Queer Review: Get on the Bus (1996)

Get on the Bus
Director: Spike Lee
Writer: Reggie Rock Bythewood
Cast: De'aundre Bonds, Thomas Jefferson Byrd, Richard Belzer, Gabriel Casseus, Albert Hall, Hill Harper, Harry Lennix, Bernie Mac, Wendell Pierce, Roger Guenveur Smith, Isaiah Washington, Steve White, Ossie Davis, Charles S. Dutton, Andre Braugher

Overview
The Million Man March on Washington DC in 1995 was an event organized by the controversial Louis Farrakhan and was designed to improve the image of black men by challenging negative stereotypes. That at least is what the textbooks say about the event. What Spike Lees' film Get on the Bus about The Million Man March does is paint a more intimate, on the ground perspective of a group of black men on their way to the rally.

Synopsis
The story begins by introducing the characters we will be spending the next two hours with boarding the bus. Once the trip has begun, conflicts between as the men begin to clash with each other. Gary, who is both biracial and a police officer whose father was killed in the line of duty, becomes a source of tension that is exacerbated when it is revealed that Jamal (Gabriel Casseus) is a former Crip. Flip (Andre Braugher), a snobbish actor, becomes virulently homophobic when he finds out that Randall and Kyle (Henry Lennix and Isaiah Washington) are a gay couple in the midst of a breakup. Evan and his son Smooth (Thomas Jefferson Byrd and De'Aundre Bonds) who are handcuffed together because of a judge's order after Smooth was caught robbing a grocery store. Further problems arise when the bus breaks down and a new bus driver who happens to be Jewish is brought on as a replacement.

Through it all, Xavier (Hill Harper) a film student makes a noble effort to document the proceedings. As tensions flair, guidance is provided by George (Charles S. Dutton), who organized the trip, and Jeremiah (Ossie Davis), an elderly man who it is eventually revealed to have a serious heart condition that threatens his life.

The Queering
It is perhaps because my recent film viewing has been exceptionally selective, but I feel that there has been a strong aversion in recent years by filmmakers to avoid actually addressing complex ideas or real life issues in films. As it is, I found myself surprised at the philosophical depth displayed by Spike Lee in Get on the Bus. Lee has always been a controversial figure and accusations against him for being divisive are everywhere. But as it is, every time I watch a Spike Lee Joint I find it to be an exceptionally thoughtful and balanced effort.

Get on the Bus manages to explore a variety of political issues all the while never losing sight of the characters. The dialog at a couple of points comes across as stilted, but given the nature of the production (filmed on a low budget over 16 days) that's to be expected. The issues that are addressed by the characters range cover just about everything from the root causes of economic deprivation faced by African Americans (is it the result of discrimination or welfare causing the breakup of African American families) to what it means to reform oneself after a hard life of crime. At one point, a character points out the problematic symbolism of Evan arriving at the rally with his son in chains.

As the story unfolds, much of the conflict is driven by the prejudices of the characters. The replacement bus driver, Rick (Richard Belzer) finds himself the target of anti-semitic remarks and quits as a result. Several black women express the view that the march is both exclusionary and sexist. Randal and Kyle find themselves the target of homophobia. It's fascinating how Lee was able to present a microcosm within the film of the march that includes most of the criticism against it and Louis Farrakhan without any of these elements coming across as a forced attempt at balance -- or at least none of it felt forced when I watched it the film while unaware of the criticism against Farrakhan for being both anti-semitic and homophobic. While the March is presented as having the potential for positive change for African-American Men, Lee still makes sure to include a cross section of this criticism.

As for the gay couple Kyle and Randal, they are presented as just as dedicated to the march and as integral to the group as any other main character. Furthermore, the unique prejudices they face are presented as no less significant to them than those faced by the other characters. That is there is no game of oppression olympics being played out here. When Kyle reveals that he served in the Marines, he talks about having to face both racism and homophobia when he tells of an incident where he was wounded by friendly fire:

When I woke up, they were laughing and talking about how...they killed two birds with one stone. One nigger, one faggot.

External obstacles to the group include a scene where they are pulled over by a State Trooper in Tennessee. The scene makes us wonder if someone broke the rule the group was given at the beginning about not carrying illegal substances and is about to be arrested.

In spite of the obstacles that the group faces (which are frequently set up to mirror the obstacles and discrimination that African American Men face in our larger society) the movie ends on a note of hope. In the final scene, a prayer is read which had been written by a character who passed away just when the group had reached Washington. It includes the following quote from the Book of Job:

For there is hope for a tree, if it be cut down...
... that it will sprout again...
... and that its tender shoots will not cease...
... though its roots may grow old in the earth...
... and its stump may die in the ground.
Yet at the scent of water...
... it will bud and bring forth branches like a plant.

Recommendation
Definitely would be worth a difficult bus ride to see Get on the Bus.

The Rating
3 stars out of 4.

Trailer


Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.

Queer Issue: Moral Dilemma: Would You Work For a Homophobic or Transphobic Employer?

Recently, my partner and myself moved from Pennsylvania to Minnesota, due to a job my partner was offered teaching Corrections for Minnesota State University. My partner is from the mid-west, so the cultural shock is not quiet so great for him, but I personally don't think that I will ever get used to hearing "soda" referred to as "pop". Also, I'm used to there always being hills or tall buildings around, so the wide open sky is a little off-putting for me. As it is, one reason for the lack of posts recently, is that I have been getting used to the area and am still trying to figure my way around a new location.

Otherwise, I'm doing fine and am finishing up my B.A. degree in Criminology for Wilkes University. I ended up having to take incompletes in two classes in the spring semester, so I'm finishing up my work for those while I search for a job here in Minnesota. I also am in the application process for a job at a local newspaper writing as a freelancer.

However, I am still looking elsewhere for work and recently came across an add for a staff position at a homeless shelter. At first glance the position looked good. The hours for the shifts they were hiring for were a little inconvenient, the pay was not great, but I figured it would be a good chance to obtain valuable experience working for a cause I believe is important. Plus I already have a lot of work and volunteer experience that would make me appear to be an ideal candidate for the position. Everything seemed set. Then I looked up the address in the ad.

As it turns out, the organization in question is one that has a history of discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community. The name of the organization isn't relevant, but for the record, this organization has both turned away homeless LGBTQ people seeking their services and there is at least one documented case of an employee being fired after coming out as LGBTQ that I am aware of. Also, at one point there was a link on their website to a virulently homophobic organization.

It is perhaps also worth pointing out that the link was taken down when it was pointed out to the organization and I could (if I wanted to name the organization in question) point to several news articles talking about the organization claiming they would mend their ways. However, a brief search turned up no news articles about the organization actually creating concrete policies to eliminate discrimination against the LGBTQ community, so it seems unlikely that such change has occurred.

Which brings me to my dilemma, it is possible that the local chapter does not discriminate against LGBTQ people and if the local head honcho was open minded, I might be able to get hired. But if I was hired by this organization, what would the implications be?

There are more than a few ways of looking at this issue. For example, the field of law enforcement and the criminal justice system have a reputation for being particularly homophobic and transphobic (in addition to engaging in other forms of prejudice) and thus one might reasonably question why an LGBTQ person would seek employment as a police officer or other wise within the criminal justice system. But the reputation of law enforcement officers in this case might be misleading that homophobia and transphobia (in addition to other forms of prejudice) are prevalent (or at least present) in just about every other career field imaginable, from science and medicine, to higher education, to politics and government.

One of the key features of systemic forms of discrimination and prejudice is that they are, well... systemic, and in general, it would be virtually impossible to find a career in which they would not be present.

But can a career choice be compared to working for a specific employer? This is the question that gives me pause. There are further complications here as well, namely that as far as I can tell, this organization runs the only homeless shelter for a long way around and thus an argument could be made that it would be better to have me working for this organization than not, as hypothetically, I could potentially work from within to make the local chapter more queer friendly so to speak. This latter choice is definitely a gamble though.

But at the end of the day, I simply do not like being put in this position in the first place. I want to work and put the skills that I have gathered during my life to good use. The choice of having to let them go to waste (if I am unable to find steady work elsewhere) or putting them to a use in a situation that might potentially increase homophobia and transphobia in our society is not a choice I look forward to making.

Queer Issue: They Said *What*! A Guide on How To Exploit Minority Outrage For Profit

There has been a bit of an uproar, if you want to call it that, over certain comments Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson made in an interview with the publication GQ. That these remarks were both homophobic and racist goes without saying at this point, so I'm not going to belabor any points here.

The response has been varied and telling. People in my twitter feed appear to be rushing to condemn Robertson for being homophobic bigots (with less attention being paid to the racist comments about blacks being happier under Jim Crow, which is a problem in of itself). Meanwhile, the right is going to great lengths to defend Robertson. He's even getting compared to Rosa Parks because people who state that African Americans were happier under Jim Crow are oh so clearly in the same catagory of people who fought against systemic racism in America.

What nobody is talking about is the possibility that this entire incident was staged at the outset, possibly with the blessing of producers from Duck Dynasty. While the Duck Commander clan has all the appearance of typical "redneck hicks" what with their long beards and business based on hunting products, the success of their business and TV show implies at least some media/marketing savvy. Of course the term redneck is a classist term and from what I'm reading, liberal perceptions of the Duck Dynasty clan is based on a whole set of classist assumptions that I don't have time to deconstruct for one article.

In any case, here is what I expect will happen. At some point in the next week or so, Phil Robertson will issue a carefully worded apology to the LGBTQ community. Afterwards, he'll get to go on some kind of GLAAD sponsored apology/publicity tour and maybe even through a respectable amount of cash at a LGBTQ charity. Afterwards, Duck Dynasty will return in time for the January/February sweeps with a significant ratings boost while Duck Commander merchandise goes flying off the shelf.

I own no crystal ball, so I could be oh-so-very wrong about all of this. But it's not like it hasn't been done before. When I was a teenager, musical artists like Marilyn Manson and Eminim sold records primarily by being as outrageos as possible. Furthermore, The Westboro Baptist Church has gained attention through outrageous picketing tactics. Yet, one wonders if they really believe in what they're saying or are simply in it for the money. After all, as reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

the church makes money by winning or settling civil lawsuits involving the church. During the 1990s, the group sued Topeka multiple times for failing to provide sufficient protection during its protests. Although they lost most of their cases, WBC did win $43,000 in legal fees in 1993. According to Shirley Phelps-Roper, they also won more than $100,000 in 1995 in a lawsuit against Kansas' Funeral Picketing Act, which they claimed violated their First Amendment rights.

I can recall back when I took Philosophy of Religion, someone mentioned "it seems like only a matter of time until someone just end up driving a car into the Westboro Baptist Church picketers". Driving a car into them is not exactly what they want, but it's not all that far removed either. What they really want is someone to attack them, or try and prevent them from protesting altogether. Something to bear in mind when one might be considering directly confronting a Westboro Baptist Church groupies.

Following in the Westboro Baptist Church's footsteps, other groups have taken up the challenge of "who can be the most offensive to everyone". My senior year at SUNY Oneonta, we were visited by the Defarios, a father/daughter team that preached hatred of the homos the first time they came. The next year they showed up, it was all about teh ebils of abortion. Both of their visits, caused heavy counter protests from the student body. I don't recall it ever being brought up directly, but I recall hearing rumors that the Defarios also were interesting in exploiting the legal system then promoting any particular message.

