GUERILLA GEEK BLOGGER IN THE P.I.

Entries categorized as ‘Homo/Queerness’

L-WORD DVD Marathon: Season 5, Episode 4

December 23, 2009 · Leave a Comment

EPISODE 4

Before the opening credit: Yet another snippet from the ill-advised “Lez Girls” production (because, really, do you really want to see the same old story on a movie when you can actually just go get your “L-Word” DVD of Season 1 and watch that instead?), this time of the auditions for who would be playing Jesse, who essentially is the barely-fictionalized Jenny. Thus we have scenes of actresses auditioning for what we are made to believe is a very coveted role (although I mostly think this is just Jenny’s version of reality).

In this episode:

Kit is taking up self-defense classes since she got naturally spooked by the robbery in the last episode (although I still think she should improve her cash-handling skills first…and why does she not have security as well?!?). That entails, of course, the whole gang going with her, meaning Tina, Bette, Jodi (but no sign of Tom anywhere), Alice, Jenny, Shane, Shane’s missing vagina (don’t look at me, I don’t write this sh*t). Where, pray tell is baby Angelica? My only answer is, I don’t know. And anyway, being the self-sufficient that she is, she probably already knew self-defense, despite dialogue to the contrary between her parents Bette and Tina.

During the class, a series of conversations ensue: Jenny finds out Natalie Portman passed on the Jesse/Jenny starring role in her “Lez Girls” movie (which is kind of funny for me, because the likelihood of the actual Natalie Portman starring in an all-lesbian sex-fest movie is about as likely as the actual Natalie Portman actually guest-starring in “The L-Word”. But namedrop Christina Ricci and it would have been a whole different ballgame) and is so unhappy about it she hits Tina a bit too harshly. Bette finds out Tina had a hot date and one-night stand with the surgically augmented heart surgeon and hits Jodi a bit too harshly. Moreover, Bette and Tina find themselves partners in a demo of a self-defense move, and you can literally feel the sexual tension oozing from their pores. What are the odds Jodi will be out of the picture anytime soon? Shane is called by the instructor for a demo and this obviously does not bode well for the trying-to-be-celibate-lothario.

Meanwhile, Alice’s lack of supervision on her website, OurChart.com encourages Max to sneak in her two-cents’ worth about FTM transsexuals. Alice eventually finds out, reprimands her, reluctantly offers her a guest column, but not without further alienating Max by telling her it’s a lesbian website, not a website for transsexuals. Alice’s unhappiness about Max’s guerilla-type tactics are soon forgotten when a couple of military investigators barge into her apartment, intent on proving that Tasha is gay simply by association with the very out Alice. Visibly ruffled by the visit, Alice tries to de-gay-ify her apartment more so as to pass for straight. This, in turn, freaks Tasha out, sending her on a rampage and a midnight visit to her uncooperative legal counsel, who, as it turns out, is not only uncooperative, but uninformed, in the dark and severely homophobic. An imlied confrontation with aforementioned legal counsel and his wife though has implied a change of heart for said legal counsel when he ends up on Alice’s doorstep talking to Tasha, who,as it happens, has spent the night with Alice. In her room. Buck nekkid. I don’t know how these things work, but if Tasha is supposed to be lying low, why is she spending the night with the gayest woman in LA?

Meanwhile, Bette has her hands full with a complaint from an art student about another art student who staged a performance art session involving a fake gun infront of Jodi’s class. Jodi is unfazed, Bette is annoyed to reprimand her and skip a possibly dirty night with her (well, only as I gleaned from Jodi’s gestures, which,in retrospect, look really dirty. Still not feelin’ the heat between these two. They have about as much heat as two ajumas talking about the weather).

Tina, on the other hand, is busy trying to keep her sanity while her dickhead boss and Jenny argue about which actor should play Jesse/Jenny, showing complete control even as Jenny, high on nicotine gum, spits her gum on the table, and while Jenny’s new assistant, Adele tries to ever so carefully insinuate herself into the proceedings (Points for Tina for looking hot as these proceedings are going on).

Shane, meanwhile, is failing miserably, at this celibacy thing. We can see this from her seeing naked women all around where there is none. Kit’s one-liners and pie don’t help either. To take her mind off sex, she invites Jenny to a new club (this two look good together as friends…together they almost seem…normal, somehow), She-Bar, owned by a couple of party-loving lesbians, Dawn Denbo (Catherine Keener) and her lover, Cindy (this is actually their introduction to anyone who cares to listen – and it never gets old, and it always makes me feel like laughing hysterically everytime I hear it).

