The Silver Screen: Color Me Lavender

Why oh why was Rebel Without a Cause not included?? Sal Mineo was the epitome of subtle homosexual characters.

This doc is far from comprehensive.

Finished it but just barely.

Oh and broke back mt but that hadn't been released yet.

There are certainly problems with this movie, though not necessary those complained about by some of the previous reviewers on here, who want it to be more complete and inclusive. This is a movie, folks. It can't go on for hours. If you want complete and inclusive, you need to read some books on the topic.

I thought the analysis of some of the scenes presented was convincing. Others, however, I found unconvincing. Your mileage will vary. The "Walter Brennan" type, for example, about which the movie talks at great length, does not have to be read as gay. Certainly that type didn't want to have anything to do with women, and wanted male company in an isolated world without women. His role in *Meet John Doe* is probably the clearest example of that. But there is, at least for me, NO erotic tension between Brennan and Cooper in that movie. It's not that Brennan's Colonel isn't interested in women - though he isn't. It's that he doesn't seem to be interested in romance or intimacy of any sort. He certainly wants male companionship, but that in itself does not a homosexual relationship make.

What bothered me the most about this movie was that too often we see clips from movies that are not identified. This could easily be corrected with captions.

I was also surprised by the low quality of a fair number of the clips.

This movie isn't boring, as some have said, nor is it a waste of time. But it's as often frustrating as informative.

Practically unwatchable documentary that best serves to make one appreciate the talent behind "The Celluloid Closet." The narrator/host (Dan Butler) is first seen inserted into a movie still, a device that grows quickly tiresome. Then he talks. And talks. And talks. The stunning amount of narration swamps whatever pleasure one might have in watching the film clips, a few of which would otherwise have merit.

Furthermore, the filmmaker goes to ridiculous lengths to promote his "spot the closet case" premise: Rappaport (also the director and writer of the vastly overrated "Rock Hudson's Home Movies") seems to believe that any display of love or affection between men is "gay."

I can't imagine this film satisfying most people who watch it--whether gay or straight. While you'd think it would be a study of the history of gay actors in film OR gay characterizations, it really isn't very often--and it certainly is NOT very exhaustive. It's a shame, as I was fascinated to see how, for example, the Production Code changed how gayness was or wasn't shown or discussed in movies. Or, how difficult it was for gay actors over the decades--how they had to deeply closet themselves in order to make it in the overtly macho Hollywood environment. Or, how Hollywood mistreated or condoned homosexuals (both cases are true--and there are many examples of both extremes).

The film clearly is rarely about human rights but about voyeurism. Instead of being educational, most of the film is spend showing various clips of effeminate or less than macho characters. In fact, the viewer is inundated with TONS of clips--many of which seem irrelevant and many of which don't even imply homosexuality. All too often, they are trying to imply something that may not have been intended at all. It felt less educational or objective and more like a film for gay people might want to watch and laugh at as the actors behave or deliver lines that are not all that juicy--certainly NOT intended as any sort of social statement.

I'd say skip it--there MUST be something better out there on the subject.

I loved the clips from old movies, but thought it was making gay jokes where there really weren't any.

I think they also confused being camp (camping it up) with being gay.

I also felt it quite insulting to some actors and disliked the use of "fag" and "fairy" .