These Are The Young Leonardos

Posted on December 13, 2008 by queerlefty

When he first made himself a reputation in the early to-mid nineties, Leonardo DiCaprio was often compared to River Phoenix, who died of an overdose in 1993, after having shown off his obvious talents in movies like Stand By Me (1987) and My Own Private Idaho (1991). Like Phoenix, DiCaprio’s way to mainstream appreciation went through smaller movies like The Basketball Diaries and This Boy’s Life, and although he has later done broad crowd pleasers like Titanic, The Beach and Catch Me If You Can , he has also taken roles that really have demanded of him that he expand his repertoir as an actor. Whatever you might think of Gangs Of New York, The Aviator or even Blood Diamond, they represented some brave steps for him.

But at some point the torch will have to be passed along again, which got me to thinking about which young actors are the most likely to step out of Leonardo’s shadow. I found three potential contenders, who apart from being obviously talented not only have shown a penchant for brave career movies, but also in my mind even look a little like Leo (which of course is not exactly a drawback.) I call them the Young Leonardos (YLs)

The first one, and by far the one most likely to succeed, is Emile Hirsch. His explosive mix of talent and attractiveness have been attested to in this space several times before, but in the end, two of his movies in particular made me draw a connection between him and DiCaprio. Tim Travis in Imaginary Heroes is not an easy part to play, but Hirsch strikes the exactly right balance between insecurity and the more self-assured facade his sometimes puts up, which is essential to understanding what kind of character we’re dealing with. Something similar can be seen in The Mudge Boy, though the end result is not nearly as good. Proving his talent in such small movies then earned him the lead in Sean Penn’s epic Into The Wild, a movie that could be comparable to The Aviator in artistic ambition. In my opinion, Hirsch could have netted his first Academy Award nomination for his portrayal of Chris McCandless. His Hollywood future looking increasingly bright, and he himself looking better than ever, his status as a frontrunner among the Young Leonardos is well-deserved.

If he wanted to however, Michael Pitt might could have given him a run for the money. He garnered some interest as Tommy Gnosis in the fabulous Hedwig and And The Angry Inch, but his YL credentials were only seriously bolstered by his leading role in Bernardo Bertolucci’s absolutely riveting The Dreamers. His physical resemblance to Leonardo in this film was so striking (and so rewarding, considering he is very sparsely clothed throughout much of it) that I constantly had to remind myself that I was actually watching Michael Pitt. Perhaps unfortunately however, this was also the film that seemed to permanently take him out of the mainstream, which at least in the short term make him less likely to compete for Leo’s legacy. He was very good in Gus van Sant’s loosely structured yet strangely fascinating Last Days, and Michael Haneke’s American remake of his excellent Austrian satirical thriller Funny Games suggests this is a guy who is intent on going his own way.

Finally, consider Kevin Zegers. I only know him from Transamerica, but then again, he really came through in that movie. His character was very complex, but even though it felt a little underdeveloped at times, he made me care deeply about him. It’s of course possible that I find just about any movie about sexual ambivalence interesting, but I doubt it. This movie really had something more than an intriguing plot to offer, it was also beautifully and movingly conceived. And also, Zegers no doubt had something special to offer, too.

But the beauty of all of them notwithstanding: If they have the necessary combination of luck and ambition, they could be the quality-concious heartthrobs of tomorrow. I’m looking forward to it already.

Posted in film, movies | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

‘W.’ Is No Laughing Matter

Posted on December 8, 2008 by queerlefty

Having sat through the entirety of Oliver Stone’s promising yet ultimately disappointing George W. Bush biopic W., I wanted to scream at him that he should leave poor Freud out of his presidential portrait. There is much to commend here so long as the movie concentrates on the tensions between politics and policy in the Bush presidency, but in his attempt to understand what makes the outgoing president act the way he does, Stone in my opinion fails spectacularly. I end up hoping that the movie’s satire simply isn’t sharp enough, because that’s the only way I could get something out of his constant hammering on the argument that W.’s entry into politics was motivated by a wish to show his father that he was not an utter failure. Unfortunately, 43’s quest for fatherly love is sloppy as satire and and unconvincing as psychological drama.

I guess what I’m really saying is that Stone let’s Bush off the hook too easily. To simplify a little, W. reminds me more of a reverse version of his Castro documentary Commandante (2003) than this nuanced account of Nixon (1995). When I heard that Oliver Stone was preparing a movie about one of the least popular yet most mythologized presidents in American history I wasn’t hoping for just another reiteration of how unbelievable it is that this man could become president in the first place. I was hoping for satire, not farce. We have known for years already that the intellectual rigor of 43 is unimpressive, and that he is prone to make gut-level decisions. To simply race through a greatest (OK, maybe not) hits of his presidency, and otherwise confirm every suspicion we might have about him, risks reducing him to a comic relief and a political puppet, alongside brilliant but cynical political brains like Karl Rove, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Of course Josh Brolin’s imitation was funny in the beginning, but after a while I began to feel that this lighthearted comedy was made to cover the fact that Stone had nothing substantial to say.

Since it would have been vital even to accepting this movie as satire, Stone’s real sin is that he really doesn’t try to understand what drives George W. Bush as a politician. He continually yells from the rooftops that George wants to convince his father, Bush 41, that he can be every bit as successful as his brother Jeb, but are we really expected to believe that his yearning for parental approval is what motivates him for high political office? If this is meant as satire, it’s not exactly daring. Every person in the world could make the argument that George W. Bush wanted to run for president to prove he could do it, or to finish the war that his father started, but that doesn’t make it neither particularly funny nor convincing.

Thus, the elements of broad-brushed political comedy was what worked best for me in this movie, simply because they were political by nature. It definitely feels a little cheap when Rumsfeld’s ‘old Europe’ remark is forced in there somewhere. simply because it’s so easily remembered, but at least it keeps the attention away from the inevitable psychodrama between George W., Jeb and his parents. The scenes from the situation room, and how Colin Powell slowly gave in to the growing consensus about the wisdom of invading Iraq is handled brilliantly, and Richard Dreyfuss makes one extremely scary Dick Cheney. In scenes like these I sense what kind of movie this could have been, if Stone hadn’t decided that the tragic/comedic fratboy-turned-world’s-most-powerful-man story was the one he really wanted to tell. It might be that I simply love politics, but the insider’s story is to me by far the most interesting, even though reporting by journalists like Bob Woodward and others have made even these accounts pretty well-known over the years.

So, why did Oliver Stone back off, then? Some critics have argued that it could be because he feels that the failures of the Bush Administration has been so massive and are still so new, that we are left with no choice but to try to laugh at them. It’s certainly plausible. The problem with that comes if this becomes the gold standard of movies about George W. Bush (considering that Stone himself was the one most likely to make a motion picture indictment of 43). While the Clinton presidency could easily have made a nice Freudian comedy, Bush’s legacy is all too grave for that.

Posted in film, movies, politics | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

What ‘Speedway Junky’ Taught Me About The Art Of Film

Posted on December 4, 2008 by queerlefty

Quite understandably, after a couple of years many child actors seem eager to reinvent themselves as more daring, smart and interesting than their television personalities allow them to be. Most famously, we saw it when Jessica Biel blew up her whole saint-like image on the family-oriented drama 7th Heaven, putting her character through a period of alienation from her family, a pregnancy and a failed marriage, while Biel herself did a sexed-up photo shoot for Gear Magazine. If not immediately comparable, Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s movie career has taken a similar turn, from his teenage stint on 3rd Rock From The Sun, to playing a molested hustler in Gregg Araki’s (brilliant) Mysterious Skin (2004). I’m not sure to what extent it’s it would be fair to compare the two, as it seems like Gordon-Levitt’s move was much better planned (Biel now says she regrets does the Gear shoot), but both of them speak to how young actors can feel strained by the way they were initially presented to the public.

Which brings us – yet again – to Jonathan Taylor Thomas, who with the gay-themed one-two punch of Speedway Junky (1999) and Common Ground (2000), tried to create some space between himself and family-oriented sitcom Home Improvement. In a way it’s a little frustrating to think that for someone to play a couple of gay roles still amounts to something of a teenage rebellion (or a lethal injection to his commercial viability), but no matter how you spin it, it actually was a quite bold move on his part. As Denis Hensley of American gaymag The Advocate chronicled in in his now-famous interview with JTT back in 2000, it set off a flurry of rumours of the young actor’s suspected gayness. I’ve only seen Speedway, and while it’s not flawless by any means, it must have been a welcome opportunity for many of the involved people to play with their public images.

Contrary to what you might expect from the media attention however, JTT’s bisexual Steve character doesn’t have all that much screen time in Speedway Junky. He is the catalyst of what eventually turns out to be the dramatic turning point of the movie, but the main reason why he still demands our attention, is because JTT seems to cherish the chance to project something totally at odds with how we’re used to see him. Ideally, every movie should be considered entirely on its own artistic terms, without regard to things outside of the movie itself. However, when I try to decide what I think about Speedway, I have to take my own previous perception of JTT into account. Thus, while Steve is not a particularly interesting character, he is made interesting by the way JTT uses him to play with the public perception of himself. And, I almost forgot: His self-concious swagger actually is surprisingly sexy.

Instead, the movie’s main intrigue is the unlikely friendship between Johnny (Jesse Bradford) and Eric (Jordan Brower), the gay hustler who falls in love with him. Johnny, a young man trying to gather the cash to go to North Carolina and pursue his dream to be a race car driver, initially feels intimidated by Eric, but slowly they come to trust each other. When it took a long time for me to actually care about them, that’s because I think Bradford’s Johnny is not all that likeable. I simply had trouble understanding why Eric would fall for him. His rebel without a cause shtick seemed a little too self-absorbed, and thus Eric selfness also became a source of frustration. However, while never exactly subtle, over the course of the movie the personal bond and tensions between them becomes easier to accept. Where Bradford initially struggles to make Johnny’s vulnerability seem anything other than whiny, Brower’s Eric is far more interesting. And that’s not just something I say because Brower is such a beautiful guy, or because his character is gay, though both are true.

Still, it could be that Speedway Junky requires a certain suspension of disbelief to be truly engaging. Just when it almost had me hooked, it served up an ending so laced with cliches and sentimental predictability that I left it feeling disappointed. As I believe I’ve said before, I’ve got absolutely nothing against sentimentality or tear-jerkery (if that’s a word), so long as it serves to make us feel closer to the characters. Here however, it threathens to undercut what has come before, by making it all seem like preparation for a thinly veiled plea for our tears.

So which perspective wins; the one where we view it through the lens of young actors trying to free themselves of the constraints of Hollywood conventions, or the second perspective, where we judge the movie solely on its own merits? Because I simply don’t want to be too harsh on a movie that earnestly tries to say something important about friendship and the pursuit of personal dreams, I’ll suggest to apply them both. What you end up with actually is quite essiential to film as an art form (although this should by no means be read as if Speedway Junky is an ‘art film’ or as representiong something quintessential to film-making), namely that this story had to be told in the form of a movie, with its ability to visualize and paper over the shortcomings of the story. And just to be perfectly clear, I mean that as a compliment to film. I’m not arguing that if you’ve nothing interesting to say, get it on camera and call it a movie. I mean that film is the ideal medium through which to tell stories that would otherwise be rendered too simple or sketchy. With that said, maybe the outside angle is the most useful after all?

Posted in film, gay, movies | Tagged | 2 Comments

Early Gay Crushes: Brad Renfro

Posted on November 23, 2008 by queerlefty

I debated for a long time whether I was comfortable with putting this post in the Early Gay Crushes section. He was, no doubt, an early crush of mine, but the fact that he died earlier this year makes the thing feel a little weird. At the same time a classic pretty boy and an obviously troubled soul, his life and career was tragically cut short by an overdose this last January. He made himself a name in such films as The Client, Apt Pupil and Bully.

He demanded my attention with his lead role in The Client (1994), which I saw a couple of years later, when I was twelve or thirteen years old. I was fascinated with it not only because it was one of very few John Grisham adaptations actually worth seeing, but also because I though he there was something attractive about the stubbornness and bravery that his character mustered. I haven’t seen it in many years now, but that’s probably just as well. Over the years I’ve developed a very short fuse for this kind of procedural thrillers, so maybe it’s a good thing that I chose to remember it as the reasonably suspenseful movie I watched in my early teens, instead of burdening it with the scepticism that experience unavoidably triggers. Brad had managed the most important thing; to get on my radar.

That said, I didn’t expect to see him in another movie. I missed Apt Pupil, and this was well before my gayness had instructed me to catch a movie because of the cuteness of its actors (it’s a little sad to say this, but when it comes to my critical judgment, I probably was harsher when I first discovered the art of film some twelve years ago than I am now. That’s not to say that I can watch anything, but my ability to tolerate bad movies, or to choose movies for shallow reasons, has greatly increased over the last couple of years). Had Brad Renfro still been alive, and Apt Pupil had been released today, I cannot rule out that I would have gone to see it.

Then imagine my surprise when his name came up in the opening credits in Larry Clark’s Bully (2001). And if his looks in his younger years carried a slight resemblance (hey, I said slight!) to the young man we’ve later come to know as Alex Pettyfer, by now he had matured into a more mature, buffed up guy. I fell for him immediately, and he was assisted by the equally attractive Nick Stahl (who went on to do Terminator 3 and Carnivale). In hindsight however, it’s tempting to interpret his role in Bully as some kind of a bad omen. Renfro portrays Marty Pucci as a guy who has serious problems with setting up boundaries for his own behavior, and who as a result drifts into a daze of drugs and violence. I wouldn’t endorse such a biographical reading of course, not least because, in addition to being simplistic, it would impose onto the story facts about Renfro’s own life that was not known at the time. But just like it’s hard to separate Heath Ledger, the myth, from Heath Ledger the actor, in The Dark Knight, it’s sometimes hard with Brad Renfro.

Bully would come to be high point in Renfro’s short career. The story of how Marty ultimately decides to get back at his abusive best friend Bobby (Stahl), is disturbing on many levels. Again it feels weird to admit, not only because he is no longer with us, but also because of the reputation that Larry Clark’s movies are infested with, but part of the reason why I retained my crush on Brad through this movie, was due to Clark’s characteristic tendency to fetishize his young actors. As a result you get to see a lot of attractive young people and a lot of skin, but whether that pleases you or not, you end up feeling bad about it. I don’t if that’s Clark’s intention, or whether it simply is a product of me succumbing to the (fairly) common view – even among people who appreciate his movies – that Clark at times acts as a pornographer in an artist’s clothing. Personally, I believe the truth lies somewhere between the two poles. I’m certainly not a prude when it comes to depicting sex and nudity in movies, but with Clark I sometimes end up feeling manipulated. This holds true for all his movies, Kids, Bully, Ken Park and Wassup Rockers. I might revisit the Clark universe in a future post.

So my crush on Brad Renfro ended prematurely. I’m only grateful he took time prove that he was able to be more than just a nice body or a pretty face. The sad thing of course is that his best work was still ahead of him.

Posted in film, gay, movies | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Rejecting The Mainstream, Salon Still Serves Up Some Sexiness

Posted on November 20, 2008 by queerlefty

There is something annoying about people who default to contrarianism. It tends to smack of cultural elitism, and it runs the risk of coming off as self-congratulatory. But whether you like the tone of leftist publications like Salon (or longtime rival Slate, for that matter) or not – and I do -, you could actually have a good time plowing through their annual write-up of the world’s Sexiest Men. Yes, I still find it a little tiresome how they constantly have to point out that their choices are conciously outside of the mainstream, but that doesn’t mean they cannot have decent taste in men. They do.

Leave aside that Robert Downey Jr. is hardly the sex bomb they make him out to be (if I had to choose one from the only Downey picture I’ve seen in recent years, the magnificent Zodiac, I go with the in every way underrated Mark Ruffalo, by far). When they named Barack Obama, my first reaction was to blame myself for not beating them to it. The President-Elect is not a contender for my own Sexiest Males Alive list (published monthly), but the fact that I haven’t written a post about his obvious charms (or even a political endorsement), could be attributed only to laziness. Did you see his post-election press conference with John McCain last week? When he’s as relaxed as he seemed then, he’s downright sexy. And this is no small admission for me, who generally go for men between 18 and 30. Obama of course is 47. No, I cannot believe it either.

Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if Salon’s appraisal could pave the way for Michael Cera’s re-entry onto the list. I’ve written previously about the same geeky cuteness that Salon now highlights; it’s only a question of reminding me of it. Cera’s appeal comes from his appearance, not necessarily from looks alone. Which reminds me I’ll have to see Juno again before year’s end, in order to decide just how high it will come in on my Movie Of The Year list (it qualifies for 2008 because it didn’t open in Norwegian theaters until February). Had it not been for the fact that he’s possibly the fittest person on the planet, the choice of Australian diver and Olympic gold medalist, the openly gay Matthew Mitcham, could fall into the same category. His accent is absolutely adorable, and he seems like an all-around nice guy.

There are some fairly odd choices too, of course: No matter what you otherwise might think of True Blood‘s Alexander Skarsgård (I feel absolutely nothing), this is definitely not the year. I mean, look at that hair! If I ever develop a crush on a guy whose hair resembles a crossing between Brad Pitt circa Legends Of The Fall and Robert Carlyle’s Eragon villain, please, please ask me to get my act together. Kal Penn? Too stoner comedy. Javier Bardem? Too much of a wacko. Gabriel Byrne? Wait, you’re not kidding me? Well, you should be. And, Tom Colicchio? No. Way. What. So. Ever.

Finally then, if I were to slacken the age limit, and try to think outside the box without completely compromising my standards, I thank Salon for provoking my thoughts, and present these five suggestions:

Hugh Grant

Anderson Cooper

Rob Lowe

Jon Stewart

Mark Ruffalo

Posted in gay, sexy males | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

In ‘Mudge Boy’, Emile Hirsch Comes With Quirks And Perks

Posted on November 13, 2008 by queerlefty

Emile Hirsch certainly is his own man. Yes, he did Speed Racer, that awful Wachowski Brothers kids spectacle; and the lowest common denominator doesn’t get much lower than Girl Next Door, but you have to give him credit for much of his other work. No matter what you think of the idealistic existentialism of Into The Wild, Hirsch’s performance was truly remarkable. And Imaginary Heroes, the 2004 comedy/drama starring Jeff Daniels and Sigourney Weaver, made a lasting impression on me as well.

Granted, one of those impressions was that Hirsch is one of the most attractive Young Leonardos on the scene, and I admit that was one of the main reasons why I recently caught his 2003 movie The Mudge Boy. Still, I wouldn’t count out the fact that – Racer and Girl notwithstanding – he has shown a penchant for choosing roles that doesn’t necessarily fit neatly into the box made for prettyboys like him, to explain why I was drawn to this movie. Trusted with a script that, though interesting in principle, feels a little forced and sketchy, Hirsch already then showed an ability to make his characters more interesting than they probably merited. In the hands of a lesser actor, Chris McCandless of Wild could have been easy to dismiss as a naive and self-absorbed idealist, but Hirsch manages to slowly melt our mental defense mechanisms. Likewise, his Duncan Mudge in The Mudge Boy might have been considered merely a collection of quirks and deep-rooted emotions, were it not for the sense of unpredictability and vulnerability that Hirsch’s performance exudes. That’s not to say he always succeeds at giving a sense of clear direction to this somewhat unfocused movie, but at least he keeps us interested.

Duncan Mudge is an insecure teenager who lives on a farm with his father. Duncan’s insecurities, ranging from sexual identity to a more general sense of social awkwardness (manifested in a somehat disturbing relationship with his pet chicken), alienates him from his father, and he also struggles to be accepted as any more than an outcast by his local peers. Over time however, Duncan strikes a friendly relationship with Perry (Tom Guiry), – a guy hardened by his abusive father – a relationship that quickly gets complicated because Perry doesn’t not know how to react to his obvious attraction to Duncan. It’s an open question whether this is meant to be primarily a gay movie, or if instead it’s a movie about breakdown in communication and the hardships of rural America (or a combination of both), but my sense is that the Duncan/Perry storyline is the central point to the story.

I’m not arguing that each and every detail of the story should be spelled out with unmistakable clarity, but no matter which storyline is supposed to be the overarching one, I felt that this movie somehow failed to make a connection to me as a viewer. Even though Hirsch’s performance is impressive, both his and Tom Guiry’s characters remain too sketchy to form an emotional bond with me. It could be interesting to delve into Perry’s conflicted feelings, but mostly he remains just Duncan’s important yet underdeveloped (love?) interest. The same holds true for Duncan himseld. He seems like an extraordinary complex young man, but throughout this movie we mainly get to know him through his quirks (his naivete, his fondness for women’s clothes, his love for his chicken), without any real investigation into what made him feel this way, all despite Hirsch’s best efforts otherwise. Therefore, the cathartic moment near the end doesn’t feel quite so cathartic after all. I’m not saying that writer/director Michael Burke uses his lead character’s quirks solely for emotional or entertainment value, but his story still feels like it’s missing something.

From some of the criticism I’ve read of The Mudge Boy, it seems like many people have been irked by the sexual aspect of it. I can’t say I was, though there is a very unpleasant rape scene in there. But having seen Jamie Bell in Hallam Foe (titled Mister Foe in its American theatrical release), I know that one of the most important things you have to do when you’re telling a story about oedipal hangups, cross-dressing and general quirkiness, is to make absolutely sure we know and understand enough about the characters to not simply dismiss them as nothing like us. You should still watch The Mudge Boy for the talent and sexiness that is Emile Hirsch, or even to see if you can get a better grasp of it than I could, but if you’re going to see only one movie about oedipal hangups, cross-dressing and general quirkiness this year, I still recommend Hallam Foe.

Posted in film, gay | Tagged , , | 8 Comments

‘Desperate Housewives’ Marks Return To Spotlight For ‘Heaven’s Scotty Leavenworth

Posted on November 7, 2008 by queerlefty

Since I’ve already come clean about my long history as a loyal Camdenite, it seems only natural that I write briefly about what has become of the stars of 7th Heaven. Barry Watson went on to do failed sophomore drama What About Bryan and then comedy Samantha Who? for ABC; David Gallagher replaced Watson in the Boogeyman sequel and also headlined The Picture Of Dorian Gray; while Jessica Biel has done projects ranging from Blade Trinity to Cameron Crowe’s maddeningly disappointing Elizabethtown. But we of course knew this already. What triggered my interest in revisiting the ranks of Heaven alumni, was the fact that Scotty Leavenworth reportedly was spotted in this week’s episode of ABC’s still blockbustery Desperate Housewives.

I won’t hold it against you if you don’t remember who Scotty Leavenworth is, but even if you didn’t take note of him during his one season run as a Heaven regular, you might, at different times, have seen him in such movies as Simon Birch, My Life As A House or Donnie Darko. If you watch the delightfully quirky Darko, you can’t avoid him. He’s that who talks about Donnie in the immediate aftermath of Gary Jules’ powerful Mad World. He was also a regular on Steven Bocho one-season drama Philly a couple of years ago.

But to me, he still is Peter Petrowski, Ruthie Camden’s first longer-term boyfriend (meaning for more than one episode, and actually talked about as such) on 7th Heaven. Leavenworth was only in his early teens back then, and his acting of course was nothing to make a fuzz about. The reason why I’ve kept an eye on him, is because I like his character on the show, in some weird way. I’ve written previously about how I think the best episodes were those that spelled out its moralistic intentions in broad terms, and Leavenworth had his part in many of these. In Smoking, for example, that socially insecure loser Peter feels compelled to admit to Ruthie that he thinks smoking is cool, which of course warrants a mini-Inquisition to rid Peter of his unhealthy habit and to convince him that coolness is overrated. Though at times painstakingly transparent in its intentions, it’s also a great laugh. Though I generally have an emotional bond to the goings on in Glenoak, such an episode could not be tolerable without a little dose of cynicism. Or take High And Dry, the episode where Leavenworth’s Peter has to declare himself ‘Sorry for all the drinking and the lies‘ to Ruthie, after having committed the obviously unforgivable sin of simply looking at a can of beer in a Glenoak public park, complete with long-absent, previously alcoholic father lecturing him on the peril of under-age drinking. Not exactly subtle, but quite entertaining still.

Seasons seven and eight, during which Leavenworth was part of the show, it received much criticism from fans for giving such peripheral characters as Peter independent storylines, arguing that it stole the focus from show’s backbone, the Camden family. I always enjoyed his storylines, even though some of them were extremely silly, and those that were not, often were mere launching pads for message-heavy moralism, or maybe for just that reason. For many Camdenites, the first four-or-so seasons are seen as the show’s golden years, but to me Simon’s and Ruthie’s struggles with teenagehood in later season were far more interesting. However platonic and non-threatening, Ruthie’s relationship with Peter marked a rite of passage for the youngest Camden female. Underlining the point, Peter pops by in season nine, only to immediately become Ruthie’s make-out buddy.

And now, that make-out buddy’s status seemingly has elevated to one of the most popular shows on broadcast. Was there another point to this post, other than reliving old TV moments? Oh, y’know, he’s cute (Leavenworth, left, same goes for Charles Carver on the right).

Posted in TV | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

High School Musical 3: ‘Maybe I don’t see my life as a ballgame anymore’

Posted on November 6, 2008 by queerlefty

Are you ready for the most meta musical of recent Hollywood history? Probably not, but you’re fairly likely to see it anyway, if you haven’t already. It turns out High School Musical 3: Senior Year, the final installment in what seems likely to be only the first generation of HSM movies (a fourth installment reportedly is in the works, featuring the next class of East High students), namely is a highly self-aware movie, though not in an particularly ambitious or (luckily) heavy-handed way. This time, Troy, Gabriella et al. are set to stage a school musical about their school year (which, obviously, includes staging a musical). This story then, is what adds up to the HSM3 we’re seeing in theaters, with actors singing lyrics highly conscious of the role musical franchise itself has had in making them famous (High School Musical/it’s the best part we’ve ever known). Though a little corny at times, the meta-narrative is sure to bring roars of approval from its target audience, as it signals that to some extent you have to have been there all the way to get all the jokes. Also, this perspective allows the movie to as predictable as it damn well pleases, not only because the core audience is young enough to still thrive on the joys of the already known, but also because it helps solidify HSM as a franchise with a fairly consistent overarching storyline.

That said, my point here is neither to over-intellectualize what’s essentially a kids flick, nor to take from the escapist quality it so clearly posits. If I could change one thing, however, it would be no less than to toss out the whole idea that dialogues should be an important of its storytelling. Every single moment in this movie not spent singing, dancing or otherwise hopping enthusiastically around in a choreographed way border on the painful, so I’d love to simply replace the often message-heavy (‘It’s always been my dad’s dream!) or pompous (‘I guess my heart doesn’t know this is high school‘) with one simple credo: Shut up and dance!

Many of the song numbers in this movie are truly amazing. Having basically told the same story three times over, the writing and choreographing forces seemingly have perfected how words and music interact, so as to make narratively efficient yet visually stunning scenes out of even some of the songs that sounds at best bland outside of the movie. This is especially true of I Want It All and A Night To Remember, two decidedly non-extraordinary songs about personal ambition and the social pressures of prom night, respectively, In Kenny Ortega’s absolutely magnificent choreography, I was caught nodding my head approvingly to the beat, absorbed by the sheer energy of what unfolded on-screen, where the plot (as far as there ever was one) was steadily shepherded forward.

Or consider Scream, a Zac Efron solo number slightly reminiscent of his Bet On It from HSM2. On a base level I of course appreciate each and every opportunity for Efron to have some alone time on screen, but that’s not the point here. It’s a catchy song in and of itself, but some of the visual tricks make for a particularly exhilarating experience. Again mirroring Justin Timberlake’s video for Cry Me A River, with jump-kicks, rotating walls and what have you, the number also play directly to Efron’s strengths; He’s not a particularly good actor, but he has a physical present that the HSM team has learn to capitalize. He exudes an energy that lifts both the moves and the song, and he can concentrate on show emotions in broad strokes, instead of going down in nuances he wouldn’t be able to deliver on. Same goes for The Boys Are Back, which he shares with Corbin Bleu. The song, celebrating the life-long bond of two best friends, is much more effective when it comes to establishing the nature of their long-running emotional bond, and does it in a more cheerful way than another one of those never-ending dialogues ever could. Also, the scene has a nicely integrated moment in which we get to see younger versions of the characters. It done so seamlessly, I ended up simply enjoying it for its elegance.

The main weakness of HSM3 of course is that its so reliant upon the songs. It may be the best movie of the series, but that’s because it’s better paced and composed, and by any means because it’s the best written. Its reliance upon the loyalty and self-identification of its fan base, seemingly has convinced the creators to get rid of altogether any central conflict to drive the story, but to me, all is forgiven as long as thoughts are expressed in song. Still, count me among the seriously skeptical when it comes to the ability to place the next movies on the shoulders of the new characters introduced. I’m not exactly thrilled with that new Sharpay clone (and no, talking with an accent is not my idea of newness), and slacker Jimmy definitely should stay in the supporting cast, if you get what I mean (though the guy who’s playing him, Matt Prokop, looks a little like a younger version of Zac Hanson).

All this is not to say that I enjoyed HSM3 just because I suspended my critical judgment for the evening. It’s a really entertaining little movie, and as long as it remembers to be a musical, it’s great fun. Thus, It could be that much of my criticism is unfair, since it has never portended to be anything more than that (it’s even inherent in the title, for God’s sake!) It’s a pity if you came for the dancing, you have to stay for the lecture.

Posted in film, movies | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Zac Efron Dethrones Hunter Parrish, Relegates Jesse McCartney, To Become October’s Sexiest Male

Posted on November 2, 2008 by queerlefty

Better late than never, here’s the October edition of the Sexiest Males Alive List.

If ever there was a time when Zac Efron had a shot at taking top honors, this would surely have to be it. And not surprisingly, he did, on the strenght of High School Musical 3 (check back next week for my review) and the newly released 17 Again trailer. Zac may well be the world’s hottest celebrity at the moment, in several ways, but most importantly with regards to this list, he is the most attractive one around. It was mostly a matter of bad luck, however, that Hunter Parrish’s red hot presence in the fourth season of Weeds (which premiered in Norway this week) and his sharing the 17 Again spotlight with rival Efron, he still failed to secure his third consecutive month in the #1 spot. In any other month, he could just as well still be on top.

It seems like whenever I begin to take someone’s slide for granted (as I did with Ed Speleers and Adam Brody in July), they immediatelt bounce back. On a list relatively light on upward mobility, Aaron Carter seemingly set out to prove this point. Back in August, I asked whether his sexiness was somehow overrated, and again in September, I simply noted that his slide was set to continue. No longer. He still has a long way to go to recapture the #21 spot he held on our initial SMA list in June, but at #28, he’s back slightly above his pre-slide levels, a surge nearly earning him the title of Climber Of The Month. Also in September, I noted the rivalry between Carter and Zac Hanson for Sexiest 90’s Pop Act. Now, we return with mixed leadership: Carter is above Hanson, but Zac’s gain this month is bigger, making it possible that their roles would be reversed for the November edition.

At the opposite end of the scale, soccer doesn’t seem to be a claim to fame at the moment, as both Liverpool’s Daniel Agger and Tottenham’s Gareth Bale suffer steep 14 spot declines, sharing the dubious honors as this month’s biggest slide. Neither last month’s best newcomer, Gossip Girl‘s Ed Westwick (#45) nor young Home and Away star Rhys Wakefield (#50), should consider themselves safe however, as they decline a near-similar 13 spots.

In the newcomer category, we extend our congratulations to young Frenchman Gaspard Ulliel, whose hotness managed to get my attention, even though I haven’t seen a single one of his movies. His #11 debut, in fact is the strongest we’ve ever registered. In another suprise, Thomas Dekker, formerly of Heroes and 7th Heaven, currently of The Sarah Connor Chronicles, makes a very respectable debut at #35. Elsewhere, movies Camp Rock and The Wackness helped Joe Jonas and Josh Peck make a stand, at #42 and #43, respectively. Since our last installment, David Archuleta, Ryan Clarke, John Dempsie, Michael Cera and Frankie Muniz have all fallen off the list.

As always, generally the movement on this list is caused by any particular guy being considered by  me to be relatively more attractive than he was considered previously. That, however, of course doesn’t necessarily mean that any ot the other people on this list have become markedly less attractive, only that they perhaps have not been as good at getting my attention lately. With that said, let’s break it down:

#1-10: Apart from the changes at the top, it’s also worth noting that Ricky Ullman and David Gallagher both climb three spots, no easy task, considering how tough the competition in the top tier is. It’s perhaps only fitting then, that I cannot find any overarching rationale for their collective mini-surge, other than their undeniable cuteness. However, I must admit that I was intrigued by watching this trailer, for Gallagher’s lead in the 2006 adaptation of The Picture Of Dorian Gray. For Ullman, those Phil Of The Future encores proved themselves far more durable than initially expected. Other than Efron and Parrish, no one in the Top Ten got any extraordinary exposure in the last month, and hence it would be premature to read much into the fact that Ryan Sheckler and Mitch Hewer both post modest declines this month. We should, however, salute Logan Lerman on breaking into the the top tier for the first time.

#11-20: Last month we saw a sudden rise for Chris Egan, perhaps best known for his role in Eragon, opposite Ed Speleers. This positive trend continues for them both, with Egan landing at #12, courtesy of a couple of incredibly hot pictures I stumbled upon recently. For Speleers, this means he has climbed all the way from #35 to #16 in a matter of three months. Meanwhile, once reliable Top Ten material like Cristiano Ronaldo and Charlie Hunnam seem headed in the opposite direction. A much improved Ronaldo (soccer-wise) should get ample sampling in the coming months, but the Brit needs to find an opening. Among the others, the changes are mostly minor, but we should note that Kevin Zegers continues his steady climb from last month. The sensation, of course, is the aforementioned Ulliel, the out-of-nowhere Frenchman who makes me want to write a post about him and other good-looking compatriots like Aurelien Wiik and Louis Garrel.

#21-30: Two of those who had a great month in September, Adam Brody and returnee Zac Hanson, continue down that path in October. Likewise, it seems like the reasons behind their rise haven’t changed much, either. Brody’s general attractiveness is easily captured in pictures like this one, and he has this vibe of smart cuteness about him. Zac’s climb should still mostly be attributed to the nostalgia I was taken by (or rather, all the pics I took my time to sift through) for my admiring post about him a couple of months ago. Also, having listened a lot to Hanson lately, I was again struck by how sexy his voice is. Aside from the already mentioned Carter Counterattack, and minor changes for everyone from Ryan Donowho (who just slipped out of the Top Twenty), to Jesse Eisenberg and Jeremy Sumpter, it’s worth noting that the once-solid Mitch Firth now has fallen ten spots from his personal best, ranking #13 in June. Granted, it’s not always easy for a guy who lost his daily sampling on Home and Away years ago to keep relevant, but the steadiness of his decline could be a cause for concern. In more positive news, Chace Crawford gains four spots, opening up a huge lead over Gossip Girl colleague Ed Westwick.

#31-40: I’m not a big fan of historical dramas, but with Jonathan Rhys-Meyers on The Tudors, I think it’s safe to say history has never looked better. With the disadvantage that disinterest brings, his #32 debut is hugely impressive. Same goes for Thomas Dekker at #35, whom I found only mildly attractive when he did a stint on 7th Heaven a couple of years ago. I haven’t seen him in neither Heroes nor Terminator, but there’s something oddly appealing about the gay vibe of these pictures. Suddenly a grown-up, it turns out he’s become better at the heartthrob pose as well. Elsewhere, I’m a little surprised that Raphael Nadal once again failed to capitalize on positive exposure. He saw no bump from his New York Magazine cover. Fellow soccer players Fernando Torres and Gareth Bale seemingly have the same problem, although I would definitely not rule out a surge (pun unintended) on their part, were they to take the Nadal rout.

#41-50: A low forties debut is always a little vulnerable, but we welcome Josh Peck and Joe Jonas into this exclusive club, no matter what. For the long term, I suspect Jonas to be the one most likely to stick around, as my Jonas Brothers kick shows no sign of abating, but on the other hand, I’m quite likely to go see The Wackness again soon. Defying the general downward spiral, Ryan Phillippe and Taylor Hanson post modest yet impressive gains. Phillippe got a boost from the research I did for Early Gay Crushes piece, while the trickle-down effect of my Hanson obsession seems to have worked to Taylor’s benefit. Moving down, on the other hand, are both Jody Latham, Rhys Wakefield, Daniel Agger and Ed Westwick. The huge drop for the latter three cannot possible bode well for the months to come, as they create a sense that their highs were artificially high. I still won’t write off people like Latham and German actor Kostja Ullmann, however. Ullmann in particular have shown an admirable ability to cling onto the list from his consistently vulnerable position.

