The Alley Cats
|
Posted:Jun 5, 2007 8:26 am
Last Updated:Apr 30, 2024 4:46 am 11673 Views
|
The Alley Cats (1966) – Radley Metzger
Radley Metzger is a legend in history of erotic cinema. He was the basis for Burt Reynolds’ director character in “Boogie Nights” (1997). Metzger began his career creating high-end beautifully crafted soft-core features. It has been claimed that his talent rivaled the masters of the French New Wave directors of his time. Most certainly his attention to detail and craft was head and shoulders above his American contemporaries with their focus on massive cleavage.
Metzger’s most famous films include “Carmen Baby” (1967) , “Therese and Isabel” (1968 ) and “Camille 2000” (1969). This film and “Dirty Girls” (1964) are considered his lesser films, but there is a charm about them. One has to place the film in the context of the cultural revolution that began with “beat poets”, was sparked by the Berkley riots in 1964 and ignited the sensibilities of the massive social movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s. It wasn’t all just weekend hippies and pot.
“Alley Cats” has been put down because it is somewhat weaker than Metzger’s more famous works, but primarily the shunning of this film is due to a lack of understanding that it, and similar works, laid the ground upon which sexual portrayals in feature film became the stock of selling a movie; why the rise of “porno-chic” in the ‘70’s came about; and dare I say it, the ability for Mike Myers to capitalize on it via his Austin Powers character. The prior two somehow represent a richer cultural influence, but the pseudo-psychedelic pop cultural references Myers makes are derived directly out the boundary pushing of film and titillation of the ‘60’s. Myers knows this and articulates it when he is not “performing” for the camera. The point I am making is that when you watch a film like “Alley Cats” and the dialogue makes you want to laugh out loud it is a valid response. The soundtrack is a delicious riff of hipster jazz that sometimes makes you want to snap your fingers or grin a little at its’ unaware stereotype. However, the laughs and the grins should be more aligned with tongue-in-cheek 60’s cinema than with a Myers parody of the genre. That is where some of those who criticize a film like this reveal their lack of cultural aesthetic.
With all that, yes the film is really for those who wish to travel back in time. It is by no means a “classic” but it is a solid representation of a film genre that underlies so much of contemporary mainstream film and indeed pornography. The erotic content runs the gamut of what could just be barely tolerated at the time. As with all Metzger’s early works there is a lot of screen time dedicated to women exploring lesbian activities, and this film throws in swinging, orgies and a couple of whips for good measure.
As noted above Metzger was the inspiration for the director in “Boogie Nights”. This is because when porn became “mainstream” after the release of “Deep Throat” (1972) Metzger began directing high-end porn for the mainstream market under the name “Henri Paris”. His earlier style made him one of the hottest and sophisticated porn directors in the l970’s and the reason is clear with one of his hardcore masterpieces “The Private Afternoons of Pamela Mann” (1975). The longevity of that particular film and its’ current nostalgic demand speaks volumes.
Watch this Metzger film and others with a sense of perspective and cinema history and it will be enjoyable, particularly with some wine and someone close.
Note: as I watched this film there was a certain “warmth” to it. In my teens there was a tradition of the long-weekend all-night drive-in. From dusk to dawn, whatever reels they could rack up would screen after the first two features. As soon as the previews came on this rental I was transported back in time. The owner of the now plowed down Notawasaga Drive-In (Alliston, Ontario) loved to show 1960’s soft-core features. It kept the concession going until 4am, but when I got to film school it became clear that his penchant for this era was more than soda sales and this was never made so vivid as when he screened “Claire’s Knee” (1970) on the Labour Day weekend of 1980. Of course, there was always the “affect” the suggestiveness of such films might have upon one’s date. Whoever you were Mr. Drive-In Owner, I salute you.
Note: the copy of this film I rented came complete with trailers for all of Metzger’s classics. This alone was worth the rental fee. I am hoping to transfer those trailers from the VHS tape (yes, tape) to the hardrive for sharing.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Sex Sells
|
Posted:Jun 3, 2007 8:39 pm
Last Updated:Apr 30, 2024 4:46 am 11347 Views
|
Sex Sells: The Making of Touche (2005) – Jonathan Liebert
This is a laugh out-loud little comedy set in the porn business. In actuality it is a mock-mockumentary … isn’t postmodernist sub-referencing wonderful?
From the start one is pretty sure that this is not a documentary about the making of a porn film going by the title “Touche”, however, the first 20 minutes or so of this film really does paint a rather semi-accurate behind the scenes of a porn film. That alone is a clue that something is amiss since the subject of the film, “Chuck Steak” (pronounced Stee-ack) is a lost breed … a porn producer still shooting on film stock instead of digital video. The final “big” clue is when the star of the porn-to-be reveals his 42” penis. From that point on the tone of the film is locked down.
The cast is one where everyone seems slightly familiar. The actor playing “Chuck Steak”, Mark DeCarlo has been on a ton of sitcoms but close your eyes and you can hear the father from “Jimmy Neutron” telling the star not to blow his load yet. The actress playing the veteran pornstar, Pricilla Barnes, is also extremely familiar. Take twenty-plus years off her and you remember her as Suzanne Somers replacement on “Three’s Company”. As you watch all the actors you get a strong sense that everyone was laughing through the whole film. There is a clear sense that everything was a “hoot” to do.
The film is not without it’s flaws and even the self-referencing genre falls apart at one point and we eventually seem to be watching a standard fare work of fiction (even though it started as a fake-fake-documentary). The film is not meant to be taken seriously and it is essentially fluff, but there are not too many films out there that use the porn industry to make comedy.
For those into kink, really the only overt imagery revolves around the “fluffer” who needs not touch the actors to get them ready for the shots. She is a goth-Domme-sadist to the extreme and her words are all it takes. Pricilla Barnes portrays an older woman that will satisfy anyone with a MILF interest.
A word of advice is in order. Do not have any beverage in your mouth when the interview with “Lance Long” is on the screen. When his 42” member awakes the visual gag will make fluid shoot out of your nose. That should set the viewing tone for this film.
Note: I sometimes get told I am too serious about my selection and interpretation of the films I review. This film is an attempt to demonstrate it isn’t all academic film critique that I am into.
Note: for those who do not know, a “fluffer” is the person who is hired to get and keep the males erect between takes.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Neurosia
|
Posted:May 26, 2007 9:04 pm
Last Updated:Jun 7, 2007 1:47 am 10952 Views
|
Neurosia (1995) – Rosa von Praunheim
This is a quirky and frenetic German semi-autobiography cloaked in a cheesy investigative journalist cape … and a low-budget one at that. So, it is well worth the watch.
The film tells the life-story of Rosa von Praunheim. Now, anyone who was in Germany in the late 80’s and early 90’s will have heard of Rosa. Anyone involved with AIDS activism anywhere in the same time frame will have heard of Rosa as well. Throw in those who are interested in the gay revolution, cross-dressing, or performance art with an international perspective will also likely be familiar with the name.
The term prolific really barely comes close to describing von Praunheim’s lifetime of filmic and artistic expression relating to gay politics, transgender issues, and eventually AIDS. His early work dates back to the 1960’s with his founding of the German gay rights movement. If one chooses to hang each work’s thematic content on a timeline, what is revealed is von Praunheim has created works that are of the moment through which he and his cohorts were living. Initially these were gay rights (noteworthy in that this work pre-dates “Stonewall” in the States), then transgender issues; sexual politics; AIDS; and finally socio-political revolution.
The film’s full English title is “Neurosia: 50 Years of Perversion”. As one watches “Neurosia” one is taken aback by how much of this person’s life was captured on film. It is not an actor who looks like the 50 year old Rosa when he was 20, it is Rosa. The documentation extends beyond his films and includes thousands of photographs, home movie footage, news coverage, and television appearances.
The film begins with Rosa appearing before a screen to address an audience who is apparently about to see his autobiographical film celebrating his 50th birthday. As he stands arrogantly defying the audience members who openly despise him, he introduces his film with lavish self-congratulatory prose and then is shot. When the realization sets in and the lights are brought up, the body of Rosa is missing. This is the beginning of the movie’s trope of journalistic investigation. As the news reporter, whose expose on flowers is set aside for her to pursue the case of Rosa’s assassination, begins to explore his life we too are “brought up to speed” on the real life of Rosa.
Although the concept seems at first hokey at best, the true tongue-in-cheek nature of the script begins to seep in and one can accept the sexy-80’s-outfit clad reporter character as she acts as the thread for the journey. Toward the end of the film, documentary and fiction start to blend and the original premise of an autobiography begins to fade as the timeline approaches the post-assassination point.
The key is to play along. Rosa’s work, even the most potent and heart-wrenching political works, was always infused with a wink to the wise and lathering of camp. After all, he/she is/was an infamous cross-dressing politically potent performance artist. The ending won’t be revealed here, but when it comes, the punch-line brings the film into perspective, even through the German show tunes and English subtitles.
Of all the moments in the film that make it worth watching there are two. The first shows the infamous pie-in-the-face that Anita Bryant (yes, the Florida Orange Juice spokeswoman for so many of us) got while denouncing homosexuals rights as an abomination at a news conference. This was a pivotal moment in smashing anti-gay rhetoric (at least briefly). The second set of clips involves the time in the early 1990’s when Rosa, frustrated with the lack of AIDS education in Germany, went on television to defend his actions of “outing” dozens of famous German celebrities, politicians, and cultural producers because of their refusal to use their influence to fight AIDS. One must think of this happening in one’s own culture and country to get a sense of the bombshell this must have been.
This mocku-mentary (done long before more recent waves of such films) comes off much more interesting than a traditional documentary on Rosa would have been. The satire is bubbling under the surface the whole time but the content is very much real history. The kink/fetish content is across the spectrum and is doled out in various ways, either in the film clips of Rosa’s work, the interviews with those that loved and hated him, and the fictional journalist’s journey.
As stated above, play along and you will have a good little chuckle as you learn about an icon of gay, transgender, AIDS, and artistic rights.
Note: Rosa von Praunheim is really “Holger Bernhard Bruno Mischwitzky”. The “Praunheim” references a suburb of Frankfurt, although he was born in Latvia. The “Rosa” is a reference to the “pink triangle” or “Rosa” that was stitched onto the clothing of gay people who were sent to concentration camps in Hitler’s Germany because of their sexual orientation.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
My Father Is Coming
|
Posted:May 11, 2007 6:38 pm
Last Updated:Aug 23, 2008 10:06 pm 11164 Views
|
“My Father is Coming: (1991) – Monika Treut
Once in a while there is a need to be less intense when it comes to fetishism and kink in general. This film is a playful little ditty that is in no way meant to be taken seriously. It is a low budget romp through a simple plotline set in a not so slick New York backdrop.
The basic story is of a German woman who has been trying to break into the acting biz with little success. Her father announces he is coming to visit to share in her “success” and meet her fiancé, who is in reality her gay roommate with a penchant for Latin men. The rouse is doomed from the start, but this is overshadowed by daddy’s unbelievable luck. While waiting for his a chance meeting in a washroom leads to a role in a TV commercial and a relationship with Annie, played by the infamous and enigmatic Annie Sprinkle. In response to her father’s good luck, our heroine’s life begins to unfold even more; losing her waitress gig, meeting a great guy who happens to be a F2M transsexual, her roommate moves out, her German friends seem to shun and shame her (although they run a phone-sex business out of their flat), and her father disappears after finding her in bed with another woman. In the end, of course, all is good.
There are some very funny moments that are subtle and ironic. The lead, played by Shelly Kastner, has a wonderful undertone of sensuality waiting to burst out. It is surprising she has done so little acting since. The film is stolen in a sense by the father, Alfred Edel veteran German TV actor and sexual-performance artist Annie Sprinkle. Sprinkle’s performance is definitely tongue-in-cheek, playing with her own public image and acknowledging the audience from time to time.
There is fetish/kink content is less explicated than it is just part of the lives of these characters. It is portrayed in a muted way, and is “worn” by the characters as any other piece of costume.
This is a film shot on a shoe-string. Don’t expect lavish sets, intense costumes, or over-blown acting. It is a funky little film along the lines of “Liquid Sky” (1982) and of an ilk that is almost dissolving as cheap digital now allows indie-film to stealthy emulate bigger budget productions. However, the flavour of the character’s lifestyles shows through and the New York of the early 1990’s, just before the investment-steroids were injected, is quite palatable.
With that, watch this film with a little bit of stimulation and relax. As indie-film’s go, it is one without pretentiousness.
Note: I didn’t want this to evolve into a textual-worship of Dr. Annie Sprinkle (PhD, Human Sexuality), but Annie is one of those iconic figures in the fight against government control of sexual expression. I first saw Annie’s performances, as many did, in porn from the 1970’s. By the time my own arts school expression was taking off, she was conducting live art performances that hybridized art and sex. A few years later when I was face-to-face with our own government over my AIDS documentary, the meaning of Annie’s work and the confrontation had become a symbol on par with Robert Mappelthorpe (one of who’s models performed in my documentary). To see her “play” in/with this film was certainly a delight.
Note: Treut worked with Sprinkle in “Annie” (1989) a docu about Sprinkle, and again in “Female Misbehaviour” (1994) a docu with four segments; Camille Paglia; Annie Sprinkle; a businesswoman obsessed with S&M; and a F2M sex-change biker.
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
Shortbus
|
Posted:May 3, 2007 5:13 pm
Last Updated:May 11, 2007 5:18 pm 11207 Views
|
“Shortbus” (2006) – John Cameron Mitchell
When released this film’s main claim to fame was that all the sex was “real”. The actors were not pretending to “get it on”, they were. This is a trend I explored in another review (9 Songs/ Intimacy). The second claim was that it was John Cameron Mitchell’s (Hedwig and the Angry Itch; 2001) second feature film. Both played key roles in the buzz about the film.
The first five minutes of the film is a wonderful sequence. New York is established through a computer generated fly-through that attempts to look more like a vibrant three-dimensional expressionist painting rather than a digital realism recreation. The audience is introduced to each character by entering their windows to reveal them in various sexual encounters. Everything is established; solo masturbation; a dominatrix in action with a John; a run through of top-ten in the Kama Sutra by a straight couple; auto-fellatio to completion; and voyeurism all crisply cut to a sultry version of the jazz classic “Is You Is or Is You ‘Ain’t My Baby”. This establishes that sex is definitely going to be a major theme and that there is wry humour in how it will be treated.
The ensemble cast each have their own lives, social and sexual, that cross paths at the Bohemian New York salon, “Short Bus”. There are two couples (one hetero the other gay) and two singles (the dominatrix and the voyeur). The straight couple is comprised of a “sex therapist” and her altruistic under-employed partner who seem to have a wonderful sexual relationship but one where she does not achieve orgasm (nor has she ever done so). The long-term gay couple, seem to have a strained emotional bond, although a strong one, and seek change through bringing others into their sexual repertoire. The dominatrix is void of any relationship, and is struggling with her occupation versus her desire to create art in a “normal” world. The gay voyeur is living his closeted life “out” vicariously through observing and documenting the gay couple’s life. As complex as that sounds, this is established very early on quite simply. The resolution to all their anxieties are sought at the Shortbus.
The Shortbus salon is a wonderful enclave where talk, music, film, theatre, parlour games and of course, open orgies, create the free flowing environment where the ability to express thought, art, and eroticism is the road to personal growth. It is in these scenes where the visual humour is lessened and the play of words drives the humour. The best lines are delivered by Julian Bond the cross-dressing gay hostess of the Shortbus. Many reviews have quoted these lines, but they won’t be revealed/spoiled here.
The film has all the nuances of a stage-play. It certainly could play on stage with ease, and the “live-sex” would be a kind of homage to experimental theatre of the late 60’s and early 70’s (the original production of the musical “Hair” (1967) became infamous for its’ nudity, drugs, sex and music). One can even see a nod toward “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” (1975). “Shortbus” also features musical numbers, and music usage, that offers resolution and quirky humour compliments to the storyline. The homage is particularly clear in the final sequence of the film.
Along similar lines, the film can also be viewed as an homage to the film “radicals” also of that era who were attempting to blend/blur the line between cinema and pornography so that the later was a compliment rather than a segment easily snipped from the story by censors. It could be why the opening of the film “gets it all in the open” in the first five minutes. Sort of a “here’s what the buzz is about, let the story begin” approach.
The anxieties that the characters are seeking to resolve are somehow less than captivating. Although these issues are “huge” for them, the audience is not so drawn to empathy (possibly with the exception of therapist Sophia and her pre-orgasmic state). However in the real world, therapy or counseling is often for the “needy well”. By that I mean individuals often become focused on an issue that manifests itself as a huge barrier to growth or self-realization, while to an outsider the issue is miniscule. The characters who visit Shortbus require the “outrageous” free-flowing sexual expression to shatter the self-imposed walls they have constructed. Free-sex as a catalyst.
The film is one that requires a few viewings for it to grow on you. This is not an issue however since it is one of those films you are less likely to talk about unless the other person has seen it. The storyline percolates in with each viewing as one’s “sensitivity” (however that is defined) to the depictions of sex is softened with repeated viewings. A caution should be offered in that if one really, really feels uncomfortable about portrayals of gay-male sex then this film will make one uneasy since the visuals are frank and comprise about 60% of the real sex in the film.
This film is worth the watch and in the end does express the "joy" in sexual expression.
-------------------------------------
Note: The intriguing Heather from the “Alternative” video store on Whtye Ave (Edmonton, Alberta) was of the opinion that the ideas and how they were expressed were somewhat “tame” in order to give balance to the “real” sex portrayed. That is definitely a valid perception. However, one could as easily invert the premise, in that the sex was so open and up front because the ideas expressed are somewhat less compelling. It is a tough call to make.
Note: Two other films that approach the themes here are “Jeffrey” (1995) and “David Roche Talks to You About Love” (1983) although “David Roche” really focuses on the kind of verbal exchanges found in the Shortbus and “Jeffrey” takes the opposite approach in that the main character seeks understanding by avoiding sex altogether.
Note: When we finally get to see the video that the character James has been working on throughout the film it reminded me of the auto-biographical film “Tarnation” (2003) by Jonathan Caouette. That film is a harsh but somewhat necessary viewing about a tragic life brought to cathartic resolution. It turns out that John Cameron Mitchell was one of the executive producers on “Tarnation”, and Caouette cameos in “Shortbus” as the salon guest who reaches in and grabs a handful of snacks off a server.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Tokyo Decadence
|
Posted:Apr 20, 2007 5:48 pm
Last Updated:Apr 20, 2007 6:37 pm 11079 Views
|
Topazu - Tokyo Decadence (1992) – Ryu Murakami
The pre-opening credit scene of this film is one of the more powerful “mainstream” filmic representations of B&D and S&M. As it unfolds the main character, Ai, experiences the tension and anxiety of the unknown at the hands of a Dom. So too does the viewer. When the title of the film comes on the screen the audience is left primed for what appears to be a harrowing experience.
Murakami, a filmmaker with limited “commercial” success and better known as an award-honoured author, has captured the essence of the true sense of English title of the film … decadence.
Ai works as a high-end for an agency that specializes in fetish services for the wealthy of Tokyo, from the legitimate executives, to the nouveau riche, to Yakuza types. At the age of 22, her skills are refined, but clearly each of her experiences are new and her hesitation, and sometimes refusal, demonstrates this through a subtle quiet reverence highly lacking in her sexualized ritualistic clientele. Although Ai has little dialogue, much is emoted through her face and stillness. The dialogue in general is sparse and it is easy to forget that one is reading subtitles over the Japanese voices.
One of the underlying messages of the film addresses the loss of tradition and ceremony in modern Japanese culture. This is signaled by the prevalent use of cocaine by the Ai engages. The actions of Ai through all this modern debauchery demonstrates a desire to maintain some adherence to custom, however it can be salvaged from the monetized sexual encounters she endures.
Ai eventually meets a dominatrix, Mistress Saki, who represents one of Ai’s possible futures. Although not much older than Ai, she is a professional who has built a clientele that affords a lifestyle of opulence on par with Ai’s . After a session with Saki’s they retire to her condo high-rise. There they are served dinner, enjoy conversation, an impromptu comedic sex-musical performance by Saki, and then a night of continuous cocaine usage in several forms. Saki inspires Ai to pursue her dream of reuniting with a lost love, and hence launches her journey, albeit one infused with a pill of “super-powers” given to her.
At this point the film seems to become unglued. The storyline is disjointed and the visual style of the previous hour is abandoned. As the viewer tries to follow Ai in her quest, the message is lost to the sudden change in the film’s direction. The answer to why took some research.
Unfortunately for anyone seeking this film the most commonly available version, and the one used for this review, is 84 minutes, which is a far cry from the uncut 135 minute version. As the tragic heroine begins her self-inflicted transformative journey, it seems at odds with both the visual aesthetic of the earlier scenes in the film and at odds with any sense of the plot development that was painfully advanced in tiny steps to that point. The resolution that was offered at the end of the film was less than 15 seconds and in no way answered anything. It truly had the impression that a huge piece was missing between Ai’s lavishly constructed life as fetish sex-worker, her journey of self-empowerment and her final destination. This impression turns out to be accurate since the North American release is missing nearly 40% of the original material. That explains a great deal.
Although completely bastardized, the first hour of the available release is worth every frame. Almost every fetish is portrayed and done with a rich style in terms of lighting, costume and framing. Adherence to the nature of each fetish is also honoured and the subtleties and nuances are permitted to blossom.
If one does have the chance to find the original version, or even the Hong Kong release of 107 minutes, this would be a preferred viewing. With that, if you are looking for a solid hour of beautiful fetish representation, the North American version delivers.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
The Pillow Book
|
Posted:Apr 16, 2007 3:38 pm
Last Updated:Apr 16, 2007 3:48 pm 11217 Views
|
The Pillow Book (1996) – Peter Greenaway
This film is another visual exploration by Greenaway. Like his other works (8 ½ Women 1999; Prospero’s Books 1991; The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover 1989; Drowning By Numbers 1988 ) his films are drawn more from his art school experience than the genres of film. His cinematic canvases are one’s that demand both attention and aesthetic appreciation. It is for this reason that Greenaway has been accused of ignoring character development over scenario. That can be argued, but in every film there is a theme of richly textured spaces, with extraordinary characters expressing ordinary lives within unusual circumstances.
The title “Pillow Book” refers in general to the custom of ladies of the aristocracy keeping essentially a diary of their erotic experiences and pleasures. A book to be kept under one’s pillow. Specifically, the title refers to “The Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon” (1010) written by a lady in waiting in the Court of the Japanese Empress of the time. Although the book does reveal erotic adventures, it also reveals the subtle eroticism in the appreciation of simple pleasures and observations. It is the later the Greenaway’s visual expression adheres to.
The story of the film revolves around the ritual of being painted upon with writing on one’s birthday. The heroine, Nagiko (Vivian Wu), experiences this ritual on her birthdays as a , and seeks this ritual in her adult life. Her need for ritual evolves into a fetish for calligraphy, becoming the underlying drive in her sexual expression and frustration. In one of her desperate moments she laments that she can find wonderful lovers who cannot write, and wonderful writers who are terrible lovers.
There are two main themes in this film, revenge and spurned love. Nagiko seeks revenge against a powerful publisher who abused her father and used him sexually while she witnessed the acts. She seeks to make him pay for the emotional trauma and shame her father had to endure to support the family through his writing. In the process of trying to get close to the publisher, the adult Nagiko garners the support of a bi-sexual translator (Ewan McGreggor). He engages her fetish for body-writing by offering himself as the canvas since he cannot meet her stringent demands of her calligrapher-lovers. He also offers himself to the publisher on behalf of Nagiko, but this begins to affect their relationship. The film adopts Shakespearian themes to resolve the character’s plights.
The film is a visual and cultural treat. The visuals are layered and interlaced, each rich in their own. Culturally the film seamlessly blends ancient Japanese and Chinese ritual with modern Hong Kong, Japan and Western influences (including English literary traditions). The erotic visuals maintain a sensuality without succumbing to modern filmic tropes of sex on the screen. The intensity of the calligraphic fetish is honored through the rich tapestry of Greenaway’s visual style.
With that, some people find this film a difficult watch. It is more of a visual experience than a “movie”. The dialogue drifts in and out of Chinese, English, Japanese, French and even Yiddish. Viewing it in a widescreen format does honor to Greenaway’s art and also permits the subtitles to appear below the screen. As an introduction to the director, this film is less than accommodating, but Greenaway is an uncompromising director and one who contribution will not be forgotten. His films can be enjoyed as a visual journey regardless of the plot.
As a filmic exploration of a fetish, the visual style exudes the eroticism experienced and sought by the heroine. Although one may not have this specific fetish, one can appreciate such acts by the films exploration of it. The film caresses the subject like a brush stroke.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Note: for more plot driven, yet still visually expressive, films by Greenaway, one should view “Drowning By Numbers” (1988 ) and “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover” (1989). The later of which I am debating on reviewing for this blog.
Note: I am pretty sure there is a technical term for the fetish of writing and particularly writing on skin. However I cannot find it. If anyone knows, please post it here.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Gay Sex in the 1970's
|
Posted:Apr 13, 2007 6:39 pm
Last Updated:Aug 23, 2008 10:06 pm 11284 Views
|
Gay Sex in the ‘70’s (2005) – Joseph F. Lovett
This documentary is an interesting time capsule that remembers or reveals, depending on one’s age, the heyday of the post-Stonewall era where both the political and the sexual landscape for gay men (and women, although not explored here) changed dramatically. Lovett has drawn from personal experience and memory to develop a framework through which the memory and experience of others re-animates the gay sexual revolution in the pre-AIDS world.
