Lance's Werthwhile Pride Movies: Longtime Companion

AIDS Movies. It's not the most upbeat Hollywood genre. In fact it took Hollywood around four years after the infamous 1981 NY Times Gay Cancer article to even broach the subject with Buddies (1985). But over the years, there have been some excellent dramas, comedy-dramas, and documentaries that have given cinematic coverage of one of the darkest times in this country's history. One movie I'd heard of but hadn't seen until recently is a special entry in this genre- Longtime Companion (1989).

LC opens on Fire Island in 1981 with a group of gay friends doing what gay friends do on Fire Island- drinking cocktails at a tea dance, watching hunky guys sashay on the beach, and finding love... or at least lust among the dunes. But interspersed with these idyllic moments of gay life are shots of various characters coming across the aforementioned Times article. I don't know if there was a time when a viewer watched this and wondered, "Hm. What's going to happen?" But for me, the spectre of AIDS haunts this film from the very first title card: July 31, 1981.

The film proceeds to show how the AIDS epidemic affects this group of friends and their extended NYC circle through a series of jumps in time. It feels like a gut punch every time the screen goes to black and a title card shows a new date. "Jesus. Who's dead or dying now?" It borders on predictable cliche- but perhaps that's the point. As this disease spread and decimated entire communities, every day was a new funeral, another friend gone, a lover diagnosed, a mysterious sore appearing. It was a never-ending nightmare that seemed both random- and sickeningly predictable.

What makes this movie stand-out from some of its more famous cinematic kin (yes, I'm talking about you, Philadelphia) is how it deals with this circle of friends. LC is insular. It is the world of this particular group of gay men. While the import of this disease stretches far beyond their ranks, the focus remains on the connections between them- the details of their grief and dying.

Refreshing even for now (revolutionary for 1989) there is no sense that they are struggling with being gay. This movie celebrates these self-made gay communities, accepting these bonds at face value. LC has no time for gay shame. These men are fighting too hard for their lives. There is freedom here even in the midst of an epidemic. It's a unique perspective.

LC isn't great cinema. The editing feels a little too made-for-TV and melodrama overwhelms on occasion- but what it does well is focus on small, human moments that warm, terrify, and devastate. The overhead shot of the first victim of this group (an impossibly young and beautiful Dermot Mulroney) shows him lying alone in his hospital bed hooked up to respirators through tubes and a mask, his eyes wide in both terror and wonder.

Bruce Davison (the baddy Senator Kelly from the X-Men franchise) was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of the titular companion- and Mary Louise Parker and Tony Shalhoub add some good "Before they were stars" moments. Sadly director Norman Rene died of AIDS in 1996 at the age of 45. He left behind a beautiful testament to the strength and power of friendship and love- and that's what Pride is all about.

The Gays of Future Past: Different from the Others (1919)

This week I watched a movie that really got my film geek juices flowing! It's that perfect junction between film and history that makes me want to sit down and write a blog post. Aren't you lucky?

The film is Different from the Others (1919) and the fact that I was able to see it at all is a miracle. Different is credited as one of the first films to sympathetically depict homosexuality. It was co-written by and stars well-known German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld and was intended as a sort of PSA against the German law Paragraph 175 which made it illegal for men to bonk men.

In the film, famous violinist Paul Korner (Conrad Veidt one year before he would rocket to fame in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) and many years before he would be immortalized playing Major Strasser in Casablanca (1942)) falls in love with starstruck pupil Kurt (Fritz Schulz) and soon the two are inseparable.

This comes to the attention of call-boy turned blackmailer Franz (Reinhold Schunzel... which sounds like a tasty German breakfast pastry) who threatens Paul with exposure of his illegal lifestyle if he doesn't cough up some marks.

Hirschfeld appears as himself to explain to Paul (and the audience) that there are many facets of human sexuality- and that homosexuality is as natural and as moral as heterosexuality... IN 1919!!! ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO!!! We've literally been trying to explain this to everybody since men wore spats!

Different was assumed lost because once the Nazis took power every available copy was burned along with Hirschfeld's entire Institute of Sexual Research library in Berlin. But luckily a copy was found in the Ukraine in the 1970's so now we can see this unique attempt by a film to try and sway public and political opinion. It's like the Philadelphia (1993) of 1919.

The film that exists is just a fragment. There are numerous title cards and still photos to explain what we can't see. But what is here is remarkable. There are no passionate makeouts or man-on-man sexfests. The passion and longing are kept to glances and touch- and the good ol' indicators of homosexuality are refined culture, effeminate hand gestures and hands on hips... and kicky silk dressing robes.

I was struck by how similarly gays are filmed in some recent releases: The effeminate, bookish out gay kid in Love, Simon (2018); the longing glances that make up for any actual gay sexual activity in Bohemian Rhapsody (2019) (and if the trailer for Rocketman (2019) is any indicator, there will be lots of gay eyeball-only action for Taron Egerton too); the one-night hand-holding that takes the place of more carnal intimacy in Boy Erased (2018). 

