s straight.

      A bit like an angry queen, Trevor comments on his girlfriend’s male name, and demands that Dave give back the tickets to “Star Wars: The Musical” which he has presented him as a gift. And with that, Trevor parades off in a huff.

     I suppose Louprasong intended his viewers to side with Trevor and to sympathize with the fact that he claims he’s never seen Dave since, even though Dave clearly saw him as a friend. Frankly, I might think that someone who’d made the terrible mistake of misreading another’s behavior would be somewhat embarrassed and settle, at least, for a friendship with the man he has doted on for so long.

     But Louprasong seems to feel Trevor is justified for his snippy fit and even awards him a prize for having gone through such a disappointing moment in his life. Sitting in the park Trevor is suddenly greeted by Luke—you know, the man who spilled his drink over Trevor during his grand march away from the truth he has just discovered. Luke suggests they get a drink together, and the two merrily off, presumably the beginning of a new, truly gay, relationship.

      Luke, alas, is not half as beautiful as Dave, but Trevor it doesn’t seem to really matter. He has found someone who apparently likes him for the right reasons, being a gay man.

      If you enjoy trite stories consisting of offended queer stereotypes, this is your film!

 

Los Angeles, August 30, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (August 2022).

Pedro Almodóvar | Julieta / 2016

pedro, please come home

 

Pedro Almodóvar (screenwriter, based on stories by Alice Munro), Pedro Almodóvar (director) Julieta / 2016

Although beautifully filmed and lovingly acted, Julieta is a strange film for the often transgressive, gay Spanish director, Pedro Almodóvar. I suppose the subtle lesbian themes might have attracted him, but the three Alice Munro stories upon which this film is based are intensely realist investigations into personal guilt and religious angst that seem at odds with Almodóvar’s aesthetic, and turn his film into a personal psychological melodrama that, frankly, drag this work into a series of ruminations that only freezes his central character, Julieta Acros (played by Emma Suárez, as the older incarnation, and by Adriana Ugate as the younger version) into repetitious and, often, inexplicable, angst-ridden positions.


   It is true that many of Almodóvar’s characters live, so to speak, “on the edge”: consider the numerous figures of Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, or the terrorized imprisoned and even tortured characters of Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! and The Skin I Live In, the highly threatened women of Volver and All About My Mother, or the terrified male children who have never grown up of Bad Education and I’m So Excited? But in each of these films, the characters either embraced their own kind of insanities or marvelously played out their delightful lunacies to the world, re-making the planet we know and invoking the films’ audiences to join in their madness.

       Julieta is not mad. She is not even delightful, despite Ugate’s youthful appeal. She is simply depressed, downed, all too predictably, by the years of her former husband Xoan’s extramarital affair with her best friend Ava (Inma Cuesta)—something that might never have troubled any of Almodóvar’s previous figures—and her own sense of not having acted responsibly responding to a train-ride intruder, who, it appears, also in deep depression, simply wanted to talk. If she were even a Hitchcock woman, so the play seems to suggest, she might have invited him into her train carriage for the night and given him comfort—as she earlier did to the far cuter Xoan (Daniel Grao), the fisherman whom she married.

     So what if that stranger soon after exits the train to allow himself to be run over and killed? Julieta, it appears, unlike any other Almodóvar character, is doomed by guilt from the start. This isn’t the Spanish director, obviously, but the dour Canadian realist Munro speaking.


       And why, one has to ask—since the director never does—does this intelligent teacher of the classics, who can make Homer attractive to even high school level students, let herself get swept off her feet (yes, these are the clichés that cling to Almodóvar’s “weepy”) by a simple fisherman, seemingly living way beyond his means in a coastal Spanish town in a house, run, incidentally, by a mean-spirited, gossipy local woman who seems a cousin to Hitchcock’s Rebecca’s nasty Mrs. Danvers? If nothing else, this perversely guilty character has made some very bad decisions.

      Even if things appear to go well, particularly with the birth of their child Antía (also a duo role, shared by Priscilla Delgado and Blanca Parés), the beloved girl seems closer to her father, just as Julieta sinks further into her guilt-ridden world after visiting her mother, suffering apparently in the last stages of Alzheimer’s Disease, and discovering that her father has taken up a not so secret affair with their maid. Never before has a Almodóvar character been so completely swept into moral outrage of sexual peccadilloes. Even her father warns her to accept the realities of life. 


