Posted on October 29th, 2008 by Colin
I finally got a chance to see Otto; or Up With Dead People, the latest Bruce LaBruce film which had its New York premiere at MoMA on Monday. I’ve been excited about this for the last year ever since it premiered at Sundance. In case you forgot, here’s the awesome trailer all over again, with music by CocoRosie that uses a sample of a kitty meowing.
Honestly, it was pretty much everything I was hoping for. My only criticism is that I think there should have been more explicit sex and gore. Considering the incredibly hot sex scenes in Raspberry Reich, I was expecting to see some actual cum shots. But it’s exactly what it’s been described as, a melancholy movie about a zombie with an identity crisis. Strangely, while I found the film to be more “mild” than “wild,” there’s been a myriad of reactions to the film because of it’s strong content.
Ryan Rotten of shocktillyoudrop.com reviewed the film after seeing it at Sundance:
I should have taken it as a forewarning when the co-producer on this film told me to let her know if I’d still like to talk to director Bruce LaBruce, “if I make it all the way through the movie.” What the hell is that about, right? So, I dubiously enter the theater, hunker down, note of the sold-out crowd on a Sunday afternoon…and take in what is essentially GAY ZOMBIE PORN. Is it a film about a zombie? Sorta. The eponymous character is at conflict with himself - and the people he surrounds himself with doubt he’s undead at all. Even though he insists he is. Throughout the drama, however, I fell witness to a man screwing another fella’s stomach (full penetration shots) and an undead homosexual orgy.
Sorry. Not my bag. I counted roughly 20 - 25 people walk out. The row I sat in cleared out. Two girls behind me passed out, snoring away and likely catching up on missed sleep due to the partying the night before.
Really? The man who also directed a zombie porn of his own, Porn of the Dead, is somehow shocked by this content and is so dismissive as to say, “Sorry. Not my bag.” The same amount of nudity and sexuality in Otto presented in a straight context would have hardly even been called porn. It would just be labeled “sexual content” or something less stigmatized. Furthermore, Alex Billington at firstshowing.net seems to think that the only way to find value in the movie is to be part of Bruce LaBruce’s largely homosexual cult following.
Are the examples of criticism presented obvious examples of homophobia in film criticism? Yes, Watson, I’d have to say that the empirical evidence points to yes. Astounding deduction, Holmes!
My favorite response by far though has to be regarding the dead rabbit eaten by Otto in the opening scenes. A blogger writes in an entry titled “Dead bunnies out of gay zombie porn now” written after viewing the film’s screening in Toronto:
Yes, zombie Otto is standing there holding a dead bunny.
Here’s a proposition for you: Nobody has the right to use a dead animal in gay porn.
[…]
Here’s another question: Can you show me the contract the hare signed in order to act in the picture? I thought porn was all about consenting adults. A dead bunny is neither.
Really? You’re going to object to a dead rabbit from a local German market in a film full of meat anyways? There’s entire scenes that take place in a butcher shops and meat packing factories, and you’re going to pick out this one animal because it is identifiable and traditionally cute? I kind of hope the entry is being facetious, because really any sort of scenario where an animal can be considered consenting is kind of ridiculous. Also I love how LaBruce clarifies that Otto did not eat actual rabbit innards as the rabbit was stuffed “with cleaned pig intestines and sashimi tuna coated with strawberry sauce” to inneffectively try to divert this guy’s misdirected anger. While I might view this Toronto bloggers criticism as tongue in cheek humor, it seems he speaks for a lot of people. LaBruce mentioned in the question and answer session after the screening at MoMA that there was such a strong response to the use of the rabbit that people spammed the Otto MySpace page.
I guess we should expect absurd responses to films with an absurdist premise? Or maybe people are just ridiculous. I vote for the latter.
RSS Subscribe
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
November 15th, 2008 at 10:37 am
I love Bruce and haven’t seen his latest film yet. However, I do object to the use of dead animals in cinema, even if they were not specifically killed for the shoot. Would you not object to the use of a real dead person in a film? I hope you would, and the same respect should be given to animals. As gay men we know what it’s like to be discriminated against on the basis of otherness and that’s what happens to animals. Speciesism is as bad as homophobia. Surely the production could have made a fake rabbit.
[reply this comment]
November 28th, 2008 at 2:40 am
The Movie seems watchable. And I’ll go from there.
But to comment on the comments, particularly commenting on the dead rabbit.
A: Its a rabbit, thus incapable of giving consent as the acknowledgment of the right to consent is a human only characteristic and has no bearing on rabbits.
b: If your arguing that there was no consent of the rabbit given for being in a porno, and dead, perhaps you should start at the beginning and argue it’s consent to life, before it was slaughtered.
C: its dead. lifeless. GONE, let be with its body as the film maker’s pleases, Its not like your destroying it’s rights. after all its incapable of human emotion, and even if it WAS, its still dead, and would of had no idea of the “depravity” of porn because that too is a human taught idea and im sure it was dead before seeing hot naked fornication : 3
d: it’s a bloody rabbit.
[reply this comment]