Monday, January 26, 2026

Letia Solomon | The Cypher / 2020

standing up for who he is

by Douglas Messerli

 

West Akwuobi (screenplay), Letia Solomon (director) The Cypher / 2020 [15 minutes]

 

This is a difficult work with which to sympathize if you’re not part of the freestyle rapper world of Philadelphia. Name calling, racial self-abuse, violence, and finally homophobic attacks combine in this backroom competition that is simply hard to endure.

     Khalil (Nigel Cox) in the first part of this film wins out over his first competitor, making him the next man to compete against reigning champion K.O. (Michael Devon). Having won, Khalil seeks out his gay lover Marc (Juan Gil) to spend a night in his bed before the next day’s competition.

     But his sister Kiki (Kerrice Brooks), also a would-be rapper, is hot on his trail, discovering quite by accident that her brother is queer, snapping a picture to prove it to herself.

 

    That photo gets stolen by others not long before the competition, which begins with a put down of Khalil’s racial identity, social position, and even his mother, all in the name of verbal power, answered by Khalil with equal force, who even argues he will “fuck” his opponent’s father. But what follows Khalil did not expect, as K.O. reveals his competitor’s homosexuality, shocking the entire crowd.

     After some long pauses, a bit of a stumble, and some deep thinking, Khalil comes back by claiming that he already is a king with a crown (represented on the necklace that his lover Marc has placed around his neck beforehand). Suddenly acknowledging his sexuality, Khalil claims that he at least doesn’t have to spout homophobic nonsense, that he knows who he is and is proud.

     Whether he wins or not doesn’t really matter anymore. He’s become a true man, admitting who he loves and what he stands for.

      Nonetheless, this is not a piece that can expect much general popularity. It’s a peek into a rough and tumble world where foul-mouthing one another wins temporary popularity and little else. Yet, it perhaps represents the only power remaining to these poor young men.

 

Los Angeles, January 26, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2026).

Anne-Claire Poirier | Salut Victor (Bye Bye Victor) / 1989

heart attract

by Douglas Messerli

 

Anne-Claire Poirier (screenwriter, based on Edward O. Phillips's short story "Matthew and Chauncy," and director) Salut Victor (Bye Bye Victor) / 1989

 

French-Canadian director Anne-Claire Poirier’s highly moving depiction of two elderly gay men who come together in an assisted living home in one of the earliest in a long tradition of late-in-life gay love portrayed in the movies. Among the many films made after this work in the first two decades of the new millennium in which either one or both central characters must be described as an elder are represented by both short and feature works such Sexy Grandpa (2001), Ageless (2013), Never or Now (2013), Love Is Strange (2014), Wayne (2015), The Carer (2016), Two Words (2018), Our Way Back (2018), Stepdaddy (2019), Hank (2019), Strangers (2019), Rialto (2019), Twilight’s Kiss (2019), Sublet (2020), Where’s Steve?, and Supernova (2020). Even singer Doug Locke’s music video #ThisCouldBeUs (2014) conjures up a younger couple’s possible experiences together in old age.

     Poirier’s work paved the way by following the arrival of a rather wealthy old-timer, Philippe Lanctot (Jean-Louis Roux) who has basically decided to abandon his mansion with servants after his younger sister’s death. A life-long bachelor—a self-closeted homosexual—has determined, given the fact that he has fallen and spent almost a day on the floor alone, that it is time to enter a home, despite the fact that, as we keenly recognize on his first day, he is clearly uncomfortable with the watchful attention of female nurses and the limitations immediately placed upon him.

    Although the room itself is elegantly understated, it is most definitely, as we soon discover, not a room with a view.


    One of his other immediate discoveries is that there is no assured privacy in this care home; the door remains unlocked and within just a few moments after his arrival an eccentric resident, Victor Laprade (Jacques Godin) barges in on his wheelchair to check out his new neighbor, although he admits he lives in another wing of the building.

     Victor, in many respects, is almost the opposite of Philippe. While the latter is reserved, rather quiet, and quite refined, Victor is gregarious, slightly loud, and a former construction worker by trade. While Philippe is respectful, Victor is irreverent, challenging other residents to wheelchair races in the hall, keeping a small stock of illegal cognac hidden in his drawer, and generally causes havoc wherever he goes; yet knowing of his tendencies, he remains apologetic and is willing to establish and obey boundaries if necessary.

