VOD Review - Making Montgomery Clift

I doubt that filmmakers Robert Clift and Hillary Demmon intended to be perfect representatives of the Donald Trump philosophy of "fake news," but that's exactly what the majority of this film espouses. Yet, it's in the legacy of film-making that documentaries often will provide counter-narratives to what's been provided through mainstream media and mainstream news. It's the legacy of documentaries to provide context or insight that often the mainstream media either can't provide or sometimes won't provide for various reasons. Often times, those reasons are understandable and often documentaries recognize those reasons and don't blame those in the media for lapses or mistakes. Usually, it's never with a condemning tone or with such a disapproving tone as the filmmakers have here.

One such film that jumps to mind is Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine (2002). Moore crafts an entire segment that takes aim at the news media and how it portrays certain people with regard to certain crimes. His criticism though went to a broader issue of racism in the country. The criticism of the filmmakers here might go to a broader issue of homophobia, but the filmmakers aren't that specific in their assertions. There really isn't much cohesion in the criticisms here. There's just this vague idea that people are getting everything wrong about this one particular person. The way this film then nitpicks over certain things is interesting, but it does get to be akin to the kind of rants President Trump makes against the media calling it "fake news."

The nitpicking here is understandable, given that one of the filmmakers is related to the subject. The filmmaker is a family member. Robert Clift is the nephew of Montgomery Clift, the subject here. Montgomery Clift was a four-time, Oscar-nominated actor who died in 1966 at the age of 45. Since that time, there have been several articles and several books published about Clift. Two in particular draw the focus of this film. The first is Monty: A Biography of Montgomery Clift (1977) by Robert Laguardia. The other is Montgomery Clift: A Biography (1978) by Patricia Bosworth. The filmmaker-nephew basically sees both books as wrong or problematic.

Other family members, including Clift's mother, Sunny, and especially his brother, Brooks, think the books are wrong or just full of lies. As family members, they have every right to denounce or debunk whatever is published that they think is untrue. Yet, there is a conversation to be had about published or even cinematic works about real-life people that is certainly not new but yet is virtually ignored in this documentary. It's a conversation that is had every year concerning cinema and particularly those films nominated for Oscars that are about real-life people. Family members or even close friends always denounce or debunk in one way or the other such works.

The question becomes one of good journalism versus good nonfiction storytelling. My major concern is with cinema, but obviously this is an issue that goes back to the printed word. One prime example is Truman Capote's In Cold Blood (1966), a book that was published six months prior to Clift's death. Capote's work is one of the best-selling books of all-time. It's a book about real-life people, yet the veracity of it has been put into question. Capote fudged the facts in order to tell a more compelling story. This continues into the cinematic world. Another prime example is The Social Network (2010), a film about a real-life person, yet the writer of it, Aaron Sorkin, presents a picture that might be accurate if not totally real. In that case, the real-life person is still alive. A better example might be last year's Green Book (2018), which is about a real-life musician. Yet, the family of which disputes the account that is played out on screen.

Time and time again, we've seen this happen when it comes to published or cinematic work about real-life people. The authors or the filmmakers who make these works tell a story. Often, facts will be fudged or interpreted in a way that is best to tell that story, even if that interpretation goes contrary to what family members or even friends know or believe. HBO's Leaving Neverland (2019) is another example where HBO put out a version of a famous person that goes against what the family of whom says. The filmmakers here never utter or intimate any kind of slander or libel, which would be the ultimate conclusion of what's implied here. The filmmakers don't get that harsh or tough. They take issue with Bosworth's book the most but in a passive aggressive way. Bosworth is interviewed for this documentary, but they never confront or directly interrogate her about their nitpicks regarding her book. I don't think that timidity benefits this documentary.

I characterize the nitpicks as nitpicks because that's what they feel like. The film seems like it's going to go down a path where it's going line-by-line, chapter-by-chapter, to deconstruct Bosworth's book, exposing it for biased or just sheer bad journalism. Yet, the only counter-argument is the use of good journalism and the filmmakers here don't convince me that they have good journalism on their side. There's one clear example where this point is illuminated. In Bosworth's book, she recounts an incident where Clift was arrested for "picking up a boy" in 1949 or simply not long after he received his first Oscar nomination for The Search (1948).

The film points out that in the time before the Stonewall riots in 1969, homosexuality was basically illegal. Many men were arrested for engaging or expressing their homosexuality openly or in public places. In many states, there were actual sodomy laws. A Supreme Court decision in 2003 ended those laws. The aforementioned Green Book depicts a scene of the gay man in that film getting arrested. Like the man in Green Book, some arrested would be charged with sodomy. Others would be charged with solicitation. The filmmakers here don't dispute if Clift were arrested or not. The issue is whether or not, Clift actually picked up a boy, meaning an underage minor, or if he picked up a man, meaning someone of legal consent age because Bosworth uses the word "pederasty," which would be a far more serious crime and in fact a real one.

I understand why the family of Clift would be upset if that were printed and it weren't true. Yet, good journalism would dig and look for records to get at the truth. If Clift were actually arrested, there would most likely be police records. Yes, the Hollywood studios of that time did all it could to cover-up such incidents and protect its stars who were homosexual from being outed to the public. The studios even went as far as what's called "lavender marriages" or marriages of convenience. This documentary even references the fact that Clift refused such studio control over his private life. It's a question of whether that defiance or independence would extend into his criminal arrest, if one such exists. 50 years removed from Clift's death, an arrest record could be discovered in a FOIA request or something akin. If that information is available, that's where the filmmakers here should have gone, but they don't. Confirming the arrest or not would be a minimum, but the filmmakers don't seem to try to do that. The filmmakers don't even interrogate Bosworth to see if she tried to confirm the arrest or not. It seems to be only known through hearsay, hearsay from Clift's agent at the time, so it's credible but not confirmed through official documentation.

Again, I have no problem with the family questioning the veracity of Bosworth's writing of this incident, but then it should be backed up with some veracity of its own. If you're going to question the good journalism of someone else, it's only appropriate to do so with good journalism of one's own. The filmmakers want to challenge the narrative that existed that Clift was a closeted, repressed or self-hating homosexual. Aside from one kiss recounted from Jack Larson, an actor whom Clift met, there's not much specifics to counter that narrative. The filmmakers brush that away by saying that Clift was more focused on his work and career than his personal life.

I'm willing to accept the counter-narrative. There was another documentary from last year called Scotty and the Secret History of Hollywood (2018) that stands as an example of the counter-narrative. It's simply that I don't think the filmmakers here make as good an argument for it as they could or should have. There's too few moments with Larson talking about his relationship with Clift for example. There are apparently tons of audio recordings of Clift and none of that illuminates Clift as a happy homosexual or bisexual, as his brother underscores.

Yet, even if the filmmakers here did craft a convincing counter-narrative, there was a lot of homophobia back then and an actual lavender scare. The directors here take issue with potential producers wanting to make a film that puts Clift in the center of such homophobia. I would then wonder what the directors think of works like In Cold Blood, The Social Network or Leaving Neverland. Do they believe all depictions of real-life people have to adhere to whatever interpretation that the family members say is the most accurate or can the depictions stand on their own?

Not Rated but for general audiences.
Running Time: 1 hr. and 29 mins.

Available on iTunes, Google Play, YouTube Movies, Vudu and Microsoft digital platforms.
Also available on DVD via Amazon.