Hustler White

It's not a porn movie, declares the box that holds Hustler White, a mid-90s look at the gay prostitute scene in LA. True enough, although some of the acting's not much better.

What is better is that there's the ring of truth beneath the silly plot and stilted dialogue. These hold together numerous scenes that are nothing like what you've seen before. But you'll enjoy it more if you can keep from distancing yourself, so try.

You may have no problem, or you may run screaming from scenes that include duct-taping, train-pulling, and, um, stumping. Your loss if you do.

I kept wondering what the intentions of La Bruce could have been to make this movie. Maybe he meant to give a serious impression of the gay hustler climate in Hollywood? If so, it only worked as some sort of road-map to the most significant places-to-be. For the rest he pictured everything totally over the top, almost burlesque! Was it meant to be some kind of ironic social comment? Or a parody or even a downright comedy??

The amount of graphic sex is huge, I have no objection whatsoever with that, but it impressed me as if it was the main focus of this movie, since the narrative that tied all the sex-scenes more or less together was extremely shallow and lame. That brings the whole thing very close to regular porn, exactly the thing that La Bruce apparently wanted to parody here. So what was the purpose? I would say: either make a solid porn movie, or make a realistic serious movie about sex with a decent story!

The acting of all concerned (as far as any intended acting was involved) is below par, especially that of La Bruce himself, although it could be that he acted so bad intentionally, for an intended tongue-in-cheek effect. There are lots of guys who look great, with amazing bodies, and they are amply allowed to show it; and main character Tony Ward definitely had (sexy) charisma!

Anyway: as a camp porn-pastiche it can make you chuckle now and then, but that's about it.

A lot of irony in this film. A pretentious reviewer could probably come up with some references to Derrida and self-deconstruction and how the ridicule the film got for the effeminate character who wishes to make a documentary of hustling in LA is a way of undermining the film itself, which indeed is something of a documentary of hustling in LA.

It got some nice and crazy sex scenes, which are important.

The overall feeling I have of the film is that it is like an artistic natural documentary, where the sad events, painful human conditions are like facts of nature, to be viewed, maybe briefly analyzed, but ultimately they are there and can't be changed. The story of "piglet" is like the bad consciousness of the film, however, the one condition where the film can't help but take sides.

In HW, the always-entertaining Bruce la Bruce has produced his most appealing film to date by far. Model and former Madonna boy-toy Tony Ward is sweet and funny as Monty, the object of ice-queen film-maker Jurgen Anger's (played by la Bruce) instant love. The graphic, fetishistic sexual encounters of Santa Monica Boulevard hustlers and their johns are merely clever sidebars to the main story of Monty and Jurgen's collaboration and romance. HW is far too bizarre for mainstream moviegoers; a pity, as its themes are universal and their exposition right on target.

A good effort from La Bruce as a director, if not as an actor. In fact the major drawback in the film is the dreadful 'acting'. Here I am Bruce! I'm a good actor (so I've been told anyway) and I'm gay! One of the major drawbacks of gay films in this ilk is the acting. So I'm not good-looking. Hey, we can't all be! Anyway, aside from a few sick, sleazy moments designed to shock (but are mostly just boring), this is a much better effort than his earlier films. Maybe because he had a collaborator this time?