Category Archives: Movies

97th Discussion: Naked Killer (1992)

Attendance: Asy, Scott, William, Aaron, Ernest, Raj, Pamela, Maya, Timmy, Rachel.

Is this really our 97th discussion? As usual, the snacks served (courtesy of Ernest and Raj) were in theme: sausages, meatballs, and cream puffs.

Most people find the movie bizarre and illogical. We talked about the emasculation of men, phallic and yonnic symbols, motifs (milk and big hats), sex scenes, and strong women characters (Sister Cindy and Princess.)

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Crime, Hong Kong, Lesbian, Love

Movie Discussion: The Handmaiden (2016) by Park Chan-Wook


Juan, Anne, Yisheng, and Aaron showed up for the screening. We discussed the ambivalence towards lesbianism depicted in the film. It’s generally a positive portrayal although the sex scenes appear to be fetishized for a male heterosexual audience. While the film inherited this flaw from the book, we wondered why there is no positive portrayal of men. We also talked about the colonial period the film is set in and if the director is making a statement about Korea. Finally, we discussed the film technique, camera movements, and the prevalence of green color in the film. I guess green is the warmest color for Park.

3 Comments

Filed under Colonialism, Lesbian, Love, Post-Colonialism, South Korea

Kapoor and Sons at DYMK 

Attendees: Veronika, Raj, Aaron, Ben, Bien, Thomas. 

We all like the movie very much. All characters are likeable; it’s a movie full of likeable and strong characters, a sympathetic portrayal of all of them. There is much joy and humor in the film, just as there is sadness, as if the director wants the viewers to cry; there is so much sadness that you are bound to identify with one of the character’s plight. We also talked about social class; the treatment and affirmation of sexuality; the feminism; and who is cuter: Arjun or Rahul? 

Thanks Edwin for hosting us at DYMK. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Class, Family, Food, Gay, India, Love

67th Discussion: Eyes Wide Open (2009, dir. Haim Tabakman)

20150115_192438

Kueh lapis, truffle chips, and beer – not very kosher.

You can watch the entire movie here:

eyes wide openSeveral of us found part of the movie melodramatic; the stationary, long takes slow; and homosexual relationship is depicted as physical lust, sinful and destructive to everyday life, not emotionally connected. Daniel also noted that despite the story being set in an orthodox Jewish community, the plot is cliché: a boy comes into a man’s family, destroys his way of living, and eventually they break up.

Themes
1. Religion/Sin: In a rather sadist scene where the Rabbi interprets abstinence as sinful, that we should give into our impulses, but Reb Aaron argues that restraint is a challenge god gives us to feel closer to him, Vishakah cleverly called on the catch-22 situation: there is no way you cannot not be a sinner.

 
a. Violence as fanaticism: The patriarch Rabbi stops the gay bashing of what might have been construed as violence, bordering on fantaticism.

 
b. Homosexuality and Judaism: Reb Aaron claims that being with Ezri brings him closer to god, making him more alive than he has ever felt. In one sense, homosexuality isn’t incompatible with Judaism because the more alive an individual feels, the closer she or he is to god.

 
2. Food: Daniel brought up using food as a form of communication. Raj pointed out that, within the limited power a woman has in the orthodox Jewish community, the Wife uses food to punish the Reb Aaron.

 
3. Water: extensive use of water as motif: spring, rain, burst pipe, etc. Dominic hawk-eyedly observed that the parallels and differences in the two scenes of Reb Aaron at the spring: on the second time, Reb Aaron has changed and comes to accept himself as depicted by his nudity.

 
4. Love: Victoria expounded that the type of love Reb Aaron has has his self-interest at heart.

 
5. Gender: Although the interaction of men with women is minimal, and although, as Vishakah pointed out that women have little rights within the community, Raj argued that even within the limited rights, the Wife is a powerful figure, in charge of the household and when they should have sex. The scene where she holds him like in a pieta demonstrates her power. Even her wig, as part of the mise en scene, allows her space to portray her progressiveness and femininity.

Style:
1. Camera Angles: Vishakah noted the camera acts like we are spying into someone’s world, waiting for something to happen (on that note, read D. A. Miller’s “Anal Rope,” about the camerawork in Hitchcock’s Rope acting as survelliance.).

 
2. Music: Victoria observed that both pauses and music create tension and discomfort, especially the music that is eerie at times, almost like a horror movie.

 
In the end, Dominic drew parallels between the movie and the newly liberated gay men he knows. Victoria and Timmy lauded the realistic and intimate depiction of an orthodox Jewish community. Aaron thought while the ending appears conservative—husband goes back to wife, gay man expelled from community—the movie is in fact subversive, telling the viewers that orthodoxy has but one heteronormative way of life, and doesn’t allow expression of selfhood. You feel for the characters: Sara who marries a man she doesn’t love, the Wife who is stuck in a passionless marriage, Ezri and Reb Aaron who couldn’t feel alive more. Living a life like that is wasted, the film advocates. In this way, the director is very smart, getting funding from Israeli government, and getting away with a subversive message

Leave a comment

Filed under Family, Food, Gay, Israel, Love, Religion

64th Discussion: Kill Your Darlings (2013)

Thanks, Javin, for organizing this!

