Number 62: Ben & Arthur (2002)
Hmm, someone’s bound to get offended here but I’ll try my
best. A little sensitivity is required here due to the subject matter but it’s
handled so poorly that will not be an easy task.
Firstly, a word on quality. There is none. It’s basically a
cheap film made with editing techniques you could find on Windows Moviemaker.
But it’s not all about lighting and special effects. Sometimes you’ve got to
work with what you have and just because you’re shooting on a hand held camera,
if the story is good you can still make a good film.
They don’t. But after a while you start to enjoy the odd framing, bad acting, awkward dialogue and strange angles. It's delightfully shite.
Gay couple Ben and Arthur want to get married but it’s not
legal in California. Their original plan was to go to Hawaii to get married but
that’s scuppered when Gay Marriage bill in Hawaii gets held up. There’s another
problem in that Ben is already married to a woman meaning they couldn’t have
married in Hawaii anyway. Homosexual or not, bigamy is still a crime people. Ben’s
wife doesn’t take kindly to Ben’s homosexuality and plans to shoot him. Ben
wrests control of the gun away from her (this becomes important), she leaves
and we never see her again. Nice meeting you!
Though it’s never said on screen
presumably their divorce goes through so Ben and Arthur marry in Vermont which
looks a lot like California, gay marriage is legal and apparently you don’t
need witnesses.Though it wouldn't surprise me if Ben were still married, the film talks about legal rights and laws but doesn't really understand any of them.
A quick word on Ben and Arthur. Theirs is actually quite an
abusive relationship, Ben is an absolute dick to Arthur. Always shouting and
belittling him. One time he straight-up knocks him out. What does he say when
he comes to? ‘That’ll teach you for having stupid thoughts.’ Charming guy.
There are times when you think Arthur might be realising he’s made a mistake
but since it is never really expanded on, I’m probably giving the makers too
much credit.
Arthur’s unhinged brother Victor opposes their union on
religious grounds. He’s a zealot and we know this as the first scene he’s in he
is wearing a white robe and carrying a copy of the Bible with him.
Victor believes homosexuality to be an illness they can be
cured of. Ben and Arthur don’t take kindly to this and tell him where to go.
Victor retorts to this by threatening to pray for them. He actually uses prayer
as a threat. That’ll teach them the errors of their sinful ways.
Victor tries to cure them with more traditional threats and
even a magic potion of holy water that will wash the gay disease away. This was
made in 2002, are there really still Christian people who believe this nonsense? I guess so.
Disaster strikes for Victor when he is kicked out of his
church because Arthur is gay. I’ve looked this up, now though Victor’s specific
denomination is not given, I can’t find any examples of a church ex-communicating
other family members because one of them is gay. The priest gives him a way
back in though and all he has to do is hire a hitman to kill Ben and Arthur.
The church really is tough on homosexuality.
The guy must have had a change of heart though as just
smears lipstick over Ben instead (yeah, it’s supposed to be blood). He survives
but a detective comes round to ask Victor some questions and then speaks to the
priest and we never see him again. Nice meeting you!
This all sends Arthur a little over the edge and after
learning of the priest’s involvement, he kills him by setting him on fire in
the campest way possible. That’s how you win the moral argument! There’s been
nothing to suggest Arthur of being capable of murder beforehand but then again,
you might argue this is some of Victor’s own madness leaking through into
Arthur. So on this occasion, maybe I’m not giving the makers enough credit.
This brings us to the finale. Victor goes to their apartment
and shoots Ben dead. This is where the editor discovered the blur effect and
dammit he is going to use it as Arthur cradles Ben’s dead body for two minutes.
Victor then makes Arthur renounce his sinful ways at gun point, strips him
naked and baptises him. But he’s only using bath water and he’s not an ordained
minister so I’m pretty sure it doesn’t count.
Victor then goes out for a breather because movie, allowing
Arthur to get the gun Ben’s ex-wife brought earlier (I told you it would be
important). After implying that Victor is just repressing his own sexuality,
the two brothers shoot each other dead. Nobody wins but the audience loses.
There are two sensitive issues in place here: homosexuality
and religious faith. It requires subtlety and this is as subtle as a brick to
the face. The two may never be openly compatible but I feel like what this film really
needed was a third voice to say they don’t need to be openly hostile. It just feels like the message coming out from this is: this is pretty shitty, it's going to stay shitty, so what you gonna do?
I don’t have the answers but that’s my opinion. Can’t we all just get
along?
The film sucks.
Number 61: I Accuse my Parents (1944)
Coming to us all the way from the forties, I Accuse My Parents is the oldest film
on this whole list. A dubious honour but it is always interesting to see how
times and styles have changed. But bad movies are timeless.
So, what we have here is a young man on trial in court and
when asked what he has to say for himself, he replies ‘I accuse my parents!’
And thus we have our title. And what shocking things did these so-called
parents do to this young man, well let’s take a look:
Our young man Jimmy (because everyone was called Jimmy in
the forties) has won an essay contest describing the perfect American family.
It’s an antiquated idea of the family with father out working while mother
stays at home to cook, clean and bring up baby but that’s by-the-by. But it’s
all a sham for father is a workaholic-gambler and mother is an alcoholic who
don’t give Jimmy the attention he feels he deserves. His mother embarrasses Jimmy
by turning up drunk to a function at his school.
Jimmy gets a job at a shoe shop and meets attractive young
lady Kitty, a lounge singer. The bar she sings at is owned by shady criminal
Blake (I blame the parents). Jimmy starts doing the odd jobs for Blake to earn
some money (parents fault). Kitty tries to warn him off but Jimmy’s having none
of it (those parents again). Unfortunately for Jimmy, Blake has the hots for
Kitty too and doesn’t take kindly to him moving in on his woman.
Blake sets Jimmy up for a robbery and then tries to have
Jimmy killed but he escapes and leaves towns (damn those parents). He meets a
creepy guy who owns a diner, who persuades him to return and give himself in.
He confronts Blake first and accidentally kills him which
brings us full circle (and its all those pesky parents, is there no depth to which they won't sink?). And as I’m sure you can see, this is all the parents
fault. Jimmy gives a whiney monologue about how they didn’t give him the love
he needed and that’s why he became a criminal.
Ridiculously, the judge agrees with this. Jimmy still has to
serve time for his crimes but the judge is in no doubt it’s all the parents
fault.
Mum and Dad aren’t ever going to win parents of the year but
the idea they are responsible for Jimmy falling into crime is ridiculous. Take
some responsibility for your own actions, Jimmy. Your parents didn't force you to work for a mob boss.
At least there isn’t a narrator, and many films of the time
would have had one so at least we can be thankful for that.
I think the story must have been wrote by a group of
overbearing teenagers: blame the parents; absolve the kids. I might have tolerated it if not for the infuriating ending where we're told we don't ever have to take personal responsibility, we can always blame someone else. Silly film with a silly message.
(these are from Imdb Bottom 100 movies list as it was on 31st August 2015)
No comments:
Post a Comment