While we do have Call Me by Your Name (2017), God's Own Country (2017), and Todd Haynes to put the sex in gay sexuality, it feels to me that there has been some neutering of the gay experience in popular Hollywood product.

It is ironic that a movie that was made when being gay was literally illegal, shares so much in common with gay movies made in today's more permissive culture.

We're here. We've been here. Get used to it.

Movies Matter

Hello, faithful LWM readers. Last week's election put me in a bit of a funk. When you feel like the world is wobbling on the edge of a precipice, it's daunting to question yourself and wonder what you can do to help stop the impending fall. I watch and write about movies. What good is that in the grand scheme of things? Did my enthusiastic viewing of Homicidal (1961) a couple weeks ago help stave off national insanity? Did my post on the scariest movies for Halloween make the world any less terrifying?

The answer (I first thought) is, no. Watching a movie is a healthy act of escapism that allows us to take a breather from the "news" in our lives. We come back to the "real" world grateful (or not so grateful- I'm talking to you Mother's Day (2016)) for the brief cinematic vacation- but our fears and disappointments are right where we left them when the lights come up. And as a film critic/historian, I can only hope to help others discover the movies I write about and pass on that momentary spiritual rest-stop. But that's all. Movies don't change the world.

Or do they?

There are movies that give voice to discontent. They depict important cultural issues without cloaking them in metaphor and dim lighting set-ups. They take a stand and sometimes, become part of the national discourse that eventually leads to change.

Here are my Top 5 Movies Matter Movies:


The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Now just because movies can be part of change, doesn't mean that change is good. Exhibit A is D. W. Griffith's racist classic, The Birth of a Nation. Many people will discuss the cinematic virtues of Griffith's first blockbuster film: the use of close-ups, fade-outs, color-tinting, and a customized musical score to be played at theaters that showed the film. But I was distracted by the blatant racist depiction of blacks during the Civil War and Reconstruction and the lionization of the Ku Klux Klan.

The scene where Congress convenes for the first time with black elected Congressmen is jaw-droppingly racist. Black Congressmen (many played by white actors in blackface) drinking hooch and eating porkchops; taking off their shoes and putting their sockless feet on the desks to air out; jumping up and down to pass a miscegenation law so they can finally sleep with white women. The "helpless white minority" looks on from the gallery in disgust.

The film is posited as a historical re-telling- but historical inaccuracies  and outright fabrications abound. The fact that it is based on a book called, The Clansman: An Historical Romance with the Ku Klux Klan is an indication that Griffiths is making a fairy tale. But this fairy tale has a bad ending. With Griffiths' heroic portrayal of the Klan rescuing sacred white women from hordes of ravaging Blacks, the real Ku Klux Klan was reinvigorated and race riots erupted in several large cities. President Woodrow Wilson watched the film in  the White House and declared, "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." I wonder if the movie will be shown in the White House again soon...

Gentleman's Agreement (1947)

That old chestnut about Jews running Hollywood is rather amusing when you look at the absence of Jewish characters in popular movies before WWII. Because movies were made for a mainly Christian audience, depictions of Jews were either stereotypical characters meant for derision, or they were absent altogether. Not to mention Hollywood stars quickly changed Jewish sounding names like Emmanuel Goldenberg to more marquee friendly names like Edward G. Robinson.

So the antisemitism present in America at that time was a problem that Hollywood ignored in the theaters. That is until the Holocaust. The epic devastation that unfolded in Europe shined a spotlight on our own country's troubled relationship with Jewish citizens. When head of 20th Century Fox, Darryl F. Zanuck was denied membership to a country club because they mistakenly thought he was Jewish, Zanuck decided it was time to take on the problem on the silverscreen.

Directed by Elia Kazan, Gentleman tells the story of news reporter Phil Green (Gregory Peck) who takes an assignment on antisemitism and decides to get a Jew's-eye view by pretending to be Jewish. He finds out soon enough that the difference between Green and Greenberg is staggering.

Perfectly normal and upright citizens talk about how untrustworthy "that Race" is. Green's Jewish childhood friend Dave Goldman (the always watchable John Garfield) is denied housing. Green himself is denied a room in a hotel for his honeymoon because they have a no Jew policy. Even Green's young son (played by plucky kid actor and future Quantum Leaper Dean Stockwell) is dragged into the bigotry when he gets into a fight with some of his friends because they call him a "dirty Jew."

What makes this movie insightful is that it goes to the heart of antisemitism. The gas chambers and burning crosses are the obvious products of bigotry- but they aren't the genesis. The roots of hatred are much more subtle and much more ingrained in "civilized" culture than we think. Gentleman's 8 Oscar nominations and 3 wins including Best Picture and Best Director helped dig up those roots and expose them to an American audience that needed to take a hard look at itself.

