Short Takes: 'Cola de Mono' (2018) ★★★

A rare instance when the movie
delivers what its poster promises.

Spending Christmas at home does not always mean saving the family business, finding love and exploring the erotic possibilities of candy canes. While the characters of Chilean writer-director Alberto Fuguet’s Cola de Mono are also into sexual exploration—though not with holiday candy—their Christmas is primarily spent dealing with feelings of loneliness, alienation, and getting hammered on the movie’s titular cocktail.

It’s Christmas Eve, 1986, and Santiago teenager Borja (a very effective Cristóbal Rodríguez Costabal) is whiling away his time reading Stephen King, pestering his older brother Vincente (Cristóbal’s real-life brother Santiago Rodríguez Costabal) and irritating his embittered mother (Carmina Riego). “Pay respect to the occasion,” he tells her during dinner. “God was born today.” “And he was killed 33 years later,” his mother sniffs.

After Mama puts herself to bed with pills and booze, the brothers embark on separate sexual journeys. Vincente goes cruising in a city park, while Borja breaks into his brother’s locked room and riffles through his things, discovering Vincente’s poorly hidden collection of gay skin magazines. It’s all sexy fun until a sexual assault/bashing sends Vincente running home, only to discover his privacy violated and that he and his brother have a shared secret, a secret that Borja shows little interest keeping. “We’re alike,” Borja taunts. “We’re brothers. And we like cock.” Then Mama comes to and overhears her sons, at which point the movie suddenly becomes a thriller.

Cola de Mono, its title referencing both an eggnog-like drink and a gay slur in Chile, gets a lot of attention for featuring copious amounts of male nudity and explicit sex (including a brief unsimulated blowjob), but for me its appeal is largely nostalgic. The 1980s pop culture references, from Borja liking books by King and Robin Cook to the boys decorating their rooms with movie posters for Desperately Seeking Susan and the more obscure Willie & Phil, were a treat, as was Fuguet’s resurrecting adolescent memories of hoarding gay porn mags and ogling guys wearing tight polyester gym shorts, with the added bonus that this time I could do so openly if not guilt-free. (I’m sure Cristóbal Rodríguez Costabal is of age, but I felt a little pervy admiring the ass of what is supposed to be a 15- or 16-year-old, though clearly the movie’s marketing team weren’t as conflicted).

As much as I enjoyed Cola de Mono for artistic and prurient reasons, the movie veers off course in its final third when it jumps to 1999, following an adult Borja (now played by Santiago Rodríguez Costabal, sporting a full beard) in what’s essentially an extended epilogue. This part of the movie, which includes a long sequence set inside a gay bathhouse, is titillating, but it serves little purpose beyond adding some bonus sex and nudity. Fuguet hurts his movie further by giving it a shocking ending, then muddying the waters by suggesting it was a film within a film. As much as I appreciated the extra skin, Fuguet would’ve done better to confine Cola de Mono's narrative to 1986. 

Queer Christmas 2022 Gets Sweet n' Sticky

It probably has nothing to do with conservatives getting all worked up over LGBTQs—especially Ts—in 2022 (it’s 2004 all over again!), but there was a dearth of queer-themed holiday movies this year compared to last. Though I only reviewed Single All the Way, 2021 also had The Christmas House 2: Deck Those Halls; Under the Christmas Tree; The Bitch Who Stole Christmas; Love, Classified; Christmas at the Ranch; Christmas on the Farm; and A Jenkins Family Christmas. Christmas 2022 has a paltry three LGBTQ-themed holiday movies (four if you count Falling for Christmas, Lindsay Lohan’s attempt at a soft comeback on Netflix, which I do not).

Though Merry & Gay provided an opportunity to shine a spotlight on some lesbian holiday action and A Christmas to Treasure, a Lifetime movie directed by Jake Helgren, provided low-hanging fruit ripe for picking, I decided to check out Hallmark’s THE HOLIDAY SITTER, starring The Christmas House’s Jonathan Bennett.

But then I learned about another queer holiday movie, Falcon Studios’ CUMMING HOME FOR CHRISTMAS. Though I really didn’t want to subscribe to another streaming service, I figured, what the hell, it’s Christmas. Besides, Falcon was having a sale on memberships. How could I resist?

