"What Song Do You Want To Hear?"

 

 

 

 

 

Freebird... The Movie (1996): 

 The concert footage film is, and always has been, a decent way to experience seeing a performer or band perform in a live concert without having to pay the (sometimes, these days) exorbitant price of a ticket to the venue to see said performer. 

Side note: My opinion is that it is convenient, but hardly as good as the actual experience. Sure, if you get to see it in a movie theater, or are blessed with the funds to set up a big (and I mean BIG) screen TV with surround sound, it is a quality experience in itself. Sometimes that is necessary, however. I was only 7 when the iconic Woodstock event happened, so even if I had been close enough to go, I was WAY too young. But Woodstock (1970), the film of the event is a pretty good way to experience, albeit vicariously.)

The band Lynyrd Skynyrd experienced the tragic plane crash which took the lives of three of the band members, lead singer Ronnie Van Zant, and Steve and Cassie Gaines in 1977.  At that time, the only way to experience the live feel of Lynyrd Skynyrd was through the only live recording made during their initial run with the classic lineup (Lynyrd Skynyrd: One More From the Road). The band itself had disbanded because of the plane crash. 

But in 1987, somebody had the great idea to have a tribute tour with Johnny Van Zant, the brother of Ronnie,  doing the lead singing along with the surviving members of the band. The result gave the world a documentary, Lynyrd Skynyrd- Tribute Tour (see followup review below). Although that reunion was only meant last for the length of the tour, it proved that Lynyrd Skynyrd was such a draw that the band started it's second life.

This is what lead to Freebird... The Movie, a film and documentary that finally gave people who had never seen the original band a chance to see how the band performed in concert, with some interviews, both with current remembers reminiscing about the earlier years, as well as a few archival interviews from the time period in the study. It is pretty neat to see some talks with Ronnie recorded during the tour that is presented in the live portion of the film.

"Southern rock" still continues to have influence, even years after it's initial heyday. Although all but Artemis Pyle, the original lineup drummer for the band, have since passed away, the band continues to perform, adding new members as the need arises. The last tour had them paired with ZZ Top, another iconic southern rock band (and would that I could have afforded to go to that!) 

Most of the live performances in this film come from a concert performed in 1976 at the Knebworth Fair, and among the lineups playing that day were 10CC, Utopia, and the headliner, The Rolling Stones. Interestingly enough, one of the band members in this film, Artemis Pyle, claims they "blew the Stones off the stage." Not having any access to The Rolling Stones' performance that day, I can't say whether I would agree, but the performance caught here is definitely one for the books.

The most memorable shots of the crowd during the UK performance is seeing the number of Confederate flags flying along with someone waving a Union Jack. Now there's a vision of incongruity... And, BTW, if you are one of those people who object to Confederate flags, you probably aren't a fan of southern rock anyway, but such a thing is still a going thing at some of these types of concerts.

The song lineup you get here are the classics that Lynyrd Skynyd is famous for, including "Saturday night Special". "What's Your Name", "Gimme Three Steps", Sweet Home Alabama" and of course, "Freebird". Although the performance of "Freebird" is fantastic, I have to admit I was disappointed in not hearing Ronnie say "What song do you want to hear?" prior to the start.  Any one who has ever heard the classic version that was recorded live on their first live album probably expects it. But outside of that brief disappointment, the movie is an excellent introduction to the newbie to the band.

 

 

  

Lynyrd Skynyd- Tribute Tour (1987):

The event that pulled Lynyrd Skynyd back to touring. Except for the missing Van Zant and Gaines, most of the rest of the band were still alive, and began a still ongoing tour. Sure, since that first event, most of the rest of the original band have passed away now, although they just died as a result of age and whatever medical complications came their way. If you go see Lynyrd Skynyd today, there are no original band member with them,  and only one, Artemis Pyle, is even still among us.

The band members did it the right way on this first reunion tour, however, in my opinion. They got Johnny Van Zant, Ronnie's brother to do the lead vocals, and he still remains as the lead singer, so technically you could say it's still in the family, despite the fact that none of the rest of the original band are on stage with him. The first post plane crash lineup, however had all but Allen Collins on stage. And he was there in spirit, since he had a say in who replaced him. (He had been paralyzed in the recent past, and was unable to walk and had limited use of his arms and hands.)

This film is more like a documentary than an actual concert film. It is narrated by Charlie Daniels of The Charlie Daniels Band fame, and includes not only interviews with surviving members of the band, but also with the parents of both Steve Gaines and Ronnie Van Zant (the two key band members who had died in the plane crash.

There are some full songs performed by the tribute band on stage, but early on you just get brief snippets of performances.  I kind of thought that was going to be it, but about 30 minutes into this documentary we get to see the tribute band perform the classic "Simple Man" (conveniently happening just after snippets of interviews with the parents.)

The concert portion of the video has a limited number of songs that are actual filmed while the band plays.  Instead you get a lot of little snippets, partial performances. That's not to say that you don't get to HEAR the band. During many of the segments featuring band members in family settings; cookouts, fishing and even a good old beer league baseball game, the film has live song recordings playing in the background.

But the important ones you do get a full performance of the tribute band. Of course that means the all-time favorites of "Sweet Home Alabama: and of course, "Freebird". And, finally, the iconic line, asked by Johnny himself... "What song do you want to hear?" And a beautiful thing, Johnny telling the crowd he is not going to sing the song. Only one person could ever sing that song, that was his brother, Ronnie. So while the tribute band plays, the sound mixers pipe in a recording of Ronnie singing the song.

I tell you what, if this film doesn't bring a few tears to your eyes for the love of family and fellowship, then I gotta say you ought to see a cardiologist to check and see if you actually have a heart.

Well, folks, time to crank up the old Plymouth and head home. And I'll give you a guess as to what music is going to be coming out of the loudspeakers on the way.

Quiggy

 

  

I want to thank the ladies at Pottsboro Public Library for having this double feature in their stacks. This is the best video I have seen all summer.

Q 

 

 

 

 

 

Save the Drive-In

 

So, some of you may know I recently changed locations of residency. I now live with my sister in Pottsboro, just south of the Oklahoma border.  The move has been a bit stressful, in terms of library access.  Pottsboro, a town of only about 2000, has a small library (in what used to be the post office when I was growing up, although the town got big enough it built a bigger post office.) The two nearest towns, Denison (pop. 25,000) and Sherman (pop. 44,000) each have their own libraries, although the combined 3 libraries only have maybe 1/4 of what was available in the library of my last residence in south Texas.

As such, my resources are limited.  But as I was looking through the available DVDs at the Sherman library  I came across this gem.  I had never even heard of it, although it has won a few awards in the film community albeit mostly local... For instance one of the awards for it was Best Local Feature at the Philadelphia Film Festival (fitting since  the subject drive-in is a Philly drive-in).

The dedication of the people involved and their love of the drive-in experience really shines through here.  And, at least currently, it is still going strong. Their Facebook page has updates often (I just found it).  Unfortunately, from my perspective, they don't dwell too much with the 50's and 60's themes.  Much of what I saw in the film, as well as what I saw in my brief scan of the FB page, the movies tend to be 70's, 80's and some 90's stuff.  But that's a far cry from some of the more recent "new wave" drive-in theaters which are showing current run movies. The Stars and Stripes Theater which opened down the road from my old stomping grounds in New Braunfels fits that category. 

(Note: I realize that in it's heyday drive-ins ran first run films. I just wish there was a retro drive-in that ran that same stuff now.)

Of course, if you know this blog from it's beginnings, I grew up here in north Texas, where I now reside, and the Sherman and Denison area had two twin theaters (Coincidentally located directly across the highway from each other; The She-Den Twin and The Twin Cities Twin). I spent quite a bit of my early teens and twenties going to just such theaters.

At the Drive-In (2017):

The film basically opens at the start of the 2016 season. Jeff Mattox, the owner of the Mahonic Drive-In in Lehighton is preparing for the new season.  He says he got his start at showing films while still serving in the Armed Forces.  After his term of service he got involved with the local drive-in.

One of the problems he ran into prior to the start of the current season was trying to get keep theater running with the new digital age, but he found that the cost of doing so was prohibitive. So he made a decision to run movies that were still available in the old 35MM format. Of course, that meant only older movies.

 

The first few weeks they were sometimes showing these old movies to only 4 or 5 cars. And they ran in the red for a while.    The film points out that their first double feature was The Wizard of Oz and Willy Wonka (the Gene Wilder version). That apparently is now a tradition that they run those first two films on opening night at the beginning of each season.

