The sound and film editing in "Secret of ..." are just miserable, just as they are in Fleshapoids, but the Kuchar brothers get extra credit for having gay characters, and they even kiss in this one! This short is included as an extra on the DVD for Sins of the Fleshapoids, but this plot is easier to follow than the main event. Red Grooms, the main character only did one other project after this, but some of the rest of the cast made a bunch of films together. That bedroom scene with all the spectators and antagonists goes on just forever, but you can see the point they were making. This one was more enjoyable to watch than Fleshapoids. I too, bought this after reading an interview with John Waters, where he talks about this one. Mike Kuchar directed this one, but it appears that twin brother George was the more prolific director, starting in the 1950s, and later bringing his students' works to the screen, and continuing right into the 2000s. Acc to wikipedia, there was a documentary released in 2009 called "It Came from Kuchar" describing the lives and works of the Kuchar brothers.
4 Reviews
A classic of underground queer cinema.
goyettegilles23 May 2012
"The Secret Of Wendel Samson" (1966) is a homemade film. So don't expect big production values. That said, it packs a lot more entertainment value into 33 minutes than a lot of films with big studio budgets. Don't watch it if you are not into the underground/avant-garde scene. Do watch it if you have an interest in film documents for their historical, cultural, or artistic merit. Directed by Mike Kuchar, twin brother of George Kuchar (director of "Hold Me While I'm Naked" and "I, An Actress"), "The Secret Of Wendel Samson", along with "The Craven Sluck" (1967), are included as supplements on the DVD, "Sins Of The Fleshpoids" (1965).
American folk artist, Red Grooms, stars as an emotionally conflicted man trying desperately to come to terms with, or escape from, the implications of his sexual identity. To underline this, in the opening scene he is shown trapped in a spider's web made of ropes--a blatant visual metaphor (one of many in the film). In a later scene, his platonic girlfriend Margaret (Mimi Gross), attempts to seduce him, and fails. Suspicious that he may be leading a double life, she enlists the aid of two Gestapo-style agents (one played by George Kuchar) to follow his every move. This leads inexorably to the final scene in which Wendel undergoes a kind of secret trial which takes place in his own bedroom, complete with gun-toting jury. Florain Connors, star of "The Craven Sluck", steals the scene as the busty nightclub stripper, who demurely commands Wendel to make love to her while taking aim at him with her plastic Super Pistol!
A stylized fever dream of paranoia and entrapment disguised as melodramatic social commentary disguised as espionage thriller crammed into a half hour meditation on what it is like to be a closeted gay man in the 60s (which would explain Red Grooms' outrageous haircut), better paced and funnier by far than "Sins Of The Fleshapoids", this is a beautiful little unpolished gem, and should be included among the seminal works of Andy Warhol and Kenneth Anger as a classic of queer cinema.
American folk artist, Red Grooms, stars as an emotionally conflicted man trying desperately to come to terms with, or escape from, the implications of his sexual identity. To underline this, in the opening scene he is shown trapped in a spider's web made of ropes--a blatant visual metaphor (one of many in the film). In a later scene, his platonic girlfriend Margaret (Mimi Gross), attempts to seduce him, and fails. Suspicious that he may be leading a double life, she enlists the aid of two Gestapo-style agents (one played by George Kuchar) to follow his every move. This leads inexorably to the final scene in which Wendel undergoes a kind of secret trial which takes place in his own bedroom, complete with gun-toting jury. Florain Connors, star of "The Craven Sluck", steals the scene as the busty nightclub stripper, who demurely commands Wendel to make love to her while taking aim at him with her plastic Super Pistol!
A stylized fever dream of paranoia and entrapment disguised as melodramatic social commentary disguised as espionage thriller crammed into a half hour meditation on what it is like to be a closeted gay man in the 60s (which would explain Red Grooms' outrageous haircut), better paced and funnier by far than "Sins Of The Fleshapoids", this is a beautiful little unpolished gem, and should be included among the seminal works of Andy Warhol and Kenneth Anger as a classic of queer cinema.
Despite having horrible production values, there is some merit to this Kuchar Brothers film...but only some.
planktonrules4 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Technically speaking, this is a horrible film. There is simply no denying that the production values suck and that the film looks like it was made by deranged monkeys. Anyone who says otherwise is not to be trusted. Believe me, I know my deranged monkey films! However, despite being completely incompetent technically, the film is still technically a bazillion times better than the brothers' more famous SINS OF THE FLESHAPOIDS. Instead of having some sparse narration and that is it, this time Mike Kuchar experimented with using dialog. But, since it was made using a home movie camera without sound, the voices were sloppily added later--with little concern for synchronizing it with the actors' (?) mouths. It looks sloppy and dumb and the acting, at times, is absolutely terrible. You know an actress is bad when she can't even do her own voice-overs correctly--as is clearly the case with the most likely illiterate lady friend of Wendel.
