Exquisite Corpses

I saw this back in 1989 at an independent theatre in Somerville MA. The owners heard this "experimental" movie was a huge underground hit in NY and decided to try it here. They NEVER did that again.

It was incomprehensible--something about a cowboy coming NYC to get his girlfriend. Problem is she's in love with someone else now. He's on his own...and then the movie ceases to make sense. I think he is seduced by a gay guy who promotes into...something. I really couldn't make heads or tails out of the plot.

So, there's no story, badly filmed and directed and almost all bad acting. The only exception was the guy who played the cowboy--he was tall, hunky and quite handsome. Still that's no recommendation. Bottom of the barrel. It MIGHT work if you're drunk or stoned. Skip it.

My review was written in June 1988 after a screening at Mark Goodson theater in Manhattan's Columbus Circle.

"Exquisite Corpses" is an offbeat, New York-made black comedy that will be of interest to followers of the indie scene, both locally and in Europe. Pic debuted at the Cannes film market in May 1988. Currently in 16mm, feature is due for 35mm blowup before release.

Pic has a cult hook in casting of Zoe Tamerlaine Lund (formerly Zoe Tamerlis), who first scored in Abel Ferrara's thriller "Ms. 45". She portrays Belinda, a mysterious femme fatale who ultimately spells curtains for the hapless hero Tim (musician Gary Knox in his film acting debut).

In a pastiche on "Midnight Cowboy", Tim is a cowboy from Oklahoma who arrives in the Big Apple with high hopes of stardom. After the usual mistreatment by the cruel big city denizens, he lands a gig as singer/dancer/trombonist in a cabaret. His undoing is getting mixed up in a murder triangle involving Belinda and her weak husband.

Stylized with the sort of pastel lighting associated with Amos Poe's "Subway Riders" (which was lensed by "Sugarbaby"'s Johanna Heer), "Corpses" is best in its scenes of wacky humor and decadent cabaret routines, benefiting at times from Knox' uneven musical score which veers from lyrical to gauche.

Final reel attempts to create a tough guy film noir feel, but is too talky, burdened with unconvincing plot twists (regarding how the murder actually was committed) and a failed attempt at whipping up some international intrigue regarding a communist agent. Frank Roccio contributes an effective supporting role as TIm's aggressively homosexual talent agent.

In the leads, Lund is suitably exotic and has a very strange musical production number to boot. Knox is better at the naive early scenes than his fey transition to successful cabaret star. Likewise, debuting filmmaker Temistocles Lopez, a Venezuelan transplant to New York with stage experience, shows promise but produces here a film of extreme highs and lows.

Picture is dedicated to the late film historian Carlos Clarens, who was set for a supporting role but died before production commenced.

Can anyone else but me check my voting history? It demonstrates that I gravitate toward inferior films, although I'm not prone to be extreme in my ratings. But this flick, in my opinion, is at the very bottom of the scale. A southerner migrates to - and experiences the worst of - New York City, and behaves as if there is no limit to the depths to which he will stoop to get by. The move brings out the bisexuality in him and even involves him in an international incident, for which he is framed. This has all of the hallmarks of the lowest-grade movies: inferior acting; hard-to-follow storylines; illogical writing; very limited action; poor sound; terrible lighting. I can't say a single positive thing about it. It'll take a Herculean effort - even by seekers of the world's worst - to make it through the entirety of this bad-boy. Don't spend ANY money on it. And view it on TV only from your death-bed if you wanna hasten the process.

I'm in awe at how much people find gender bending films to be "confusing" and "too abstract". I also don't see what is low quality about it. Heterosexual people don't ever define what they mean, or provide an intelligent critique (the ones who could are probably the ones staying quiet because they don't want to talk too much in a gay arena of thought). I'd listen to it, I have some critique but my critique becomes irrelevant in the face of heterosocial hatred, and overall I find it very enjoyable of film. Maybe you have to be familiar with gay life to follow it (in which case, Straight people, why are you watching it? Why does it matter to you?); or perhaps it secretly appeals to some Straight people, provoking a strong reaction due to their heteroshame.

I thought the film was pretty straightforward; it was detailing a spiritual journey of the cowboy, ex-cowboy. He encounters many different kinds of people, some hateful and some radically compassionate ... that's what your life experience is when you're Gay or even a bisexual pursuing a Gay path (since that's what this movie is). I hardly think the plot is abstract at all. Maybe Straight people just think the idea of experiencing so much Hatred with some radically contrasting experiences from a minority, is bizarre. But it's our life. It illustrated what it was meant to illustrate.

So yes, if we review a gay film off of heterosocial standards of film (as the film establishment is sinfully Heterosocial; how many movies can you name without a monagamous heterosexual romance of SOME kind? Even children's films contain it when it is totally irrelevant to include most of the time...). Then yes it is a failure. Both the world of film and film critique just operate on heterosocial structures. But from a homosocial standard, this film is not the biggest of all successes but it is still a success.

But I hardly think it is especially abstract or hard to follow. And what's wrong with things being abstract, or harder to follow? To me, that is a good thing; I love experimental art. If you're in territory that seems esoteric to you, that's a sign that you are where you should be if you want to raise your consciousness. Why do so many people cling so strongly to their Stupidity?