REVIEWS


All published in the San Francisco Bay Times
1995 - 1997



TO WONG FOO, THANKS FOR EVERYTHING, JULIE NEWMAR
TO DIE FOR
JEFFREY
MELROSE PLACE (TELEVISION)
SACRED COUNTRY (NOVEL)


TO WONG FOO, THANKS FOR EVERYTHING, JULIE NEWMAR

To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar is a movie about drag queens who never drink, never pull each others' wigs off, and don't seem to mind waking up early in the morning.

Hmmmmm.

I could rake Thanks For Everything over the coals. Like real drag queens, much of the film's material is old and tired. There are some alarming stereotypes, some bad acting, and some very weak storytelling. It's title is ridiculously long. And of course its source material, The Adventures of Priscilla, had a crazy, breezy energy that the Hollywood version seems determined to exterminate. But what did we expect, The Seventh Seal in drag? It's hard to get that worked up about it.

Wong Foo is a perfectly fine mainstream Hollywood film. There's a bunch of funny lines, and some refreshingly blunt racial jokes. It's the sort of film where you know the trio is going on an adventure because you see them driving over a bridge with loud music playing. You know the town their car breaks down in is a hick town because everyone there has two first names and nothing better to do than roll around in the gravel. And it's definitely no surprise that, through some judicious redecorating, the trio is going to bring happiness, self-understanding, and feather boas to a gaggle of country bumpkins who would otherwise have no class, culture, or joy in their lives.

I fully admit that I left the theater in a much better mood than I went in. More than a million people saw Julie Newmar the first weekend it opened, and if just a few of them hesitate before beating up the next drag queen they see, or, even better, consider putting on a dress themselves, it'll all be worth it.

So what's to get upset about? Well, in a word, homophobia.

Odder and more interesting than the film itself is the ways in which people spoke about it. On publicity junkets, the stars of Foo, Thanks - the ultra-macho Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes, and John Leguizamo - emphasized that, while they're perfectly comfortable wearing dresses, they're definitely not drag queens themselves. Snipes, the most relaxed of the three, wore a dress on the
Late Show with David Letterman and put Dave's hand on his knee, but he also made sure to talk about his wife and kids. ("When your family saw you do this," Dave asked, as if Wesley had been arrested, "what did they think?"). Leguizamo told VH1's Flix interviewer that "At first it was hard not to laugh at each other...the other shims...actions heroes in fine lingerie."

The director, Beeban Kidron, seems to agree: it's not really a film about drag queens, it's a film about straight men putting on women's clothes. That's the joke. Kidron shows Swayze powdering his face and Snipes applying huge gold and black eyelashes and waits for the laughter - as if the act were funny in and of itself. The film's advertising places
Everything, Julie in the tradition of Some Like It Hot and Mrs. Doubtfire, and it is: it's another film in which the joke is that a straight guy's wearing a dress. It worked better in those previous films because the characters were straight; the humor of action heroes in fine lingerie wears off pretty quick, and To Foo doesn't have much to fall back on.

Swayze is the least comfortable in drag, both in the film and out of it. I guess playing a guy in a dress is a bigger leap than playing a diabolical surfing guru or a dead man channeling through Whoopi Goldberg. He's having no fun, dressed in Chanel and boringly written as the film's straight-laced conscience. He rarely gets to show his body, and, worse, he has to say the line "You are a winner" without a trace of irony.

It's the Terrence Stamp role from
Priscilla, which worked in Priscilla because Stamp was bitter, not sentimental, and because he was a transsexual, not a transvestite. It's one thing to make a film about men who want to be women, or who want to pass as women; it's another to make a film about men who dress up in the most outlandish clothes they can find and parade around on stage lipsynching. The queens in Julie Newmar Foo aren't women and they don't want to be women. They're poofters.

But you'd hardly know it from the way the actors talk. All three actors in
Thanks Julie seem to think it's better to play a woman than to play a fag. Swayze said making Foo "turned out to be the emotional experience of my life - women have no escape from emotion." (My italics). Snipes - who was introduced on Letterman with the line "He got the girl in earlier films, now he is the girl" - said one of the worst parts of filming was the shoes, but told a female reported he had no sympathy for women in heels because "you have a lifetime of practice".

