Shiner

I liked this screwed up little movie. This movie is like those movies that you don't get but you kind of want to watch. Female Trouble is the one that comes to mind. It's messed up and the people aren't always good actors and the plot is all over the place but you like it for some reason. I saw the other film by this guy, it's called Flirting with Anthony, and I really liked that one more. Shiner is kind of a movie that you want to watch when you're a little drunk or messed up. It's hard to follow at time because the sound is iffy but I actually thought the picture was great. The commentary is great and I don't know why there's no commentary on Flirting With Anthony. I think the guys on here being really critical are probably themselves bad directors. I was in a film class and these guys would slam all these awesome films and then I checked out some of their dvds and their movies sucked. Those guys would totally talk about how bad the camera-work was or whatnot. Shut up is all I have to say. No one cares what you have to say anyway. I'd say if you're the kind of person who likes to see two guys going at it in white wifebeaters and rough each other up, man are you in for a good movie.

I saw it at the 2004 SF gay & lesbian film festival and the audience was distinctly unnerved, which was obviously the goal. You follow two lowlife-types vaguely connected with a gym torment various people in their lives for amusement. It is an extended trip through a world where friendship and attraction end in humiliation and violence. Sound unpleasant? It is; but there is an obsessiveness that keeps it from being merely sordid. It's serious and disturbing. It doesn't glamorize violence--quite the opposite. Though there are several moments of bizarre humor, especially a scene where a man and a woman exchange absurd small talk while getting steamed up in bed.

A friend of mine had rented "Shiner" only because the clerks at his local video store were talking about "how much of a bigot the director is," implying that homophobia was at the root of the film (apparently these folks never watched the special features on the DVD, which totally negates that opinion). My friend took the video home and reported to me his fascination with the film; at the same time, he felt aroused, repulsed, intrigued and frightened during and after the flick. He told me about the premise of the film, and felt somewhat ashamed for finding some of its darker content erotic.

A few weeks later, I picked up the film and had a similar experience. I was confused; in the queer movement were taught so much about power dynamics and organize ourselves to fight violence, but here was a dramatically different take on the subject. What ended my confusion was the interview with writer/director Christian Calson on the DVD. The line of his that grabbed me the most: "I didn't want to make another gay romantic comedy." Things suddenly made sense to me. So many queer, I mean, gay films (ahem) are merely homo-remakes of mainstream romantic comedies. As queers, our message got lost as we sought inclusion in a particular medium. So, in what might be the most post-modern move of a writer/director in film history, Christian Calson sought to queer gay cinema. (Yes, I'm using queer as a verb.) He later supports this argument by talking about a form of "post-gay liberation" in which gay leaders shouted "We're doctors! We're lawyers! We're teachers!" to the point our difference and diversity became invisible. "We're just like you" led to us becoming nothing, in a sense.

While the movie is disturbing at times, it's thoroughly engaging. The audience member feels like a voyeur, peeping into the lives of these three "couples." And through that voyeurism, we come to a closer understanding of the elements of violence and how it relates to queerness. From self-loathing to internalized homophobia, from bitter rage to being just plain f'ed up, "Shiner" takes us through a mini-gamut of how violence affects us all, in ways no PSA or "the More You Know" segment could ever hope to address.

I highly suggest that you pick up the DVD of the film and watch the special features, including the Calson interview and the commentary, which is a noteworthy production in its own right.

I saw this film last year and would like to comment on the plot and the acting. Although the subject matter was extensively grim, I enjoyed the depiction of raw emotion, both in terms of the graphic physical and sexual imagery as well as in terms of emotion. As a highly successful director I would especially like to note Seth Harrington (Reg's) performance as exceptional. His performance was raw and powerful as well as profound. Unfortunately, I don't believe Harrington received adequate recognition for his performance. I hope he continues to pursue his interest in the performing arts and film, as I think he shows great potential. Good luck Seth Harrington, I am sure you will eventually obtain the praise you rightly deserve.

OK. So it's a low-budget "film" (I used the quotes because it was shot in Hi-8 video). The acting is universally horrid, the makeup is laughable (the blood looks like it came from Sherwin-Williams and I've seen more convincing bruises made from halloween ghoul kits), and the lighting generally looks like they used someone's borrowed Toyota pickup to shine headlights on the actors.

I might be able to forgive these low-budget traits if there were some actual content, if a movie made an attempt to tell a story. But this collection of video footage can boast of no plot, no real characters, and no momentum. It's a self-indulgent mess.

And don't worry -- no spoilers here, 'cause there's absolutely nothing to spoil.