Love with the Proper Stranger (1963)

When I first started watching Love with the Proper Stranger, I wondered if it was going to be another one of those Natalie Wood vehicles where young love goes horribly wrong and poor Natalie would wind-up in an insane asylum or hugging her shot-to-death boyfriend. I never expected it to be an abortion movie.

Wood plays Angie Rossini, a Macy's salesgirl who takes a shine to musician Rocky Papasano (Steve McQueen- or as I like to call him, Steve McSqueeeeen!) and after a couple drinks winds-up knockin' boots and tootin' his horn. When Angie realizes she has a bun in the oven, she tracks down Rocky only to discover he doesn't even remember her. It's a brutal scene- but not as brutal as the scene where Rocky does the proper thing and escorts Angie to the local backalley abortionist.

We hear stories of how bad it used to be to get an abortion, but Love brings all the horror to vivid life. Without being graphic, this one scene is an honest look at the filthy conditions, fear, and degradation that women were subjected to during the years before Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. The movie becomes a more traditional romantic comedy after that, but it is this scene that elevated the film to five Academy Award nominations including a Best Actress nom for Wood. It is a scene that sticks with you- as this issue has stuck with our culture. Coincidentally, you can watch Love tonight on Turner Classic Movies.

The Accused (1988)

Between a certain pussy-grabbing president, an actor whose big break turned into the unearthing of an old rape case, and that awful swim-team rape case where the rapist only got six months- it's clear that female rape is still a big problem in this country. Almost twenty years ago a movie came out that shocked the nation and put the issue on the front page.

Based on a true story, The Accused shows the brutal gang rape of Sarah Tobias (Jodie Foster) in a bar, surrounded by cheering patrons. After the rape, the perpetrators get a plea deal and are only convicted of reckless endangerment.

But Tobias decides enough is enough and since she can't go after the rapists, she enlists the help of Asst. District Attorney Kathryn Murphy (Kelly McGillis) to go after the cheerers for criminal solicitation. It's a tough case to hear- with "she wanted it" and questions about what she was wearing and her sexual activity used to shift blame to the victim. Foster's mixture of grit and vulnerability are perfect for the role and it won her an Oscar (even though I would have given the Best Actress statue that year to Glenn Close for Dangerous Liaisons.)

McGillis was originally offered the role of Tobias, but she felt the role was too close to her personal experience. McGillis was robbed and raped in her home in 1982, making this one of those times when real life and the movies are far too similar.


Philadelphia (1993)

Hot on the heels of his Oscar for Silence of the Lambs (1992), Jonathan Demme chose to direct a controversial, loosely-based-on-actual-events movie about a wrongful termination suit  brought against a law firm by a gay man who had contracted AIDS. In '93 a movie about a gay man was rare enough- but one about a gay man dying of AIDS? It just didn't happen. But Demme pulled off a bit of directorial inspiration, by casting two of the most popular straight stars in Hollywood to play the leads. Tom Hanks is Andrew Beckett, the gay man with AIDS who is suing his law firm, and Denzel Washington is Joe Miller, the initially homophobic lawyer who takes his case.

The film not only addresses AIDS- which was then still taboo- but it also addresses the reason it was the disease that shall not be named- because the popular conception was that it was a gay disease- and homophobia was still deeply entrenched in this culture.

Demme goes to great lengths to show Beckett as a "normal" guy- not a man you would assume is gay. Hanks' relatable screen persona seems as buttoned-up as the rest of the white collar lawyers at his firm, and even old fuddy-duddy lawfirm head Charles Wheeler (Jason Robards) considers him to be a future good ol' boy. But Beckett is different from that crowd.

Demme pivots to show Beckett's tender relationship with his partner Miguel Alvarez (Antonio Banderas in a sailor suit. All aboard!) Once the audience learns what Beckett has been hiding, it's too late. They already like him.  Audiences who were perhaps not empathetic enough to understand the suffering of this scourge could perhaps understand the plight of AIDS patients and gay men by seeing one of their favorite stars portray this man- and another of their favorite stars play a man who changes his mind about how he feels about him. Hanks would win his first Academy Award for that feat.

Demme doesn't sugarcoat the disease that ultimately outs Beckett. I can't remember the first time I'd seen Kaposi Sarcoma lesions- but the most vivid recollection I have is from this movie. When Beckett lifts up his shirt in court the image is heart-rending- and indelible.

All that being said, I find Philadelphia a little overwrought, but it was an admirable movie at the time to make the AIDS crisis part of the national discussion. For less Hollywood-ized- yet equally eye-opening views of that era, I recommend documentaries How to Survive a Plague (2012), We Were Here (2011), and Vito (2011).

So take some time and watch a movie that gets you energized about making a difference. Or catch one of the many MGM Musicals at BAM this weekend for some good old fashioned escapism.

Either way- Movies do matter.