With the occasional exception of Leguizamo, who actually gets a small romance and some great drag queen lines ("Can't I just stay a princess," he asks Swayze, "they're so much younger than queens") the actors end up playing some sort of bizarre combination of supermodel and eunuch. One of the bumpkins puts her finger on it when she says to Swayze, "I don't think of you as a man and I don't think of you as a woman - I think of you as angel," and the comparison is apt: both angels and Swayze have no emotions and no sex lives, and neither ever wears anything but dresses. It's the least sensual film I've ever seen.

I get the feeling the people behind
Newmar Foo want to do good for gay people rather than treat them like equals. Foo is filled with red white and blue color schemes, as if to say, drag queens are patriotic too. But that's only as long as they're not queer. As in other "mainstream" gay films from the same time period, such as Priest and Jeffrey, none of the main characters is allowed to be a full human being. Finally, we know what every else had already learned about Hollywood. There are a lot of reasons to like mainstream Hollywood films, but good politics and accurate depictions of realistic human interactions are not two of them. The gay community's had its first brush with big stars; we'll know we've really made it when they start making sequels.

TOP


TO DIE FOR

Honestly, I thought we'd gotten past making films about women forced to choose between family and career. True, as late as the eighties, we had films like Mommie Dearest, which showed us just how horrible life was if your mother worked and you had to clean the house. But things changed. An obscure but inspiring Belgian film called Jeanne Dielman took the feminist position that working mothers were overly burdened and ultimately driven insane by a patriarchal society. But since that film consisted mostly of 3 1/2 hours of images of Jeanne peeling potatoes, it didn't receive a lot of mainstream attention. Picking up where Jeanne Dielman left off, Working Girl proved that you could have a great job and a great guy too. And Sigourney Weaver's relationship with that adorable and spunky urchin in Aliens should have put to rest any doubts about a woman's ability to be a good mother and handle heavy equipment at the same time.

But now we have Gus Van Sant's To Die For, which tells the story of Suzanne Stone, who wants very badly to be on TV. Suzanne believes "You're not anybody in America unless you're on TV." Lounging in the way of her newscasting career is her schlumpfy husband Larry, spacily played by Matt Dillon. Larry is emasculated by Suzanne's ambition; he wants the little woman to videotape local comedy acts in his cheesy Italian restaurant. What's a girl to do?

Suzanne opts for murder, and seduces an underage punk into killing her hubby by screwing the young dweeb and promising him a major role in her television career.

It's not so bad that To Die For treats Suzanne as an ambitious bitch. What's bad is that the film treats her as a bitch because she's ambitious. There are no mitigating circumstances here. The filmmakers make it abundantly clear that Suzanne kills only because of ambition. She is not an abused wife hitting her head on the glass ceiling; she's a TV-obsessed female American Psycho. It doesn't surprise me that Gus Van Sant would want to film a story like Suzanne's. What surprises me is that Van Sant, who had previously shown such sympathy for underdogs, couldn't see that the film's not very interesting if Suzanne isn't an underdog too.

But there's no room for compassion here. True, Suzanne is objectified by all the men around her, and her milquetoast husband is definitely too conservative and too ethnic and too gauche for her - in one key scene, we learn that he wants to decorate his restaurant with plastic plants! The most men threaten Suzanne with is bad taste. The two scenes where Larry tells her he wants her to have kids and not a career are minor. She kills her husband, apparently, because he won't take his feet off the coffee table.

Van Sant has previously depicted characters who don't have plans, slackers who drift on the outskirts of society, whose lives are a little out of control. His films, with their jarringly beautiful shots and equally jarring juxtapositions of trained and amateur actors, seemed like a rebuke to the slickness of Hollywood moviemaking. It seems that Suzanne - despite Nicole Kidman's stylized and funny performance - is too driven and mainstream for Van Sant to treat her as anything other than a plot device.

