I have not seen it (no HBO), but was just talking to a friend about it (listening to her, actually) She’s involved in independent film making and I usually agree with her assessments of movies. She said, as some of you here have hinted, that it was just boring and really dragged. She was also disappointed that the film didn’t show more of Librerace’s home.
Why post thoughts not my own in a thread about a movie I haven’t seen? Really, I just wanted to comment on this:
You have my sympathy. In 1995 and 1996 I was in school, and good friends with, a guy named Tim McVey.
(For those not conversant in US news from last century, Timothy McVeigh was one of the people responsible for bombing a US Federal building in Oklahoma City in the spring of 1995)
Watching that movie just reminded me how strange Liberace’s performances were. After watching it, I pulled up a bunch of Liberace performances on youtube just to see if they were as strange as I remembered: yup.
I don’t remember thinking much about Liberace in the 70s and 80s, but did most people still think he was straight?
[QUOTE=gwendee]
You have my sympathy. In 1995 and 1996 I was in school, and good friends with, a guy named Tim McVey.
(For those not conversant in US news from last century, Timothy McVeigh was one of the people responsible for bombing a US Federal building in Oklahoma City in the spring of 1995)
[/QUOTE]
Timothy McVeigh is also the name of a decorated U.S. Navy veteran who filed an important lawsuit over the invasion of privacy that led to his being discharged for being gay. (He is usually referred to in the press as Timothy R. McVeigh to distinguish him.) As a result, I’ve read in more than one HuffPo and CNN comment section that “The guy who bombed the Oklahoma City government building because he was a queer soldier!”, sometimes even coming from somebody you’d think would know better (i.e. somebody who can apparently read and type).
When I watch them now I’m surprised by how cheesy they were. I remember being dazzled when I was a kid watching them on TV, but seeing the concerts and seeing his houses now they look tacky and like they could barely pass the “10 foot rule” of theater costuming and props (except the jewels, which were real); the dancing waters he made famous are especially tacky in retrospect. Of course he also died before the anti-fur faction became anywhere near as powerful as it is now.
I guess the threshold for bling and glam and glitz was just lower in the '70s and '80s.
Re: the movie- I thought Debbie Reynolds did a great job, btw. “So, I’ll take a check.” Though she did remind me as much of Miss Swan as she did an old Polish woman.
It’s really hard to believe this but throughout most of his career Liberace was the highest paid performer in the country. He routinely sold out shows everywhere he went, everywhere, big box venues, thousands of people. If you can pack the Hollywood Bowl, Radio City Music Hall, the Las Vegas Hilton, you’re a star.
By today’s standards he looks like an old queen, a big ol’ cornfed ham, too. And his music is a pastiche of messy stuff … to quote from one of his reviewers, he made the hard stuff easy, the easy stuff hard, and all of it ridiculous, pretty much. The audiences of his time ate it up, they loved him, loved the spectacle, enjoyed the music.
The boy did have real technique … but he knew how to use it, just enough so that he didn’t get unpopular.
This was before today’s glitter figures; Liberace was unique. But tastes change, and what was popular then is reviled today, and so it is with yesterday’s idols.
In the early 1990s, when I was in college, one of my classmates got married, and considered not changing her name because her married name was going to be Cindy Crawford. She decided to do so anyway.
I lived in Sioux City for a while, hometown of Ann Landers (which was a pen name) and heard about a woman whose name really was Ann Landers.
And you know that ED drug Cialis? Its launch was delayed by a few months, not because of safety or efficacy issues, but because some people with the surname Cialis sued the drug company to have the name changed. As we all know now, they were unsuccessful. :smack:
My only direct experience of Liberace performing was on TV. I was young enough and sheltered enough not to know from gay or straight, but I did think it was a character - that he’d go home take off the wig and the furs and the jewelry and just be a guy in a polo shirt in a recliner like my dad or my uncle. That his job was showbiz.
I’m watching this now. Michael Douglas is giving me the creeps playing this part! The first fifteen or so minutes of the movie I was laughing, now I’m like “Ummm, ehhhh…ew”.
I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. They may as well send Michael Douglas the Emmy right now.
The AV Club has a nice review of it. As the author points out, on the surface it seems like a paint-by-numbers story of a love affair gone bad, but it’s also a story of the progressing gay rights movement. The story would be much different if it happened today as opposed to 30 years ago.
Rob Lowe totally stole his scenes. Give an Emmy to the make-up artist too.
Of course it was over the top - but so was Liberace. Gaudy, tacky and the definition of nouveau riche, Liberace was one of a kind.
It might seem silly now, but the little old ladies who loved him didn’t think of him being Gay, he was just a sweet man who was funny and witty. Of course, anyone who was Gay didn’t need a whole lot of Gaydar to figure him out even back then.
The movie was a nice slice of life for back in the day…secrets, hiding, fear of being exposed and ruining your career…gee, do you think there are any celebrities or sports figures today who could relate?
This also bolsters the concept of Gay Marriage…say what you will about Scott Thorson, he was every bit the spouse and, in any hetero marriage, he would have at least gotten a large settlement and a house and lived nicely after the break up/divorce. Plus, one wonders if Liberace would have had a better life if he could have been open and lived his life freely - but back then, it really wasn’t much of an option.
One question - in the trailers for the film there was a scene of Matt Damon smashing the Rolls in the back stage (looked like he was high?) but that scene wasn’t in the film, was it?
Good film - not exactly Oscar worthy, had it been shown in movie theater as the director had planned - but still a good film that I think will be a classic over the years.
I did like Debbie Reynolds and her comment, “I can take a check.”
Because that wasn’t the face of “gay” back then. First of all, it would be many years before that meaning of the word “gay” hit the mainstream. So in most people’s eyes, homosexuals were literally criminals. They were perverts who lurked in shadows and abused little boys. Nobody who was so bright and shiny and sparkly and lovable could possibly be homosexual. Though some of us (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) knew all along, most people just considered him an extravagant showman. The good Catholic lady next door to us never missed his TV show, and to her, he was indeed America’s most eligible bachelor, nothing more.
Where I thought the film could have dug deeper is how Liberace’s outlandish and destructive behavior might have been driven by the secrecy and self loathing. Douglas’ performance isn’t quite a caricature, but I didn’t feel that it was a fully realized person either.
