James Franco has been on an experimental film kick as of late with his rendition of the classic 1930 Faulkner novel As I Lay Dying and his upcoming project Child of God (another novel adaptation), so it really comes to no surprise that Franco (and Travis Mathews) have decided to exercise their creativity by reimagining a graphic gay sex segment that was cut from William Friedkin’s 1980 film Cruising. Though the way Interior. Leather Bar. actually plays out is more of a docudrama than a straight forward imagination of Friedkin’s scene. Whole experience ends up getting pretty meta in certain parts like when a camera is filming another camera which is filming the re-imagined footage. It becomes impossibly hard to tell what is actually unscripted and what is being presented as being unscripted, which at times is as intriguing as it is frustrating.

As I mentioned above, the source material for this film comes from the 1980 film Cruising, which William Friedkin famously had to cut a 40 minute scene in order to avoid getting the dreaded X rating from the MPAA. Cruising starred Al Pacino as an undercover police detective who is assigned to catch a serial killer in New York’s gay S&M and leather scene. At first Pacino’s is taken aback at what he sees, but curiosity eventually settles in. The scene that was cut had graphic depictions of gay sex and was titled Interior. Leather Bar. Considering even today we are not completely immune to such critical observation of gay sexuality (take Blue Is The Warmest Color for example), just try to imagine the level of taboo towards homosexuality thirty years ago.

An interesting part of Interior. Leather Bar. (as noted in our coverage during the Berlinale premiere) is how the extras justify their reasons for signing up to for the film. During interviews for their roles, a lot of the candidates openly admit that they are doing this project because of the prospect of working with James Franco. One person even mentions he hopes for the chance to see Franco naked. Most do agree that the subject matter is exciting enough to warrant interest. However, Val Lauren, the man depicted to play Pacino’s lead character of Steve Burns, says he is unsure about what this is hoping to accomplish, but that he simply trusts that Franco is onboard with the film. Although these motives are completely frank, they come off as a rather shallow reason to take on such a controversial role. The fact the film chooses not to edit these parts out is enough to raise the audience’s suspicions that there could be more to this than meets the eye.

The filmmakers admit in the early minutes of this film that trying to present the 40 minutes as if were the actual lost footage is the wrong way to approach it. Instead both Franco and Mathews chose to interpret the scene with artistic freedom as they see fit. Adding a layer of complexity to that, they frame the film as if it were a documentary about a leading straight man that has reservations about the homosexual acts he is about to witness. So when the films reveals itself to be more of a narrative, it almost becomes an interpretation of the actual film Cruising, rather than just a scene from it. But more importantly, it is an examination of how even today people have issues with gay sex in film.

Without question the most interesting part of Interior. Leather Bar. is not the actual recreation of the scene that was cut, but rather the “behind-the-scenes” of making the scene. However, due to the fact Interior. Leather Bar. ends up being somewhat fictionalized, certain components become less fascinating. For example, at first it is baffling that some of the people involved have supposedly never even seen Cruising, but then becomes much less absurd once it is realized it is scripted. It works best when the film is somewhat self-aware, because when attempts are made to completely disguise its actual intentions the film is essentially talking down to the audience. Thus, the way the film is presented slightly diminishes the meaningful purpose and powerful messages found within it. But only slightly.

I have some very unfortunate news; the general theater audience that I have been ranting and raving about over the past few posts has let me down. Let me clarify this. Remember the first time you saw Fonzie jump the shark, and then the episode ended with no one getting eaten? That is a comparable sense of disappointment that I experienced in the audience during my latest screening. I’m not sure where they came from, or if this was an anomaly of jerks that just happened to all attend the screening, or what, but it was a very telling moment; and this moment actually served to enhance my experience of the film I had just seen.

I attended a sort of double feature. Or more accurately put, a simultaneous screening of a long short and a short feature–the films being Chiralia and Die Wiedergänger respectively and both being German films. Chiralia only drew a few impatient grumbles, proving to be somewhat experimental, but beautifully shot telling a story that depicts the same event of a child nearly drowning three times, but in parallel universes and done such that you never know that the universes have changed. I only came to this conclusion after learning that the writer and director had a Ph.D in Physics. The film was certainly very difficult to decipher.