  1. Zac Efron (Previous ranking: 3)
  2. Hunter Parrish (1)
  3. Jesse McCartney (2)
  4. Emile Hirsch (4)
  5. Nicholas Hoult (5)
  6. Ricky Ullman (9)
  7. David Gallagher (10)
  8. Ryan Sheckler (7)
  9. Mitch Hewer (6)
  10. Logan Lerman (12)
  11. Gaspard Ulliel (new)
  12. Chris Egan (14)
  13. Charlie Hunnam (8)
  14. Cristiano Ronaldo (11)
  15. Tyler Hoechlin (15)
  16. Alex Pettyfer (13)
  17. Ed Speleers (23)
  18. Sean Faris (16)
  19. Kevin Zegers (20)
  20. Jamie Bell (18)
  21. Adam Brody (25)
  22. Ryan Donowho (19)
  23. Mitch Firth (17)
  24. Jesse Eisenberg (21)
  25. Jeremy Sumpter (22)
  26. Chace Crawford (30)
  27. Chris Lowell (26)
  28. Aaron Carter (36)
  29. Zac Hanson (38)
  30. Leonardo DiCaprio (29)
  31. Raphael Nadal (27)
  32. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (new)
  33. Max Theriot (28)
  34. Randy Harrison (33)
  35. Thomas Dekker (new)
  36. Fernando Torres (31)
  37. Jonathan Taylor Thomas (40)
  38. Gareth Bale (24)
  39. Michael Angarano (34)
  40. Chad Michael Murray (42)
  41. Ryan Phillippe (45)
  42. Joe Jonas (new)
  43. Josh Peck (new)
  44. Taylor Hanson (49)
  45. Ed Westwick (32)
  46. Brady Corbett (39)
  47. Kostja Ullmann (46)
  48. Jody Latham (44)
  49. Daniel Agger (35)
  50. Rhys Wakefield (37)
Posted in gay, sexy males | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Early Gay Crushes: Leonardo DiCaprio

Posted on October 30, 2008 by queerlefty

Every time I sit down to put together a new Sexiest Males Alive list, I ask myself the same question: Should Leonardo DiCaprio even be on here? That of course would seem like a very common question, as the whole point in these rankings is to determine whether one person or the other merit a mention, but with Leo it’s different still. Not so much a question of whether he deserves to be on the list, it’s a question of whether it wold do him, or his competitors, justice to be included. I’m still torn about the October edition.

This entire discussion invites perhaps unhealthy doses of nostalgia, maybe even sentimentality. At age 34, Leonardo DiCaprio may not be quite as sexy as he was in his younger, more playboy-like years, but a) he’s still hotter than most other people on earth (his movies continue to be obligatory viewing, for reasons of general quality and worship), and b) I still feel a sort of loyalty to the younger Leonardo I fell so passionately and confusingly in love with when I was in my early teens. With regard to the SMA list, the question then becomes whether he should be judged on his still considerable hotness, which would make him a contender for the Top 40, or his smashing 1997 looks, whose explosive cocktail of emotional and physical attraction would risk blowing away all competition. Over the last several months, I’ve ended with some halfway formula, but I can’t say I’m sure it has done him justice.

Back when The Fellowship Of The Ring premiered in 2002, I felt a certain with those people who camped outside their local movie theater in order to get their hands on tickets to the premiere. Not because I was particular passionate about Lord Of The Rings, but rather because it reminded me of how I myself looked forward to the February 1998 Norwegian premiere of Titanic with the same quasi-religious fervor. Some of it of course was due to how excellently James Cameron managed to wrap expectation into the whole Titanic mythology (The Biggest and Most Expensive Movie Of All Time etc.), but though I didn’t think about it at the time, Leonardo himself was a big part of my sky-high expectations. It was never something I questioned, but after I saw him in Romeo + Juliet the thought of getting to watch him on screen for three hours became an independent motivation for me to see Titanic. Though I often go with classic beauty, I’m also one who has a tendency to tire quickly on picture-perfect guys. But with Leo, I’ve never ever grown tired of him. I’m not sure about this, but I suspect that my instant physical and emotional attraction to him was one of the main reasons why Titanic had me crying my heart out. Or, just as likely, I was just a softie.

That said, I still try as best as I can to defend both Leo and the movie against unfair criticism. After the initial wave of interest, during which basically every single human being in the world saw it at least once, a predictable backlash materialized. The movie was dismissed as an intolerably sentimental chick flick, with Leo likewise was dismissed as nothing more than a teen heartthrob. Since I liked the movie very much, and to this day continue to think that Leo’s performance is quite good, I went to great lengthts to defend both, even though some people might look down on me for it. I guess one of the reasons why I did that was because I wanted to maintain my special relationship to the movie as a project, no matter what, but I’ll never be ashamed of it.

As the years have passed, and Leo’s list of critically acclaimed movies have grown longer, the need for me to defend him against unfair criticism (those people who instinctively think he’s a mediocre actor because they saw him in Titanic years ago), but I’ve found myself jumping into the fray occasionally if someone claimed that Leo was a fine actor, except, you know, he was in Titanic (rolling their eyes). Then I patiently argue that it could be that their assessment of the movie have been influenced by the broader cultural environment that now seems to have rendered Titanic out of sync with the expectations we have towards movies today. Often, they acknowledge that they liked it just fine when it was released, and Leo was good in it after all, not they haven’t seen it in a while. But I’m not collecting DiCaprio converts for their own good. I’m doing it for me.

Leo’s critical success have had other positive effects, too. One is that it’s no longer anything suspect about wanting to see a DiCaprio movie simply because he’s the headliner. Though not necessarily very successful artistically, movies like Gangs Of New York and The Aviator have gained him a reputation for continually growing as an actor, while at the same time not being afraid to do something he hasn’t done before; he brought something more than just his fabulous body to The Beach (1999), the somewhat idyllic adaption of Alex Garland’s cult novel; he saved Jack Nicholson from making a fool of himself in the otherwise brilliant The Departed; and in Blood Diamond he crammed an impressed range of conflicting emotions into his lead role. Much like Johnny Depp, Leo has often managed to make his characters seem perhaps more interesting than the would otherwise, and same with movies like Marvin’s Room, Catch Me If You Can and The Basketball Diaries. Leo has never really tested my loyalty, simply by looking so consistently hot, and acting so consistently well that I would’ve been foolish to lose interest.

Posted in movies | Tagged , , | 2 Comments