Deliverance (1919): A Review

DELIVERANCE (1919)

The story of Helen Keller is probably best known through the biopic The Miracle Worker. Long before that, however, Keller herself appeared in her own story in Deliverance. This silent film gives us a glimpse into Keller's story, albeit at times still bound by the style and customs of the times it was made.

Broken into three acts: Childhood, Maidenhood and Womanhood, audiences learn about what first befell little Helen Keller. A childhood illness left her in the words of the title card "Blind--Deaf--and Dumb". Devasted, it looks like Helen Keller will be condemned to a life of darkness until they reached out to Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, who in turn got them to contact Anne Sullivan. 

Sullivan was able to pierce through the fog that covered Keller's world. With the veil lifting as much as possible, Keller would also learn to not just read and write, but also speak! Her first words were, "I--am--not--dumb--NOW!". She goes on to Radcliffe and entertains such luminaries as Mark Twain. We see Keller's visions of the stories she reads, such as those of Odysseus, reenacted before our eyes.

Finally, we see Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan play themselves, along with Keller's family, as they lead the world into the fight for independence. Keller's own story is a counter to that of Nadja, her frenemy who has all her senses but no sense. Despite having advantages Keller does not, she ends up a seamstress whose son loses his sight in the First World War. She turns to her friend Helen Keller to help, which Keller eagerly does. Metaphorically if not literally leading troops into battle against ignorance, Helen Keller pushes on.

One element that surprised me about Deliverance is how long it felt despite being a mere 90 minutes. I think the film felt long because of some truly curious moments. I imagine that the recreations of Odysseus' time with Circe were meant to show us what Keller's imagination looked like. Looking at it over a century later, these scenes just felt like padding, and a curious padding at that. There are also reenactments of Washington and the Battle of Bunker Hill that come off as basically strange. There is context to these moments (Keller and Sullivan are visiting these places). However, it does take away from how almost nutty it looks.

I also wonder if we needed that counter story about Najda to contrast Keller's own. I think Keller's story is inspirational enough without having this nasty little girl be a counter to the sweet little Helen. 

Deliverance also suffers from the prevailing attitudes of the times. The black people at the Keller home look like they are literal slaves on a plantation. While Keller was a descendant of slaveowners, slavery had been abolished fifteen years before her birth. Deliverance, however, makes it look like this started in the antebellum South. The title cards for whenever an African American character speaks is also tinged with "ethnic" dialect. "Marse Keller, it am the sweetest li'l chile in de world", a Mammy-type figure remarks. The use of "Marse" (read: Master) is bad enough. Everything else involving the black characters is very questionable.

Again, Deliverance should be judged by the times it was presented. As such, a little grace is needed when watching. 

What is fascinating is the third act, when we see the real Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan interact on camera. We see Keller navigating her life, using sign language, even typing. Deliverance is perhaps one of the first films where the subject of a biopic played herself, if only in the third act. Still, having a visual record of this most fascinating and controversial figures of the twentieth century is still something to marvel at. 

Deliverance does have the flaw of the overtly theatrical acting manner that plagued early silent films. 

It is amusing now that, intentional or not, there was a brief surge in "Helen Keller Truthers" among Gen Z. Apparently, there were some young people who could or would not believe that a deaf, blind and mute woman could read or write fourteen books, let alone fly a plane (which we do see in Deliverance, though Keller herself was not actually flying the plane solo). Some even doubted that she actually existed. Others, to my amusement, stated that she was despite her disabilities just another privileged white woman. She, according to them, never heard "no" when applying for jobs or got pulled over for driving.

I'll leave aside the thought of how in a sense, these "truthers" are right that she never did hear the word "no". I do not know if she ever got pulled over for driving though.

I doubt any of these very misinformed people would sit through a silent film like Deliverance. However, as an early record of Helen Keller, Deliverance is a fascinating glimpse into a fascinating woman. 

1880-1968

DECISION: B-

The Boys in the Band (2020): A Review

 

THE BOYS IN THE BAND (2020)

The bitch (boys) is back. The remake of The Boys in the Band attempts to outdo the original film from fifty years earlier. In some ways better than the 1970 adaptation, in some ways weaker, will The Boys in the Band stand on its own or pale next to its counterpart?

New York City, 1968. Michael (Jim Parsons) is getting things ready for his frenemy Harold's birthday party. Arriving early is his friend Donald (Matt Bomer), with whom he is having a casual relationship. Michael gets a surprise call from his college friend Alan (Brian Hutchinson), who tearfully asks to come over. Reluctantly, Michael agrees to see him for a quick drink during the party even though Alan is straight and unaware of Michael's homosexuality.

Soon the other guests start arriving. There's Emory (Robin de Jesus), overtly flamboyant. There's Hank and Larry (Tuc Watkins and Andrew Rannells), a couple who are going through a rough patch. Bernard (Michael Benjamin Washington), the only black man at the party, brings some books for Donald to enjoy. At first, Alan calls again to say he can't make it, and the party commences. To everyone's surprise, Emory's gift to Harold of street kid Cowboy (Charlie Carver) arrives early. To everyone's horror, Alan arrives after all.

He does not say what happened to cause his breakdown. He also takes umbrage at Emory's suggestion that he is closeted, causing a fight to break out. Into this comes the guest of honor, Harold (Zachary Quinto), as bitchy and pithy as they come. With the party pretty much in shambles, they still manage a nice meal until they get rained out. Now, an increasingly drunk Michael, who has fallen off the wagon due to the overall stress and chaos of the night, forces everyone to play a simple party game.

They have to call the one person whom they have truly loved. Alan wants to leave but Michael won't let him. As the various guests make their calls, secrets are revealed until Michael gets confronted by both Harold and Michael himself. Will everyone get out in one piece emotionally or even physically?

At another time, I will do a comparison between the 1970 and 2020 version of Mart Crowley's play (which here, he coadapted with Ned Martel). One thing that both versions have in common is that every actor who appeared in the Broadway version of The Boys in the Band recreated their roles for the film adaptation. The film even has the same director from the Broadway play: Joe Mantello.

Was Mantello the right choice to direct the film version? I'm leaning towards no. He did a good job with most of his cast, though to be fair he had worked with them for months on Broadway. What makes me lean no is that at least early on, Mantello loved moving the camera. I also felt some of the flashback scenes, particularly with Bernard's reminiscence of a one-night stand with a high school friend, were too artsy for my tastes. Add to that the idea that they were a bit distracting, and I felt overall unnecessary. This remake runs a mere two minutes longer than the original film yet felt longer. I think the reason for that was, in part, due to those flashbacks. I get the aim was to make it more cinematic, but it did not quite work for me.

One stumbling moment was when Donald and Larry see each other at the party. Perhaps it was meant to be clear that they had also been sexually involved. However, with that being the case, the revelation of their dalliance does not have the impact and shock that I think it should have had. 

In terms of performances, I think they were hit and miss. A standout was de Jesus as Emory, who was flamboyant without being unbearably silly. His monologue about his great lost love was quite moving. Watkins and Rannells did not convince me as lovers caught in a tiff. Instead, they were actors speaking lines. Their fight over a menage a trois as a compromise for Larry's need for sexual freedom was rough to watch.

Carver as Cowboy and Bomer as Donald were fine in every sense of the word (audiences of both genders got an appreciation for the physical beauty of Matt Bomer). I also think that both Parsons and Quinto were trying too hard to be both dramatic and sarcastic. Neither was terrible, but I never thought I was watching two people who both loved and hated each other. Quinto's final takedown of Michael seemed, again, like he was delivering a monologue versus Harold speak almost spontaneously from his heart. Parsons worked hard to be the mean, drunk, bitchy Michael to others, and he did have some good moments. Other times, though, Michael's anger felt forced. Had I been Alan in this production, I would have pushed Mikey out of the way and left.

The Boys in the Band feels a bit like a period piece. I am aware that it is set over fifty years ago. However, despite it being a relatively new production, there is still something almost creaky about its presentation. By no means a horrible film, with some good performances in it, The Boys in the Band still feels long. I might not turn down the invite to Harold's party, but I am not enthusiastic about it either.

DECISION: C+

Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1969). A Review

GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS (1969)

Peter O'Toole sings!

Peter O'Toole sings?

I think Peter O'Toole bursting out in song is a strange sight. Goodbye, Mr. Chips will not convince people that O'Toole could carry a tune. However, the tunes themselves are quite lovely and the overall film is a delight that has been unfairly ignored and that hopefully will find a renaissance among the public.

For decades, Mr. Arthur Chipping (O'Toole) has worked formally, diligently and strictly at Brookfield School for Boys. His no-nonsense, by the book manner do not make him a student favorite, but as he is within the rules there is nothing the boys can do about "Ditchy" (short for "dishwater, dull as"). He takes his school break to visit a former student, Lord Longbridge (Michael Culver). Johnny Longbridge is besotted by showgirl Katherine Bridges (Petula Clark), a chanteuse who specializes in soubrette roles and starring in the hit West End production Flossie from Fulham.

Chipping, who genuinely has no idea what a "hit" show entails or what a "hit" even means is not enchanted by this showgirl. Katherine, for her part, finds "Mr. Chips" delightful if a bit square. A chance reunion in Pompeii between Chipping and Katherine when both go there (he on holiday, she to escape her faltering career) leads them to spend the day together. That day, seeing how And the Sky Smiled at her, Katherine falls in love with Mr. Chipping. He at first is shocked, almost appalled at the idea. 

Despite that, he slowly starts seeing Katherine socially and eventually falls in love with her as well. A quick marriage between the owl and the pussycat shocks everyone at Brookfield, her bubbly personality a counter to his staid manner. She eventually becomes a beloved schoolmaster's wife, and he lightens up his formerly stern and serious manner. Her past brings wealthy alumni to threaten withholding funds for a playing field, but Katherine is an old pro at handling arrogant wealthy men. As they go through life together, things look blissful until the Second World War comes. Tragedy and loss follow, but dear Mr. Chipping continues seeing to the care of his generations of boys. 

I am at a loss to understand why Goodbye, Mr. Chips could be disliked. I could see reasons to find fault in it, which I will go into. However, as I watched Goodbye, Mr. Chips, I was as utterly charmed by it as Arthur Chipping was charmed by Katherine Brisket (Katherine Bridges' original name).  

Chief among reasons to potentially dislike Goodbye, Mr. Chips is Peter O'Toole in the singing department. Attempting a variation of Rex Harrison's "talking-on-pitch" from My Fair Lady, O'Toole does Harrison one better by actually trying to sing. His voice is a bit thin to carry the songs he performs: Where Did My Childhood Go? and What a Lot of Flowers. The songs in and of themselves are fine, both wistful and romantic. It is O'Toole's efforts to sing them that comes across as weak. It is not terrible, but one has to be a bit forgiving to hear Peter O'Toole try to sing them.

The Leslie Bricusse songs are lovely, with almost all of them being lush and romantic. That does have a bit of a negative effect in that they do close to sounding similar. Out of the entire songbook, I think only London is London and Schooldays are upbeat. The rest are solid but if not slow at least more sedate. However, that does not take away from the joy they have. If Goodbye, Mr. Chips is rediscovered, I figure such songs as Fill the World with Love will become anthems of optimism.

Fortunately, Peter O'Toole does better at acting than in singing, rightfully earning his fourth out of eventually eight Oscar nominations for his performance. His Arthur Chipping is pitch-perfect (no pun intended). He is delightful and perfect in Chipping's tight, restrictive manner. He is not naive or unaware of the world. Instead, he is a man aware of himself, not bending his principles for anyone or anything. He knows himself and stays true to himself, even if he does not know what the actual meaning of "hit" means. Chipping is not opposed to women or romance, just in romance with a woman whom he thinks is a bit bonkers. "Musical comedy actresses can't be all that normal, with all that dressing up and skipping about", he tells his best friend Max Staefel (Michael Bryant). 

Despite that, he does fall in love with quirky free spirit Katherine. Petula Clark did not have a major acting career after Goodbye, Mr. Chips. While O'Toole was an actor who gave singing a try, Clark is a singer who gave acting a try. I think Clark has nothing to be ashamed of in Goodbye, Mr. Chips. She is charming, winning and enchanting as Katherine, this somewhat flighty figure who finds her dear Mr. Chips fun, funny and the man for her. Clark carries the bulk of the songbook, and she does a magnificent job with the music.

