Un chant d'amour

...of course, that depends on what definition of "gay" you're using. In terms of "happiness", this film falls quite flat (although there is a sense of hope in the short's very final moments, specifically the second to last shot), however in terms of homosexuality, this avant garde masterpiece is quite strong. A landmark of queer cinema, "A Song of Love" is a beautiful film no matter what your sexuality (as long as you have at least a mild tolerance for penis imagery), one that conveys the powers of passion like few films ever have. It expresses ones most inner feelings and desires in a fashion that is abstract, but enjoyable and relatable. I'm not gay myself, but I can certainly identify with this film to an extent, it is like a visual representation of the great emotional toll love can have on a person, and it's brilliantly made. The cinematography, acting, lighting, camera-work, editing, and so on are all top notch, and as long as you can get into the film's experimental style, you're most likely to relish in its erotic and emotional glories.

Genet's only film is a stunner. A short glimpse into the existence of a tortured soul.It must have elicited some gasps in 1950. If I was gay I would probably watch this film every week. I'm not, so let's just say that the images will haunt me for the rest of my days...

Anyone who has read any of the novels or plays of Jean Genet will pretty much know what to expect from 'Un Chant d'Amour'. Genet, in works like 'Miracle of the Rose', and 'The Thief's Journal' adhered admirably to the axiom to "write what you know" and drew upon his experiences of a lifetime in and out of French penitentiaries to initiate the reader into a seedy criminal underworld saturated with a poignant homo-erotic light, populated by characters who display vulnerability in their brutality and beauty in the tragic empty determinism of their lives. However, the predictability of the content of 'Un Chant d'Amour' does not detract from the film in the slightest but rather fleshes out (pun intended) Genet's poetic vision and suggests how he could have further elaborated this vision if he had made more than this single short film.

The film begins with inmates blindly attempting to pass a flower from cell to cell, and this poetic metaphor of communication serves as the conceptual heart of the film as we're introduced to a series of inmates, whose needs for expression and communication, whether it be linguistic or sexual, are routinely denied and whose unfulfilled desires becomes all encompassing and unbearable. This realm of repressed desire is overseen by the warden who peers into the cells and ogles the men, enjoying the incarceration he enacts moment-by-moment with sadistic glee, and yet whose own sexual desire is as unfulfilled as that of the prisoners and feels driven to seek consummation through abuse.

The inherent voyeuristic potential of cinema is something which would later be successfully explored by Hitchcock in films such as 'Rear Window' (1954) and 'Psycho' (1960) as well as Michael Powell in the controversial 'Peeping Tom' (1960); this movie predates the work of both and yet seems to be fully aware of its subversive positioning of the viewer as both voyeur and fetishist as the bodies of the inmates are coveted in a pornographic fashion. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that such an explicit depiction of homosexual desire has the potential to alienate some… indeed, curiously Genet himself later disowned the film on the grounds that it is too pornographic! However, begging to differ with Saint Genet, for my money the humane treatment of the characters, the carefully crafted atmosphere, and the cinematography courtesy of Jean Cocteau are easily enough to redeem 'Un Chant d'Amour' as a work of art (in a similar way to how Kenneth Anger's 1947 debut 'Fireworks' escaped a obscenity charge on the grounds of being Art).

However, this said, even at 26 minutes I still felt the film was a tad longer than it should have been and easily could have been trimmed down to be under 20 minutes. Still, what remains is both an important early cinematic exploration of male desire as well as a study of the double-edged sword of torture and solace human desire, independent of sexual orientation, can bestow.

This film by Jean Genet is a very symbolic, surrealistic, and depressing film, presenting, through a series of disturbing and highly erotic images, upsetting metaphors for our desperate human need for love and union with another, and the barriers to fulfillment.

Because Jean Genet's own sensibilities were homosexual, all the characters in the film are male, and the eroticism is more accessible to men who either share his tastes: for such men, many scenes of the film can be very arousing. For others, the film will probably open up a window into the experience, and for still others, many scenes may provoke disgust and revulsion. Again, because of Genet's own tastes, there is an element of sado-masochism mixed into the eroticism: indeed, all the characters but one are oppressed prisoners, literally in "bondage." However, aside from the unusual sensuousness of the film, and the surprising explicitness, the film is full of unforgettably great imagery, honest and deep emotion, and enormous poetic beauty. It is a very slow-moving, dark, oppressive film, and should only be viewed when the viewer is prepared for a contemplative, surrealistic journey; in spite of its short length (about 25 minutes), it is a very compact film, and can feel quite draining, emotionally.

It is a little gem, and I regard it as one of the "essentials" of film.

I can't believe that all four reviews here are preoccupied by the homosexual aspect of Genet's short film. I guess being familiar with his novels - Our Lady of Flowers, Funeral Rites, etc - I took it for granted that his film would necessarily be set in a prison and involve human longing manifest in homosexual contact between inmates. Don't be fooled, though. Movies like Brokeback Mountain harp on the homosexual factor, making it a political issue that hammers the viewer over the head. Midnight Express made prison sex a pop-culture joke. Genet seems naive by comparison. It's only a vehicle for his art, though certainly a favored one, owing to fact he spent most of his life in French prisons. Anyway, the setting could function just as well as a fictional netherworld dedicated to isolation. Its a brilliant and deliberately shocking movie and shouldn't be missed by anyone.