The Man Who Fell To Earth (1976) Review

The Who Who Sold The World He Fell To

So, I wonder… is The Man Who Fell To Earth the same as the Man Who Sold the World? A few things really stop this flick from shining. The main one is that David Bowie turns in a pretty piss poor performance. He does get some brownie points for really looking like an alien and contrasting how aggressively 70s everything looks. If he never played an alien in his career, you’d wonder why. It does seem like something that would be in his wheelhouse. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger after him, he might shine in a role where very little is asked of him, especially in terms of giving a layered and human performance. We are asked to care about the little white duke that is “Thomas Jerome Newton”, also known as Tommy, with him sometimes going into panic or madness. However, he comes off just like a person that doesn’t know how to deliver their lines, not an alien. “Get out of my mind, all of you!” is one particularly silly line. Whenever Tommy has to have complex emotions, Bowie comes off as wooden and having no idea what to do. Apparently he really didn’t, and thus he basically kills any chance for the film to work.

Early on, the film is defined by a shoddiness so brazen as to possibly be intentional. We see some shaky camerawork document Tommy going down a hill, then we see him wander around not doing anything of consequence. It feels very low budget and that isn’t the worst thing to strive for, but it sets a tone of being more about an experience than getting to an ending, but so much of the actual film is just mindless imagery that at best can have a meaning forced out of it. The score is also chaotic, sometimes loud and jarring or starting and stopping at random-feeling points. We get a lot of pointless shots of closeups on faces or someone walking around. Important information then is sometimes skipped over. There’s a little bit of narration when the movie otherwise doesn’t have any. It all comes off as thoughtless.

Candy Clark as Mary-Lou does lay on a lot of ham, but sometimes is moving, like when she cries about receiving money because she really wants Tommy. Her character often is chasing something, which makes her more relatable. Clark captures a decent naivety at such times that is one of the more interesting elements at play. Some of the more compelling moments are when Mary-Lou is a bit mad over her love of Tommy, who she is not ever particularly on the same page with. The other characters, and sometimes Mary-Lou, feel like stock filler that gets us to either some sci-fi visual mumbo jumbo or more likely, tits and ass. Depending on some interpretations of the story, like being about the business side of life, she doesn’t really matter much. As such, she is dressing beyond anything else.

The plot is basically incomprehensible, with the excessive visual mumbo jumbo and sudden shift in characterization of the cast making it hard to ever know what is going on. The script, especially with how Tommy is depicted at the end, wants to be clever so badly, but it forgot to really say anything or come to an actual point that means something. Sometimes we just see characters in a certain state without us knowing how they got there, like when Tommy suddenly has money or the really creepy bit where his nipple is cut open. We see Tommy just wandering around with no apparent aim, even a scene of him at a pawnshop seeming to be low on funds, only to somehow have a lot more money and resources in no time without us seeing how. Perhaps there is some way to connect all the disparate dots in this story and see it as brilliant, but such tales are always polarizing? No matter what, it is hard not to see the nudity and psychedelia as mere spectacle, or the slow dialogue-heavy scenes that take an eternity to get anywhere as just killing time.

One interpretation is that Tommy can be seen as a metaphor for David Bowie himself. He looked and felt very alien. Despite not coming from much, he managed to make others a lot of money, was able to have a lot of frivolous thrills, then ultimately got stuck in the system that made him successful. The gun-play sex party especially feels like it could be intended to reflect rock and roll excess in how gratuitous and violent it is. This doesn’t much benefit the film as seeing this as analogous to Bowie is very much just one interpretation and you have to reach outside the information in the movie to think this. Seeing this as about Bowie or more broadly about what fame does to even the most “outsider” of artists is debatably a bit clever. A lot of the movie, like the scenes of Tommy in space, are meaningless in this view.

SPOILERS

Tommy and Mary-Lou’s relationship is not well handled. They are essentially fine until one day they’re bickering and getting very heated, without a more natural transition. Their acting leaves much to be desired. In fact, Mary-Lou does a lot of jumping from loving Tommy to being over him, with her character not adding anything by the end. She could be seen as just “the girl” that might serve as a celebrity’s first marriage. Near the end Mary-Lou loves him so much that she doesn’t try to save herself when she thinks Tommy is going to murder her, and gets over how horrible it was for him to act like he was immediately. In almost no time, she is saying she doesn’t love him anymore.

The film often keeps its focus off Tommy and either on the plot or other characters. When he takes off his human suit to show Mary-Lou his true form, we don’t get much of how Tommy is thinking and feeling, but we very much do from Mary-Lou. As such, the few scenes that do focus on Tommy, notably the last shot of the film, are a bit weird. The emphasis on him acts like we’ve had some great look at him, so it should be tragic when he succumbs to his demons, but it instead emphasizes how much of a mess this all is. Similar can be said for how quickly Tommy and Mary-Lou’s relationship corrodes. We jump from them being stable to a very explosive fight. Their first argument is also the first big sign of Tommy going mad. He acts cartoonish and way more over the top than he usually has.

Tommy showing his true identity to Mary-Lou doesn’t carry the value you’d expect it to. One big reason for this is Tommy hasn’t shown much love for her or for anything, so why would he feel comfortable with this? Why not have a build up of them having a seemingly great relationship, with this being the tipping point of how much he feels for her? The sequence also gets lost in the montage of sci-fi imagery, how bad Bowie’s costume is, and how absurdly Mary-Lou acts. She’s screaming in terror, then soon enough disrobes. Also, did we have to see a closeup of her peeing? Is that one of the filmmakers’ kink? Buck Henry as Oliver V. Farnsworth’s death scene also is a real fever dream. The heavy breathing, light music, and the long time it takes to kill him makes for a really bizarre and comical scene that can’t hope to emotionally invest you in this person being killed. Him bouncing off the window he is thrown at is basically a joke, as is how obviously the falling body is a dummy.

OVERVIEW

The Man Who Fell To Earth is simply too busy. If it is about the celebrity lifestyle, then that is a bit light for a film so chaotic and more importantly so long. Such a long runtime and simple story asks to be more about the fine details, such as seeing specifics of Tommy and his life, yet so much is shown either out of context or is not given much gravitas. Many reviews essentially look outside the film, such as in viewing it as a social commentary, so it makes sense the text itself is so thin, but that also means it can’t survive on its own. Some might find this type of adventure fun, but it’s definitely a very acquired taste that to some is the definition of boring and mindless. Or maybe I just don’t get it?

Doctor Who: The Giggle // 14th Doctor Specials (2023) Review Part 3

One of the creepier images in the episode, though the VFX leaves much to be desired.

