Siskel and Ebert review 'Torch Song Trilogy'
http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html ?sec=6&subsec=torch+song+trilogy
shareI know this is a long time after, but thanks for posting that link, Swill_Merchant.
It was interesting to watch the different takes these two guys had on this movie. I'm not in the US, so I'm not at all familiar with Gene Siskel, but at least in this review I thought he was being pretty stereotypical in his thinking -- he seemed totally fixated on it being a "gay play" (points to Ebert for saying it wasn't, it was about human interests!) and criticised it for not talking about AIDS (which actually made me snort out-loud in disgust and hilarity). Oh and, surprise surprise, he can't bring himself to call Alan Arnold's lover or partner, but settles for referring to him as Arnold's "friend". And is it just me, or does anyone else get the sense from Siskel's strident edge that he's really nervous to even be talking about a movie where two men might actually kiss or show some affection? (No, no, the scenes where Arnold is in bed with either Alan or Ed are squeamishly dismissed, but it's not because it's two blokes nekkid together, it's because "it doesn't tell us anything about the character of Arnold that we haven't already learned from the monologues". Right. Sure.)
Though I do agree with him myself that the movie comes most alive, and in some senses only really "works", in the monologues. I've honestly never warmed to the Ed role, whether played by Brian Kerwin or someone else -- in fact, I'm strongly of the suspicion that Harvey Fierstein doesn't actually like the character of Ed, even though he wrote it -- and I don't think the third act really works either. I, too, feel that Anne Bancroft is too often over-the-top as an actress, and thinking back on it I realise that the roles where I've enjoyed her most were ones where she played ostentatiously larger-than-life characters (such as The Elephant Man or To Be or Not To Be), where her scenery-chewing could seem more an intentional part of her performance.
Fierstein was so undeniably the heart and soul of the piece, it's wonderful that at least some of his performance could be captured on film ... even as it's a pity that the original script had to be pretty drastically gutted, obviously for both budgetary reasons and to soothe an anxious studio that was wary of making the thing at all. Points to them for taking the chance, even though I wish they'd had the guts to really stand behind it and give it a proper treatment. And points to Roger Ebert for recognising that the film has universal elements to it, dealing with situations and feelings that anyone could relate to.
So, judging from their review, I'd personally give Ebert a thumbs-up and Siskel a thumbs-down.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
I totally agree with most of your post. Siskel (who passed away years ago) seemed to be afraid of gay topics or movies. He shied away from them. Ebert had no such problem and discussed them with ease.
But I don't think the movies third act is THAT bad. True, Bancroft overplays it but I think it fits the character. It would have been interesting if they have asked Estelle Getty to do it--she originated the part on stage. Also I think the play was cut more for time than budget or subject matter. I saw it way back in the early 80s on stage--it ran FOUR HOURS!!!! No way could they release a movie that long.
g'day preppy,
Yeah, it would have been long -- the three acts were originally written as stand-alone plays, after all -- but I can't help feeling it's been cut a bit more than it needed to be. (Well, than I would have liked it, anyway, let's be honest! )
While I didn't suggest the third act is actually bad -- and it does have some lovely one-liners and some scorchingly-honest "truisms" -- I don't think it exactly works as a piece of drama, either. To me, it feels very forced and manufactured -- a little bit (I can't believe I'm going to compare these two!) like the movie Philadelphia, it seems to concentrate more on the message it wants to give out and less on what seems organically "right" for these characters or dramatically "true" for their circumstances. Maybe it's because, as I said, I don't believe Harvey even likes the character of Ed, that it feels like Ed's been shoe-horned into Arnold's life in a way I frankly don't believe, and Arnold's been made to settle for someone who can't match him on practically any scale, apparently just to make tidy endings. (Another great Fierstein piece, and don't I wish they'd release that on DVD!) I do get the significance of the "enough", but I just don't feel I can quite believe it.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
I just saw the movie again last night and I agree with some of what u say about part three. Ed WAS shoehorned in and David's part was brutally cut--I really missed the part where David had that little speech where he told Arnold off near the end. Still this is perobably the only filmed adaptation we're eveer going to get so it's better than nothing. At least it's not as badly edited as "Love! Valour! Compassion!" THAT was completely gutted!
shareI imagine Harvey did the best he could with the editing -- I do remember reading an interview with him where he basically said his hands were somewhat tied -- he either toed the line of nervous and uncommitted studio Suits, or else the movie didn't get made. I can't remember now where I read it, but I remember he said he had a choice of settling for what they were willing to let him squeeze through, or the chance that it would never be filmed at all.
I agree with you that what we got is definitely better than nothing, and I'm glad it got filmed while Harvey was still up for playing the role (even though I strongly suspect he's much more suited to stage than screen, where he does tend to overact somewhat. I've never seen him live, though I'd really like to have. Have you, preppy? I like him a lot, but that voice ... how did he ever play Tevye?!)
