thefourthvine: Two people fucking, rearview: sex is the universal fandom. (Default)
Keep Hoping Machine Running ([personal profile] thefourthvine) wrote2011-02-18 09:42 pm
Entry tags:

A Sort of Review or Something: Anchors Aweigh

There are some older movies that are an absolute joy to watch, that keep you totally riveted. After they're done, you turn to your partner and say, "Why don't they make movies like that anymore?"

This is not that kind of movie.

Anchors Aweigh. Oh, Anchors Aweigh. I first realized we were watching something truly stupendously special during the scene where Clarence is sitting in a rocking chair, staring happily at Joe's underwear-clad ass - said ass having been carefully positioned outside the covers by someone who surely had some good reason for it - as Joe sleeps. Clarence also glances from time to time at the clock, which shows it's after one; Joe had a date at twelve. Clarence is making sure he misses it.

There is a name for that, Clarence. It is cockblocking, and I don't care if you're a naïve choirboy from Brooklyn (no, I am not kidding), dude, you don't get a pass. In all honesty, there's no pass in the world that could put an innocent interpretation on that maneuver.

The rest of the scene - including the crotch-cam shot, as Clarence lies on his back with his legs in the air, while Joe tells him he will have to be Joe's slave forever (really not kidding) - follows logically from that opening, stopping just short of the actual assfucking.

Although you can tell it happens.

But I don't want you to think this review is a recommendation, because here's the thing: to get to the undeniably slashy bits - and they aren't so much "bits" as "any scene in which Clarence and Joe are alone together" - you have to suffer through the rest of the movie, which is mostly so skeevy it made my skin try to crawl off my body.

Like, there's a scene where a policeman brings a runaway kid home in the company of two just-off-the-boat Navy sailors he picked up off the street. (Don't ask.) The kid's guardian, Aunt Susie, isn't home, so the policeman leaves him there with the two sailors, whose names he doesn't even know. He just knows they have uniforms. Later, when Aunt Susie gets home, she reacts like this is all perfectly normal and aboveboard. Who doesn't occasionally come home late from work to find her eight-year-old nephew alone with two random sailors? Gosh. Happens all the time! The obvious thing to do is make these strange men some coffee!

Although the problem there may simply be that Aunt Susie has some kind of inability to express or feel emotions of any kind. She may in fact be a robot. Because when those same two sailors ruin a date - and her only chance at a job she badly wants, and no, 1945 Hollywood, that isn't at ALL revolting! - by announcing, in song, that she's had sex with the entire US Navy, her reaction is to say, "I know you didn't mean it." Then I think she offers them coffee again. I, myself, would have handled things differently. Especially if I'd been armed with hot coffee.

Or it may be that Aunt Susie actually was hoping they would take her nephew and never bring him back. I could understand. Donald is the most annoying child I have ever beheld. And kids don't normally annoy me. But this kid - oh my fucking god. I just wanted to shriek, "I hate you! SHUT UP! I HATE YOU!" every time he opened his mouth. (I managed to hold it in two times out of every three, though.) He's the kind of kid who you know, you know played on his "Aw, shucks, I'm so adorable" shtick to get away with setting fire to buildings and eating his classmates' still-beating hearts. There was visible evil in his gaze; he somehow managed to reside in the uncanny valley even though he was, as far as we could tell, human. (Best Beloved was actively rooting for his horrible death until I revealed that he was played by Dean Stockwell, who also starred in a 1980s TV series called Quantum Leap. BB has an abiding love for Quantum Leap and will hear no wrong of it or of the people who starred in it. Also, she assures me Stockwell was considerably less irritating in that. So she's prepared to forgive him. I still haven't.)

Here's how much the non-gay parts of this movie bothered me:
  1. You know how there are editors for most movies, to take out the unnecessary parts? They were all working on war propaganda, apparently, because this movie has scenes that start an inexplicably long time before anything actually happens, and also random interludes where Jose Iturbi plays lengthy pieces in their entirety, apparently on the "We might as well get our money's worth" principle. This movie is 143 minutes long and at least 40 of those minutes are padding. But I loved the padding, because when Jose was playing, Donald wasn't talking, and Joe and Clarence weren't gaily conspiring to ruin some poor woman's life.

  2. I knew one thing going into this movie. I knew eventually Gene Kelly would dance with a mouse. I spent the first hour pinning my hopes on this, hoping it would be awesome, hoping it would at least partially redeem the skeeviness, and, above all, hoping it would be long. When the mouse dancing was over - and it was not nearly long enough, let me tell you - I was honestly downcast. Usually I can find something better to do with my evenings than wish a mouse would come back for an encore.
But this movie has its high points. And they all revolve around the gay naval love of Joe and Clarence. If you think I'm kidding - early in the movie, Joe and Clarence get leave. Joe is immediately off to see Lola, who is his "girlfriend." (Quotes inserted because I doubt Lola even exists. I really, really doubt it.) Clarence follows Joe and, when caught, asks if he could just watch Joe with Lola. You know. To pick up a few tips.

Yes. I am not kidding. Clarence invited himself along for a threesome. Keep in mind that Clarence is technically the naïve sailor.

At one point, Joe takes Aunt Susie out for a Coke - and he calls her Aunt Susie, which, okay, he's older than she is and also not her nephew, but I could deal with it, given that for most of the movie he's not supposed to be her love interest (although I'm just going to spoil you right now and tell you he ends up with her), except that Clarence, who is supposed to be her love interest, calls her Aunt SUSAN. They'll be on a date (although it's rare that they actually go on a date alone, because mostly they drag Joe along, probably because they know if they don't he will - this is true - stand outside the restaurant pining) and Clarence will be trying to make time with a woman he calls Aunt Susan. It's horrible.

Anyway, Joe and Aunt Susie have this conversation:

"You're sort of Clarence's guardian angel, aren't you? You're always with him, or talking about him. Why?" AUNT SUSIE, I HAVE AN ANSWER. IT INVOLVES COCKSUCKING.

Joe thinks about and then says, no shit, "I figured he needed a girl." But we were at sea, so I figured I was the next best thing - I mean, he doesn't say it, but it's all right there.

She asks him various things, mostly along the lines of, "But what do you need, Joe?"

And he says, "I don't know, Aunt Susie. Right now, I'm a little confused about what I like." The slash is coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE, people.

The thing is, we already knew Joe was a little confused about what he liked (Clarence, on the other hand, seems not at all confused; he's comfortable with his desire for Joe's ass), because much earlier, while Clarence is asking Joe for a threesome and Joe is trying to gently suggest that maybe he could find, you know, a girl, there's a scene where Joe offers to pretend to be the girl, so that Clarence can get in some practice.

I've read that story, too. It ends in assfucking. But every non-skeevy part of this movie seems to lead, obviously and clearly, to assfucking. It's like two fangirls went back in time and got stuck there, and ended up making this movie as a message to the future.

"How will they know we're stuck?" Fangirl A asked Fangirl B.

"Simple. We'll just include every slash cliché ever invented in one single movie. They'll realize it can't be anything but girls from the future, and they'll come back and get us."

And I, for one, have totally gotten the message. We need to mount an expedition to find those women and get them back here. I can't take watching another movie like this one. This has taken years off my life.

[identity profile] blushingflower.livejournal.com 2011-02-19 07:39 am (UTC)(link)
So, basically, Anchors Aweigh is the crappy West Coast version of On the Town?

[identity profile] thefourthvine.livejournal.com 2011-02-20 05:28 am (UTC)(link)
Apparently it was the warm-up act. (Further down this page, there's a link to the original theatrical trailer for On the Town, which promises it is "twice as gay as Anchors Aweigh."

I'm going to have to watch it just to see if that's true.

(no subject)

[identity profile] nakedwesley.livejournal.com - 2011-02-20 09:16 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] rushthatspeaks.livejournal.com 2011-02-19 07:39 am (UTC)(link)
The movie you actually want if you want slash coming out your ears is Broadway Melody of 1940, in which Fred Astaire and the other guy are so amazingly lovers going in that you kind of get the idea eventually that the girl's role in their relationship is going to be sitting on a chair watching them have sex and smiling happily. Since that also seems to be what she wants, more power to them. Also, it's the only musical I can think of that is about three-dimensional people, more than one of whom is actually a responsible adult, and all of whom have agency.

[identity profile] thefourthvine.livejournal.com 2011-02-20 05:29 am (UTC)(link)
I MUST SEE THIS MOVIE.
ext_1175: (Guadalcanal Diary)

[identity profile] lamardeuse.livejournal.com 2011-02-19 12:00 pm (UTC)(link)
Ahahahahaha, yeah, the movie is pretty creaky when you watch it through the prism of 2011, which is why I try to put my 1945 goggles on when I watch it. Funnily enough, not much pings for me in that movie as a result, except for the line in one of the songs where they imply they actually threatened to beat up a woman for not kissing them. Anchors Aweigh was my go-to movie when I was in university - Gene Kelly's ass in flamenco pants was my reward for getting halfway through a paper.

As for Dean Stockwell, he was actually one of the more natural child actors in classic Hollywood - he's fricking Method compared to most of them. But yeah, the gay is definitely strong with this one - there's a reason that gay men looking for a good time in the first half of the century called US Navy sailors "sea food". :)

[identity profile] thefourthvine.livejournal.com 2011-02-21 05:39 am (UTC)(link)
My googles did nothing. Or possibly I forgot to buy 1945 goggles; I never label the things.

But Gene Kelly's ass in flamenco pants is an excellent reward. (Although now I wonder what your reward was for finishing a paper. I assume there isn't a movie with Gene Kelly's naked ass.)

(no subject)

[identity profile] lamardeuse.livejournal.com - 2011-02-21 10:29 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] ladyvyola.livejournal.com - 2011-02-21 15:16 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] applegnat.livejournal.com 2011-02-19 01:06 pm (UTC)(link)
Ugh COULD NOT SIT THROUGH IT even for delicious Gene Kelly / even for the slash that was radiating off the screen / even for Sinatra's voice, so I'm very grateful that you wrote it up. Thank you.

[identity profile] thefourthvine.livejournal.com 2011-02-21 05:39 am (UTC)(link)
I hear you. The non-slash parts were PAINFUL. I only got through it by promising myself I would write this and SHARE MY PAIN.
ext_3548: (Default)

[identity profile] shayheyred.livejournal.com 2011-02-19 02:41 pm (UTC)(link)
Dean Stockwell worked all the time as a child actor, and he was insufferable IN EVERY MOVIE. As an adult he is adorable.

[identity profile] thefourthvine.livejournal.com 2011-02-21 05:40 am (UTC)(link)
Thank you for the warning! Um. I should probably get a list of his child-actor movies right now, shouldn't I?

[identity profile] jenlev.livejournal.com 2011-02-19 03:13 pm (UTC)(link)
*Word* to what's been said about Dean Stockwell as an adult.

Out of curiosity I wandered over to the Wikipedia page about this movie which says, and I quote and add a few italics too: "It was the first in a series of buddy pictures teaming the cocky dancing Kelly with the (against type) shy singing Sinatra, which culminated in 1949 with On the Town."

:::snorfle:::

I second the recommendation of Broadway Melody of 1940. The "Begin the Beguine" routine is simply astounding. It's even got it's own wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begin_the_Beguine Fred and Eleanor together were quite something.

And for laughs as well as the dancing, Fred and Ginger's early movie 'Roberta'. It's got such hilarity that I'm giggling just thinking of it. And sincerely, some of the dancing is as good as it gets, specifically the routine they do to Smoke Gets In Your Eyes. Oh, and Fred's solo routine in the night club. I think that may be what people saw before he went to Hollywood when he was still on broadway, he just flies. Still, one must suffer through a very bizarre fashion show to get to that, but I think it's worth it.

I gather that Irene Dunne and Randolf Scott got the prime billing on this one, and they're part of why I call Roberta a comedy relief film for the ages. Perhaps that was not their exact intention.

PS. As for some of the other RKO Fred movies, always a treat to see Edward Everett Horton chewing up the scenery. There is quite a bit of sawdust on the set from him alone. Sorry to natter on so, I've adored Fred Astaire for all of my life and am rather fond of Gene's dancing as well. :)

[identity profile] chamekke.livejournal.com 2011-02-19 09:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh, I adore Roberta, it's my favourite Astaire/Rogers film ever. "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes"! "I'm Too Hot To Handle"! "I Won't Dance"! Fred and Ginger look like they're having tremendous fun with the whole thing, too. They do romantic-comic dancing so very, very well in that flick.

And yes, weird fashion show, but you can always play spot-the-impossibly-young-Lucille-Ball as a way of passing the time.

(no subject)

[identity profile] jenlev.livejournal.com - 2011-02-19 21:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] jenlev.livejournal.com - 2011-02-21 11:10 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] ladyvyola.livejournal.com - 2011-02-21 15:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] jenlev.livejournal.com - 2011-02-21 22:10 (UTC) - Expand
ext_2280: (Default)

[identity profile] holli.livejournal.com 2011-02-19 04:33 pm (UTC)(link)
What is it with Gene Kelly and threesomes? Singin' in the Rain is nearly as blatant, if you ask me.

I mean, not that I'm complaining!

[identity profile] tzikeh.livejournal.com 2011-02-19 06:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Have you read the Don/Kathy/Cosmo story "And Write that Symphony?"

(no subject)

[identity profile] holli.livejournal.com - 2011-02-19 19:54 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] teenygozer.livejournal.com 2011-02-19 05:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah, film studies! This is one of those much-loved movie classics that fall further & further out of step with the public until it is, thankfully, forgotten, except for the clips of Kelly dancing with the mouse.

Someone mentioned it already, but IMO, "On the Town" is a (similar) much better movie because it has much stronger female characters. I never liked Anchors Aweigh.
ext_7829: (Default)

[identity profile] gwynevere1.livejournal.com 2011-02-19 08:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Someone mentioned it already, but IMO, "On the Town" is a (similar) much better movie because it has much stronger female characters.

Well, the Original Theatrical Trailer (http://www.tcm.com/video/videoPlayer/?cid=16834&titleId=355) for On the Town *did* promise that it was "Twice as Gay as 'Anchors Aweigh'!" (http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=355&contentTypeId=130&category=trailer)

(no subject)

[identity profile] delurker.livejournal.com - 2011-02-20 12:09 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] gwynevere1.livejournal.com - 2011-02-20 21:22 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_unhurt_/ 2011-02-19 05:29 pm (UTC)(link)
Who doesn't occasionally come home late from work to find her eight-year-old nephew alone with two random sailors? Gosh. Happens all the time!

FWIW, rewatching one of the first few episodes of knightrider a wee while ago (the dvd was a GIFT ok? also, we were quite hungover...) michael and KITT are on holiday in some small town where, naturally, Bad Guys are menacing the barely 20-year-old-girl who runs the local store (they want het to sell up to them so they can use it for some unlikely nefarious purpose or other, as is ever the case in 1980s shows of this ilk). michael intervenes in an episode of menacing and performs a heroic rescyue in v. tight jeans. girl is grateful! girl explains that she is an orphan, and raising her little brother. and... immediately suggests that michael, who she met five minutes ago when he menaced a thug, take her 12*-yo-brother camping with him for a couple of days. as one does. or did. acceptable in the 80s, i guess!

later, as i recall, michael ties him to a tree. (for his own good! no. REALLY.)(to be fair i think the kid wanted to follow michael as he tried to sneak up on the camp of Baddies he has located in the hills. still!)


*or 9 or 10 or 11 - i am bad at estimating the ages of tv children. pre-teen, anyway!
Edited 2011-02-19 17:31 (UTC)

[identity profile] thefourthvine.livejournal.com 2011-02-21 05:51 am (UTC)(link)
the dvd was a GIFT ok? also, we were quite hungover...

Hey, I'm not going to judge; I asked BB to bring this one home from the library, after all. I do not have the moral high ground here. Or the good taste high ground, either.

and... immediately suggests that michael, who she met five minutes ago when he menaced a thug, take her 12*-yo-brother camping with him for a couple of days. as one does. or did. acceptable in the 80s, i guess!


I had to read this bit three times to convince myself I was understand it correctly. Because OMG girl NO. Do not send your little brother off to be tied to a tree by a strange man! NO JEANS ARE TIGHT ENOUGH TO MAKE THAT OKAY.
starfishchick: (s60 - hollywood liberals? - black_eyedgi)

[personal profile] starfishchick 2011-02-19 08:23 pm (UTC)(link)
In the trailer for "On The Town" - with Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra - the tagline is "Twice As Gay As Anchors Aweigh". NO JOKE.

[identity profile] thefourthvine.livejournal.com 2011-02-21 05:52 am (UTC)(link)
I am clearly going to have to watch that and do some careful statistical analysis.

[identity profile] woolly-socks.livejournal.com 2011-02-19 11:01 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh, Jebus. I watched Anchors Aweigh recently myself, and my gods. The whole bringing the kid home to Aunt Susie scene was just so much WTF. The thing that really got me is how she wasn't just 'oh, this is all fine because you seem like such nice men, I will not throw my hot coffee on you', but that she sends one of the nice men off to put her kid to bed. A random fucking sailor, to put her kid to bed. I almost wept with the lack of stranger danger. The innocent naivete was not even charming, it was just horrifying.

[identity profile] thefourthvine.livejournal.com 2011-02-21 05:54 am (UTC)(link)
OMG I KNOW. I mean, it would have been one thing if I believed that the innocence was justified, that no one did bad things to small children in 1945. But - I know they did. So it doesn't look like naivete so much as Sunnydale-style willful blindness and negligence, and, just. NO.

(I was trying to explain to a friend of BB's today what I found so horrifying about that whole scene, and she said, "Oh, you're thinking like a PARENT." But, really, I think I would have been almost as horrified before.)

[identity profile] marfamarfa.livejournal.com 2011-02-19 11:28 pm (UTC)(link)
I grew up watching Quantum Leap and so when Star Trek Enterprise came out, I was like, ugh, because that was THE guy from Quantum Leap, and it was waaaayyy cooler than the ST:E series ever was. Sometimes the old shows are the best ones. :)

[identity profile] thefourthvine.livejournal.com 2011-02-21 05:54 am (UTC)(link)
Wait, was Dean Stockwell in ST:E, too? Was the man EVERYWHERE? Did he ever rest?

(no subject)

[identity profile] marfamarfa.livejournal.com - 2011-02-21 05:56 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] amproof.livejournal.com 2011-02-20 01:31 am (UTC)(link)
I loved this movie as a kid for the slashiness. I've pretty much blocked out all non-slashy bits.

[identity profile] thefourthvine.livejournal.com 2011-02-21 05:55 am (UTC)(link)
That was extremely wise of you, and very considerate of your brain. I wish I could block the non-slashy bits. Some of them were scarring. *shudders*

[identity profile] tawg.livejournal.com 2011-02-20 10:16 pm (UTC)(link)
I wonder if anyone has edited all of the roads that don't lead to ass fucking out of this movie? Because I would watch the condensed version.

Also, this review was hilarious. I had to put my morning coffee on hold so I wouldn't sporfle it all over my keyboard.

[identity profile] thefourthvine.livejournal.com 2011-02-21 05:56 am (UTC)(link)
That person would be a very brave, noble person, sacrificing sanity for the cause. I hope there is such a version. The slashy bits are worth preserving for posterity. (And Gene Kelly's posterior.)

[identity profile] lknomad.livejournal.com 2011-02-24 08:04 pm (UTC)(link)
Hey I saw the dance with the mouse scene at the Hollywood Bowl (I think) last summer during the John Williams concert. Little did I realize that this was a scene from "that kind of movie". If only the audience knew. Did you know they wanted to have Mikey Mouse in that scene but Walt Disney nixed it. They did a live commentary during the scene. I cannot remember who was speaking. Someone who had something to do with the dance was invited to the concert to tell us all about it...You should have come. You could have asked questions.
ext_3167: Happiness is a dragon in formaldehyde  (Win Column)

[identity profile] puckling.livejournal.com 2011-02-25 03:17 am (UTC)(link)
Somehow you always manage to make horrible viewing experiences into amazing reading. I giggled!

[identity profile] suchthefangirl.livejournal.com 2011-03-01 08:21 pm (UTC)(link)
I know this was written ages ago (I was out of the country, I'm slowly catching up), but...

Have you ever seen It Happened in Brooklyn? It's another Frank Sinatra movie. This time he SETS UP HOUSE WITH JIMMY DURANTE! Jimmy wears an apron and cooks him food! Peter Lawford gets the girl in the movie, and Frank gets the girl that's NOT IN THE MOVIE! I showed it to my hubby many years ago, and he, who never ever sees slash (and this was before I realized that my favorite everything was a slashfest) went on and on about how it was the gayest movie ever.

I think both these movies were written back in the day when many of the writers were gay and were making movies for each other. Something for them, that the straight folk wouldn't get...

You're review, btw, made me laugh so hard there were tears. Thank you.

[identity profile] monkey5s.livejournal.com 2011-03-09 03:31 am (UTC)(link)
I was just catching up on LJ, and finally read this today.

First, I don't remember seeing Anchors Aweigh, but I probably did at one point. I do, however, remember seeing On the Town, because the earworm of "New York, New York! It's a helluva town. The Bronx is up but the Battery's down. The people ride in a hole in the groun'. New York New YOOORRRRK, it's a helluva TOOOWWWN!!!"

I watched musicals from the 40's with my mother, who was born in 1928. I can tell you that your concerns on the treatment of children, or of people of "outsider" stature (in this case, WOMEN), were just given the eyeroll treatment by her. She knew they were socially incorrect / mean / preposterous, this was part of the inherent silliness of the genre, as per the people of the era in which it took place.

This is also why Singin' in the Rain was not a hit when it came out in 1952. It was a behind-the-scenes type of story, which just wasn't done at the time. Mom did enjoy it tremendously, because they laid the sarcasm on with a trowel. Also, Gene Kelly.

But, speaking of Mr. Kelly, I can't believe there were all these mentions of his ass in tight pants, yet not a single word about his thighs.

[identity profile] vampirespider.livejournal.com 2011-03-24 09:41 pm (UTC)(link)
Coming in three weeks late, but Gene Kelly's thighs, Oh My. Particularly in An American in Paris. I want to sculpt them.

[identity profile] starbolin.livejournal.com 2011-04-16 11:24 am (UTC)(link)
This is the best movie review I have ever read. Bless you.

Page 2 of 2