To celebrate Pride Month, MOVIES WITH MADELYN will spotlight a different LGBTQ+ film each week. Each film is a first-time viewing for me. Madelyn Carey: Hello! This week, I would love to introduce a guest columnist, Sabre Semrau! She is a dear friend of mine who, among other things, helped lead the Gay-Straight Alliance, S.A.F.E., at our high school. She’s sure to do many great things at Western Kentucky University. As we spotlight films for Pride Month, I wanted to talk to Sabre about her all-time favorite movie. She introduced My Own Private Idaho to me and I fell in love. Sabre, why is this your favorite movie of all time? Sabre Semrau: Well, first of all, thank you for that lovely introduction! I can’t wait to see all the awesome stuff you do in college, too! So, My Own Private Idaho is a film that I initially watched in sophomore year because I had recently become interested in River Phoenix’s acting career, and this was one of his less famous but more notable movies. The film itself is a nostalgic and untethered masterpiece that creates an enthralling dichotomy between dreamy landscapes and gritty scenes of hustler life that it portrays throughout. As it was released in the 90s, it’s incredibly ahead of its time, given the subject matter as well as the film techniques and stylistic choices that director Gus Van Sant makes boldly. MC: So, I have heard that River Phoenix was a fantastic ally of his time, using his fame for good and not being afraid to reach out to the LGBTQ+ community. This movie alone is a very honest portrayal of a gay young man. Can you tell me more about River? SS: River was and still is such an icon to so many people, and left his mark on the world through his philosophies of peace, kindness, equality, and truth. I really don’t think there has ever been a celebrity so dedicated to making the world the best it could be, and working for the empowerment of everyone - he was a feminist, vegan and animal rights activist, a proponent of gay rights, and overall a believer in equity for all groups of living creatures. The most notable thing about this, though, is that he didn’t make a big deal about his activism, because it was just natural and obvious to him that things should be that way. MC: I wish I had known who he was sooner. What stuck out to me upon immediate viewing of this movie was his performance. He plays Mike, a narcoleptic young hustler who goes on a trip to try and find his mother, with the help of his best friend Scott (played by Keanu Reeves). Mike hasn’t experienced a lot of real love in his life. The only person who I can really argue has shown real compassion to him is Scott, with whom he is in love. What hurts so badly is that this love is unrequited. There’s a brilliant scene where Mike finally confesses his love to Scott, and he can’t even look Scott in the face-- he’s too overcome with emotion. Didn’t you say River Phoenix had a strong influence in making this scene happen? SS: Yes! I’d say that the campfire scene that you’re talking about, where Mike confesses to Scott, is probably the most powerful in the film, because of the earnest and raw emotions expressed in it. Originally, director Gus Van Sant had been ambiguous about Mike’s real feelings towards Scott, but River wanted the audience to know the character was gay, and wrote essentially the entire scene himself. It’s so tender and real, and River’s ability to practically become the character he portrays really helped him both write and play it through Mike’s perspective, which gives it its true depth. MC: You said it-- he does become the character of Mike. Sometimes you can tell when an actor is acting, but this really is probably one of the best performances I’ve ever seen. It’s not just River who’s being so real, though-- the entire movie has such realism and grittiness to it, especially the scenes that explicitly shed light on the hustler life in the early ‘90s. These boys are so young. My heart aches for them. It almost feels like a documentary. SS: I definitely agree about the realism-- for one thing, a lot of the actors hung around with street kids for a while, and River in particular spent a lot of time with a narcoleptic friend of the director to understand his mannerisms. Actually, a lot of the interlude scenes with interviews of young street kids telling stories about their experiences weren’t scripted or acted at all. They were real people talking about their real lives, and so the film incorporates a ton of documentary footage into the otherwise scripted storyline. The characters of Mike and Scott are based off of real hustlers, too, so the movie is rooted firmly in reality. FROM HERE ON OUT, THE MATERIAL DISCUSSED MAY BE SPOILERS TO SOME READERS. MC: The house all the hustlers live in with their pimp/mentor, Bob, really stuck with me. I never knew how to feel about Bob. Bob seemed like a really vile, sick person who was stuck in this life he was leading these perfectly innocent boys into. When Bob dies, I don’t know if the boys are grieving or celebrating. There is that level of dependence they seem to have with Bob, though. And Bob acts like Scott’s “father,” but Scott breaks away from the hustler life as soon as he can. What do you think about Bob? He was probably the most confusing element in the story for me.
SS: Yeah, I would agree that Bob is definitely a confusing character. I think he represents a lot of different things to the boys, and while they may hate him for the squalor of his life and theirs, I think they also really look up to him as a wise and experienced wanderer. In a lot of cases, he might’ve “helped” them, but in a way that only led to a more unstable existence. His death might be a cause for grief and joy, because he both saved them and condemned them by teaching them how to survive on the streets. To me, Bob seems to serve as a major contrast to Scott’s biological father, as Scott states he considers Bob to be his prodigal, “street” father. Bob represents carefree independence and satisfaction of the most base human desires, while Mr. Favor represents solemn dignity and responsibility. The funeral scene at the end is the sharpest juxtaposition of these two ideals, with the street kids cavorting on Bob’s grave while the upper class adults dressed in somber black sit gravely by Mr. Favor’s. MC: I love that scene. It is so complex and it definitely confused me, but that’s how all of the movie felt for me. There wasn’t much spelled out in it; it just kind of felt like a journey that took me along. I think the movie is guided by Mike, looking for a way out of the life he’s in and back to a life that he remembers living as a child. I don’t think he’s ever going to find it like he wants, which breaks my heart, but I think, in the end, he does find a different life than the hustler life. Probably a better life. I don’t know, though. What do you think happens to Mike? SS: The ending is something that’s been heavily debated, because Van Sant leaves it purposefully ambiguous (aside from a deleted scene that reveals who picked him up, but it was deleted for a reason). All that’s shown is someone picking Mike up and driving him away, presumably to safety and a better future. This is really interesting to me because the fact that whoever it was knew where he ended up suggests that it was Scott, as Scott was most used to his narcoleptic episodes and taking him to safety. As much as I’d like to believe it really was Scott, it just doesn’t make sense with what his character became, not even as a final redemption. I think that, at the end, Mike’s father is there for him as he never was before, and takes him towards a better life. MC: I really wish it were Scott, too. It made me really sad how he cut Mike out of his life. I suppose this change happens when they end up in Italy, in the hopes that they’ll find Mike’s mother there. Scott meets a girl named Carmela there and pretty much abandons Mike. It’s really abrupt and it was really distressing for me to witness. Why does he change so suddenly? SS: This was an occurrence that I really didn’t understand at all until recently, because I didn’t realize how a single person could change your life so dramatically that you would cut off your closest friends and start living in a completely different way. Maybe there’s not an easy explanation for this; maybe sometimes people just change and they don’t understand it any more than you do. I guess this could just be Van Sant trying to communicate that life isn’t always rational. It’s just Mike being abandoned again, and perhaps it’s portrayed as happening so suddenly because that’s how Mike perceives it, given that time doesn’t work for him as it does for everyone else. He sees his mother, father, and now best friend and unrequited love abandoning him, all seemingly without reason. His narcolepsy makes him vulnerable, and the fact that his loved ones all seem to leave him only takes advantage of his raw vulnerability in a harsh, cold, and uncaring world. MC: I guess that’s why the movie holds up today. I don’t know if the hustler life has changed, but I know the most basic and bare human emotions and longings haven’t changed. Wherever their road trip takes them, it hits so close to home. It hurts, but there’s a hope in it. Especially the ending, there’s a sense that someone will be looking out for Mike, and Mike isn’t ever really alone. That’s how I felt, anyways, and I thought it was so touching. SS: I agree - even if the whole movie seems to be full of people abandoning him, it closes on a hopeful note, with the message that there’s always someone left. He still manages to find love and joy in the most miserable of conditions, and I think the film is definitely meant to be more inspiring than depressing. As for how it holds up, I think it deserves a lot of recognition for overcoming all the odds, with a gay director and a gay main character in a time when that was still majorly taboo, and coming into fruition as a heartfelt landmark in modern cinema.
0 Comments
I guarantee you've never seen a movie like LONESOME. ****/****LONESOME is a little film of beauty, overflowing with romance, humor, and cinematic innovation, and it has quickly worked its way into being a favorite of mine. It certainly came out at an interesting time-- it was 1928, silent films were making the transition into talkies, and this movie was made right on the cusp of the transition. LONESOME then decides to be both silent and talkie, with most of the running time dedicated to a silent format, interspersed with sound segments. The silent segments are flowing and eloquent, showing the breathless turbulence of a summer day in Coney Island. Meanwhile, the sound segments are reserved for the simpler moments, letting you take a breath. It's a setup that I think ultimately proves successful for its endlessly charming romance. And what a fun romance it is! We follow strangers Mary (played by the stunning Barbara Kent) and Jim (an endearing Glenn Tryon), both working-class singles caught up in the crowds around them. They both decide one day to go to Coney Island to relax, but in the frenzy of the crowds they meet each other. When they were single, they were "lonesome," but when they meet, it's as if they were alone together. This is when LONESOME will divert into fantasy sequences, hand-painted with color. These are some of my favorite parts in the whole movie--they're just so incredibly dreamy. How could you not fall in love alongside Jim and Mary? The question will eventually boil down to this-- in a frenzied crowd, can you meet the perfect stranger again? The ending is poignant and needs to seen for yourself. LONESOME can be watched on DVD or Blu Ray through the Criterion Collection.AN ALL TIME FAVORITE: ****/****You can ask what DAISIES is about, and the answer is difficult to really say in concrete terms. I can't give a plot summary because, really, there is no real plot. It's jittery and spastic. It doesn't want to stay in one place. What DAISIES asks of you is to simply keep attention on its high-wired antics and feed off its energy. It's a trip, and it's one of my favorite trips ever. However, I suppose that if I were to say what DAISIES is about, I would say it's simply about rebellion. Two teenage girls, both named Marie (performed with giddy recklessness by Ivana Karbanovà and Jitka Cerhovà) decide that, since the world is acting so rotten, they'll be rotten, too. They spend the rest of the movie indulging in their newfound "rottenness," and that's pretty much it, sort of... DAISIES was made in 1966 Czechoslovakia, right around the time of the outbreak of the Prague Spring, a revolt of the harsh Communist government at the time. What "rottenness" the DAISIES girls partake in directly contradicts this regime. Consider its Wizard-of-Ozian approach. When it begins. it's shot in black and white. The camera is stagnant. Then begins the anarchy! And you know how sometimes a movie is just sheer joy to watch? That's what it is to see the Maries break out. It's just a blast! Their anarchy isn't malicious as much as it is just silly, always striving to shake things up in their world. While the director, the brilliant Vera Chytilova, is definitely making a statement against her restrictive society, the Maries within the movie seem to be more concerned with fulfilling themselves in a way they never have before. As much at it mocks strict Communism, it also seems to be a pretty sound feminist statement. And in the midst of all its very driven purpose, it's executed with the kind of prismatic attention deficiency of Wonderland, and it is glorious. DAISIES is hyper-driven, surreal, absolutely manic fun. I cannot do justice to how breathlessly this movie snips, bleeds, and sugar-highs its way through its very short (79 min) running time, but I can tell you this much-- be prepared for the most radical food fight scene of all time. That's all I can really say. Dig in. Daisies is available on DVD through the BFI, Criterion Collection's Pearls of the Czech New Wave boxed set, or to stream through Filmstruck.A few days ago, the wonderful YouTube channel Cinefix put out this great list, "10 Best Uses of Color of All Time." It was an awesome list, and a really cool thing to think about, so I thought...why not? Here are MY 10 Best Uses of Color, in no particular order. And if you think differently, tell me what you think, but these are really just personal favorites). The Wizard of Oz (dir. Victor Fleming, 1939)Okay, this is kind of obvious, but what can I say? I think so much of what makes me love The Wizard of Oz is that, not only does it encompass all the colors of the rainbow, but it does its darnedest to make each of them just pop. Behind the camera, Judy Garland's real ruby slippers were actually kind of an ugly maroon, but that's simply the color they had to be so that they could pop as reddest of red through Technicolor. THE WIZARD OF OZ has been played in family homes for so many years that I think people can forget how truly kaleidoscopic it is, so next time, just let yourself get immersed into the rainbow. The Red Balloon (dir. Albert Lamorisse, 1956)If THE WIZARD OF OZ is all about overindulgence in color, then THE RED BALLOON can be seen as sort of its opposite. There are vibrant colors, yes, but they're used sparingly against a muted town and a little boy's grey outfit. The end result is stunning, and when you realize that something as small as a balloon can be filled with wonder, the color trick did its job. Suspiria (dir. Dario Argento, 1977)SUSPIRIA is an absolute joyride of a horror movie-- definitely a Halloween favorite. In the midst of its over-the-top gore and unabashed campiness with the witch subgenre, its visuals and colors are what really make it shine, making what would be just a decent movie into a kind of masterpiece. Argento wanted the color scheme to reflect that of SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS, giving the film a fairy-tale approach to horror, and its wash of primary colors is hypnotic. I adore it. Cinderella (produced by Walt Disney, 1950)Speaking of Disney Princess movies, I want to discuss CINDERELLA. Where SUSPIRIA and its ancestor SNOW WHITE played with bright, popping colors, CINDERELLA is this absolutely gorgeous experiment with pastel blues and pinks, from the royal castle to Cinderella's dress, even in the interiors of the stepmother's interior. Mary Blair was in charge of this look, as well as the storybook prettiness of ALICE IN WONDERLAND and PETER PAN, but it's never been as downright romantic as that of CINDERELLA. Pierrot le Fou (dir. Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)Primary colors are the key in Godard's lovers-on-the-run movie. Ferdinand and Marianne's getaway car is a bright red, there are dashes of yellow, all to accentuate the beautiful infinity of the blue sky and sea. Watching PIERROT LE FOU is to get lost in a sort of heaven. McCabe & Mrs Miller (dir Robert Altman, 1973)McCABE AND MRS MILLER is just about as notable for its beautiful cinematography of nature as it is its interesting character-building, and I think it's my favorite thing about the movie. It takes place over the course of a rainy fall turning into a snowy winter, and you can smell and feel the outside. The movie centers around a town being built bottom-up, in the middle of forested nowhere, and the only real vibrancy is in the nature itself. It looks incredibly earthy-- every character wears dark clothing, and every building is a wood skeleton, so color lies only in nature itself, and it's lovely. Fanny and Alexander (dir. Ingmar Bergman, 1981)Painterly is the way I can best describe FANNY AND ALEXANDER, in both its darkest and lightest moments. When we are in the joyous Ekdahl house, especially at Christmas, we get this beautiful myriad of stunning reds and pinks and greens. But when the children are taken away to live with the evil Bishop, the colors are absolutely muted as the magic is gone. This isn't an unusual approach to color in film, but it's done so stunningly in FANNY AND ALEXANDER. Finding Nemo (dir. Andrew Stanton, 2003) Imagine you're Pixar after the release of MONSTERS INC. in 2001. You've made a strong name for yourself, you're totally infallible at this point. You could play it safe, but instead, you dive into the possibilities of animating the biggest setting on Earth, the ocean! And you take every advantage of it. There's a sophistication in the grandeur of Marlin and Nemo's home, with elegant purples and blues. There's dread in the blue and black darkness of the Sharks' hangouts. The pinks of the jellyfish are deceptively gorgeous. There's a fluorescence in the artifice of the fish tank where Nemo is taken, and in the eye-popping P. SHERMAN 42 WALLABY WAY, SYDNEY goggles. These different variations on the same ocean are so lovely and so expertly achieved, it's hard not to get lost in it. Cléo from 5 to 7 (dir. Agnès Varda, 1962)There is color only in the opening of Agnès Varda's masterpiece CLÉO FROM 5 TO 7, but it creates one of the most jarring and heartbreaking effects that cinema has ever dealt me. A young woman, Cléo, is waiting for results of a biopsy, and in the meantime sees a fortune teller. The teller is explaining to her what she sees, until she comes across a card that prompts her to ask: Then, rapidly to an already terrified Cléo: The switch from color to black and white is jarring enough, and paired with the absolute urgency of Cléo's tone and pleading eyes, it makes my heart jump every time. The movie remains in black and white, but the good thing is that there's beauty in it. And Cléo comes to realize that, too. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (dir. Jacques Demy, 1964)Jacques Demy was Agnès Varda's husband, and they were a directing dream team of the French New Wave. But where Varda's work was more restrained and austere, Demy was an unabashed romantic, and THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG is his best example of this. Every frame shimmers with dazzling color, in the wallpaper, the clothing-- you can see this in the current awards favorite, Damien Chazelle's LA LA LAND. The brightness of color and UMBRELLAS' all-sung approach highlights the overwhelming sweetness of the central romance and young love. It's a Valentine put on film, and that's the sweetest kind. Agree? Disagree? Are there any you would have added? Sound off in the comments! |
Archives
June 2018
Categories
All
|