The second film was extremely experimental, narrating a story that didn’t even come close to matching the images presented. This is where everything went to hell in the theater. The film was only 60 minutes, but nearly half the theater emptied before the lights turned back on. People just couldn’t handle it. I’m ok with this, I suppose. If you are willing to pay full price for a ticket and then leave before the end that is your prerogative. What I was not ok with, was the behavior during the Q and A with the crew after the film. People boo’d. People accused the team of a lack of vision. One man had the audacity to actually tell the director that he wanted to take a poll to find out how many other people in the theater thought the film was “complete shit.”

I’ve expressed my own opinion during this coverage about experimental film. I do have a hard time with it, but I also seriously respect it as an art form and this response was uncalled for; not to mention completely rude. My end opinion? The audience behavior told me perhaps more about the people than all my travels to date. Though I hate to generalize the world on this one international audience, I think such a conclusion can be made; and it is in the audience reaction that I truly experienced something from the film. Many people, when confronted with something they do not understand, will simply turn and run away. Others will stand up and declare it “complete shit.” And many who may have the opposite opinion as the popular group will simply remain silent in their seats. As for me, I might not understand it, but I trust the artist and his personal vision. On the festival level, I trust my programmers when they select such a piece and deem it worthy of presentation. Die Wiedergänger ended up being a living piece of art, and I would like to urge people to take some time and have patience with what they do not understand.

Moving on…

Interior: Leather Bar.

On the topic of experimental film comes James Franco’s third project to be presented at Berlinale–though in one of the press conferences he couldn’t help but note he had submitted four, and one was “deemed not worthy.” I think we can all imagine his tone as he expressed this. Interior: Leather Bar is not what you expect it to be. Initially billed as a recreation of lost footage from the Al Pachino film Cruising, Interior: Leather Bar was assumed to be an artistic rendition of the scene, or of the creation of the scene, as well as a statement against censorship. Rather, what we have is more of a quasi-documentary/mocumentary/behind-the-scenes film about a personal project of Franco working on recreating the making of the scene. Essentially, it isn’t entirely clear what the approach is, since we do not know if Franco was honestly working to recreate the scene from Cruising, if the film we get is scripted, or if it just a display of the artistic process.

Interior: Leather Bar is extremely raw, and in this way makes a good stance against censorship. Be prepared to see a good amount of explicit sexual content, and if this makes you uncomfortable, I would say do your best to bear it because the film is exceptionally intriguing. For me, the most interesting part of the film was hearing the varying reasons the extras had to try and be in the footage Franco was supposedly working to recreate. Some were there to try and get an “in” with Franco, others were there just for the subject matter, and some truly believed in Franco’s project. The dialog between all characters in the film is very poignant. From Franco trying to come to terms with what it is he is trying to do, to the individuals “getting to know each other” a bit right before jumping into a scene of hardcore, leather clad sex.

The film for me was really a look at the artistic process, and the emotions and struggles we go through to bring our visions to life. There are moments of tremendous doubt, but Franco pulls through with the help of his friends who believe in him and what he is doing. It makes a statement about the need to surround ourselves with those who want the best for us, and will be the voice of support when we are ready to give up. Whatever Franco was trying to accomplish with this project, I would say he was successful. I really enjoyed it, and found myself really wishing it was longer than 60 minutes. The method of shooting the film interested me on a journalistic level, and this is certainly not your average film. The real reason behind how this film came together may always remain a mystery to me, but I am fine with that. I think it is best to not know sometimes and just trust the vision of the art.

RATING: 8.1

James Franco at a press conference for his film Interior: Leather Bar

COMING UP: With the festival coming to an end, I am enjoying the time I now have to relax a bit. I have seen nearly all of the bigger name films I was hoping to see, and am now branching out a little bit more–attending a few screenings at random just to get a look at some films that I may never have another chance to see. The awards will be occurring soon, and I am really anxious to see the jury’s impression of the films that have been screened throughout the week.