Prick Up Your Ears (1987)

by jake on June 20, 2010

The story of Joe Orton and his partner, Kenneth Halliwell, tracks the latter’s relationship with the former’s burgeoning success. It is, of course, tragic, but the tragedy is less a reflection on being gay than an attempt to understand the symbiotic relationship between two men when that unanimity becomes encumbered. Personally, I’ve come to see the mainstream Hollywood takes on homosexuality as a little tiring, insistent as they are on kowtowing to the tragic proportions of your typical grecian ode which is to say, a death at the end that levels all of the surrounding characters’ humanity and causes them to cry in closets clutching clothes (which is unfair, because Brokeback Mountain was good, all things considered, for its otherness and at least the humanity on display was not a grieving straight person).

Prick Up Your Ears, which was Halliwell’s suggested title for the film for the Beatles that Orton came under contract to pen, is an intelligent and ruminative look at a married couple and their difficulties, and how the instability of one both caused loyalty and dissolution (oh so often it does). The film contains a somewhat awkward structure, framed as an investigation into the biography the film is based upon, which allows the literary agent (a fantastic Vanessa Redgrave) to provide some slippery meta-commentary on the action we’re seeing her participate in (for example, when Joe Orton takes her, Peggy, to receive an award instead of Halliwell, who must continue to pretend to be the ever-more successful Orton’s personal assistant). The author of the biography, John Lahr, is portrayed as an absorbed writer with his own “personal assistant” suffering some burgeoning animosity of her own (his wife, who may or not be a construct of the screenplay — all biographies that I can find note that he was married in 2000, with no prior marriages — which suggests more about Lahr than it does the subject of his book).

Should have seen it coming.

It’s also a great showcase as to how a complexly layered series of timelines (before Orton and Halliwell met, after they met, before & after success, before & after their deaths, etc) can be jumbled together in a coherent way without obvious and pandering title cards to orient the audience(!). Small physical details that just exist are enough to signify change, for example, take note of the scene split across the beginning and the end of the film, where the only acknowledgement of this is Orton’s jacket, and yet you know and feel plenty comfortable with this, or the varying degrees of completion to which Halliwell’s collage covers their bedroom wall (filmed in Halliwell and Orton’s actual flat, barring the death scene).

The performances are also fantastic, with Gary Oldman once again disappearing almost completely, and the warmth of Alfred Molina’s most recent performances (such as in An Education) giving his performance here an even greater sense of desperation to foster his connection to his lover as Orton slips away into success.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

engine June 22, 2010 at 8:19 pm

I thought this was a great movie. er… film, I mean. What an intimate yet dysfunctional relationship they had: intensely competitive, but strangely complementary. I am loathe to call it a “gay film” because to do so would be to reduce it to the flim flam that TLA releases.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: