Strip Jack Naked

My review was written in May 1991 after a Greenwich Village screening.

Subtitle "Nighthawks 2", this documentary gives a forthright account by British director Ron Peck about his filming of "Nighthawks" in 1978 and his experience as a gay man in Britain over the past two decades.

Opening in June in New York's Public Theater in conjunction with a revivial of "Nighthawks", pic is an effective consciousness raiser and highly personal approach to cinema.

Technically sub-par (its 16mm transfer from video lensing comes off murky and dark), "Strip" relies heavily on Pec's ultraserious narration. Clips from "Nighthawks" plus outtakes from same are far more impressive than his impressionistic new footage.

Peck explains howe he had an unrequited love affair at age 14 with a classmate and wnet through many years at school before discovering an alternative gay lifestyle. The local Catacombs club became his headquarters for assignations, and Peck ultimately was dreiven to make a serious film (a genre breakthrough in Britain) about being gay and the problems in "coming out". Five-year effort, in collaboration with Paul Hallum, resulted in "Nighthawks".

Since "Nighthawks" was originally an unwieldy 3-1/2 hours ong feature, it was edited severely. Peck shows several scenes and characters who were ctu, focuing on the late Colin Clifford who was one of the prime movers on the project.

Film moves smootly back and forth between documenting social movements and personal events in Peck's life. With stills and other illustrative material, he explains how the magazine Films and Filming introduced him to serious treatment of cinema (as well as covers and photos highlighting many films' hnomoerotic content). Key issues are shown, notably the image of Dirk Bogarde's character tortured by his homosexual status in Basil Dearden's 1961 classic "Victim" and Joe Dallesndro in Paul Morrissey's 1968 "Flesh".

"NIghthawks" documented for Peck the rather frightening night world of the '70s when despite upbeat political activity the gay cluture was often obsessed ith sexual trysts the cites John Rechy's boast of having had 7,000 different lovers in a decade as an example of misguided thnking). Peck himself got caught up in this mode, endlessly searching for "Mr. Right".

He ends the film on a bittersweet note of hope: the AIDS crisis has been met with heroism and, traditional stereotypes have been replaced even in the mainstream media by a multiplicity of voices. Peck wistfully accepts the pioneering mantle ("Nighthawks" was influential in suh films as "Young Soul Rebels")_ and believes the next generation will have an easier time coping.

I didn't see the first one, but I don't believe that it would have changed my opinion of this one even if I had. Even though I grew up at the same time, I found the film to be extremely tedious. It was accurate, but the narration just didn't do it for me. His voice is monotonous, and made me drowsy even though I had had plenty of sleep. Somewhere along the way there could have been some dialog. This would have broken the monotony. The scenes were too dark. I know that at the time gay men met it dark places, but this gave it an almost eerie feeling. I sometimes felt that an ax murderer was going to step out of the shadows. I didn't find the guys to be all that attractive either, and he spent a great deal of time talking about trying to find the right person for the "teacher," saying, for one thing, that he should be attractive. I recommend it if you have trouble going to sleep.

I appeared -briefly-in this film. I was edited out because I think I was a little too "exotic". I give the film a "6" more because of what it did and accomplished at the time than because of the finished product. Let me say Ron Peck was charming and sweet, I had a bit of a crush, at at the time he was having a fling with his "star"- basically I think to keep said "star" happy. I think the problem with the film that it is so unrelentingly bleak. It didn't really need to be filmed in color because it is almost monochrome in content. Sorry, if you read this Ron.

I had actually got my small part(NOW don't be rude!) while I was living in London, but I had actually moved to West Berlin-it was still divided then, and flew over just to do the film-feeling very much like a jet setting superstar. I am sorry, that the film did not lead to greater things for Ron, he was a likable guy.

Not one for all taste, but a very personal account of the gay liberation movement in the 70's and 80's in London, from the time homosexuality was against the law till the high days of AIDS deaths. It's a very convincing film about coming out and the meaning of being gay in a world that has not yet figured out what to do about gay people.

The director is using an old feature of his to depict the life of the gay community at the time. He sometimes used excerpts that are too long and self-indulging. I think Nighthawks was probably a boring film, but it's role in gay cinema is understood.

The film is explicit, if you're the kind who worries about this.

The film Nighthawks, made in 1978 may look very amatuerish today, gay films and independently made films have come a long way since then, but for its time it was pretty groundbreaking and thus, it was historically important. It offers a pretty good look at a vanished time: before AIDS and apparently before anyone had much money(the characters all seem unabashedly impoverished in comparison to today's urban gays). It's very cinema-verite with actors playing themselves, characters based on themselves or based on people the film-makers knew. In 1991 the director made this film, a recollection-documentary on the making of Nighthawks. This film is chiefly worthwhile if you've seen the first and are thirsty for more info on it. The director tells very poignantly his own story of self-discovery and coming out. Most striking is the story of how much effort and determination it took to get Nighthawks made and why there are hundreds of names in the closing credits that the "producers would like to give thanks to" - they are people who sent in small amounts of money after reading in a London gay paper that the filmmakers needed funds to continue the project.