I remember the first time I saw this film way back in ’92. It disturbed me then and it disturbed me last night when I watched it again. Things have come a long way in the gay community since ’92, but have they come far enough to welcome an art film about two gay psychopaths who kill a teenage boy for thrills? The director, Tom Kalin, has adamantly defended this film basically saying gay cinema has every right “to kill with rage and murder for irrational reasons and obsessive passion in the same way heterosexuals have had the latitude to do so in the history of storytelling since storytelling has begun." I, personally, long for the day when we just have cinema…not gay cinema or black cinema or chick flicks, etc.
Art is meant to evoke an emotional, psychological, and sometimes even a physical response. What some forget is that disgust is an emotion, as are fear and loathing. Art can be entertaining, for sure, but do the great artists do more? Is there really High Art and Low Art? Or is there just ART? Do we need these classifications to protect ourselves from damaging associations? Is location a factor? My mom used to say, “It’s not art if you can’t hang it on a fridge.” While that sounds quaint, put those fridges in a museum and it’s called an art instillation.
SO when some people hear the words Art Film, their eyes roll back in their heads and they run for a different movie. But watching Swoon makes me realize that some subjects have to be done “artistically” to have any real power to them.
SO when some people hear the words Art Film, their eyes roll back in their heads and they run for a different movie. But watching Swoon makes me realize that some subjects have to be done “artistically” to have any real power to them.
 The story is not new. It’s about the Leopold and Loeb murder. They’ve been written about and Hitchcock even tackle a take on them in his film Rope. But this film puts the two handsome men in pristine Black & White, surrounds them with impeccable lighting. Almost smothers us in close ups, dazzles us with meticulous editing, uses real film footage for verisimilitude. In other words…a lot of work went into this film, even if it was filmed in about 14 days. All of this effort for a couple of psychos? Is this meant to be evocative or provocative? |
Scott Thompson's Buddy Cole from Kids in the Hall That’s really a tough question I still have trouble answering. As a gay man, I’m not thrilled with the representation aspect. Kind of like Kids in the Hall’s Buddy Cole when he says, “I still don’t believe Liberace was gay. I just don’t want him to be. It’s like being told Satan’s a fag.” As a film fan…I really enjoyed all this film had to offer. But as subject matter, it upsets me that these two crazies are the subject of such a well-made, artistic film. It’s a kind of glamorization of a motive for killing that just sickens me. But again, the fact that it has that effect on me, probably is more an accolade than a condemnation.
So for me, this film is a mixture of high art and low art…high art from the technical aspect of this film and the low art being the base subject matter. Yes, the deviant mind serves as a source of our deepest fascination. But like so many high school shootings…it bothers me that we know the names of the perpetrators and not the victims.