The point is, The Westboro Baptist Church, are ultimately no different from Marilyn Manson in principle, the dividing line revolves solely around which political group or identity they are attempting to offend.

However, larger questions still remain. Namely, how do we respond to such spectacles of bigotry? I have nothing against calling out right wing lies and bigotry when it occurs, but there is a certain tendency for reporters to just go "Oh look at what outrageous thing (so and so) said this time!" and then leave it at that. There are times when I cannot help but wonder if groups like Right Wing Watch function as little more than subliminal publicists for whichever members of the right wing that they decide to draw attention to.

Of course not only do anti-gay bigots pull this trick. As some of you might recall, the story of the waitress who claimed she was stiffed out of a tip by a bigot turned out to be completely false.

One cannot help but wonder, is this sort of thing even avoidable? Is there a way to create a better structure for both getting the word out on the discrimination we face, while responding to the lies told about us, without turning everything into the mere mechanics of an outrage bigot fund generating machine? Or perhaps human nature is against us here. Who knows. As annoying as clickbait culture is, it works because it just so happens to be really effective at selling superficial crap. Yet there is this lingering sense I have that all this outrage does nothing more than feed the hand that slaps us.

Now if you'll excuse me, I just came across a facebook link on my feed that says "You won't *BELIEVE* what this well known conservative said about teh gays THIS time [video]!" that I plan on checking out.

Queer Issue: Alan Turing Was a Genius Who Had a Lady Friend

I came across this article on Movie Scope today onThe Imitation Game about the life of Alan Turing, the openly gay man who cracked NAZI codes, saved thousands of lives, shortened WWII, on his way to becoming the father of computer science.

I have no idea how the movie intends to portray Turing (and frankly do not have the time to do the research) but there were a few details that jumped out at me. For starters the article points out that Kiera Knightly will play Alan Turing's "lady friend". That's nice, given that Turing was GAY, I'm sure there are plenty of ladies out there who enjoyed coordinating accessories with him. I mean, that is what gay men and ladies do together, right? Certainly, they could not just be co-workers and Knightly is simply Turing's friend (why does the term 'lady' even need to be there?) This is a movie after all, certainly the male lead is just absolutely, going to have to have fall in love with his lady friend, right?

Oh wait, Turing was GAY? But the article does not mention that at all, just that he was a victim or something of a close minded government.

I mean honestly, if someone did not know Turing was gay, they might very easily come away with impression that Turing is going to hook up with his lady friend from this article.

Queer Issue: Down With Mothers and Fathers Day!

There is an awkward cultural stereotype that gay men have obsessions with their mother. It is an image that shows up frequently in mass media and never in a good way. For the record, I do plan on calling my own mother today. I like to think that I have a relatively "normal" (whatever the bleep that means) relationship with my own mom.

However, there are plenty of people out there who do not have "normal" relationships with their parents. It goes without saying that there are more than a few individuals out there who have not been raised by kind loving parents, but by absentee, neglectful, if not outright abusive parents.

No, not all parents are abusive fucks. Not all parents are absent or neglectful. There are many who are kind, nurturing, and loving. Who teach their kids to be strong in a dark world by setting examples of proper behavior.

But what about those parents who are not? What are Mothers or Fathers day like for those who were raised by parents who were the opposite of loving and kind? Heck, what is Mothers/Fathers day like for those who lost their mother or father in a particularly tragic manor?

Not to mention, there is the issue of parents who are trying but are otherwise unable to conceive a child. I imagine days like Mothers and Fathers day might be a little tough to navigate. Admittedly, I can't speak for anyone here, I'm just speculating.

Then there is the issue of that even with Mothers and Fathers day, there are those parents who identify outside the gender binary. And let's face it, having a Mothers and Fathers as separate days is designed to normalize heteronormative relationship styles where Moms and Dads fill vastly different parenting roles. If Moms and Dads are not supposed to fill different roles, why would they need separate days to be honored? Admittedly, while it wouldn't solve the other issues, I sometimes wonder if it might not be a bad idea to have a gender neutral Parents Day for those individuals who might wish to show some gratitude for those responsible for their upbringing.

On a more philosophical note, I really cannot think of any other widely celebrated holidays that are designed to focus our attention on a specific relationship. Is their a spouses day? Friends day? Uncles or Aunts day? All other holidays are relationship neutral, so to speak. The exception might be Valentines Day. One can celebrate them (or not) with those families and friends that one chooses. In other words, there is no other holiday where one needs to have a living individual who filled (role X) in our lives before the holiday can be celebrated. Which does in fact make Mothers and Fathers day, kind of, well exclusive.

Just some food for thought.

Queer Issue: Politifacts' Rating System is a Lie (By Their Own Standards)

In an interview with CBS Face the Nation, Martina Navratilova made the claim that "In 29 states in this country you can still get fired for not just being gay, but if your employer thinks you are gay."

In response, Politifact rated the claim as being half true.

To justify their claim, Politifact points out that while 29 states do not have legislation at the state level to protect against discrimination, there are exceptions, such as those that exist for government employees, or in local municipalities that have passed anti-discrimation laws, in addition to specific employers which may also have anti-discrimination protections in place.

Politifact also points out that according to the deputy director of Lambda Legal, Hayley Gorenberg, a 1989 Supreme Court Case based around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins) *might* have set a precedent that could bar discrimination based upon an employer believing an employee is uh... "gay" (more on the word choice in the article here later).

So Politifacts' arguments boil down to two main points. One is that exceptions exist within the 29 states that do not have legislation at the state level to offer protection against discrimination based upon sexual orientation. The second point revolves around the possibility (offered up by Gorenberg) that the Civil Rights Act might bar discrimination based upon an employer merely believing an employee is uh... "gay".

The first part of Politifact's argument holds some water. Even though Navratilove never said that "no protections exist" in 29 states, the fact that a certain number of protections do exist for certain uh... "gays" might have justified rating Navratilove's claim as "Mostly True" rather than "True".

However, the second part is complete horseshit. There has never been an actual case before a court in which an individual has successfully used the precedent set by Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins to argue against discrimination based upon an employer's belief that an employee was/is uh... "gay". So any lawyer who argues that it might be *possible* that such protections exist is simply offering up an opinion on what *might* happen if a fired employee were to use it in a court trial.

This is but the first error that Politifact makes in their use of Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins. In their article, Politifact states:

Hayley Gorenberg, deputy legal director of Lambda Legal, cited the 1989 Supreme Court case Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins. In that case, a woman sued the accounting firm where she worked because she was not offered a promotion after a senior manager told her she should "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry." The plaintiff convinced the court that sex stereotyping constitutes sex discrimination, Gorenberg said. This precedent could protect a straight person who appeared to an employer to be "gay" and suffered discrimination as a result.

Let's break this down:
1) Navratilove used the term gay in her original claim, which is problematic in it's own right since it ignores transgender and transsexual identities (along with lesbian, bi, pan, etc...)

2) However, the number of states that do not offer up legislation that protect specifically against discrimination based upon gender identity is much larger than the number of states that protect based upon sexual orientation. Which means that to acknowledge gender identity would require a much wider analysis than what Politifact offers here.

3) I have seen it argued in the past that anti-discrimination laws for sex/gender might also apply to gender identity.

4) Since Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins dealt with discrimination based upon gender stereotypes (not on sexuality) it seems like it would be the sort of test case one might use to expand protection against discrimination based upon sex/gender to discrimination based upon gender identity.

5) It is therefore possible that this is what Gorenberg was refering to when she cited Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins as a precedent that might offer some protections to those who are uh... "gay".

6) Gorenberg, being deputy director of Lambda Legal should know the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity.

This all leads to the conclusion that Politifact, in order to apply Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins to Navratiloves' claim, deliberately conflated sexual orientation with gender identity. I'd also like to point out the fact that while Politifact does not quote Gorenberg directly when they say "This precedent could protect a straight person who appeared to an employer to be "gay" and suffered discrimination" they do put the word "gay" in scare quotes.

In any case, this all makes Politifacts' arguments here really, really screwy. Navratilove makes a claim that applies solely to sexual orientation. In analyzing it, Politifact brings in a case that might apply to gender identity, yet continues to use the term "gay" for unknown reasons. Furthermore, Politifact makes *no* mention of the current state of anti-discrimination laws based upon gender identity, which have a completely different status from those that apply to sexual orientation.

This is a *gargantuan* omission. One which makes Politifact's use of the sin of omission against Navratilove extremely hypocritical.

However, even if they are correctly representing Gorenberg's citation of Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins, Politifact is still relying on an expert opinion (which they have done in the past) as a key part of their ratings process. So even if they are correctly citing Gorenberg, they are still committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority in order to justify their rating of Navratilove's claim.

In the grand scheme of things, I have no problem with Politifact or any organization wishing to present contrary opinions to publicly made claims. But in attempting to clarify the situation in this case, Politifact only managed to further muddy the waters. Combine this with their repeated use of the appeal to authority fallacy and it becomes clear that it is Politifact and their rating system which is misrepresenting the truth.

Of the Day (March 10th, 2013)

The Amazing Sassy



Links
A term I don’t use anymore: TERF from Transstingray by Annetta Gaiman
American Assassinations For Dummies from NSFWcorp by By Mark Ames
Who are Democrats and Republicans representing, anyway? from Salon by David Sirota
Research shows everyone does worse with online learning from The Raw Story by Kay Steiger

Video


Follow Me On:
Twitter
Follow @queerthecloset
Google+

Facebook

Queer Review: Silkwood (1983)

Silkwood
Director: Mike Nichols
Writers: Nora Ephron and Alice Arlen
Cast: Meryl Streep, Kurt Russell, Cher, Craig T. Nelson, Fred Ward, Diana Scarwid, Ron Silver, David Strathairn, Bruce McGill, E. Katherine Kerr, Sudie Bond

Overview
Silkwood is a well acted, methodically paced drama based upon the real life story of Karen Silkwood, a labor activist at a factory that manufactured nuclear energy rods who died under mysterious circumstances.

Synopsis
Karen Silkwood (Meryl Streep) finds herself becoming suspicious that factory she works at, run by the Kerr-McGee company, is not adhering to proper safety protocols thanks to the fact that the factory is behind schedule on a large order of nuclear energy rods. As her suspicions increase, she becomes involved with the The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union and is soon elected to their bargaining committee. After secretly attempting to find documentation to substantiate her claims of the dangerous working conditions, she tests positive for plutonium poisoning, raising the possibility that someone at the plant has poisoned her. As Karen becomes increasingly paranoid that company management is trying to silence her, she organizes a meeting with a union official and a reporter from the New York Times, telling them that she had managed to obtain incriminating documentation. She never makes it, dying in an unfortunate car accident on the way to the meeting. When the her car was discovered, none of the documents she had previously claimed to have were found in it.

The Queering
I had put Silkwood in the netflix queue because Keith Stern had listed Karen Silkwood in his Queers in History: The Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Historical Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgenders. In the encyclopdia's article on Silkwood, Stern claims that she was lovers with her bisexual roommate Sherry Ellis. Therefore, given that Karen Silkwood is presented in this film as being exclusively heterosexual, I was all ready to rake the filmmakers over the coals for straightening out Karen.

However, in doing research for this review, I was unable to find any other sources to substantiate Stern's claim that Karen had both male and female lovers, outside of one source (that seemed mildly sketchy to me) that mentioned her being bisexual. There are other instances where Stern has overstated evidence so I feel a bit of reluctance to criticize Silkwood for straightening out the main character, since you can't really straighten out a character who was straight to begin with.

Furthermore, the filmmakers hold nothing back when it comes to Karen Silkwood's roommate, Dolly Pelliker (Cher). Dolly is shown not only engaging in a lesbian relationship with a hairdresser, but she also confesses to being romantically and unrequitedly in love with Silkwood. Furthermore, while both Silkwood and her male lover, Drew Stephens, are both mildly uncomfortable with Dolly's lover, the character is otherwise presented realistically and in a non-sensational manor. There is even a bit of a queer subtext between Dolly and Karen. The only thing that could be criticized about the character of Dolly, is that during a minor scene, it is suggested that Dolly might have alerted Kerr-McGee and betrayed to them Silkwood's attempts to obtain sensitive documents.

In regards to the overall film, there are many elements worthy of praise. Meryl Streep disappears completely into the character, giving her usual brilliant work. Cher is unrecognizable and allows herself to presented in a completely non-glamorous light while playing a working class factory stiff. Kurt Russell is not given a whole lot to do, other than walk around with his shirt off and give vague warnings to Karen about the danger she is getting herself into.

As I already mentioned, the pacing is deliberate. As a result, there were a few scenes that felt like they could have been shortened or cut. For example, there is a sequence where Drew walks around the house after it was stripped of it's contents while being searched for plutonium poisoning that felt unnecessary. However, there lots of details of the factory and the work being done, that manage to create a realistic picture of what the everyday lives of the factory employees were like. Silkwood in particular comes across as a completely realistic blue collar worker, who only gradually comes into her role as a labor activist.

In terms of historical detail, the filmmakers have wisely stuck to the established record. There is nothing that proves definitively that Silkwood was murdered to silence her before she could go public with any incriminating documentation she might have obtained but there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that points in that direction. The final moments of the film are expertly shot and edited to suggest many things while showing nothing clearly. The filmmakers point many fingers in different directions but ultimately allow the audience to draw their own conclusions. In the grande scheme of things, there is no reason that this story should have been told any other way.

Edit: Someone pointed me in the direction of the Lesbian Film Guide which describes Silkwood as bisexual and claims she had multiple female lovers. So we can now add this to the list of films which have straightened their LGBTQ protagonists. I thought the filmmakers had focused a bit too much on Karen's relationships with men for her to have been straight in real life. Now I know why they did that - they wanted to avoid even the suggestion that she might have been queer.

Recommendation
Highly recommended, particularly for those who are interested in learning about the story of Karen Silkwood.

The Rating
*** out of ****

Trailer


Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.

Of the Day (1/2/13)

The Amazing Sassy


Quote
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
-George Santayana

Historical Queer Poem
To a Young Fisherman by Jacob Israël de Haan

Your naked feet more tender than a tulip,
A rose less handsome than your ruddy cheeks,
In no other's eyes did I read more replete
Such a boundless hankering for friendship.

Behind us the eternity of the sea,
Above paled grey the everlasting sky,
Drifting on the lonely beach just we
Alone, no other than the sea to pry.

I went to my City, our last day ended.
You sail and fish content, I drift and brood
and find no city refuge nor stiller field.
I am so tired, yet much I have loved,
Forgive me much, ask not what I withstood
And pray I never to your beauty yield.

Of the Day (1/1/13)

The Amazing Sassy


Links
Bible Beefcake by Jeffery Dennis
Re-Thinking How We View & Discuss STIs by Winter Tashlin

Historical Queer Poem

My Lady by Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz

My lady, I must implore
forgiveness for keeping still,
if what I meant as tribute
ran contrary to your will.

Please do not reproach me
if the course I have maintained
in the eagerness of my love
left my silence unexplained.

I love you with so much passion,
neither rudeness nor neglect
can explain why I tied my tongue,
yet left my heart unchecked.

The matter to me was simple:
love for you was so strong,
I could see you in my soul
and talk to you all day long.

With this idea in mind,
I lived in utter delight,
pretending my subterfuge
found favor in your sight.

In this strange, ingenious fashion,
I allowed the hope to be mine
that I still might see as human
what I really conceived as divine.

Oh, how mad I became
in my blissful love of you,
for even though feigned, your favor
made all my madness seem true!

How unwisely my ardent love,
which your glorious sun inflamed,
sought to feed upon your brightness,
though the risk of your fire was plain!

Forgive me if, thus emboldened,
I made bold with that sacred fire:
there's no sanctuary secure
when thought's transgressions conspire.

Thus it was I kept indulging
these foolhardy hopes of mine,
enjoying within myself
a happiness sublime.

But now, at your solemn bidding,
this silence I herewith suspend,
for your summons unlocks in me
a respect no time can end.

And, although loving your beauty
is a crime beyond repair,
rather the crime be chastised
than my fervor cease to dare.

With this confession in hand,
I pray, be less stern with me.
Do not condemn to distress
one who fancied bliss so free.

If you blame me for disrespect,
remember, you gave me leave;
thus, if obedience was wrong,
your commanding must be my reprieve.

Let my love be ever doomed
if guilty in its intent,
for loving you is a crime
of which I will never repent.

This much I descry in my feelings--
and more that I cannot explain;
but you, from what I've not said,
may infer what words won't contain.

Of the Day (12/25/12)

Awhile back, I attempted to create a web comic, The Amazing Sassy, and host it here on blogger. I did this by creating a new blog, The Queerest Selections From the Library of Babel and putting the comics there, along with other bits of fictional stuff that I was working on at the time. Needless to say it didn't work out very well. Frankly, blogger really is not the right platform for what I wanted to do.

However, I eventually abandoned that project after a brief attempt to combine the content of both blogs. What I eventually decided to do after a bit of research is to have the comic strip hosted at
Comic Fury.

Now, in the past I had also toyed with the idea of creating superficial content for this blog as a means of increasing hits and traffic. I mean, I could do things like have a regular link of the day post. But I'm not in the business of simply linking to content I found elsewhere, although I do like to post links I have found on the web on to my twitter account and I find twitter to be a much more agreeable format for such a purpose. I want to produce my own content, not simply link to work done by others.

Now in the same vein, I could also do things like post random pictures I find interesting or post interesting quotes. I mean, having a quote of the day would be nice, I like quotes.

However, what I have decided to do is this: Every time I create and upload a new The Amazing Sassy comic strip, I'll promote it here in an "Of the Day" post, where I'll include (potentially) a quote, a link, and perhaps a Historical Queer Poem. Because randomly combing random things for a random purpose is totally awesome, trust me.

By the way: Historical Queer Poetry was something I tried to create for The Queerest Selections From the Library of Babel but I think I could revise that project for this purpose.

Now without further ado, I shall give you the first "Of the Day" post:

The Amazing Sassy


Quote
"The shallow consider liberty a release from all law, from every constraint. The wise man sees in it, on the contrary, the potent Law of Laws."
- Walt Whitman

Link
How to be a Fan of Problematic Things by The Social Justice League.

Historical Queer Poem
Abraham Lincoln
Originally published in The L.A. Weekly, 1829

I will tell you a Joke about Jewel and Mary
It is neither a Joke nor a Story
For Rubin and Charles has married two girls
But Billy has married a boy
The girlies he had tried on every Side
But none could he get to agree
All was in vain he went home again
And since that is married to Natty
So Billy and Natty agreed very well
And mama's well pleased at the match
The egg it is laid but Natty's afraid
The Shell is So Soft that it never will hatch
But Betsy she said you Cursed bald head
My Suitor you never Can be
Beside your low crotch proclaims you a botch
And that never Can serve for me

Queer Review: My Own Private Idaho (1991)

My Own Private Idaho
Director: Gus Van Sant
Writers: Gus Van Sant. Based upon Henry IV Part I, Henry IV Part 2 and Henry V by William Shakespeare
Cast: River Phoenix, Keanu Reeves, James Russo, William Richert, Udo Kier, Tom Troupe, Flea

Overview
My Own Private Idaho is an experimental indie film from the early part of a decade when indie films once flourished. While fairly artsy, bordering on pretentious, and with obvious references to select works of Shakespeare, Gus Van Sant's film is easy enough to admire, even if I'm not sure that I liked it. In any case, it's infinitely better than the other gay hustler film that I've seen, the Best Picture Oscar winning Midnight Cowboy, which was was nothing more than a homophobic crapfest.

Synopsis
Narcoleptic street hustler Mike Waters (River Phoenix) embarks on a journey to find his mother, while accompanied by his friend Scott Favor (Keanu Reeves). Along the way, Mike reveals that he is in love with Scott, but Scott ultimately rejects Mike's advances.

The Queering
My Own Private Idaho is more character study than anything else and generally, completely elliptical in it's style and presentation. There are obvious references to Shakespeare's plays, Henry IV Part 1 and Henry IV Part 2 and Henry V. Scott is clearly based upon Prince Hal/King Henry the Fifth, while his friend Bob Pigeon (William Richert) resembles the fat knight Sir Falstaff.

On the plus side, it's hard to find a more nuanced and psychologically complex queer character than Phoenix's Mike Waters. Keaunu Reeves, one of the more wooden performers in Hollywood, manages to give the most charismatic performance of his career. The cinematography is always interesting and there are many memorable images, such as the shot of a house that falls out of the sky in the middle of nowhere.

My biggest issue with the film, is that at times it feels too pretentious and doing stuff merely for the sake of being arty. For example, the shot of a house that falls randomly out of the sky in the middle of nowhere. The slow nature of the plot would be forgivable if it wasn't for the fact that there's a lot of material that feels like padding or was included simply to give the production that special "indie" vibe. I do not mind slow films so long as the deliberate pacing serves a purpose. Van Sant could have tightened things up a bit and delivered a superior motion picture.

Then there is the issue of the transitions from the stylized Shakespearean-esque dialog that Scott uses when speaking with his dad or Bob and the more natural rhythms of the scenes featuring Mike, which I frequently found to be a bit jarring.

On the whole though, this is an ambitious and challenging motion picture and people should not avoid it because of the less successful material.

Recommendation
For those who like more artistic films with ambiguous characters and slow plots, this is one of the better films that I've seen of that nature.

The Rating
*** out of ****

Trailer


Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.

So... about this Google+ gizmo...

I created a Google+ community today for Queering the Closet. I'm still not sure why, as I already have Google+ a fan page.

When I first found out that Google was now allowing the creation of community pages on Google+, I wasn't sure what to think. However, I was invited to a community page for M/M romance literature and thought I might start one that had a more general purpose. That is rather than just those interested in m/m romance, how about a community to talk about LGBTQ media in general?

We'll see where things go from here. I wonder if this will be another social media thing to manage or if it might actually go someplace.

Silver Demon - Market Research Question

Alright, I've been having this debate in my head for some time, but I can't decide on a subtitle for my Silver Demon. There are two possibilities that I keep going back and forth with: The Knights of Isophyl or Gods of the Abyss.

Personally, I'm leaning towards The Knights of Isophyl but I'm a little nervous that since no one (unless they happen to be really familiar with obscure bits of queer history or George Heard) will recognize it, which might turn off some publishers that I submit a manuscript to. Therefore, Gods of the Abyss might be a little bit more useful when trying to sell it.

What are peoples thoughts? Would people be willing to buy a book called The Knights of Isophyl?

More Info on Margaretville Interfaith Council and The Holy Innocents Church

A church's struggle for interfaith inclusion goes viral via The Watershed Post

A public outcry has erupted in a tight-knit Catskills community over a local interfaith council's reluctance to allow an independent Catholic church to join as a member. The dispute has prompted the council's pro bono lawyer to resign in protest, and stirred up local tensions about same-sex marriage and religion.

Bishop Francisco Betancourt, a founding pastor of the independent Catholic Holy Innocents church in Halcottsville, said that his church has been trying to join the Margaretville Interfaith Council for 12 years, ever since the church was established. Throughout that time, Betancourt said, his efforts have been met with a resounding silence -- a response that was never quite clear enough to be 'no,' but never a welcoming 'yes.'

The reason his church has not been welcomed, Betancourt says, is Holy Innocents' willingness to perform same-sex marriage, an issue that Interfaith Council leaders acknowledge is deeply controversial among their members.

Read the whole article here

Silver Demon: Speaking for the Voiceless

In The Republic, Plato takes pains to express his contempt of most art. Plato's view of art of course was shaped by his conception of his beloved Forms. For those who do not know, Plato conceived of the forms as a metaphysically "real" world that everything in our world is based upon. A chair is only a chair, according to Plato, because within the realm of the Platonic Forms, the true form/idea of a chair exists.

Everything that is a copy of something else is inferior to the original (Plato claims) therefore, our world is inferior to the world of the forms. By default then art, which attempts to "copy" things in our world, is therefore a copy of a copy, and therefore further degraded from the Platonic Forms.

One hates to think what might happen to Plato, if he were still alive today, of the apocalyptic rage he might experience when he saw Hollywoods' fetish for sequels, remakes, adaptations, as well as the remakes of sequels of previous adaptations which then go on to have novelizations and video games based upon them.

In any case, this brings me to what I want to talk about: Speaking on behalf of those who have been marginalized.

In the process, of writing my LGBTQ Superhero novel Silver Demon, it did not feel right to me to not honor real life LGBTQ heros, as well as using the opportunity to highlight both bits of LGBTQ history and LGBTQ individuals that have either been overlooked or forgotten.

To that end, I created secondary characters based upon real life LGBTQ individuals. This is in addition to naming individuals after LGBTQ historical figures, even when It was only afterwards that I started wondering, was what I'm doing really all that ethical? After all, I am taking individuals, some of whom were quite controversial in their time, and putting words in their mouths that they themselves might not have agreed with. I have of course made every attempt to stay true to the essence of what the established record says about these individuals, but error on my part is always a real possibility.

In the same vein, I have felt a certain responsibility to raise awareness of issues facing the queer community, such as the high rate of homelessness among LGBTQ youth. I also felt it important that I not just include white, able bodied, cis-male character, in addition to characters of various religious and cultural backgrounds.

However, I personally am cis, male, able bodied, white, raised christian (specifically Methodist), identify as agnostic, currently part of Oneonta's Unitarian Universalist Society. I have also never personally experienced what it is like to be homeless. By creating characters who are not part of my tribe or within my own experience, am I, to a degree, committing a form of cultural imperialism? I do not know what it is like to live in our society as a person of color. I am not blind or deaf, nor am I required to rely on a wheelchair for basic mobility. I am not a member of either Islam or Buddhism. Is it therefore possible then for me to somehow appear not only to be speaking for other groups (which I'm not trying to do) but because I have included such characters, end up misrepresenting the experiences of these groups?

There is a phenomenon in many narratives, in which a member of a non-oppressed group (typically a white, cis, straight man) manages to save a member or members of an oppressed group. Examples of this are abundant, Dances with Wolves, Dances With Wolves in Space... er Avatar.

While I think Hollywood (or whoever is telling a particular story) does this for very specific reasons - they get to have a character (the white, cis, straight man) who appeals to the widest audience possible - while still getting to address the Important Issues of the Day. However, these narratives has the unfortunate effect of making the minorities in question look weak and unable to solve their problems. This problem is the one issue that I think I was fortunately able to avoid easily enough in my own work.

However, there are even thornier issues yet. When I was doing research, I discovered the stories of brothels that were maintained by the NAZI's in concentration camps such as Buchenwald, which is where a significant part of where the back-story in Silver Demon is set. This also happens to be the one topic I feel would be the easiest for me to get wrong. I do not wish to exploit a tragedy or human suffering but if I ignore the issue altogether in the story, would I be contributing to the oppressive silence surrounding rape and sexual assault?

I don't think there are any easy answers to these questions. Anything I create can only be considered a copy of something of our real, non-Platonic Form world. Therefore, I can only ask, am I creating something inferior and exploitative or enlightened and informative? And then work towards the latter and while trying to avoid the former.

Local Issue: Shame on Margaretville Interfaith Council!

Sharing because of the shortage of local pro-queer media:

From Diversity Rules Magazine: Shame on Margaretville Interfaith Council! by Jim Kouri

The Margaretville Interfaith Council is not allowing membership to Holy Innocents Catholic Church, an Apostolic Catholic Church independent from Papal Authority, primarily because of its acceptance of queer folks and marrying them. The council is concerned that other churches will leave the council if “the gay church” is allowed to join. Holy Innocents Church does a lot of good things in the greater Margaretville area and it's a real travesty that the Interfaith Council sees fit to discriminate against this church, a fellow Christian Church helping people in need and ministering to them.

Here's a link to Holy Innocents and check out for yourself what great church they are:

http://www.holyinnocentscacina.org

If you want to help in battling discrimination in this small Delaware County village, contact Francisco J. Betancourt, Co-Pastor, at 845.586.2201. Tell him you heard about his plight from Diversity Rules Magazine and you want to know how you can help!

If you want to express your outrage directly to the Interfaith Council the contact person is, Rev. Richard Dykstra, Secretary/Treasurer. His contact information is as follows:

Rev. Richard Dykstra
PO Box 702
Margaretville, NY 12455
607.326.7101

Paragraph 175 (2000)

Okay, while doing research for my novel Silver Demon, somehow overlooked (until now) this powerful documentary on the NAZI's persecution of gay men during the Holocaust.

Fortunately, it's available for free online, so no point in me giving a review.

I will say that for those who can stomach the material, I highly recommend it.

Paragraph 175

Queer Review: Personal Best (1982)

Personal Best
Director: Robert Towne
Writer: Robert Towne
Cast: Mariel Hemingway, Scott Glenn, Patrice Donnelly, Kenny Moore

Overview
A mediocre effort, Personal Best does little to distinguish itself from many other sports film outside of the fact that happens to focus on queer female athletes and a tendency to shun most of the cliches that accompany the sports film genre.

Synopsis
When Chris (Mariel Hemingway) comes in last at a track event, she attracts the attention of Tory (Patrice Donnelly) an older lesbian. The two eventually becomes lovers and after Tory persuades Coach Terry (Scott Glenn) to allow Chris on the team, Chris manages to convince Terry of her talent. However, while the track team is preparing to qualify for the Olympic games, Terry ends up favoring Chris over Terry and attempts to pit the two females against each other.

The Queering
There are many things I would like to applaud about Personal Best. For one, it deals openly and honestly with a lesbian relationship, even though it came out in the early 80's. Another is that the training/sports sequences are effectively presented and usually manage to generate some suspense. Furthermore, the focus on female athletes is also a welcome change for a genre that almost exclusively focuses on men.

I also felt there was a rather deliberate effort on the part of the filmmakers to avoid many of the more annoying cliches associated with sports films. Terry never gives a grand speech about how winning is everything and TEH GLORY FOREVERZ! The plot does not conclude with the "big game" - this is actually all about qualifying for an Olympics, that thanks to the possibility of a U.S. boycott, the athletes might not even be able to attend.

However, after the writers removed all of the melodrama, speeches, and underdogs who come from behind that usually accompany sports flicks, what you have left is, well, something too bland to even be called "vanilla". Personal Best is more appropriately likened to watered down, low fat vanilla.

After what I considered a promising start, Personal Best spends most of the middle section meandering through tepid melodrama, before redeeming itself with an ending that is at least more involving than most of the material proceeding it.

However, I think it is worth comparing Personal Best to it's male equivalents, either in terms of the sports genre or it's presentation of same sex love.

As far as sports dramas go, when most sports films with male characters would be going for 11, Personal Best goes for 1. There are times when I had to remind myself that these characters were Olympic class athletes, as they almost never seem all that interested in winning, or glory, or even in doing particularly well on a given day. Maybe the lack of motivational speeches is to blame, but neither the actors or the script really do much to sell the idea that these are professional athletes locked in non-contact combat.

I've been around enough athletes to know the kinds of pressures many of them face. There are rigid diets that must be adhered to. Strict training schedules that cannot be abandoned, even when one is not on the track. One does not simply lift a few weights, perform a couple of stretches, and then wash down an ice cream Sunday with a bit of Gatorade before showing up for practice or a big game. Compare the level of pressure these characters appear to be up against and compare that to what was on display in Black Swan which was about ballet, not training for the Olympics.

There are two possible explanations for this and the truth probably lies somewhere in between them. One is that the filmmakers believe female athletes are not as competitive as male athletes. This is not true as far as I know.

The second explanation is that the filmmakers decided that the content (LESBIAN ATHLETES WOO!) was juicy enough, and that trying to spice things up further would be like adding chili powder to jalapeno peppers. The blandness of the final product shows just how wrong that thinking was. Personal Best does however manage to avoid sinking to the level of Making Love, a film that was also released in 1982 and another example of where the filmmakers appear to come down with a case of, "well we got queer content, no need to do anything else to make this interesting, like actually bother writing a decent script".

Now as far as queer content itself goes, there is another element that differentiates Personal Best from it's male equivalents. Namely that there are way more shots of the nude female form then would ever be of male characters in a mainstream film - at least for the foreseeable future. Not that this is interesting in of itself, it just goes to further highlight the double standards that continue to exist in modern cinema.

Recommendation
While managing to avoid being a personal worst for anybody involved, Personal Best is anything but. Not to be avoided, but only worth seeking out for those with a strong interest in seeing lesbian characters on film, sports flicks about female athletes, or someone studying the history of queer cinema.

The Rating
**1/2 out of ****

TV Spot


Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.

Silver Demon: The No Handed Bandit

This is the latest post regarding my LGBTQ superhero novel, Silver Demon, where I talk about stuff that either inspired me or interesting tidbits that I have come across while doing research.

In any case, during the course of the novel, one of the characters ends up losing both of their hands. While doing research on what that would be like, I came across the youtube videos of the the No Handed Bandit and they were interesting enough that I thought I might share them.

User Page for the No Handed Bandit

The No-Handed Bandit shows how he puts his arms on: