Sondra Locke in A Reflection Of Fear, 1972, William A. Fraker.
Back in June, venerable American cinema practitioner and semi-certified auteur Clint Eastwood, a still-formidable filmmaker but increasingly grizzled (almost to the point of approaching crotchety, even—what do you want, and you should be this productive and alert when you turn 900 years of age) public figure, cracked something like a Caitlyn Jenner joke. At a taping of something called “The Guy’s Choice Awards” (no, I don’t know either; Clint should be more careful of the invitations he accepts if you ask me), Eastwood, presenting something or other to Dwayne Johnson, mentioned sport figures turned film actors, and ended the citation with “Jim Brown and Caitlyn Somebody.” The no-doubt sensitivity-trained redeemed dudebros of Spike TV, or whoever they are, immediately announced that they were gonna cut out the offending reference in the televised version of the show.
Then a funny thing happened: on learning of the joke, the Internet did not explode. Most of the reactions I saw were just kind of shruggy. One might have expected a huge outpouring of derision just as overflow from Eastwood’s ridiculous Chair Routine. But no. And why? Maybe because people are better informed than we like to think they are. (Well, actually, it can’t be that, but play along.) After all, despite the fact that much of his genre oeuvre is peppered with references that could be taken as homophobic (if I recall correctly The Rookie is a real overachiever in this respect), when it’s time to get serious Eastwood’s relatively sympathetic, even sensitive, to issues of identity and sexuality. He went so far as to cast The Lady Chablis, the drag performer who identifies as female as herself in his film of Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil. There’s also J. Edgar, which, whatever you think of it otherwise, is remarkably straightforward and non-smirky in its depictions of the title character’s torment in the closet. So his record speaks well of him. Which allowed pretty much everyone who heard about the joke to take it for what it was—a half-hearted attempt at nudge-nudge topical humor that wouldn’t have been out of place in a ’70s Carson monologue. No big deal.
I was a bit amused in a peripheral way, though, as a result of some recollections of Eastwood history both personal and professional. As Eastwood people know, the actor-director had, beginning in 1975, a relatively long-term personal and professional association with Locke. She co-starred with him in some very strong pictures he directed: The Outlaw Josey Wales (masterpiece! admired by Orson Welles!), The Gauntlet (ridiculous super fun! Art Pepper plays in the soundtrack orchestra!) and Bronco Billy (possible masterpiece! Capraesque!). She’s also in the two orangutan movies, and Sudden Impact. Anyway. The association did NOT END WELL, as Locke describes in a 1997 autobiography titled The Good, The Bad, And The Very Ugly: A Hollywood Journey.
Eastwood’s version of the breakup was somewhat more terse. In an interview in the March 1997 issue of Playboy, responding to some of Locke’s allegations, he brings up Locke’s relationship with her husband Gordon Anderson, to whom she remained married during the entirety of her relationship to Eastwood. Anderson was/is gay, something of a mystic, and Eastwood would like his interviewer for Playboy, Bernard Weinraub, believe he (Eastwood) was a model of patience and forebearance in tolerating the whole arrangement.
“I mean, it’s just a different scene. I can’t explain it without going into a…I mean, your eyes might not stay in their sockets. They’re liable to come too far out of your head. They were pals when they were kids, and they both believe in fairy tales and call each other Hobbit and stuff like that. And so they hang out together, and I guess she’s supportive of him and he’s supportive of her, and somehow they feed each other. She didn’t like my son living with me and it just got messy. It just wasn’t the kind of existence I wanted.”
And there you have it. I’m not sure what “it” is, I admit. I do know that ever since I read that interview (I got this issue of Playboy for the articles for real—cover model and O.J. trial witness person Faye Resnick isn’t even remotely my type) the phrase “call each other Hobbit” has really stuck in my mind. I bring this up because—actually, I’m starting to wonder myself—well, I bring this up not to wag a finger at Eastwood’s seeming defensiveness (have I mentioned I’m kind of a fan?) but because it ties in, albeit obliquely, with an interesting bit of movie trivia from Sondra Locke’s career. Locke is a striking beauty, lissome, with haunting eyes, and she also has a quality that could be described as androgynous. This quality was used profitably in the 1972 release A Reflection of Fear. Calling it an “effective, well-photographed surprise thriller,” The Psychotronic Encyclopedia of Film gives its précis thusly: “A young girl (Sondra Locke) lives in a fantasy world with Aaron, a doll she believes can kill people. Her father (Robert Shaw) returns after 10 years. Sally Kellerman is her new stepmother. Mary Ure is her mother. Many of the cast members die. This Psycho-ish tale sat on the shelf for two years before being released in a cut version.” Now if you’re anything like me, your ears prick up when you read “Psycho-ish tale” and sure enough…the twist in this “surprise thriller” is (spoiler alert!) that Locke’s character struggles with gender dysphoria. That is, she’s a very conflicted trans person. What a coincidence.
But wait! There’s more! Well after the now-long-forgotten “Guy’s Choice Awards,” Caitlyn Jenner was awarded an ESPY—I don’t even know what that IS—and some folks got agitated over that because the award was for bravery and when you talk about bravery shouldn’t you mean something like blah blah etc. etc. Sounds like the whole thing was kinda rigged anyway but that’s life these days anyway anyway. So Lone Survivor director Peter “Join The Army, Motherfucker” Berg, these days a one-man recruitment center of sorts, took to Instagram with a mini-photo montage of army vet Gregory D. Gadson and Caitlyn Jenner and captioned it ““One man traded 2 legs for the freedom of the other to trade 2 balls for 2 boobs. Guess which man made the cover of Vanity Fair, was praised for his courage by President Obama and is to be honored with the ‘Arthur Ashe Courage Award’ by ESPN? Yup.” Yow.
Linda Fiorentino and A Reflection Of Peter Berg, The Last Seduction, John Dahl, 1994
Berg, whose shoot-from-the-hip reputation precedes him (“That review was FUCKING UNCOOL” he once bellowed at a Première colleague of mine, displeased with my pan of his directorial debut Very Bad Things) soon issued the standard completely-insincere-two-hours-later apology, calling himself a “strong supporter of equality and the rights of trans people everywhere.” As well he should be. And, interestingly enough, there’s a trans theme in Berg’s filmography as well, from back when he was an actor (ah, the threads are FINALLY coming together). If I know my core demographic I’d hazard to say that pretty much everyone reading this has seen John Dahl’s nifty 1994 neo-noir The Last Seduction, in which ultry-sultry Linda Fiorentino gets pretty hot-and-heavy with a sack-of-hammers-dumb lunk played by Berg. After discovering that (oy, I’ve still gotta say it: spoiler alert!) the abandoned wife of Berg’s character is trans, Fiorentino, rather than celebrating and supporting our human diversity and sexual fluidity, blackmails Berg’s character into doing her bidding, such as it is. All in the interest of self-preservation, mind you; nothing malicious about it.
As it happens, I was briefly acquainted with Serena, the actress who played the trans wife, and who I believe died some years back. But that’s a different story, and my memory of it remains rather hazy. Any how: you’ve made it this far and what have you got? Two American actors-turned-directors who made Caitlyn Jenner comments but who also have trans themes in their (in one case extended) filmographies. This might help you on a pub trivia night. Who knows.
Nice piece. I had no idea Peter Berg was the actor from Seduction. Thanks.
“After all, despite the fact that much of his genre oeuvre is peppered with references that could be taken as homophobic …”
Well, there was the gay assassin Miles Mellow (Jack Cassidy), and his dog named Faggot, in THE EIGER SANCTION. As I recall, in one scene Clint tells Miles he has an “incurable disease” but doesn’t have the guts to kill himself. No idea if that was in the novel, which I’ve never read.
But I think Eastwood has modified his views since 1975, as J. EDGAR made clear.
I recently watched DRESSED TO KILL and wondered if you could do a horror movie today with a transvestite killer who wants a sex change operation. There were protests about the movie in 1980; today, I don’t know if a studio would green-light it.
Well, at least you’re referring to Eastwood’s auteur status as “semi-certified”.
Maybe some future Bazin or Sarris will be able to illustrate the artistic merit and personal vision of The Rookie, Absolute Power, True Crime, Blood Work, Space Cowboys, Invictus, etc.
Reflection of Fear is notable as the second of three features directed by William Faker, whose directorial career, after a promising start with Monte Walsh, failed to match his work as cinematography. Because of my admiration of MW and Faker’s DP work, I tried to watch Reflection on TV once but found it tedious, despite the interesting cast.
Miles Mellough and his dog are straight (if that is the word we want) out of Trevanian’s best-selling novel. I suppose that Eastwood had the clout to alter or remove them if he had so wished, but I would not really blame him for them.
For what it is worth, I note that the character was, in a sort of way, approved by Gore Vidal. In his review of the novel (which he calls “of its too numerous kind pretty good”), he wrote “Mr. Trevanian has recourse to that staple of recent fiction the Fag Villain. Since (ethnic slurs redacted) can no longer be shown as bad people, only commies (pre-Nixon) and fags are certain to arouse the loathing of all decent fiction addicts. I will say for Mr. Trevanian that his Fag Villain is pretty funny…”
I do not really have any point save, I suppose, this looked different at the time.
At the time, the ludicrous gay stuff in EIGER SANCTION was regarded as humor, at least by teenagers like me.
“Trevanian” was really Rod Whitaker (1931−2005), who was one of three people credited with the movie’s screenplay. Another was Warren Murphy, who wrote the Remo Williams: Destroyer action novels with Richard Sapir.
Wait–there was more than one Remo Williams movie?
One movie, but more than 100 novels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destroyer_%28fiction%29
My jaw dropped at how many books there’ve been.
“I recently watched DRESSED TO KILL and wondered if you could do a horror movie today with a transvestite killer who wants a sex change operation…”
The 1974 Blaxploitation ‘Together Brothers’, recently released on MOD-DVD, is so transphobic it makes ‘Dressed to Kill’ look like ‘Tangerine’. A pity, really, because the DVD has a strong, suitably gritty image which does full justice to the film’s nocturnal-industrial climax, so drenched in sweat and bokeh that it seems to anticipate Michael Mann.
As a queer spectator, I enjoy Eastwood’s takes on sex/gender/desire. The fact that his earlier films are so uncommitted to the homophobia of their narratives is actually refreshing in my experience (and also helps explain how he could eventually make J. EDGAR). Admittedly, I am a huge lover of Eastwood’s work (I like THE ROOKIE), and he ranks for me with Fassbinder, Cukor and Mankiewicz in my personal pantheon of directors (all queer in their own way).
George: DRESSED TO KILL could not be made today, though the het male anxiety regarding sex/gender/desire is still as prevalent in society as it was then (witness the backlash against Caitlyn Jenner). In one way, it is a loss that filmmakers are discouraged nowadays from making films from positions of anxiety, though admittedly too many got made that had no redeeming formal interest – they were just anxious.
Brian Dauth
Not only could DRESSED TO KILL not be made today, I doubt BLAZING SADDLES or MASH could be made today. At least not without major revisions. After today’s politically correct young film tweeters got through with them, Brooks would be branded a racist, and Altman a pig who hates women.
Considering all of the misogynistic and racist elements that turn up in movies in 2015, I am not sure that these films could not be made. What is different is that today there are spectators who will call out a film’s misogyny and racism in ways that rarely happened in the past.
I do not understand this as a matter of political correctness, but rather as film viewers who closely examine the political/social aspects of a film’s content.
fiorentino good actres.
So, Brian, you think Mel Brooks is a racist and Robert Altman a misogynist?
Depicting racism and sexism (and satirizing them) is not the same as endorsing them. But a lot of people today – especially the politically correct young film tweeters – don’t seem to understand that. Maybe someday they’ll grow up and learn about things like nuance and ambiguity.
I will repeat the truism: When someone uses the phrase “politically correct,” and means it seriously, he is saying nothing more than “There is absolutely no reason for you to take seriously anything I have to say.”
However, please do give your thoughts on the War on Christmas.
George: I have no idea if Mel Brooks is a racist or if Robert Altman is a misogynist. I was not writing about them, but rather their work.
Is Mel Brooks’ work racist? I do not think so, but my husband who is African-American finds portions of BLAZING SADDLES racist, so at least in our household it is a split decision. As for Altman’s work, I think it does cross over into misogyny on occasion.
I agree that depicting sexism and racism is not automatically an endorsement of them, and may be part of a satirical project. But the success of these attempts in part depends on how they are received by a spectator, and social positionalities change over time: what may have been satirical at an earlier moment in time is not longer received that way later on. It does take an ability to deal with nuance and ambiguity to deploy an aesthetic that mixes close reading with reader response techniques, thus avoiding the dangers of the intentional fallacy.
BLAZING SADDLES is a parody of racism, not a racist movie. One of its writers was Richard Pryor. Please don’t say “Who’s Richard Pryor?”
Here’s an interesting Atlantic article: “College kids today can’t seem to take a joke.” Explains why comedians like Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld no longer perform at America’s ultra-sensitive college campuses.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/thats-not-funny/399335/
Also from the Atlantic: “The Coddling of the American Mind.”
In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding to be protected from words and ideas they don’t like. I’m glad “The Great Gatsby” didn’t require a trigger warning when I was in college.
Great quote: “I’m a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
“Please don’t say ‘Who’s Richard Pryor?’ ”
I’ll just go ahead and surmise that the commenter you’re addressing is more than adequately conversant with the man’s work, and with much else in our culture, to an extent that the rest of us might do well to absorb and ponder rather than lob would-be condescension his way. All of which is to say, I’ve appreciated Mr. Dauth’s perspective on this blog through the years, and I don’t think he has written anything with the aim of being “PC” (whatever usefulness the term still has, and I’ll agree with Bullethead that it ain’t much).
No doubt there are worthwhile discussions to be had about offensive speech, satire, decency, and where each of us draws lines between them; just not sure whether “get off my lawn, you damned over-sensitive coddled kids” is the best starting point for the “nuance and ambiguity” you prescribe in a prior comment.
Chris L: It’s obvious that you have no interest in having a discussion of any kind, and prefer to stereotype other people’s comments. You’re more into being pompous and long-winded.
If you don’t think there are plenty of “over-sensitive coddled kids,” several hundred college professors would give you an argument. As would Chris Rock, Bill Maher and Jerry Seinfeld.
As to who is long-winded or taking up more of people’s time on here, well, the “recent comments” sidebar is almost always at least half comprised of yours. I hadn’t written anything in months. And if I simplified your remarks, what exactly were you doing to Brian Dauth throughout this thread? (Not that he needs my defense, but the Richard Pryor thing was just a smidgen too much to stomach.)
No intent to start a war, though. Some kids are sensitive to language. Others are not. Fine.
Wow, only takes you 15 minutes to respond, Chris L.!
It’s not the fault of college kids that so many are over-sensitive and coddled. I blame their Baby Boomer parents, a.k.a. “helicopter parents,” who shielded them from unpleasant realities to a ridiculous extreme.
I don’t want to start a war, either. Let’s move on to other topics.