     If Philippe might at first be taken aback by Victor—he quickly asks him to leave so that he might rest—he soon comes to perceive, just we do, his joie de vivre and enjoys the energy he radiates despite the fact that he as recently suffered a major heart attack.


    Before Philippe can even imagine complaining, moreover, Victor has invited him to his room where he shares a real “view” of the freeway filled with noisy passenger cars traveling in all directions, a drama played out through his windows every night. The two of them watch life passing before them with pleasure, sipping on Victor’s cognac.

     In a short period of time, in fact, despite their differences the two men become fast friends, Philippe sharing with Victor his child-like collection of clay tiles of various shapes with which they build castles, Victor, however, spilling them to the floor when he attempts to attach flags to their playful constructions.

    In return Philippe arranges for an elegant dinner with his friend at his club, Victor ordering up, for the first time in his life, squab, while Phillipe dines on veal, both sipping martinis before their wine.

    And when Victor receives a painful letter from his children, announcing that they feel they can no longer afford to pay for his room in the expensive institution, a potential expulsion from what has now become a substitute for paradise, Philippe secretly arranges for the continued payment, sending what may be a forged letter from his children saying that they have changed minds, delighting Victor with both his change of fortune and the behavior of his estranged children.

     Eventually, Victor makes it clear that he is openly homosexual when he is chastised for having attempted to feel up the balls of a window washer. He explains to Philippe that he left his wife and family when he fell in love with a pilot with whom he lived for three years before he was killed by crashing into a mountain.


    On a special visit to a botanical garden, Phillippe, with Victor’s somewhat indiscreet prodding, finally admits that he is homosexual, although in his world no such term even existed, and he was so closeted that still he cannot talk about it. However, he does admit to a brief love affair with a male Mexican houseworker, a heartthrob that lasted three months until immigration turned up, declaring his lover to be illegal and taking him away—an incident that is almost prescient given the current situation in 2026 in the USA where the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) attack on major cities, wherein numerous individuals, children and adults straight and gay have lost their loved ones.

     As a special gift, Phillippe plans to take his new found friend up in a hot-air balloon so that he might see the world from the air as his beloved pilot once did. But a couple of nights before the event, Victor suffers another heart attack and is taken away, never to return.

     Unexplained and perhaps a bit preposterous, Phillippe somehow inherits Victor’s ashes, arranging with a hot-air balloonist that he will take them up and scatter them over the countryside, freeing Victor’s joyful soul to the skies.

     Once you accept the terms of the movie, that such a wealthy individual would be willing to enter a public institution in old age, almost everything seems believable in Poirier’s creation, immersing you in the two gay men’s lives in a manner that allows equal amounts of laughter and tears. This is a movie with heart, quietly and smartly directed in an almost documentary manner that helps to keep it from becoming sentimental.

 

Los Angeles, January 26, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2026).

    

Sunday, January 25, 2026

Ethan Gough | Do People Think We’re Gay? / 2025

do you think?

by Douglas Messerli

 

Ethan Gough (screenwriter and director) Do People Think We’re Gay? / 2025 [6 minutes]

 

This rather silly short film dares to ask the question of two presumably straight guys (Reece Vanderveen and Aiden Bond), or I should say dares for the two straight guys to ask the question about their friendship, which includes the necessity of holding hands in public (one feels uncomfortable in crossing open streets), living together, sleeping in the same bed, and spooning (i.e. curling up close with the other in bed), if they might suggest to others that they are gay. As one of them explains, it’s simply a matter that “I get lonely at night, and I need someone to cuddle.”


    Obviously, these two men are into deep, deep denial, since they maintain that despite their later open kisses—perhaps just the imagination of the one who has maintained an erection throughout the night—and simply their lovely rapport together has anything to do with homosexuality.

    Perhaps Michigan boys are simply not into such big words, but you’d think that they might at least offer up the possibility that they might be queer, even it they use the word in the old-fashioned manner.

    This film is obviously just a little tease. These guys are truly into one another in terms of male-on-male sexuality, selecting their records as a pair, shopping together for each other’s sweaters, even grabbing an imaginary cop of a naked man on a poster.


     Actually, I’ve met such true innocents, back in my university days, college roommates who loved to wrestle, hugged, shared their lives together without even stopping to consider whether their intimacy meant anything other than being a great ‘bro to another brother. I think they’re now both married to deeply possessive women.

     But really haven’t we gay men now have more to talk about than boys playing house without realizing it? Just as the barista reportedly says early in the film: “They’re so cute together.” But does any of this matter?

     Cute is a midwestern term for something that provides nothing but a surface pleasure. But these boys, curling up together in the middle of the night, are just dumb to the deeper joys they might have enjoyed. And frankly, I don’t give a damn anymore. Let them spoon in bed. This is 2025; even as an old man who no longer can get a hardon, I just want to fuck.

 

Los Angeles, January 25, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2026).  

 

 

Isabelle Solas | Nos corps sont vos champs de bataille (Our Bodies Are Your Battlefields) / 2021 [documentary]

making and recording transgender history

by Douglas Messerli

 

Isabelle Solas (writer and director) Nos corps sont vos champs de bataille (Our Bodies Are Your Battlefields) / 2021 [documentary]

 

If you are among those many sis heterosexuals who believe that transsexuals (women born into male bodies in which they felt trapped) spend their time once freed into the appropriate gender by dressing up in gowns, putting on makeup, and coloring their nails, you need to see Argentine documentarian Isabelle Solas’ film Our Bodies Are Your Battlefield where we follow the political struggles of several Argentine and one Peruvian transgender activists who fight long and hard for their rights and basic civil protections. Focusing on two women, Claudia and Violeta, Solas presents their long journeys through the years, the friends who’ve they established in the process, as well as the lonely exhaustion they must endure for their cause.

     These women look very much like the feminist advocates they are, although often unrecognized as such. In fact, they are at war with so many forces larger than theirs one wonders, at moments, how they even endure their chosen avocations; but perhaps it is because they are so denigrated by the dominate and basically conservative culture in which they live and are equally ignored and even hated by their sister feminists, that they are forced to make themselves heard simply to prevent the kind of incidents which this film chronicles, beginning with a trial from 2018 of man convicted of stabling to death a major transgender activist, Diana Sacayán in 2015.

      In her review of this film in the Washington City Paper, Ella Feldman nicely describes the first scenes of Solas’ film:

 

“It opens in an Argentine courtroom, where a judge delivers a sentence for Gabriel David Marino, who brutally killed Diana Sacayán, a transgender woman who dedicated her life to advocating for her community. The judge describes the harrowing details of her murder plainly, while Marino sits, unflinching. Outside the courthouse, trans women hold signs condemning “transvesticido,” or transvesticide. (In Argentina, the term transvestite is embraced by the trans community.)”

 

     The murderer’s conviction, one of the first in Argentine under laws against gender-motivated hate crimes which Sacayán and the central figures in this film fought for, was a truly historic event.

      From the general past, Solas moves quickly to the specific, introducing us to Claudia Vásquez Haro, a transgender scholar and activist, in a moment of private joy as she runs across the sand with five dogs only to join, a moment later, her mother and sister, laid out on a blanket. Claudia will soon be one of the level-headed voices central to this story.

     She is a Peruvian immigrant who has long lived in La Plata, making history as the first Argentine trans woman to receive a doctorate degree. Cath Clarke of The Guardian describes her as “a funny, witty force of nature who is doing her damnedest to lobby feminist groups for more trans inclusion.” “Spirited and bold,” observes Feldman, “Vasquez Haro comes alive when she speaks to crowds at marches and political gatherings. Rights, in her eyes, need to be demanded, and bodies need to be put on the line.”

     She and numerous of her activist friends have come together for the annual women’s conference, while at the same time the film follows the latest presidential election which ends, fortunately, with the liberal with liberal Alberto Fernández ousting right-wing businessman Mauricio Macri.

      

     If you might think these transgender women have every reason and right to join the feminists on the stand to speak with the vast community of women still fighting for legal rights, you haven’t encountered the “trans-exclusionary radical feminists” (TERFs) who, even along with many centrists, resent and fight the inclusion of transgender individuals in the conference.

