Occasionally you come across these little pseudo-erotic movies, that aren't really pornographic, just an excuse for a series of soft-core sex scenes. In the more ambitious -- and frequently, the worst -- of these films, the scenes are strung together with a desperate attempt to justify the sex with a narrative, usually consisting of awkward storytelling and an even more awkward attempt at humor. STRAIGHT-JACKET consists of those awkward attempts at storytelling and equally awkward attempts at humor, only they aren't justified with any sex. That is not to say that STRAIGHT-JACKET would be better with a little bit of sex (hard-core, soft-core, simulated, whatever), but even some naughty nudity would have helped considerably. Most of the film seems to be waiting for the erotic moments that never come.
Directed by Richard Day from his script based on his own play, STRAIGHT-JACKET has genuine promise. It is obviously based loosely on the life of Rock Hudson (the main character is even named Guy Stone), though Hudson certainly wasn't an isolated case. The plot involves an actor in 1950s Hollywood who is gay, but gets marries to avoid a scandal and to squash scandal sheet gossip. Meanwhile, he finds the true love of his life, a young, left-wing writer. This is a great premise: a man in the spotlight who has to juggle a wife, a male lover, old boyfriends, a public image, a batch of studio guys and his own conscience. One would think that complications would write themselves and create a romantic farce not unlike the ones that Rock himself played with such seeming ease.
Day's dialogue is okay, with a few really great one-liners scattered throughout, but his story and direction sidesteps the tone of romantic comedy, skips past farce and goes straight to parody -- and, more than that, wallows in camp. The characters are pure stereotype, right down to the condescending, wisecracking butler. There's never a sense of reality, even screen reality. Other than the cars and the clothes, there is no feel for the 1950s; the jokes, the dialogue and the prevailing attitude is that of modern gay posturing. One female character is even played by a man in drag for no apparent reason other than to supply a little knowing wink at the audience. There is something vaguely insulting about the idea that comedy material aimed at a gay audience has to be as overtly campy as a drag show.
At least in the early stages everything is played so broadly and with such self-consciousness that there is a feeling that you are watching a poorly made sitcom (Day's background is in TV comedy). The NAKED GUN films are played with greater subtlety and have characters with greater complexity. That wouldn't be so bad, were it not for the fact that the film eventually switches gears and tries to be "serious" and deliver "a message." Groan! What begins as silliness eventually shifts gears to shoehorn aching sincerity into the mix of obvious gags and broad jokes. The sex comedy gets lost in plot twists that involve homophobia, gay bashing and McCarthyism. The film becomes just the sort of political diatribe that it makes fun of in its film-within-a-film sequences.
The film, I suppose, deserves to be cut some slack because it is obviously such a low-budget effort, which is painfully obvious by the flimsy, half-decorated sets and establishing shots made up of mismatched stock footage and computer generated images. But the problem is not in those details or in Day's unimaginative and clumsy direction; the problem is that the film serves up a modern-day sermon about the importance of being honest and coming out that is totally inappropriate in 1950s Hollywood. Stone's lover, a communist screenwriter (who, for some reason, also works as a mailman), continuously nags the actor about his not going public with his homosexuality, like it should be no big deal. Filmmaker Day seems to be viewing the era with skewed hindsight, apparently faulting gays of the periods for not having an out and proud gay sensibility that did not and could not have reasonably existed back then. The film seems to be totally ignorant about the social and moral views of the time. Being openly gay was not just a matter of putting integrity over a paycheck, it carried with it a good deal of social, professional and moral disgrace. Coming out didn't create self-respect; staying in protected self respect. The film's attitude and lack of understanding of it subject undermines all the self-righteousness that the story has to offer
Directed by Richard Day from his script based on his own play, STRAIGHT-JACKET has genuine promise. It is obviously based loosely on the life of Rock Hudson (the main character is even named Guy Stone), though Hudson certainly wasn't an isolated case. The plot involves an actor in 1950s Hollywood who is gay, but gets marries to avoid a scandal and to squash scandal sheet gossip. Meanwhile, he finds the true love of his life, a young, left-wing writer. This is a great premise: a man in the spotlight who has to juggle a wife, a male lover, old boyfriends, a public image, a batch of studio guys and his own conscience. One would think that complications would write themselves and create a romantic farce not unlike the ones that Rock himself played with such seeming ease.
Day's dialogue is okay, with a few really great one-liners scattered throughout, but his story and direction sidesteps the tone of romantic comedy, skips past farce and goes straight to parody -- and, more than that, wallows in camp. The characters are pure stereotype, right down to the condescending, wisecracking butler. There's never a sense of reality, even screen reality. Other than the cars and the clothes, there is no feel for the 1950s; the jokes, the dialogue and the prevailing attitude is that of modern gay posturing. One female character is even played by a man in drag for no apparent reason other than to supply a little knowing wink at the audience. There is something vaguely insulting about the idea that comedy material aimed at a gay audience has to be as overtly campy as a drag show.
At least in the early stages everything is played so broadly and with such self-consciousness that there is a feeling that you are watching a poorly made sitcom (Day's background is in TV comedy). The NAKED GUN films are played with greater subtlety and have characters with greater complexity. That wouldn't be so bad, were it not for the fact that the film eventually switches gears and tries to be "serious" and deliver "a message." Groan! What begins as silliness eventually shifts gears to shoehorn aching sincerity into the mix of obvious gags and broad jokes. The sex comedy gets lost in plot twists that involve homophobia, gay bashing and McCarthyism. The film becomes just the sort of political diatribe that it makes fun of in its film-within-a-film sequences.
The film, I suppose, deserves to be cut some slack because it is obviously such a low-budget effort, which is painfully obvious by the flimsy, half-decorated sets and establishing shots made up of mismatched stock footage and computer generated images. But the problem is not in those details or in Day's unimaginative and clumsy direction; the problem is that the film serves up a modern-day sermon about the importance of being honest and coming out that is totally inappropriate in 1950s Hollywood. Stone's lover, a communist screenwriter (who, for some reason, also works as a mailman), continuously nags the actor about his not going public with his homosexuality, like it should be no big deal. Filmmaker Day seems to be viewing the era with skewed hindsight, apparently faulting gays of the periods for not having an out and proud gay sensibility that did not and could not have reasonably existed back then. The film seems to be totally ignorant about the social and moral views of the time. Being openly gay was not just a matter of putting integrity over a paycheck, it carried with it a good deal of social, professional and moral disgrace. Coming out didn't create self-respect; staying in protected self respect. The film's attitude and lack of understanding of it subject undermines all the self-righteousness that the story has to offer