Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

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!

Michael_Elliott 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.

Kate Dixon (foolwiththefez) In 1947 there were very few contexts in which a film could portray one man embracing another. Fireworks (1947) opens with one of these (a soldier carrying a man who appears to be wounded or even dead) but quickly begins to subvert this imagine; drastically changing its implied meaning. The film begs for analysis more than review because, while it is as direct as abstract art can be, it is obscure enough to be daunting.A man awakes in bed and removes a phallic symbol from beneath the sheets. He begins to get dressed while the camera lingers on his crotch and naked chest. He gathers up photos scattered around the bed and disposes of them in the fire. Through this sequence we began to think of sex. It is not a stretch to imagine the pictures (of one man holding another) to have been masturbatory material now destroyed implying shame and the desire for secrecy.The man finishes dressing while being framed as a visual mirror of the earlier phallic symbol. This gives a hint into his emotional state. His matchbook is both empty and branded with United States Navy. It is discarded and the man enters the night through a public restroom where he sees a sailor. The sailor removes his shirt and begins to flex his muscles and show off his body, but when asked for a cigarette he is seen to be fully dressed. This implies that the previous shirtless shots may have been the man's subjective view, mentally undressing the sailor as it were.The sailor reacts violently to the request for a cigarette and it is not hard to imagine that the question was a veiled (or even overt as the movie lacks dialogue) pick up attempt. Remembering the matchbook, we can assume the man has tried this approach before. The violence that follows is brief, suggestive, and ends with the man smoking a cigarette; a classic visual shorthand for the conclusion of sex.The original sailor leaves, but a new group arrives. They are armed and angry. The violence here is both extended and graphic, yet far more abstract. The man's reaction to the beating is sensual implying, if not outright rape then, at least, a connection to sadomasochistic sex. Using (to my mind at least) the Soviet Montage theory Anger turns milk into a bodily fluid by having the shots follow shots of blood and ecstatic writhing. This, somewhat appropriately, heralds the unsubtle climax where both patriotic symbols (fireworks), and religious symbols (Christmas tress) are converted into phallic symbols as the music swells triumphantly. We are brought back to the image of one man holding another as it is destroyed by the invasion of of now homoerotic symbols.The final scene shows the man once more sleeping in bed (though this time with a male partner) and suggest that all that preceded was a dream. Here we are recalled to the opening narration we the director talks about dreams expressing emotions that are repressed during waking life, but providing only a "temporary relief."

Clark Richards 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.