Fireworks (1947)*** (out of 4) Kenneth Anger's earliest surviving film was apparently influenced by him trying to pick up a sailor only to be beaten by the man and his friends. Trying to explain what this film is about would be pointless as I'm sure each viewing could watch it and come away with something different. The basic set-up has a man walking into a "Gents" room where he watches a man flex his muscles and then he tries to pick him up. FIREWORKS is certainly a very weird film as is its history, which included Anger being arrested on obscenity charges. Seeing the film today it's hard to believe that anyone would make too much fuss about it and I'd argue that the homosexuality isn't nearly as on display as the reputation of the film would lead you to believe. For the most part Anger has done a pretty good job in regards to the style and images seen in the film. The surrealist nature is really impressive and I thought several of the images were very nightmarish and they really came across as someone a lot more experienced behind the camera. I'm sure this film isn't going to appeal to everyone but fans of the weird should at least give it a shot.

This film has a dozen images in it that will stay tucked away in your head long after you can remember why exactly they're clawing at you. I guess the most interesting aspect from watching this film is how I was constantly repeating to myself, "This was made in 1947?".It is hard to believe that a film so overtly homo-erotic could find such a large audience at that time. That alone speaks to the overall impact the images from this film have on the viewer. Almost equally as amazing is that Anger was only 17 when he made this film. That's very brave, but strictly as a movie, it really didn't do much for me. Sometimes surrealistic images and their meaning can be lost on me, though there's quite a lot of this movie that is unmistakably "on the nose".I'm not sure quite what to make of it, but I hope that Anger worked out whatever it was he was going through at that time.

Kenneth Anger completed his first major work, 'Fireworks (1947),' at age seventeen, which I find remarkable. The film is artistically imaginative, despite employing a rather stodgy hand-held camera, and thematically mature – albeit, with a certain tongue-in-cheek approach to the material. Anger himself described the film as follows: "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." This director's synopsis makes no allusion to the homoeroticism that is most certainly present; the film plays as though Anger is acting out some deeply-entrenched masochistic fantasy in which he is confronted and raped by a pack of burly sailors. Sexual imagery is abound: a wooden statue is briefly confused with an erection; a pyrotechnic phallus presumably simulates the sensation of orgasm. Given the conservative morals of post-War America, 'Fireworks' is certainly a very bold statement of Anger's acknowledged homosexuality, especially at such a young age. Even so, the film is uncomfortable viewing. Anger's uncompromising juxtaposition of sex and violence predates such works as Ed Emshwiller's 'Thanatopsis (1962)' and Stanley Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange (1971).'

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.