Pinkface?

Speaking of Tony Kushner, the school that currently employs me as a visiting lecturer recently did a production of Kushner's epic Pulitzer prize-winning 1992 play Angels in America: a Gay Fantasia on National Themes: Part 1 - Millennium Approaches. This was a couple of weeks ago and I've been trying to think for a while about how to talk about my experience while watching this production.

The production was beautifully designed, but (to be frank about things) it didn't work. I was watching these lovely kids up there laboring with difficulty to make the play make sense, but... it was clear that they didn't get it.

And the director probably didn't either.

It was also really clear just how straight the audience was when I found myself the only one laughing as Prior said Come back, little Sheba!

But I had an even stronger reaction to this as the play continued. This isn't theirs, I thought. There is something actually wrong about watching these kids do this play. They don't understand it because it isn't for them, or rather, it isn't about them. This is not theirs.

The implication here is, of course, that Angels in America is somehow mine, and that I have more entrée into the play than undergraduates who will be taking their degrees between 2013 and 2016. And the more I think about it, the more true I think that is – as laughable as that sounds.

It is because these kids aren't gay. They're up there on the stage playing gay characters, which is (I am sure they think) very admirable and brave and all, but the more I watched the more wrong the whole thing felt. A friend of mine said to me after the show that she imagined it must've been like watching actors in brownface or blackface, and I think she's right. It did feel like that.

The thing is, this happens all of the time on television and in the movies. Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger play gay and Philip Seymour Hoffman plays gay and I don't give it a second thought. But most of the films and television programs where gay characters are played by straight actors are written by straight writers and helmed by straight directors. These representations don't feel as though they belong to my culture in any serious way. (Brokeback Mountain isn't a gay film in my mind. It's a film for straight people made by straight people. I would call Noah's Arc or Gayby or Elephant or Weekend gay cultural productions: representations made by gay people for gay people.) And so it doesn't usually offend me to see a straight actor playing a gay character on Will & Grace or The Wire or whatever. We have our own images; it doesn't matter much if they also want to create images of us. (Transamerica is a notable, offensive, exception.)

But Angels in America is different. This was the great gay epic of the early 1990s. The play's characters are gay, their humor is gay – even the straight female character's humor is campily queer – and it is about the actual history of gay men, including legendary homophobe and homophile Roy Marcus Cohn. And I understand this is an androcentric post; it is so necessarily. And I am sure that I am not taking many other important things into consideration here. I am equally sure that I have no interest in articulating a program for some kind of "correct" representation of gay men.

All I am saying is that watching these straight boys up on stage going through their gay paces felt sacrilegious to me. I've never felt this way before, but I expect that this will not be the last time.

Oscar Nominees: Part Two

CINDERELLA MAN

3 Nominations: Best Supporting Actor, Best Film Editing, Best Makeup
Russell Crowe's excellent performance was overlooked this year, and though everyone talked up this obvious Oscar-baiter as in the running for Best Picture, no one seemed to actually like the film. I did, but I understand everyone's ho-hum attitude. It's like Seabiscuit all over again. And we all regret that little mistake.
Will Win: Nothing
Could Win: Supporting Actor
My Rating: #33 out of 81 films

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE

3 Nominations: Best Sound Recording, Best Visual Effects, Best Makeup
It didn't feel like a Jesus-movie to me, but everyone else saw it as such, or maybe it was just all of that right-wing noise about it being a Jesus-movie. At any rate, Jesus usually doesn't fare well with the Academy. Plus, comparisons with The Lord of the Rings Trilogy were inevitable and the writing and the scale of the thing just don't compare.
Will Win: Makeup
Could Win: Visual Effects
My Rating: #28 out of 81 films

WAR OF THE WORLDS

3 Nominations: Best Sound Recording, Best Sound Editing, Best Visual Effects
I liked this picture (at least more than I liked Munich and a good deal more than other Spielberg pictures as well. At its heart, though, it's a B-movie, chock full of aliens, crowd scenes and lasers.
Will Win: Visual Effects
Could Win: Sound Editing
My Rating: #48 out of 81 films

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

2 Nominations: Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay
Cronenberg is definitely not the Academy's cup of tea. But they still really liked this film. I mean, a screenplay nomination is a big deal, and that William Hurt performance was really short and short is not usually up the Academy's alley, either. Still, there are lots of snubs here. Director and Actress among them.
Will Win: Nothing
Could Win: Nothing
My Rating: #6 out of 81 films

HUSTLE & FLOW

2 Nominations: Best Actor, Best Original Song
I think everyone is surprised by this film's popularity, and then they see the film and they understand why. It's formulaic and Hollywood, but boasts some excellent performances and a couple of great songs. Most importantly: to the Academy it's not a gritty, hand-held kind of a thing. It's clean and pretty looking and, like I said, has a lot going for it.
Will Win: Song
Could Win: Nothing
My Rating: #41 out of 81 films

SYRIANA

2 Nominations:Best Supporting Actor, Best Original Screenplay
Ah the Clooney. He is everywhere. This movie is a rough go. It looks more intelligent than it is, but it's alarmingly political and really exciting, if defeatist. Seriously,I thought The Constant Gardener was more upbeat, if that gives you any idea how depressing this film is.
Will Win: Supporting Actor
Could Win: Nothing
My Rating: #23 out of 81 films

NORTH COUNTRY

2 Nominations: Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress
No one liked this film and these nominations are just an example of the group-think mentality that is pervasive during awards season (and other seasons as well). Don't get me wrong, they think for themselves some of the time, but the Oscars (and maybe this is something that needs its own blog entry) so often wind up being, like any election, a contest between people that the Academy is settling for--not too outlandish, often formulaic, a lot of "give us more of what we already know." The problem with this is that more deserving artists are often overlooked because their work pushes the boundaries.
Will Win: Nothing
Could Win: Nothing
My Rating: #69 out of 81 films

MRS HENDERSON PRESENTS

2 Nominations: Best Actress, Best Costume Design
This movie should've been the favorite of all of the old people in the Academy. It came out a little late to really make a splash, and that's purely the fault of its studio. To get the elderly on board you have to come out much earlier than December 25th. Anyway, it's a light, if overly long, little piece.
Will Win: Nothing
Could Win: Nothing
My Rating: #16 out of 81 films

TRANSAMERICA

2 Nominations: Best Actress, Best Original Song
This movie sucks. I hated it and I'm sorry that it got any nominations at all (apologies to Dolly Parton and her song.) Kevin Zegers is cute, but I hated the film and I hated the lead performance--hell, all the performances. This subject matter has been covered much better before and I was truly sorry to see this film get the attention it did.
Will Win: Nothing
Could Win: Song
My Rating: #78 out of 81 films

Holiday

I haven't been to work in what seems like forever. I haven't been sleeping in my own bed, either, though all will go back to normal tomorrow morning when I wake up for work. I was in Monument, Colorado for Christmas where it didn't snow at all--though it was fucking freezing cold, and I was in Big Bear Lake, California for New Year's Eve where it snowed on the way out of town (luckily). I had never seen it snow before.

The sun is out here, now, after days of gloom and rain. I might even go visit my friend up in Valencia this afternoon. (A cloud just covered the sun.)

Back from Colorado, I have been watching movies like mad... making up for lost time. I'm behind in my viewing now: this is what I get for missing a week of movie-watching. I watched only one movie in Colorado, and that one was from 1951. (If you haven't seen Royal Wedding, Astaire dances on the ceiling, Jane Powell performs brilliantly in a New York-style dance number, and Peter Lawford looks extremely cute, but it doesn't have much else going for it.)

Capsule reviews of the movies I've seen since my return from CO:
The White Countess I found kind of disappointing. Like all Merchant-Ivory pictures, I suppose it will improve with more viewings, but this film has a few troubles: mostly script problems. It looks gorgeous and is quietly moving, like most of Ivory's films, but it isn't quite as subtle as it ought to be. Madeleine Potter gives a superior performance.
Crash is all about racism. Racism, racism, racism. Everyone, in case you were unaware, is racist, and justice, in case you were confused, is impossible to achieve. The best scene in the film is a scene between good cop Ryan Philippe and hopelessly corrupt cop Keith David, where the older, black officer and the young idealist white officer conspire to keep bigoted officer Matt Dillon in a position of power. This film is irresponsible and silly, not to mention unapologetically sympathetic to a whole cadre of odious, unsympathetic characters.
Casanova is unabashedly silly and totally fun. It loses its initial cleverness about halfway through, but remains somewhat witty. The whole thing is ridiculous, but I thought it was fun. Plus I'm in love with Heath Ledger now. (There isn't anywhere near the amount of nudity there ought to have been in the picture, unfortunately.)
Transamerica sucked. It could've been a good road picture and it could have been a poignant father-son saga. It's neither. Felicity Huffman is occasionally believable as a transgender woman, but this film is terrible. The script is a total mess. None of the characters' motives make the least bit of sense and the non-resolution is utterly ludicrous. Fionnula Flanagan is terrible beyond words as Bree's scenery-chewing mother.
The Ballad of Jack and Rose is an exquisite little gem of a film about late-sixties idealism and the legacy this movement passed on to its children. Camilla Belle is extraordinary, Catherine Keener does her usual superb and dependable supporting work and Daniel Day-Lewis gives a raw, heartbreaking performance. The photography is breathtaking. It's a wonderful portrait of an idyll in turmoil and (perhaps) the end of an era. I liked it enormously.

Still in the Netflix queue from 2005:
The Beautiful Country, Tropical Malady, Yes, Kings and Queen, Hustle & Flow, My Summer of Love, Saraband, Happy Endings, The Girl from Monday, 5X2, Head-on, Fear and Trembling, War of the Worlds

Still to see in theatres from 2005 (i.e. call me if you want to catch a flick one night this week, as I will be going to see one every night):
Munich, Match Point, Caché, The New World, The Producers, The Libertine

XO

Happy New Year
Aaron