The Silver Screen: Color Me Lavender (1997) User Reviews (13)

nudge, nudge, wink, wink

[iain-gowers · 6/10 · 27 August 2017]

a documentary about maybes and if's, but nothing really concrete. It total misses the actual LGBT referenced in the "celluloid closet". Virtually no Lesbian content.

I agree with the other reviews it also misses out the UK films of the time that did deal with LGBT content like "victim" or the US film "children's hour" and I would recommend the "celluloid closet" if you want that

Not a great documentary, no, but not as bad as some on here would have you think

[richard-1787 · 7/10 · 2 April 2021]

There are certainly problems with this movie, though not necessary those complained about by some of the previous reviewers on here, who want it to be more complete and inclusive. This is a movie, folks. It can't go on for hours. If you want complete and inclusive, you need to read some books on the topic.

I thought the analysis of some of the scenes presented was convincing. Others, however, I found unconvincing. Your mileage will vary. The "Walter Brennan" type, for example, about which the movie talks at great length, does not have to be read as gay. Certainly that type didn't want to have anything to do with women, and wanted male company in an isolated world without women. His role in *Meet John Doe* is probably the clearest example of that. But there is, at least for me, NO erotic tension between Brennan and Cooper in that movie. It's not that Brennan's Colonel isn't interested in women - though he isn't. It's that he doesn't seem to be interested in romance or intimacy of any sort. He certainly wants male companionship, but that in itself does not a homosexual relationship make.

What bothered me the most about this movie was that too often we see clips from movies that are not identified. This could easily be corrected with captions.

I was also surprised by the low quality of a fair number of the clips.

This movie isn't boring, as some have said, nor is it a waste of time. But it's as often frustrating as informative.

Far from complete and not especially satisfying...

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 15 February 2011]

I can't imagine this film satisfying most people who watch it--whether gay or straight. While you'd think it would be a study of the history of gay actors in film OR gay characterizations, it really isn't very often--and it certainly is NOT very exhaustive. It's a shame, as I was fascinated to see how, for example, the Production Code changed how gayness was or wasn't shown or discussed in movies. Or, how difficult it was for gay actors over the decades--how they had to deeply closet themselves in order to make it in the overtly macho Hollywood environment. Or, how Hollywood mistreated or condoned homosexuals (both cases are true--and there are many examples of both extremes).

The film clearly is rarely about human rights but about voyeurism. Instead of being educational, most of the film is spend showing various clips of effeminate or less than macho characters. In fact, the viewer is inundated with TONS of clips--many of which seem irrelevant and many of which don't even imply homosexuality. All too often, they are trying to imply something that may not have been intended at all. It felt less educational or objective and more like a film for gay people might want to watch and laugh at as the actors behave or deliver lines that are not all that juicy--certainly NOT intended as any sort of social statement.

I'd say skip it--there MUST be something better out there on the subject.

Not For The Closeted

[fshepinc · 8/10 · 23 May 2010]

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.

Dreadfully dull

[Citymars · 2/10 · 12 October 2000]

Practically unwatchable documentary that best serves to make one appreciate the talent behind "The Celluloid Closet." The narrator/host (Dan Butler) is first seen inserted into a movie still, a device that grows quickly tiresome. Then he talks. And talks. And talks. The stunning amount of narration swamps whatever pleasure one might have in watching the film clips, a few of which would otherwise have merit.

Furthermore, the filmmaker goes to ridiculous lengths to promote his "spot the closet case" premise: Rappaport (also the director and writer of the vastly overrated "Rock Hudson's Home Movies") seems to believe that any display of love or affection between men is "gay."

You're All Being Much Too Hard On A Lighthearted Movie

[rbrtptrck · 10/10 · 23 March 2009]

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.

Another excuse for a film

[groggo · 1/10 · 12 December 2007]

Director Mark Rappaport, abetted by smug-perfect actor-narrator Dan Butler ('Frasier'), presents a myriad of film clips from a myriad of films, and manages to find 'hidden gayness' in every one of them.

The whole film is reminiscent of social scientists who stubbornly hold to certain theories, and, using questionable methods, painstakingly set out to prove them.

This flick tells us that those 'buddy' movies (Hope-Crosby, Martin-Lewis et al) were reflections of repressed homosexuality. Heterosexual affection between men is a myth: they're all hiding something.

The Walter Brennan Syndrome, as Rappaport preciously and pretentiously calls it, is really the story of those many trusted movie 'sidekicks' who secretly harbour homoerotic fantasies about their heroes. This extends to great cinematic 'sidekicks' like Brennan, Millard Mitchell, Andy Devine, Walter Huston and many others.

This is amazing arrogance, and it's stitched together here in an effort to imitate an actual documentary.

If you follow the relentless drumbeat of the Rappaport-Butler conspiracy theory, huge numbers of screenwriters and directors are or were gay, closeted or no. Why? Because they reveal themselves in their dialogue. Those double entendres and nuances are nothing more than confirmation of secreted homosexuality. Case closed. Alas, human discourse, developed over many thousands of years, is just slightly more complicated than that.

This flick deliberately tries to be sensational, and fails miserably. There is very little sensationalism to be found, unless you think 'outing' Rock Hudson, Randolph Scott and Sal Mineo is sensational. Those guys were 'outed' decades ago.

If you're looking for a truly stupid and boring fake documentary, this is for you. And it's smug; oh, is it smug. Insufferably, intolerably smug.

Making something out of nothing...

[caronbc · 4/10 · 7 May 2022]

I loved the clips from old movies, but thought it was making gay jokes where there really weren't any.

I think they also confused being camp (camping it up) with being gay.

I also felt it quite insulting to some actors and disliked the use of "fag" and "fairy" .

Booooooooring

[kimphilby7 · 2/10 · 12 April 2007]

Worse than the films it features!! Concentrates on a few actors and movies. No idea what clip is from what movie. It all got very confusing - well for me anyway. Also irritating was that some clips went for .3 of a second. I was barely able to understand what was said in the clip, let alone 'get' the lavender part to it. Clips are put on freeze frame while the narrator talks endlessly about what could be almost considered 'gay conspiracy theories'..

One of the most boring...and irritating documentaries I've ever seen. The Celluloid Closet and Fabulous puts this documentary to shame!

I'll be steering clear of Bob Hope, Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye movies for a LONG time..

Sal?!

[nullity-39212 · 4/10 · 24 May 2017]

Why oh why was Rebel Without a Cause not included?? Sal Mineo was the epitome of subtle homosexual characters.

This doc is far from comprehensive.

Finished it but just barely.

Oh and broke back mt but that hadn't been released yet.

I didn't finish it

[irishm · 2/10 · 29 September 2016]

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.

unwatchable

[marymorrissey · 1/10 · 3 January 2011]

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.

Cringey and Uninformative

[rtmackenzie · 1/10 · 8 October 2022]

I couldn't finish watching this. I feel this documentary really missed the mark. There is a legitimate history of gay coding in old films that they could have drawn upon, instead it seemed to focus more on innuendos made in comedies that in effect are mocking of lgbt without exploring the background.

The narrator was annoying, often in the way of what was being shown, and used slurs without it being an apologetic reference.

Go watch The Celluloid Closet if you actually want to find out more about this subject. That documentary actually engages with lgbt writers, actors and creatives who lived through and worked through these times.