The two movies do have a lot of similarities. Both feature main characters who lead very hectic lives in New York City, played by men who nicely fill out a pair of slacks, though I suspect only one of them is wearing any underwear. In Sitter, Sam (Jonathan Bennett) is a financial adviser to the super rich. “Right now, I’m trying to convince one client not to buy a social media company,” he tells a date at the beginning of the movie. In Cumming, Dan (Dan Saxon) is an attorney working “twenty-four-hour days.” Maybe that’s why he’s so sleepy.

Jonathan Bennett (right) of The Holiday Sitter and Dan Saxon
of Cumming Home for Christmas play very busy men, though
only one appears to be handling the stress well (#edibles).

The characters in both movies visit families living in smaller towns for the holidays, albeit on different coasts and for different reasons. Sam originally planned on spending his holidays in Hawaii, but as he’s packing for his trip, he gets a call from his sister Kathleen (Chelsea Hobbs), asking for a favor. The surrogate with whom she and her husband Nate (Matthew James Dowden) are having a baby has gone into labor a week early. Could he watch his 13-year-nephew Miles (Everette Andres) and 8-year-old niece Dania (Mila Morgan) while they go retrieve their newborn? He’s not their preferred choice, but Mom’s in Italy and Dad’s up at the hunting cabin in Vermont where there’s no cell reception. Sam may be career-obsessed and self-absorbed, but he’s not an asshole, so he reluctantly agrees to watch his niece and nephew, postponing his trip to Hawaii and heading for the New York suburbs.

Dan, on the other hand, travels to sunny California where his brother Trevor (Trevor Brooks) lives in the family home with his partner Dakota (Dakota Payne), simply because he wants to visit. So, clearly, Dan doesn’t need to be guilted into spending time with his family. Maybe that’s because his family, unlike Sam’s in Sitter, doesn’t give him shit about putting so much energy into his career.

Jonathan Bennett smiles bravely as he walks through hell.

Of course, the families in both movies have gone all out for Christmas. Sitter’s fictional suburb of Brayden has an edge simply because it has snow and almost all its residents—all as white as the snow blanketing their town—seem to always be fighting back an urge to sing carols. In sharp contrast, there are hardly any other residents in the un-named town where Cumming is set, and the ones we do meet, while a bit more racially diverse, all appear to have a take-it-or-leave-it attitude towards the holiday, which I fear unfairly plays into conservative beliefs that the godless liberals of California have outlawed celebrating Jesus’ birthday and are mandating gay marriage between the races. However, the people populating both movies—none of whom appear to earn less than six figures—have appropriately and tastefully decked their halls, though the holiday décor of Cumming appears to be a little more upscale, like a Neiman-Marcus Christmas display. The holiday decorations of Brayden, on the other hand, are accessible to any Target shopper.

Jason (George Krissa) kisses his Mr. Right in The Holiday Sitter
while Dan Saxon kisses his Mr. Right Now, Cole Connor, in
Cumming Home for Christmas.

But while everyone in both movies appears to have ample income, not everyone enjoys financial security. Jason (George Krissa), the attractive contractor in Sitter who lives next door to Kathleen and Nate (not Kate n’ Nate, though that seems too precious for Hallmark to pass up so maybe I’m misremembering), is doing alright, but he’ll need additional funds to cover attorney fees if he goes forward with plans to adopt a child in the coming year. This need for extra cash is why Jason accepts Sam’s offer to hire him as a “co-nanny. Or manny.” Also, Jason has a bit of crush on Sam, the power of boners making him deaf to cringe portmanteaus.

The financial concerns are a bit more dire in Cumming. Trevor tells Dan that the family bakery is not doing well and could close its doors for good if business doesn’t pick up before Christmas. A bigger, corporate bakery is already angling to buy them out, cheap. As in Sitter, help comes from outside the family unit, in the muscular form of Dan’s high school boyfriend DeAngelo Jackson, played by—you guessed it—DeAngelo Jackson. Though Dan is initially reticent about getting back together with DeAngelo, he soon lets him back into his life. When Dan tells DeAngelo about the plight of the family bakery, his former-soon-to-be-current beau offers to help, arranging a meeting between DeAngelo’s friend Isaiah Taye, who “runs a bunch of restaurants in the area,” and Dakota.

Dakota is a shrewder negotiator than Trevor.

The kitchen figures in the narratives of both movies as well. Sitter establishes that Sam is not much of a cook, the movie frequently referencing the last time he babysat Miles and Dania and nearly burned down Kathleen and Nate’s house (he burned a fucking omelet, but that was enough for Kathleen and Nate to file an insurance claim, apparently). However, after Jason, who’s a fabulous cook, teaches Sam how to squirt Redi-Wip on pancakes, Sam’s suddenly whipping up a whole breakfast buffet, complete with vegan options.

Which is about as believable as the movie’s assertion those
muffins are homemade.

Meanwhile, in Cumming, DeAngelo assists Dan in the kitchen when (spoiler alert!) Isaiah Taye orders a thousand holiday cookies to serve in his restaurants. Why is the attorney being tasked with fulfilling this order and not his brother or Dakota—you know, the guys who actually run the bakery? Well, because Trevor and Dakota “have some making up to do in the bedroom.” This casual disregard for overseeing operations gives the audience insight as to why their bakery was failing to begin with. Alas, leaving Dan and DeAngelo unsupervised further jeopardizes the bakery’s future. At least when Sam finally declares his love for Jason, he has the courtesy to do so in a fashion that does not get pubes in his family’s Christmas morning breakfast.

The lawsuits alone will finish this bakery once clients discover
where the butter has been.

Who Christmases Best?

TV holiday movies are so formulaic that whether they feature CisHet or queer leads, Whites or people of color, you pretty much know what you’re in for and The Holiday Sitter and Cumming Home for Christmas are no exception. Both exist in a fantasy world where all problems, be they personal or financial, are easily solved with a Christmas miracle. The Sitter at least takes a moment to acknowledge the realities of gay life, albeit mildly, as when Sam tells Kathleen about why he’s never considered fatherhood: “You’ve known your whole life that marriage and kids were at least an option. That hasn’t been my experience.”

Yet, while Falcon gets props for casting people of color in Cumming Home for Christmas, it makes no mention of LGBTQ’s historic struggles to get the rights to marry and to adopt, instead perpetuating the myth that the only hardship a gay man faces is having to decide which hot guy to fuck and when. Well, that has not been my experience, Falcon Studios. On the other hand, it was refreshing to see a queer storyline in the 2020s that didn’t feel beholden to hetero-normative values. As John Waters once observed, not having kids is one of the privileges of being gay.

The subtle acting style of Jonathan Bennett.

Both The Holiday Sitter and Cumming Home for Christmas have strong production values, with Sitter feeling a bit more TV bound (please don’t judge the cinematography on the shitty SD stills in this post) while Cumming directors Steve Cruz and Ben Rush give their movie a more vibrant, cinematic feel. Alas, when it comes to acting, Sitter is the hands-down winner, though only Bennett truly shines (Bennett also has a story credit and was one of The Holiday Sitter’s executive producers, so this may be by design). He mugs shamelessly, but he still makes for a charming lead. Though there are a couple standout performances in Cumming Home for Christmas (Dakota Payne and Cole Connor, in a bit part as one of Dan’s hookups), most of the cast are so wooden you could use them for tentpoles. Dan Saxon has beautiful eyes and a sweet smile, but you’ll never believe for a moment that he has a job that requires an advanced degree.

Cade Maddox and Taylor Reign make
ATM festive (but no less disgusting)
for the holidays.

Of course, how can audiences expect Emmy (or Grabby) winning acting when both movies trade in cliches, with characters so blandly written that you barely remember them (this might be why Cumming’s screenwriter Rush just has the performers’ names double as character names). There are a few attempts early in Cumming to suggest it will be campy fun (Dakota: “I thought the main characters couldn’t even kiss until the last frame of these holiday greeting card movies.” Trevor: “But did anyone ever say no anal in act one?”), but that’s quickly dropped once the fucking starts, and then it’s the same ol’ “suck that big dick” drivel we’ve heard time and time again. That said, I would adopt a child just so I could sacrifice it if George Krissa were to gasp, “Oh, I love your hole,” before burying his face in Bennett’s ass, just as Dakota Payne does before giving Trevor Brooks a toe-curling rim job in Cumming.

Ultimately, for all their similarities, The Holiday Sitter is the better of the two queer Christmas movies. However, Cumming Home for Christmas does set itself apart in one important way: it’s likely one of the few Christmas movies you’ll see this year to feature candy cane butt play.

Your move, Hallmark.

Short Takes: ‘Gloria’ (1999) ★★

 Sharon Stone tries to downplay her
involvement in the1999 bomb Gloria by
appearing as Jodie Foster on the poster.

I remember my first reaction upon seeing trailers for the remake of Gloria in 1999 and hearing the few clips of its star Sharon Stone speaking in a Noo Yawk accent: Oh, no! Is she going to talk like that for the whole movie?

She does, but really, it’s not that bad, and neither is this Sidney Lumet-directed remake. That said, its falls well short of John Cassavetes’ 1980 original.

This time out Gloria isn’t a tough-as-nails broad but, as portrayed by Stone, a foul-mouthed, smartass floozie. Upon release from a Florida prison—one that generously provides hair and makeup services for its prisoners—she heads back to New York to break up with her gangster boyfriend Kevin (an underwhelming Jeremy Northam) and collect the money she was promised when she took the fall for him. To Gloria’s apparent surprise, her criminal boyfriend is less than accommodating. Worse, Kevin’s goons have kidnapped the 7-year-old son of the gang’s double-crossing (and recently murdered) accountant, and they have plans to make him join the rest of his slaughtered family. Not if Gloria can help it! She overtakes one of Kevin’s henchmen with a sharp knee to his nuts, grabs his gun and then forces the roomful of gangsters to empty their pockets and strip (“Unduh-weah too!”). She takes off with all their money, jewelry and the boy, Nicky (Jean-Luke Figueroa, who isn’t too irritating).

Gloria spends the rest of the movie clomping across NYC in four-inch heels, trying to protect Nicky while simultaneously looking for someone to take the kid off her hands. Along the way she dispenses such words of wisdom as: “You got a small pee-pee, men got big pee-pees. Well, some of ’em. And hopefully, one day you will too.” (Between Stone’s performance and Steve Antin’s script, I half suspect that this movie was originally intended to be a comedy.)

Though it received mostly negative reviews upon its release in January 1999, going on to earn just over $4 million against a $30 million budget, Gloria isn’t anywhere close to being the fiasco I’d anticipated. Stone has certainly done worse (take your pick). What’s surprising is that for all the name brand talent involved (in addition to Lumet and Stone, you get Cathy Moriarity, Bonnie Bedelia and George C. Scott in his final film role), Gloria feels like a B-movie, the type of thing in which Stone would’ve appeared pre-Basic Instinct, albeit as a supporting character. Stone even wears the same hairstyle from that period of her career. Maybe if the movie had been made as a belated rip-off of Gloria rather than a full-fledged remake (Sharon Stone is, uh ...Gina!) people could appreciate it as matinee trash with delusions of grandeur rather than dismissing it as failed Oscar® bait from a star trying to maintain her leading lady status into the next decade. 

Short Takes: ‘Aaron Loves Angela’ (1975) ★★ 1/2

With the recent passing of Irene Cara, I thought I’d check out one of her earliest film roles, director Gordon Parks, Jr.’s 1975 movie Aaron Loves Angela, made when she was just 15 years old.

Aaron (Kevin Hooks, age 17 at the time) is a Harlem teenager being pressured by his father Ike (Moses Gunn) to become a basketball phenom (Ike measures his son daily to see if he’s grown any taller), while his pimp neighbor Beau (Kevin’s real-life dad, Robert Hooks) taunts Aaron for even dreaming of earning any money legally. Aaron’s more concerned about his present, however; specifically, making Angela (Cara), the cute Puerto Rican girl at his school, part of it. He expresses his infatuation through graffiti, tagging walls with “Aaron likes Angela.” Angela knows her mother wouldn’t approve of her dating a Black boy, but she can’t resist Aaron’s charms, or his graffiti. It’s not long before Aaron’s spray painting “Aaron loves Angela” (title drop) on tenement walls.

What drives a wedge between the two teen lovers isn’t racism, however, but Aaron absconding with a briefcase full of cash that he gets through a series of thoroughly contrived events.