Walk Through the World and You and I should be simply better known. They are lovely, romantic, yearning and deeply moving. I found myself falling in love with Katherine and Petula as we hear her voiceover rendition of Walk Through the World. As a singer, Petula Clark did a knockout job. As an actress, she more than held her own against a titan like Peter O'Toole in Goodbye, Mr. Chips. She plays the part correctly and well: this woman of the world who is quirky, fun but also longs for stability and respectability, the two qualities that Arthur Chipping holds in spades. Her rendition of London is London is fun and jolly, making her reprise at the end of the film all the more moving. 

While it is a small role, Sian Phillips (O'Toole's wife at the time) steals every scene she is in as Ursula Mossbank, Katherine's very eccentric theatrical friend. Exaggerated without being too silly, Phillips' Ursula is a delightfully quirky figure, genuinely unaware of what is going on around her. Ursula's insistence that Mr. Chipping is an actor she worked with who did a great drunk in the third act is a nice running gag. It may be a bit part, but it is a lot of fun to watch.

Goodbye, Mr. Chips is to my mind an homage to the positive aspects of education. It also is a sweet love story of two totally opposite people who find their perfect mate in each other. It is a true love that only death can separate. I was won over by the songs, the performances from Clark and O'Toole, and the sincerity in Goodbye, Mr. Chips. The film is hampered, again, by some of the songs sounding similar. On the whole, however, Goodbye, Mr. Chips is a delight from start to finish that I hope is rediscovered and reevaluated. I'd be happy to Walk Through the World with this film. 

DECISION: A-

Freud: A Review

 

FREUD (also known as 

FREUD: THE SECRET PASSION)

The mind is apt to play tricks on you. Few men are as renowned for delving into the dark recesses of the mind as Doctor Sigmund Freud. Freud (also known as Freud: The Secret Passion) attempts to cover his genesis into the leading light of psychoanalysis. While a surprisingly punishing length for some viewers, Freud has some positives that make it worth sitting through.

Young Sigmund Freud (Montgomery Clift) rejects the current thinking in 1885 Vienna that there is no connection between the mind and body when it comes to illness, specifically "hysteria". He goes against his first mentor Dr. Meynert (Eric Portman) and turns to renegade Parisian physician Dr. Charcot (Fernand Ledoux). With his instruction complete, Freud marries Martha (Susan Kohner) and begins using hypnosis to enter his patients' minds.

He joins with fellow renegade Dr. Breuer (Larry Parks) in hypnotizing the various troubled people they see. However, one patient soon begins to dominate both their lives: Cecily Koertner (Susannah York). Apparently physically infirm, first Breuer and then Freud begin delving into her mind. Breuer leaves the case when Cecily begins displaying signs of amorous feelings towards him, feeling she does eventually transfer to Freud. 

Freud eventually moves away from hypnosis and into conversation with Cecily. He soon makes discoveries about dreams, the Oedipus complex and sexuality in children. These discoveries help Cecily break free, but also earn Freud the ire of the medical profession, aghast at the idea of children having sexuality. Will he rise to make new discoveries or will the Viennese medical complex close ranks against him?

Part of me is puzzled and amazed that Montgomery Clift played the psychiatrist given Clift's own deeply troubled life. One, however, gives him and director John Huston credit for Clift's strong performance as Sigi.  Of particular note is when we see Freud's own dreams, which almost always involve going into a cave where he meets some kind of being. Those sequences are a bit whacked-out, though they are visually interesting. 

When he is not going into bonkers territory, Clift is mostly stable as Freud. There are times when he does look a bit intense, even for Montgomery Clift. However, Clift is solid when confronting his nemesis Meynert and his small mind. 

I am tempted to go after York for making Cecily a bit too much as the unstable woman who subconsciously lusts after her father and connects herself with prostitution. However, as she was meant to be a bit unstable, I think York played the part correctly. While his role is smaller, Larry Parks did quite well as Breuer, Cecily's first doctor and Freud's friend. 

Freud has, as I said, some strong positives. First among them is Jerry Goldsmith's score, which set the mood for the film as this vaguely eerie experience. Goldsmith, who would earn the first of his eventual eighteen Oscar nominations for Freud (eventually winning for The Omen), is particularly effective when his music accompanies Freud's dream sequences. Douglas Slocombe's black-and-white cinematography along with Goldsmith's music make these sections almost avant-garde in their presentation. 

What makes Freud weak however is its punishing almost two-and-a-half-hour runtime. This is especially glaring when we get to Cecily's story. One could have made a whole film about her and Freud alone. Once she comes to dominate Freud, it feels like everything we have seen before is almost attached needlessly. It might have done better to have had just a brief intro that covered all that came pre-Cecily and then focused more on her and Freud's story. While I did not keep track, I think it is well over an hour before we get to Cecily. Freud's struggle against the medical establishment, his marriage, his studies with Charcot probably could all have been taken care of in fifteen minutes to half an hour. That might have made Freud less of a struggle to sit through at times.

While the movie is very long, Jerry Goldsmith's score as well as a good performance by Montgomery Clift will help ease the mind when it comes to Freud. 

1856-1939

DECISION: C+

Liberace: Behind the Music. The Television Movie

 

LIBERACE: BEHIND THE MUSIC

Liberace, once hailed as Mr. Showmanship, is now hardly remembered, his larger-than-life persona fading away like the last notes of a piano. His museum in Las Vegas, once a must-stop on any visit to Sin City, is closed. Liberace: Behind the Music was made a year after the entertainer's death. A bit opaque on Liberace's private life, and with some unintentionally funny moments, Liberace: Behind the Music is still entertaining viewing.

Bookended with his long-desired performance at Radio City Music Hall, Walter Valentino Liberace (Victor Garber) is driven by a desire for success. Lee as everyone calls him comes from the humblest of backgrounds. In his early days, he supports himself not by playing piano at weddings like he tells his beloved Mama Frances (Maureen Stapleton) but by playing whorehouses and dive bars. Lee is a surprisingly shy man despite his on-stage flamboyance. He is, for example, very upset when he loses his virginity to a female singer that he met at one of the clubs he performs.

This ambivalence and insecurity are something that his older brother George (Michael Wikes) does not struggle with. He manages Lee's career, but steps aside for Seymour Heller (Saul Rubinek), who takes him to great heights. Mama Frances likes Seymour, but she detests Joanne (Macha Grenon), a local girl who goes to their church and appears to take a shine to Lee. A stumbling romance between them starts, much to Mama Frances' displeasure. Eventually, she turns out to be something of a gold-digger, breaking Lee's heart.

Also breaking Lee's heart is his fraught relationship with his father Salvatore (George Touliatos), who walked out on them years before. Add to that his other fraught relationship with Scott Thorson (Michael Dolan). Lee loses his father to dementia, his beloved mother to old age, and his male friend to drugs. He also loses, despite his misgivings, Seymour, though they do reconcile, and Seymour rebuilds his friend's career. Facing his own health troubles, Lee has only his newest partner Glenn (Shawn Levy) and Seymour to tend to him before Liberace's death.

Liberace went to his grave either denying or hiding his homosexuality. Given his speaking voice, his mannerisms, his flamboyance and overall demeanor, I doubt anyone would have been shocked if Liberace had come out. He was a case of knowing without having to openly say it. Behind the Music does not spell out Lee's sexuality in neon lights, but it does not hide it either. I do wonder though if David Lambert's screenplay leaned in on some stereotypes. 

You have for example the domineering mother disapproving of her favorite child's relationships with women. Every time Joanne comes around, Frances has this look of almost jealousy. There is another quick scene where Seymour reads to Lee angry letters from fans suggesting that his marrying Joanne is tantamount to betraying his mother. It might have been true, yet having people openly object to a man marrying a woman because it would mean leaving his mother is a strange reaction from people who thought Liberace was straight.

Victor Garber was himself closeted when he played this almost openly gay man. His performance is curious insofar as his voice was fine but he looks nothing like Liberace. It comes across more as an impersonation than a performance. He does have a good, quiet moment near the end when he learns of Rock Hudson's death. Removing the wig that hides his thinning hair, Garber gives Liberace a look of horror at the news. "Why would he tell people?", he tells Glenn. That statement could be read as Lee's shock that Hudson would reveal his AIDS diagnosis, his homosexuality, maybe both. There is just a mix of sadness and despair in this scene that is quite moving.

However, for most of Behind the Music, Garber seems more focused on capturing the mannerisms and voice than in showing the man behind the music. In one particularly and I figure unintentionally creepy moment, Lee has a lecherous look on his face when Thorson comes to his house that is quite off-putting. I figure Garber and director David Greene were going for conflicted. They ended up making Lee look almost as if he is about to force himself on the allegedly naive young man. 

Stapleton made Frances Liberace into a loving though misguided figure. She has a great moment when she faces her former husband, the look of horror and anger blending well. Whether cooly dismissing Joanne or comforting Liberace after his first sexual encounter, Stapleton never made Frances into a villain. She was just a mother who loved deeply if not well. Rubinek, through no fault of his own, ended up looking like Jiminy Glick at the end of the television movie. That was a bit distracting, but on the whole he did a good job as the loyal agent. Dolan probably had the worst of it. He went from lost, almost innocent figure to a drugged-out loon rather quickly. 

I understand that Behind the Music used actual footage from Liberace's Las Vegas performances. It does give one a taste of how over-the-top these shows must have been. To be fair, Liberace never shied away from being delightfully ostentatious. One of his famous quotes, after all, was, "Too much of a good thing is wonderful". 

Liberace: Behind the Music is not the definitive take on the life of this piano man. What made him so insanely popular, what made him memorable enough to have at least three biopics made about him, is not present in Behind the Music. Still, Liberace: Behind the Music may serve as a good primer to this most flamboyant of figures. 

1919-1987

6/10

Darling (1965): A Review (Review #1860)

DARLING

Beauty is fleeting, and so is the idea that happiness can be found outside yourself. Darling is a tale of searching for joy and not finding it even where the beautiful people, rich in gold, reside. 

Diana Scott (Julie Christie) should have it all. She's beautiful, a model by profession, married to stale but dependable Tony Bridges (Trevor Bowen). She casually begins an affair with journalist Robert Gold (Dirk Bogarde) who leaves his wife and children to shack up with Diana.

Their bliss, however, does not fulfill Diana. She has moved on emotionally to ad executive Miles Brand (Laurence Harvey), who gets her parts in films. He also gets his parts in her, which she is fine with. Miles is new and exciting, if self-absorbed and decadent. Diana gets knocked up, aborts the child to keep her career going, and keeps mingling with the glitterati of film, culture and wealth.

Eventually, her liaisons with both Miles and Robert taper off, fueled in part by Diana's fleeting interests in things and mutual jealousies between her and Robert. Despite her floundering personal life, Diana keeps moving upwards as the Happiness Girl, promoting a line of chocolates. This brings her in contact with Prince Cesare della Romita (Jose Luis de Villalonga) when his palace is used to film a commercial. Extending her Italian holiday with her photographer friend Malcolm (Roland Curran), she initially thinks Prince Cesare has come to propose marriage on behalf of his son, Cuzio. She is surprised to learn that it is the Prince himself who wants to marry her.

She at first declines, but finding her relationship with Robert fading, she rushes to Italy to become the Principessa della Romita. Alas, the life of a princess is empty, with nothing to do and the Prince off in Rome for long periods on business. Will Diana live up to her moniker of The Happiness Girl? What will become of her and Robert, the only man she thinks she truly loves?

Darling is an ironic title. Diana is called "Darling" by many people, and she is a darling creature physically. However, she is no true darling as she flits and flitters through life, unsatisfied and unable to stay long enough with one thing. There is a deep tragedy to Diana, someone who has everything on a surface level to have whatever she wants but who does not know what she wants. Even if she did know, Diana would not be focused enough to get it. She is surrounded by all the bright young things, who look at her with admiration but not with respect.

Perhaps that is because, in a way, she does not respect herself. Diana is beautiful, and she is not vapid or dim. Instead, she is perpetually unfulfilled, longing for something that she cannot identify. She has lovers but not love. She cares for and loves children but will sacrifice her own for her career. She wants success but does not have ambition. Diana moves up in life from model to actress to princess, but it is not a cold and calculated plan. Rather, things just come to her. Diana does not move by her own thoughts. She rather moves with the tides. There is an immense longing and tragedy to Diana, making her less a figure of fascination but a figure of pity.

Julie Christie won the Best Actress Academy Award for Darling, and it is an excellent performance. As Diana, Christie does not portray her as a villain or a victim. Rather, she is a flawed figure, lost, like the "darling child" she is described on early in the film. Darling has an interesting technique of giving Diana a voiceover where, presumably during an interview, she narrates much of her life. As she goes from man to man, career to career, searching, always searching, we feel not hatred or disgust but deep sympathy.

Darling also won Best Original Screenplay for Fredrick Raphael, and the film has some surprisingly sharp and cutting lines. At a decadent Parisian party where Diana is spoofed, her impersonator is jokingly asked as Diana, "What will you do in your next movie?". "I don't know the name of it," her impersonator says, "but I'll definitely do it". After Robert confronts her with her infidelity and efforts at deception, he calls her a whore. "Your idea of fidelity is not having more than one man in the bed at the same time," Robert bitchily snaps.   

Raphael's script also reveals much in subtle terms. When she goes to Miles for an assignation, she parks her car and puts a large amount in the meter. As her sexual encounter continues, the meter reads first "Excess charge". Once she and Miles go all in, the meter switches to "Penalty". The double meaning is well-executed. Her voiceover description of her abortion is subtle and softly spoken, almost as if she is describing a friend's miscarriage. There is deliberate irony in having the Principessa della Romita on magazine covers as "The Ideal Woman". 

Dirk Bogarde and Laurence Harvey balance Christie as the more stable Robert, a man of literature and Miles, a more arrogant and narcissistic man. John Schlesinger, who received a Best Director nomination for Darling, guided his cast to strong performances. John Dankworth's jazz score also works well in this decadent world.

If Darling has an issue with me, it is the film's length, which is a little over two hours. I think her sojourn in Italy with her delightfully gay friend Malcolm could have been trimmed. While I find the film was long, Darling is still a fascinating portrait of a tragic woman, beautiful but lost. 

DECISION: B+

The Boys in the Band (1970): A Review

THE BOYS IN THE BAND (1970)

Being gay was once "the love that dare not speak its name". The Boys in the Band, the adaptation of Mart Crowley's off-Broadway play, shouts it out for all the world to hear. This collection of openly gay men, ranging from the straightest acting to the most flamboyant, goes into the dark recesses of the human heart. With the original cast recreating their roles for the film, The Boys in the Band is a bitchy tour into fear and loathing.

Michael (Kenneth Nelson) is preparing a birthday party for his frenemy, Harold. Michael is in the early days of sobriety from alcohol, so he might be a bit on edge. His friend Donald (Frederick Combs) comes after his therapist cancels an appointment and helps with the birthday preparations. Out of the blue Michael receives a call from Alan (Peter White), who tearfully asks to see his old college friend. Michael does not want Alan to come for one reason: Michael is gay but has never come out to Alan. The ultimate straight square coming up to see Michael and his group of gay friends is something he is not ready for.

The various mutual friends to Michael and Harold run the gamut of sexual discretion. Emory (Cliff Gorman) is as flamboyant as they come, maybe even more flamboyant than possible. Hank (Laurence Luckinbill) is the straightest acting man there, so straight that he is in the middle of a divorce from his wife due to his relationship with photographer Larry (Keith Prentice). Hank is pretty much a square, while Larry has no issue playing the field despite his relationship with Hank. Another friend, Bernard (Reuben Greene), the only black man in this group, is not out to others, just to this group.

At first, Michael is relieved when Alan says that he won't be stopping by and pulled himself together. He can get all his gay friends to be themselves and kick up their heels, quite literally when they recreate an old dance routine. Things take a turn though when a couple of uninvited guests show up. First is Cowboy (Robert La Tourneaux), Emory's "gift" for Harold. The second is Alan, who did show up after all. Emory's suggestion that Alan is closeted causes a fight between them.

Into this maelstrom enters Harold (Leonard Frey), bitchy and pithy and ready to take anyone on. Michael, who has unwittingly started drinking again, now finds himself as master of ceremonies at the party from hell. Everything from trying to push Alan out of the closet to making the guests play a game where they have to call the person they loved. Old secrets and new resentments come out until the frenemies Harold and Michael confront each other about their separate issues. Will Michael learn to accept himself? Is Alan gay? Will this birthday party end in chaos or comfort?

