February 4, 2003

I just caught AKA, Duncan Roy’s Sundance entry.  It’s a well-made piece that probably didn’t need the triple split screen gimmick in order to work.  In fact, I would say that while it was occasionally interesting, it really had no discernable meaning in my eyes.  A movie like Timecode did a quad screen for a reason.  There was an inherent structure – four cameras, 93 minutes of tape in each one, shooting until roll out - that Figgis was trying to make fly. 

But what snuck up on me in Roy’s film - besides the remarkable performance by its young lead, Matthew Leitch, that grows in power as the film progresses until you realize that he is making a distinct series of choices – was that it was an imposter movie.  At first, it seems to be a survivor’s story.  And I guess it is that in some ways.  But it is another imposter story.

What struck me next was its similarity to Six Degrees of Separation.  Roy’s tale is based on a true story, but the result is that it feels like Six Degrees in England, opened up even wider than the John Guare play had been.  A mysterious, vaguely gay young man charms his way into the care and comfort of a class not his own.  Guare’s play and screenplay was more about the American bourgeoisie, while Roy’s story skewers the aristocratic class in England. 

Then, as yet another male character made a move on the lead male, I wondered to myself why there was a string of gay characters in these imposter films.

Of course, after a moment, I remembered that Catch Me If You Can is also right in line with AKA, even though Leo DiCaprio plays a straight young man in the film.  But then I started seeing even more similarities between AKA and Catch… strong mother characters that abandon their sons, problem fathers, the theft of money, the last honest man chasing the fake, for whom he feels sympathy, to all ends of the earth and even an end-of-film return back to mom and a somewhat upbeat ending. 

Still, the idea that identity confusion and homosexuality are entwined in these films is interesting.  It’s not only interesting to consider as a filmgoer, but considering it from the perspective of the filmmakers is intriguing.  In AKA, our young hero, Dean, has been raped by his own father.  As he moves into his deception, he also seems to slide slowly towards homosexuality.  What is the audience meant to take from this?  The film is clearly not interested in any harsh judgments of the gay lifestyle.  But what does the childhood abuse say about this character’s homosexuality?  Was it caused by the molestation?  Was he trying to find the love of his father in sex with men?  I really don’t think the film answers these questions but, watching the film, they were definitely raised.

In Six Degrees of Separation, Will Smith’s “Paul” brings a male hustler into his host’s home.  In this film, Paul’s homosexuality seems to be yet another blow to the above-it-all family that he has joined.  First, a black man who is okay because he claims to be Sidney Poitier’s son, but thenadd homosexuality and a hustler… now that is a dinner conversation!

DiCaprio’s Frank Abagnale also has an active sex life as part of his deception.  But his pursuit of the opposite sex is often played for laughs.  There doesn’t seem to be any subtext other than “boys will be boys.” 

And then there is The Talented Mr. Ripley, another imposter in high society driven by his homosexual desire for – ahem – Dickie. 

It’s kind of funny that I am going down this road after fighting with Michael Medved over his remarks on films like Far From Heaven.  But it is interesting.  Is the “gay movie” of this era the closet film?  Far From Heaven and The Hours both have very distinct “closet elements.”  In AKA, everyone assumes that the lead is gay, though he finally declares that he doesn’t let anyone that close.  In Six Degrees of Separation, there is shock when “Paul” asserts any sexuality.  And in Ripley, our anti-hero allows everyone to presume that he is quite straight, but his gay lust drives the whole story.  Even the most successful overtly gay-themed film of 2002, Kissing Jessica Stein, was a “will she or won’t she” tale. 

Are these filmmakers trying to tell us that identity confusion is the most significant element of emerging as a gay person in this society?  The issue is not too far from David Mamet’s exploration of a lapsed Jew who comes into contact with orthodoxy and has to reevaluate his faith in Homicide.   Dennis Haysbert’s character faces the same issue as a black man in a still overly racist society in Far From Heaven.  And, probably not coincidentally, Haysbert also faced an identity decision in his small role in Heat – will he suffer the “straight” life or go back to crime? 

Even 35 years ago in No Way To Treat A Lady, the ultimate imposter, played by Rod Steiger, seemed to be dealing with sublimated homosexuality.  Coincidence?

Maybe there are only so many human frailties that can be hidden, though geniuses like Woody Allen and Albert Brooks seem to be able to find loads of them in everyone.  In the meanwhile, let’s keep clearing out those closets.

READER OF THE DAY:  WERD FAKE NAME writes:  “Can't say why, but the announcement of the "Hot Wheels" inspired the following:

Col., McG Shine To "Ball of Foil"

Columbia Pictures and "Charlie's Angels" helmer McG are joining forces for the Summer 2004 release "Shiny Ball of Foil."  "Simple-minded people, and most apes, really respond to shiny objects," enthuses McG.  "With 'Foil,' we're aggressively planting the flag on the shiny object genre.  What we'll be delivering is an object, that will be shiny.  When the light hits it, it sparkles, like some kind of diamond or something.  I love that!"

LT writes:  “I really enjoy your Oscar columns--word on the sad inevitability of Chicago

winning Best Picture, by the way--and thought you might be interested in this:

A few sites had picked up a page we did on the Best Makeup/Oscar eligibility brouhaha--our "Ask a Stupid Question" column (http://www.dailydigest.net/stupidquestion.html) basically commented on the Hollywood Reporter's explanations for the snubs this year and supplied visual aids. Due to the response the page got, we are putting up a poll so that readers can vote which films they think SHOULD have been eligible/nominated for the award. Sort of a protest, you might say, so if your readers would like to make themselves heard...

The poll is at http://www.dailydigest.net/news.html”

EC writes:  “When it comes to awards, history proves that what is the "best" in any particular year often bears little resemblance to what live on to be the really great movies.  Chicago isn't the best movie of the year, but it certainly deserves to win.  With awards of any kind, the alignment of the stars has as much to do with a win as the inherent quality of the work.

Chicago will win because it took a dead genre and brought it back to life.  It's already an audience favorite before it goes wide. All of the leads beat expectations about their performances and the rollout and PR campaign has been perfect. Enough of your colleagues liked it enough for it to be considered a critics darling.  With all of that in its favor, why shouldn't it win? 

If there are four or five successful musical movies produced in the coming years, they will all be the result of Chicago's success.  Everyone will say that Moulin Rouge paved the way for Chicago, which became the film that audiences took to their heart.

Chicago will win because people in the industry see its success as being potentially important. I don''t find anything wrong with that as a criteria for an award.  Certainly it's getting extra credit because it looked like a long-shot commercially and critically.  It's a case where a movie beats the odds, and beating the odds earns awards.

Singin In The Rain is considered by many to be the greatest movie musical.  It lost the Academy Award to The Greatest Show On Earth!  I have no idea what politics and machinery got DeMille's movie the win, but given this years choices, Chicago winning certainly wouldn't be considered appalling.  And I doubt that in the future it will be clumped together with the list of unworthy Oscar triumphs.  I've seen Dances With Wolves. I've seen Gladiator. I've seen Unforgiven.  Chicago is better than any of them.

When you asked if Chicago is anything more than "a pleasant amusement" I thought to myself, no, that is exactly what it is.  Well, Hollywood hasn't made a true pleasant amusement in quite a while.  There's nothing wrong with that, and this year it seems to be very right.”

E ME: What are you hiding?