The Silver Screen: Color Me Lavender

Worse than the films it features!! Concentrates on a few actors and movies. No idea what clip is from what movie. It all got very confusing - well for me anyway. Also irritating was that some clips went for .3 of a second. I was barely able to understand what was said in the clip, let alone 'get' the lavender part to it. Clips are put on freeze frame while the narrator talks endlessly about what could be almost considered 'gay conspiracy theories'..

One of the most boring...and irritating documentaries I've ever seen. The Celluloid Closet and Fabulous puts this documentary to shame!

I'll be steering clear of Bob Hope, Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye movies for a LONG time..

a documentary about maybes and if's, but nothing really concrete. It total misses the actual LGBT referenced in the "celluloid closet". Virtually no Lesbian content.

I agree with the other reviews it also misses out the UK films of the time that did deal with LGBT content like "victim" or the US film "children's hour" and I would recommend the "celluloid closet" if you want that

I can't imagine this film satisfying most people who watch it--whether gay or straight. While you'd think it would be a study of the history of gay actors in film OR gay characterizations, it really isn't very often--and it certainly is NOT very exhaustive. It's a shame, as I was fascinated to see how, for example, the Production Code changed how gayness was or wasn't shown or discussed in movies. Or, how difficult it was for gay actors over the decades--how they had to deeply closet themselves in order to make it in the overtly macho Hollywood environment. Or, how Hollywood mistreated or condoned homosexuals (both cases are true--and there are many examples of both extremes).

The film clearly is rarely about human rights but about voyeurism. Instead of being educational, most of the film is spend showing various clips of effeminate or less than macho characters. In fact, the viewer is inundated with TONS of clips--many of which seem irrelevant and many of which don't even imply homosexuality. All too often, they are trying to imply something that may not have been intended at all. It felt less educational or objective and more like a film for gay people might want to watch and laugh at as the actors behave or deliver lines that are not all that juicy--certainly NOT intended as any sort of social statement.

I'd say skip it--there MUST be something better out there on the subject.

It's interesting to read the outraged "reviews" others have posted here. The title makes it clear what the author/director's point of view is –Why act shocked? This documentary explores themes and images that are now archetypal, from a modern gay perspective. That it could merely be our modern eyes seeing more than the various filmmakers intended is a question that is explored, but the director provides so many examples that, in the end, you find yourself accepting his point of view.

This documentary is unabashedly gay; written and directed by, and starring gay men. It assumes that the viewer is either gay, or completely comfortable with and knowledgeable about homosexuality. This is not meant for closet cases. Those who approach it with an open mind (and a decent knowledge of old movies and character actors) will find it extremely interesting and enjoyable. Film buffs and queer historians won't find too much here that's new, but the included clips provide clear, specific examples of the topic.

There are certainly problems with this movie, though not necessary those complained about by some of the previous reviewers on here, who want it to be more complete and inclusive. This is a movie, folks. It can't go on for hours. If you want complete and inclusive, you need to read some books on the topic.

I thought the analysis of some of the scenes presented was convincing. Others, however, I found unconvincing. Your mileage will vary. The "Walter Brennan" type, for example, about which the movie talks at great length, does not have to be read as gay. Certainly that type didn't want to have anything to do with women, and wanted male company in an isolated world without women. His role in *Meet John Doe* is probably the clearest example of that. But there is, at least for me, NO erotic tension between Brennan and Cooper in that movie. It's not that Brennan's Colonel isn't interested in women - though he isn't. It's that he doesn't seem to be interested in romance or intimacy of any sort. He certainly wants male companionship, but that in itself does not a homosexual relationship make.

What bothered me the most about this movie was that too often we see clips from movies that are not identified. This could easily be corrected with captions.

I was also surprised by the low quality of a fair number of the clips.

This movie isn't boring, as some have said, nor is it a waste of time. But it's as often frustrating as informative.