The Boys in the Band is unique for at least two reasons. First, it is the rare time when an entire cast recreates their original roles from stage to screen. Second, it is one of the first mainstream films where gay men were not portrayed as either victims or villains. Yes, there were stereotypes, particularly with the lispy, limp-wristed Emory. However, there was also his counterpart in Hank, a man who smoked pipes and drank beer. He could be a "man's man" without the usual flamboyance and effeminate mannerisms usually (and probably still) associated with homosexual men. The Boys in the Band, therefore, allowed a variety of males that were also gay.

It is not as though The Boys in the Band, adapted by Crowley from his play, did not give these men nasty things to say to each other even before the booze starts flowing. Most of that comes from Emory, whispering his dialogue in cutting barbs and delighting in antagonizing everyone within sight. However, Crowley's screenplay also gives us surprisingly moving moments from Emory. As he talks about Delbert Botts, the high school classmate that he was madly in love with, there is a deep sense of longing for that obscure object of desire that he still yearns for. It is interesting that despite his sniping manner, Emory ended up the most compassionate of the bunch. When the party ends, Emory takes the despondent and drunken Bernard home, tenderly walking him out.

William Friedkin manages to keep things focused on the actions to where you almost do not notice that The Boys in the Band is almost a filmed play. The film is not opened up save for the opening titles where we see the various men living out their lives before Harold's party. We see Emory looking for Harold's gift, Hank playing basketball, Larry working at his photographic studio, Donald driving like a maniac. Apart from that and scenes of Alan calling though, everything in The Boys in the Band takes place at Michael's apartment and patio. 

The film is really a two-part film: pre and post Alan. Before Alan's arrival, the various men trade insults and compliments, affording themselves this space for themselves. Once Alan arrives, and especially when Harold shows up, The Boys in the Band takes that dark turn. Michael's mix of drunken anger and self-loathing fights with Harold's arrogance and his own insecurities. The conflict between the more strait-laced Hank, committed to Larry, and Larry, determined to be free to have flings with whomever he pleases (even a revealed one-night stand with Donald) adds to the troubled manner the various men go through.

Friedkin kept things flowing remarkably well, guiding the actors to strong performances throughout. Nelson's Michael is troubled, fearful but also mean and ultimately tragic. Frey holds his own as Harold, able to push back and make sharp observations while also revealing his struggles with his appearance. Gorman is particularly good, going from stereotype to more nuanced as Emory. The interplay between Luckinbill as the more traditional Hank and Prentice as the man he loves despite himself also works well and makes for a good subplot. Le Tourneaux's Cowboy convinces you that this young kid is terminally naive to dim.

It is interesting that most of the actors in The Boys in the Band were themselves openly gay. Out of the cast, only Luckinbill was openly straight. Gorman was married to a woman, and both White and Greene to my knowledge were at least not known to have male lovers. Nelson, Frey, Combs, Prentice and La Tourneaux were all openly gay. 

While today there is a strong push to cast only openly gay actors in gay roles, The Boys in the Band did that when being openly gay was still a source of controversy. It is possible that their lived experiences shaped their performances to be more authentic; it is also possible that they were acting, playing gay characters far removed from their own experiences. The actors' sexual orientations should not color the views of how well they performed, one way or another. The strong performances of openly straight Luckinbill and probably straight Gorman shows that one does not need to be gay to play gay. 

Sadly, Nelson, Frey, Combs, Prentice and La Tourneaux all died of AIDS-related illnesses.  

If there is a flaw with The Boys in the Band, it is that it is essentially a filmed play. It cannot fully escape from the confines of what someone might see on the stage. There is only so much that can be done on that level. Credit to Friedkin and Crowley for keeping things moving to where one almost never notices the stage bound nature of the film. 

The Boys in the Band allows the various men to be all sorts. Petty, honest, bitchy, heartfelt. The issue that caused Alan to break down, or even if he was gay or perhaps bisexual is never directly answered. It is not important to the overall plot. Instead, The Boys in the Band keeps its focus on this group of friends, lover and rivals. That makes it all come together as they all come out.

DECISION: B+