Beefcake

Very entertaining and often funny, this re creation - with selected, astonishing genuine footage - of the AMG he-man 'studio' of the 1950s BEEFCAKE is best seen with a large (gay) crowd in a big cinema. That's how I first saw it and enjoyed the reactions as much as the movie. However the dramatic aspects of BEEFCAKE disappoints or falls short for several reasons: some of the casting is really terrible. Throughout BEEKCAKE, we see genuine footage made in the 50s by Bob Mizer. Parts of the production of these films is dramatized. The actors in these re created scenes are far from physically right. The actor who plays 'Red" has a podgy body, unlike anyone in the real footage, and this is jarring against the photos and film strips screened. Also, one stupid scene with what is supposed to be "Ramon Novarro" with a massive black fake phallus, the old man actor looks like Montgomery Burns from The Simpsons. I cannot fathom the point of having really inappropriate looking actors play parts of well known handsome and athletic men. Even the actor playing Mizer does not look like the real Bob Mizer. BEEFCAKE has some excellent interviews with original AMG talent, especially Joe Dallasandro whose early work is astonishing and humorous. However, the recreated scenes often lurch into territory only seedy gay guys want and it is somewhat alienating from what is basically a fascinating part of Hollywood history. There is actually a good story and better movie unmade (yet) here that is half way successful in this production of BEEFCAKE

This film is a huge departure from Thom Fitzgerald's first film The Hanging Garden. Beefcake is a loosely woven docu-drama of photgrapher Bob Mizer's Athletic Model Guild. The style of the film will look very familiar to anyone who's seen the NFB's "Forbidden Love" where interviews with those who knew Bob are blended with a storyline about a court case involving an alleged prostitution ring. Good use is also made of archival footage from AMG and others. The interviews are quite well done- Joe D'Allesandro and Jack LaLanne in particular but the new footage seemed a little 2 dimensional and predictable.

I was curious mostly about this movie. Not being one to pass up on seeing a movie based on information or history I took a chance and watched it on the HERE! network a couple of years ago. It was better than I expected.

Ignoring the continuous display of frontal male nudity (which didn't offend me in the least), This film was very informative and entertaining. The interviews opened my eyes to a part of history that I have only read about. It is a pity that this film didn't get more exposure, but I believe that the "exposure" on screen would and probably did prevent any real showcasing in worldwide theaters.

I think that anyone who likes to know what occurred in the past in regards to pre-stonewall life should watch this film. And if anyone who just wants to see guys in the nude without the sex involved, will like it too. In any case, it's really interesting.

This film is about the struggle of gay porn in the 50's USA, in the disguise of "physique magazines". It is based on a book of the same name.

This film cleverly mixes archive footage with new footage shot for the film. The film flows seamlessly between the past and the present. The interviews with the physique models are very insightful. I am particularly impressed by these interviews, and the effort to hunt these men down.

There is a lot of male nudity in the film, and yet it feels fresh and healthy, without a erotic or pornographic feel to it. I also liked the acting, Bob Mizer is portrayed very well in the film. The pleads for understanding and tolerance in the film is also very effective.

The sexual controversy is toned down a lot in the film as compared to the book. In addition, the book has more history in it, while the film strips all of these away. That's my only complaint.

As one of the models states in the interview, if these events are not written down, they will be lost forever. I am hence very glad that this piece of history is transcribed (albeit dramatised) from the book into a film.

The makers of this film set a bit of a challenge for themselves. How to make an interesting movie about the world of magazine photography. The subject in this case is one that hasn't been comprehensively covered before: male physique photography. Generally speaking, in 30s the emphasis was on art, in the 40s on fitness, in the 50s on sensuality, and in the 60s on sexuality. The film explores all aspects of this industry by focusing on a few of the top photographers and their models. Surprisingly, not all participants had the same ideas or experiences about their work, nor the same recollections. In fact, these folk seemed to rather enjoy their work, which did emphasize a healthy, fit body. The relationships of the models emerges as congenial and brotherly, and the photographic activity as engaging. As in any "entertainment type industry" there were some over-the-top kibitzing, which in some cases digressed into rather kinky goings on. Still, the makers of this film manage to remain light hearted about most of it, while allowing some top models and fitness stars to share their memories in short commentary episodes.

For those who were not into this area, they could simply not buy the magazines nor be concerned about the whole matter. For those who found this an area of interest, they were free to make their own choices. What caused problems were conflict with the law, which itself may be controversial. These clashes are also presented here in enactments. It was interesting to see Joe D'Allesandro, well remembered from some of Andy Warhol's films, being interviewed--and what a candid, down to earth personality he is.

The fellows, though, come across as having a good time. While it may not be the most ambitious of professions, modeling at least keeps one off the streets -- that is, almost everyone.