This one’s a mixed bag. Parks makes good use of his setting, showcasing the griminess of 1970s NYC without making it seem totally bleak, and there are some effective slice-of-life moments between Aaron and his father and between Aaron and his best friend Willie (Leon Pinkney). Helping the movie immeasurably is its soundtrack, supplied by José Feliciano. But the movie fails as a blaxploitation retelling of Romeo and Juliet, with neither the Super Fly director nor screenwriter Gerald Sanford having much interest in the central teen romance. There’s a bit more attention paid to the animosity between the African American and Hispanic communities—standing in for the Montagues and the Capulets—but even that is fleeting. Parks and Sanford seem more invested in shoehorning a subplot involving a scheming pimp, his good-hearted ’ho and ruthless mobsters. You know, the usual blaxploitation shit.

The acting is decent, at least. I’d like to say Cara makes an impressive film debut (we won’t count her bit part as a dancer in the comedy Apple Pie), but she and Kevin Hooks are merely adequate, with the adult performers—especially Gunn—making bigger impressions. The only truly awful bit of “acting” is from Walt Frazier as himself. In his brief cameo the “NY Knicks basketball legend” (per his Cameo page; I know nothing about sports and care even less) delivers his lines like he’s taping a PSA encouraging kids to stay in school. Though in Frazier’s defense, his dialog is written as such.

Overall, Aaron Loves Angela is enjoyable despite its unfocused storytelling and uneven tone, but it’s no must-see like Gordon Parks, Jr.’s classic Super Fly—or the camp classic (and beginning of Cara’s rapid descent) Certain Fury.

He Should’ve Let It Ring

The 1984 paperback edition of Eyes
teases a different novel than the
one Felice Picano wrote.

Though it’s difficult to believe now, there was a time—before smartphones, before voicemail, and when answering machines were still priced as a luxury item—when people felt obligated to answer a ringing telephone. To just let it ring was simply never considered. It’s true: the past was fucking awful. So is the present, but at least we can block unwanted callers. 

It’s during that barbaric time when we blindly answered our landlines, with no caller I.D. to warn us of who was on the other end, that Felice Picano’s 1975 novel EYES is set.

That impulse to answer a ringing phone is what kicks off the story proper, when Stu Waehner, a twenty-something, New York City social worker, returns from his workday, after a shittier-than-usual subway commute, and hears his phone ringing on the other side of his locked apartment door. Thinking it might be his semi-estranged girlfriend Jennifer, Stu is positively desperate to get inside to take the call, yet he has as much difficulty unlocking his apartment door as a teen-aged girl has trying to start a car in a slasher movie:

“Coming,” he said, and fumbled in his pocket for his key chain.

The phone kept on ringing.

“Don’t hang up yet, Jenny. I’m coming…”

He had to switch everything to under the other arm—these locks had to be opened left-handed.

The phone was still ringing.

“Don’t hang up yet.” One lock. Now for the top one. It squealed, then seemed to be stuck. There it was. Now the long key for the police lock. There! The door swung inward, then abruptly stopped short after opening a few inches.

With the impact, everything under Stu’s arm fell to the hallway floor.

The police lock was stuck.

The phone kept ringing.

And the phone keeps ringing, until Stu finally makes it inside his apartment to answer it. It’s not Jennifer, but a woman asking for Bill. A fucking wrong number. Yet the woman calling doesn’t just apologize and end the call. Instead, she belligerently asks if Stu is sure no Bill lives in his apartment. Stu insists she has the wrong number, and then the woman takes issue with his justifiable annoyance. Remarkably, Stu does not just hang up, but continues arguing with the woman, who calls him a paranoiac and recommends a stay in Bellevue. The conversation just as quickly de-escalates, with Stu apologizing for yelling and the woman apologizing for having the wrong number, and readers just wondering why the hell didn’t either of them hang up the moment it was realized the woman misdialed.

But the woman hadn’t misdialed. Her whole plan was to get Stu on the phone and keep him on it. That woman is Johanna, a freelance editor, also in her twenties, who lives in the tenement across from Stu’s building, and who has a perfect view into Stu’s apartment from hers, and, with opera glasses in hand, has been watching him intently. She’s also struck up a casual friendship with Gladys, the retiree who lives in the unit below Stu’s, to get some insight and gossip about Gladys’ upstairs neighbor, and even encourages the old woman to badger Stu into adopting a stray cat/plot contrivance. She keeps a journal as well, detailing facts she’s learned about Stu—including his previous address and current employer—and her observations gleaned from spying on him (“He seems to have no close friends of ether gender.”)