     Claudia, as we quickly learn, is close to her mother and family who have supported her at all times; but many of the women for who she battles were kicked out of their homes at early age for admitting to their parents their gender dysphoria, and were forced to survive as transgender prostitutes on the street. They too have fought the patriarchal system that not only denigrates women but vilifies and attempts to destroy men who identify as women. Most feminists today can enjoy the relative safety of their heterosexual unions, while transgender women—whether lesbian, straights, and those who find love only with other transgender individuals—have few safety nets or legal protections. Gay men and lesbians have far more rights than transgender individuals.

     Claudia and her friends, however, must fight their way even into the conference grounds, and when it comes time for the public speeches, Claudia brings in a gay man dressed in drag to help, with her friends, to literally lift up her body against the pushes and shoves of the TERFs and others, so that she too might speak to the issues for which the conference in general argue. *

      The second major focus of Solas’ film, Violeta Alegre works as an anthropologist, and we follow her not through the political melee in which Claudia is involved, but as a visitor to a group of trans women whom she intends to interview about their romantic and sexual relationships. Her methods of resistance include the quieter activities of walking the night streets of Buenos Aires to paste up posters over political advertisements, and quietly question the women she meets, discovering a wide divergence among them, which Solas is eager to identify: as Feldman summarizes, “Some are immigrants, others are native-born. Some are light-skinned, others are women of color. Some are lesbians, some are straight. Some are sex workers, others believe sex work should be abolished.”

      At one point in the film Violeta celebrates her 30th birthday, which brings up the issue of an observation earlier in the film that life expectancy for transgender women is 32 in Argentina. At the party we see lovers and friends come together for a joyful gathering of drink and dance, Violeta herself joining the dance floor and pulling in one of the dancers for gentle, long kiss.

      We get the feeling that Violeta’s life is a kind of never-ending round of travels where she lectures on the numerous aspects of transgender life that she has uncovered, it being a sexuality that perhaps was first identified in scientific papers as late as the late 19th century and had little serious research before Magnus Hirschfeld’s studies in Weimar Germany, documents utterly destroyed by the Nazis. What she has learned, accordingly, is essential to be shared with trans communities wherever they exist.

      Near the end of the film, Violeta is feted in a provincial city showing photographs of black and white images of trans women from other eras, dressed-up formally for secret balls and celebrations. For the attendees she is nearly like a goddess bringing them knowledge of who they are and what they have been.

      But it is not an easy life for either the fiery advocate or the traveling anthropologist/historian who looks tired and fairly lonely, both of whom have quite literally lived lives, like so very many transgender women, whose bodies have become the battlefields of others.

     

*Watching this film for the first time was somewhat confusing since, as Feldman notes: “The details of this landscape are largely left for the viewer to infer on their own, a choice that succeeds in upholding the film’s verité tone, but may be challenging for viewers unfamiliar with Argentine politics.”

 

Los Angeles, June 24, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (June 2023).

Érica Sarmet | Uma Paciência Selvagem Me Trouxe Até Aqui (A Wild Patience Has Taken Me Here) / 2021

letting it all out

by Douglas Messerli

 

Érica Sarmet (screenwriter and director) Uma Paciência Selvagem Me Trouxe Até Aqui (A Wild Patience Has Taken Me Here) / 2021 [26 minutes] 

 

Interestingly, of the seven short lesbian-oriented films I saw at the NewFest 2022, six of them were notably different in tone and approach than any of the gay male films I saw in the same festival. While the gay films moved directly to the heart of their subjects, dealing head-on with the issues at stake—desire, coming out, the search for changing self-identity, anger, and acceptance—the films about lesbian relationships approached their subjects, for the most part, obliquely, spoke of love in almost whispered terms, shyly pointed to oppositions rather than announcing them, and hinted at coming out rather than representing any such actual confrontation. Although this is, of course, a ridiculously small sampling of such films to make any generalizations, it reminded me that, for example, the “coming out” film was rare in the lesbian vault of LGBTQ movies. Although there are numerous films demanding attention for the lesbian cause, there are far many more movies that prefer to discuss those very issues through what I might describe as a “slanted” approach often surrounded by a veneer of domesticity.


     Actually, I admired these subtler approaches, having long ago tired of the endless visual rhetoric of thousands of outpourings of hurt, anger, and frustration in gay male films.   

