When I first heard about “HIM” it was on the website Pimpadelic Wonderland, a popular bootlegger site of hard-to-find outrageous 70’s fare. The film was listed on the author of the site’s wishlist - a film so hard to find that even he had not seen it. The topic of the film: “the gay porn life of Jesus.” I, like many others before me, flipped for that description. But it seemed like nobody had ever heard of this film, in fact, many claimed it didn’t even exist. But recently I came across this 2005 article by Peter Chattaway, at something called FilmChat.blogspot.com. Mr. Chattaway is a film reviewer whose primary subject seems to be reviewing films for Christian-based news publications such as something called Christianity Today, another called ChristianWeek and yet another called Beliefnet.com. While I would think that such a film reviewer might shy away from a discussion of something as potentially incendiary to his Christian readers as the discussion of a sacriligious gay porn film Chattaway (whose most recent post states his hope that The Golden Compass flops) offers a disclaimer and plunges headlong in a pretty comprehensive and interesting way - entirely non-judgmental about the actual film itself. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have a copy - and certain blogs - like FilmChat, and other grindhouse/porn discussion boards often erupt in discussions of this film - with certain readers claiming to have seen it, and others imagining what it could be like. Indeed, Chattaway’s article’s primary focus is whether, like the supposed film’s subject, the film exists at all. Chattaway discusses how he theorized for years that “Him” was a hoax - a fictional film concocted by crappy neo-conservative film critic Michael Medved in his book The Golden Turkey Awards. Medved stated that of the 425 reviews in the book, one was a hoax, and dared the reader to find it. His review of “Him” must surely have been a definite candidate - it certainly sounds too outrageous to be true:
This innovative film, designed exclusively for gay audiences, goes into excruciating detail concerning the erotic career of Jesus Christ. The ads for the film show the face of The Savior (with a cross glistening in one eye) while the headline inquires “Are You Curious About HIS Sexual Life?” Filmmaker Ed D. Louie satisfies that curiosity by showing us that the Son of Man was a voracious homosexual. (After all, why did he spend all that time hanging around with the Apostles?) The central character of the film is actually a young gay male in contemporary America whose sexual obsession with Jesus helps him to understand the “hidden meaning” of the Gospels.
And then, on page 168, when it is declared the winner in its category, the Medveds write:
For sheer tastelessness, this film has no equals. In one scene, our homosexual hero goes to his local priest to confess his erotic fixation on Jesus Christ. The priest sits in the confessional, listening to the young man breathlessly elaborating his perverted fantasies, while taking advantage of the situation to reach under his cassock and masturbate grotesquely on camera. This charming episode surely marks one of the absolute low points in the history of American cinema. Those pathetic few who might want to see Him ought to come to the theater dressed in plain, brown paper wrappers, that hopefully cover their eyes along with the rest of their faces.
There’s obviously predictable hetero-conservative disgust and homophobia laden throughout the review, in phrases like “excruciating detail,” and “masturbates grotesquely,” but Chattaway doesn’t address this element of the review. He goes on to discuss finding reference to the film in an additional book, Divine Images: A History of Jesus On Screen by Roy Kinnard and Tim Davis, followed by another website which claimed the film didn’t exist at all. Obviously the fact of the film’s extreme breaking of this taboo- daring to desecrate the holiest of holies - has made the film a mythical being - a unicorn of fucked up cinema.
The comments in the post continue this exploration. One comment claims that the film can’t be located on IMDB, as though the movie database is actually the be all and end all for every film ever made. It is not. There are plenty of films that are not on IMDB, and plenty of listings of films that IMDB gets wrong - a problem of reader submitted facts similar to the dilemma often faced by Wikipedia, whose contents can be edited by viewers. Another person writes that the hoax film was in fact another movie, Dog of Norway, which included a picture of Medved’s dog. Medved himself admitted this film was the hoax and this information is widely available. Another comment then states “The gay porn film HIM showed at the 55th St Playhouse in New York from March 29, 1974 through June and was reviewed in Variety, Screw, Gay Scene, Where It’s At, and Micheal’s Thing, all “real” publications at the time. You will find the ads in that otherwise obscure publication, The New York Times.”