For all Johanna’s learned about Stu, she is unprepared for him to have a girlfriend, and is dismayed when Jennifer, who had been touring with her dance company since before Stu moved into the apartment across the street, returns. Stu is a little disappointed, too, but for different reasons. Jennifer’s affections for Stu have cooled significantly in the time she’s been away, while her love for her career has intensified. Women’s Lib may have been in full swing when this book was written, but Stu still has a chauvinistic mindset, viewing Jennifer’s dancing more as a hobby than a career, not to mention he’s suspicious of her constantly praising her choreographer Caspar (he dismisses Caspar as a romantic rival, however, later referring to him as looking like “the Fairy Godmother”).

In Stu’s defense, Jennifer is a bit of a pretentious twat, always bitching about how small the apartment is and often taking shots at Stu for his lack of ambition. No wonder he’s receptive when Johanna, now using a voice changer and adopting a British accent, calls back. Stu pushes for a name (“You know my name, why not tell me yours?”) Johanna tells him to call her by any name he wants, horrified when he settles on Joan (Joan was so close to her own name, so uncannily close. As if… he’d intuited it or somehow knew and was teasing her.) Still, she endures the moniker as long as Stu keeps taking her calls.

Inevitably, Stu and Jennifer break up, leaving Stu’s evenings free to take Joan’s calls. “Does she get real dirty? You know, breathy and hot, all that kind of stuff?” asks Bill, Stu’s coincidentally named co-worker, after Stu tells him of his mysterious caller. Alas, she does not, and Stu never pushes their conversations in that direction, either. Though Johanna is romantically fixated on Stu, she’s not overtly horny for him. In fact, the one other time she’s done this phone-stalking thing—with the previous occupant of Stu’s apartment, a Texas dude named Colin—she presented herself in person shortly after establishing a rapport over the phone, appalled to discover that the guy immediately wanted pussy. Because of that unpleasant experience, Johanna wants to keep Stu at a safe distance, determined to establish not just an emotional connection, but a co-dependence as well.

That distance is jeopardized when a Joan slips up during one of their phone conversations and remarks on the whereabouts of Stu’s cat, revealing that she is, in fact, watching him. Stu, predictably, wonders from which of the many windows across the street Joan is spying on him.

Stu later brings home a young hippie chick he met a nearby park and doesn’t bother to pull down the shades before they do the nasty. He senses Joan is watching and is briefly troubled by the possibility before deciding, hey, if she wants to watch, he’ll give her a show (regretfully, said show is not explicitly described). Joan/Johanna is not pleased. “I’m very disappointed in Stu,” Johanna writes in her stalker journal. She later laments that she can’t even complain: Did she expect him to be faithful to strange woman on the telephone whom he never even met? It was her fault. She was the one who set the limits.

That all changes when Johanna accompanies her horny best friend Alice to the Hungry Hat, a restaurant/singles bar, to meet-up with Alice’s coke dealer, Bill, who’s sitting at the bar with his friend from work...Stu! Alice, who’s made Johanna her project (she’s already goaded Johanna into getting new clothes, updating her hairstyle and accepting a full-time job with a book publisher), sends Stu over to chat with her reclusive friend while she and Bill take care of their transaction. A mortified Johanna says she must leave, but neither Alice nor Stu will let her escape that easily. Ultimately, Johanna thaws enough to give Stu her work phone number.

To Johanna’s amazement, Stu is genuinely attracted to her, and a real, in-the-flesh romance blossoms. It’s a fantasy come true, but it’s also a problem. What to do with Joan? Things get especially awkward when Stu wants to discuss with Joan the wonderful new woman in his life: Johanna. Johanna decides the best way to dissolve this phone friendship—as well as find out what Stu’s true feelings are— is for Joan to become a jealous bitch, shit talking Stu’s new flame at every opportunity (“She didn’t strike me as being the picture of glowing femininity, but, after all, she’s probably just fine for a little therapeutic sex.”)

Joan’s snarky comments about his new girlfriend aren’t enough to drive Stu away, nor are they enough to kill his curiosity about her identity. It’s that curiosity—with help from a horny tomcat and one of Johanna’s neighbors—that’s going to get one of them killed.