Jeff managed to get two helpers who had the same dedication as he and whom eventually became partners in his venture, Matt and Virgil.  He also had a holdover from the days when it was still running newer movies, Jessica. These 4 people are the driving force behind keeping the Mahonic a going concern.

 

 

The Mahonic managed to acquire many dedicated advocates including several people who went on to volunteer helping out, including one guy who drove 6 1/2 hours one way because of his dedication. One of the guys says he is a fan of the place because he loves old "shitty" movies. (Sounds like a fellow I would enjoy spending a few hours with in conversation). A few of them spend their entire weekend at the Mahonic, going so far as to crash at the place to save $$ so they can get up in the morning to do the necessary maintenance of the place. 

The ultimate end for me is I now would like to put a trip to the drive-in some day on my bucket list. An interesting little piece for anyone interested in the background in this classic movie venue.

Quiggy

Capra Fights the Good Fight

On Dec 7, 1941 the United States was catapulted into the escalating war with the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy and Japan.  The event that changed what had been previously viewed by Americans as a European War and not worthy of changing the national non-interventionist status was the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese.  Prior to that the Franklin Delano Roosevelt presidency had done everything in it's power short of actually declaring war to help the Allied Powers in their ongoing struggle, including the Lend-Lease program, which basically gave aid without actually deploying soldiers to help. Pearl Harbor changed all that.  The U.S. declared war in retaliation and the war was on for the US, both on European and Asian soil as well as on the home front.

Frank Capra joined the fight 4 days later, becoming a major in the United States Army.  At age 44, he was a little too old to be fighting, but he became a prolific help in the battle on the home front.  His major role in said effort was to film a seven part series of films, a sort of counter-effort to the propaganda films that Nazi Germany and the Japanese were creating for their own efforts.  Primarily Capra wanted to counteract the Nazi/Leni Riefenstahl propaganda film Triumph of the Will. The Why We Fight films were initially made to educate members of the Armed Forces for the need to fight the "good fight".

But the films were so well made and viewed by the brass as so important that they were released into theaters.  And not just in the US.  Winston Churchill, England's Prime minister, thought they were essentially enough that he decreed they be shown in theaters in the UK.  And the first in the series Prelude to War was honored with an Academy Award for Best Documentary (which it shared with three other films, but still...)

Prelude to War: was the first in the series.  It delved into the rise of the three "slave" worlds of Germany, Italy and Japan and made an effort to compare them to the free world (primarily the US, but also those nations that were fellow fighters in the struggle.) A quote, which was added before it's release to the public, by Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War at the time, sums it up pretty well:

"The purpose of these films is to give factual information as to the causes, the events leading up to our entry into the war and the principles for which we are fighting.”  

 Ultimately the first film focuses mainly on Italian and Japanese aggression, reserving the bulk of Nazi Germany's role in the war for the next film.

The Nazis Strike: The second film in the series and delves into the duplicitous nature of Adolph Hitler, as well as his and Nazi Germany's use of fifth columnists (Traitors inside the countries he sought to conquer.  It reveals the many treaties of non-aggression that Hitler signed with various nations only to tear up those treaties and invade anyway when the time was ripe. There are some inaccuracies within the film, primarily concerning the Soviet and German relations within Poland.  This was primarily because, at the time, the Soviets were allies in the struggle and it was probably a good idea not to make an enemy of a "friend", but to some historians it does have some inconsistencies. 

Divide and Conquer:  Continuing after the fall of Poland from the second film, we are continuing to see that any pact or statement made by Hitler is only just so much bull as he invades other countries with whom he had agreed to leave alone.  This hearkens back to the Heartland Theory, covered in the second film, which basically reveals that the ultimate goal of the Nazis was to conquer the entire world.  As Hitler continues his drive to be a world dictator, he invades the northern countries of Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium.  France is next.

The Battle of Britain:  After the fall of France, Britain is left almost solely to fight the war herself.  An early effort by the Nazis to take out military installations and ports is resisted wholeheartedly, so Hitler tries a different tactic; attacking civilians, bombing the city of London.  But this blitzkrieg is also resisted by the determination of the British citizenry.  As Churchill says "never[...] has so much been owed by so many to so few".

The Battle of Russia: represents how hard the Soviet allies have struggled against invasion, not only against the current enemy of Germany, but down through history.  Here again the Soviets are cast in a positive light as the good guys because of their association with the Allies, not mentioning certain factors that would have shed a negative light on them if they had been portrayed; such as the Soviet role in the invasion of it's neighbors prior to the conflict.

The Battle of China:  The series moves east and focuses on Japan's aggressive nature, specifically with it's attempts to conquer China.  

War Comes to America: The final film of the series, and by far in the opinion of your humble reviewer, the best.  It gives a brief history of the United States up to the early part of the 30's, when the aggressive Axis powers started extending greedy fingers into other countries.  It then shows how the US gradually changed from a staunch non-interventionist society, in 1936 being an overwhelming majority of staying out of the conflict.  But as the tides started to turn in Europe and the East, views, as they will, changed.  The short history of how the US approached relationships with both sides of the war changed as much of the public opinion changed from staying out of the conflict, to helping what seemed to be the correct side.  The true nature of the propaganda portion of the film concludes with the following revealing statements:

German conquest of Europe and Africa would bring all their raw materials, plus their entire industrial development, under one control. Of the 2 billion people in the world, the Nazis would rule roughly one quarter, the 500 million people of Europe and Africa, forced into slavery to labor for Germany. German conquest of Russia would add the vast raw materials and the production facilities of another of the world's industrial areas, and of the world's people, another 200 million would be added to the Nazi labor pile.

Japanese conquest of the Orient would pour into their factory the almost unlimited resources of that area, and of the peoples of the earth, a thousand million would come under their rule, slaves for their industrial machine. Altogether, the German, Italian and Japanese aggressors would undertake a catalystic crisis, one that would enslave most of the world's population and liquidate about 90% of cultural life on Earth.

We in North and South America would be left with the raw materials of three-tenths of the earth's surface, against the Axis with the resources of seven-tenths. We would have one industrial region against their three industrial regions. We would have one-eighth of the world's population against their seven-eighths. If we together, along with the other nations of North and South America, could mobilize 30 million fully equipped men, the Axis could mobilize 200 million.

Thus, an Axis victory in Europe and Asia would leave us alone and virtually surrounded facing enemies ten times stronger than ourselves.

If you are as avid devotee of history as I am, I think you will find this series extremely riveting.  Even if you only watch it to gain a perspective of the times, it will certainly open your mind.  And you can watch Casablanca, the next time in a whole new light.

Quiggy

Closet Cases

Angelman (Chris) of Angelman's Place and I are doing a blogathon The Gender-Bending the Rules Blogathon in September.  The impetus of the blogathon stems from having just recently reviewed the 1982 film Victor/Victoria, and being inspired to look into the history of how gays and lesbians have been presented in film over the years.  (I was a history major in college, so any history intrigues me, but especially cultural history).

I read (and recently reviewed for this blog) the rather intriguing book The Lavender Screen, which delves into the story of homosexuals in film.  After finishing it, I donated it to my local library and mentioned to the director that I'd be interested in seeing The Celluloid Closet.  Apparently it had once been a part of the library shelves but had since gone missing and had not been replaced.  The director told me he would get it replaced forthwith, and sure enough it only took about a week or so.

First; a personal history:  I was born in 1961, and raised in rural Texas, which means I was privy to some of the racism that inhibited the South, if not in my hometown (which never had a black family living there until after I left town to go to college), at least on TV.  But I was raised to treat all people the same, regardless of race or color.  Which I still retain  the effects of that upbringing today.  But since my parents were fundamentalist Christians (Southern Baptists to be exact), I doubt they would approve of my extending that respect to members of the LGBT community.  But I do.  No one deserves to be second-class citizens in my America.  Which is why I call myself a Libertarian politically.  And it is also why I don't care whether my choices of movies garner approval from my family or my friends.  I watch anything that might have some appeal or at least something that would satisfy my curiosity in cultures that are otherwise alien to me.

The Celluloid Closet (1995):

From the very beginning of film there have been homosexuals.  How they were portrayed depended on the times.  This film includes a lot of clips that, apparently, had been part of the archives of Vito Russo, a man who made part of his living by touring the country delivering lectures on the history of how homosexuals were presented in the movies.  One of the earliest clips is from the files of Thomas Edison who basically invented the motion picture.  It is one of two men dancing.  (Note:  I'm not entirely sure that the two men are supposed to be gay.  Personally, I just think they were brought together to make the film.  Even though the title of the piece is supposed to be "The Gay Brothers"...)

But in it's earliest forms, the movies presented gay men as "sissies".  In silent films, this meant they used exaggerated pantomime to prance around, an admittedly prejudiced example of the homosexual as perceived by the straight audience. Interviews with various celebrities include both playwright Arthur Laurents who compares the sissy to the stereotype of the black characters in old movies who were portrayed as Stepin Fetchit types.  On the other hand, Harvey Fierstein claims he likes the sissy character, mainly because at least gays were on screen, even if they were rude stereotypes.

As we progress through the film, we become attuned to the goals of the Hays Code and its allies who sought to remove objectionable material from the movies.  As a result the homosexual went "underground", so to speak.  There were still gays in the movies, only no one admitted that the character was gay, only subtle and not so subtle hints even gave any indication of it.  Two films which I have previously reviewed, Dracula's Daughter, in which the main character is presented as (possibly) a lesbian as well as her position as a vampire, as well  as The Maltese Falcon, in which Peter Lorre's Joel Cairo is probably gay.  The character, as written in the original Dashiell Hammett novel is definitely a "fairy", but the movie had to make it something of a secret.

As the Code relaxed it's rules, there were many movies that had some gay characters, but because of the still in place restrictions, the characters often had to come to drastic ends (such as suicide or other forms of death).  Only after the Stonewall riot in 1969 did gays start getting more sympathetic treatment.  The film spends a portion of the movie discussing The Boys in the Band, which is noted in the film as the first movie in which none of the gay characters came to an untimely end.

No documentary of gays in film would be complete without addressing the issue of AIDS.  Fortunately this film appeared shortly after the movie Philadelphia, so it includes a discussion of that film as well as the lesser-well-known film Longtime Companion, a movie which addressed how a band of gay friends dealt with the AIDS crisis from it's first discovery to the untimely end of some of the characters over a period of a few years.

The sometimes not so subtle hints an inside jokes that were a part of the movies are covered in the documentary too.  One focus was on Rock Hudson, an actor who was known to be gay in Hollywood but was only "outed" after his death.  In Pillow Talk, Hudson plays a straight man who is acting gay to get inside Doris Day's panties.  It is commented on how Hudson must have felt in the role, himself being a gay man who tried to keep up a straight front on screen.  Another clip, from the movie Red River, features Montgomery Clift and John Ireland discussing pistols.  Montgomery Clift was well known as a gay man in Hollywood so the following quote has some subtle humor to it, even though the character he played was not necessarily gay:
  
"There are only two things more beautiful than a good gun...a Swiss watch, or a woman from anywhere...you ever had a Swiss watch?"

The film itself, unfortunately, came out after the death of the author, Vito Russo, on whose book it was based.  It would have been nice to have some commentary on it by him, but my copy does have a recording of one of his lectures.  Lily Tomlin narrates the film, and it is filled with interviews with various Hollywood people, including the aforementioned Fierstein and Laurents, but also Armistead Maupin, Tony Curtis, Gore Vidal, Whoopi Goldberg, and Tom Hanks.

As a history lesson, I found the film to be extremely entertaining.  After 20 years or so since the film first came out, the depiction of gays in films has progressed, although not always in a positive manner, at least it has been an improvement from what the studios did in the first 50 to 60 years.

Quiggy

Sober Reflections

William G. Wilson, known to many as Bill W., was the founder of an organization that eventually became known as Alcoholics Anonymous.  Founded in 1935 by Bill and his co-founder, Robert H. Smith (known to members as Dr. Bob), the organization proved to be the solution for many people who had been victims of the disease known as alcoholism.  Bill is revered alternately as a hero and a savior to many who have recovered from the depths of alcohol addiction, and the program for which he was a founder has gone on to help millions of people live a life free from the addiction.

Bill W. (2012):

This is a documentary on the life of Bill Wilson from his early childhood through to his death in 1971.  The movie mixes lots of information from what is known about Bill and Dr. Bob along with some spatterings of re-enactments (much like many History channel programs), with actors portraying the principal figures.  Much of the story is well-known to  members of Alcoholics Anonymous, but it is probably news to many who are not familiar with the organization.

The movie begins with discussing Bill's feelings of isolation as a child, and his early life as a young adult.  He was a soldier in WWI before he ever took his first drink, but it was the start of a long downward spiral.  His travails in married life with his wife, Lois (nee Burnham), as well as his many attempts to try to curb and/or conquer his addiction are covered in great detail.  Bill spent most of the  alcoholic portion of his life trying to make a fortune in stock market endeavors, but always his addiction managed to bring a dramatic end to whatever successes he managed to garner.

His turning point was when he met up with his old drinking buddy, Ebby Thatcher (Ebby T.), who presented Bill with a solution that he, Ebby, had found with a group called the Oxford Group.  Although Bill did not become sober right away, the seed was planted that eventually led to a spiritual experience a short time later.  The story progressed from there as Bill, trying to regain his financial success, was stranded in Akron, Ohio.  Dejected with a recent failure, and broke, Bill considered resuming drinking, but instead used a hotel directory to call local churches to see if he could find another alcoholic to help.

 It was at this point he was introduced to Dr. Bob, a doctor whose alcoholism seriously threatened to derail him as a practitioner of medicine.  The meeting of the two was the spark of the organization that eventually became what is now called A.A.  The second half of the film covers the many trials that came while trying to get the organization off the ground, and continues on through the death of bill's friend, Dr. Bob, and ends with the organization surviving and thriving, even after the death of the acknowledged mentor Bill.

There are plenty of recordings of the real Bill W. speaking at conventions and the like, albeit with the actor portraying him being used for actual footage.  (The anonymity factor of the organization precludes that there is any existent film footage of Bill actually speaking at A.A. related events, although there are plenty of home movies style clips of him and Dr. Bob in a non-speaking role, and a couple of him and Lois being interviewed outside of A.A.)

The film may not be interesting to many who have no interest in the A.A. program, I admit, but for some it may be educational in how a serious addict was able to eventually overcome his addiction, with the help of his Higher Power (A.A.s tend to shy away from calling their spiritual helper by the name "God", although the term does appear in their literature.)  I found it to be extremely riveting.  I also noted that in some clips of Bill's friend, Dr. Bob looked a lot like Christopher Lloyd...:-)  A TV drama has already been made by the name of My Name is Bill W. which starred James Woods and James Garner as Bill W. and Dr. Bob respectively, and Woods won an Emmy for his role, but I think it would be interesting if they decided to make a theatrical release to have Lloyd play the man  whom he seems to resemble.  (Can't really decide who Bill looks like, so I'll defer casting him at this point.)


The film is entertaining on its own level.  As a footnote, in one of the last films Roger Ebert critiqued before his death, gave it a 3 out 4 star rating.

Quiggy

 

A Special Post to the Drive-In

I'm not the kind of person to shy away from controversy.  And while I've kept this blog rather light-hearted over the past year or so, I have come across two rather riveting documentaries I felt obliged to share.  Both deal with the homosexual community, one as the subject of Nazi Germany's persecution of its homosexuals in the late 30's and 40's, the other a look at the AIDS epidemic and how people in the homosexual community fought to have the government address it with the issue and find medical solutions to the epidemic.

Paragraph 175 (2000)

From the beginning of the film:

"An unnatural sex act committed between persons of the male sex or by humans with animals is punishable by imprisonment; the loss of civil rights may also be imposed.

Paragraph 175
German Penal Code, 1871"

Well, there it is in black and white.  As early as 1871 homosexuality was deemed a crime under German law.  But the same or similar codes existed throughout the world, in some form or another  (and still exist in some countries, to be sure).  You can even find history of some of the more liberal minded nations, including the United States and England having laws against "sodomy".   The Nazis being who they were and the essence of the theme of purity of the Aryan race, however,  caused the group to enact harsher penalties than any that the rest of the "civilized" world may have done, but it was not wholly limited to the Nazis.  The documentary follows Klaus Muller, a young man who interviews five surviving homosexuals and one lesbian, all who experienced the persecution of Nazis, as well as their life and experiences prior to the rise of the Nazis .  Rupert Everett was tagged to be the narrator of the film.

In the Weimer Republic, paragraph 175 was largely ignored, although crackdowns did occur.  In Berlin, the decadent lifestyle of post WWI, however, included allowing homosexuals to exist freely, for the most part. "Heinz F." (a psuedonym)  tells of a club in Berlin which allowed itself to be rented out a couple of times a week for dances for homosexuals.  Annette Eick, a lesbian tells of falling in love with a woman at one of these gatherings that reminded her of Marlene Dietrich.  This woman made it to England and sent Annette a passport that got her out of Berlin.

Pierre Seel, a Frenchman is somewhat reluctant to talk to Klaus because of his experiences.  He says he made a promise to himself at the time that he would never talk to or shake hands with a German. Albrecht Becker  had an older lover that he spent time with for 10 years during the Wemer Republic.  Gad Beck tells of an athletic trainer with whom he had an encounter.  All of the interviewees tell of how the years before the rise of the Nazis were almost idyllic.

Upon the rise of Hitler, however, that all changed.  It was not immediate however.  Even Hitler's right hand man, Ernst Rohm, the founder of the SAS, (the Stormtroopers) was gay.  Hitler himself condoned Rohm's sexuality, at first, claiming that since  the SA was "not an institution for moral education...but a formation of seasoned fighters...private life [could] not be an object of scrutiny", thus basically saying it didn't matter about Rohm's private affairs so long as he didn't conflict with the ideology of the Nazi party.

That changed almost immediately however, and with the so called "Night of the Long Knives" Rohm and many of his followers were executed and then it was open season on German homosexuals.   it had been preceded by the same treatment with Jews.  Many in the gay community thought they were safe however, because they considered themselves to be loyal Germans, but soon found out that didn't matter.

The film continues with interviews with the former concentration camp survivors, Heinz Dormer, Karl Gorath, as well as the previously referenced "Heinz F.", Pieere Seel, Albrecht Becker and Gad Beck.  Some of the film is rather heartbreaking, much as interviews with surviving Jews who were persecuted by the Nazis are.  Typically, according to the fim, it was the homosexual males who received most of the attention.  A passage of the narration states that the Nazis thought the lesbians could be rehabilitated.  Most of this prejudice stemmed from the fact that the Reich needed every available fertile female to increase the population of the Aryan nation, not because they actually had any plan to implement for the rehabilitation.

Paragraph 175 will make you think.  It is obviously not the film for family night (or maybe it is, if your children are old enough to understand what they are seeing).



How to Survive a Plague (2012)

The title of this movie (probably) gets its genesis from an outburst from Larry Kramer midways through the film, in which he addresses a group of AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) activists:  "Plague! We are in the middle of a f***ing plague! 40 million infected people is a f***ing plague! "

The film covers the efforts of ACT UP to get the government and the drug companies to fulfill their obligations to find a cure for the disease of AIDS.  Most of the people involved in the actions were from the homosexual community, but they had several medical personnel who also worked to find the cure.  But they had some very serious opposition, especially in the person of Jesse Helms, a U.S. senator whose own view is on record that the homosexual community brought this epidemic on themselves through their own actions, including, but not necessarily solely, having bad safety measures during sexual intercourse.

The activists, which included men like Mark Harrington, Bob Rafsky and Jim Eigo formed a group to spur the drive to find a cure.  Because of the prevailing views of political representatives kept the drive stalled, and because the drug companies seeking a cure were hampered by rules and regulations that inhibited quick solutions, the activists had to take to protests at various locations to try to bring public awareness to the situation.

Coupled with all this political agenda, we as viewers are also let into some of the private lives of some of the people who either had been infected or wee affected by the loss of loved ones who had been infected by the disease.  Also along the way, a splinter group called Treatment Action Group (TAG) formed to take a different tack in getting the cure in motion.

The film ends on a positive note as there was some success in using a variety of drugs that prolonged the lives of the victims of the disease.  Although some of the main figures did pass on from the disease before the success, we find several of the main figures (I assume) in present day still surviving the "plague".  The film will open your eyes and may even instill some faith in human nature.  I admit that I found some of the actions by the ACT UP group to be a little disturbing, but that is tempered by the fact that some of the politicians don't seem to be quite the sympathetic souls they should be.  (Jesse Helms, of course, but even Bill Clinton in archival footage doesn't come off all that sympathetic).

As a heterosexual male, I still got a lot from both of these films.  I recommend both, but as with the first one, they are not family-friendly films, so exercise caution if you want to watch them with children.