|
|
|
Monday, July 21, 2008
Rock Hudson's Home Movies
Apparently,if you're a rising young Hollywood star you are always going to be labeled as 'gay'- it's just something that you've gotta expect and learn to live with. Thankfully, if 'Hot Young Movie Star' does happen to be your chosen career path, there are some Hollywood words of wisdom that will ease you through until the rumours subside: "First you get gay, then you get the girls." Yes, young stars, take comfort in the knowledge that you'll be able to shout your frustration at the injustice of the world into the smothering bosoms adoring fans, so life's not so bad.
I had this all explained to me by a co-worker after I had blurted at lunch, for no particular reason,that I thought Tom Cruise was gay. Never mind that his career isn't on the rise and I'm still pretty sure he's gay, she obviously didn't believe all this 'Hollywood stars in the closet' nonsense.
My defense: "But a lot of times they really are gay- I mean look at Rock Hudson" As the most first and as probably the most horribly outed star of the 20th century he's an obvious example to use to justify my position-the only solace he might have taken from the words of wisdom would've been that the adoring girls might be kind of annoying, but at least they'd help with his cover(Maybe that's what they really mean anyway. Hmmm.)
It's not hard for me to imagine why a lot of Hollywood stars would want to keep their homosexuality a secret. I guess that why I found Mark Rappaport's 1995 documentary 'Rock Hudson's Home Movies' to be quite plausible, although I expect that it would be a likely target for the same criticism as the Michael Mann biography of Kate Hepburn I reviewed a couple of posts ago; the authors grand revisionist take on Hollywood seems intent on re-interpreting every comment, act, and role, on screen and off, as having a sub-text that betrays the real sexual preferences of the actors and actresses.
I understand why people would be skeptical about this approach; I wouldn't like it if someone who only knew me from a few movies started going around telling everyone that I was obviously gay: "And don't you think he held that guy's hand a little too long in that screen?" But But Rappaport's film doesn't require as much of a stretch from the audience as Mann's biography of Hepburn does; we know that Rock Hudson was gay, we know Tony Randall is gay. There might be some doubt about the others that he implicates but he isn't asking you to consider the possibility (as Mann does) that Spencer Tracy; Howard Hughes or John Ford all might have been gay(but he does seem to be implicating the Duke). I'm someone who doesn't have a lot of trouble in buying into elaborate conspiracy theories that may not have much in the way of definitive evidence to support them, as long as they are used in the service of some great narrative hook.
And this movie had the hook: the premise is that Rock has put a private clip-reel of all his best gay moments on film that he shares with his closest pals in his private screening room. The reel includes clips of Tony Randall (of course) sneaking multiple furtive glances at Rock's chest during one of their many scenes together in which Rock is shirtless, or only wearing a towel; there are dramatic scenes with female leads where Rock anguishes over their doomed relationship; there are devoted side-kicks that seem a little too concerned about their buddy's womanizing; there are sweaty scenes of shirtless violence; and there are slightly creepy scenes of older men giving intense lusty looks, or making suggestive comments to their younger proteges (suprisingly, often Rock is the old creepy guy!).
The clips are narrated by a fictionalized version of Rock Hudson, acted by a guy named Eric Farr. It's this weirdly executed narration that makes the movie a bit difficult to take. He doesn't look like Hudson at all and has a rather stiff delivery and lack of affect (though the said could probably have been said of Hudson). The review I read definitely had a problem with this aspect of the movie (as did my wife):
the film takes itself far too seriously, especially in presenting the narrative in the first person. On screen Hudson narrates through Eric Farr, an actor who doesn't look, sound or act in any way that brings the real Hudson to mind. Yet, he narrates the clips as though he were speaking as Rock, presenting Hudson as being bitter, condescending, snide and sarcastic. Quoting out of context or even paraphrasing is one thing, but to totally fabricate another man's thoughts crosses an ethical and dramatic line. Rappaport apparently thinks by having his opinions expressed as though they were really Hudson's that they would have greater credibility.
This is the exact opposite to my own interpretation. I assumed that the Hudson stand-in who looked and acted nothing like Hudson was intended to reinforce for the viewer that the voice was a indeed a fabrication, and should be taken as such.There are a million and one TV or cinematic versions of star's lives where the lead is played an actor attempting to create convincing simulacrum of the actual person: Val Kilmer as Jim Morrison, Kate Blanchett as Kate Hepburn. I can see a case being made for that
I do agree that he went a bit overboard near the end when he introduced the idea that certain clips could be viewed as an ironic (if that's the right word here) foreshadowing of Hudson's death. I can understand why it must have seemed to be natural and necessary tto make his death the dramatic crescendo of the film, but I thought that it weakened the whole concept by departing from the central conceit of bunch of film clips compiled for the entertainment of him and his friends. This at least seems plausible-as Rappaport says, the things that he's pointing out in the movies are really the sort of 'secret code' that guys in the closet use all the time; if they can go by unnoticed there, why not in the movies too. The whole death thing, that Hudson's worst fear would've been to die as an old unloved fag, is horrible and powerful, of course, but I found the clips from the old movies with Hudson thinking he's dying (but not) seemed to come across as cruel simply for the sake of effect, and didn't fit with the rest of the movie.
That said, I liked the movie enought to want to write something about it, and would be interested in seeing more Rappaport's stuff (but I couldn't find much on the internet other than some writing about Sunset Boulevard) I saw the movie via Torrent, but it is also available on Amazon to buy(but not on zip.ca for some reason) .
Labels: Hudson movies Rappaport review
posted by Alan
permalink
(0) comments
2:45 PM
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Work is fun when...
home
|