And, perhaps, too female. Van Sant's underdog sympathy has always focused on young men. But Suzanne is the deadly seductress. You suspect as much from the film's print ads - the words "To Die For" are printed over her breasts - and you're not disappointed. At the beginning of the film Suzanne says, in one of the many speeches which make the characters seem like mouthpieces for the author's ideas, that when you look too close at, say, newsprint, it turns into black and white dots, and you lose sight of the words. Suzanne's dressed in polka dots throughout the film, and everybody loses sight of the fact that she's using them, probably because she looks so terrific.

The main dupe is Jimmy, Suzanne's jailbait assassin, played by Joaquin Phoenix with an intensity and depth of feeling reminiscent of his brother River. Jimmy is beautiful and stupid - when he hears that a friend said of him, "His dick is bigger than his brain" Jimmy responds, moved and happy, "He really said that?" - and he's easily manipulated. He's like a NAMBLA fantasy, and he's the character Van Sant really seems to feel for. A pure, innocent boy, led to his destruction by an evil, attractive Medusa wielding sex as a weapon and wearing great outfits. No surprise that Suzanne gets punished in a particularly chilling way at the film's end. It's the worst of gay male misogyny.

To Die For is enormously condescending not just to women but to all its characters. The film's humor is based on the idea that the filmmakers are smarter and classier and less hornswoggled by television than any of its characters. The irony is, it's not true: To Die For falls into all the traps it accuses TV of. TV has made us cold and unemotional? The tabloid filming technique in To Die For cuts off any possibility of connection even to the sympathetic characters. TV is dividing our society? To Die For relies on outdated, uninteresting racial and gender stereotypes. Laura Ziskin, the film's producer, says that "the theme that our life, our society, is acted out on television seems wildly relevant," but I don't believe her. Television isn't our life; it's not even what we want our life to be, usually. It's what we want for entertainment, and To Die For is entertaining in the way television is. It's more innovative technically, and more creative, but like most TV programs, the main attraction is constant change: variety, rather than depth or emotion or truth. Van Sant may think he's produced an incisive satire on the workings of class and nationality and sex and media in America, but all he's made is a banal morality play which reinforces banal stereotypes. We've seen it before, and it's not worth dying for.
Jeffrey stars Steven Weber, Michael T. Weiss, and Patrick Stewart, boldly going where few straight men have gone before: they play gay men in a major Hollywood release. And they don't even die at the end. What next, gay men playing gay men? Strange new worlds indeed.

Paul Rudnick, who wrote the film, said during a recent conversation, "Jeffrey is a romantic comedy.... There's an urbane, sophisticated tone....of wit and champagne."

Jeffrey certainly starts out silly and wonderful: Jeffrey and Steve's meeting, in particular, is goofy, dumb, and endearing. Jeffrey and Steve fall in love the moment they meet - you can tell, because suddenly the film's in slow motion and the music's changed from disco to classical.

Usually, in romantic comedies, Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn don't know they're in love, even though everyone else does. They say clever things and wear beautiful clothes, then kiss and live happily ever after.

Jeffrey tries for the wit and champagne, but just doesn't make it. The boys do kiss, twice, and both times the kiss is emblematic of why the film doesn't work. There's been a lot of talk about the kisses. On Entertainment Tonight, straight Steven Weber, who plays Jeffrey, said "A kiss is just a kiss. It was an excursion into something different." (His biggest surprise - dealing with Weiss's facial hair.)

And that's why the kisses didn't work. Ingrid Bergman, who knows something about kisses, said that "A kiss is a lovely trick designed by nature to stop speech when words become superfluous." In Jeffrey, the first kiss, soon after they meet, stops speech before they realize they don't have anything to say to each other. Jeffrey and Steve aren't falling in love, they just need to get laid. Unfortunately, Jeffrey's given up sex because of his fear of HIV, and Steve is HIV positive. There's no verbal sparring, only whiny soul-searching and coy sexual references. At one point, as Jeffrey is being threatened by gay-bashers, he says he's got weapons - "Irony, adjectives, and eyebrows" - and you wonder why he never uses them.

Even so, the kiss is romantic, but the filmmakers destroy the mood by cutting to two teenage couples, watching Jeffrey in a movie theater, grossed out. It's funny, but are we that worried about what other people think of us? Rudnick and director Christopher Ashley are more afraid than those teenagers: they're afraid of showing intimacy between the two men.

The second kiss is proof. A Romantic Comedy kiss, an sparks-flying, earth-moving, bell-ringing kiss, can only mean Love. It's the end without which any romantic comedy is incomplete. Men had kissed in movies before, but not like this. The kiss in Jeffrey doesn't mean they're about to kill each other, like in Deathtrap, or that they're about to kill someone else, like in Swoon. It's supposed to mean they're in love, and also that the credits are about to roll, so stuff your Kleenex in your sleeve and make for the aisle before the stampede starts. But the kiss isn't intimate or sexy. It's dull.

For two men to kiss each other implies an intimacy and emotional connection only appropriate for women. It's not powerful; it's not butch; it's not in the film.

In the transition from play to film, the filmmakers cut every line from Jeffrey which makes either main character sound even slightly effeminate. Consider: in the play's hoedown wooing scene, Jeffrey says "I have this image of myself as...a normal person - you know, a guy. But I've always known that I'm secretly really...a teenage girl." Steve responds, "You're a great teenage girl!" Gone from the film without a trace. Or this: A friend tells Jeffrey he needs a relationship in both the play and the film, but the film edits the essential "Love is more than just sex. I mean, even trolls can have sex. What you need is a boyfriend. Someone to nest with, wake up with, just lie around the beach house with." Finally: Jeffrey says he hates that gay role models are supposed to be like straight people. But he lowers his voice and shortens his name to a manly "Jeff" when his dreamboat docks at the gym. In the play, Jeffrey apologizes for trying to butch up his name and his voice. In the movie, he just looks like a jerk.

Jeffrey marginalizes the freaks, the transsexuals, the effiminate men. The problem is, the freaks are funny and interesting and they have intimate, real relationships, and the main characters are dull in comparison. They're dull period. The film also cuts all of Jeffrey's really sexy scenes and references. He and Steve are played as boring straight-acting boys. Sure they're cute, but who cares? At one point, Steve says "I get tired of being a person with AIDS, so I choose to forget. I choose to be a gay man with a dick". Somebody needs to tell him that there are other options.

Jeffrey is often funny and worth supporting. The cameos are terrific. Sigourney Weaver treats her role as the anti-Marianne Williamson as if the film was Aliens 4, and it's hysterical. During one particularly amazing sequence, she convinces hapless Kathy Najimy that she was abused by her mother, and I kept expecting her to go behind the curtain and come out, head cocked, dressed in full battle armor. She'd say, "You bitch," and then she'd beat Kathy to a pulp with her microphone. Weaver's never been butcher.

But Sigourney can't save the film. It's not brave or unusual to laugh in the face of AIDS; it is unusual and perhaps brave to sympathetically explore irrational fears and prejudices like Jeffrey's. Unfortunately, the film is not sympathetic to his problems. Every frame is aimed at teaching Jeffrey a lesson. Chorusboy Darius ultimately returns from death to spell it out: "Hate AIDS, Jeffrey, not life." But I'd hate life too if my relationships had no depth or intimacy and I couldn't talk freely about my true existence as a teenage girl.

We need every film we can get about gay people. But we have such issues with intimacy in the gay community already; how are we going to improve if our films don't help us? Darius should have delivered his message to the filmmakers.

It's hard for me to do anything but gasp and squeal when I watch Melrose Place. I move closer to the edge of my recliner with every knifed back, spurned advance, and hiked hemline. By the end of each episode, I'm exhausted and relieved: When Aristotle spoke of catharsis, he must have had Aaron Spelling in mind.

The show's fourth season premiere aired last week, and it had a lot of loose ends to tie up. At the end of last season's cliffhanger finale, Jake and his brother were plummeting toward the ground from three stories up; Matt was being arrested for murder; and Kimberly was about to blow up the apartment complex where they all live.

More happens on a single episode of Melrose Place than on an entire season of most other soaps, and the premiere was no exception. The bomb detonated, several minor characters were killed, and Jake escaped death by landing on his brother - all before the credits rolled! The first reaction of the men after the explosion was to find a girl to save, so Alison and Kimberly got rescued. However, Alison lost her eyesight in the blast. Kimberly summed the situation up, finger on the detonator, when she said: "It's not what you think. It's much worse." I like knowing that some people have a harder time breaking their bad habits than I do.

In Melrose Place, everything is about metaphor and subtext, except the parts which are about haircuts. That's why Alison's blindness is actually about her lack of self-knowledge and her growing misery over Billy's stupid marriage. Death is just a good means of character development, which is why (1) Jake's brother's death turns out to be about Jake's and Jo's emotional lives, and (2) Jane's fashion/romance rival's death turns out to be about Jane's career advancement and her continuing relationships with men who sport unidentifiable accents, and (3) Matt's evil boyfriend's wife's death is about Matt's parents' homophobia. I invited some friends over to watch the premiere with me, since it would have been too much to take on my own, and one of them said she couldn't even recognize all the characters, their faces were so altered by pain, scars, and new haircuts.

The explosion prompts everyone at Melrose Place to reevaluate their lives and to change outfits. We know the explosion is serious because we see Amanda surveying the damage, and she's not wearing a miniskirt. Jo looks like Elvira in mourning; Alison and Jake look like they're auditioning for a dinner theater production of Curse of the Mummy. Billy's trying out a bandage and tanktop look, and Matt has opted for prison blues.

Matt is, indeed, still in the county lockup, where there seem to be provisions against getting new haircuts but not against using blowdryers and mousse. As in the past, he gets to bond with the show's other token minorities, in this case his lawyer of color, and hug his homophobic parents - which is also the most he gets to do with his boyfriends - when he discovers Mom and Dad have mortgaged the house to pay for his bail. Look forward to the possibility, if Matt has to go back to jail in future episodes, of his finally getting laid.

Other highlights included Kimberly showing us how well she can act with her teeth as she denies any memory of blowing up an entire city block, Michael saying that she should be locked to a steampipe in Hell, and the unwrapping of the bandages on Alison's eyes, which was as suspenseful as Geraldo opening Al Capone's vault. Alison can't see, which gives her even more reason to be full of self-pity than before, but if she's lucky, she won't be able to find the liquor bottles. Can you get Stolichnaya in Braille? Look forward to her regaining her eyesight at some completely inopportune time. And what could cap an episode better than the revelation that Sydney and Amanda will have to share an apartment? Not since Three's Company has a roommate situation promised so much drama and hilarity.

Everyone on Melrose Place must all have very weak longterm memory - otherwise, how could they live together after all the terrible things they've done to each other? Laura Leighton observed about Sydney, her character, "She's smart but has really bad decision-making capabilities and doesn't necessarily learn from her mistakes," which is true of the whole cast, except the part about being smart and Billy. I wish my friends were like the people on Melrose Place. Their capacity for forgivenes is positively divine.

Melrose Place is greatest watercooler show around, the sort of show I call my friends about during the day when I'm temping for my law firm and they're temping for Bank of America. I'm obsessed, along with the rest of the country: The characters on Melrose are just like us, except they're more beautiful, they have more sex, and they act as nasty as we wish we could. For my entertainment dollar, it's the best good mean fun on TV.

Sacred Country, Rose Tremain's 1992 novel, has recently been released in paperback. It was pretty much ignored by the gay community when it first came out, which is too bad, because it's a beautifully written, moving and enormously compassionate story of an English girl's discovery that she feels more like a man that a woman. It's a quirky story, filled with odd and frightening characters - a butcher's son who sings himself mute trying to yodel, a gay dentist who lives with his mother on a cliff slowly crumbling into the sea, a woman driven insane by her violent husband - all of which add up to a piercing and insightful map of loneliness.

