![]() His role in *Meet John Doe* is probably the clearest example of that. Certainly that type didn't want to have anything to do with women, and wanted male company in an isolated world without women. The "Walter Brennan" type, for example, about which the movie talks at great length, does not have to be read as gay. I thought the analysis of some of the scenes presented was convincing. If you want complete and inclusive, you need to read some books on the topic. There are certainly problems with this movie, though not necessary those complained about by some of the previous reviewers on here, who want it to be more complete and inclusive. If you're looking for a truly stupid and boring fake documentary, this is for you. There is very little sensationalism to be found, unless you think 'outing' Rock Hudson, Randolph Scott and Sal Mineo is sensational. This flick deliberately tries to be sensational, and fails miserably. Alas, human discourse, developed over many thousands of years, is just slightly more complicated than that. Those double entendres and nuances are nothing more than confirmation of secreted homosexuality. Why? Because they reveal themselves in their dialogue. If you follow the relentless drumbeat of the Rappaport-Butler conspiracy theory, huge numbers of screenwriters and directors are or were gay, closeted or no. This is amazing arrogance, and it's stitched together here in an effort to imitate an actual documentary. This extends to great cinematic 'sidekicks' like Brennan, Millard Mitchell, Andy Devine, Walter Huston and many others. The Walter Brennan Syndrome, as Rappaport preciously and pretentiously calls it, is really the story of those many trusted movie 'sidekicks' who secretly harbour homoerotic fantasies about their heroes. Heterosexual affection between men is a myth: they're all hiding something. This flick tells us that those 'buddy' movies (Hope-Crosby, Martin-Lewis et al) were reflections of repressed homosexuality. The whole film is reminiscent of social scientists who stubbornly hold to certain theories, and, using questionable methods, painstakingly set out to prove them. I'd say skip it-there MUST be something better out there on the subject.ĭirector Mark Rappaport, abetted by smug-perfect actor-narrator Dan Butler ('Frasier'), presents a myriad of film clips from a myriad of films, and manages to find 'hidden gayness' in every one of them. It felt less educational or objective and more like a film for gay people might want to watch and laugh at as the actors behave or deliver lines that are not all that juicy-certainly NOT intended as any sort of social statement. All too often, they are trying to imply something that may not have been intended at all. In fact, the viewer is inundated with TONS of clips-many of which seem irrelevant and many of which don't even imply homosexuality. Instead of being educational, most of the film is spend showing various clips of effeminate or less than macho characters. The film clearly is rarely about human rights but about voyeurism. Or, how Hollywood mistreated or condoned homosexuals (both cases are true-and there are many examples of both extremes). Or, how difficult it was for gay actors over the decades-how they had to deeply closet themselves in order to make it in the overtly macho Hollywood environment. It's a shame, as I was fascinated to see how, for example, the Production Code changed how gayness was or wasn't shown or discussed in movies. While you'd think it would be a study of the history of gay actors in film OR gay characterizations, it really isn't very often-and it certainly is NOT very exhaustive. I can't imagine this film satisfying most people who watch it-whether gay or straight. Film buffs and queer historians won't find too much here that's new, but the included clips provide clear, specific examples of the topic. Those who approach it with an open mind (and a decent knowledge of old movies and character actors) will find it extremely interesting and enjoyable. It assumes that the viewer is either gay, or completely comfortable with and knowledgeable about homosexuality. This documentary is unabashedly gay written and directed by, and starring gay men. That it could merely be our modern eyes seeing more than the various filmmakers intended is a question that is explored, but the director provides so many examples that, in the end, you find yourself accepting his point of view. The title makes it clear what the author/director's point of view is –Why act shocked? This documentary explores themes and images that are now archetypal, from a modern gay perspective. It's interesting to read the outraged "reviews" others have posted here. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |