Song of the Loon (1970) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
A Western Allegory of Contemporary (1970) Gay Consciousness
jaibo5 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Song of the Loon is a peculiar soft-core gay film, based on a popular pulp novel which was published in the mid-1960s. Gay soft-core from that era is a historical curiosity. Shortly after certain financially strapped cinemas began trading to the gay crowd, there was a testing of the legal limits of representation. Hardcore was not yet licensed, so a handful of soft-core gay features were produced; the most ambitious of these is probably Song of the Loon.

The film, like the book, tells the story of a naïve frontiersman who comes to terms with his sexual orientation through his encounters with an Indian tribe, the Loon, who practise free love and homosexuality. As such, this is what came to be known as a 'coming out drama'. The intriguing thing here is that the drama is played as an allegory, with the Loon standing in for the out gay man and the villains of the piece - a preacher and another, closet-case frontiersman – stand for those men who have not come to terms with themselves and so turn into homophobic hypocrites. The preacher's name is Calvin, so in part the film's allegory is a theological argument on the merits of a sex-denying Christian Puritanism versus a pagan liberation theology.

Song of the Loon intersperses narrative with montage sequences, the latter mostly involving soft-core episodes of lovemaking; there are some dodgy effects used to give these episodes an arty feel. The film was clearly made on a low budget; much of the editing and all of the acting is poor. The film is very earnest – there is hardly a moment of humour in the entire running time. There is also no sense of historicity, which emphasises the allegorical nature of the story; the idea of coming to terms which your sexual orientation is something that would have meant little-to-nothing to 19th century frontiersmen. Yet as a cultural and historical document of the time it was made, replete with coy eroticism, free-love preachiness and enlightenment through hallucinatory vision-quests, this has considerable value.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A good film for the time. The story does not follow the book but is not bad.
valdsdad12 July 2008
This film is available. I got a copy and enjoyed it. I suggest you read the book (it is available again)and then watch the movie. Some of the actions in the movie are explained in the book so it makes better sense. If you watch this movie understanding when it was made and the attitude toward gay books and movies, it is amazing it was made at all. The story tells of love and learning between several men and shows the problems the characters had in the story still exist today. The acting is a little stilted and the filming was not great; however, it is a classic which will go down in movie history as ground breaking. I hope you can get a copy to watch.
13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Just Because It's "Important" Doesn't Mean It's Good
oz_13_was_taken1 July 2023
Was told to watch this because it's a classic and important piece of gay cinema. Some cowboys fall in love, one of them spends some time with some offensive Native American stereotypes. One closeted guy gets outed at the end, I was only sort of still following the movie at that point, I was so bored. I was able to sit through it but my GOD what a boring slog! This thing could've been about 20 minutes but was long and drawn out with not much happening. Plenty of eye candy, though, I guess. Pretty soft core. I'm a gay man myself, so I can understand the significance of having a movie like this back in the 70s, but just because it was important doesn't make it good. Not entertaining.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An excellent film, for its time, about a man coming to terms with his sexual orientation.
johnfadrian25 December 2000
Filmed in 1970 from Richard AMORY's 1966 pulp novel of the same title, it is the story of a young man searching for love and happiness in the American West of the 1870's, coming to accept his homosexuality and through that self-acceptance becoming the man he was born to be.

Thirty years on it is painfully obvious that the Native Americans are played by European-Americans with bad make-up and for the more mature actors, gym-buffed bodies. The scenery is real, however, and the acting, if not up to "A" standards is no worse than the acting in most "B" pictures. However, whatever its faults, this film tells it's story with an honesty not found in American films until the late 1980's. I strongly recommend it for students of Gay Studies.

There is full-frontal male nudity and the film is erotic. It is not, however, pornographic. (It does not have an all-male cast.) While not rated by the MPAA, I would give it an "R".

Released in VHS in 1994 by Something Weird Video, it is available in both colour and black and white. If you are buying, insist on the colour version.

Early in the summer of 2000 this film was not in the IMDb to-day it is listed with only a director's credit. A "people" search for the actors credited on the box comes-up with only one name match, Jon EVANS. If he is the same man, I do not yet know.
27 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A gay classic
preppy-36 May 2008
This takes place in the American West of the 1870s. A young man named Ephiram (Morgan Royce) is in the wilderness fleeing a vicious male lover. He runs into Indians and hunky Cyrus Wheelwright (John Iverson). He begins to realize he's gay but has trouble coming to grips with it because of his ex. Can Cyrus and some Indian mystics help Ephiram realize that being gay is not bad?

For its time this was groundbreaking. It's probably the first gay coming of age story caught on film. It was shot in color but I unfortunately saw it in black & white on an old VHS tape. Still the cinematography was beautiful. It looks good in b&w--I can only imagine how color would look. The script is interesting--some of the talks about men loving men are fascinating (for its time). There's also a beautiful fireside talk between Ephram and Cyrus leading to a tender kiss. There is male nudity (including frontal) but nothing explicit. The two sex scenes show absolutely nothing that could be considered hard core. Still, the MPAA seems to have issues with male nudity so they would probably slap it with an NC-17. The cast themselves are all handsome men with nice bodies. Surprisingly even the acting is good--especially by Iverson. The only debit is Royce. He is beautiful--but can't act. The poor guy DOES try but it's no go. Because of that I can only give this a 9. Still well worth catching. Try to see it in color--I'm sure it must be beautiful.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed