Glatzer and Westmoreland's QUINCEANERA

[oscar jubis]

Quinceanera is Spanish for "15 year-old girl" and for the elaborate and expensive party that celebrates latinas' reaching that milestone. The film opens in the middle of one such party, in the Echo Park neighborhood of Los Angeles. It's Eileen's 15th but our attention is directed mostly towards her cousin, the sulky Magdalena (Emily Rios). She's worried about whether her boyfriend likes someone else and whether her upcoming "15th" will be as lavish as her cousin's. Blocks away, a young man with a neck tatoo steals a bouquet of flowers. He's Eileen's brother Carlos (Jesse Garcia), whose appearance at the ball is cause for consternation. His own father violently kicks him out. Carlos lives with his great-uncle Tomas, an affable octogenerian vendor of "champurrado" (spiced hot chocolate), in the back house of a property recently purchased by a 30-something gay couple. A plot development I'd rather not reveal causes Magdalena to be exiled from home by her religious father. She moves in with uncle Tomas and Carlos and the three form a makeshift family. But what of Magdalena's quinceanera?

This little gem was only the second film in the history of the Sundance Festival to win both the Grand Jury and the Audience awards. Writer/directors Wash Westmoreland and Richard Glatzer were inspired by the "kitchen sink" dramas common in Westmoreland's native Britain during the late 50s and early 60s, with Tony Richardson's A Taste of Honey providing the blueprint. Yet Echo Park is a more cheerful place than that film's environs and Quinceanera is firmly based on the filmmakers' own life experience. Like the gay couple in the film, they are partners who moved into a refurbished property in Echo Park a few years ago. Their Mexican-American neighbors asked them to serve as official photographers for their daughter's quinceanera. During months of preparations, they became intimately familiar with Mexican culture, and fascinated with how the event mixes religious and pagan rituals, as well as classic and modern elements.

The resulting film is anchored by Carlos and Magdalena's bittersweet coming-of-age stories, but it also manages to incorporate with great fluidity and economy issues of class, race, religion and sexual orientation. Particularly laudable is the frank manner in which Glatzer and Westmoreland address how gentrification has changed the neighborhood's character and caused an exodus of the more vulnerable older residents. The gentrification of established, centrally located, ethnic neighborhoods affects most major American cities; a phenomenon that's happening more rapidly than anticipated because of the higher cost of commuting from the suburbs. I can't recall offhand another movie that makes gentrification so central to its plot, and that confronts its most dire implications.

I also can't recall a better film about our largest minority. Quinceanera is more ambitious, or more polished, or fresher, or simply more effective than the rivals worth mentioning: Stand and Deliver, The Perez Family, My Family, Mi Vida Loca, The City, Real Women Have Curves, Raising Victor Vargas and Manito. It's a breakthrough film for Westmoreland, who's directed mostly gay porn and gay docs, and Glatzer (the campy Grief was his forgettable debut) . The Fluffer, a drama marketed almost exclusively as "queer cinema", was their promising first collaboration. Quinceanera evidences more skillful writing and direction. One wonders to what extent to credit executive producer Todd Haynes who is, in my opinion, one of our best filmmakers. Last but not least, the film's appeal is dependent on the affecting performances by debutants Rios and Garcia, and by Chalo Gonzalez, who was discovered by Peckinpah decades ago during the shooting of The Wild Bunch and finally, in his 81st year, gets to play a major character.

[cinemabon]

Yesterday, I picked up the Fall preview edition of Premiere magazine and discovered a full page ad for this film. Investigating at imdb.com, I found several assertions being made about this movie. One, it copied the plot of The Debut, a Philippian film about a young girl turning 18. In turn, another cinephile claimed this film had actually been released prior to this year, and this was a re-release of a film made six years ago. Someone mentioned this movie was going direct to HBO rather than a theatrical release. Five films have been released with the same title. I enjoyed the lively discussion by the Hispanic cinephiles that spoke of their 'coming out' parties, similar to a bar mitsvah? In my home town, young girls attended a debutant ball called the cotillion. I suppose its cheaper to do it for every girl that age than bear the expense of doing it for one. Released as "Echo Park, LA" in the UK (year not given).

[Chris Knipp]

This certainly makes it sound like a must-see.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon
Investigating at imdb.com, I found several assertions being made about this movie. One, it copied the plot of The Debut, a Philippian film about a young girl turning 18.

The message boards at IMdb is not a place to investigate a film. But you know this already (I read your post re:World Trade Center). I admit that perusing those boards can provide some sort of lowbrow entertainment. They get "all kinds" of people, if you know what I mean. The user states "the makers STOLE the idea from The Debut". The plot synopsis of that film happens to be "A young Filipino-American's dreams of becoming an animator are in conflict with those of his immigrant father, who is imtent on seeing him become a doctor". The second conflict in the film revolves around the young man being embarrased of his Filipino heritage. On the other hand, the IMdb user seems to be swelling with ethnic pride and wants to divert attention towards that movie by all means necessary. His comment ends with "I just want the world to know a Filipino movie with a similar idea came out first". Well, apparently The Debut is not bad at all_ might merit a rental, but the user is way out on left field in making any comparison between the two and the idea that the award-winning and widely hailed Quinceanera "stole" the idea from the Filipino-American movie is preposterous, to put it mildly.

In turn, another cinephile claimed this film had actually been released prior to this year, and this was a re-release of a film made six years ago. Someone mentioned this movie was going direct to HBO rather than a theatrical release. Five films have been released with the same title.

The typical misinformation one finds at those boards. The film is enjoying a successful theatrical release. HBO in no way involved with the production or broadcast of Quinceanera. Four other "Quinceaneras", including a short, A Mexican TV soap, a Mexican melodrama from 1960, and an "amerindie" that was never released. None merit any attention.

I enjoyed the lively discussion by the Hispanic cinephiles that spoke of their 'coming out' parties, similar to a bar mitsvah?

More of the same. Not at all similar to a bar mitzvah. One of my fellow hispanics there is angrily calling for a "boycott" of the film because the writer/directors are "anglo". Another user is quite upset at the damage the film will heap on the image of the gay community because one gay character in the film cheats on his partner. Again, more examples of the typical narrowmindedness one finds at that site.

Released as "Echo Park, LA" in the UK (year not given).

Indeed. Quinceanera is being released in Britain under that title.

[Chris Knipp]

Of course it would be a Bat Mitzvah, for a girl. But why the decisive denial, "not at all similar"? Any general description of Bar and Bat Mitzvahs would say they are traditional celebrations of coming of age and also are "elaborate, expensive" parties. In general ethographic terms, it would seem there are similarities.

[oscar jubis]

Ok. Both are rite-of-passage celebrations that usually involve elaborate parties. They are markedly different otherwise, with the Jewish ones having a much more religious context (by the way, the Cuban and Puerto Rican "quinces" my daughter has attended differ from Mexican ones in that religious overtones are completely absent). I learned also that Jewish males can have a second Bar Mitzvah, at age 83! (Based on the concept that a lifetime lasts 70 years).

[cinemabon]

I did not mean to detract from your review or endorsement of the forementioned film. I could not agree with you more about imdb's postings usually appealing to the lowest common denominator. I did, however, find a common thread to the discussion by many latinos regarding the "coming of age" process unique to their culture; as Spock would say, fascinating. Any film so honored should garner further attention.

83, eh? After receiving ones new declaration, does that clear you of any possibility of a paternity suit, I wonder?

[oscar jubis]

To be fair, I have to admit there is some material of value at the IMdb boards, like latinos discussing what makes the coming-of-age process unique (no "quinceanera" equivalent for boys though). I haven't posted there but I have submitted a few reviews of festival films for the comments section. I was wondering if you've seen the message boards at turnerclassicmovies.com. Given your impressive knowledge and interest in Classic Hollywood, I would think you'd be interested. And the folks who post seem like nice people who truly love movies. I've only done so once or twice (under the name Orson Lubitsch) because I'm committed to FilmLeaf, but I recommend it.

[Chris Knipp]

IMDb is what got me here, and got me into reviewing movies online. I still believe it's an impressive site, which dominates the field. Smaller quasi-national film sites like the French Allociné refer their readers to the pages on films on IMDb. It is truly international, despite its obvious American focus, as is indicated by how the names of films are given in the original languages or translliterated versions of them. It's a truly democratic site, because it's open to everyone from the least informed, least literate viewer with Internet access, up to a well known movie director. I find that interesting. And I find it worthwhile. Time and time again I have logged in on the IMDb boards on a particular film to see what people are chattering about, and it's usually helpful. It's also possible to find out the various biases that the public brings to different films. An invaluable tool, and one that, however commercialized, belongs to all of us, because we can submit corrections to data. If you sift through the "lowest common denominator" in the Comments, you also will find a number of very knowledgable writers among the more prolific ones. I post all my reviews there. Cinema is a popular medium, after all. If you want something elitist, you need to go to avant-garde art or modern poetry... This is not to deny that misinformation is passed around on IMDb, as it is on the Web generally.

[oscar jubis]

I wish we were discussing one of the best American films of the year so far. By now I expected us to be broaching plot aspects I avoided in my review (because I didn't want to spoil the experience for anybody). I recognize Quinceanera has just expanded from 48 to 96 screens last friday so many have not had access to it. So maybe there's still hope. I also recognize that the distributor has treated the film as a "hispanic interest" and "gay interest" film (the preview I watched was sponsored by the Miami Gay and Lesbian Film Society) rather than one with mainstream potential.

On the other hand, there's no doubt that the most popular movie website in the universe is worth discussing. I'd like to point out that within IMdb there are Message Boards and there are User Comments. They are quite different. The source of the erroneous and misleading posts about Quinceanera I criticized came from the Message Boards, where you will also find vile personal attacks and a lot of inane material. The User Comments, although not consistently insightful, are well worth reading. These have to go through a screening process and have to adhere to these guidelines (http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?commentsguidelines).

[Chris Knipp]

Good to make this distinction. I think most users know that there are both messages and comments; there are also discussion threads such as the Classics, which have some knowledgeable participants, like jiankevin, whom Howard and I have discussed, and who is an independent filmmaker and interviewed Jonathan Rosenbaum on the site. You can get a bad impression of the movie page message exchanges, but they also can offer little tidbits of useful information, or trivia, not just vileness or misinformation... caveat emptor....

we do get sidetracted sometimes....I coujld see the film, it is here last I saw, but have not been able to go out to movies lately, having other tasks plus a visiting friend (who isn't into moviegoing). I've also put more time into political writing since July 12th. Be assured, I will see Quinceanera, but it may not be timely...maybe in NYC....

[Chris Knipp]

I've seen Quinceañera now and written a review (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?p=656) , which is not as detailed and well informed as yours, Oscar, about the directors' careers or the milieu. It's also not anywhere near as entusiastic. In fact, it's so unenthusiastic, I won't print it here, so as not to cast a pall on your enthusiasm. Just as I make allowances for gay-themed or otherwise gay-appeal movies, anyone has a right to give an extra boost to ones that tell stories of their minorities, and HIspanic is, demographically, the big one, for sure--but according to census figures, only about 1.5% larger than the black population, or maybe less; current figures belittle the gay population considerably, though of course Kinsey (who looked into these things) thought it was 10%. Be that as it may, the Hispanic population has had less representation in American film than those other two groups, and I welcome and champion your enthusiasm. But I will say here that I don't think this is "one of the best American films of the year so far" (at least I hope not), and I can't see how one could possibly think it's superior to all previous Latino-themed American movies. For what it's worth, I saw Quinceañera with a Mexican-born friend, who is as big a film buff as I am, and we both were relatively unimpressed, and agreed that Raising Victor Vargas seemed to us considerably more successful. I believe Manito is stronger and more memorable in many ways, despite a certain roughness and an ugly DV look. You take an unnecessary risk in specifying that Quinceañera's " more ambitious, or more polished, or fresher, or simply more effective" than all the Hispanic-related movies you list, because various ones in the list excel over this new effort in each category, or so I would hope....

I tend to agree with Lisa Schwartzbaum and Maryann Johanson, to mention two of the less favorable reviewers of Quinceañera. As Johanson says, it's "too nice." Schwartzbaum says this is "suds being sold as ethno-sensitive reality, a case of coveting thy neighbor's fiesta." I know that sounds cruel, but we must be cruel in order to be kind. Yes, the characters are real and specific (as far as they go). But Schwartzbaum brings out a serious question: why should a white Anglo gay male couple, with their social and economic independence and their mixed US/British backgrounds, be the ones to depict the world of Echo Park, with its long residency in the area, its Spanish-speaking, Mexican background, and its extended (but partially disintegrating) family structure, its poverty, its born-again Christianity? Are Westmoreland and Glatzer really as "intimately familiar with Mexican culture" (your words, Oscar) as an American Latino filmmaker fluent in Spanish who grew up in a low income neighborhood of L.A. would be? Just whom are we championing here?

A serious weakness of your review, Oscar, is that you hardly go into the plot at all, and so you cannot confront its weaknesses and oddities. I know all about the "spoilers" issue, but if you refer to a main part of the story as "a plot development I'd rather not reveal," you avoid confronting the shortcomings of the screenplay, which also concern the treatment of the gay white characters. Why are they so unappealing? Is that really intentional?

You don't consider the main criticisms of the movie, Oscar--its blandness, its saccharine elements; the lack of depth in the characters. I have objections to the main plot elements. The fact that the story brings in gentrification, and that may not have been much depicted in movies hitherto, doesn't make the film significant, and moreover, gentrification is only one, and not the main one, of what turn out to be too many plot elements.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Just as I make allowances for gay-themed or otherwise gay-appeal movies, anyone has a right to give an extra boost to ones that tell stories of their minorities

Anyone, including you, has a right to make any allowances. And I have a right to detest that practice and to consider it patronizing or condescending. If I genuinely don't think a Latino-themed film is great, I won't "give it an extra boost" or rate it a notch higher than I would a film about pygmies or about Romanians. It wasn't a Hispanic majority among Sundance audience and critics panel that bestowed the film that festival's audience and Grand Jury awards. The vast majority of the critics that have given Quinceanera favorable reviews are not hispanic. I personally would be willing to wait an eternity to champion a film about Hispanic-Americans, if I felt Quinceanera didn't deserve it. I can even envision Quinceanera not making my Top 10 (which includes English-language films made elsewhere) if there's a high number of great films released by December 31st. As of now, it's "one of the best American films of the year so far".

Schwartzbaum brings out a serious question: why should a white Anglo gay male couple, with their social and economic independence and their mixed US/British backgrounds, be the ones to depict the world of Echo Park

This attitude stems from a type of tribalism called ethnocentrism. It proposes that a person needs to have certain credentials and ethnic background that matches the themes and characters depicted in his/her movie. By virtue of having spent my first 17 years of life in Latin America, I am relegated to an artistic and mental ghetto. I can possibly make a great film about immigrants or about Hispanics, as long as they are heterosexual like me, that is. God forbid I stray and become interested in making a film about a group to which I don't belong. The statement by the Entertainment Weekly critic might hide a subtle but insidious type of racism. This attitude doesn't promote or facilitate understanding and communion across people divided by race, religion, ethnicity or sexual preference. It says: "you can't possibly understand us because you are one of them". How sad.

[Chris Knipp]

Of course one doesn't champion a story about one's group unless one think's it's well done, but I think you have to admit Quinceanera is naturally of more interest to you than to me, for the culture it refers to/depicts, at least in theory, which would bias you in favor of it, make you want it to be good, whereas I have no reason to care; I'm not a special fan of HIspanic culture or Chicano culture.

I understand what you're saying and it's not too extravagant to say this is one of the best US films so far, but frankly, there isn't a very good list. I can think of few. And this summer, pickins have been slim, judging by what I've seen in theaters out here.

I don't think that's really the usual usage of "ethnocentrism": you need another word for it. There is a certain value in an outsider viewpoint, which the boys certainly have on the chicanos of Echo Park, but they're not exactly the ideal kind of outsiders; what is needed are people born into the culture but not entirely of it -- which might be Carlos, since his being gay makes him feel like an outsider. Which suggests a logic to the presence of Carlos, as an informant for us (me, i.e., Anglos) -- except I don't think he's really used that way in the film.

For the rest, I'm sorry that you let fly at Schwartzbaum, and her, no doubt, politically incorrect point that the filmmakers, she thinks, are patronizing or cultivating the 'colorful' culture of their neighbors. I did not print my review here, but you could have referred to my arguments, rather than just to accuse me and Schwartzbaum of prejudice, and hold up your own lack of bias for admiration. Believe me, I don't give you any special credit for where you were born and how you grew up, any more than I expect you to give me credit for where I come from and what background I have; but these are things that have to be taken into consideration where we are talking about a film one or the other of us may have a special interest in, because of our background. I can give at least one big example for myself, from last year, which you may guess.

[Chris Knipp]

(I came back here because there were two emails leading me back here, though there seems to be only one post from you.)
Anyone, including you, has a right to make any allowances. And I have a right to detest that practice and to consider it patronizing or condescending. I think you may be completely misinterpreting what I said. If I make allowances for a gay-themed film because I'm gay, how can that be considered patronizing or condescending? It is "parti pris," it is bias in favor of, but it is not patronizing; and it is twisted to view championing something as a way of being condescending toward it. I realize that this is a very touchy subject. But why exactly is it so bad to be extra enthusiastic about a film because of one's background? If gay people aren't going to champion gay films, and Hispanic people aren't going to champion Hispanic films, who really is? Bias is not ipso facto a sin, but potentially a positive value, a source of expertise, enthusiasm, eloquence in interpretation. We have minds, but we also have hearts, and without both, we are nothing.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Of course one doesn't champion a story about one's group unless one think's it's well done

I know I don't. I don't make any allowances. I'll give you an example. I think the film A Day Without a Mexican, based on factual data about the contributions made by Hispanics to American society (including the contributions made by undocumented, illegal, so-called aliens) has important things to say. I even fantasize that citizens with anti-immigrant bias could somehow be forced to watch it Clockwork Orange-style. But I would never say it's a good film. I would never overlook its flaws and limitations in order to champion it.

I think you have to admit Quinceanera is naturally of more interest to you than to me

I would never assume that is the case just because your last name is not Rodriguez. I certainly have to admit it, now that you've told me. I know too many non-hispanic whites who love latino culture to simply assume a film about Hispanics would "naturally" be of more interest to you than to me. My brother Rolando has lived in Southeast Asia for 15 years because that's where he feels most comfortable. Is this un-natural?

it's not too extravagant to say this is one of the best US films so far, but frankly, there isn't a very good list.

Often studios wait until late in the year to release films they believe have Oscar-potential. I like A Scanner Darkly, The Illusionist, United 93, Thank You for Smoking and A Prairie Home Companion. But that's a short list and I expect even better films to come out within the next four months.

There is a certain value in an outsider viewpoint, which the boys certainly have on the chicanos of Echo Park, but they're not exactly the ideal kind of outsiders; what is needed are people born into the culture but not entirely of it

The ideal viewpoint for me is that of a person of any racial or ethnic background who is observant, sensitive and insanely curious. Notice that the writer/director of Victor Vargas, which is a good film but narrower in scope and ambition compared to Quinceanera, is also a non-hispanic white (perhaps the most accurate term because there are Hispanics who are white or Anglo).

For the rest, I'm sorry that you let fly at Schwartzbaum, and her, no doubt, politically incorrect point that the filmmakers, she thinks, are patronizing or cultivating the 'colorful' culture of their neighbors. I did not print my review here, but you could have referred to my arguments, rather than just to accuse me and Schwartzbaum of prejudice, and hold up your own lack of bias for admiration.

How can you both disagree with my point of view and find it worthy of "admiration"? It's not clear to me to what extent you suscribe to Schwatzbaum's opinion so I referred exclusively to "the statement by the EW critic". I repeat, the logical progression or implication of that statement is "you can't possibly understand us because you are one of them" . I genuinely deplore that clickish, tribalist, ethnocentric stance even if you think I do "for admiration".

[Chris Knipp]

You still haven't replied to the criticisms of Quinceanera in my review.

This topic of bias is a red herring though I admit I'm the one responsible for introducing it. Of course it is an interesting topic -- how critics of films have leanings that they are bound to respond to -- and this really isn't a matter of ethnicity, but of personality. It exists even in an ethnically, linguistically, culturally homogeneous world. And I think they -- such leanings, biases -- ought to be acknowledged and taken account of. They can be an advantage -- leading one to champion a movie others are overlooking -- but one needs to know one's own prejudices, 'fess up to them as it were, in order to keep from posing as some kind of neutral godlike judge of the Good.

One secondary issue is that I said you praised this movie so highly probably out of desperation for something to praise because the year hasn't really produced very fine work yet. your list of the best so far confirms that. I can't agree on any on your list as worthy of anything but possibly a minor honorable mention except for A Scanner Darkly. It looks like 2006 is a terrible US movie year, but that as usual may be remedied by the (relative) flood of Oscar contenders we're in for -- let's hope anyway -- during the next three and a half months--and especially in November and December.

You're right about Victor Vargas--and maybe the guys who made Quinceanera ought to have left their group out of their movie focused on a Hispanic neighborhood as Peter Sollett left his group out of his movie about another Hispanic neighborhood on the other side of the country.
[Knipp:]
I did not print my review here, but you could have referred to my arguments [in it], rather than just to accuse me and Schwartzbaum of prejudice, and hold up your own lack of bias for admiration.

[Jubis:]
How can you both disagree with my point of view and find it worthy of "admiration"? You misread me. If my sentence was too convoluted, I'm sorry. It means that you, not I, were holding up your own lack of bias for admiration. Of course if you are as unbiased as you claim, I would have to agree in admiring you for that.

You're certainly idealistic. But behind that idealism there is a set of predispositions, like anybody else's, even if we must not call them prejudices. I admit to the latter. You apparently don't.

I think that rather than get into the terms "Anglo," "white," etc. and the colors people come in, it's best here just to talk about Hispanics or Hispanic culture and people who aren't Hispanic or of Hispanic culture.

The fact that you don't like the lousy Day Without a Mexican hardly proves anything--let's get real. You're a film buff. You're not going to champion a crap movie just because it makes points you'd like to see made onscreen. That's not what we're talking about. I'm not saying Quinceanera is a crap movie, just that you're overrating it, partly due to personal predisposition, partly because you're you're desperate to find something to praise out of the year's US releases.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
you're overrating it, partly due to personal predisposition

This is truly insulting. Nothing I've posted over four years and nothing I say will change your opinion that I am predisposed to overrate Quinceanera because of my background ("partly"). I have to carry it like a fucking cross and not have my opinion (not a "godlike" judgement, just a guy's opinion) taken seriously because I am Hispanic. All the non-Hispanic critics from the publications quoted below can hail the film without being suspected of bias, but Oscar's take is tainted because of his background. I won't subject myself to any more abuse.

"As smart and warmhearted an exploration of an upwardly mobile immigrant culture as American independent cinema has produced"
New York Times

"Quinceanera took both the Dramatic Grand Jury and Audience Award at this year's Sundance Film Festival, and it's easy to see why."
Chicago Tribune

"The filmmakers claim to have revived kitchen-sink realism. What Quinceanera does offer is charm, sensitivity and intelligence"
Seattle Post

"It veers off in a completely different direction_actually numerous directions, all of which will entice you to follow."
"They have given the film a remarkable sense of place"
"...nuanced script, which they have directed with obvious love"
San Francisco Chronicle

"This is a fresh, spirited drama; charming and unpretentious"
Variety

"A fascinating look at the area's Mexican-American milieu and other local subcultures full of feeling, insight and touching performances."
Chicago Reader

"Saucy, rowdy, heartfelt and terribly sweet."
"Neither skirts nor condescends to the difficulties faced by poor urban communities assailed by rapid change."
"It's an untidy, vital slice of Latino life with a loving sense of place and a giddy improvisational feel."
Village Voice

"The film is serious and thoughtful but not overwrought"
Austin Chronicle

"As sweet and gentle as it is, Quinceanera is quite clear-eyed about human cruelty and indifference. In structure, however, there's a circularity to the film that allows it to end on a well-deserved upbeat note"
Los Angeles Times

None of the critics from these publications will ever be accused of ethnic "predisposition". I envy them for that.

[Chris Knipp]

Since maybe you're not going to take up my points of criticism of the movie, I might as well post my review of it after all:

Richard Glatzer, Wash Westmoreland: Quinceañera (2006)

Review by Chris Knipp

Sweetness and oddness

Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland are gay life partners who had separately and together made gay films, and then because they liked their Echo Park neighborhood so much and got to know it, have now made this, a story about this area of Los Angeles and its mostly Chicano inhabitants -- but also about a white gay couple who own property there and exploit those locals. One of the puzzling elements in this awkward but generally warmhearted and appealing story is that the white gay characters, presumably surrogates of the filmmakers themselves and their friends, range from exploitive to downright despicable.

This isn't as vivid, artful, or coherent, and doesn't develop its characters or scenes in as much depth as Peter Sollett's colorful 2002 charmer about Lower East Side Dominican residents and a young couple's first love, Raising Victor Vargas. It's not even as memorable or involving as Eric Eason's relatively crude but intense, hardscrabble Manito (also from 2002). Quinceañera features the cornball sweetness of an aging great uncle who takes in two family rejects. The old man is Tio Tomás (Chalo Gonzales, who debuted in Pekinpah's Wild Bunch). He radiates good nature, but despite details of a suicidal youth and a list of occupations, ending in selling champurrado chocolate drinks from a pushcart, he hasn't much depth as a character. Tomás hosts Carlos (Jesse García), a tough youth driven from the family for being homosexual, and who one of the gay property owners, Tomás' landlords, begins having afternoon sex with on the sly.

Later Carlos is joined by Magdalena (Emily Rios) after she becomes pregnant before her quinceañera, or fifteenth-birthday celebration, though she has never had full-penetration relations with her boyfriend, Herman (J.R. Cruz). Her stolid storefront preacher father Ernesto (Jesus Castanos) is unforgiving toward both these youths -- his daughter Magdalena and her cousin Carlos. Eventually Herman's mother sends him off to pursue a promising academic career and tells Magdalena to stay away. Carlos' afternoon affair with the gay landlord ends equally cruelly when the older man's partner finds out, and the white gay couple decide to evict poor old Tomás (doubtless to get rid of him and his young charges, particularly the troubling presence of Carlos -- or perhaps just to exploit the real estate better) and this understandably devastates the old man, who's lived there for twenty-eight years. Magdelena tries to find another place for the three of them to live, but with their lack of income (Carlos has a dead-end job in a car wash) and given the local drift toward gentrification, that looks hopeless.

These situations are alternatively weepy and peculiar. A tattooed chulo like Carlos surely isn't a typical lover for a gay white yuppie, though the way the camera dwells on Jesse García's muscles and tattoos suggests the filmmakers think he's as "hot" as the gay landlord characters and their friends keep saying. And virgin births are a considerably greater rarity; though as Magdalena points out to her father, who forgives her upon learning that her hymen is unbroken, "there is a scientific explanation." We're not sure what that is, except that Herman did once explode on Magdalena's leg, and as we're reminded, sperm cells are designed for one primary purpose, to find their way inside a woman's vagina. (Perhaps a useful reminder for gay males.) The idea that this virginal pregnancy may be a "milagro" (miracle) is a theme that's touched on but not developed.

Quinceañera starts rather limply with the somewhat rhythmless coverage of another girl's fifteenth birthday celebration. The non-professional young people don't deliver their lines with much energy or conviction. But once we get to know Magdalena, Carlos, and Tio Tomás we begin to care about them, and they're specific, as far as it goes. A plot that was more strongly integrated and cut deeper would have added much. Unfortunately the finales and resolutions are as bland and pat as they are heartwarming. And it remains unclear whether the gay white men are meant to be satirized, or their characters are just poorly written (and directed). The film, which was a big hit at Sundance and has had some other festival mileage, intermittently charms and puzzles us without ever quite coming together dramatically or artistically. There are at least three interesting stories here, but unfortunately the filmmakers seem to have liked the neighborhood so much they just couldn't decide what to focus on.

[Chris Knipp]

I'm sorry I offended you by suggesting you might be predisposed to like Quinceaneara, though why that should be such a bad thing I don't understand. It isn't logical to say the mainstream non minority critics whom you quote can never be accused of a predisposition. They can be as easily as you or me. And their saying the movie is sweet and warm hearted and nuanced doesn't contradict anything I say. My points afre more specific and go to the structure of the film, and I say the characters are sweet, but that they are without depth, which is a point not considered in the quotes. You can always marshall a bunch of quotes and they don't prove anything and when presented in this kind of "vote" manner they add little to a discussion of the specifics of a film.

I made a mistake in pointing to your possible predisposition, when it is you who should have done that. I take as an exemplary treatment of this issue the statements Nathan Lee made last year about Brokeback Mountain, which i quoted on our Brokeback thread. Lee is a member of the New York Film Critics Circle and a young man who identifies himself as gay. He said in several places, including Film Comment, that though he had problems with Brokeback Mountain, mainly that he found it conventional and bland, it was the great epic tragic romance that gay men have been waiting for from Hollywood for generations, and he had to herald its arrival with thanksgiving, despite his aesthatic and critical reservations. I would be the last person to claim my own lack of bias on Brokeback Mountain. I said as plainly as I could in my review of it that it deeply moved me because as a gay man of a certain age I felt that it told my story, and I felt that way ab out the Annie Proulx short story when it appeared ten years ago, which also deeply affected me. I too would agree, though I'm not as bothered by it as the younger and edgier Nathan Lee, that Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain is conventional and mainstream. But that's what makes it a milestone for gay people. And from my point of view and Nathan Lee's it's essential to herald the movie. i would see nothing wrong with a hispanic person heralding the arrival of a similar movie, despite its being conventional and in some ways lacking in edge, for representing hispanic experience in a touching way. This is the kind of case where bias or predisposition is an essential thing to acknowledge. If I or even more Nathan Lee were to greet Brokeback Mountain as simply one of the greatest movies ever made, without acknowlededging our personal involvement in gay experience and need to have it acknowledged and shown on screen in a powerful way, that would be pointless and dishonest and a way of acting that is a disservice to the cause, if we have a cause, which we certainly do. It is important to acknowlege who one is and how that affects one's emotional responses to a film, especially where one's deepest and most essential nature is at issue.

There are times when it's essential to overpraise a movie for personal reasons. I would be willing to say that I overpraised Brokeback Mountain, since I listed it as the best US movie of the year. I coudln't do otherwise, but a different person with otherwise similar views on films, other than gay-themed ones, might have not rated Brokeback no. 1. Brokeback was the most important movie of the year to me, for purely personal reasons. Brokeback means more to me than it does to Oscar Jubis. I have a predisposition. There are no two ways about that. My response to Brokeback Mountain was extremely strong. But that's why I admire Nathan Lee for his strong stand. Because he didn't like the film as much as I did, but he acknowledged in powerful language the importance of taking a stand in favor of it, for him as a gay person. There are times when bias is a point of honor.

[cinemabon]

Without a doubt not only did Brokeback Moutain create a permanent stamp on the possibilities for future ventures of this genre but it also changed many people's minds about closet angst and the bitter struggle for recognition in the face of ingrained bigotry. I still did not care for the ending. For once, I want filmmakers to give gay men a film with a happy ending, where people can actually succeed for a change and come away with a positive feeling (There's a lot to be said for feeling positive about a subject, Chris.)

[Chris Knipp]

I hope Broekback does clear the way as you say, cinemabon. As for the ending, remember that was three decades ago, though there are plenty of tentimonials about how such things still happen. That's why there's a closet, because it can be dangerous outside it. And that's also the way Annie Proulx's powerful and remarkable story ends.

[cinemabon]

I agree, however, Chris, it just seems as if so many 'gay' stories have a tragic endings rather than an adjusted happy one as so many hetro stories do. Granted the story ended three decades ago during a setting of hatred and bigotry.

[Chris Knipp]

You know that line that begins Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, "Happy families are all alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"? In fiction, trouble is more particularized or particularizable and hence more nteresting than serenity. Romeo and Juliet doesn't end happily either. These are the stories people like. If the couple was happy, and everything went okay, then there isn't much to talk about or to watch. Narrative is built out of struggle, out of conflict, out of difficulty. But of course the Brokeback Mountain story is a pretty bleak one, and not all gay life is like that by any means. It's a great romantic tragic love story though, and that's why it touched so many people of all persuasions. And gay relationships are among those that have worse odds for suceeding, because the world tends to be against them as is true also for different kinds of mixed marriages, accross cultural or national lines, accross generational lines, and so on.

[mouton]

I almost feel like continuing this thread may result in someone being killed. I've heard of heated debate but this debate boils over, gentlemen.


Bias is not ipso facto a sin, but potentially a positive value, a source of expertise, enthusiasm, eloquence in interpretation. We have minds, but we also have hearts, and without both, we are nothing.

Extremely well put, Chris. As far as I'm concerned, one cannot be an honest film critic without acknowledging their own biases. The nature of the art is subjective and cannot be taken seriously if it tried to be anything else.

I saw QUINCENEARA last night. (Did I spell that right?) I had heard it was good and had seen the post here in the main page for months. I don't understand, after sitting through it, how the film managed to garner such critical praise. I did not dislike the film. In fact, I felt that the L.A. setting showed a clash between cultures that had negative effects on both sides. All these young Latina girls blubbering on about shopping and text messages. And gay men sitting around a table discussing their Latino boy toy like exactly that, removing every trace of humanity from him. And even though the notion of the non-traditional family is becoming more widely shown, it is one that touches me personally every time. Call that my own bias.

Despite these positive aspects, I did not see the film as anything more than simple and at times hollow and obvious. The character of Magdalena is sympathetic and her growth is welcome. The directors seem to understand her desire to fit in as well as her maturity to know what matters more in life. How then are the gay men in this film portrayed so flatly as men without souls or love given that they are loosely based on the directing couple themselves? They use people to explore their own fetishes; they use each other to give their lives meaning, and they finish by evicting an elderly man from his home of several years and think nothing of it.

It is to their credit to be able to give depth to a young, Latina woman, as it would be to any creative person able to understand the plight of another whose background is so unlike their own. To do this, one has to be able to see what is common to all humanity in the experience. I do however expect a gay man to be able to do justice to a gay character, to make them human and not just a charicature.

Don't shoot, gentlemen.

[Chris Knipp]

We'll see what Oscar has to say about the movie now..... I've said my say about it. Though this was a heated discussion I think some interesting topics came up. There are so many other movies more in the foreground now. Just saw Alpha Dog and Tears of the Black Tiger. I am home in California now and hope to write about them, also make up my annual Best Lists.