World Cinema review: The Chinese Botanist’s Daughter (Les filles du Botaniste Chinois) (France, 2006)

The story:

Mi Li (Mylene Jampanoi) is a young, half-Chinese, half-Russian orphaned woman who grew up isolated and lonely in an orphanage. A chance to learn about herbal medicines from the famed Mr. Chen (Ling Dong Fu) takes her away from this sheltered life, and into a paradise, a beautiful island garden of Eden.  Here she meets strict, temperemental Mr. Chen,who reigns on the island and his daughter with a temper and sense of entitlement to match. This devoted daughter is Chen An (Xiao Ran Li), who (quite literally), waits on him hand and foot,  from clipping his toenails to washing them, to providing him his meals, his groceries and so on. Like Mi Li, she has lived an isolated, lonely, motherless life. The only life she has known is that of living with her father and his plants.

It is thus a matter of time before Li and An are attracted to each other, an attraction that slowly blooms into love and unquestionable devotion and obsession with each other. The relationship they have is threatened by Li’s apprenticeship ending and by the sudden arrival of An’s buff, bicep-flexing soldier, oaf of a brother, Dan (Wei Chang Wang) who, pressured by their father to get married, decides to woo Li. An grows jealous of Dan’s affections for Li, but Li proves her love by rejecting An’s brother. But An convinces her, against her better judgment, to marry Dan, so that they can never be separated. Dan will be sent off to Tibet and since soldiers are not allowed to bring their families along, Li will be able to stay behind and be with An. Li agrees but Dan finds out she is not a virgin, beats her and leaves her behind. She goes back to the island garden, and lives with An just as they intended. Li’s stay in the island creates a delicate imbalance between the father and the daughter, and ultimately shatters the very rigid life they have beneath this paradise, exposing it for what it truly is.

The verdict:

Save for some melodramatic plot points and inconsistencies, and the sometimes distracting dirge-like music that rises in crescendo-like waves every time the two main characters declare undying love for each other, this film is gorgeous.

This is in shot in Vietnam, even though it was supposed to be set in China, and Vietnam’s beauty is showcased in its full glory. There are sweeping panoramic shots of beautiful, lush rice fields, mountains, the river and the ever-present gardens. Every shot, every scene, is shot in slow, languid strokes, making you stop and enjoy each scene. The film has a lovely, dream-like, illusory feel towards it, that reels you in and hypnotizes you. You can actually almost feel the mist the rises from the river, the rain that falls on the gardens, the steam that lifts up slowly from An’s body as she kneads pine resin or lies naked on a bed of herbs. This is a very sensual, very French film, and you can see this most of all when An and Li are together – those subtle longing glances, that palpable sexual tension, the fascinating chemistry they have with each other -  ultimately what makes this story compelling. This is even made more so by the fact that while shooting the film, neither actors could actually understand each other, as Jampanoi (who is half-French, half-Chinese) does not speak Chinese, and Xiao Ran Li does not speak French. I love how their love story slowly develops, even with little dialogue (which is usually such a part of western mainstream rom-com cinema,gay or otherwise).

I am kind of surprised and not-so surprised that a Chinese-born, France-based man, Sijiie Dai, directed this film. The slow direction and lush cinematography is very Chinese, the melodrama is a bit Chinese soap opera, but more French (and male) in its romanticization of love (especially love between women) as is its off-hand depiction of nudity .  Only a man would be able to shoot a woman, fully-clothed, doing something as mundane as kneading pine resin, as steam rises beneath her, and still manage to make it really sensual and erotic.

Anyway, I digress. I have tried to resist the urge to read other reviews about this film and have found mixed reviews about the film. On the one hand, we are all in agreement that it is beautifully shot and that it is compelling, but we are in disagreement about the story itself. The male critic/viewer did not like this – as they find the male and female characters as stereotypes and the depiction of Chinese culture as stereotypical as well. But that is because they are not armed with feminist analysis at their fingertips.

I watched this and I saw a surprising critique, an indictment of a male-dominated, patriarchal, misogynist society that subjugates  female sexuality and desire and extinguishes any form of female assertion before it gets out of hand – all of it subtly wrapped in metaphor and myth.

For truly what this film is is a brilliant re-imagining of the Garden of Eden story. The father and the daughter live in a paradise where the father lives out his fantasy of being king, living with a young woman who waits on him hand and foot. Li’s entrance into their paradise and into their lives, the exotic outsider beauty (who may also be a symbol of Western influence or threat to Eastern culture, which seems to raise the un-PC question-is homosexuality an external, Western influence?), upsets the balance of this paradise. Li and An’s discovery of their sexuality, their acknowledgment of that discovery and of their love for each other, also help them assert themselves to An’s tyrannical father. This is shown deliberately in the film: where before An buys groceries for her father and cares for his plants, she starts to forget and the father finds himself doing the grocery buying himself. There comes a time when he starts having meals by himself, abandoning his place at the head of the table, his symbol of power, and the couple clearly has won a battle. Li is thus now considered the evil descended on the garden, which might be akin to awakened female sexuality being considered evil as well. Li and An must now decide to leave the garden and in time, when the father finds out, they do. When Li and An are found out, and they are shot for their homosexuality, this is actually akin to society’s response to female sexuality in general: it cannot handle it, so it must shoot it down, re-subjugate it, for society’s sake. Love, especially homosexual love, is subversive, and must be stopped. However, Li and An’s complicity in the father’s death, seems to imply the way forward in female sexuality (a fine line between assertion and aggression).

And thus, viewed in this context, you will find that this film is surprisingly feminist, albeit a bit misinformed about female sexuality. You will also come to realize as well, why this was banned in China and why the Chinese government refused to allow the director to shoot it in China.

At the same time, it raises a lot of other questions as well: since the garden is depicted as mythical, almost illusory, since the women deal with herbs that are sometimes hallucinogenic, does that mean sexuality is illusory as well? But then, if that is the case, then it also raises the issue of cultural and social constructs as illusory as well. Ah, the gorgeous metaphorical possibilities!

Now, on to the inconsistencies: Critics and viewers have balked at how stereotypical the characters are, at how melodramatic it is (it is a bit) and I wonder about the part where they executed: does this really happen? It feels like a cop-out somehow – like the director wanted to maximize the fullest possible melodramatic, emotional impact of the film. In other words,it feels like he sold out for a western audience. I have seen Hu Die (Butterfly), Candy Rain and Spider Lilies, and though the endings may or may not be desirable, you will always notice how strong and positive the depiction of Chinese women are. And nowhere is the execution of women for homosexuality so implausible as in China. If it were in India, where homosexuality, until recently, was criminalized, or in the Middle East, maybe, but China? They are probably as intolerant as the next society, but I have never heard homosexuals being shot for being gay in China. I could be wrong, of course and generalizations cannot account for individual knee-jerk emotional reactions.

Overall, though, this is a gorgeous, gorgeous film, a beautiful, quiet meditation on love, devotion and sacrifices,  and I recommend it – if only because, sans ending, it rises above the drama and turn love into something almost…lyrical.

Trivia:

• Although Mylene Jampanoi is half-French and half-Chinese, she actually only speaks French and English. She had to learn her lines phonetically. This means she and co-star Li Xiao Ran could not, during the duration of filming, understand each other and Jampanoi needed a translator to communicate with the rest of the cast.
• Jampanoi lived with her co-star Li Xiao Ran for the three months that they were shooting in Vietnam, to establish that intimacy and chemistry so prevalent in the film.
• Jampanoi does not wear contacts in this movie: those are her real eyes.
• I suspect Jampanoi might be the next French import to Hollywood. But that’s just me.
• It is believed that this film was based on two Chinese women in the 1980s who fell in love and had been discovered by the father of one of the women. They were accused of murdering the father and were sentenced to death for the murder (something that was omitted in the film, and which would have made more sense).
• This movie is actually Sijie Dai’s indictment of the Chinese communist regime – regimented, disciplined, isolated, stern, rigid, and so on (quite different from my own analysis, it would seem).

Retro-mad film review: Milk (US, 2008)

Usually I have low expectations about popular or famous or well-publicized films. I especially am wary of films that get good reviews from the gay media. I know they play for my team – but more often than not, they give good reviews to some movies that can really be bad sometimes.

So, I watched this film with some reservations and apprehensions – only to be blown away by how beautiful this film is.

“Milk” tells the story of the first gay district supervisor Harvey Milk, played with fearless verve and aplomb by Sean Penn. Directed by Gus Van Sant, the story chronicles the life and times of Harvey Milk – from when he hits 40 and realizes that he has not done anything he is proud of, to realizing that he could change this by running for supervisor, ultimately galvanizing a fragmented gay group into one organized movement that not only helped repeal Proposition 8 – a proposition that would ban gay and lesbian teachers from teaching but passed the first gay-friendly laws in the United States.

I loved this film. It has a documentary feel about it, it feels raw and authentic, very real. It catches the feel of the 70s, from the clothes, to the hair (the hair! always the hair!), the cars, the shops, the streets, right down to the grainy, all-too bright lighting of 70s filmmaking. It calls to mind all the 70s TV shows and movies I used to watch when I was a kid.I loved the editing and how fast-paced the movie is. It drops you right in the middle of the action and does not stop until it gets to Milk’s death.  There are also no dull moments – all the frames are filled with substance, and stylish documentary style filmmaking. The script of the story is tight and inclusive, remembering to include other issues happening during that time as well and managing to make the film relevant, even though this film was set in the 70s.

I loved how it did not paint Milk as neither hero nor saint, but an ordinary person with a strong motivation, a business and media-savvy sense, brilliant and flawed at the same time, and all together human at the same time, and Sean Penn plays him so well. I liked the supporting cast, from James Franco’s Scott (that guy should start winning awards now – he’s officially pushed the envelope on the number of risque roles he’s played), to Alison Pill’s lesbian campaign manager,to Diego Luna as Milk’s lover. Kudos goes to Josh Brolin as the conflicted, tormented Dan White, who manages to convey just the right amount of inner conflict and empathy for a character that would, in the hands of a lesser actor, would just come out as evil.

Milk is one of those films that leave you emotionally drained after seeing the ending – but it is also one of those films that will renew your spirit, inspire you and hopefully make you want to make the world a better place. Watch it. You won’t regret it.

Off to watch “The Chinese Botanist’s Daughter” now.

World Cinema and DVD review: The World Unseen (UK, 2007) & Wonderwoman (2007)

Bet you’re wondering why I have a lesbian film and an animated film in one review,huh? Bear with me.

See, the thing is I watched Shamim Sarif’s “The World Unseen” in the hopes that it would be a better film than “I Can’t Think Straight”.

I am happy to report that it is better than the other film. There is much improvement on the story telling, much more improvement on the acting (although it still sometimes verges on the camp), there is a little bit more characterization and the tackling of the issues of identity, sex, sexuality, freedom, race, culture, family and relationships in 1950s apartheid-drenched South Africa is a refreshing exploration that is much more realistic than the aforementioned, gaudy, candy-infused “I Can’t Think Straight”.

Lisa Ray plays Miriam, an Indian woman living in South Africa in the 50s,  trapped in a loveless marriage with a man cheating on her with her sister-in-law (which does not make sense to me as who, in his frigging right mind, would cheat on somebody who looks like Lisa Ray?). Sheetal Sheth is Amina, an Indian cafe owner,  channeling Mary Stuart Masterson’s Idgie Threadgood, with the penchant for men’s clothes, allowing black people to illegally dine in her Indians-only restaurant and being rebellious. Basically the story revolves around their getting to know of and their attraction to, each other, with a bit of discussion on what it means to be a woman in their era (much like Deepa Mehta’s “Fire”), with Amina finding ways to get to know her by offering to do her garden for her, teaching her to drive and a giving her a part-time job in her cafe. Along the way, we encounter issues arising from arranged marriages, apartheid, and so on. This is all well and good, and I get the writer/director’s intention, except it falls flat somehow, and it ends too abruptly. It feels like it is a movie used as a vehicle only for the writer/director’s own beliefs or propaganda, forcefeeding or, more like, ramming her beliefs on women’s and civil rights, down our throats -whether we like it or not.

I know we don’t go watch a movie to improve ourselves, but surely if we are going to watch a movie anyway, we would want a movie that would present us all the facts and just let us form opinions based on those facts? It’s called storytelling, exposition and this story lacks it. It just goes on and on to a natural build-up, only to end abruptly with no proper resolution in sight. Plus I feel like it is such a cop out that Amina seduces the vulnerable, unloved Miriam. Sure women fall in love with other women given such circumstances, but Amina just looks really predatory.

On a good note though, I did like Miriam’s story – how she finds the courage to assert herself, as her husband gets increasingly violent, and find herself and the reservoir of  inner strength within her (despite predatory Amina). Plus, it does introduce me to Nina Simone. ^^

Anyway, thus, I resolved to take a break from live action films and watch animation for awhile. The wonderful thing about animation, especially if it is genre animation, is that it frees up its creative team to explore the explosive issues of race, sexuality, sex, power, freedom, rights, and so on without necessarily sounding pontificating. I am a big fan of both the DC and Marvel Comics universe, and I especially love the female heroes. Wonderwoman is a nostalgic favorite – she was there long before Jean Grey and the others came, at least in popular form (TV, for one).

Thus, I watched “Wonderwoman”. This 2007 film goes back to the origins of Diana before she became Wonderwoman.  It therefore starts with Hyppolita and the war her people wage against Ares, the God of War after he destroys their nation. Her defeat of Ares facilitates the beginning of their utopian paradise, with the gods bargaining her to spare Ares’ life in exchange for a piece of mystical island, the child she has long prayed for (Diana) and the peace she has long sought after. Ares’ powers would be controlled and he will be imprisoned and guarded by the Amazons for all eternity.

Diana grows up to be the best warrior in their island, but she grows restless and feels the need to venture in the outside world. Her mother, Hyppolita, forbids it, for she believes the world outside their island to be a place ruled by heartless, war-mongering men bent only on destroying the world. The chance crash landing of an American pilot and Ares’ escape, give Diana that chance to leave the island, winning a competition, through treachery, which sought to decide who would lead him back to the outside world and at the same time be the Amazon warriors’ ambassador. Diana’s introduction to the outside world is both a rude awakening that reinforces Amazonians’ anti-male beliefs, but her friendship with the pilot opens up an inner dialogue within her which makes her see that the male of the species can, despite everything, be capable of love, and thus, by extension, be capable of redemption.

Now, the thing with Wonderwoman is she has always been a postmodern hero. Amazon warrior princess she is, but her appearance, her costume, her lasso of truth (which is really funny when you think about it), her seemingly outdated, naive ideas about men and women, seem very 60s, very women’s lib, and thus, in a modern world, it is very out of place.  Yet her ability to sift through all the lies and hate (on both sides), to process and synthesize and come up with her own beliefs about what it means to be a woman in a new millenium, resonates with some truth. What it suceeds in doing is pointing out that extreme beliefs (extremely left-wing or extremely right-wing, for example) are dangerous, and it is being open to possibilities that humanity can still change and that one can choose to be a catalyst of that change, that makes this film relevant. This is even truer now, especially in light of what I feel to be a regression to pre-civil rights era, with people re-acquiring ignorant ideas about women and gays and lesbians and passing them off as truth (are you listening, Daily Mail?).

Ultimately, what this animated film succeeds in doing, is offering up the possibility of considering a dialogue between the sexes in a new world where the old rules no longer apply. While it may be too much analysis for just one simple animated film, the truth of the matter is, sometimes you find the most interesting things in the most unlikely places. ^^

And thus, where “The World Unseen” fails, “Wonderwoman” succeeds.

World Cinema: I Can’t Think Straight (or, as I call it,”I Can’t Keep a Straight Face”) (UK, 2007)

Back from lesbian film reviewing hiatus!

The review:

From the very first scenes of gaudy sprawling mansions, loud, colorful parties, upbeat Asian music and pompous, wealthy Palestinian and Indian families celebrating engagements at separate ocasions, one might see, at first glance, that this film is both intimidating, ambitious and promising.

Unfortunately it is a film that falls short of its ambition and never lives up to its promising beginning. But the title is right about one thing though: it can’t make you think straight… about the film itself. Or for that matter, keep a straight face.

Lisa Ray (left) and Sheetal Sheth as Tala and Leyla

Impossibly gorgeous and sexy Palestinian Tala (Lisa Ray) is engaged to her fifth fiance while pretty Leyla (Sheetal Sheth) is engaged to be married herself. Their lives are quite literally worlds apart. Tala comes from a wealthy but traditional Jordanian family whose world revolves around socializing with fellow upper-class Jordanians and other Middle Eastern families in lavish parties, charity balls and sponsorships, money, tennis and polo, going to Ivy League schools, ocassionally offering their needless two cents worth about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and of course, for the ladies, the wonderfully constricting life of engagements and weddings, with important debates on the importance of snagging rich husbands. Their worldview is effectively summed up by a guest in one of these parties: “Character and looks come and go, only large sums of money last forever”. I smirk. This is hilarious, in light of the global financial crisis, since it has proven that large sums of money DO NOT, in fact, last forever.

A few minutes of watching this world unfold and already I am overwhelmed by the arrogance dripping from the rich’s very pores. I already loathe them.

Leyla is a second generation Indian woman living with her family (doting dad, nagging mom, nosy younger sister) in London engaged to a nice (aren’t they all?), affable professional Indian man who, quite conveniently, is friends with Tala. Leyla works at her father’s insurance firm, where her father is waiting for her to take over the business soon, teaching her gems like, “You do not sell life insurance, it sells itself.”  Leyla harbors a secret longing, however, to write and we see this in her surreptitiously writing stories in her father’s office.

Leyla and Tala meet when Leyla’s fiance takes her to a tennis match with them. After the game, there is the requisite bonding moment in the shower room between the two women (removing dirt from eyelash, holding hurt fingers), and a follow-up meeting between the two in a polo game where they have more time to talk to each other, away from their fiances.  It does not stop there, of course. They get to know each other further (clearly they cannot stay away from each other – they should have just come out now and end the movie!) by having walks in the park, where we find out that Tala has broken off a handful of engagements in the past already (she is so gay!) and that Leyla wants to be a writer. When Tala invites Leyla to Oxford for a weekend getaway, Leyla’s family gets a bit suspicious and she gets too defensive, but astute younger sister figures out that she might be gay when she spots Leyla’s barely concealed stash of lesbian paraphernalia (Jeanette Winterspoon! K.D. Lang! Sarah Waters! The director’s own published works!), because well, when we are in the closet and scared that our conservative, close-knit, nosy Asian families will find out, we display lesbian paraphernalia in our rooms for everyone to see!

In Oxford, there are more walks in the park, there is even a picnic, and a trip to the museum,complete with intellectual discussions on Oxford and Matthew Arnold, because obviously the director wants us to see how intense and cerebral these two are and how so meant for each other they are.

The barely there sexual tension and chemistry are finally felt in the most exciting, un-self conscious, sexy, seductive scene in the film, where Tala, in silky, flimsy lingerie (who could resist a woman in that?!?) talks Leyla into dancing with her to Middle Eastern music and before the song ends they fall in bed together and you can guess the rest.

(This scene has taught us one important thing : Middle Eastern and Indian women know how to seduce…other women.)

Unfortunately it’s all downhill from there.

The rest of the film charts Leyla and Tala’s journey as they finally acknowledge not only the sexual attraction they have, but the romantic connection they have with each other as well, as well as come to terms with their sexuality, come out, face family disapproval, move out, break off engagements and find their way back to each other again. But not before going through and surviving, cliches, cringe-worthy dialogue, unintentionally hilarious  dramatic scenes, and the director’s own conceit and self-indulgence.

For surely the one thing that unifies this film is the director’s belief that since she is the director, she can make this film in her own image.

This would have been alright (directors are afterall, known for that.It’s practically a requirement!), except this is combined with a seeming inexperience with dialogue, set-ups and directing actors. This is novelist Shamim Sarif’s first film, and the inexperience shows: there are scenes and set-ups that are either unnecessary and/or awkward, stilted dialogue and the acting is embarassingly too theatrical to be taken seriously. One can argue though that this is the director’s way of criticizing the class system in both the Indian and Middle Eastern cultures,where the characters are caricatures intentionally and hastily drawn as people obsessed with – wait for it – money. But even if that were the case, I cannot help but snicker at Tala’s over-the-top, haughty, snobby mother and her friends, as well as the Indian contingent, led by the Indian mother, who emphasizes her Indianness too much (because, well, we viewers are idiots and need verbal instructions on a very visual medium).It is a good thing that both Lisa Ray and Sheetal Seth are both gorgeous, since their beautiful faces distract me from the acting and the dialogue. In fact, let me just say,Lisa Ray is hot!

The film does succeed in one thing though: depicting how constricting and paralyzing being stuck in a conservative society is. Which, of course, again, the director delights in emphasizing to us over and over again via dialogues between Tala and Leyla, and between each one and their parents.

For example, Tala and Leyla, after their very hot and sweet love scene the night before, have to endure the morning after conversation: the obligatory processing, with requisite, “I never knew this can make me feel alive” followed by “This is not accepted in Jordan society” or some such crap, and ending with “We can’t live like this”.

The unintentionally cringe-worthy drama and the accompanying cliches escalate to unbearable heights, when the film comes up with lines that are straight out of a soap opera, which, when coming from soaps are forgiveable, but which, coming from a movie that, at the beginning demanded to be taken seriously  – is downright cheesy.

For example, when Leyla finally comes out to her Indian mother that she is gay and the mother does not take it very well, the father comes in and says,”What did I miss?” and Leyla says, “I’m gay!” and the father quips, “But I’ve only been gone two hours!” I thought it was too funny.

But this was quickly ruined by a soap opera-like hysterical, high-pitched, teary-eyed confrontation between mother and daughter about God, religion, homosexuality being a sin versus it being natural ending with mother telling daughter, “You will burn in hell!”

I also take issue with the scene with the books as well – that is just lazy exposition and it is too obvious! And strategically placing director Shamim Sarif’s own book (Despite the falling snow) into the scene just reeks of shameless plugging and vanity. When I saw the Sarah Waters book (“Fingersmith” I recall – you can’t really miss the book spine) I thought it was funny and too obvious.

But that is the thing with this film: it is too obvious. There is no subtlety. So there is no joy in discovering each character. Everything is ready for you to regurgitate, whether you like it or not. It is too processed, like food you can buy at Tesco’s or Walmart. It’s sad that it references Sarah Waters – who at least shows a deft mastery of how a relationship slowly develops between two women revealed, through secret smiles and longing glances – and that it does not take some pointers from her.

Hmmm..I have seen “Fire” and I have seen this. I still do not like either. I do not like this one more.

Probably because it tries too hard. It’s cliched and contrived, pompous and pretentious. I know all art may be contrived and pretentious, (else how would you start anything?) but the best kind of art transcends that initial pretention and turns something mundane into something sublime.

I do not wish for this movie to be that kind of art. I just wish it to be a bit more tied to the ground. A bit more reined in. Because the one thing that this movie is, is that  it is too way in over its own head. I think once the director reconciles the differences between prose and film, she will probably come out with a better film feature.

US Trailer

UK Trailer (because I like this one better)

Director: Shamim Sarif, Screenplay: Shamim Sarif

Retro-mad film review: Fingersmith (UK, BBC, 2005)

There is a line from Rupert Evans’ villainous character, Mr. Rivers, that sums up my whole experience of this BBC movie: “I cannot find the words”.

I know that’s being melodramatic, but it is true. I watched this yesterday, after months of ignoring it because I’d heard it was a) a Victorian drama with b) lesbians so I thought that c) it would end badly. Plus I’d read enough Victorian, semi/pseudo/quasi-Victorian books to know that anything with two women in it would not be good.

I digress. Lesbians in a Victorian London – I had low expectations about “Fingersmith”, and prepared myself to be disappointed, and be horrified at the fates of a pair of star-crossed lovers.

Imagine my pleasant surprise when this TV movie by the BBC, adapted from British lesbian author Sarah Waters’ novel of the same name, turns out to be good, nay, better than I expected. I was so taken by it that I almost didn’t want to review it, reduce it to an academic and/or technical dissertation. It felt like I’d discovered some treasure long buried in this movie and I wanted to hoard it for a little while longer, savor it, as it were. Mind you, I’d watched “It’s in the Water”, “Out at the Wedding” and “Desert Hearts” before this, so finding this little gem was like a breath of fresh air. Where the movies I’d mentioned previously were bad (on many levels) – this movie boasts of a stellar cast, led by Golden Globe winner Sally Hawkins,Academy Award nominee Imelda Staunton and Charles Dance, so that also was kind of like icing on the cinematic experience as well. ^^
This is a three-part BBC TV movie series, directed by Aisling Walsh from a screenplay by Peter Ransley based on the book by Sarah Waters. So, here goes the review…

The story (Warning – spoilers!):

The movie opens on Victorian London in the 1800s (the London of Charles Dickens times), and begins with Susan “Sue” Trinder (Sally Hawkins). Sue has grown up an orphan and has been raised in the squalid, slums of London, in Lan Street, looked after by the crime ring leader, Mrs. Sucksby (Imelda Staunton). Sue is an illiterate, streetwise,  fingersmith, a kind of female version of Dicken’s Artful Dodger to Mrs. Sucksby’s Fagin. Life is hard, but Sue is comfortable and unambitious.

Enter Richard “Gentleman” Rivers (Rupert Evans), a young middle-class penniless gambler and swindler who has discovered that in the middle of countryside, in a place called Briar Court, a young woman is set to inherit some £40,000 from her long-dead mother, but only if she gets married. The young woman, Maud Lilly (Elaine Cassidy) has been plucked out of an orphanage by uncle, Mr. Lilly (Charles Dance), when she was a girl, after her mother died, and he has brought her up as his secretary and has effectively kept her isolated and hence perpetually single so she could not get her inheritance. Gentleman’s plan is simple: woo the naive girl, marry her, throw her in a mental asylum, and get the £40,000 for himself. For the plan to work, he needs an accomplice, an ally who would act as Maud’s maid, somebody who could convince Maud to elope with Gentleman. This is were Sue comes in – Sue will, for an agreed £3,000, be Maud’s maid. Her agreement to the plan sets in motion the events that follow.

Sue has initial apprehensions about pulling off being a maid – she is, afterall, only a fingersmith, a thief, but Gentleman trains her to become one. But she meets Maud and she realizes that it is going to be easier than she thinks: Maud looks properly naive, innocent, sweet, sheltered, that deceiving her would be easy.

Everything is supposed to go well – but Sue does not count on the unexpected: she actually likes the young woman, and as Maud seems charmed by her as well, they strike a friendship with each other. Sue becomes not only a maid, but companion and confidante. From nightmares, to toothaches, to learning how to dance, Sue goes through everything with her. Sue forgets that she is about to betray this girl that she has come to like, until Gentleman comes back to reap  what Sue has sown. This complicates matters for her and provides an interesting tension in the story. Sue admits that she hadn’t realized until Gentleman arrived, how happy she was, and how much she hated Gentleman.  As Gentleman woos Maud on the pretext of teaching her painting, Sue is wracked with guilt and doubts. As the impending marriage looms, the intensity and tension between Maud and Sue increase, culminating in a scene where Sue starts out teaching Maud how to kiss Gentleman, which ends up being a full-on love scene. It starts out funny, even amusing, but as the intimacy deepens, there is a tenderness and sweetness. There is nothing exploitative or sexy about the scene, but it is a very gentle scene and reveals much about how the two feel about each other. Interestingly, Maud responds to her as well. And thus is an already complicated situation made even more complicated, the balance of power, the relationship between the two has shifted, and makes what follows after even more unexpected. Sue already knows that she is in love with Maud. But the shame and embarrassment of failure, of being laughed at for falling in love with another girl, of going back to Lan Street empty-handed, pushes her to go through with the plan. She finds the heart to assist Gentleman and Maud in eloping.

The beginning of the second part shows Sue assisting Maud to escape Briar Court in time for her wedding with Gentleman. Before Gentleman’s wedding night with Maud, Maud and Sue have an intimate moment again. Sue is on the brink of breaking down. Gentleman arranges for pseudo-psychiatrists to evaluate Maud’s mental state and they interview Maud and Sue separately for this. Sue breaks down in the middle of the interview, revealing how much she cares for Maud and how horrible she feels at betraying her.

Gentleman and Sue bring Maud to the mental hospital, and as the carriage door opens, a second passes, and then it is Sue that is pulled out by the doctors and nurses, not Maud. When Maud speaks in Sue’s accent, it is revealed that she is in on the plan as well and had planned to betray her and put her in the asylum. It is this part that completely took me by surprise and had me hooked. I thought it was brilliant. ^^

During this part, Maud reveals her side of the story: Gentleman had come to Briar Court proposing a plan to Maud. Gentleman knew that Maud had a fortune that she can only inherit if she marries and he proposes they elope so that she can get her inheritance, in exchange for a portion of her wealth. In order to pull it off, they must get rid of her existing maid and replace her with a more compliant one: Sue. Maud is to become Sue, and she will be thrown in the asylum, so that Maud can escape to London. Maud is initially reluctant, but the thought of being stuck in Briar Court, with her stern, pseudo-academic uncle, reading pornographic books to him and his friends, forever, won over her need to stay, and she agrees to his plan. Maud is revealed to be manipulative, cold and calculating, which makes her an actually more effective villain than Sue. I find Elaine Cassidy perfectly cast as Maud Lilly – she has that perfectly innocent, naive, deer-in-the-headlights look, which makes her betrayal of Sue all the more compelling. While Sally Hawkins has gotten more critical praise for portraying Sue – and well she should, since Hawkins reveals an impressive acting range all in the space of a heartbeat, conveying a range of emotions from cockiness, to goofiness, to guilt, to doubt, and love. This is made more so as her feelings for Maud deepen and I found her acting to be quite excellent. But anyone who is familiar with Victorian society would know that the women of the middle and upper-classes are trained to be reserved, to be inscrutable . And hence, Maud’s portrayal of a reserved, inscrutable young Victorian lady who reveals herself to be cunning and scarily manipulative, is brilliant. Cassidy’s Maud is thus an effectively complex character, the more fascinating one of the two, since she is the one who pulls of a deception more.

But as with Sue, she does not count on liking Sue as well. Sue’s charm, the development of their relationship, gives her doubts about their plans. Sue’s presence in her life awakens something in Sue, and gives meaning even to the books she reads for her uncle. In the pivotal love scene, Maud narrates, “She has touched the life of me, the quick of me” (Ah! I’ve always loved how the British use words! that line always kills me) But her determination to leave Briar Court and be free of her uncle,wins over her love for Sue. And so, wracked with guilt, she betrays Sue.

When she gets to London, Gentleman brings her to Lan Street and it is revealed there, by Mrs. Sucksby, that their little scheme is part of an even bigger scheme, a plan that Mrs. Sucksby has been planning since Maud and Sue were children. Apparently Maud isn’t really the daughter of her uncle’s sister. Sue is the real daughter and her dying mother had not wanted her to be put in the care of her uncle. So, Mrs. Sucksby gives away Maud, a young orphan Mrs. Sucksby comes across and she takes in the young Sue. The mother makes a will where Maud and Sue both inherit money the minute they both turn 21, and Maud realizes not only that she is way in over her head, but the full extent of her betrayal of the woman she loves.

The third part shows Sue’s life in the asylum, how she escapes. It is also revealed that Mrs. Sucksby is Maud’s mother. The third part sustains the tension, culminating in the confrontation scene where Mrs. Sucksby, Maud, Sue and Gentleman confront each other. A tussle ensues, during which Gentleman is stabbed and killed. Maud attempts to confess, but Mrs. Sucksby takes the blame and is hanged. Maud and Sue part and that would have been the end of it, except Sue gets hold of her real mother’s will and finds out who she and Maud really are. Sue looks for Maud, finds her and find a way to forgive each other.

Whew!

What can I say? I love, love this film. I loved the story, I loved the plot, I loved the characters, I loved the costumes, I loved this film. ^^

The first part is a a delight to watch, a kind of guilty pleasure. It starts out slow, languid, demanding you to enjoy it, to savor everything. The  background, the characterization is laid out perfectly. The dramatic, sexual and romantic tension between Maud and Sue are so engaging you find yourself rooting for these two. It establishes the two main characters as emphatic and as victims, and what happens next, in the second part, is unexpected and thus compelling.

By the time I was watching the second part, when Maud’s thoughts are revealed,and she shows herself to be a clever, scheming young lady, I was fascinated! Why did I not see that coming? I think to myself.  And when Mrs. Sucksby reveals that she has always been a small part of Mrs. Sucksby’s bigger scheme, I thought it was positively diabolical. It was so wicked, I must admit I liked it. Imelda Staunton’s Mrs. Sucksby is f*cking diabolical. To have planned such an elaborate scheme that extends for 20 years- that’s just frigging remarkable.  And to be able to make her own daughter scheme with her unwittingly, that is even more fascinating – Maud is thus her mother’s daughter after all, even though she has grown up in a different environment.

I love how complex and complicated the two main characters, Maud and Sue,  are, how three-dimensional they are, how intense  they are. I love that this being the Victorian era, you have to rely mostly on their actions, their facial expressions, because even their voice overs don’t necessarily speak the truth.

I find myself invested in the two main characters. I’ve never had that feeling in a long time. I wanted to know what was going to be happen next. I was excited to know. It was a refreshing film. It is a testament to the writing, the acting,and most especially 2 relatively unknown actresses who turn out to be really good (Sally Hawkins moves on to win awards, including the Golden Globes for a movie in 2009).

I like the symmetry of this film as well. It begins with a hanging, it ends with a hanging, Sue’s mother was in the madhouse, and she is sent to the madhouse as well. I love the climax, in the third part – when Maud and Sue finally confront each other. It’s like some fucking brilliant lover’s quarrel. ^^ But that climax – is paradoxically anti-climactic as well. All that build-up and a brief tussle and Gentleman is dead.^^

This is excellent storytelling (I bet the book is even better), and I loved every minute of it.

I did, however, find the voice overs a put-off. I realize now why some critics don’t like them – they are a bit condescending and operate on the assumption that the viewers are idiots who need a step-by-step, point-by-point account of what is going on, when the 2 leads are talented enough to carry the movie without either the voice overs or the shrieking music: they succeed in creating a a sustained romance, chemistry that is deeply heartfelt.

But the voice over succeeds in one thing: establishing the difference between Maud and Sue’s characters. Maud is literate and more educated and therefore more articulate about how she felt. But she is also very good at justifying her actions. Sue reveals herself not to be as streetwise as she thought herself to be, and all the more innocent.

The other thing is the music. That annoying tinkling piano and the shrieking violin – I can’t take them seriously since reading Adrian Mole’s Cappucino Years (long story – suffice it to say that apparently this kind of music is typical of BBC productions). They are just so effing unnecessary.

Anyway, other than that, this is a proper story, with a proper ending, with the proper comeuppance for the proper villains – none of that villains-are-human- too crap from other films.

The reviewer at afterellen.com noted that this film would leave the viewer cynical about the world…I say, on the contrary. It actually restores your faith in humanity and your natural sense of order and justice: the evil ones get punished, the good ones end up together in the end.

It is an old-fashioned story with post-modern sensibility. One would find one’s life a bit enriched by the insight into humanity that this film provides. ^^

the voice overs are a put-off but other than that

Retro-mad movie marathon review: Out at the Wedding (US, 2007)

The story:

Cosmopolitan New Yorker (isn’t that an oxymoron?) Alex (Andrea Marcellus) is engaged to Dana (Mystro Clark), an Jewish African-American pilot. She has deceived Dana into believing that her whole family is dead, as the family is a typical wealthy small town family from the South whom she thinks are conservative and too embarrassing to introduce to her fiance (poor Southerners, always getting bad rap from lesbian movies. ^^ Please see “It’s in the Water” for similar setting). She is estranged from her distant father, and equally estranged from her younger sister, Jeannie (Desi Lydic) with whom she has a love-hate relationship, since the younger sister has a rep for always stealing her boyfriends (glad I don’t have that problem with my sib). However, when Jeannie gets married, Alex attends the wedding, dragging her gay best friend, Jonathan (Charlie Shlatter – whose film credits include “Police Academy: Mission to Moscow” – heheh I thought he looked familiar! I only remember him because that film featured a very young Claire Forlani – crush!) along. When Jonathan has a conversation with a drunken wedding guest who mistakes his coming out to mean that Alex is a lesbian and that Dana is a woman (stupid wedding guest!), the misunderstanding turns into gossip that spreads like wildfire and Alex finds herself being outed. Surprisingly, her fake lesbianism becomes a way to be closer to her father, who, though disapproving of it, grudgingly accepts her, and to be as close to her younger sister, who suddenly displays a sudden interest in her (and I quote) “lifestyle” (you can so see where this is going, can’t you?).  Alex doesn’t find the heart to tell them that she isn’t gay and that Dana isn’t a woman, but a Jewish African American man, because it’s the first time she’s ever connected to her sister and father. She thus hires, against her better judgment and at the suggestion of her best friend, a lesbian, Rissa, played by Cathy de Buno, who, in typical lesbian fashion, is an electrician by day, and an artist by night who doesn’t do coffee, processed food, processed sugar, meat or milk. Alex walks Rissa through her life and helps her to be more like Dana, while Rissa familiarizes Alex with the gay scene (lesbian actress Jill Bennett and lesbian stand-up comedian Julie Goldman make an appearance here). There’s an awkward scene where Alex tries to be more butch by wearing flannel shirts, jeans, a mullet and a neck choker – which is just not that good (I like flannel as well, I don’t know. It must be a gay thing). Anyway, things start becoming complicated when Alex’s future father-in-law runs into her while she’s with Rissa, and Rissa confuses him with her real family, which complicates things even further. Things get worse when Jeannie the sister comes for a visit and starts flirting with Rissa. Alex is horrified that Risssa is flirting with her as well. To make matters worse, the future in-laws start suspecting that Alex is hiding something and start investigating her “lifestyle”. An awkward scene ensues, where Rissa, Jeannie and Alex are in the living room trying to explain away the misunderstanding to the future in-laws which gets even me confused. To distract everyone from Alex’s deceitful ways, her befriend pulls them into a ballroom dancing competition, a bad idea, since Rissa and Jeannie become even closer – culminating in a kissing scene on the streets and a thwarted make-out scene in Alex’s apartment, thus effectively outing Jeannie and complicating things even further – effectively stretching my patience too much, as well. Of course, the future in-laws come, the fiance comes, father and Jeannie’s new husband come and oh, joy, more drama and complication! Suffice it to say that things get sorted out and everyone goes to bed with the one they really want and the wedding takes place as planned. The end.

Verdict: This is actually better than “It’s in the Water” – it’s a bit less awkward, the acting is a bit better, the storyline is a bit more plausible, but I find the complications, the ensuing lies (the lies that beget more lies)  that pile up one after the other to get tedious to the point of annoying. It feels a bit like it wants to be a Woody Allen movie, complete with the jazzy/bluesy soundtrack (it is, after all, set in New York), or at least wants to be its erstwhile, far superior sister film, “Kissing Jessica Stein”, but where “Jessica Stein” succeeds in its artsy, classy, intellectual approach to the idea of a single New York woman trying to find love in the Big Apple, “Out at the Wedding” feels like it tries too much to be something it’s not. However, it does gets points for trying and it is still fun to watch.

I am now off to watch another lesbian film.

Indie film retro-review marathon: It’s in the Water, Out at the Wedding (US)

Watched three lesbian movies today. Without further ado, let’s go to the first one.

In the Water – The story:

Pretty Alexandra is the only child of wealthy parents in a small southern town. Like a proper southern wife pre-recession times,  she fills her time with meetings with the other housewife socialites, volunteers at the local hospice for AIDS survivors, and is married to a big gorilla of a man who gives her a hefty allowance, bank account and a really, cool silver convertible.

Things start rolling when this same hospice becomes the subject of scrutiny and opposition from the conservative, intolerant town, made more so by the fact that a drunken gay man has spread a rumor that it’s the town water that makes people gay. The rumor prompts the town to start buying bottled water, demand that the water be tested, and close down the local hospice. As the small town becomes polarized, Alexandra is beginning to think how bigoted and homophobic her town really is. As family and friends insist she abandon her cause, she wholeheartedly embraces it, and quits the women’s league to prove her point. She strikes a friendship with one of the nurses, who just happens to be a childhood bestfriend of hers, and as the controversy intensifies, so do their friendship, especially when the bestfriend comes out to her and tell her she’s gay. When she gets caught kissing her bestfriend, in the closet (how apt), one of her friends catches her, and this sets off a string of events: her husband leaves her, he closes all but her personal savings account and gets her convertible back. But she remains adamant in her convinctions and the town has no choice but to accept her.

Two words: Semi-bad movie.

Explanation: When you’re gay, and you’re desperate for representation, you’ll watch anything. And I mean anything.

First off, this “it’s-in-the-water” premise is totally over-the-top and doesn’t really fly with me (it flew by me, yes), mostly because the underlying satirical and ironic tone isn’t as sustained as that of “But I’m a Cheerleader” and other social satires about lesbians. Also, this is I think early 90s, so the fashion is awful, lots of teased hair, high-waist jeans that taper down and hug the ankles, vests and other horrid clothing.

However, this film has a bit of charm  – it gets points for referencing all the classic lesbian films in one scene (as part of research), which I applaud, since I did the same thing (except mine was the artsy indie ones, like Patricia Rozema’s “When Night is Falling” – a personal favorite). It also gets points for casting attrative women to act as lesbians -  really just to distract us from the acting. Some of the dialogue is clunky,the acting is wooden, but there are really laugh-out-loud unintentionally funny lines:

Alexandra: I want to kiss you.

Bestfriend: You won’t like it. (Nyahahahaha! how cheesy is this?!?)

Stab me now. Stab me now. I have only myself to blame.

Retro-mad film review: What’s Cooking? (US, 2000)

“What’s Cooking?” by Kenyan-born Londoner Gurinder Chadha is not so much a movie as an extended version of a Food Network special on thanksgiving, but with a story, a lot of drama and a enough family issues to keep Dr. Phil busy ’til the next century.

And if it were a food special, I imagine the title would be something like: “How different American families from different ethnic backgrounds celebrate thanksgiving” – which pretty much sums up the movie for me. In fact, a bulk of the scenes emphasize this, and there is always dialogue that casually drops such words as “Jewish”, “African-American”, “black”, to emphasize the ethnic backgrounds (in case you miss them). And if the appearance doesn’t clue you in on what race each family is from, then the dialogue will help you along: people speaking in Spanish, or Vietnamese. If you’re really slow, then how each dish is prepared will give you an idea, and the music will guide you along as well. But of course,the best way to help you identify the families would be the stereotypes, token characters and drama that litter this movie (there is nothing like stereotypes about each member of the family to really help you muddle along this one big confusing movie). In fact, There are so many things happening, so much drama going on behind thanksgiving dinners, it’s so hard to keep up (this is not surprising, as the writer-director probably grew up on a healthy diet of East Enders and Emmerdale). Think of it as an American version of the British fave “Love Actually”, but about thanksgiving, not Christmas, minus the charm. I saw so much turkey here I almost swore off turkey for the rest of my life!

The story:

Where to begin? Let me attempt to break it down for you:

There is a Jewish-American family, a Latin-American one, African-American and a Vietnamese-American family (this one’s a bit dodgy – Joan Chen is Chinese and Wil Yun Lee is Korean-American, so I thought it was a Chinese American film at first. The only ones who looked Vietnamese were the two younger kids).

The Jewish American contingent is headed by Lainie Kazan as Ruth Seelig and Maury Chaykin as Herb Seelig, the nervous parents of lesbian daughter Rachel (Kyra Sedgwick) and her hot-in-a-dark-horse-kind-of-way girlfriend, Carla (Juliana Marguiles, ER). The parents are struggling to accept the lesbian daughter and partner, and are basically worried about the stability of the relationship. Kazan’s Ruth is worried that if they break up, Rachel will end up with nothing as the house they stay in is in Carla’s name. Ruth valiantly tries to make the couple welcome, even bravely giving them breakfast (well, cappucino really) in bed, although you can tell she was not happy about it. Things make a turn for the worse when Rachel’s horrid aunt  (we’ve all had at least one of those) comes for thanksgiving dinner and proceeds to grill Rachel on her single status, which pushes Rachel further and further up a wall. This prompts her to blurt out that she is with child, which prompts an outburst from her usually tepid father that she can’t have a baby, she’s a lesbian! effectively outing her to her aunt.

The Vietnamese-Americans, the Nguyens, have their own video shop. But that is not their problem (I personally think the problem is getting Chinese Americans to play Vietnamese Americans and asking us to suspend disbelief and think Joan Chen is Vietnamese…Do you ask white people to play black people? and vice versa? Robert Downey Jr is the exception of course. But that’s just me and I digress.). The Nguyen parents’ problem is their children. Eldest son Jimmy (Wil Yun Lee) is not coming for thanksgiving, on a pretext of midterm exams, but really, he’s just across the road from their house, having dinner with his Latina girlfriend,whom he can’t bring to their house because they’re “conservative”.  Their youngest daughter, a snivelling, whiny little teenager who’s screaming half of the movie (I wanted to slap her so bad she’d go out of every frame of the film. I wanted to slap her so bad she’d get that voice of hers, especially when it was whining, and that acting, to a tolerable level). Anyway,the screaming starts when a condom is found in her coat. It continues to when the family discovers a gun in her gangster wanna-be younger brother’s room and for some inexplicable reason, she manages to sustain this screaming to excruciating levels (but not as excruciating as the acting) when her younger brother’s homies come and collect the gun. I’m surprised the younger brother didn’t have enough sense to get the gun and shoot her. Hell, I’m surprised he didn’t have enough sense to get acting lessons first.

I actually missed the well-adjusted Chinese daughters from “Saving Face” and “Red Doors” (yes, even the bland lesbian one) while I was watching this film.

The African American contingent have their own shit to deal with. Father Ronnie Williams (Dennis Haybert) and other Audrey Williams (Alfre Woodward), they be harboring some kind of African-American middle class guilt. Recovering adulterer father works for a politician working against African American welfare, mother is underappreciated daughter-in-law to an overly critical mother-in-law, and they have a son whose middle class guilt is as palpable as theirs, so palpable in fact, that he has dropped out of business school because well, “there be no blacks in that school!” (and infront of their embarassed white guests no less!). He, of course, wants to major in African American studies. If they make a sequel, he’ll probably come out as gay. Never seen anyone straight act so gay before. ^^

The pressure on Audrey/Alfre to keep the family together becomes so unbearable that when the turkey crashes to the floor and she screams out her nervous breakdown, I thought she should have been more expressive of her breakdown. I actually I wanted to scream with her, but for another reason: scream out my frustration about the flimsy material she has been given. I actually missed her in that Robert Downey Jr. flick “Heart and Souls” (absolutely adore that film!).

Of course the stereotypes pile up when we get to the Latin-American film. By this time, the director (who also happens to be the writer), doesn’t even try anymore. The macho males stay out of the kitchen, watching football, ordering the women to get them more beer, and grunt their joy at a superb tackle or goal. Meanwhile, all the women toil in the kitchen (the stereotypes just keep coming!) making turkey and exchanging gossip. The queen of this casa is Mercedes Ruehl (Lizza Avila), who is recovering from a husband who cheated on her with one of her cousins, and has now moved on by dating a white man. Her daughter is the one dating the Vietnamese American, and of course, they mistake him for Chinese and start talking to him and joking about Jacky Chan and Bruce Lee (the scenes that depict this are almost unbearable to watch). Her son is macho male Tony Avila (an unrecognizable Douglas Spain – whom I completely adored as Andre in the satirical lesbian film, “But I’m a Cheerleader”. Range, people!) who is on his way to being just like his father. Of course, tension mounts when the ultimate Alpha Male of the family, Lizzy’s ex-husband, comes storming back to their lives via thankgiving dinner, asking for Lizzy back. Except Lizzy already has a boyfriend, so you, of course, brace yourself for a major confrontation scene. Actually, I liked Mercedes Ruehl the most in this film. She played it cool, not hysterical and she was in charge of every scene.

But the real star of this show is the turkey. I have never seen so many sizes, so many different ways of cooking turkey in my life. You know this is bad if you appreciate the many possible ways of shooting a turkey (angle, lighting, shots) more than the film itself.

Take your pick from any of the many possible themes/metaphors I’ve culled from this film: Is life one big feast? One big thanksgiving party? Do we adapt the feast to our culture? There are many different interpretations of culture? I don’t know. Do I really care?

Lessons learned: Thanksgiving make you hysterical. Full stop.

This movie is as painful as a hangover. I’m going to go sleep it off now.

Retro-mad review briefly: “A Girl Thing” (US, 2001, TV movie)

There are just so many things wrong with this film, despite the positive reviews from the American media – admittedly from the gay media – but the one thing I’ve realized is gay media will lap up any TV show or film about GLBT people for as long as it portrays GLBT people. Never mind that it is mediocre, or just plain awful, it’s the visibility that matters. Well, I don’t agree with that mindset, and if I find mediocrity in any show or film featuring GLBT people, I would be ruthless.

I came across “A Girl Thing” whilst bored and surfing the internet for more lesbian or lesbian-themed films I can forcefeed down my unsuspecting readers (^^) and saw this one. Like I am wont to do, I surf other sites to see what they thought of it (not because I have no mind of my own, but because I don’t want to waste my time on crappy films). There were positive reviews on this one. Besides, it has a supermodel (Elle McPherson), Steven Spielberg’s wife (Kate Capshaw) and Stockard Channing. What could go wrong, right? Supermodels were a rite of passage for me – while other young girls were busy acclimating to their assigned gender and heterosexual roles, I was busy oggling Cindy Crawford covers on Cosmopolitan (this was before they were franchised and started showing Filipino models instead). This is thus an excuse to show my favorite Supermodel music video of all time, George Michael’s “Freedom 90″:

Anyway,as I mentioned, since there were positive reviews I happily sat down bereft of a sense of foreboding or fear that it would suck. Boy, was I wrong. Sitting through this drive is more excruciating than a root canal. In fact, a root canal might actually be better than this.

The story:

The story opens with hotshot lawyer Lauren Travis (Australian supermodel-turned-actress Elle McPherson, who, clearly having not learned her lesson when she starred in one of the Batman movies, tries her luck again in another movie. Word to Elle: Give up, mate!) going to her therapist, Dr. Beth Noonan (the always awesome Stockard Channing) to process a lesbian experience she has with another woman. The woman in question is Casey Montgomery (Kate Capshaw), an equally successful exec that Lauren meets during a double date. At the end of the night, they find themselves more interested in each other than the bad dates they both end up with, ending up exchanging phone numbers instead. Naturally they call each other, bond, end up having dinner by themselves, culminating in the climactic seduction/love scene, followed by the processing (mostly on Lauren’s part, who is confused by her feelings), the requisite squirm-worthy anti-lesbian things happening (gossip around the office, friends abandoning her, job a bit on the line) and the parting of ways at the end of the story.

See, I have no problem with TV shows, TV movies (this is one of those) or movies tackling post-millenial gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered experience. Changing definitions and ideas of what it means to be gay is well and good, and I am always for open, healthy discourse about this. This film raises issues as, is homosexuality a choice, a lifestyle or something you are born with? Is sexuality fluid? Age-old discussions amongst GLBT circles, I know, but as the world becomes more and more open (and paradoxically more reactionary in the process, as the California Supreme Court shows in its decision to uphold Prop. 8), such discussion helps explore the tricky waters that is sexuality.

Except – watching this was a bit awkward for me, and the dialogue and acting is a bit wooden, excruciating, the plot points grimace-inducing.First of all, it is hard for me to suspend disbelief and be convinced that Elle McPherson and Kate Capshaw are lesbians (or bisexuals, for that matter). Elle McPherson is nothing other than Elle McPherson playing Elle McPherson trying to pull off being a person suddenly interested in a woman. Ditto for Kate Capshaw. The love scenes go on more than is necessary and I had to stay awake during most of it. It was uninspired and trite. Like the acting. I can diss L-Word’s storyline all I want, but that TV show never failed to induce a variety of emotions from me – primarily surprise. Because that show, for all its faults, surprises with the acting and range of its actors.

Another thing is the irrational behavior Travis’ bestfriend, played by Kelly Rowan (from The O.C. – the MILF who introduced me to the word “MILF”) suddenly displays. Yes, being gay can induce many kinds of reactions from homophobes, but Rowan’s character’s reaction – bordering on irrational hysteria and hatred, is puzzling. What? Does she have a crush on Lauren or something? Is she jealous that Lauren is getting some and she isn’t?What?!? Clearly I’m missing something. Maybe if I bang my head against the keyboards some more I’ll be enlightened.

Furthermore, the dialogue is about as exciting as watching traffic. Either that, or as about as excruciating. Consider these lines: Lauren Travis  – “Let me ask you something, do you think that lesbianism and alcoholism are directly related?” and Casey Montgomery answers, “Maybe”.  Also, Casey describes herself as a “career bisexual”. Now, this just makes me say, “What the hell?”

But the winner is Casey Montgomery dishing the dirt about her night with Lauren Travis to her bestfriend: “We did everything but insert foreign objects into each other“. That one just makes me say….eeewww. I understand the need to be detailed when it comes to writing – but that is just way too much information for me.

One line though sums up Casey Montgomery’s dillemma: “I don’t even have the balls to be bisexual”.

Clearly, this movie lacks the balls, full stop.

That being said, the one redeeming value is watching the amazing Stockard Channing. I loved her in “Grease”, loved her in “To Wong Foo”, I loved her “First Wives Club” and pretty much anything where she stars. Here, as a tribute to Stockard Channing, I post my favorite scene from “The First Wives Club”  (or as I like to call it – the First Ajumas Club)

Alright, Stockard Channing is not in this one, but it was still a funny movie and that scene is one my favorites. Goldie Hawn trumps daughter Kate Hudson every time. ^^ It’s scenes like this that make me have this internal soundtrack, playing in my head, like it’s part of a movie or something.

Retro-mad film review: Fried Green Tomatoes (US, 1991)

I was watching stand-up comedian Margaret Cho’s “Revolution” (might review the DVD soon – she’s gay and funny, I’m a big fan), while waiting for Jon Stewart’s greatest lesbian moments load in afterellen.com, (he’s straight, smart,  funny and pro-gay, what more can you ask?) and listening to the radio at the same time. Suddenly, “Baby I Need Your Loving” came on the British radio. I happen to shamelessly and secretly love Motown. The coolest thing about volunteering at Oxfam is having access to a plethora of music ranging from African music, to Motown to 80s music and so on.

The Secret Life of Bees

Anyway, the song plays and I remember “The Secret Life of Bees”, which starred Queen Latifah, Jennifer Hudson, Sophie Okonedo, Alicia Keys and an eeriely older Dakota Fanning. Queen Latifah is an Oscar and Grammy winner (Chicago, Hairspray, but I will always remember her as the bad ass lesbian in “Set If Off” – she rocks a lesbian and she had one hot girlfriend in that movie), Jennifer Hudson is the American Idol runner-up and Oscar winner, Alicia Keys is of course best known for being the New York born, Grammy winning, bad-ass piano prodigy, Dakota Fanning is of course, famous for being the precocious child actor who plays precocious children really well. Anyway, this is another one of those Southern dramas replete with mystery, memories of African American oppression, the fight for civil rights and so on. Set in the 1960s when African Americans were granted the right to vote, it is interesting in the first half, and then it just lost me in the second half. I don’t know why, it just bored me. Though there was tension,  conflict and so on, it just seemed bland, and lacked character motivation and plot. I assume the screenwriters (apparently it was based on a book) assumed that thoughtfully adding issues of class, race, civil rights, a few scenes of violence would make up for its blandness,but that didn’t work. I also think it also has to do with all these award-winning actors all in one movie. I think there should be a rule against that, because I seriously think that one movie can’t take all those award-winning actors all in one show – the universe would simply just…implode. The only good thing I liked about this film was Sophie Okonedo (underrated! She should do more films. And not because she played a mentally challenged young woman in this film), and that’s because I think she has the talent and she could carry a whole film just by her lonesome. I hope she does soon.

Fried Green Tomatoes

Which brings us to Fried Green Tomatoes, a 1991 film directed by Jon Avnet, adapted from the novel by Fanny Flagg entitled “Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe”. I know this is a little dated, it had come out in 1991 and hence is almost two decades old, but it’s worth watching, or re-watching again, because this movie, unlike “The Secret Life of Bees”, is actually a thought-provoking, tender, sweet, well-crafted tale about an American South that’s long gone. It is a movie that is both romantic and bittersweet, and it has all the charm that “The Secret Life of Bees” lacks. Very few stories about the American South touch the heart like this one, and I recommend it to anyone who is looking for a brief respite from the mindless, special effects-laden summer blockbuster line-up this year. I also recommend “The Color Purple” (although I recommend the book more than the movie. But the movie features a very young Whoopie Goldberg in her feature debut, so that’s worth checking out) and “To Kill a Mockingbird” (true, this one has no gay subtext – but I love it nonetheless). And if you’re feeling industrious, you must read and watch (not necessarily in that order) “Gone with the Wind”, the mother of all literature that is American South. Anyway, interestingly enough I get to watch this film only last year – but that was because in 1991, I was in high school, and I had the mistake of reading the movie reviews about this film from a Catholic magazine in my hometown, back in the Philippines, so you can imagine how an impressionable young person would view such a film with such content. But now, I have watched it and I have no regrets.

The Story

Evelyn Couch (the divine Kathy Bates) is in the middle of a mid-life crisis. Overweight, stuck in the suburbs, unhappy with a marriage that has fizzled out and a husband who prefers watching baseball and dinner (preferably at the same time) over her sexual overtures, she is at the end of her rope. A stay-at-home wife, she fills her time going to vagina workshops and workshops that tell her how to rekindle her marriage. Once, when she goes to visit the care home where her mother-in-law (who, of course, hates her) stays, she stumbles across Ninny Threadgoode (Jessica Tandy, “Driving Miss Daisy”) who is alone and lonely herself, but is happy and friendly enough to share the story of the Threadgoodes, especially the life and times of Idgie Threadgoode (Mary Stuart Masterson) and Ruth Jamison (Mary Louise Parker), who go through the ups and downs of life together.

Ruth and Idgie meet while Idgie’s older  and favorite brother, Buddy Threadgoode (Chris O’Donnell) is flirting with Ruth. A tragic accident (Buddy gets run over by a train while trying to retrieve Ruth’s hat) devastates Idgie and she retreats from her family and community, choosing instead to live on her own and to hang out with the town’s not-so-reputable citizens, drinking, smoking, gambling, getting into fights and strutting around in men’s clothes. Idgie’s mother is up-in-arms, but does not know how to deal with this daughter and so, one summer, a few years later, she enlists the help of Ruth (who is staying for the summer before she gets married) to coax Idgie out of her unlady-like, rebellious, uncouth ways and start living like a proper young Southern woman. This proves unsuccessful, and it only draws Ruth into Idgie’s world. Idgie, in fact, succeeds in making Ruth help her give out goods illegally from the back of a train, jump off a train, have a picnic near a bee’s nest, get drunk, play baseball, swim naked and drunk in the river and play poker. While Idgie is already set in her ways, and does not change, clearly Ruth has a soft spot in her heart.

And this is where a lot of viewers, critics and fans have argued. The book on which the film is based makes it clear that Idgie and Ruth are lovers. The film version has sanitized and effectively de-gayed it. But this 1991, pre-Ellen, pre-Will and Grace, pre-Queer as Folk and pre-L-Word. It was a different time then. So when one views this, one can and might become confused about the relationship. One can view them as really close friends or full-on lesbian lovers. If you think they are just intensely close, then you are leaving in the Dark Ages. ^^ For Ruth and Idgie are gayer than the lesbians at a Pride March, the characters of L-Word and Queer as Folk  combined. ^^

Case in point: You can see it in the long, lingering, smoldering looks they give each other , most notably during the bee and honey scene, where, as Ruth looks on while Idgie goes to get honey just for her, a multitude of emotions go over her face: fear, trepidation, admiration, awe. In fact, I do believe this is probably where she falls for the charming Idgie. When after getting drunk during Ruth’s birthday, Ruth announces to her that she is getting married, Idgie’s crestfallen expression gives away much about what she feels, and when Ruth gives her a drunken kiss, Idgie’s expression shifts – like she is perplexed, but also, like she has died and gone to heaven.  And so, when Ruth gets married, Idgie refuses to attend the wedding (because what lesbian in her right mind would want to watch her beloved get married to someone else?) , but drives all the way to Alabama (from Georgia) to see Ruth and her husband set foot in their new house for the first time. It becomes more implicitly gay when Idgie gets up the courage to visit her after a few months (because that’s what we do – especially those of us incapable of articulating our feelings to pretty women ^^), finds out Ruth is being beaten up by her husband and gets all worked up. Ruth convinces her not to do anything and Idgie relents. But when Ruth’s mother dies, and Ruth sends a cryptic biblical verse to Idgie (Ruth 1:16), it sends Idgie bursting in Ruth’s house, taking her away from all the violence of her husband  (but not after her husband hits and kicks her one last time). Ruth leaves with Idgie, and Idgie gets enough money to start off a cafe with her. The front area is for white people, while the back area is for black people. All is well, and Ruth and Idgie raise Ruth’s son together. Ruth’s husband comes back though and demands his wife and son to come back with him, but Idgie defends her family and home, because, you know, Idgie is kind of the “man of the house” – and she rocks the part as well. ^^ Anyway – this is where it gets hazy (this is hazier than the implied relationship between the two main characters): the husband disappears and the issue would have been dead and buried, except one day, the husband’s truck surfaces from a river a few miles from the cafe, so the police from Georgia start investigating. Since they can’t find the body and are aware of the tension between Idgie and the husband – Idgie goes court, only to get off scot-free when her mortal enemy, the town reverend,  concocts an alibi for her at Ruth’s request (now, that is true love). They live a long life, until Ruth dies and Idgie raises her son alone.

This is a story within a story,and the other story here is that of Evelyn, who, upon hearing the story of the two women empowers herself, able to stand up to people who regularly ridicule her, gets a job and even puts  her husband in his place.

Dreamy and poignant, this story is actually as much an ode to an American South long gone, as an ode to the strength, beauty and endurance of female friendships, and relationships, at it were. Production values are sound – although this being the early 90s, it does have that gritty, early-90s-set-in-the-60s feel to it – with none of the glossy, clean feel of newer digital filmmaking and special effects. But this film compensates with a solid story that keeps you riveted to the screen the whole time, superb acting from the leads, especially Mary Louise Parker and Mary Stuart Masterson, and supporting leads from Kathy Bates and the late, great Jessica Tandy (who won an Oscar for this movie). The only beef I had about this film was, as I already mentioned, the sanitized, lesbian overtones. When I was watching it, I had this distinct feeling that Idgie fell for Ruth because she hero-worshipped her brother so much this was a kind of f*cked-up way of getting closer to her dead brother, rather than a natural, personal choice for her. Hence her lesbianism was in direct correlation with the brother, not with Ruth. I find out this is also an issue that other critics have raised with the movie, since the book establishes that Idgie was a flaming lesbian (^^) and her brother had nothing to do with her lesbianism or her feelings for Ruth. There are instances in the book, in fact, when Idgie allegedly has sexual relations with prostitutes, a fact that Ruth is jealous about. Anyway, that being said, this film is still as gay as can be, and as afterellen.com notes, it even has a courtship period, a period of long absence, and a period where they actually get together and live a (not-so) happily ever after. As for the consummation of the relationship, the director reveals in his  commentary of the DVD of this film (commentaries! the greatest thing that has ever happened to DVD! yay!) that since there was no way of showing overt displays of affection in the film – the food fight scene is the outlet with which they show and defuse all that pent-up sexual tension between the two. Good call. All that physical action in the food fight, including the food and sex connection, makes for a good articulation of the subtext.

Overall, despite the downplaying of the gay aspects of it, this is an excellent film. As one watches this, one actually becomes wistful for those days long gone when though the fashion was bad,  the hair was bad and the special effects were bad, in films,but the stories and the acting were good. I hope for a cinematic renaissance of those things soon – maybe not the bad hair, and the bad fashion – but the excellent stories and excellent acting.