The finale of Doctor Who is a novel little concept that has in fairness been tried many times. The issue with ever doing it is who can handle not having this franchise? Even if the series managed such low ratings and disinterest that the BBC would in turn cancel it, maybe in ten or fifteen years it could be rebooted? The Giggle has never been sold as or committed to being a finale, but it does include many elements of it that do seek to offer a sense of closure. This is mainly done in the “explanation” of why the Doctor regenerated back into the Tenth Doctor and what happens after it, with it I guess seeming that the Doctor knows this is his most popular incarnation and the one who seems ideal for such a thing? We also get some returning albeit minor characters from the classic series. Will we ever get a Susan appearance? While the idea of giving the show a finale; a fake finale (which this definitely is); and regenerating into past Doctors, especially to make a point, is really fascinating and not as worthy of disdain as some would say, all these ideas are not handled nearly as well as they could have been.

The Giggle serves as the closest of the specials here to a sixtieth anniversary, though it is still light on much celebration of the past. A big thing we get is Tennant. Tennant returning is a good idea. It thematically shows how no matter how much this character changes, he remains the same and offers closure to this tenure in theory, though these specials are even light on references to the Russell T. Davies era. Considering how the Doctor witnessed a lot of strange things be done with regeneration by other time lords it works that part of the Doctor would want to be a bit strange and revisit a past experience. What other past elements we get comes in the form of a few verbal references; the welcomed but minor companion Mel, played by Bonnie Langford, predictably Jemma Redgrave as Kate Lethbridge-Stewart, and the more fascinating return of the Toymaker. While the Toymaker’s one previous appearance was in one of the worst Who serials of the 60s, his ability to essentially shift reality and create impossible games for people to win is a phenomenal idea. Neil Patrick Harris brings a menace to him as someone who appears so bored with everything that he feels a need to be so destructive.

Thus, it’s a huge disappointment that much of this narrative is setup with little payoff. This is epitomized by a scene of Donna being approached by creepy dolls, which serve no purpose and prove no threat. The two meaningful-to-the-plot games he plays are seeing who can pick the higher card and later don’t drop a ball. Both are played as comedic, but due to their inclusion in this supposed serious finale that is trying to do so much, it muddles the tone. Beyond Harris’ performance, Tennant does sell the intensity of the Doctor’s emotions in his stress and anguish when it seems like something bad is about to happen, which comes out in a few all too brief scenes. The Doctor and Toymaker make the best of the story when talking about their experiences and specifically how they differ from humans. They’re to a degree being compared in how traumatizing it can be to go through as much as they have, which also explains why the villain acts how he does. Thus, it’s sad how little he appears.

A lot of time is spent setting up just how bad the situation is, hearing about all the things the Toymaker has done and admittedly getting some solid visuals, like the toy burning, only for a lot of this to eventually be brushed to the side. A very sudden twist is included and that just takes up the ending. Why not have the threat of the Toymaker be more connected to the twist? Maybe we could have had this be two specials, one dealing with the Toymaker with the twist part of the cliffhanger, then the last is only about the latter element. As is, this episode is so rushed. Random characters explain a lot of the plot, the cliffhanger of last episode and how it’s being resolved is similarly discussed before suddenly being pushed aside, “the Vlinx” was established as a character only to do nothing, as does Kate’s insults, Mel and more importantly Donna are barely in this, and some of the faster paced moments play as fairly comical. The scene of the Toymaker in a black tuxedo doesn’t have him even doing anything, which suggests something was cut. Same with the Doctor’s clothes regenerating with him when he first became #14. That suggested there was some weird space anomaly, but that’s not the case according to this episode.

SPOILERS

We get a really quick scene of two UNIT soldiers walking towards the Toymaker, the Doctor tells them to stop, they get killed, then he tells Kate they indeed died. It all is just very silly. Earlier, the Doctor said to Donna he wasn’t sure he could get her out alive, which is not something that weighs on the situation nearly as strongly as it should. This turmoil needs to mean something. That confession, as well as the Doctor seeming fed up with the cruelty of humanity, are good character moments in a vacuum, but come across as tossed in to make the story “deep”. The Doctor talking about order and chaos could have represented a theme that would play through to the end. Why not have it tie into how he defeats the Toymaker? The actual way he goes is absolutely absurd, losing a fairly easy game when apparently everyone else ever has lost to him. Him bragging about who has been defeated just feels like a waste of time, seeing as the Doctor doesn’t really have to do much to succeed. What if he either has to die or sacrifice Donna in order to win? What if he simply gets the Toymaker to go away, but the latter’s destruction is not even fixed?

Some of the better aspects of the story is the explanation of how the Doctor initially met the Toymaker and how the Toymaker got to Earth. The Doctor is later very clever in outsmarting the villain into letting them go. He probably understood how hopeless things were, so manipulated the Toymaker with what he knew he would want. At the same time, the Toymaker manipulates the Doctor by knowing how to cause him emotional turmoil. As such, the Doctor is often clearly fearful of him. He even offers him something… The Doctor and the Toymaker traveling together would have been a really fascinating idea. Makes you wonder if the Toymaker would steal the TARDIS. This is reminiscent of the time in the audio adventures a Nazi was a companion of the Doctor.

Ncuti Gatwa does a fair enough job, though his incarnation of the lead is devalued by this episode really just being about Tennant until the end. He doesn’t even get a chance to follow the tradition of acting really weird from the post-regeneration haze, being more about giving a bit of dialogue to the Tennant Doctor. What would have been better is if the regeneration occurs at the very end. Considering that the Tennant Doctor apparently has all the interesting baggage about the character, with Gatwa’s more of a clean slate, Gatwa’s era will probably feel like a spinoff or remake, as it might not be following many of the developments to the character that shaped the Doctor. The two Doctors saying goodbye feels like a symbolic passing of the torch, like the Doctor we’ve really known from William Hartnell to David Tennant is bowing out.

Something not covered much in the series is what causes the Doctor to regenerate into the face he does. Such a thing could tell us a lot about the character, at least making for a solid episode. The Fourteenth Doctor era hopes to offer such an explanation, with it seeming to be that it was subconscious, so he could find Donna and retire. This is concocted as something Donna just thought up, which is a lot less satisfying than if it was something the Doctor had to discover. This also spits in the face of a lot of past moments. The Doctor likes adventure, though admittedly has at times wanted to retire but felt he was unable. Wouldn’t he justify to himself now that he can do twice as much life saving? Coming up with a reason for him to call it quits isn’t impossible, but it should take a lot longer and be more about an internal struggle unlike what he’s seen before instead of being done in a few conversations in at best three episodes, but really just this one. The Doctor has already experienced the death of loved ones and failing to help people as much as he could. What’s different about now? The show must not even really believe in this, as the Fourteenth Doctor is left with his own TARDIS, which strongly suggests this isn’t the last of him. 

Hopefully it isn’t, as this “ending” is so quick and unearned. It doesn’t even distinguish itself from the many breaks of the Doctor. The emotional gravatas it is given feels like a trick just waiting to be retconned. 14 saying how happy he is retired feels way too easy, ignoring the aforementioned breaks he’s done, like between series nine and ten. The need to help that would push someone that’s gone so hard and so long fighting isn’t just going to go away. The best way to interpret this is as just a finale to the previous Davies era, as that was just a few years instead of sixty and almost every episode of it starred Tennant. A lot of the various eras of the show feel a bit distinct, but this episode still asks to be so much more and ultimately invites more questions. Even if the Tennant incarnation is just tired and wants to be both alive and retired, what about the others? Will 14 not one day die and perhaps be replaced by another risky adventurer?

While bigeneration isn’t a bad idea, it does only seem to be here for the sake of giving us more Tennant if it’s ever needed, instead of it really being dug into. A lot of exploration could occur for it and admittedly it might happen. A bit more would help the episode. There have also been a few times where we’re supposed to see Tennant off, so it’s increasingly ridiculous when he’s brought back. It does in a way make sense the Doctor could not let go of being Tennant, considering he felt he could do so much more in The End of Time. Those trying to calculate our hero’s age usually have the Tenth as around the youngest tenured, so perhaps to the Doctor, he is the one that got away? Still, it’s probably for the best that he avoids this incarnation considering that 10 cheated death once before in series four, with this episode featuring his third regeneration, all relatively soon after the last one.

OVERVIEW

Obviously it’s not objective what the best interpretation of what the Doctor is is, but Russell T. Davies’ approach of the character being essentially anything, such as that he can now do what’s shown in the episode or affirming the Timeless Child story, erases the Doctor really even being a character. He doesn’t have any wants or drive, as in an instant he could be something else. This admittedly is a problem that plagues any long running character, such as superheroes. It can get to the point where it might seem too boring to some to not go in a “this person is basically Jesus” way. It was so much more special when he was just a weird alien with a box that admittedly didn’t aspire as massive of change. As the Twelfth Doctor once powerfully said, he does what he does just because it’s kind, but that message is diluted when it’s suggested he does so because he’s really so great and special. Due to the frankly broken story of The Giggle, including the blatant attempts to force emotions out of a hat, all this comes off as laziness. What if Davies’ real reasoning is wanting an excuse to make simply a sci-fi show under the Doctor Who name instead of understanding the legacy he is a part of? He would not be the first to change things up, but he might be the first to really run with radically transforming what the Doctor is or acts like.

Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022) Review

Is this a Wes Anderson movie?

Everything Everywhere All At Once is, true to its word, everything. Much has been read into this film in terms of commentary on the world and general themes. I must think that at some point a movie will come out and be hailed as a complex masterpiece, only for the filmmakers to at some time admit it really meant nothing and just hit the expected beats of a narrative, with far more being read into it. (I’m sorry, Duck Soup, I still love you.) At its heart, Everything seems to be firing for a simple idea of family and togetherness. Especially around the ending, it was reminiscent of a thousand other movies that were solely about “Let’s just love each other.” It’s hard to know what to think of this, whether it’s a beautifully simple resolution or anticlimactic after the very busy and complicated film it’s a part of.

To put it simply, this movie is stimulating. To be less nice, overstimulating. The film often leans into extremely fast montages that don’t always convey necessary information. One example is when we see someone “verse jump” over and over to explain where they’re getting a certain ability from. That, just like quite a lot of the story, is blinding novelty and entertainment value. You can tell some involved love old action and Kung-Fu movies, especially Chinese ones, and wanted to include fights that evoked them, while implementing elements like absurdist humor. However, something like the dildo fight or better yet a man jumping pants-less in slow motion intending to land sitting on a trophy shaped like a butt plug feel designed to only be attention grabbing, especially to a gen-z audience.

For better and for worse, the film does appeal heavily on a multitude of levels, like as a light popcorn flick, something where any little element can be looked at as commentary on several-hundred year old philosophical concepts, or anywhere in between. It might even be designed to be a bit confusing for someone on their first viewing, in hopes of repeat ones. Based on the strong focus for comedy and spectacle, it can feel like there is little to say, especially when it gets to the point of someone just yelling to be kind, instead of that particular message being discovered or earned. However, some messages are discovered or learned. Another issue is the pace, where the film can rev up to a hundred, then stops before starting again. The pessimistic view of this is to say it is edited essentially like a music video to just appeal to perceived short attention spans. No matter what the intention is, the impression is that certain elements that are built up don’t matter, as after the intensity of them being laid on, everything cools down for the next big idea.

All of the cast have a very good understanding of their manic roles. The hardest would probably be the lead Evelyn Quan Wang, played by Michelle Yeoh. She is initially an every woman before quickly having to get with the program. You can argue Evelyn should have had more time to figure it out, but there is a serviceable explanation for that. Her feelings are not delved into deeply, other than her main goal of trying to save everyone. Ke Huy Quan as Waymond Wang grounds the film into more emotional territory, with him often giving some realism to the tale, which is ironic as he is the first sign of chaos.

Stephanie Hsu as Joy Wang gives the best performance, bringing a consistent nihilism and desire to find support. Her face often has a look of fatigue on it. Due to the youthful energy of the story, she might work due to being the youngest cast member and thus having the most ability to relate. My favorite performance is Jamie Lee Curtis as Deirdre Beaubeirdre, who brings a dry wit and inherent absurdism due to how out of place she looks and how much fun you can tell Curtis is having. She’s easy to love. The supporting cast are consistently wonderfully charming and entertaining, but arguably serve as filler.

SPOILERS

Based on how quickly Evelyn was to embrace the multiverse, even to the point of punching Deirdre and possibly considering killing her daughter, you could imagine the movie would end in a twist that no supernatural events occurred and the lead is just off her rocker. It’s at least surprising her family isn’t more critical or concerned about her behavior. This idea of coming off as nutty about something is an old trope the filmmakers might have enjoyed. Based on the ending, where everyone seems fine, was there any need or point to Evelyn punching Deirdre? What about all the destruction at the IRS or the marital tensions between Evelyn and Waymond? Same with Evelyn apparently stabbing Waymond.

The heart of the story are the discussions between Evelyn and Joy’s alter ego Jobu Tupaki. They discuss their opposing views on the world, showcasing the nature and thought process of Jobu, ultimately proving she’s misunderstood. So much information about Jobu being portrayed by her just telling Evelyn is rather boring, though the expressive and symbolic visuals help in making up for that. Later, we are thankfully shown Evelyn overcoming Jobu’s strength and nihilism through the visuals. The best example of this is when they’re rocks, which is beautifully and creepily simple. Same can be said for when Evelyn adopts googly eyes on her as a rock and Jobu in turn rolls off a cliff.

Whether or not the reconciliation of Evelyn and Joy is earned is up for debate. It is too easy, with Evelyn merely saying to Joy she wants to be with her, which could have already been figured. This does summarize the main issue of the style of the movie not being able to sustain its substance.

OVERVIEW

Everything Everywhere All At Once is a very good spectacle, benefitting from how rich and colorful it looks. It’s an extremely lovable and watchable work that will probably serve to influence many people that see it. While some say that a thing that tries to appeal to everyone appeals to no one, this might be the exception that proves the rule. Though it can come off a little disjointed, the constant stimulus that also gives a lot of food for thought to those looking for it works in the film’s favor. However, due to its limitations and how “2022” it feels, there is the concern of the movie soon going out of date, with down the line a new story essentially filling this role of delivering some very typical messages in the flavor of the time, such as not demonizing your children. The lack of subtlety could be seen as positive or in vogue, but grow stale later. The picture still deserves and probably will have some legacy going forth. Also, I was genuinely rooting for Raccacoonie and its owner. I’d also like to have hot dog fingers and play the piano with my feet with Jamie Lee.

Doctor Who: Wild Blue Yonder // 14th Doctor Specials (2023) Review Part 2

A frame from the episode

Wild Blue Yonder at its heart is a simple and effective mystery. Wisely, it uses the space-filling scenes of walking and talking to give some degree of development for our leads. As such, there is a lot to like here, though as a whole the product suffers serious issues. While much of the information we learn about the story of the episode is nice, it mostly comes down to “The Doctor can’t figure it out, so he wanders around until it clicks.” At one point the antagonist explains part of it for the Doctor, which is a trope that doesn’t allow for real intrigue. Why would a villain do that? However, just like last time, David Tennant and Catherine Tate clearly know the show well and handle the absurdities admirably. Their interaction with Isaac Newton, played by Nathaniel Curtis, is very funny for what it is. It would’ve been nice if this episode was more about them flying around to different time periods and having such novelty adventures. Seeing Bernard Cribbins as Wilfred Mott again is heartwarming. It is wonderful we got to see him before he died, which he did before even filming all his scenes for these specials.

Both The Doctor and Donna have scenes where we get a good look at the sorts of stressors and trauma they’ve gone through. The scenes of The Doctor are especially good, due to it following the general theme of The Doctor trying to force down the pain of adventures gone wrong. Donna talking about her family moving on falls flat due to the stakes never being very high. However, it would work under a more intense situation. The episode sets up the threat as particularly villainous, but once again the Doctor can almost magically think a way through. Donna, who generally is not going to give up without a fight, seems too quick to here.

This episode’s antagonist and sets are not unlike how such are handled in the budget episodes the show does, where the Tardis team and usually other characters are on a ship and a baddie tries to get them. As such, it is a real shame this is supposed to be part of a very short anniversary series when we could be focusing on something that either tackles the main story of why the Doctor regenerated into Tennant or the history of the show. Even the structure of the story is similar to other cost-friendly outings. This episode would work a lot better with the next Doctor and companion. This could explore how those two think and will interact with each other. Maybe the next companion is the type to quickly become so stressed she is convinced she will die and thus she discusses her wish for her family to move on from her, as Donna does here?

The visual look of the story and the baddies are both effectively creepy and unsettling. With the latter, it can be looked at as a metaphor for confronting your own personal demons. The exploration of the lead’s inner emotions, especially in response to the villains, feels like a tease when the episode would feel more complete if it came to some resolution. This doesn’t mean to fix their problems entirely, just to make them seem like it led to a point. One episode that did this quite well is Vincent and the Doctor, which looked at how the depression of a person both informs themselves and those around them. Another issue is how convenient a lot of it is, such as the salt shaker.

SPOILERS

The pacing could be improved, like in the beginning when the leads cool off emotionally, so the Doctor and Donna are seemingly about to start the usual of exploring a new environment. Next, the Tardis goes away, they both get inflamed, and the Doctor uncharacteristically judgy, before going back to exploring. What would work a lot better and be more suspenseful is if the two wander around, problems start arising, so they decide to leave only to find the Tardis is long gone. That could continue the escalation of tension, instead of setting it up. Seeing as the Tardis has never “run away” before, it’s ultimately a disappointment when the issue was so low scale and easily beatable.

The Doctor comes off as idiotic for leaving Donna behind. This could’ve served the story or themes by tying into the Doctor feeling like he could’ve handled the situation with the Flux better. Alternatively, what if the Doctor deliberately did this so as to defeat the baddies? Maybe he needed to use the Tardis to analyze fake Donna in some way? Can we at least see some fury from Donna for how horrifying and traumatic that would be? How can she ever forgive the Doctor for that? Here, she seems cordial with him in the end.

OVERVIEW

Similarly to the last special, my takeaway is that while this is a decent piece of Doctor Who, it is lacking in much real adventure or meaning that could make the tale more engaging or meaningful to the overall narrative of this era. This episode has several different tones, from goofy absurdist sci-fi, to drama, to everyone severely lacking confidence, to having it in droves. Why not treat these three stories with Tennant as a coda to his era, which admittedly would be a bit difficult due to The End of Time essentially being that? New ground these 2023 episodes could cover is how the Doctor impacts the family of his companions well after they’ve met him. It could cover what would lead him to regenerate into a past life. While that will probably be detailed next special, it could’ve been more prevalent throughout. We could also see more past characters. Following all this, the first series with Ncuti Gatwa could have all the concepts of these Tennant episodes, but spread out. One episode is committed to being absurdist, another focuses on a historical figure, another is really depressing, etc. Regardless, Wild Blue Yonder is fair enough when taken on its own terms, though is too by the books.

Rebel Without A Cause (1955) Review

Rebel Without A Cause promises a lot and doesn’t fulfill too much, but even from the beginning moments it gives us something really special, James Dean. James Dean as Jim Stark really is as good as people say, perfectly balancing erratic tendencies and an emotional core. He commands the room whenever he yells or has a breakdown. Despite the issues of the movie, Jim’s need to prove himself and figure himself out is captivating with Dean consistently dominating. He seemingly tries to not care about anyone and that takes us to interesting places. Natalie Wood as Judy does get a bit of development and characterization, though this only goes to the land of subtext. Her main value according to the movie seems to be to be by Jim’s side.

A more interesting version of her is Sal Mineo as John “Plato” Crawford. Plato constantly has this sense of distress about him, like he wants to find something for him, so he acts tough. When he really does get a friend in Jim, he melts and later doesn’t know how to feel about it. Mineo is especially strong in the final act, as well as in a mid-point scene where he talks extremely fondly of Jim, like him finally finding someone that gets him lights him up and feels like a breath of fresh air. He doesn’t seem to care much about embarrassing himself.

The depiction of gang culture is really very silly. All the members, especially Corey Allen as Buzz Gunderson, just come off as absurdly goofy, like any moment they could burst into song and dance à la Grease or West Side Story. Beyond things like calling people chicken, the fact that everyone looks so much older than teen-aged adds to the silliness. Even Dean is a bit distracting due to looking too old. The lesser actors are too over-animated. A big positive of the gang is the immediate way Jim is made to feel lesser, lacking power by comparison. We also get a lot of gorgeous shots that also tell us about the characters. The mood is painted by the vibrant shots of people in distress. An example is Judy at the drag race. She stands in the middle, which shows her as a focal point, suggesting she wants to do and follow whatever will let her be the center of attention. The scene in the astronomy class seems plucked out of a movie about space travel.

The movie sometimes “plays nice”, with most of the characters having some degree of thoughtfulness. The reason I suspect for this is to not have impressionable teens be too excited about recreating dangerous scenes of the movie or making anyone seem too “cool”. As such, Jim suddenly stops being quiet or mysterious at around halfway. More preservation of his nature would’ve been ideal. This isn’t so bad as it’s obvious from even early on that he is caring.

SPOILERS

No one seems to really care about Buzz’s death. They get over it strangely quickly. His girlfriend quickly goes for Jim. Jim gets a little better with his emotions when he seems to find community with Judy and Plato. While this is never directly stated, perhaps all he needs is to be with those that don’t appear judgmental? The movie goes deeper than you’d expect when we learn that isn’t really all Plato needs. He’s going through abandonment trauma, so when he mistakenly thinks Jim has abandoned him, he becomes hostile. It probably isn’t all Judy or Jim needs, either. Taken at face value, Judy and Jim’s romance is really rushed and underdeveloped, but it works as a commentary on this desire to find something to satisfy you. It also arguably explains why Jim would become softer. At the end when Jim is trying to calm Plato down, he acts basically like the cops, just trying to lure him out, sadly lacking the uncontrolled nature he had shown earlier.

Jim has more chemistry with Plato. Both are obviously gay or bisexual. Thus, Plato’s death feels a little pointless as it’s supposed to resolve the issue of getting rid of the most blatantly gay character and making it easier for Jim to end up with a woman. As a commentary for teen delinquency and its consequences, that’s the most obvious direction to take it and we already got this lesson with Buzz’s death. If Plato was straight and just wanted to be friends with Jim, his presence wouldn’t mean much. As gay, he makes for a wonderful commentary on how gay people can feel like outcasts and be afraid of judgment. If this movie had been made in a more modern time or by a more daring filmmaker, Plato would probably live and there’d be some suggestion that he and Jim would have a sexual relationship. While he is better off living, part of the poignancy of this film is that homosexuality is so frightening and concerning to some that it isn’t even mentioned. Jim and Plato probably either can’t understand their feelings or feel a need to hide it.

It probably goes without saying, but the police shooting Plato is quite horrific. If we look at this from Jim’s perspective, he would probably be traumatized by this sort of being a result of him getting Plato to come out of hiding. This also has the benefit of really summarizing, albeit in an exaggerated way, why teenagers are resentful of authority. They didn’t listen when Jim said he had the bullets or consider how this would impact anyone involved in this situation, just like how Jim feels most people don’t listen to him and is much calmer when he feels like he is. After the death, Jim’s dad seems to try to talk him out of his sadness, like a quick conversation would cause someone to not be so bothered by witnessing their friend die.

The night turning to day at the end of the movie suggests that Jim will improve his life, seemingly being straightened out by the death of Plato. It’s a shame that Jim’s misogyny and desire to have his father be more masculine don’t go away. Even ignoring the gay subtext, Plato doesn’t project a lot of masculinity and Jim seems to have no issue with that. That could be a sign of Jim improving on that front?

OVERVIEW

Rebel Without A Cause gets caught in the issue of trying to be a teen cautionary tale with 1950s storytelling and values. It essentially just lists things that at least at the time were considered poor environments for youngsters, like a father who isn’t emotionally available, an overly dominating mother, an under dominating father, gang culture, etc. It would be a lot more powerful to focus on a core idea. When the movie is more about Plato and his abandonment trauma and homosexuality, it’s at its best. Due to these issues, the movie is sometimes humorous, though the directing and the sadly few and far between James Dean performances make it a very worthwhile effort. It’s also a lot better when considering the gay subtext and the fact that Dean, Wood, and Mineo all went on to die young, reflecting the film’s morbidity.

She’s the Man (2006) Review

Amanda Bynes as Viola Hastings

She’s the Man is a pretty outdated and amusing for it drag comedy. Despite being (loosely) based on a Shakespeare play, which was based on the common crossdressing convention, the movie understandably goes for the 2000s teen crowd. It’s frankly barely even based on the aforementioned play. The storyline is also pretty formulaic, though there’s a few small twists. This is fine if the actors can carry the dialogue and scenes, making the story work. Amanda Bynes as Viola Hastings consistently has an awkwardness to her, like she is going through the motions. Apparently, Bynes didn’t like having to play a male, but that isn’t channeled anywhere useful, like by utilizing that to make Viola seem uncomfortable. A lot of the time, Viola doesn’t seem uncomfortable with inherently presenting male. It’s also way too hard to buy her as not someone in disguise or looking like the person she’s pretending to be, her brother Sebastian.

Channing Tatum as Duke Orsino initially comes off as a generic brand jock, though later shows some more intrigue, mainly from being insecure. One highlight is how he doesn’t like that someone seems to be graphically talking about women a lot, a la in a dehumanizing way. While Tatum is fine, he doesn’t distinguish himself enough from this character type. David Cross as the wonderfully named “Horatio Gold” steals the show, as Cross usually does with ease. He’s not as sharp in children’s media as he is in adult’s, but he’s still a lot of fun, especially relative to everything else here. He doesn’t take all this very seriously.

There’s many contrivances, like Sebastian conveniently going to London for a time period, which doesn’t make sense how he’d get away with it. Many of these concern pure comedy moments of it seeming Viola might get caught as a girl, only to find a work around. Whether or not these are “funny” is up to viewer discretion. The movie as a whole wouldn’t work if people pointed out that Viola and Sebastian obviously look nothing alike.

It was nice to see Viola not willing to put up with her boyfriend being rude to her. That later leads to Viola’s mom seemingly being attracted to Viola’s ex-boyfriend, a high school student. Viola being a tomboy doesn’t serve much of a purpose. Maybe it could fuel Viola thinking everything will go swimmingly as Sebastian, only to realize she doesn’t like a lot of elements of masculinity? Kissing booths are so creepy. Are they real things?

One of my favorite tropes in female-as-male crossdressing films is when a girl falls for the main character, typically because they seem different than other men, which appears accidentally gay. The complicated and changing romantic dynamics of certain people being interested in others, sometimes one person publicly and another privately, is quite funny and a clever way to get laughs and more importantly forward the plot.

SPOILERS

Viola imagining herself playing soccer in a long poofy dress is effective out of context, showing someone who feels so out of their element, but seeing as Viola is fine with being a girl, this doesn’t make much sense. What would work better would be to have her present as male in an environment where she would normally be presenting as female. Apparently this dream is something a lot of real trans men can relate to.

Viola’s male friends and peers look pretty fake when all it takes to get them, including Viola’s ultimate love interest, to like her is by having some women speak highly of her in public. They later show more layers and realism. It seems Viola was initially dismissed for being a small man, but everyone, especially Duke, came to really respect her because of that moment. A smaller moment of a minor character showing interest in an “unattractive” woman suggests the movie is criticizing strict views of what an attractive straight man should want.

Something that’d be nice to see more often is when a man falls for a woman dressed as a man, we see him be into her as a man. In these mainstream films where that would be too racy, the best we get is the man seeming uncomfortable with the situation. Here, Duke generally is just very awkward coming off as emotional or vulnerable. The subtext of Duke being uncomfortable with crushing on a “man” is almost bursting to the surface, but is barely subdued.

It’s a little bizarre the real Sebastian wouldn’t acknowledge how weird it is he’s being treated like he’s been there a while or say or do anything that would expose he hasn’t been there. It is of course absurd seeing a principle out a student in the middle of a big game, especially with the student proving as much by showing their nude body, but fortunately this isn’t supposed to be taken seriously. It’s funny that Viola would say she likes Duke before revealing she’s a girl. It doesn’t make sense Viola would be allowed to compete, considering girls aren’t supposed to play. Viola’s ex complaining about losing is fun.

Viola and Duke talking later does show some grayness to both characters that adds a little spice to this story. Duke is upset about all that Viola has done and he’s right. Viola did manipulate him, mainly in her attempts to get him to date her as she was acting as Sebastian. She was also dishonest in general. Duke says he misses his roommate. Viola says he is still here, then touches her heart. Duke then says things will be easier if she is a girl full-time. This seems just made for people to read subtext into. My favorite part is Duke’s last comment implied he would be accepting and open to Viola presenting as a male and that he may think she did this because she likes expressing herself as a man sometimes.

OVERVIEW

Beyond those looking for a light comedy of the era, She’s the Man does feature some novel and almost certainly accidental trans allegories, like being uncomfortable with others seeing your body or going through hijinks to prevent certain people from knowing a certain identity. There is also a good feminist message about not prejudging women as bad at sports.

Blonde Venus (1932) Review

Marlene Dietrich in the film

Blonde Venus makes the gamble of sacrificing a traditional structure for the sake of focusing more on these handful of characters and what they get up to in a more fluid manner. It’s almost like if you wanted to make a movie about a few days in the life of a couple, and then you picked two horrible people right before things were about to go wrong for them. Thus, not having much of an endpoint and really being more about rolling through the events works very well. Marlene Dietrich is very ill suited to this movie and specifically this interpretation of the story for a few reasons. For starters, Dietrich is so gorgeous that she doesn’t come off as an everywoman. When she’s performing, she is very much larger than life. It’s a bit hard to believe why her character of Helen Faraday wouldn’t be committing herself to stage performances when she both seems to love them and they basically always work out for her. You can tell Dietrich loves performing, though her character seemingly doesn’t.

As we’ve seen in movies like Morocco, here Dietrich has genderbending qualities. In this movie, while she almost always dresses and acts femininely, seeming content as a housewife, near the end she dresses in a masculine outfit and flirts with a woman. Every outfit Dietrich wears looks amazing on her, like it was meticulously designed to be as perfect as possible, which doesn’t make her feel like a real person. Maybe Helen was supposed to be just like Dietrich? However, the differences are too distinct. At other points, Dietrich does a serviceable job when she has little to do or little to emote. The big emotional moments usually fall flat, as she has very little range. She sometimes seems very wooden. Some of the simple moments, or ones where she has an exaggerated bombastic nature to her, like how she might act in front of an audience work better, which is usually all that is asked of her. You can believe she was probably included in the movie for her great scenes on stage, as she’s a wonderfully charismatic entertainer and singer. “Hot Voodoo” is a favorite of her songs. Unlike in Morocco, her performance never makes the movie hard to enjoy.

Herbert Marshall as Edward ‘Ned’ Faraday is also deeply unlikable, but also very convincing as just a typical well-intentioned guy trying not to lose what is important to him. Marshall allows the script to emphasize the nature of his actions, while he just carries them in an impactfully simple manner. You instantly hate him when in the beginning he won’t leave a group of naked women alone, saying he’ll only do so if they later cook dinner for him. The power of the script comes through when you relate to him later, even if you don’t like him. Cary Grant as Nick Townsend is the least corrupt adult. He has a degree of selfishness that causes him to do some bad things, but he has devilishly good looks and a warm center that is really endearing. It’s a shame he isn’t in more of the film to do his bidding. Especially in the final act, he could’ve offered an interesting perspective. Dickie Moore as Johnny Faraday gives a solid child performance. He acts like a real kid and serves to showcase how his parents’ actions are being received.

The movie focuses on some relatively brutal behavior, more intense than audiences would’ve expected from reasonably sympathetic protagonists, especially parents. Perhaps the message is what can become of reasonably normal people? With a lot of what Helen and Ned do, you can understand the rationale, even if it’s problematic.

Opening the movie on naked women swimming creates a heavenly and otherworldly atmosphere. As stated earlier, this story doesn’t work as being “otherworldly”. On its own, it’s still a nice and very daring pre-code scene. It’s also pretty funny that Helen is wearing makeup while swimming and it looks perfect. One of Marshall’s strongest acting moments is when he recalls this scene and clearly has great affinity for it. Helen describing how he kissed her is a romantic moment, though soured by how the only reason they ended up together was because of how much of a creep Ned was being.

Dietrich gets some good laughs. “My name’s Taxi Belle Hooper. Taxi for short.” “Do you charge for the first mile?” Later there’s, “Say, is that your kid?” “I’ll give you three guesses, Sherlock Holmes.” There’s an awkward moment between Helen and Nick where various plot-related questions and answers are rattled off, like no one could think of a more natural way to get this information out. There’s several sharp and jarring time skips. Especially confusing is that no one ever looks older or any different over these spans of many months.

SPOILERS

Dietrich gives a beautifully cold delivery of the line, “It was a lie.” When Ned says Helen was a bad mother, it’s a shame we didn’t see anything to support this until after he says that. The emotional center of the film is Helen’s love for her son Johnny. This leads her to helping him and hurting him. Seemingly unable to process being without him, she takes him on the run. She can’t get money and thus he has to live in poverty with her. However, she appears to try her best to make sure he’s always being looked after, somehow getting caretakers when she isn’t able to be with him. The one time she seemingly couldn’t get one, she left him asleep. Ultimately, she gets clarity of how bad she’s been to him and turns herself in. Always trying to keep confidence, she mocks the authorities, saying they were never going to catch her, so she had to do it herself.

Her mocking them, later when she is distant from Johnny when she thinks she won’t get to see him again, and afterwards acting like she doesn’t care about not being able to see Johnny all seem like attempts to not appear vulnerable and act like she has control, even when she clearly doesn’t. At her lowest point, she seems delighted to be killing herself soon and giving her money to someone else. Those two things give her power at a point when she has so little. When she does get to see Johnny, she has had time to forget about how bad she was to him and is also overwhelmed with emotions, so she is willing to reconcile with her ex-husband. Johnny has consistently been what humbles his parents. Helen might feel sincere happiness being with her son, but this suggests all this might happen again, as nothing has been learned.

“I kind of wish now I’d never met you. I take that back. A little of you is worth a lifetime with any other woman.” is a great line by Nick. Later, he summarizes the whole film with, “I wish I was necessary to your happiness.” Helen and Ned seem unwilling to look vulnerable and thus do foolish things. Nick has real power in his wealth and is thus not afraid to look bad. There is real sincerity to his words and that feeling of wanting someone who either doesn’t want you or doesn’t love you and how you can want to compromise so much to make that work is very relatable. Perhaps the earlier encounter between Helen and Nick was supposed to suggest she really did love him, but we saw so little you could think Helen was using him for his resources?

Just like how Ned was a peak asshole in the beginning, he also is at the end, wanting to make Johnny forget his mother. Ned saying he didn’t know much about women in the past suggests he’s had many bad encounters with them and thus women are the problem, as opposed to him.

OVERVIEW

Despite its flaws, it’s hard not to be captivated by Blonde Venus’ dark story and Dietrich’s persona. It’s easy to see why characters in her movies fall for her, despite issues. She’s just so stunning. This is also ironic as she’s by far the worst actor here.

Yoo-Hoo (1932) Review

Gleason and Garvin

Yoo-Hoo is a nice wholesome comedy that includes a lot of elements of these sorts of shorts, but injects a sense of heart with its main plot and sharp performances. In what I’ve seen of James Gleason, his characters are often cranky and project a sense of unlikability. That element is still present, but it’s not mean spirited and it works in the universe when he’s a lot softer with Bobby Hutchins as “Rooster”. It’s hard not to love Gleason after seeing his bond with that child, genuinely seeming to care. Anita Garvin also brings a warm and loving vibe, while being similarly witty. She importantly has great chemistry with the others, just showing that she has history with James’ character. Hutchins is also reasonably talented. His look of shock is great when he’s told he needs a bath. Personally speaking, that’s quite relatable.

James Gleason’s mix of frustration and lightheartedness when he gets in an argument with someone at the beginning is to a degree lovable and a great way to get us into the tone of the film. The most hard edged humor is the sort you’d see in a “family” movie, but it’s not insipid. We get jokes like Anita giving James some of her clothes to keep him dry, with him not wanting to and Rooster laughing off to the side. This short almost feels like it’s portraying a family just having good times and dealing with struggles, though some of the struggles in this film are not very common. The only real knock against it is that James seems a little bigoted and insecure about men not being manly enough. “Don’t pay no attention to what I say. Take half of it, and then forget the rest.”

There is real suspense in the finale. It is amusing that we’re supporting someone who technically stole a child, albeit from abusive caretakers.

SPOILERS

The short is at least a little progressive when Gleason’s character is strongly opposed to Rooster being beaten. When James accidentally tells a woman he doesn’t know he will bathe her, she has very funny reactions. We get an unexpected moment when she throws what looks like a pie, but is probably something covered in soap. Anita’s passion for James effectively gets us rooting for her, specifically her goal to marry him, as such a loving and comforting environment has been created between her and James. One low point is when after the three have a nice bonding moment, Anita kisses Rooster’s cheek, to which James says not to do that, as she’ll “make a sissy out of him”. Who knew a female kissing a male could be so gay?

Rooster hugging James and James acting like he doesn’t like it is cute. Another is when James wakes up to find Rooster not in his bed, when the audience knows he was in James’. The way the leads get the antagonists away is very clever, while being extremely silly. It’s the perfect blend of not too out of the bounds of the film so far, while being manic and unexpected. The actors sell it really well. Garvin’s morbid delivery of “Stop! You may catch it!” is a great line. It’s a riot when Frank Austin jumps out the closed window to escape the situation, followed by Garvin’s scream. The authority figures are portrayed as idiotic. Both at the end leave the bedroom they’re in when they think they caught a contagious disease, when if they really cared about doing the right thing they wouldn’t. The happy ending resolves everything well and is satisfyingly straightforward.

OVERVIEW

Yoo-Hoo is a fantastic blend of silliness, wholesomeness, and a tinge of darkness to make a really effective story and vehicle for humor. Obviously that story is not terribly deep, but it doesn’t need to be.

I Was A Male War Bride (1949) Review

Sleeping

I Was A Male War Bride is a strange animal. Its objective is seemingly to be a wacky comedy, though it kills a lot of time on little stories that serve no purpose other than to squeeze out some laughs between Cary Grant as Henry and Ann Sheridan as Catherine. While their comedy is good, it’s not so necessary as to make these parts of the movie feel worthwhile. To keep the structure as similar as possible, this would work better as a mini-series or show, where each episode the leads get into a new adventure. There’s really no stable plot throughout, with things just happening. Even Sheridan’s character suddenly becomes far less important around the halfway mark.

This seems like it was all based around the absurdism of Cary Grant being a “bride”, with a big dose of satire for bureaucracy with an unnecessary romance and plot before it. Even the leads’ antagonism doesn’t amount to much as they eventually almost are perfectly aligned. Still, their confrontations are so much fun. The movie gets a lot better in the second half, where everything gets more and more wacky. 

Catherine often seems determined to take a moral high ground over Henry while saying and doing things that annoy him. She comes off as extremely unlikable as a person, but is very funny. One of her best lines is, “Y’know, I’m sorry I thought when you came in here you were behaving like a stinker, but you’ve been a stinker for so long I just-” Grant has more good stuff. “Well I’d be delighted. I’ll explain to them. I think you’re repulsive.” Later there’s, “You wouldn’t.” “Yes, I would.” “I think you would.” Then, “Who is it?” “Cinderella.” “What do you want?” “My slipper.” The motorcar detaching from the bike is good, same with the gag of Henry by the train. There’s something very charming about Henry covering himself up in the rain.

At one point, Henry is really mad at Catherine and is laying into her. The intensity makes it especially funny, as well as one of Grant’s best moments in the film. He shows a less goofy side of himself. It’s amusing seeing how often Henry is frustrated about feeling like he’s not manly enough. One example is not liking being in the side motorcar. His manliness is often a theme of the film and arguably drives his stress and insecurities. Nothing is directly said about how this plays into his dynamic with the more “masculine” Catherine, unless one is to look at the subtext so hard as to risk making it up.

Miscellaneous comments include: It’s always a laugh to see women sleep with makeup on in movies, especially how none of it looks smudged or gets on the pillows. The kids with the motorcycle is another funny moment. Same with when Henry is asked questions about if he’s pregnant. Bizarrely, a woman trusts her baby with Henry, who is a complete stranger to her. The last few minutes are definitely the best of the film. Sheridan makes for a great straight man in them.