The final comment produces real hard evidence of the film - a copy of the hilarious review by Smut King Al Goldstein, publisher of the afforementioned Screw Magazine:
DIRTY DIVERSIONS
By Al Goldstein
Queen of the Jews
CHRIST’S SECOND COMING
A bizarrely engrossing new film called HIM, playing at the 55th St. Playhouse, between 6th and 7th Avenues, has more to recommend it than some of its mismatched shots, mishmash editing and cheap budget would have allowed. I sat in the theatre next to the delicious Marcia Bronstein, editor of BITCH, so much of my enthusiasm for this film may simply have been the proximity of my thighs to hers. Then again it may have been the vividly poetic photography that loudly proclaimed in favor of cocksucking, ass fucking and other lofty pursuits of this downtrodden group of perverts.
The plot of HIM theoretically is about a faggot who is preoccupied with Christ and constantly has sexual reveries about balling that great Son of God. The plot might have worked, had it been explained to the viewer, but the movie begins inexorably slowly and, for its first 40 minutes, it consists of some solid hard-core in the gay vein and the meaning of the title HIM eludes the spectator. Only deeply into the film does one get the necessary material to permit the audience to comprehend the meaning of the plot. By then it’s too late and you really don’t give a shit, which is a shame, since so much of this film transcends most of the porno pap that permeates our perimeters.
I thought I had seen everything, but this movie brings in a whole new battery of barnyard banterings, from the opening credits, which are played against a stiff cock being licked by a very pretty white pussycat, to a delicious decadent sequel where a guy fucks a vacuum cleaner with such love that I started to hum, “I want a vacuum cleaner just like the vacuum cleaner that married dear old dad.” As they say on Fire Island, it was one of the more legendarily meaningful relationships of last summer, and a blowjob par excellence. Another torrid little scene had a priest jerking off in his confession box as he listened to the tawdry and tear-stained confession of the wandering faggot. The sex on the cross, in particular the graphic anal probings, which is not unlike a World War II boat launching depth charges, was exciting, and, of course, the hot searching lips of Marcia waxing poetic over my body kept me truly excited. At least I thought it was Marcia. Then when I looked down I saw it was the manager of the theatre.
HIM is a hymn to sodomy and the other brazen activities that mark the twilight world of perversity with so much pain and prurience, yet to those who are not so frightened by any blemish on their masculinity and can respond to the heated sensuality of another human being, it’s a film that will be innervating and titillating.
Mr. Goldstein’s “Peter Meter” Rating of the film, from 0-100 %
I PETER-METER HIM AS FOLLOWS:
INTEREST–POSSIBLE- 60%, ACTUAL-45%
SEXUALITY-
EROTIC POSSIBLE-20%, ACTUAL-20 %
SEXUALITY-
EXPLICIT POSSIBLE-10%, ACTUAL-10%
TECHNICAL-POSSIBLE-10 %, ACTUAL- 10 %
TOTAL-85 %
As you can see, the actual film itself may not be as interesting as many imagine it, and indeed with stuff like this, the tendency is to imagine something greater than probably exists. If you follow the link here to http://cinematreasures.org/theater/6376/, you can see a supplement to this discussion, and a man who claims to actually have seen the film, and still another who claims that it is a hoax. There’s also people who confuse this film with Wiktor Grodeki’s lost film “Him” from 1984 which is described by All Movie Guide as:
Set in a forbidding mansion on the shores of Lake Superior in Michigan, this dark, routine story is about three people who live inside the oppressive environment of the building. Locked into this space is the tragedy of incest, and the struggles the three face as their dysfunctional relationships and mental instability go from bad to worse. This was director Wiktor Grodecki’s first joint project with U.S. producers and actresses — working in English and in a foreign location. The seamier side of life became a theme for subsequent Grodecki films involving young male prostitutes and hardcore pornography. ~ Eleanor Mannikka, All Movie Guide
And what do I believe? I think it’s pretty obvious the film exists, certainly there have been more outrageous porn films made in the 70’s, such as the whole nunsploitation genre popular in the Euro-grindhouse world (films like Images in A Convent, Killer Nun, and even the recently re-released Malabimba: Malicious Whore). For now I hope desperately it exists and will one day see the light of day. I recently found another one of Pimpadelic Wonderland’s wishlist film the Filipino kung-fu film “Bruce Lee Vs. Gay Power,” though that film had been presumed lost and unlocatable. So maybe there is hope for “Him.” Certainly with all the films that come to light each year, and the huge market for hard-to-find films being repackaged and reissued on DVD’s, there must be some company willing to track it down.
If you hear or see any evidence of the film, I’d love to know. Christmas is coming, and of course, we all know what Christmas celebrates…. Perhaps there’s a Christmas miracle in the works, courtesy of Jesus.