At the She-Bar:

Bette and Jodi arrive, followed by Kit, then Tom, then Shane, Jenny, Jenny’s assistant, starlet Nikki Stevens (Kate French) the one replacing Natalie Portman (apparently) as the star of Jenny’s “Lez Girls”. Tina and her heart-surgeon date are already there, apparently already having fun. There, they meet Dawn Denbo and her lover, Cindy who, as I already mentioned, introduces herself as “Dawn Denbo and this is my lover, Cindy”.

Bette, Kit and Jodi already find the She-Bar scene old and try to leave, but Bette needs to stay behind since she promised Shane she would not leave without her. Shane, meanwhile, is busy shagging Dawn Denbo and her lover, Cindy in the VIP lounge, so I guess it’s safe to say that that celibacy thing is over. Jenny and starlet Nikki are busy trying to like each other, courtesy of Adele, who arranged the meeting between them. Meanwhile, Tina is hiding from her party-loving heart-surgeon date, realizing that She-Bar and partying is so not her scene as well (three words: Angelica Porter-Kennard. Who must already be racking up issues to discuss with her therapist once she’s old enough to afford her own). This is where Bette finds her, in one of the thinly-veiled rooms, where she confesses her aversion of bar-hopping and partying to Bette. This confession leads to an unexpected, long-awaited kiss that is very much worth it all throughout.

Notes:

1. Lez Girls – How do you pronounce it anyway? It’s spelled Lez Girls, so I assume you pronounce it with the /z/ but everyone keeps pronouncing it the French way, like Les Girls (like Les Miserables), so I’m confused. Then again, it’s not even appropriately titled. If it were, then Tina and her dickhead boss would have less of that “it’s-not-marketable!” arguments.

2. Angelica – where art thou?!?

 

Categories: Funemployed geek · Homo/Queerness · Media · Rants and raves · TV shows · popular culture · social commentary
Tagged: , , , , ,

L-WORD DVD Marathon: Season 5, Episode 3

December 23, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Before the opening credits, Alice does a voiceover of having dreamed of Jenny’s script being filmed a la Charlie’s Angel style, with Alice as Farrah Fawcett, Helena as Kate Jackson and Shane as Jaclyn Smith, while Tina is playing the butch Bosley part and Bette is playing Charlie. Their mission: to find out, with the help of their gaydar guns, whether Jenny is lesbian, bisexual or straight.

In this episode:

Shane has sworn off sex. But Shane keeping her promise to swear off sex is about as likely as Bette keeping her promise to be monogamous, so we will see.

Anyway, Shane’s solution to keeping her promise to be celibate involves going early to the gym (although just seeing her in the gym and in a locker-room full of naked women instantly gives you the idea that this is not exactly a bright idea), meditation, a lot of video games and rebuffing every woman who will hit on her. Naturally her fellow gym-going friends, Tina and Alice, find her a freak, while Jenny just cannot be bothered, since she has a new assistant, creepy Adele, who dotes on her, even while they are in the gym.

 

Meanwhile, Max contemplates ditching lesbians and going for gay men instead,with the help of her encouraging assistant, while Helena has gone from frightened mouse to confident jailhouse mama with the advent of her tax-evading protector, lover and cellmate.

On the other side of the divide, Bette meets up with Jodi at the Planet hoping to wriggle her way out of meeting Jodi’s friends, but Jodi successfully cons her into joining the weekend getaway. Tina is visibly impressed (and probably slightly jealous) that Jodi can push perpetually alpha female Bette into attending a gathering she did not like. Tina’s impressed demeanor turns into horror as friends Alice and Shane, later joined by Jodi, are surfing Alice’s OurChart.Com social networking site for possible dates with lesbians other than Tina’s ex, Bette. Jodi and Tina bond over Nancy Drew (read a couple of those, but I’m more a Hardy Boys fan – goes to show you the kind of butch preoccupations I had when I was younger), while Jodi and Tom, her interpreter bond over Tom’s crush on Max. Why are Jodi and Tina in the same room? Jodi is doing a podcast for Alice.

Tasha is still being investigated for possible homosexual conduct (visions of “But I’m a Cheerleader” scenes with lesbians screaming “I’m a homosexual! I’m a homosexual” swim in my head), with a very uncooperative legal counsel.

Alice, meanwhile is doing the podcast with a very enthusiastic Jodi, who teaches them how to use their hands for dirty talk (I feel so dirty just recapping that). Shane is a very attentive pupil, until Kit reminds her she’s supposed to have sworn off sex forever. Kit, meanwhile, is not at all that happy when Alice becomes too personal about her sister Bette and Jodi’s sex life (wouldn’t you be?!? I certainly as hell don’t want to know about my sib’s sex life…that’s like finding out your parents have a healthy sex life. Eeeww.).

Bette joins Jodi for their weekend getaway with Jodi’s friends, only to realize that Jodi’s friends are a bunch of a**holes who embarass her with their knowledge of Bette and Jodi’s the-night-before sex, throw her into the river for refusing to play football with them (does Bette look like she plays games that involve a lot of running and grunting?), accuse her of being a snob, and of making up stories about her sister being robbed so she can get out of this hellish weekend getaway. Bette holds her own with Jodi’s friends (although you kind of wonder why they are Jodi’s friends to begin with), although you can see that it takes a supreme amount of control for her not to implode and explode at the same time infront of these friends. I know these scenes are totally relevant to the brewing plot involving Tina, but I just think they’re unnecessary and totally better off being fastforwarded on your DVD player.

Anyway, Kit gets robbed and that gives Bette the excuse to fly out of there. Kit is devastated, since apparently it’s the whole week’s earnings that the robbers had managed to rob from her at gunpoint (I think the writers here are just lazy – I’ve worked in a restaurant and I know no smart manager ever stashes the week’s earnings away in a safe inside the restaurant for robbers to conveniently steal after. Sigh. What this show usually lacks: writers who know their sh*t), but with her sister and Jodi comforting her, Kit manages to survive the ordeal with nary a sip of alcohol.

Meanwhile, Tina manages to snag a date and a one-night stand with a heart surgeon whose augmented breasts effectively foreshadow that we won’t be seeing much of the heart surgeon soon.

Helena finally gets out of prison courtesy of her mother (played by the gorgeous Holland Taylor) and plans her own permanent vacation with her tax evading prison daddy somewhere in the Pacific.

1. Tina playing butch Bosley – genius! Throwback to the baby butch Randy Dean days of “Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love”

2. Charlie’s Angel homage – Fun! Definitely way better than Jenny’s carnival-centric stories (whatever happened to those anyway?!? On second thought, I’m glad that’s not the one being filmed!). Is it me, or is this season full of homages?

3. Still no baby Angelica. I wonder where Angelica is as Bette goes off on her weekend getaway with Jodi and Tina gets her one-night stand with the breast-augmented heart surgeon? Obviusly not at Kit’s since she just got robbed, and of course you can’t trust Shane or Alice since they can’t seem to get their sh*t together. Angelica is one self-sufficient little kid!

Categories: Funemployed geek · Homo/Queerness · Rants and raves · TV shows · popular culture
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

L-WORD DVD Marathon: Season 5, Episode 2

December 23, 2009 · Leave a Comment

 Episode 2

Season 5 continues with the more upbeat tone (this time directed by Jamie Babbit, she of “But I’m Not a Cheerleader” fame) with a pre-opening credit, “after previously” scenes of Tina, Jenny and dickhead boss at Shaolin studios, with dickhead boss insisting Jenny revise the script and put in more sex in the script. Suddenly, we see Bev/Bette and Shaun/Shane making out infront of us (aaack! my eyes! my eyes!), Shane/Shaun and Nina/Tina making out as well (aaack! my eyes! my eyes!), Bev/Bette and Helen/Helena making out (now that is just wrong) and before I can recover from the shock and the threat of blindness, that Betty song comes in with the opening credits. Dammit! And yet, I can’t stop watching…

 In This episode

Shane gets a gig for Tina’s boss’ daughter’s wedding, doing hair for the bride, bridesmaids, and the bride’s mother, and eventually doing the bride, bridesmaids and the bride’s mother, before, during and after the wedding, and during the reception (yawn). This repeated, frisky sex ends badly for Shane, when (predictably) she gets caught doing the mother of the bride. Why Shane repeatedly gets laid is beyond me, although the looks do help. 

Tina has a hot date with a hot date that turns into “show and tell” about Bette and their daughter, Angelica (can you blame her? If I had a kid as cute as Angelica, I’d probably do it, too), at the Planet. It does not help that Bette comes in and saunters over to their table while they are having the date, inviting Tina for lunch and sending the message to the hot date that Tina needs to resolve her issues with her ex first before having hot dates with hot dates.

Helena is terrified of her buff, brooding, cellmate, who can do push-ups perched between the sink and the table while inside their cell. The cellmate proves to be more an ally rather than an enemy when she defends Helena’s honor (and ass) when she accidentally drops the soap during shower time. The only thing that keeps her sane is the visits her friends have, this time, from Kit Porter, who gets to put in more lines other than “Girl”, continues with [insert short opinion here, in slang] and ends with [uh-huh/mhhmm]. Then again, her cellmate proves to be more entertaining than that, when she reveals she has the hots for Helena afterall (why am I not surprised?!?). Why is this storyline so familiar?!? 