     The exception to this observed phenomenon, Brazilian filmmaker Érica Sarmet’s 2021 movie, even carries within its Adrienne Rich-inspired title the “wild patience” is has taken the lead figure of this work, now an older lesbian who had almost given up an active life in her community, to come to the open declarations and revealing sexual representations that her film proclaims.

      Vange (Zélia Duncan) seems to be sitting on the outside of her own world as enjoying a drink at street café she observes the youth around her playing and teasing openly about their costumes, appearance, and sex itself. Vange evidently determines to return to lesbian bar from where she has long been absent and there meets a curious young woman, Rô (Bruna Linzmeyer) who’s intrigued and fascinated by the older lesbian woman, as well as being admittedly attracted to her.


      When Vange leaves for the evening, explaining that she has a long way to travel on her motorbike, Rô outrightly asks if she can join her. Vange accepts and the two go racing off to the elder’s home, looks of joy as they sit close to one another with the wind on their faces.

      After an apparently sexually satisfying night, Vange returns Rô back to the city, where the younger girl immediately introduces her to what appears to be a commune of lesbian activists with whom she lives and spends most of her days.

     Almost immediately, the story shifts from being a personal re-outing of Vange to a love-letter to lesbianism addressed to the world, as the younger women, embraces the older with great interest for the depth of history she provides.


     The film then metamorphizes almost into an intemperate and most certainly impatient advertisement of the joys of lesbianism as the women engage in a group orgy, demonstrating the numerous positions of possible lesbian sexual pleasures, presented almost as an answer to those millenniums of male taunts that question how lesbians might sexually satisfy themselves.

     After, the women march to a local public beach where, with two boys playing with a ball in the background, they set up camp.

       The film ends with a complete abandonment of patience proclaiming the lesbian cause in logos, flags, and shouts. Obviously the long patience of woman like Vange has worn itself out, and the wildness overtaken their hearts. 

 

Los Angeles, October 28, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2022).

Saturday, January 24, 2026

Morton DaCosta | Auntie Mame / 1958

room with a view

by Douglas Messerli

 

Betty Comden and Adolph Green (screenplay, based on the novel by Patrick Dennis), Morton DaCosta (director) Auntie Mame / 1958

Almost anyone of a certain age will recognize the 1958 film starring Rosalind Russell, Auntie Mame, as a gay icon. Many have even cited it as the quintessential gay camp work of the 1950s. The original book was written by Edward Everett Tanner III (pseudonym Patrick Dennis) who was openly bisexual, and the play, transformed into the film by the gay-friendly writing team of Betty Comden and Adolph Green, was originally written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, Lawrence also a gay man (a personal friend of mine). And the film featured gowns (an important element in this work) by the gay designer Orry-Kelly (incidentally an early lover of Cary Grant) and the set designer—crucial to this film version—was the highly respected George James Hopkins who had had an intimate gay relationship with director William Desmond Taylor who was scandalously murdered in 1922. The later musical version of Mame was helmed by a gay composer Jerry Herman. 


    Although it is not fully documented, some sources have described director Morton DaCosta (born Morton Tecosky) as being a gay man; and others describe Coral Browne, who played Vera Charles, as a lesbian. She married gay actor Vincent Price in 1974, and died shortly before him in 1989.

   For all that, however, Auntie Mame, at least superficially, is not at all an LGBTQ movie. Mame herself (Rosalind Russell), although clearly unconventional—her brother has long resisted leaving his son Patrick (Jan Handzlik) with her for that reason—is clearly heterosexual, first a regular companion of publisher Lindsay Woolsey (Patric Knowles), before escaping the charming arms of her literary collaborator Brian O’Bannion (Robin Hughes), and later marrying the wealthy Southern oil magnate Beauregard Jackson Pickett Burnside (Forrest Tucker).

    True, Mame does seem oddly close to her bosom buddy, stage actress Vera, who stays most nights in Mame’s No. 3 Beekman Place apartment. But it is clear, despite their deep friendship, they do not share a bed. Besides, Vera is far too drunk by the end of each evening to ever engage in sex. Mame hints that she “just loves little boys.”

     The nephew Patrick who is placed in her care is a rather bland heterosexual, growing up (as actor Roger Smith) into a bigoted-babbling-Babcock-like young man ready to marry the empty headed Gloria Upson (Joanna Barnes) until Mame corrects his course, leading him straight to the beautiful, intelligent, and quite clever Pegeen Ryan (Pippa Scott) by the end of the film.

     One her closest friends, teacher Acacius Page (Henry Brandon) appears to be a pedophile, but even he seems to be interested in both sexes since in his co-educational classroom boy and girls, as well as male and female teachers, get naked after yogurt time and play out games of heterosexual “fish” procreation, evidently the males leaving their “sperm” in the imaginary waters of the classroom floor to impregnate the female fish. 


   A dear friend of Mame’s, who we never see, but who is clearly around often enough to teach the young Patrick how to properly mix a martini, is Alexander Woolcott, who appears as a gay man in George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart’s comedy The Man Who Came to Dinner, but may have actually just been impotent (a result of childhood mumps).

     Yet there is one true “fairy” in Mame Dennis’ household, Ito (Yuki Shimoda), the Asian houseboy, who regularly flutters by with dresses in hand and greets the terrified Norah Muldoon (Connie Gilchrist) and her young charge as they intrude upon their first Mame Dennis party. 


    At that very party to which we are voyeurs, we observe several lesbian figures, obvious in their male based attire, and young good-looking gay men in sporty white attire; and the party conversation to which we are not fully privy obviously includes a discussion of the rebellious sapphic work Lysistrata, the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, the political transformer Karl Marx, and the observation that someone is “heterosexual,” since these words, among others, appear on the pages of the notebook Mame has given Patrick to write down what he does not understand. These “words” matched the cornerstones that I would years later consider at the moment of coming out, issues involving religion, politics, and sexuality. For me they came as a package deal, which perhaps Auntie Mame had already implanted in my brain.

 

     And, of course, in her grand operatic gestures, her larger than life presence, and her bohemian attitudes toward living, Mame herself personifies gay life, which is the essence of the work, and why gay men and women have so long been attracted to this movie.

     Jonny Stone, writing in the online magazine Snack sums it up: “There are a handful of LGBTQ+ characters (mostly friends of Mame’s seen at her parties), but remember when the film was made. There were never going to be openly gay, well-rounded queer characters in Auntie Mame. That isn’t to say the film is inherently straight: it tiptoes around otherness sufficiently for a film made in 1958, and Mame actively surrounds herself with people who reject societal norms, pride themselves on being alternative and are, in some cases, clearly queer. A film that does so, in this era, deserves more credit for portraying otherness (or at least embracing a liberal, open-minded lifestyle) and celebrating what makes each of us unique.”

     Paul Roen, author of High Camp expressed it more succinctly: the best way to approach Mame is to think of her as a “disguised, transexualised version of a very hip, urban, sophisticated male homosexual.”

    In fact, Auntie Mame goes much further than most of the other films of the day, in that the straight-laced heterosexual world is the villain of the piece, represented by the “bully” Dwight Babcock (Fred Clark) who pulls Patrick out of Acacius’ “depraved” classroom and sends the boy off to a private school in order to make him a boring and bigoted straight man. Along with the Depression, which sends Mame into a financial spin and off to several jobs—an office telephone operator, a minor secondary actor, and a Macy’s sales clerk—for which she has a far too grandiose personality and behavioral traits to properly engage in simple employment; she and her nephew are not poised to submit to the social order of the day.


    She is saved by the kindly, mamma’s boy Southerner Beauregard Burnside, who finally finds someone in Mame who can stand up both to his dominating mother and the rapacious home-town girl Sally Cato MacDougall (Brook Byron), determined to make him her unhappy husband to what her little brother describes as “the meanest filly in all the South.”

    What Mame evidently sees in Beauregard is both his confusion and sweet-hearted charm, which is enough along with his wealth to make him desirable. But otherwise, Beauregard is mostly an observer of life, a man determined to photograph all he sees, as opposed to a man of assimilated experience, and accordingly, he is whisked away from the story by falling to his death in the alps as soon as possible so that Mame can continue into the next phase of her life, centered on saving her boy from the hands of the Babcocks of the world.


    She does so by pretense, charming her way into their empty, small-minded lives by throwing a pre-wedding party where she serves up e eccentric hors d'oeuvres and an exotic drink, by redecorating her apartment in a moderne manner similar to what made French comic filmmaker Jacques Tati so uncomfortable in Mon Oncle (released the very same year as Auntie Mame the movie), and trotting out first her new assistant, Pegeen to tantalize Patrick of what a woman might be beyond one whose favorite talking point is about how she and her girl friends squashed a ping-pong ball and couldn’t continue their game* and who thinks that books are awfully decorative.

    She then brings on her former seemingly unmarried secretary Agnes Gooch (Peggy Cass), now heavily pregnant with Brian O’Bannion’s child, followed by her long time friends Vera and Lindsay, the latter of whom carries with him the galleys of Mame’s new tell-all autobiography, to which she hands out chapters to Patrick and others, who reading them recall the truly wonderful times they have experienced in her presence. 


     Finally, she announces her action—which totally abrogates all the plans the Upsons have had to buy the next-door property for Patrick and their daughter, creating a kind of patio-to-patio sympatico—of purchasing that property and  dedicating her royalties to a home for refugee Jewish children to be built adjoining the Upson’s home in Mountebank.

     By evening’s end she has so thoroughly reminded Patrick of what his life was like before meeting Dwight Babcock and so totally offended the entire Upson tribe that the marriage is over, leaving the unwanted guests no choice but to grandly exit, utterly offended by the whole affair.

     Once again, Mame has had her way and revenge, breaking through another version of Sinclair Lewis’ Babbitt mentality, and carving out a new world of eccentric difference that can only be compared with the far later Rainbow coalition. Mame is about inclusiveness and diversity, while the Babcock-Upson world is about the straight and narrow world of exclusivity and exclusion signified by the 1950-1954 activities of Joseph McCarthy, his attacks on anyone with even casual leftist (all defined as communism by his followers) ties and torturing the LGBT world with the “lavender scare.”

     It is useful to remember that Edward R. Murrow’s memorable attack on McCarthy which killed McCarthyism occurred in 1954, only two years before the original stage production of Auntie Mame in 1956, also starring Rosalind Russell and featuring Jan Handzlik, Yuki Shimoda, and Peggy Cass. And McCarthy himself died, of undetermined causes but obviously helped along by the diminishment of his powers, only one year before the movie.



    No one in the movie industry could be blind to the fact that Mame Dennis stood against all that McCarthy and those who supported his years of terror stood for. And in that sense, this play/motion picture became almost a symbol of a possible new liberation, certainly for young viewers such as me, who all suddenly wished we had an aunt like Mame. I don’t think my grandmother was perhaps as open-minded as Mame, and she certainly wasn’t as well-do-to or traveled, but in my willful imagination she became for me a kind of Mame Dennis, opening up new worlds never before imagined, as Mame declares she will for Patrick and Pegeen’s son, who she is determined to whisk away on yet another voyage around the world.

    I wanted to believe in someone like Mame, and that was all the play and movie required, a desire to live in an alternative space from the patriarchal and heteronormative world that the late 1950s and early 1960s had become. If I dreamt of a world outside of my already 11-year old sense of despair in facing 4 long years before I might escape to the possibility of college or university offered, Auntie Mame helped to get there by serving as a glimpse into a world the people I knew never talked about.

    How I now wish I could have communicated just how much this work had subliminally affected me to the author, Jerry Lawrence or perhaps even the actor Jan Handzlik who I later met at the Algonquin Hotel party I gave to celebrate Lawrence’s career, at which Jerry Herman also sang and played the piano.

    Not only the character, but the film and play itself offered so many budding queers such as me a room with a view unavailable to most ordinary American citizens.

 

   *Gloria’s entire comment is fascinating in its brilliant recreation of total emptiness: “Bunny Bixler and I were in the semi-finals - the very semi-finals, mind you - of the ping-pong tournament at the club and this ghastly thing happened. We were both playing way over our heads and the score was 29-28. And we had this really terrific volley and I stepped back to get this really terrific shot. And I stepped on the ping-pong ball! I just squashed it to bits. And then Bunny and I ran to the closet of the game room to get another ping-pong ball and the closet was locked! Imagine? We had to call the whole thing off. Well, it was ghastly. Well, it was just ghastly.” From Mame and her gang she gets none of the laughs and sympathy the Upsons readily offer up.

 

Los Angeles, January 24, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2026).   

 

Index R-Z

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