      And that, in sum, is the real problem with poor Julieta. She is a bourgeois moralist in a world which simply doesn’t subscribe to her own sense of Puritan (read Munro) values. Even when she has finally established a lovely elderly relationship with the ever-patient, if slightly intrusive Lorenzo Gentile (Darío Grandinetti)—after Julieta meets, quite by accident, her daughter’s childhood friend, Beatriz (Michelle Jenner) she cuts Gentile off, destroying any possible happiness left to her, all because her daughter, who has now refused to communicate with her for over 12 years, may eventually wish to communicate with her again in Madrid.

       I suppose one might think of this film as a kind of mystery, forcing us to wonder why has her daughter behaved in such an egregious manner. Is there something—as Gentile himself asks—so terrible that we dare not talk about it?

      After more than hour and 20 minutes, we finally come to realize that, no, there is nothing more. Only the nasty insinuations by their former servant of Ava’s and Julieta’s relationships to Xoan, and Xoan’s own stubborn and stupid determination, after Julieta confronts him about his continued sexual relationship with Ava, to go out fishing on a day of terrible storms during which he was killed.

      The problem is not that of Julieta or Xoan, nor even the stupid, gossipy servant, but the daughter, who, after seeking help in a “spiritual retreat” in the Pyrenes, herself retreats from her former world, later marrying a man we never meet with whom she births three children. We can only wonder what her life might be with the unknown husband who keeps her so “plentifully” pregnant. She now apparently lives, so her friend Beatriz discovers, near the wealthy Italian-Swiss city of Como. 


      Late in the movie, through another of Beatriz’ revelations, we learn that her own and Antía’s relationship had been a lesbian one, and that she, too, had been completely dismissed from her former lover’s life. What Munro’s / now Almodóvar’s story seems to suggest is that the so-called “spiritual retreat” hints of at a kind of “conversion therapy,” which led the young girl to not only deny any relationship with her lover but to closet herself off from all of her previous life.

      In a kind of “deus ex machina” ending, Julieta receives a letter from her long-lost daughter, and, since she has provided a return address for the first time, the mother travels with Gentile, with whom she has now reestablished a relationship (thank heaven, of course), to Switzerland to see Antía, without knowing what might happen, determined, yet again, to not bring up the so silent past. We’re never given a clue, and we can never know what does happen. But, frankly, do we care? The daughter, after all, even though she has suffered her own son’s death, so we are told, has denied her mother’s very existence for such a long time that we cannot even imagine a positive outcome. This daughter is not a character I admire, nor, I would argue, does Almodóvar. But then, I don’t have a daughter, nor does he. Maybe I’m just being unjustly skeptical of a perfectly happy ending.

     O Pedro, please come home. Straight shtick is not really, I feel, what you were meant to do. The absolutely closeted daughter, Antía, I’d argue, is not really worthy of our attention. How I longed that you might track down Beatriz in her role as a reporter for Vogue, with all of her gay and transgender friends. 

     Did I mention that this movie is very sweet—something I might have never said of any previous Almodóvar movie?

 

Los Angeles, April 23, 2017

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (April 2017).

 

Gary Halvorson and David McVicar | Roberto Devereux / 2016

 scarf and ring

by Douglas Messerli

 

Salvatore Cammerano (libretto, based in François Ancelot’s play Elisabeth d’Angleterre), Gaetano Donizetti (composer), David McVicar (stage director), Gary Halvorson (director) Roberto Devereux / 2016 [The Metropolitan Opera HD-live broadcast]

 

Gaetano Donizetti’s Roberto Devereux begins in medias res in the 69th year of Queen Elizabeth’s illustrious reign. She has aged obviously, still regal in her royal costumes, but frail and quite fragile, in part because her closest consort, and the one man whom this virgin queen loved, Robert Devereux has been long off in Ireland fighting for England. Walter Raleigh and other lords, however, believe him to be guilty of treason, and are hounding her to bring him home in order for them to try him. 



       Elizabeth (the powerfully radiant American singer Sondra Radvanovsky) is uncertain of his guilt, but is, more importantly, concerned about his continued love; she is willing to forgive him if only he will confess his former love has remained intact. 

       Yet we know that Robert (Matthew Polenzani) is, in fact, in love with Sarah, Duchess of Nottingham (Elina Garanča), the Queen’s closest lady-in-waiting and the wife of Robert’s dear friend, the Duke of Nottingham (Mariusz Kwiecien). We know this from the earliest scene, wherein Sarah suffers in her sighs, the chorus commenting on her obvious depression.

     So the central quartet is established, they who will be the center of not only the audience’s attention but the entire royal court (the always impeccable met chorus).