Using archival footage, an intense photographic record, disco music, and personal accounts, this film elucidates a period in time in which sexual freedom exploded and crossed, if not dismantled, the lines that delineated sexual behavior prior to that decade. The 1960’s is often packaged as the decade of love, but it really was the 1970’s that expanded those roots into the decade of open sexuality. As one watches the film the tangible freedoms explored and expanded thirty years ago are revitalized beyond a muted “joy” that pervades memory or myth now.
This cultural shift had evolved, become chic, and pervaded mainstream culture in the later half of the decade. Music, television and film began to dabble with gay themes and characters, some more successfully and valued than others. Anonymous and kinky gay sex became the fodder for Friedkin’s “Cruising” (1979) staring Al Pacino. This film was somewhat of an exploitation film, and one that clearly placed “gay” into the category of “danger” and “something to be feared”. But the scenarios in which the characters engaged one and other were derived directly from the gay sexual culture of New York City of the time, and which are the main topic of this documentary.
Why is this film important? It is somewhat very much a guiltless lament of a lost time and a generation gone. However there is something that the film only briefly alluded to, and something that, for those having worked in the political climate of mid-1980’s AIDS activism, has great meaning. The political power that gay activism in the post-Stonewall era gained, allowed the social climate of gay culture and sexuality to flourish. It was barely a decade of change before AIDS surfaced beyond the street-level health clinics. Had the political change sparked by Stonewall not occurred, the openness of gay life would not been revealed. It is the openness of gay sexuality combined with political power that would become the engine of AIDS response. There is clearly no argument that would support that the institutional response to AIDS was anything less than snail pace.
Silence did truly Equal Death.
For those who worked the frontline, grassroots, early days of the crisis, it was more of a cultural response than a medical one. The culture of gay sex had to change first and foremost. Had that openness not been present in the wider culture for so long, the required change would not have had the direction and influence it did. The very openness of sexual expression that allowed the spread of AIDS (and other STD’s) was one of the key factors in mounting a counter-attack through behavioral change.
Safe and Safer-sex was the goal of behavioral change, yet one could not discuss in great detail, without fear and shame, the sexual behaviors that needed to be modified without the cultural ground having been sowed. For instance, how could safer-S&M be taught without frank open acceptance, understanding and knowledge-sharing of the activities in question? For this reason the importance of sharing a generation’s history and experience is critical.
HIV and other STD’s are opportunistic viral and bacterial organisms that require sexual exchanges to be replicated in new hosts, but the opportunity that is exploited is less in the physical contact, but rather in the social construction of sexuality in the society at large. Understanding sexual culture is the primary defense.
----------------------------------------
Note: for those that do not know me, and therefore have not endured my personal recounting, I was deeply involved with AIDS activism in the later half of the 1980’s and early 1990’s. That experience taught me more about politic struggle, education methodology, human sexuality, global pandemics, death, information dissemination and the economic framework of knowledge than my decade and a half of post-secondary education ever did. I both highly encourage and caution everyone to stand up for something and let it consume you for a while. Although it can come at great social cost, it is a powerful thing to have in your life-toolbox.
Note: my inclusion of this documentary and others that explore gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender themes in no way represents an explicit labeling of these orientations as a form of “kink”. These grander themes are part and parcel of the freedom of expression that is exemplified by this site and others.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Sick
|
Posted:Apr 3, 2007 3:19 pm
Last Updated:Apr 3, 2007 3:19 pm 10995 Views
|
Sick: The Life & Death of Bob Flanagan, Supermasochist (1997) – Kirby Dick
The outline of this documentary is stated in the title. Kirby Dick had pieced together the life of performance artist and poster boy/man for Cystic Fibrosis, Bob Flanagan. The film covers his childhood, illness, sexual kinks, performance art, relationship with his partner Sheree, and his eventual death (captured on camera).
If one isolates the first part of the title … “sick”, there is a duality of meaning that pervades this work. Yes, Bob is “sick” and has been essentially dying since birth, although he has outlived anyone’s predictions. Yes, from an outsider’s viewpoint, Bob is “sick” as his inner need for, and external tolerance of, extreme pain manifests itself in levels of self-mutilation and acts of submission that can make even the solid S&M practitioners squirm. And yes, Bob is “sick” in the way he lives and shares his illness and tendencies with audiences.
Specific visuals are definitely not for the squeamish. In a couple of performances Bob hammers nails through his penis into hardwood boards. The audience also witnesses Bob finally die, slowly drowning in his own fluid. For anyone who has lost friends and loved one’s to AIDS, the deathbed scene is more unsettling than the sprays of Bob’s blood during his performances.
Beyond the physical acts, the emotion range of the film runs the full gamut from empathy to disgust. Bob has taken his struggle with illness and hybridized it with his extreme masochist activities and disseminated it through performance art. In any given scenario the viewer experiences a mixture of responses that are usually mutually exclusive. Bob plays with these boundaries with a style both full of shock value and humour. We are at once laughing and cringing at his words. We are at once shocked and awed by his physical acts. We are unnerved by the occupying force of his illness pain over his sexualized pain, and how illness triumphs over love in a relationship.
It is an uncomfortable film to watch.
However, at the end, after Bob has died, there is a sequence where Bob recites, in a laundry list rapid fire delivery, all the “reasons” he did what he did. This is layered over home movie footage of the childhood Bob was never supposed to have. It is that sequence that brings closure to the viewer’s unease, albeit a slightly unsettling sequence in itself. This bookends with a tiny segment in the beginning of the film where Bob’s parents question how it is that their developed the way he did when they were a classic model of the “typical family”. There is more in Bob’s “reasons” speech than any social-psychological model could ever hope to reveal.
Watch with extreme self-reflection.
Note: A dear friend of mine with similar life experiences as Bob’s, spoke of feeling alive by the “torture and punishment of your own treacherous body”. She also spoke of the one thing that caught me off guard; the deathbed scenes. Of all the imagery in the film, those were the harshest since I have been witness to that kind of death over and over again. She noted that in illness and death there is “… no mystical journey crap, no wistful looking into each other’s eyes … there’s no dignity or nobility.” She also said that this film is about forcing an incredibly uncomfortable inward stare that most people neither have the ability to make or the fortitude to withstand the outcome.
Note: For an articulate analysis of our cultural response to illness, I recommend Susan Sontag’s books “Illness as a Metaphor” and “AIDS as a Metaphor”.
Note: It wasn't until I started writing this that I realized the director, Kirby Dick, also directed the film "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" (2006).
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Forbidden Love
|
Posted:Apr 1, 2007 1:10 pm
Last Updated:Aug 23, 2008 10:07 pm 11157 Views
|
Forbidden Love: Unashamed Stories of Lesbian Lives (1992) – Lynne Fernie & Aerlyne Weissman
This film should be considered required viewing for any gay or bi woman, particularly younger women. The film is an exploration into the socio-historical meaning of what it meant to be a gay woman in the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s in Canada. It is without question a demonstration of social change over time and the repository of knowledge that those who struggled and fought in the past for their sexual identity, have within them. The women in this film are clearly over the age of forty and have a lifetime of personal experiences that are worthy of sharing.
The film draws its’ title from the era of the pulp fiction novel. A genre of print that has since faded yet the impact on social interaction and personal sexual growth cannot be underestimated. The nostalgia for such material has spawned intense collectors amassing libraries of paperbacks and art shows that feature the novel covers. Woven through the documentary is a fictional storyline about the naïve country girl who goes to the big city. This story remains true to the print genre in terms of plot line and a generalization of the content of those novels.
The interviews are an incredible reveal on the dynamic between the larger society and the intimate relationship. It is also a look at the social dynamic of the lesbian community, although prior to a time when the political power existed to proudly wear that label.
There is also something intriguing about seeing older women speak of their alternative lifestyle. It is something that few stop to consider about themselves as younger sexual adventurers. Aging does not stop nor does ones’ sexuality. That sounds extremely trite, but there is a subtle articulation of this as the viewer watches a mature gay woman tell her story about when she was young.
As a bonus it is a Canadian documentary about Canadians, and therefore there is another subtle level that operates on the Canuck audience.
At the time the film was released, the social and political rewards that the gay movement in the previous two decades had battled for were coming into fruition. Another fifteen years down the road, it is all too easy to make assumptions of these hard won rights and to take them for granted. Critically for this reason, films like this one should be part of one’s own life experience and knowledge base.
*****
Note: Weissman has also directed for the series “Kink” (2001) and her interview and shooting style on that series clearly has its’ roots in this film.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
