I've always been a fan of Wrangler's gay porn, chiefly because he imbued a lot of passion in his sex scenes, and because you could just tell he was a nice guy underneath it all. I was at least half right. As this documentary makes clear, Wrangler was in fact a very nice guy. But there are mistakes in presentation in this film, and they puzzle me. For instance: Jack's groundbreaking role in gay porn is nicely delineated, yet all the commentators bypass the reality. That is, they praise his macho film image and actually convey this as his screen power, when in fact Wrangler's porn work was mostly macho shtick, an over-the-top, unconvincing strut. Which is why you fell for him - you saw the niceness, and he made it work ONLY because he had a sexy body. There was no stud persona, really, men. There was a sweet dude who was hung, who overplayed, and who was...well, sweet. Why does this movie fall short? Oddly, because it lets Jack talk way, way too much, and there's no room for an interesting analysis of how that early world of gay porn was the perfect doorway for a mediocre actor (and his filmed bits of club acts are somewhat painful to watch) who was gay, far more effeminate than either he or the documentary is willing to admit, and who wisely spent time at the gym. Similarly, Wrangler goes to extremes to justify his marriage to Margaret Whiting, when what emerges is an unnecessarily lengthy dance around a union formed between a gay man and a straight woman who were great, great friends. I just feel...let down. No mystery - and little hard reality - is conveyed here, either about Jack the porn star or Jack the husband. Yet, maybe it's not the film's fault. I dare say I merely expected greater depth from a subject that, while sweet as hell, has little to offer.
Review of Wrangler: Anatomy of an Icon