Max is about to have a hot date with his very own gay man, Tom, Jodi’s interpreter (ho-hum), who proceeds to tell Jodi and the rest of the lesbians the cute gay boy he peed next to at the Planet’s washroom, only to be left flabbergasted at the reveal that the cute gay boy used to be a lesbian. 

Tina and Alice have lunch with Jodi and Bette and makes a great case for why sometimes, staying friends with your ex may not be the greatest idea in the world. Especially if your ex is Bette and she likes to ask you about your dates. 

Tasha finds out that she is being investigated for homosexual conduct and faces the possibility of being discharged, which does not really bode well for her relationship with the very out, very outspoken, Alice. 

A new character, Adele (Malaya Rivera Drew -what are the odds that this woman is Fil-Am? Malaya? Rivera? Very Pinoy methinks. She has that half-Asian vibe going on too.)is introduced. Adele is an unwashed, bespectacled, geeky, mousy but big Jenny Schecter fan who likes to re-read “Some of Her Parts” while at the Planet. Kit makes the unwise decision of befriending her and introducing her to Max and later to Jenny (Kit, really?!? You’re like a magnet for characters that eventually turn into real disappointments by the time the season ends) Since Jenny’s Episcopalian assistant has just quit, driving Jenny insane (is that redundant somehow?) since she has no one to make rainbow filing systems for her and schedules with manatees and Monet-viewings, Jenny in a stroke of genius, decides to hire her (what are the odds this is going to end badly?). 

Later: 

Tina later joins Shane for the wedding reception, in the hopes that she can get laid at the straightest wedding ever, only to have her hopes dashed at the sight of her bosses wanting to talk shop while she’s out having fun, and at the sight of Jenny having an assistant, and at the horror of Jenny slowly turning into a diva. 

Bette and Jodi, meanwhile has dinner with Tasha and Alice, which ends badly since Alice asked the very PDA-centric Bette and Jodi to lay off on the PDA since Tasha is under investigation and may face dismissal if she ever gets caught being with lesbians (the horror! She looks gayer than all the L-Word ladies combined. Yes, even Shane.) On the other side of the restaurant, Phyllis is busy trying to break up with Joyce, realizing that she does not want to “u-haul” with Joyce since that was what she did exactly 25 years ago with her ex-husband. Joyce refuses to be dumped, prompting Bette to say, dump her again, “because some lesbians need to be dumped more than once”. 

Notes on this episode: 

1. Diva Jenny is entertaining. I actually think I prefer her to cutter-Jenny, Jenny-with-the-pretentious-badly-written-stories of the past seasons, psychotic Jenny and overall just annoying Jenny of the rest of the show. Mia Kirshner is da bomb. Loved her since Atom Egoyan’s “Club Exotica”. 

2. A prison sub-plot. Really?!? 

3. Shane’s dalliance with the mother of the bride, totally a “The Graduate” reference. But, really?!? Subtle. 

4. Malaya Rivera Drew’s Adele. Creepy. Even if she eventually ends up being harmless. 

5. The Max storyline. Unlike the L-Word, real-life lesbians are much more inclusive of transsexuals, but I feel the Max storyline has been lackluster since that hot date with the boss’ daughter and the thing with the assistant fizzled out. Wasted potential right there. 

6. No sign of baby Angelica this episode. Told you these domestic fictional lesbian couples don’t seem to be that intent about parenting, despite dialogue to the contrary. Still, Bette and Tina are The Hotness. It’s always a treat seeing them together and apart. Jennifer Beals is officially awesome and officially the hottest fortysomething MILF ever!

Categories: Funemployed geek · Homo/Queerness · Media · Rants and raves · TV shows · popular culture
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

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

July 14, 2009 · Leave a Comment

The story:

http://inlinethumb53.webshots.com/564/2087291970084807748S600x600Q85.jpgMi 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.

http://www.artsandopinion.com/2007_v6_n4/volume_images/chinesebotanist-3.jpgThis 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).

http://www.glasgay.co.uk/media/photogallery/photo21965/hi-res-images-2008/26-37%5B1%5D.jpgI 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.

http://www.artsandopinion.com/2007_v6_n4/volume_images/chinesebotanist-4.jpgFor 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).

Categories: Film reviews · Films · Homo/Queerness · LGBT films · popular culture
Tagged: , , , , ,

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

July 13, 2009 · Leave a Comment

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.

Categories: Film reviews · Films · Homo/Queerness · LGBT films · Rants and raves · popular culture · social commentary
Tagged: , , , ,

London Pride 2009 in Central London was a blast!

July 5, 2009 · Leave a Comment

London Pride

(photo by M. Bayaua)

Tired and sleepy. Went out yesterday to check out London Pride Parade at Oxford Street. Temperature: 40 bloody degrees Celsius! English sun: out the whole day! Parade: one hell of a fun one! ^^

Parade started at 1pm, but I had to come from Gloucester Road and so I had to take the Picadilly, get the Northern Line (?), get off at Oxford Street and find a nice spot near some Filipino gay men (yay!) where I can view the parade. The Filipinos, as part of our culture, asks me what visa I had, when I got here, when I was leaving (and if so, why? And if not, how did I do it?) and where I was living and how long I was here for.

Anyway, parade started off and I was immediately overwhelmed. Droves of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals! About half a million strong! Wow! Back home,in Baguio, there would be about a hundred or so only. ^^ Here, it was one massive parade slash party with each sector having its contingent: LGBT people from the military (the Royal Navy, Army, Air Force), The Met, the post office, London Transport, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, the NHS (ah, gay and lesbian doctors and dentists, yay!), the Civil Service, British Airways, Amnesty, the Catholic church, Christian Churches, Buddhist groups, Asia, Lithuania, various night clubs (the queen in one of the floats was especially hilarious and for the man-loving people, a great treat with the man in briefs with a permanent hard-on, beside him), sex workers groups, old people, young people and always the never-ending parade of really awesome drag queens, in full feather regalia, gowns, sequins, lace, leather, and always, the hair. ^^

(photo by M. Bayaua)

(photo by M. Bayaua)

The best part was seeing Boy George in one of the floats. A bit starstruck now. ^^

Anyway, after the parade, I maneuvered my way to the tube, hopped on the next one that will take me to Leicester Square, made my way to Trafalgar Square, where that half a million strong of LGBT people were gathered in a concert that featured political and not-so political speeches from prominent figures, and music from Eurovision winners, A1, and so on. I just went around the Square, checking out the booths, bought a bottle of Carlsberg, then just hung out at the Square, listening to the music, with my beer and the heat of the sun on my face. ^^

After that, I bought a shirt and a rainbow flag as souvenirs and reluctantly went back home because I had to meet my Nigerian friend and her friends. We had spicy spaghetti, while listening to music on TV. We had a Michael Jackson moment, then just had fun listening to Justin Timberlake (“Sexyback”)Lady Gaga (“Po-po-po-pokerface”), Kings of Leon (“Sex on Fire” – what does that even mean? Could make a great pick-up line though or a great prank you can do to emergency services: “Pardon me, miss, but your sex is on fire!” or “Hello?! This is an emergency! My sex is on fire!). My friend and I watched “Drag me to Hell” after, at the Vue. The movie was parts ridiculous, preposterous, outrageous, disgusting, depressing, sad, fun, funny, all at the same time. I can see why it was a hit. I don’t know which is better  – this one or Transformers 2. But for sheer consistency in its original purpose to entertain, I think “Drag me to Hell” wins hands down, since Transformers 2 just ends up being consternating.

I got home around 2am with a nice sunburned face and nice memories of my last few days in London.

Watching The Pride March reminds me how much has changed I left the Philippines  last year. Pride marches back home are nowhere near as massive and diverse and festive as this one in London is. But it has made me realize how important it is to share how much I’ve seen and learned, to be part of the change that can make a difference in people’s perceptions of the world.

Next up, Pride March in Manila. Yay!

Categories: Culture · Current Events · Funemployed geek · Homo/Queerness · Rants and raves · popular culture · social commentary
Tagged: ,

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

June 6, 2009 · Leave a Comment

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!):

fingersmith1The 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.

fingersmith3Everything 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.

fingersmith2But 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

Categories: Film reviews · Films · Homo/Queerness · LGBT films
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

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

June 2, 2009 · Leave a Comment

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.

Categories: Film reviews · Films · Homo/Queerness · LGBT films
Tagged: ,

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

June 1, 2009 · Leave a Comment

“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.

cookingAnd 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.

Categories: Film reviews · Films · Homo/Queerness · LGBT films
Tagged: , , , , ,

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

May 27, 2009 · Leave a Comment

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.

Categories: Film reviews · Films · Homo/Queerness · LGBT films
Tagged: , ,