Majorettes in Space (Des majorettes dans l'espace (France 1997)

The Gist:

In a filmed lecture we are told of heterosexuals, homosexuals, cosmonauts, majorettes, the pope, and AIDS. 

Comments:

This is a French (very) short film using filmed scenes, stock footage, stop motion animation, and the convention of a dry education video to make simultaneously amusing yet no fucks given 1990's AIDS activist era commentary on the injustice / ridiculousness  of the church’s / society’s reaction to AIDS. 

It’s very short, only a few minutes long and does a good job at what it sets out to do.

Women:

Yes

People of color:

No

Gratuitous nudity:

There is brief full nudity, presented as banal, yet simultaneously in your face confrontational, so gratuitous is not the best word for it 

• Director: David Fourier
• Writer: David Fourier
• Actors: ELise Laurent, Jean-Marc Delacruz, Olivier Laville
• French
• Short film
• 6 Minutes
• IMDB

Rock Hudson's Home Movies (U.S. 1992)

The Gist: 

'Dead Rock Hudson' uses clips from movies he starred or acted in to argue that the closeted actor was actually out as a gay man in his screen roles, if you knew how to  properly 'read' his roles and dialogue that is. 

Comments:

This is a rather odd movie with an odd sense of unreality, both in casting a man who looks nothing like Rock Hudson to play him, to having the actor play 'dead' Rock speaking to us from beyond the grave. 

Besides being several steps away from reality, it's also a documentary, well, maybe not so much documentary as much as filmed essay. The thesis being that Rock Hudson played with his audience by teasing he was actually gay through the roles he played, by use of plot and dialogue. This is “proved” with clips from his movies. Showing his characters having questionable relationships with women, questionable friendships with men, how he was often treated as a sex object by the camera (as women usually were/are), and of course, from his Doris Day comedies where twice he ended up playing "gay" in order to get the girl. 

It's an interesting argument, though I'm not sure how much merit it has. The movie acknowledges, in a quick throw away line, the main counter-argument that Hudson was writing neither plot nor dialogue, nor to an extent had control over which roles he was offered, so he had no real power over his character’s actions. Actions that supposedly prove he was gay. 

If the idea is valid that his dialogue or plot points in his movies have a queer subtext, I'm not sure how much of that due directly to Rock Hudson or if these queer subtexts were (are) common in Hollywood movies.  Rock Hudson is not exactly the first actor to play an arguably questionably straight role, or even the first closeted gay actor to do so. 

That said, given how well he was known and how due to his death from AIDS he became for a long time "THE" image of closeted gay actor, the movie's points do end up making some sense. At least it does until it gets to the end and the movie switches to arguing that Hudson predicted his own death, which is a bit odd.

Thesis/point of the movie aside, it's more or less as technically competent as you'd expect for a low budget cheap indie flick that consists almost entirely of medium to low quality clips of other movies. 

While I don't entirely buy into the movie's argument, I personally thought it was an interesting watch and it shows how oddly ‘queer’ hollywood male roles in action and westerns movies can get. As for recommending it? It would probably only be worth it if you were a fan of Rock Hudson or at least a fan of his movies. If not, I suspect it would be boring. 

Women:
N/A

People of Color:
N/A

Gratuitous nudity:
N/A

• Director: Mark Rappaport
• Writer: Mark Rappaport 
• Actor: Eric Farr
• 63 minutes
• Note: As it’s a documentary of movie clips I didn’t bother with my usual metric of casting choices and such
• IMDB

Red Ribbons (U.S 1994)

The Gist:

It's 1994 and an avant garde indie New York theater director/writer has just died from AIDS. His lover and friends have an impromptu gathering to mourn / celebrate him as his lover waits for the dead man's disapproving mother to show up and throw him out of his apartment as it's under the dead man's name. 

Comments:

For a long while there was a joke that all gay themed movies had to deal with AIDS and for a long time it was more or less true. Understandable given the impact the disease had on the community and the resulting need to process and deal with this impact. Meaning that this movie is much a product of its time, in sorrow at least if not in anger, since unlike other AIDS themed movies there is no fury at the 'system' failing us as people died.

So in the story we have a dead man who we still get to see thanks to the conceit of video diary entries he made while still alive and the impact his death (and life) has had on his gathered friends. 

The movie isn't horrible. That said, the acting is largely mediocre, the story is not overly engaging, and despite his presence on the poster Quentin Crisp is barely in it (and not in a particularly interesting role). 

Unless you absolutely need to see every AIDS related gay movie there is, this one is more than skippable.

Women: 
Yes

People of Color: 
No, only white people live in New York

Gratuitous nudity:
No

• Director: Neil Ira Needleman
• Writer: Neil Ira Needleman
• Actors: Robert Parker, Christopher Cappiello, Quenton Crisp
• 62 min
• IMDB

World and Time Enough (U.S. 1994)

The Gist:

A gay couple, an HIV positive artist and his partner, an innocent minded garbage collector, live in occupied territory, that is the 'straight world,' as they deal with issues everyone faces, from love and life, to acceptance and death. 

Comments with minor spoilers:

The movie is very much a product of its time. Not so much the actual story which is a ‘universal’ tale of a couple dealing with love, acceptance, family and death, but rather the background of where this is taking place. These two men are not rich “white collar” gays living in a safe sequestered gay ghetto. Rather they live a ‘blue collar” life in the ‘regular’ world, occupied territory as it were, of aggressive heteronormality and enforced consumerism. The mere act of living together in a committed relationship makes their lives transgressive. Having one of the men be an HIV positive artist who specializes in short lived ephemeral art sculptures is another aspect of its time, of when AIDS was still considered a death sentence.

If it were re-set to now, the basic story would be the same, but the world they lived in would not. Consumerism will have won, and be worse in ways, but the fact of two men together, if not wholly and totally accepted, would at least not be too uncommon.  

All this aside, I like the movie, though it has several flaws. The device of interviewing one of the minor characters to serve as a narrator doesn’t really work and feels more awkward than useful. Another issue is that the movie feels lopsided as if it were actually two different not entirely complimentary stories lashed roughly together, a story of men in love followed by a tale of obsession (after the artist finds out his father has died). 

There's also the frankly awkward ending. The movie ends, then a couple minutes later ends again. One ending "artistic" and the other hopeful, which makes it seem as if there was a disagreement over how it should end so "they" just included both versions. 

Regardless of the problems, what does work is the idea that these two men are in love, both physically and emotionally. Going back to idea of the movie being a product of its time this is kind of a radical presentation. The early nineties were Hollywood giving us Tom Hanks as a ‘perfect’ gay man (meaning safely platonic and dying) in Philadelphia, while independent queer cinema was responding with a big F’ YOU to society with angry, suicidal, queer kids in Totally F***ed Up. This movie is neither extreme, neither safe nor enraged, but it ends up being more ‘real’ for this. 

Even with problems, it is worth seeing, though if you do, watch it to the very end.  

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Yes 

Gratuitous nudity: 

No

• Director: Eric Mueller
• Writer: Eric Mueller
• Actors: Matt Guidry, Gregory G Giles 
• 90 min
• IMDB 

Bear Cub (Cachorro) (Spain 2004)

The Gist:

Pedro, content his life of friends and lovers, and most importantly no serious commitments, agrees to help his sister by taking care of his nephew Bernardo for two weeks while she is in India for a trip. When circumstances require Bernardo to stay longer, the boy's grandmother comes into the picture threatening to break up the new found bond between uncle and nephew and their fledgling family. 

Comments:

I've mentioned the "gays plus a kid makes a family" subgenera here before. This is sort of the same idea, but with a determinedly single man in place of a troubled gay couple and without the cliche of having the kid be a homophobic jerk. Actually, several gay flick cliches are avoided, resulting in a movie dealing frankly with sex, drugs, and AIDS amongst other issues. 

It's well done and worth a watch. Especially so if you're into bears of the big hairy man variety.

Women:

Family, neighbors, schoolmates. In other words, it does not ignore half the population. 

People of color:

Nope

Gratuitous nudity:

The movie starts off with a rather revealing "bear on bear" sex scene, so yeah, there's definitely skin of the big hairy man variety.

• Director: Miguel Albaladejo 
• Writers: Miguel Albaladejo
• Actors: Jose Luis Garcia Perez, David Castillo
• 99 min
• Spanish
• IMDB

Heaven's A Drag (aka To Die For) (U.K. 1994)

The Gist:

After his drag queen performer lover dies of AIDS, a man is set on moving on with his life of meaningless hook ups as soon as possible. His drag queen performer lover's ghost on the other hand disagrees. 

Comments: 

The stereotype of "AIDS" movies is that they are dreary and depressing, but this is about a ghost using tricks to interfere with his lover from, er, tricking with other men. It should be a version of Topper, where dead Cary Grant is gay and teaches Cosmo to fully live life. It should have its sad moments yes, but in the end be fun and up-lifting.

It's not.

Instead it's a movie where:

1. A gay couple avoids dealing with their issues.
2. The drag queen half of the couple is sad because he will soon die from AIDS.
3. The non-drag queen half of the couple acts like a jerk.

The drag queen half of the couple dies, leading to the second half of the story where:

1. A gay couple avoids dealing with their issues.
2. The drag queen half of the couple is sad because he has died from AIDS.
3. The non-drag queen half of the couple acts like a jerk.

Well, in truth, there is more to it,  lessons are learned, and amusing ghost tricks are tricked, it's just that instead of fun and uplifting it ends up being kind of dreary and depressing. In addition, it's dark and muddy looking, the sound quality is iffy, and the comedy relief neighbor is anything but funny.

All in all, this is only really worth watching as proof just how depressed everyone was in the day, so that even comedies were sad and dark, or better yet, just go watch Topper instead. 

Women:

Two. A mom and the unfunny comedy relief neighbor. The joke being that she's desperate to marry her boyfriend, because a woman wanting a committed relationship is apparently hilarious. 

People of color:

Nope

Gratuitous nudity:

Minor

• Director: Peter Mackenzie Litten
• Writers: Johhny Byrne, Peter Mackenzie Litten
• Actors: Ian Williamsn, Thomas Arklie, Dillie Keane
• 101 min
• IMDB