Fireworks

1947
7| 0h14m| en| More Info
Released: 31 December 1947 Released
Producted By:
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A dissatisfied dreamer awakes, goes out in the night seeking a 'light' and is drawn through the needle's eye. A dream of a dream, he returns to bed less empty than before.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!
Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.
ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.
Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.
MisterWhiplash Fireworks is powerful stuff, and, with the exception of a narrated prologue that explains what fireworks mean in poetic language (at least in the version that's currently online, there are others and they may not include this), is all done through the powerful visual motifs of dreams. Or, at the least, that's how Anger wants to present this vision of what happens when the ideal of MALE-ness is put into danger and promiscuity.From seeing Scorpio Rising first, Anger's most well-known and semi-notorious film, I knew that this director knew how to shoot a shot of a man below the chest. Now, this doesn't mean to suggest nudity; he has his actors sometimes without a shirt or it unbuttoned (or in the 1964 film in some leather), and jeans being put on or taken off. But in its strange way he has a tastefulness to his erotica, the idea of the visual being the tease, the prolonged state of something that you KNOW is really sexual and provocative, but you're not seeing as much as you are.This may be why he was arrested on obscenity charges when the film was first screened (where exactly I'm not sure, who knows where underground cinema could get screened in 1947), but it went to the Supreme Court and, in one of those early/landmark decisions, it was ruled as art. But it was the suggestion of sex, and certainly *male*, homo-erotic sex, and remember our friend context which is that in this decade homosexuality was thought to be a crime and/or psychological ailment that could be legitimately cured. So just in the manner of creating this film, whether out of a dream or not, it was a brave act on Anger's part.The film is basically showing a guy waking up, seeing some (suggestive? likely?) photos that he tosses in the fireplace (though not yet lit), getting dressed, going through a door marked "GENTS", and then coming upon some sailors who... proceed to beat the hell out of him. This is all done in such a stylized manner that it reminded me of how Cocteau treated violence in Blood of a Poet: when blood comes out it feels otherworldly and yet very real in its way, like because it's not the blood we're used to seeing (yes it's graphic in how much comes out and in a sustained shot/angle), it has an effect that is uncanny.The way music is used adds to the poetry of it all, how it evokes feelings of high drama and curiosity and intense violence - whether it's underscoring the man who is flexing his muscles in such a campy manner (not funny so much as exaggerated), and then when the group of sailors accost our main character (played by Anger himself, the one nitpick I'd have is he doesn't carry a lot of screen presence as an actor, even in, yes I know, a scenario that doesn't ask for naturalism) it takes on the feeling of being in a nightmare you can't escape.How it ends takes on another feeling, but it's one I can't pinpoint yet. As far as a through-one may be tempted to say it's simply that he's still asleep by the end, but I'm not sure. The power of this whole 14 minute experience is to get into an intense psychological state, meditative even, about what it means to have the male gaze: it can be powerful, it can be imposing, it can be tough, and it can be beautiful, but all the while it can be dangerous as well. It's also worth noting that as this was 1947 this was before sailors and those in the navy were seen as something that could be mockable as 'that's gay' or something derogatory. This was just after WW2, don't forget, and the Navy sailors were among the heroes of the war. At the same time Anger's taking from an event - when sailors beat up a Mexicans on a famous day, I don't recall the name - so that adds to the provocation.Fireworks may lack some of the visual sophistication in little parts of the cinematography (not overall as far as lighting and composition, more like things involving focus, which makes sense as he shot this over a weekend on extremely limited resources), but that doesn't matter to the full scope: this is a brave little package of a cinematic experience that works much like its title: an explosion and series of things to look at, and from afar it may appear delightful - but get too close and it'll burn your fingers off and make you disfigured.Ah, Men.
gavin6942 Depicts a dream sequence about the brutal rape and torture of director Kenneth Anger himself (as a teenager) by a group of sailors on the street (after trying to pick one of them up).Anger later said, "This flick is all I have to say about being seventeen, the United States Navy, American Christmas, and the Fourth of July." Holy smokes, guys. This is about as hard-hitting as it comes for the 1940s. The homosexual theme, the intense violence... this is still shocking and revolting in the 2010s... we have have grown soft to violence, but if we have I can only imagine how people in the 40s reacted when they saw this. Terrifying!
Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) "Fireworks" is a 1947 short film by Kenneth Anger and there seem to be several versions of it. The one I watched is maybe the shortest and ran for 13 minutes. Anger was 19 when he made this one and yet he already shot 5 or 6 films before it. This shows you how early he started. Still there are some differences here compared with his later work. For example, it's a rare occurrence that he acts in his own movies or that he uses black-and-white, especially because color has always been a defining element in his works. But this was shortly after World War II and the director was probably still finding his future path. What is most interesting about this film is maybe that it's possibly Anger's most violent and disturbing work. And because he acts in it, it also shows that it's a very personal film that puts a lot of focus on the protagonist's (and filmmaker's) homosexuality. However, the story is simply not interesting enough to let me recommend it. It's atmospheric yes, the music fits nicely, but the action just is too little to keep me interested even for such a short runtime. Not recommended.
preppy-3 A young man (played by director/writer Kenneth Anger) is gay and goes to pick up sailors. But the sailors attack him and (maybe) kill him. That's about it.I saw this at a gay cinema class many years ago. I hated it from beginning to end. The print was in terrible shape and the explicit violence and blood was horrific. It was just reissued in a brand new print with commentary by Anger. I respect it a little more now. Like it or not this is a landmark in gay cinema. The sailors are sexualized more than a little and some of the imagery is striking. The director explained this all came to him in a dream which accounts for the lack of story. I still find the fact that his character is beaten by sailors quite disturbing--but this was shot in 1947. So I can't say I like it but it has its place in gay cinema. I'm giving it a 7 but that's mostly for its historical status.