(6/6/00)
[Note: This was hown in a very bad preservation print. It was in black-and-white and I am fairly sure that the film was originally in color.]
This is a really strange film. It begins with a scene of a woman giving a mann a blowjob in a car in a garage. And this is supposed to be a gay porn film.
Anyway, this male-female oral sex is performed to some really upbeat music. But then we are introduced to another scene, that of a man jerking offin a shower. The music for this scene is Bach's "Joy of Man's Desiring." The film cuts back and forth between the two sequences with very abrupt shifts in the sound. Sometimes there is inserted a very brief cut from one sequence, its accompanying music being a very short, jarring interruption. For me personally these jarring shifts take me out of the scenes and out of any involvement with their sexual content.
The upbeat music is replaced in places with those exaggerated sucking sounds which were so familiar in oral sex scenes during the 1970s. Then we see the heterosexual couple on the floor, man on top, and I believe we hear a lot of heavy breathing at that point. And then a man drives up in a car and the womkan runs away. And that is the only good look that we get at her. The fact that we hadn't really seen her body up till that point is another factor that kept us from getting sexually involved. Why? Why does Halsted do it that way?
Or perhaps other people respond differently.
In a regular heterosexual film the man in the car would have been the woman's husband. But there is a twist here and it is that he starts having sexual activity with the man that was involved, not the woman. Perhaps the heterosexual encounter is Fred Halsted rejecting the simple categorization of straight and gay.
We see shots of a motorcycle riding the roads and the two men are joined by a third, a biker type who brought to my mind associations with Kenneth Anger's Scorpio Rising. He seems somewhat sinister and I believe that he is wearing leather. They become a threesome. The sex is rough with one man's head being forced into a toilet bowl by another man's foot. One man dons black briefs and one inserts his penis into an orifice on the motorcycle. All of this is played out to the sound of electronic music.
As one man reaches climax the electronic music fades and we share the sense of release. We then hear his heavy breathing.
I find that I don't remember much of the details of the sexual activity. This might have been because I was turned off by the shabbiness of the print or it might be that I just couldn't get that interested in it. Or it could be that my eyes were tired and my attention span exhausted after L.A. Plays Itself.
Showing posts with label Fred Halsted. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fred Halsted. Show all posts
Saturday, February 6, 2010
L.A. Plays Itself. 1972. Directed by Fred Halsted.
(6/5/00-6/6/00)
If it weren't for the hard-core sex this film could have made it as a respectalble art film--or avant-garde film. It is beautifully photographed and quite sophisticated in its editing. But of course it goes beyond the limits of what was acceptable in avant-garde films, even at that permissive time. Experimental or "underground" films certainly had explicit sexual content, but there were limits, there were boundaries. I have a hunch that L.A. Plays Itself went beyond what would have been accepted by the people who patronized that form ofr cinema.
It begins in the country, with scenes of nature. And it goes on that way for a long time with shots of mountains, flowers, insects. It is a very leisurely opening. Yes, this is a film that was going to be marketed to the porn trade, but there is no rush to get down to business.
We finally see a young man and then another. I think they are around rocks or a stream--something like that. One approaches the other, they start talking and then there is an offer of giving head. And then we see them coupling while we hear soothing classical music on the soundtrack. There is an Edenic quality to this part of the film--the two men are in harmony with nature, their lovemaking is just another rhythm of nature.
Sometimes there are shots superimposed on the sex--shots of insects and flowers, etc. And then a scene of a bulldozer is superimposed which gives it a more aggressive quality. This is the beginning of a transition to a man-made world and eventually to Los Angeles.
We are then shown scenes of Los Angeles, interspersed with footage of all-male S/M encounters. There is also a scene of a man masturbating which is intercut with shots in which the camera rapidly zooms (or moves) in and out. It all seems to have been edited together in a spirit of free-association. What seems to tie a lot of it together is a sort of story which is told through off-screen voices on the soundtrack. One voice is that of a young homosexual who has come to L.A. from Texas. The other is that of a more experienced young man who offers him advice and friendship.
The experienced one warns the Texan to stay clear of some guys who are cruising the streets. He remarks that they seem all right and the other one mentions that they have dirty pants to which he replies that some guys like dirty pants. The experienced guy offers to help him get some work to which the young Texan admits that he needs the money, since he only has two dollars.
One interesting thing about this dialogue is that some of it is repeated. I don't know why. On the whole the visuals, the dialogue and music all flow together in a sort of flood of sights and sounds that the viewer can sort of flow along with. The film is not made up of scenes with characters who interact in a way that the mind can seize upon. This flowing quality is hypnotic--you can lose yourself in it.
When the young man talks about helping the other to get work, get some easy money, prostitution is obviously a possibility. Does he become a participant in the S/M scene that we see? Or are the two participants the two young men we hear on the soundtrack? Such a connjection is perhaps implied, but we are never told it explicitly.
We see a young man crawling up stairs and licking another man's boot. He is whipped with black straps in a way that probably isn't really painful. We see a man bound with ropes, with a collar, thrashing about on the floor. I actually forget how explicit the sex was in these scenes. The accompanying music is more aggressive than the soothing classical music of the country scenes.
The camera shows a newspaper with a headline about a kidnap victim. I think it mentions bondage or something that associates it with the S/M scenes we have been watching. Part of the headline is obscured by something lying on top of it. And later there is another newspaper headline about some cult killing. There is a definite association of the city with violence.
In addition to the newspaper headlines there are shots of pages of comic books and other drawings. There are shots of signs in the outdoor scenes. The film has a kind of pop-art feel. Halsted definitely wants to capture and evoke the environment.
The film ends with the insertion of a man's hand, then fist into another man's anus. This certainly made me feel uneasy as I would assume it did a lot of other people. It is an uncomfortable thing to watch. And I think that Fred Halsted was deliberately hitting people's boundaries, pressing on their limits. Perhaps the S/M scenes also did this, although it is hard to say as I don't know the feelings of the audience that this film was intended for.
The free-association quality of the editing puts those scenes at a distance. The viewer might be stimulated by those sights, but he is never allowed in. Does that make them safer to watch? I don't know.
L.A. Plays Itself is a highly personal film as well as one that evokes its time and culture. In some ways it is a puzzling film. It wasn't one of the most riveting experiences of my filmgoing life, but it's more than just an artifact.
If it weren't for the hard-core sex this film could have made it as a respectalble art film--or avant-garde film. It is beautifully photographed and quite sophisticated in its editing. But of course it goes beyond the limits of what was acceptable in avant-garde films, even at that permissive time. Experimental or "underground" films certainly had explicit sexual content, but there were limits, there were boundaries. I have a hunch that L.A. Plays Itself went beyond what would have been accepted by the people who patronized that form ofr cinema.
It begins in the country, with scenes of nature. And it goes on that way for a long time with shots of mountains, flowers, insects. It is a very leisurely opening. Yes, this is a film that was going to be marketed to the porn trade, but there is no rush to get down to business.
We finally see a young man and then another. I think they are around rocks or a stream--something like that. One approaches the other, they start talking and then there is an offer of giving head. And then we see them coupling while we hear soothing classical music on the soundtrack. There is an Edenic quality to this part of the film--the two men are in harmony with nature, their lovemaking is just another rhythm of nature.
Sometimes there are shots superimposed on the sex--shots of insects and flowers, etc. And then a scene of a bulldozer is superimposed which gives it a more aggressive quality. This is the beginning of a transition to a man-made world and eventually to Los Angeles.
We are then shown scenes of Los Angeles, interspersed with footage of all-male S/M encounters. There is also a scene of a man masturbating which is intercut with shots in which the camera rapidly zooms (or moves) in and out. It all seems to have been edited together in a spirit of free-association. What seems to tie a lot of it together is a sort of story which is told through off-screen voices on the soundtrack. One voice is that of a young homosexual who has come to L.A. from Texas. The other is that of a more experienced young man who offers him advice and friendship.
The experienced one warns the Texan to stay clear of some guys who are cruising the streets. He remarks that they seem all right and the other one mentions that they have dirty pants to which he replies that some guys like dirty pants. The experienced guy offers to help him get some work to which the young Texan admits that he needs the money, since he only has two dollars.
One interesting thing about this dialogue is that some of it is repeated. I don't know why. On the whole the visuals, the dialogue and music all flow together in a sort of flood of sights and sounds that the viewer can sort of flow along with. The film is not made up of scenes with characters who interact in a way that the mind can seize upon. This flowing quality is hypnotic--you can lose yourself in it.
When the young man talks about helping the other to get work, get some easy money, prostitution is obviously a possibility. Does he become a participant in the S/M scene that we see? Or are the two participants the two young men we hear on the soundtrack? Such a connjection is perhaps implied, but we are never told it explicitly.
We see a young man crawling up stairs and licking another man's boot. He is whipped with black straps in a way that probably isn't really painful. We see a man bound with ropes, with a collar, thrashing about on the floor. I actually forget how explicit the sex was in these scenes. The accompanying music is more aggressive than the soothing classical music of the country scenes.
The camera shows a newspaper with a headline about a kidnap victim. I think it mentions bondage or something that associates it with the S/M scenes we have been watching. Part of the headline is obscured by something lying on top of it. And later there is another newspaper headline about some cult killing. There is a definite association of the city with violence.
In addition to the newspaper headlines there are shots of pages of comic books and other drawings. There are shots of signs in the outdoor scenes. The film has a kind of pop-art feel. Halsted definitely wants to capture and evoke the environment.
The film ends with the insertion of a man's hand, then fist into another man's anus. This certainly made me feel uneasy as I would assume it did a lot of other people. It is an uncomfortable thing to watch. And I think that Fred Halsted was deliberately hitting people's boundaries, pressing on their limits. Perhaps the S/M scenes also did this, although it is hard to say as I don't know the feelings of the audience that this film was intended for.
The free-association quality of the editing puts those scenes at a distance. The viewer might be stimulated by those sights, but he is never allowed in. Does that make them safer to watch? I don't know.
L.A. Plays Itself is a highly personal film as well as one that evokes its time and culture. In some ways it is a puzzling film. It wasn't one of the most riveting experiences of my filmgoing life, but it's more than just an artifact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)