SPOILERS

Why would Henry sleep on the chair instead of knocking on the door to leave? Even if he was worried about waking Catherine, that would be the better option. It’s really creepy of him to then get in her bed. Why would he even do that? Henry, seeming determined enough to not disrespect Catherine that she wouldn’t tell him he’s trapped in her room, hilariously keeps knocking on the door with a housekeeper on the other end. Catherine thinks he’s the only one knocking.

Catherine letting Henry get arrested is really cruel. Henry seems way too quick to be forgiving of Catherine after all she’s done. With basically no setup as to why they’d want to do this, they start to admit they like each other, kiss, then get married. Are they just going to ignore all their conflict? Briefly, Catherine gets mad at him and just decides to not get married, then almost immediately changes her mind. Why include these weird turns that don’t amount to anything? We don’t really ever get a good reason why they wouldn’t be hating each other.

When Henry talks about turning “a man into a woman”, I wonder if the writers had been aware of, or were referencing, the few documented cases of transgender people. This was before the well known Christine Jorgensen came out. Henry’s look of “what am I doing?” on his face as he’s dragged up is golden. His adventures pretending to be a woman are a riot. People that recently saw Henry as a man now seem to not realize who he is in his wig. There is a wonderful anarchy here that “bureaucracies are so nonsensical that it can make men have to pretend to be women”. It’s so ridiculous as to be delightful.

OVERVIEW

While there’s not much of a point to anything, as things essentially just end unceremoniously at the finale, the experience is still solid, especially with Grant’s constantly annoyed attitude. That element is more prominent the further you go, with a great final joke that plays off of just how sick of everything Henry obviously is, making it more clever than your average last laugh. I Was A Male War Bride is structurally poor, but otherwise has a lot to like. As an example, all of Ann Sheridan’s outfits here are stunning.

ON THE CORNER AND OFF THE WALL

This movie has some personal significance to me. All on that I really can say is, “We’ll meet again. Don’t know where, don’t know when, but I know we’ll meet again some sunny day.”

Victor and Victoria (1933) Review

Victor and Victoria is certainly not light on style. That style is pretty easy to love. The songs, costumes, and aesthetic all have a slight surrealism that makes the film interesting. We’re briskly pulled along to little adventures like a woman getting her face shaved, singing songs about how to treat a lady, and watching men in dressing rooms. This eternal weirdness is charming, though sadly there’s not much substance below it.

There’s so much that can be done with the concept here. The idea of a woman not only pretending to be a man, but a female impersonating man is very funny. However, this story steers into a lot of conventional territory, despite the more “surreal” scenes that don’t really serve any greater point. An example of what could’ve been done is if Susanne had to pretend to be interested in a woman. That does happen a little, but nothing is done with it. The movie is quick to move on.

Susanne usually seems stereotypically feminine, very disinterested in male presentation, especially at the end. Thus, it’d be nice if discomfort was constantly looming, but she at points doesn’t have much of an issue with it. If this movie is read as pro-gender nonconforming, this could represent her discovering crossing over is nice. Midway through, Susanne is happily getting dressed in male attire, saying, “No. I’m not a young girl! I’m a grown-up, experienced man who is the equal of any situation. I hope I can prove it tonight. Don’t be afraid, I won’t abandon my role. But Viktor, today is a lucky day! The big success at the theater, all the new contracts, I am so content and happy! Happy as never before! What could be better than for once having no wishes?” If this movie was made today with a line like that, it might be assumed this is supposed to suggest Susanne is a trans man. As is, this movie feels like a pretty standard comedy about a young performer finding success and meeting strange people.

There’s some snappy music queues and directing that suggest importance when Susanne and Viktor meet. It’s a really dynamic look. We get a sharp physical comedy moment where Viktor and Susanne keep adjusting a wig and making funny faces. This sort of moment lives or dies off the strength of the performances. The leads seem very comfortable here and in tune with their roles.

Miscellaneous comments include: Susanne doesn’t pass as male. That’s all well and good, as this movie doesn’t really ask to be taken seriously, though that element can be slightly distracting. Everyone believes Viktor and Susanne are the opposite gender when they present as such, which goes to show how manufactured gender is, as it is so malleable. One highlight is a montage of the leads singing about succeeding as representative imagery appears. Both are very good singers. There’s a point where Susanne just says what she wants to do so the audience knows, when it would be more natural for her to just think it.

SPOILERS

Susanne being taken into the men’s dressing room and then being expected to change outfits shows a common struggle for people to be comfortable with gender ambiguity. This comes to further our understanding of the characters, while also supplying comedy. This could suggest how the concept of gender roles divide people and create stress. As is suggested by the final act, the message could also be that women and men are inherently different in such a way where they’re not supposed to mix. Susanne complains about not being able to have her womanhood erased near the end. While it’s true that womanhood can’t and shouldn’t be erased from someone, this movie might be saying every AFAB person really wants to follow stereotypes of how women should be.

At one of Susanne’s performances, Viktor keeps taking and playing the instruments. What was his plan here? Did he think the musicians would just let this random guy take over? Amusingly, there’s some shots of Susanne’s thighs. Viktor is scolded by a woman for not being enough of a gentleman. No one ever questions Susanne being “gentlemanly enough”. This is yet another suggestion of these concepts being a lot more fluid that it may have seemed. Later, the woman sings to Viktor about how much better of a man Susanne is than him, with her saying she’s in a class of his own and “He’s the type that pleases us women.”

Susanne is weirdly non-understanding when Viktor is worried about having to duel someone, where his life is on the line. When she finds out the duel won’t actually happen, she continues to say things that terrify Viktor, acting like he has to do it. She seems to be treating this like a joke. As an aside, this duel doesn’t really serve any purpose. Later, Viktor is relieved to not have a gun anymore. Seeing as he is shown as having some stereotypically feminine traits, this could have been intended to represent him feeling free without having to hold up a masculine trait he doesn’t like, especially because he’s befriended a man that acts similarly to him.

A lowlight is when Susanne complains about being ruined and that this whole adventure has destroyed her ability to get a man. She also says a woman’s desire for a man can’t be controlled, which Viktor apparently promised to do, though we didn’t see such a moment. This treats women as essentially monolithic. This problem is worsened when Susanne tells Viktor to help carry a suitcase. The subtext is probably that a woman would be too weak to do such a thing and they’re all really too delicate and dependent on men to fill a more socially-considered masculine role.

At one point, Susanne accepts to meet a woman as she intends to get her to leave her boyfriend, so she can get with him. Imagine if the woman thought Susanne wanted her and Susanne decided to play along? That would be funny and use the concept more. Speaking of which, Susanne and the male interest have such little chemistry or time between them. The romance is really forced in. That being said, Susanne being unexpectedly referred to as Susanne by her love interest, especially after feeling everything is hopeless, is a really sweet moment.

OVERVIEW

Victor and Victoria passes into being worth a watch for its historical significance as an early queer film. It certainly is never an unbearable time, but it can’t get past its issues.