As for "Love! Valour! Compassion!", I've never seen either the movie or the stage play. I know friends of mine who saw the movie said it was pretty much a disappointment.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Thanks for the info on whar Fierstein said. I gotta remember that it was made back in 1988 years before that wave of gay cinema we had in the early 1990s. I'm surprised they let him keep the bit where Arnold goes into the back room! I never saw Fierstein live but I wish I had a chance. But like u said...that voice. I heard he's in "Fiddler" also...but he can't sing! In "Torch Song" and the stage recording of Hairspray his warbling was enough to make you cut off your ears! LOL
I saw "Love!..." up the movies when it came out (and I have the DVD). I had already seen the play (which runs 3.5 to 4 hours) and saw this with three people who hadn't. They loved the movie while I though it was good for WHAT IT WAS! They tore the play to ribbons. Entire section were gone and they changed motivations and rearranged sequences. Still they kept in the full frontal male nude scenes and a long passionate kiss between tw of the guys. Also the acting was good.
Oh dear, now I'm thinking of Jason Alexander, full-frontal naked, snogging some bloke. Not the picture I wanted in my head!!
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
LOL Actually there's NO full frontal of Alexander--only back. The most full frontal we get is from Randy Becker who is young, tall, in great shape and incredibly hot:)
shareAnd I was being unfair to Jason, who was the only cast member whose name I could think of on the spur of the moment.
But back to Siskel and Ebert: why does everyone pronounce Harvey's name like "feer-stine"? (Siskel does it at the start of the review.) I can't remember hearing Harvey pronounce it himself anywhere, but shouldn't it be like "fire-steen"?
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
"Feer-stine"??? They're REALLY off on that! You're right--it's "fire-steen". It looks like Ebert & Siskel grammer usage is as off as their reviews! LOL
shareI saw another video on YouTube recently, where Harvey was interviewed by Vito Russo during the run of the "Trilogy" (and just as "La Cage" went into rehearsals), and Vito pronounced it the same way as Gene Siskel. Maybe it's one of those moments where, if you haven't learned the basics (in this case, I'm assuming it's some German), you just don't know. Is his name Yiddish, do you think?
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
It could be Yiddish but I'm not sure. Maybe it IS pronounced the other way. Siskel & Ebert have to be right at least ONCE in their lives! LOL
shareHuh. So I went looking through YouTube, to find this Harvey talking about himself. (Couldn't hurt!) And look: he pronounces his own name FIRE-STEEN. Fire-steen, he said it himself. So I was wrong, so sue me. Who knew?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QR7-X6KE4w
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
I can only think of it as a "Gay Play."
The experiences are unique to gay men - and it was written by gay man.
Any one else gets anything out of it - fine. But NO ONE will get all the nuances except GAY MEN.
I wish people would stop trying to make GAY PLAYS seem as if "they have something for EVERYONE!!!"
They speak to their gay audiences and communicate gay truth.
Not meant for anyone else.
"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"
I've just read over the post of mine you were responding to, nycruise, and ... well, it was a while ago I wrote it, but I think why I was praising Ebert's stance that it communicated to everyone was because I was tired (and remain tired) of people saying "oh, that's about gays, it has nothing to do with me" or (worse) "why should they put money into this? it only concerns a minority of people, they should worry about things that affect everyone". I want to shake people and say that they wax lyrical over films about traditional Japanese fishermen or Norwegian kids coming of age in a tiny and isolated rural town, and think that that's about "humanity" — what's so non-human about the concerns of a bunch of gay men fighting to establish their identities? I think it bothered me deeply when people all around me, even close friends, were content to say that they were glad Brokeback Mountain didn't win the Oscar, because it was really a fringe film, because it only concerned gay men.
I take a huge exception at the idea that concerns of gay people can't be viewed as broader human concerns in a specific context, and when people say that nothing that can be said in a "gay film" could have anything to do with them, or hold any interest for them. And it's said, of course, in such an enlightened and discerning manner.
And yet, I take your point completely. And thank you for making it.
You're right, of course. Perhaps I'm just a little too bruised at feeling excluded for much of my life — I think we all have our levels of it in our histories — and frustrated at so many people being unwilling to even engage with the fact that gay people exist. It's a hard balance, don't you think, to be content amongst the rubble?
But you've put me in mind of something Harvey said in, I think, "The Celluloid Closet", when he described how people complimented him for "translating" the gay experience into a broader context, and he says something about how he rejects that, that he writes for gay people, and everyone else can do the work of translating it. I admire that point of view, but I'm bothered by how many people (the overwhelming majority, still, I think) simply aren't interested in making the effort.
I don't know, do you think it matters?
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.