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
|
Archives
June 2018
Categories
All
|