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. No matter whether you think that a cigar is always a cigar or whether there are times when it means something else, there's a lot to be said for the entertainment and intellectual value of The Silver Screen.It's interesting to read the outraged "reviews" others have posted here. As narrated by Frasier regular Dan Butler, the tone here is neither smug nor accusing, but rather something this side of utter bemusement. And although some may fault Rappaport's hesitancy to draw any firm conclusions about what exactly was going on in these movies, he is rightly content in just making pointed observations about what might have been afoot. About the only fault you can find in The Silver Screen is that it goes on a little too long. Was it a parody of heterosexuality or a bold depiction of gay flirtation? Did it push the proverbial envelope or merely aim for a laugh? Rappaport also dissects the careers of Danny Kaye, Cary Grant, Clifton Webb, and Randolph Scott - all of whom were either full-time or part-time gay - and demonstrates how otherwise innocent lines of dialogue take on a different meaning when placed in the context of the actor's private life. Usually, the context was a comic one, as in the perennial pairing of Hope and Crosby in the road movies (in which they kissed each other - mistakenly, of course - quite a few times), or in the grizzled old prospector syndrome, best typified by the crotchety and crusty Walter Brennan in films in which he “played” to the leading man. Using a sampling of film clips that span from the Thirties to the Sixties to explore his hypothesis of latent meaning, director and screenwriter Rappaport (Rock Hudson's Home Movies, From the Journals of Jean Seberg) slyly engages in acts of deconstruction for the purpose of showing that while homosexual love may not have dared speak its name directly, it might have done so in code. Rather, it takes you through the looking glass to reveal a seemingly queer subtext in the movies produced by the Golden Age of Hollywood that will have you scratching your head in bewildered wonder. Who would have thought that deconstructionism could be so much fun? Although on the surface similar to the more conventional documentary The Celluloid Closet, The Silver Screen: Color Me Lavender doesn't merely look at gay and lesbian imagery in film as seen in some kind of sociological mirror.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |