RoseAndTheDoctor Reviews

Making Love (1982)

OF its time

[31 August 2003]

I don't understand the number of reviews that refer to this movie as being "ahead of its time." The time was clearly right for this movie. By 1980 the gay and lesbian community had finally become fed up with movies portrayal of homosexuals as either the predatory lesbian or the flamboyant faggot who best case ended up alone and bitter at the end of the movie or worst case ended up dead. When scripts for "Cruising" and "Windows" were leaked to the gay and lesbian community (with their depiction of gay men and lesbians as the underbelly of society, stalkers, and murders) there were attempts to disrupt location shoots and when the movies opened there were protests and boycotts (with posters saying "Stop Cruising" and "Close Windows"). I have to believe that this sent some sort of message to the studios, because two years later, 1982, "Making Love" was released (along with "Personal Best").

Though I don't believe this movie was ahead of its time, I do believe it to be groundbreaking. Prior to 1982 positive depictions of gay men and lesbians in film were either rare, covert, or nonexistent. 1980's "Happy Birthday, Gemini" was a positive (though not really well done) coming out comedy, but completely devoid of any even remotely sexual physical contact. What made "Making Love" (and "Personal Best") unique was not just that that they dealt with gay/lesbian subject matter in a more positive way, but that the characters actually had sex. After decades of heterosexual sex being portrayed as everything from curtains blowing in the wind to anal sex with butter in "Last Tango in Paris," this was the first time homosexuality in mainstream film was anything more than theoretical (though sex between Ontkean and Hamlin was portrayed more as a rolling around wrestling match than as the title "making love").

This film is flawed, it is soap opera like and melodramatic, and the documentary style talking to the camera scenes don't really work. But, there is no denying that it is a big step forward from the films of just two years before. It is a step that got us to the point where there now are characters in film who just happen to be gay and lesbian, because in society there are people who happen to be gay and lesbian. Even though it might not be a great film, it is an important film.

A few final comments about the actors. First, I never understood the common wisdom that "playing gay" would kill a career. If "Clash of the Titans" didn't kill Harry Hamlin's career nothing could. Second, I've always been disappointed in Kate Jackson's career. She became a TV star in an era where the crossover from TV to movies was difficult. Then she was unable to do "Kramer" because of "Charlie's Angles" obligations. Then she did this movie and her performance was ignored because it's not the sort of film that the Academy is going to recognize (and ironically she would have been up against Streep had she been nominated). I wish her better things than another "Satan's School for Girls" sequel.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Kubrick does the impossible

[30 August 2003]

I didn't think it was possible to make a film with nudity and kinky sex dull, but Kubrick has done it. Had I been watching this film on an airplane I would have prayed for the plane to crash so I wouldn't have to watch any more. Having seen it in a theater I kept hoping it would get better and eventually get make a point. It didn't.

I now use Eyes Wide Shut as the film against which I judge other bad films. How close to being as bad as EWS can they get...

The Shining (1980)

I shouldn't have read the book.

[30 August 2003]

It seems as if only everyone who read the book first didn't like the movie. I'm no exception. My problems with the film have nothing to do with it not exactly following the book. That's not something I expect from a move, they're two different mediums, differences are to be expected. My problem was that the move took the elements from the book and boiled them down to a couple of seconds and put them on the screen without explaining what the meant (for example the twins, they were a developed subplot in the book, in the movie they were just there).

I may be the only person on the planet who didn't like the blood pouring out of the elevator scene. It was as if a special effects guy went up to Kubrick and said "We got this great effect, it ain't taken from anywhere in the book, and it don't have anything to do with the story, but it's really cool, ya wanna use it?" And he said "Sure."