Recently unearthed by Vinegar Syndrome / Exploitation.TV, THREADS OF MAN is a beyond-obscure male nudie from Richard/Dick Fontaine's Zenith Productions, an outfit that started in mail-order posing strap loops before migrating to shorts and eventually features. Written by and guest starring Ann Noble, of Zenith's fabulously loopy SINS OF RACHEL, it's not very good, but is an interesting curio nonetheless.
The plot is all over the place, but largely centers around a Hollywood tailor (Noble's husband, Stephen Lester) and his encounters with various queeny Hollywood types, all of whom need a new outfit for some reason or other. We're first introduced to him taking a bus into what looks like the Hollywood hills, where he meets snooty director Gerald Strickland, who wants him to outfit his latest picture's hunky headliner. Much hilarity ensures (right ) as the guy (Jerome Scott) huffs around the tailor's shop in little more than a fig leaf while protesting that his costume is too modest. During all this, Noble, as Lester's mortified landlady, vainly attempts to collect the rent, though Lester can't come through – he's a mix of just-too-generous and just-too-untalented, and most of his designs ending up rejected by the few customers he isn't giving them away to.
Things go better with a young gay couple (Eric Penn and Scot Arden), who are seeking suits for their impending nuptials. Though they protest they can't afford anything fancy, the understanding Lester still offers them nothing but the best – free of charge! – saying that true love is far too rare to see in the world these days. More comic hijinks follow as Noble returns, once more begging for money as Lester rambles on about the young couple. Deciding he's delirious after all his talk of man-to-man weddings (imagine!), Noble puts him to bed and tells him to get her the money when he's feeling better.
(SPOILERS)
Alas, it's not to be! As often seems to be the case with his films, a starring role doesn't bode well for Lester, and he ends up dead immediately after a bizarre interlude in which his dressmaker's dummy comes to life (in the form of soft-core exploitation queen Jane Tsentas) and speaks with him. Again as usual, the movie ends with everybody singing Lester's praises once he finally croaks, though he still earns the last laugh by getting to dash off through Elysian fields with the lovely Miss Tsentas.
(/SPOILERS/)
Like all Noble's scripts (or at least the one's I've seen – most of her work is by now impossible to find), this tends toward heaving melodrama and features her typical pet fixations of innocent young gay boys and bitchy old queens. There's an obsession with Old Hollywood that feels apace with both RACHEL and Hollywood COWBOY, on which Noble is not credited as writer but nevertheless has a scene-stealing walk-on. Given that COWBOY features a similar narrative trajectory, with Lester playing yet another suffering saint unnoticed by all but the lowliest of the low (and twinkiest of the twinky), one can't help but wonder if Noble didn't have a hand in that script too...
Like the aforementioned COWBOY (whether or not Noble had a hand in writing it), THREADS is a similarly queasy tonal compromise, combining a largely G- rated portrait of a sweet old man with incongruous scenes of beefcake and (in this case soft-core) fornication. Some great vintage promo material at the Gay Erotic Video Index trumpets a premiere at SPREE, an early LA gay rights collective founded by Pat Rocco which was also instrumental in producing many of his early "danglies" (male nudie-cuties), and this connection goes a long way toward explaining the film's delirious mix of tones, which wouldn't seem out of place in a SPREE production (compare the melodrama-docu-nudie SILENT NO MORE, for example). Given both their films' stylistic and narrative similarities, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if there was some cross-pollination (eh-hem) amongst the Rocco and Fontaine camps, too.
While it's possible to appreciate THREADS OF MAN as a product of its milieu, that still doesn't make it a terribly *good* film in retrospect, hampered as it is by creaky stock scenarios, hoary attempts at humor (even the title's a groaner), and largely threadbare characterizations and plot. Worth a look for gay film completists and those fascinated with the early LGBT rights movement in Los Angeles, the film will nevertheless probably mean little to most everyone else. Neophytes and the curious are encouraged to start with the aforementioned SINS OF RACHEL, a far more successful (and entertaining) Noble/Fontaine collaboration, and work their way down from there.
The plot is all over the place, but largely centers around a Hollywood tailor (Noble's husband, Stephen Lester) and his encounters with various queeny Hollywood types, all of whom need a new outfit for some reason or other. We're first introduced to him taking a bus into what looks like the Hollywood hills, where he meets snooty director Gerald Strickland, who wants him to outfit his latest picture's hunky headliner. Much hilarity ensures (right ) as the guy (Jerome Scott) huffs around the tailor's shop in little more than a fig leaf while protesting that his costume is too modest. During all this, Noble, as Lester's mortified landlady, vainly attempts to collect the rent, though Lester can't come through – he's a mix of just-too-generous and just-too-untalented, and most of his designs ending up rejected by the few customers he isn't giving them away to.
Things go better with a young gay couple (Eric Penn and Scot Arden), who are seeking suits for their impending nuptials. Though they protest they can't afford anything fancy, the understanding Lester still offers them nothing but the best – free of charge! – saying that true love is far too rare to see in the world these days. More comic hijinks follow as Noble returns, once more begging for money as Lester rambles on about the young couple. Deciding he's delirious after all his talk of man-to-man weddings (imagine!), Noble puts him to bed and tells him to get her the money when he's feeling better.
(SPOILERS)
Alas, it's not to be! As often seems to be the case with his films, a starring role doesn't bode well for Lester, and he ends up dead immediately after a bizarre interlude in which his dressmaker's dummy comes to life (in the form of soft-core exploitation queen Jane Tsentas) and speaks with him. Again as usual, the movie ends with everybody singing Lester's praises once he finally croaks, though he still earns the last laugh by getting to dash off through Elysian fields with the lovely Miss Tsentas.
(/SPOILERS/)
Like all Noble's scripts (or at least the one's I've seen – most of her work is by now impossible to find), this tends toward heaving melodrama and features her typical pet fixations of innocent young gay boys and bitchy old queens. There's an obsession with Old Hollywood that feels apace with both RACHEL and Hollywood COWBOY, on which Noble is not credited as writer but nevertheless has a scene-stealing walk-on. Given that COWBOY features a similar narrative trajectory, with Lester playing yet another suffering saint unnoticed by all but the lowliest of the low (and twinkiest of the twinky), one can't help but wonder if Noble didn't have a hand in that script too...
Like the aforementioned COWBOY (whether or not Noble had a hand in writing it), THREADS is a similarly queasy tonal compromise, combining a largely G- rated portrait of a sweet old man with incongruous scenes of beefcake and (in this case soft-core) fornication. Some great vintage promo material at the Gay Erotic Video Index trumpets a premiere at SPREE, an early LA gay rights collective founded by Pat Rocco which was also instrumental in producing many of his early "danglies" (male nudie-cuties), and this connection goes a long way toward explaining the film's delirious mix of tones, which wouldn't seem out of place in a SPREE production (compare the melodrama-docu-nudie SILENT NO MORE, for example). Given both their films' stylistic and narrative similarities, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if there was some cross-pollination (eh-hem) amongst the Rocco and Fontaine camps, too.
While it's possible to appreciate THREADS OF MAN as a product of its milieu, that still doesn't make it a terribly *good* film in retrospect, hampered as it is by creaky stock scenarios, hoary attempts at humor (even the title's a groaner), and largely threadbare characterizations and plot. Worth a look for gay film completists and those fascinated with the early LGBT rights movement in Los Angeles, the film will nevertheless probably mean little to most everyone else. Neophytes and the curious are encouraged to start with the aforementioned SINS OF RACHEL, a far more successful (and entertaining) Noble/Fontaine collaboration, and work their way down from there.