Now even though this is a shabby and craptastic film, I do see some merits. First, for 1966 it was an incredibly brave film--even if it was only seen in art houses and by the friends of the Kuchars. It deals with homosexuality (a rarity back then) and addresses two interesting issues--letting others know you are gay as well as how to break up with your boyfriend. Also, there were a couple moments that struck me as clever. First, the "...that's good coffee" scene--it had me laughing. Second, the ending where Wendel's secret comes out and he realized it has no power over him--a great metaphor.
So, if you are into the history of gay issues in film and gay independent non-porno films, this is worth seeing. Otherwise, I just can't see wasting 33 minutes of your life on this...like I masochistically did!
Now even though this is a shabby and craptastic film, I do see some merits. First, for 1966 it was an incredibly brave film--even if it was only seen in art houses and by the friends of the Kuchars. It deals with homosexuality (a rarity back then) and addresses two interesting issues--letting others know you are gay as well as how to break up with your boyfriend. Also, there were a couple moments that struck me as clever. First, the "...that's good coffee" scene--it had me laughing. Second, the ending where Wendel's secret comes out and he realized it has no power over him--a great metaphor.
So, if you are into the history of gay issues in film and gay independent non-porno films, this is worth seeing. Otherwise, I just can't see wasting 33 minutes of your life on this...like I masochistically did!
it's flawed, no doubt, but it's also poignant, fantastical, and entertaining!
framptonhollis21 November 2017
Watching "The Craven Sluck" and "The Secret of Wendel Samson" back to back is quite the experience. Both films are similar and different in a lot of ways; for example, "Samson" is similar to "Sluck" in its tendency to escalate so much over the course of its run time that it delves into the fantastical and absurd. However, in "Samson" this is played effectively for tense and symbolic drama, while in "Sluck" it is all just played for tongue in cheek absurdist laughs.
Although I often value comedy slightly over drama, I must admit that "The Secret of Wendel Samson" is easily the superior film of the two (which is not to say that I did not love "The Craven Sluck", which was flat out HILARIOUS!), and, as you can see, I have decided to give it a perfect score. My mind had a mild battle over whether I should grace the film with a 9 or a 10 and, while I still firmly believe that a score of 9 likely is more fitting, I decided to give the film a 10 regardless. I can forgive its flaws and unintentionally funny technical misdemeanors (the acting is mostly really bad and a lot of the over dubbing is godawful), because, in the end, it is one of the most uniquely and unconventionally beautifully told films dealing with homosexuality. And, although it IS obviously about homosexuality, almost anyone can probably relate to SOME of the feelings expressed so brilliantly in the film. Those feelings of being an outsider...those feelings of guilt for what is beyond your control...those feelings of nervousness and paranoia surrounding one's own suppressed secrets, whatever they may be...whether it's a crush or a mistake in one's past...these feelings are all universal, and they are expressed with the utmost entertainment, understanding, and beauty in this almost anarchically experimental short.
Much of the film dives directly into the realms of total fantasy, and it reminded me directly of the great chapter in "Ulysses" entitled "Circe", which is the novel's longest episode and, yet, virtually none of what occurs actually happens and very close to its entirety is no more than a plight of farcical fantasy. This film is quite similar in the fact that a huge portion of what goes on on screen here is inside the head of the protagonist, and, thus, it becomes very surreal and even Lynchian at some points (which is always a pleasure).
Simply put, any fan of the underground films of the 60's and 70's and any movie buff willing to cast aside the abundance of amateurish flaws scattered throughout this project, must, must, must see this provocative, relatable, and heart breaking piece of weird avant garde goodness!
Although I often value comedy slightly over drama, I must admit that "The Secret of Wendel Samson" is easily the superior film of the two (which is not to say that I did not love "The Craven Sluck", which was flat out HILARIOUS!), and, as you can see, I have decided to give it a perfect score. My mind had a mild battle over whether I should grace the film with a 9 or a 10 and, while I still firmly believe that a score of 9 likely is more fitting, I decided to give the film a 10 regardless. I can forgive its flaws and unintentionally funny technical misdemeanors (the acting is mostly really bad and a lot of the over dubbing is godawful), because, in the end, it is one of the most uniquely and unconventionally beautifully told films dealing with homosexuality. And, although it IS obviously about homosexuality, almost anyone can probably relate to SOME of the feelings expressed so brilliantly in the film. Those feelings of being an outsider...those feelings of guilt for what is beyond your control...those feelings of nervousness and paranoia surrounding one's own suppressed secrets, whatever they may be...whether it's a crush or a mistake in one's past...these feelings are all universal, and they are expressed with the utmost entertainment, understanding, and beauty in this almost anarchically experimental short.
Much of the film dives directly into the realms of total fantasy, and it reminded me directly of the great chapter in "Ulysses" entitled "Circe", which is the novel's longest episode and, yet, virtually none of what occurs actually happens and very close to its entirety is no more than a plight of farcical fantasy. This film is quite similar in the fact that a huge portion of what goes on on screen here is inside the head of the protagonist, and, thus, it becomes very surreal and even Lynchian at some points (which is always a pleasure).
Simply put, any fan of the underground films of the 60's and 70's and any movie buff willing to cast aside the abundance of amateurish flaws scattered throughout this project, must, must, must see this provocative, relatable, and heart breaking piece of weird avant garde goodness!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