Not the Book It’s Marketed As

Though it drags here and there, I found Eyes to be a fairly engaging read (I’ll forgive Picano’s inclusion of a feline ex machina). However, I was also mildly disappointed and for that I blame the book’s marketing, which teases a much different novel. “There are many ways to satisfy desire,” reads Dell Publishing’s teaser copy on the front cover of the 1984 paperback. “Some people dream. Some people watch. Some people kill.” My expectations were further manipulated by the ellipses-heavy synopsis on the back cover:

Day and night, a mysterious woman called, a voice from the darkness telling him she was all alone… that she wanted to talk to him… needed him…desired him…

Day and night, the eyes followed him, no matter what he did, whom he held, whom he kissed. And what the eyes saw would lead to love…and fear—and then to terror.

Because of the cover text, I was expecting something much more salacious: Joan/Johanna would be a dangerous psychopath. Her calls to Stu would be unsettling, even threatening, not to mention obscene. Stu would be more of a player, and all the women he brought home would ultimately end up dead. And when Stu discovers his new girlfriend Johanna is not just his harassing caller but the one who’s killed all the other women in his life, it would lead to a more intense confrontation.

Also, while the model used for the book cover suggests that
Stu looks like Frank Stallone (left), going by Stu’s description
in the book, he more closely resembles the
1979 Playgirl model on the right.

Instead, Eyes is much more subdued, barely qualifying as a thriller. The body count is low—a mere two deaths, one from natural causes—and the calls Stu receives from Joan, while at times testy and irritating, are far from threatening. Johanna is not a psychopath, she’s just a sad, lonely woman with some serious self-esteem issues. She does not, as some other reviewers claim, have dissociative identity disorder; she’s well aware of the persona she’s creating when she calls Stu, hence the voice changer and fake accent. Joan is the confident woman Johanna wants to be. What she’s doing is the phone-based equivalent of catfishing, except the real person is as desirable as the fake one she’s presenting herself as, she just doesn’t realize it.

Stu, though mildly chauvinistic and a bit of a homophobe, is also more nuanced than expected. He’s good at his job but not entirely sure he wants to make it his life’s work. When he and Jennifer break up, he doesn’t immediately hit the bars looking for sex (his sole hookup prior to meeting Johanna happens when that hippie chick casually offers herself, no strings attached, because 1970s). What Stu wants more than sex is someone to talk to, someone to be in his corner, and Joan fulfills that need.

Felice Picano wrote a few more mainstream thrillers after Eyes, his second novel, before becoming a prominent name in gay literature, publishing the queer-centric novels Late in the Season and Like People in History, as well as the memoirs Men Who Loved Me: A Memoir in the Form of a Novel and Nights at Rizzoli. He even co-authored The New Joy of Gay Sex. Nearly twenty years ago I heard Picano speak at the Saints & Sinners Literary Festival, and among other topics he talked about the trap of writing genre fiction solely for commercial viability. Interestingly, I don’t recall him bringing up any of his work in genre fiction. I learned about that through the Too Much Horror Fiction blog. I haven’t read any of Picano’s gay books (well, I did skim through The New Joy of Gay Sex a few times at various bookstores when I thought no one was looking, but I was too deep in the closet at the time to even consider doing something so brave as buying it), but I was immensely curious about his early horror and thriller novels. Does the fact that I bypassed Picano’s acclaimed LGBTQ books in favor of what I thought (hoped) were his stabs at tawdry mainstream horror make me a self-loathing homo? No, just taste impaired.

I don’t think Picano is ashamed of his earlier books, nor should he be, but he clearly didn’t want to risk becoming a hack horror writer, and for a CisHet audience no less. Not that anyone would mistake Eyes as the work of a hack. Rather than the trashy erotic thriller Dell was hyping, Eyes is a more thoughtful story about loneliness, restlessness and alienation. That’s to the novel’s credit, but it’s also its biggest letdown.

BTW: According to his Wikipedia page, Picano wrote a screenplay adaptation for Eyes in 1985. The movie was never produced (1978-81 would’ve been the ideal time to have made the pitch), and now, thanks to technology rendering its primary device irrelevant, it likely never will be.