The Silver Screen: Color Me Lavender (1997)

That was an excellent one.

hyped garbage

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

I really like Dan Butler and he's the reason I decided to give this so-called "documentary" a try, but I gave up after about 30 minutes. I simply can't agree with the conclusion that this program seemed to be trying so hard to reach: it seems to honestly believe, and be trying to get viewers to believe, that almost everything including the old Bob Hope/Bing Crosby comedies had blatant gay undertones, and that simply isn't the case. They can repeat it as often as they like, but that doesn't make it true. Under the same principle, would that mean that every time Daffy Duck kicked Porky Pig in the backside, it was an allegory? There's a quote often attributed to Sigmund Freud: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". I think that should be given some serious thought here.

the problem with this movie is that it's just not made by anything like a filmmaker. I've never seen this guy's subsequent offerings but I really can't imagine anyone who started off making this amounting to hill of outtakes! anybody who really cares would not use little clips ending with them in freeze frame to stretch them out half a second! that in itself is a dead giveaway that this person should have his video equipment confiscated! Funny that my review isn't long enough but what else is there to say? I am told by IMDb I could be kicked off if I use "junk words" to round it out. Ironic when I just suggested MR should be barred from filmmaking. Instead it's probably the case that he will be welcome with open arms at the gay film festivals for all time.

It's interesting to read the outraged "reviews" others have posted here. The title makes it clear what the author/director's point of view is –Why act shocked? This documentary explores themes and images that are now archetypal, from a modern gay perspective. That it could merely be our modern eyes seeing more than the various filmmakers intended is a question that is explored, but the director provides so many examples that, in the end, you find yourself accepting his point of view.This documentary is unabashedly gay; written and directed by, and starring gay men. It assumes that the viewer is either gay, or completely comfortable with and knowledgeable about homosexuality. This is not meant for closet cases. Those who approach it with an open mind (and a decent knowledge of old movies and character actors) will find it extremely interesting and enjoyable. Film buffs and queer historians won't find too much here that's new, but the included clips provide clear, specific examples of the topic.

This delightful prank merely examines and speculatively questions and VERY tentatively explains certain relationships and gags which it CLEARLY demonstrates occur in movie after movie from the Golden Age of Film. Unlike "The Celluloid Closet," which was an historical piece showing depictions of gays in movies, this one explores more the hinty, suggestive patterns which any gay kid noticed for himself - the half-admitted shrieking gayness of certain comedians, the sly (and frequent) "you'd almost think we were gay" humor of certain comic male duos, and the seething repressed homoeroticism of the classic westerns. It's something to relax and enjoy and maybe ponder. I, for instance, have always wondered why, in the most inappropriate situations, our action-stars strip down (isn't Rambo afraid of bugs and thorns going bareshirted in a jungle?). Gratuitous male nudity in movies intended primarily for male audiences does provoke thought - among other things.