       The plot of Donizetti’s dramatic work is absolutely straight-forward—except for our understanding of what Robert and Sarah’s relationship has really consisted—as, despite the queen’s loving implorations, Robert will continue to deny he loves anyone. The queen, in anger, orders the trial to continue.

       Meanwhile, the two ardent friends—another homoerotic operatic pairing—meet again, sharing their love and caring, Nottingham insisting that he will attempt to defend him against the others.


       Yet, Robert still dares to meet with Sarah, she exchanging a blue scarf (which, incidentally, Nottingham has noticed her tearfully embroidering), he offering her the ring which Elizabeth has awarded him out of love—the two objects which will later convict them of wrongdoing. The scarf and ring, in fact, seem to almost unify the opera as objects which, meaning so much for the original lovers, indicate the illicit lovers’ disregard of their earlier commitments, and present proof of the Queen’s sexual rivalry and Nottingham’s cuckoldry. 

       These pieces of evidence end in Robert’s death by beheading, Elizabeth’s death soon after, and, ultimately, Sarah and Nottingham’s shame. 

       It appears that despite Robert’s and Sarah’s love, dating before her arranged marriage (by the Queen) to Nottingham, that the couple remained chaste, so one can only wonder why didn’t they both attempt to make their true relationship more apparent, explaining to Queen and husband what the truth actually was. Of course, Elizabeth might have not been any more pleased by the truth, nor Nottingham able to accept that his wife was so loved by his dearest friend, but perhaps they both might have been more forgiving. But truth in Donizetti’s somewhat simple-minded work does not truly seem to matter.  The real truths lie only in the hearts of all those involved, where no one in this powerful opera is truly innocent. Everyone in this opera loved each other too much perhaps to get to the truth.


       What is most important about this opera is the music and, in particular, the singing of its major figures. This production—despite the wonderful Beverly Sills version he had seen decades before at the opening of the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C.—was as marvelous as any production of Roberto Devereux one might possibly have imagined. The wonderfully simple, yet elegant, set and production by Sir David McVicar seemed in perfect alignment with the truly specular singing of all the leads, particularly, Radvanovsky, who this season has performed all of Donizetti’s British queens, Anna Bolena, Maria Stuarda, and now Elizabeth. As she declared in an intermission interview, she will surely be performing Elizabeth and the others long into the future. 

       But this opera, so centered on its quartet, needs strong singers in all of the roles, which this production thoroughly offered up. The ending applause of the Metropolitan Opera theater-goers was long and genuinely expressive: this standing ovation by nearly everyone in the house was most certainly deserved, and I am certain than Howard and I will never again see such a perfect production of this Donizetti masterwork. Bel Canto has never appeared so crystalline and pure, each of these generationally connected singers working closely with one another to create their often awe-inspiring performances.

 

Los Angeles, April 17, 2016

Reprinted from USTheater, Opera, and Performance (April 2016).

 

Stephen Frears | Florence Foster Jenkins / 2016

believing against the truth

by Douglas Messerli

 

Nicholas Martin (screenplay), Stephen Frears (director) Florence Foster Jenkins / 2016

 

Poor Meryl Streep, pouring out her heart in her Julia Child-ramped up voice, singing as off key as she possibly can (working against her true singing ability), and tearing up whenever possible in an attempt to bring the phenomenon known as Florence Foster Jenkins to life! If only writer Nicholas Martin had given her something to hang onto besides the fact that this clearly eccentric, wealthy woman simply adored music and had suffered the life-long indignities of syphilis (a disease Streep was also asked to suffer as Isak Dinesen in Out of Africa)! What to make of this cypher, who we are led to believe was completely deluded about her own musical abilities?

     In real life, as opera historian Albert Innaurato has written, “She was compos mentis, she was not a lunatic.” After contributing money from her large inheritance to most of New York’s major musical organizations, including her beloved Verdi Club—which supported English-language translations of great opera (a regular member of which was none other than Enrico Caruso)—and carefully arranging her personal recitals herself to be attended by only close friends and “sympathetic critics,” while simultaneously planning every detail from the seating to the food, Jenkins, a 19th-century relic, dared to move on to international acclaim through a private recording on Melotone (a best-seller at the time) and to rent out Carnegie hall in 1944 for open attendance, along with free tickets for 1000 American soldiers, sailors, and airmen.


      The film by Stephen Frears, on the other hand, seems to suggest that she was utterly deluded, and that all the careful arrangements were the result of her “husband” St. Clair Bayfield’s (Hugh Grant) secret interferences, again leaving Streep’s character on the hook as a chimera.

      Did or did she not actually know that she couldn’t really sing? The movie gives her little wriggling room, showing her finally coming to the realization only on her death bed—when in truth she had expressed the sentiment several years earlier—“some say I can’t sing, but no one can say that I didn’t sing.”

      Fortunately, this well-meaning biopic, alas without a real biography of its hero, surrounds Jenkins/Streep with a loving cast, most notably Grant, in what is perhaps one of his most appealing acting turns of his entire career. As her clearly loving suitor—although we’re never certain he’s in it for the money or truly loves her—Bayfield arranges everything behind the scenes, bribing music teachers, critics, cooks, and even newspaper sellers to make sure that Madame Florence is given the highest of praise or, at least, is kept out of truth’s way.

      No matter that he has a separate apartment in which he keeps a mistress, Kathleen Weatherley (Rebecca Ferguson), where he lives a far more bohemian life—hinted at in a wonderful dance scene wherein we are mostly convinced that it is Grant himself that is hefting his body across the screen—that his “wife” would surely not have approved of.


      One can only wonder what Bayfield’s life was really like, but Grant portrays it as nearly maniacal. After carefully putting his beloved Jenkins to sleep, he rushes by taxi across town to celebrate his personal bacchanals before rising each morning to plan out the next day for the diva. It’s clear, at least from this film’s perspective, that he deserved whatever gifts she gave and had promised him. He is presented as a kind of saint, and Grant gracefully accepts the halo awarded him.

      And, in that sense, we do believe in his love, particularly since, even after he loses the affections of his mistress, he remains fiercely loyal to his “real" wife (we never know whether or not they are truly married), with whom he has never had sex. He was her protector, her only protector, in a world of laughing hyenas.

     Yet those laughing hyenas—which, of course, also include the audience for this film—might be tamed if only they took into account Jenkins’ belief in her own talent. Yes, her singing was hilariously funny, but it also attracted a wide audience, including Cole Porter, composer Gian Carlo Menotti, Kitty Carlisle, dancer Marge Champion, Lily Pons and her husband, orchestral musical conductor Andre Kostelanetz (in this film we see only Porter and actress Tallulah Bankhead in attendance), all of whom, presumably, did not attend Jenkins’ concerts merely to laugh. Hopefully, they saw this outrageous personality as a bigger-than-life figure who believed in herself enough to imagine that she might contribute to the passions of her life, and who, if nothing else, was very highly entertaining in a time of darkness.


       In Frears’ film, after some few moments of abuse at her Carnegie concert, the attending military figures and others are called out by a coarse and gauche former showgirl, Agnes Stark (Nina Arianda) who begs for the audience to give “the dame a chance.” Miraculously, they do, and despite her inability to control a single phrase or to remain in key for more than a few seconds, Jenkins wins them over simply with the force of her determination. It was, after all, a time—not unlike our own—when believing was so very difficult.

    Yet what makes this film truly enchanting is the existence of Madame Florence’s piano player with the very strange name (actually his historical name, although sources declare it’s a pseudonym) Cosmé McMoon—played with perfection by Simon Helberg, who must be gifted with some kind of award for this performance. Hired for what he has presumed as an accompanist only for her singing studies, he eventually discovers that his whole career as a pianist and composer may be in jeopardy when he is forced to play for her in major concerts, particularly at Carnegie Hall. He too, in the very beginning, is a “laughing hyena,” unable to control his chuckles as he comes away from their first encounter.


        But over time, gradually getting to know this towering matron, he grows to respect her. One of the sweetest and most enduring scenes of Frears’ film is when, unexpectedly, Jenkins visits the meek gay man’s apartment in the midst of his body workouts, complete with his male fitness magazines (which my companion Howard Fox and I immediately recognized as “whacking material” of the time). McMoon’s place is a mess, dirty dinnerware still sitting on the table, and Jenkins, as richly garbed as she was always (in wonderful costumes by Consalata Boyle), insists she will wash up his dishes in return for his piano playing.

      Abashed by her intrusion, yet unable to deny her, he begins to play, first some of his own music, to which she insists she will set lyrics; and then, one of the pieces she herself had played before her left hand had become terribly marred from the mercury treatments for the syphilis she had received as a young bride from her first husband. Playing the right hand, she is accompanied by McMoon (Helberg, a former concert pianist, despite his notoriety as a comic, played all the music on piano in the film) in a painfully transcendent scene where the two truly do empathically embrace. It’s the very best scene, perhaps, of the film, for it finally brings some insight into this mysterious woman’s passions.