Tremain writes simple sentences, straightforward language which changes subtly to reflect the passing of the 30 years the novel covers. It's a smart choice, the simplicity. Sometimes the novel is confident and direct, as when Mary, the protagonist, tells her pet guinea fowl, "I have a secret to tell you, dear, and this is it: I am not Mary. That is a mistake. I am not a girl. I'm a boy." At other moments, Tremain sneaks up on her subject, as in this sequence, worth quoting at length since the power of the writing builds slowly, which describes the death of the yodeler's father:

"He stood very still as he worked. He was forty-nine years old. Since the end of the war
he had been entirely happy.
He looked up from the block for a split second. He fancied he had heard, in the midst of
the dawn quiet, the shop bell jingle.
His right hand should have paused half-way from his shoulder but it did not. It brought
the cleaver down on his three fingers resting on the duck's neck and sliced them off, just
above the knuckles.
He saw what had happened. He saw his three ends of fingers lying on the block and
thought, I have done a fatal thing, I have done something that has no ending and no resolution....
His right hand lost all its strength and the cleaver fell out of it and clattered to the floor.
This little noise might have woken Grace, far above, but it did not. Sunday morning sleep
was precious and she turned over and sighed and went back to her dreams."

Tremain's events are so volatile that as to verge on melodrama, but her journalistic diction lends her plot immense power, and the occasional moments of poetry become all the more affecting. The description of the butcher as "entirely happy" could have come across as sentimental, but as a prelude to an entirely accidental, senseless death, conveyed in terse, straightforward prose, it is instead a moving representation of feelings so strong they could only be simple.

Tremain has a great ability to convey a mounting sense of danger and claustrophobia with everyday imagery, particularly when describing Mary's parents, Estelle and Sonny. Sonny is cruel and alcoholic, and ultimately drives Estelle to an insane asylum, the only place she can find any peace or contentment. Early in the book, Tremain writes a section from Estelle's point of view. One paragraph begins commonly enough: "'You're everything to me, Estelle,' Sonny still sometimes says" and it's easy to be lulled by the cliche. But Tremain turns every cliche into a revelation. The paragraph continues in Estelle's voice, with poetic images culled from daily life: "It's then that I know his breath is killing me. You cannot be everything to a person and still survive. I go to my sewing machine. To me, it is a flawless thing, designed by a mind that did not lie to itself."

Sacred Country is a book that I want to quote again and again, and at length, to my friends; it rang that true. Take, for instance, this long description of Walter, the yodeler. Walter has previously slept only with an aged female fortune-teller at the county fair, until he goes driving with and then is seduced by his dentist, Gilbert Blakey, who is gay and a virgin. They are discussing the recent assassination of Kennedy when Gilbert puts his hand on Walter's thigh:

"Walter didn't move. He looked down at the hand as though it were a thing that had landed
on him from outer space. He saw that it was a pale hand, lightly freckled with soft blond hairs
on the back of it. The fingers were very long and the nails perfect and shiny. Walter wondered
whether he should say anything. He wanted to ask, Do you want me to say anything, Mr.
Blakey? He turned his head, just fractionally, so that he could see Gilbert's face and his
expression. Gilbert was staring ahead at the road. It was as though the hand that he'd put on
Walter's knee didn't belong to him, as though he hadn't noticed that it was there. Walter thought,
in a moment or two, he'll take his hand away and we'll start a new conversation about some
ordinary thing, not Kennedy, and this moment will not have happened. It will be like everything
else; in the past and not there. He had an erection. He didn't often get them. He wanted Gilbert's
hand to stay and the erection to stay. He didn't want these things to disappear into time. So he put
his own wide, cumbersome hand on Gilbert's slim one. Touching it was like touching a meteorite,
just as extraordinary. He moved the hand up his thight. He felt a wild, hot happiness."

Rarely have I read such a strong description of the mix of emotion and wonder and shame and distance that I feel in my life.

Ironically, Rose Tremain is not a lesbian - she lives outside of London with her boyfriend - and ultimately, Sacred Country is not about the daily lives of gays, lesbians, or transexuals. The characters in Sacred Country are mostly alone, wrestling with their conflicts between the spirit and the body. They are lonely and out of place - in fact, when they develop relationships with others, they generally fade out of prominence in the novel. Tremain's gift is to depict these states with eloquence and compassion. So while she doesn't describe the daily prejudices queers encounter, or the communities queers build, or the pros and cons of hormone treatments, she does succeed in providing an eloquent, moving, passionate portrayal of the emotional lives of outsiders. And while she may not offer much hope of us being "entirely happy," she at least gives hope of our understanding our lives on a deeper and more meaningful level and a firm belief that the quest for understanding is paramount. And that is an enormous and uncommon gift.

TOP