The Silver Screen: Color Me Lavender

1997
6.3| 1h40m| NA| en| More Info
Released: 01 November 1997 Released
Producted By:
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

A film scrapbook, images, phrases from our past, hiding their meanings behind veils. Let's lift those veils, one by one, to find how images, at one time seeming innocent, have revealed, after decades, to have homosexual overtones.

Watch Online

The Silver Screen: Color Me Lavender (1997) is currently not available on any services.

Director

Mark Rappaport

Production Companies

The Silver Screen: Color Me Lavender Videos and Images
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

The Silver Screen: Color Me Lavender Audience Reviews

MonsterPerfect Good idea lost in the noise
Iseerphia All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.
Portia Hilton Blistering performances.
Abegail Noëlle While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.
irishm 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.
fshepinc 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.
groggo 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.
kimphilby7 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..