In general, we liked the coming-of-age film, portraying Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, William Burroughs, and Lucien Carr. But Dominic and Aaron questioned the uneven style of the film: Dominic blamed the unevenness on the lighting, switching between a TV style and film, while Aaron thought the style was too “instagram-like,” with random, meaningless tilt-shift. Sharad said the film was fictionalized. Daniel found that the narrative wasn’t strong and was random. Like Daniel, Javin found the film was character-driven and could be more interesting if we were given perspectives from other characters. Javin also wanted a detailed explanation of the murder.

Themes

1. Desire: Daniel and Dominic noted what Eve Sedgwick called the “triangulation of desire,” in which the desires between two men were mediated by a woman, such as the blowjob in the library, and Jack Kerouac’s wife.

1b. Sexuality: Dominic noted the importance of sexuality in the Beat poets’ works. Daniel asked who the gay characters are. Perhaps they were all gay, bi, or straight. They seemed experimental, as like their works to break the mould, to kill the darlings of their literary ancestors.

2. Homophobia? While we thought the characters were portrayed negatively, they were also portrayed honestly, and in this sense, there was no homophobia. But the montage depicting the pit-bottom of the characters–Ginsberg’s anal sex with random stranger, Carr’s murder of David, Burroughs’ abuse of substance, and death of Kerouac’s friend–linked anal sex with other negative acts. “Is this scene homophobic?” Aaron asked. There were no easy answers, but Daniel noted that Ginsberg picked up a stranger who looked like Carr. Sharad observed that all four scenes involved penetration of some kind, and Dominic expanded, saying the penetration, the act of breaking skin represented breaking boundaries.

3. Failure: Daniel argued that the film suggested that to fail a person was to allow space for growth. Such as Ginsberg’ dad failing the mother, allowing her to grow; Ginsberg failing Carr, allowing his growth. Failure was neither positive nor negative.

4. Suicide. Perhaps linked with the theme of failure. The cat in oven was a reminder of Lucien’s failed attempted suicide to gas himself.

10644861_10152687253312442_2901769419897484295_n

Characters

1. Lucien Carr: A fascinating character whose talent, Dominic said, laid in his manipulation. Because Carr had no literary talent. Sharad noted that Carr was complex because he manipulated others but needed them, couldn’t give them up. Daniel found that Lucien Carr was portrayed as a typical closet case that couldn’t come to terms with his sexuality. Whether Carr had loved Ginsberg or not was implied but not explicit.

Style

1. Lucien Drowning David: A haunting and beautiful scene that suggested baptism and pieta.

2. David & Ginsberg: David was what Ginsberg might have become if he didn’t let Carr go. They were foils of each other.

Overall, there are many reasons to love this film. Javin had his favorite intense scenes. Daniel liked that the film gave an insight of homosexuality at that time. The film motivated Sharad and Dominic to read the Beat poets. Aaron thought it was a very tight, well-constructed film, very likable, toeing the line between commercial success and art.

Leave a comment

Filed under Bisexuality, Class, Family, Gay, Love, USA, War

63rd Discussion: Plan B (2009)

From youtube: “Bruno is dumped by his girlfriend; behind a calm, indifferent expression, his mind plans a cold, sweet vengeance. He befriends her new boyfriend Pablo, with the idea of eroding the couple, either by introducing Pablo to another woman or by seducing him himself. Thus emerges Plan B, a perilous romantic journey that calls his own sexuality into question.” 

Just a note to say, we watched the movie for our Sept discussion.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Argentina, Gay

37th Discussion: Comme Les Autres (2008)

We were too lazy to stick around for an in-depth discussion and decided to do it online. Here are some questions that you may want to consider and leave a comment. If you have other questions or other ideas about the movie, please feel free to comment too.

1. Why is the French title “Like the Others” change to “Baby Love” in translation? What is the significance?

2. There is a straight sex scene (to which the female movie-goer who sat behind me turned to her friend asked, “So he is straight?”). Why do you think there is a straight sex scene?

3. The gay sex scene is only implied while the straight sex scene is rather explicit and long-drawn. Is it homophobic?

4. Is it believable that a man would give up his long-term stable relationship for an unknown (in this case, the unknown is a future baby)?

5. Who else thinks Philippe is hot as hell?

6. What is the portrayal of class issues in this film?

7. What is the portrayal of family in this film?

7a. Every time the young boys ask difficult questions at the dining table, they are asked to leave. What do you make of this?

8. How would you characterize the love between Emmanuel and Philippe?

9. When Cathy asks Emmanuel to sit in her office, he first suspects that he has HIV before he figures out he is infertile. Is this homophobic in any way?

10. Emmanuel lives in Belville, a district with various races but how many non-White characters are there? Why?

11. Why is an illegal immigrant the surrogate mother? Do you think she’s being used by Emmanuel or even the director just as a plot device? What issues of illegal migrancy are brought up? Putting the film in Singapore context, do you think the director is for or against migrants?

12. What is the depiction of gender in the movie? Are there any caricatures of women?

13. In the last scene, it is suggested that Cathy sleeps with the black man. Is

14. Do you find this film funny? At which scenes and why? Are we laughing because of the loss in translation or is the humor universal? If you think that the film is funny, why do you think the director injects humor in a film with a serious theme?

4 Comments

Filed under Class, Family, France, Gay, HIV/AIDS, Love, Politics, Race