     After having lost everything, except money, it was only music she truly loved. So what if she herself couldn’t sing? She could imagine what it might be like to do so. She would attempt the most impossible arias. And she could convince a few others, and obviously herself, that she was truly singing as artfully and beautifully as she imagined it to be. In a final death scene, she hears herself—Streep finally singing as artfully as she can—as she imagines it to have been. Even if many might have laughed behind her back, others—except the obvious newspaper hacks, which this film (I think mistakenly) suggests killed her*—perceived her indomitability of belief, a quality which, of course, can be terrifying, but also is sadly lacking in our world in which belief is always alternating, changing, and diminished.

      Finally, we perceive all of the film’s major figures as truly failed beings. Bayfield was clearly a hack actor who could never have achieved anything great. McMoon, not truly a significant pianist and who was an even lesser composer, would never have achieved anything major in his career —some biographies claim he later established a gay escort service, while others suggest he judged male physique contests. Florence Foster Jenkins, as we know, was a fraud. But it was only through her, momentarily, that these men achieved something other than where their careers would have taken them. McMoon, despite the odds against him, played Carnegie Hall, and Bayfield organized the concert as well as Jenkins’ entire career. Perhaps that was enough to take them out of their ordinariness forever.

 

*In truth, she had a heart attack five days after her concert, and not presumably because of the reviews. She died of consequences of her disease, not because of the shock of reality of her singing career.

 

Los Angeles, August 27, 2016

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (August 2016).

 

Basil Dean | 21 Days (aka 21 Days Together) / 1940

a moral out

by Douglas Messerli

 

Graham Greene and Basil Dean (writers, based on a novel by John Galsworthy), Basil Dean 21 Days (aka 21 Days Together) / 1940

 

Basil Dean’s 1940 film, 21 Days, is certainly not a great film, and I’ve seen far better Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier performances. Nonetheless this John Galsworthy fiction, rewritten for screen by Graham Greene, has some charm, if for nothing but its satiric distinctions between the loving couple, Larry Durant (Olivier) and Wanda (Leigh), and Larry’s highly corruptible “good-boy” brother, Keith (Leslie Banks).


     Keith, about to be made a judge, has little difficulty in advising that Larry hide his accidental murder of Wanda’s former husband, and even advises him to leave the country so that he, himself, will not become involved. When a local bum is picked up, wearing Larry’s bloody gloves, and the poor man, Henry Wallen (Esme Percy)—ironically a former minister of religion—is charged with the crime, the future judge is perfectly willing to see the man hung.

     Larry, however, truly the righteous one, is determined to admit his crime before Wallen is tried in 21 days; but first he and Wanda, rather callously, determine to marry and spend a few days together before the innocent man goes to the gallows.

      Much of the middle of the movie, while the two are supposedly enjoying each other’s company, is simply boring. There’s nothing worse than watching a guilty man trying to find pleasure for a few days before he is scheduled to die. 


      But when they return from their little celebration., the plot takes a twist, as we discover Wallen has died of a heart attack on his way to prison, Wanda races through the London streets to catch up with Larry before he gets to the police. The fact that she reaches to him just in time, puts the entire film on strange moral ground. Is it okay to kill someone—even if he was a terrible person and the murder was an accident—if someone else dies for the crime?

       One might suggest that Graham is using the Wallen figure as a kind of Christ, who dies—himself feeling guilty for having stolen a ring and money off the dead man—so that Larry and Wanda might continue to live out what they hope will be a long life together. But, of course, that doesn’t quite explain the selfish brother, more protective of his career in law than in the law itself. Nor does it explain the quite detestable behaviors of his cronies, who joke about their own snoring through cases and past misjudgments.

       In short, no one in this film, except perhaps for the fallen minister of religion—whose career was destroyed by drinking—is truly likeable. At least we sympathize, for a while, with the loving couple at the center of the story; but even though Larry is willing to admit his guilt, in the end, apparently he does not. He has found and accepted an “out.”

      Opening in wartime England, one might have imagined that the moral high ground might be necessary, and that in a world where citizens were being killed in nightly blitzes, that leaving a dead body in a small city lane would be condemned, even if the film was principally shot in 1937. But perhaps for that very reason, the writer and filmmaker felt that it worth saving their sinful characters’ lives.

        

Los Angeles, January 8, 2016

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (January 2016).

Index R-Z

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