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.
December 19, 2012
December 18, 2012
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.
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.
Queer Review: Mondo Rocco (1970)
Mondo Rocco
Director: Pat Rocco
Writer: Pat Rocco
Cast: Rick Cassidy, Pat Rocco, Rev. Troy Perry, Ron Dilly, Jim Baily,
Overview
A rare and early queer documentary, with a few fictionalized soft core beefcake pieces inserted into, Mondo Rocc depicts a variety of random elements in early days of the gay liberation.
Synopsis
Mondo Rocco has several segments, most of them are documentary in nature, plus one fictionalized plot arc. There is footage of two different marches that were sponsored by the Rev. Troy Perry. "Meat Market Arrest" features a raid on a gay bar where a nude dancer was going to perform. "A Night at Joanie's" features a drag show staring Jim Baily who impersonates Mae West, Barbara Streisand, and Judy Garland. Another segment shows a live performance of the cast of Hair performing pieces from that play in a L.A. park. Interwoven into all of these are several beefcake shorts featuring copious male nudity.
The Queering
According to the cover of the VHS copy of Mondo Rocco that I was able to obtain, "Pat Rocco was the first openly gay American filmmaker to create gay-themed films for gay audiences". I do not know if that is true or not, but given what I do no of queer themed cinema from that time period, I have no reason to challenge that claim.
On one level, Mondo Rocco is an important film. On another level, it can be extremely boring to sit through. Some of the segments are entertaining (Night at Joanie's). Some present intriguing documentary material of the early gay liberation movement (Meat Market Arrest and the segments depicting two marches and a rally with the Rev. Troy Perry). However the soft core/beefcake segments, even if they had featured better looking actors, would still probably bore most people into stuporville. They certainly did for me. The segment with the cast of Hair feels particularly out of place, given the lack of gay or queer content.
The mondo genre of films was a type of documentary film that featured taboo or exploitative elements, such as showing animals being slaughtered for food or tribal initiation rites. Such films typically strayed into the pseudo-documentary realm by showing staged reenactments that hyped up the lurid elements. The only reason Mondo Rocco might be considered to a part of the mondo genre, is thanks to the beefcake segments, plus the nude dance that is shown as part of the "Meat Market Arrest" segment. Most of the material is tame, nor do most segments show any signs of having been hyped up. The only reason that certain elements, such as those that feature the marches of Rev. Troy Perry, might be considered titillating or lurid is because of the time period they were made in.
Recommendation
For those willing to take the time and effort (plus spend a bit of cash) the educational and historical value is unmatched.
Additional Info:
Mondo Rocco page at IMDB
Mondo Rocco at Queer Music Heritage
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Pat Rocco
Writer: Pat Rocco
Cast: Rick Cassidy, Pat Rocco, Rev. Troy Perry, Ron Dilly, Jim Baily,
Overview
A rare and early queer documentary, with a few fictionalized soft core beefcake pieces inserted into, Mondo Rocc depicts a variety of random elements in early days of the gay liberation.
Synopsis
Mondo Rocco has several segments, most of them are documentary in nature, plus one fictionalized plot arc. There is footage of two different marches that were sponsored by the Rev. Troy Perry. "Meat Market Arrest" features a raid on a gay bar where a nude dancer was going to perform. "A Night at Joanie's" features a drag show staring Jim Baily who impersonates Mae West, Barbara Streisand, and Judy Garland. Another segment shows a live performance of the cast of Hair performing pieces from that play in a L.A. park. Interwoven into all of these are several beefcake shorts featuring copious male nudity.
The Queering
According to the cover of the VHS copy of Mondo Rocco that I was able to obtain, "Pat Rocco was the first openly gay American filmmaker to create gay-themed films for gay audiences". I do not know if that is true or not, but given what I do no of queer themed cinema from that time period, I have no reason to challenge that claim.
On one level, Mondo Rocco is an important film. On another level, it can be extremely boring to sit through. Some of the segments are entertaining (Night at Joanie's). Some present intriguing documentary material of the early gay liberation movement (Meat Market Arrest and the segments depicting two marches and a rally with the Rev. Troy Perry). However the soft core/beefcake segments, even if they had featured better looking actors, would still probably bore most people into stuporville. They certainly did for me. The segment with the cast of Hair feels particularly out of place, given the lack of gay or queer content.
The mondo genre of films was a type of documentary film that featured taboo or exploitative elements, such as showing animals being slaughtered for food or tribal initiation rites. Such films typically strayed into the pseudo-documentary realm by showing staged reenactments that hyped up the lurid elements. The only reason Mondo Rocco might be considered to a part of the mondo genre, is thanks to the beefcake segments, plus the nude dance that is shown as part of the "Meat Market Arrest" segment. Most of the material is tame, nor do most segments show any signs of having been hyped up. The only reason that certain elements, such as those that feature the marches of Rev. Troy Perry, might be considered titillating or lurid is because of the time period they were made in.
Recommendation
For those willing to take the time and effort (plus spend a bit of cash) the educational and historical value is unmatched.
Additional Info:
Mondo Rocco page at IMDB
Mondo Rocco at Queer Music Heritage
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
December 16, 2012
The Common Right of Toads and Men
Carl Sagen once made the following analogy with regards to the nuclear arms race in an interview with ABC News Viewpoint:
The gun control debate has been rekindled in the U.S. thanks to the murder of 20 schoolchildren and 6 teachers in one go. Pro-gun rights individuals are once again on the defensive and throwing up all kinds of arguments about why the intrinsic right to own a tool that fires bits of metal at high velocities should exist.
Furthermore, the claim goes, if everyone had such a tool to that allowed them to fire bits of metal at high velocities, then mass shootings would be ended overnight. This is akin to arguing that if we give everyone a box of matches and a tin of gasoline, then there will no more fires.
When Columbine first occurred, I was still in high-school. I can remember that feeling of fear and confusion everyone else exhibited. Shortly afterwards, after having stayed home sick for a few days, I showed up to the Otego Elementary School parking lot, where I would then take the bus to my high-school. That was when I noticed that I was the only student in the entire parking lot wearing a back-pack. Everyone else was carrying their school supplies in their hands and looking at me as if I might have a bomb strapped to my chest. It turned out that the day before their had been an in school announcement that in an attempt to promote school safety, back-packs were now forbidden on school premises.
I have no idea how this was supposed to make us safer, nor were any of the other drills, and rules that the school board came up with after this. Perhaps this is what makes the whole situation so utterly terrifying, there are no easy solutions. I won't even pretend that there are. Not all tragedies can be eliminated.
However, the fact remains that countries that do have strict gun control laws have less homicides and violent crime per capita then countries that do. Guns do not commit crimes or kill people. However, committing crimes or homicide do become much easier when a criminal has a gun then then when they don't. Also, if you claim Hitler and the NAZI's supported strict gun control, you are completely and utterly wrong. Go and study some non-propaganda history books now.
What I also feel I have to point out is that people who argue that "if we arm everybody then there will be less crime" are essentially arguing that violence is the best solution to this problem. How different is this from the mentality that leads to mass shootings in the first place? Aren't those who perpetuate mass shootings using violence to solve their problems too?
As a country this is an issue. We tell kids who are bullied that they need to stand up for themselves and fight back against those who torment them. We advocate the use of violence in lieu of diplomacy at every turn. Don't like the government? Then start a revolution! A revolution that will obviously be violent because we will need our guns to fight it. We invaded Iraq, not because they attacked us or were even planning to attack us, but simply because there existed intelligence that indicated that they might have had the means to attack us.
Is there any reason to think that those who engage in mass shootings are not the ones who have best absorbed the lesson that violence is a viable solution to one's problems? Are mass shooters not fighting back and standing up to those schools or institutions that they perceive as oppressing them?
Then there is the whole issue of how, as a country, we have declared the right to own a gun sacred above all else, but access to affordable healthcare is a privilege. As it is with all this talks of rights, I cannot help but think of the verse Emily Dickinson once wrote which went:
This is what has been argued, that death is our common right, the same one that we share with toads. We have no right to life, only to enough lighter fluid and matches so that we may burn ourselves all to ash.
Imagine, a room, awash in gasoline. And there are two implacable enemies in that room. One of them has 9,000 matches. The other has 7,000 matches. Each of them is concerned about who’s ahead, who’s stronger. Well, that's the kind of situation we are actually in. The amount of weapons that are available to the United States and the Soviet Union are so bloated, so grossly in excess of what's needed to dissuade the other that if it weren't so tragic, it would be laughable.
The gun control debate has been rekindled in the U.S. thanks to the murder of 20 schoolchildren and 6 teachers in one go. Pro-gun rights individuals are once again on the defensive and throwing up all kinds of arguments about why the intrinsic right to own a tool that fires bits of metal at high velocities should exist.
Furthermore, the claim goes, if everyone had such a tool to that allowed them to fire bits of metal at high velocities, then mass shootings would be ended overnight. This is akin to arguing that if we give everyone a box of matches and a tin of gasoline, then there will no more fires.
When Columbine first occurred, I was still in high-school. I can remember that feeling of fear and confusion everyone else exhibited. Shortly afterwards, after having stayed home sick for a few days, I showed up to the Otego Elementary School parking lot, where I would then take the bus to my high-school. That was when I noticed that I was the only student in the entire parking lot wearing a back-pack. Everyone else was carrying their school supplies in their hands and looking at me as if I might have a bomb strapped to my chest. It turned out that the day before their had been an in school announcement that in an attempt to promote school safety, back-packs were now forbidden on school premises.
I have no idea how this was supposed to make us safer, nor were any of the other drills, and rules that the school board came up with after this. Perhaps this is what makes the whole situation so utterly terrifying, there are no easy solutions. I won't even pretend that there are. Not all tragedies can be eliminated.
However, the fact remains that countries that do have strict gun control laws have less homicides and violent crime per capita then countries that do. Guns do not commit crimes or kill people. However, committing crimes or homicide do become much easier when a criminal has a gun then then when they don't. Also, if you claim Hitler and the NAZI's supported strict gun control, you are completely and utterly wrong. Go and study some non-propaganda history books now.
What I also feel I have to point out is that people who argue that "if we arm everybody then there will be less crime" are essentially arguing that violence is the best solution to this problem. How different is this from the mentality that leads to mass shootings in the first place? Aren't those who perpetuate mass shootings using violence to solve their problems too?
As a country this is an issue. We tell kids who are bullied that they need to stand up for themselves and fight back against those who torment them. We advocate the use of violence in lieu of diplomacy at every turn. Don't like the government? Then start a revolution! A revolution that will obviously be violent because we will need our guns to fight it. We invaded Iraq, not because they attacked us or were even planning to attack us, but simply because there existed intelligence that indicated that they might have had the means to attack us.
Is there any reason to think that those who engage in mass shootings are not the ones who have best absorbed the lesson that violence is a viable solution to one's problems? Are mass shooters not fighting back and standing up to those schools or institutions that they perceive as oppressing them?
Then there is the whole issue of how, as a country, we have declared the right to own a gun sacred above all else, but access to affordable healthcare is a privilege. As it is with all this talks of rights, I cannot help but think of the verse Emily Dickinson once wrote which went:
A toad can die of light!
Death is the common right
Of toads and men,--
Of earl and midge
The privilege.
Why swagger then?
The gnat's supremacy
Is large as thine.
This is what has been argued, that death is our common right, the same one that we share with toads. We have no right to life, only to enough lighter fluid and matches so that we may burn ourselves all to ash.
December 10, 2012
Queer Review: De-Lovely (2004)
De-Lovely
Director: Irwin Winkler
Writer: Jay Cocks
Cast: Kevin Kline, Ashley Judd, Jonathan Pryce, Kevin McNally, Sandra Nelson, Allan Corduner, Peter Polycarpou, Keith Allen
Overview
De-Lovely represents yet another straightened out biopic of a gay icon to come out of the Hollywood machine. The life of Cole Porter (whose marriage was entirely a formal arrangement) is presented in such a dry and depressing fashion, that even the strong performances of Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd cannot overcome the films glaring weaknesses.
Synopsis
Music composer Cole Porter (Kevin Kline) is visited on his deathbed by Gabe (Jonathan Pryce) who shows Porter a staged performance of Porter's life, which highlights many moments in Porter's relationship with Linda Porter (Ashley Judd).
The Queering
This screen version of Cole Porter gets a few points for not completely straightening out it's main character. Too bad it stops short of being completely true with regards to Porter's sexual orientation and his relationship with his wife. The historical Cole Porter was gay, with his marriage believed to have been only a matter of convenience. Linda and Cole were on on different continents for a significant amount of time during the period that they were wedded. De-Lovely attempts to sell the audience that they were deeply, madly in love. It is possible in real life they were, but unfortunately it means that Porter's well known preference for men is relegated mostly to the background, with a chaste kiss here or a glance there.
There is also the issue of the filmmakers choosing to highlight Porters love songs, rather than the more satirical pieces that comprise the body of his work. Not as much of an issue (although it shows how much they wanted to emphasize the "love" Porter felt for his wife) at least until the end when the whole film takes on a dreary and depressing tone. Porter was a master of innuendo and satire but one would have a hard time figuring that out from this film. The songs are at least well done, with some talented performers (Elvis Costello, Alanis Morrisette, Robbie Williams, Natalie Cole) all doing their very best.
Unfortunately, all the things the film does right is not enough to prevent the plot from turning into a completely bore by the end. As I said, there are some nice performances from Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd, plus a few of the musical numbers have some spark to them. But even a late and enthusiastic rendition of "Blow Gabriel Blow" was not enough to save the film from it's attempts to straighten out a brilliant gay icon.
Recommendation
As this is almost the least lovely movie that could be made about Cole Porter's life, I can only recommend it for those with a strong interest in a history of queer cinema.
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.
Director: Irwin Winkler
Writer: Jay Cocks
Cast: Kevin Kline, Ashley Judd, Jonathan Pryce, Kevin McNally, Sandra Nelson, Allan Corduner, Peter Polycarpou, Keith Allen
Overview
De-Lovely represents yet another straightened out biopic of a gay icon to come out of the Hollywood machine. The life of Cole Porter (whose marriage was entirely a formal arrangement) is presented in such a dry and depressing fashion, that even the strong performances of Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd cannot overcome the films glaring weaknesses.
Synopsis
Music composer Cole Porter (Kevin Kline) is visited on his deathbed by Gabe (Jonathan Pryce) who shows Porter a staged performance of Porter's life, which highlights many moments in Porter's relationship with Linda Porter (Ashley Judd).
The Queering
This screen version of Cole Porter gets a few points for not completely straightening out it's main character. Too bad it stops short of being completely true with regards to Porter's sexual orientation and his relationship with his wife. The historical Cole Porter was gay, with his marriage believed to have been only a matter of convenience. Linda and Cole were on on different continents for a significant amount of time during the period that they were wedded. De-Lovely attempts to sell the audience that they were deeply, madly in love. It is possible in real life they were, but unfortunately it means that Porter's well known preference for men is relegated mostly to the background, with a chaste kiss here or a glance there.
There is also the issue of the filmmakers choosing to highlight Porters love songs, rather than the more satirical pieces that comprise the body of his work. Not as much of an issue (although it shows how much they wanted to emphasize the "love" Porter felt for his wife) at least until the end when the whole film takes on a dreary and depressing tone. Porter was a master of innuendo and satire but one would have a hard time figuring that out from this film. The songs are at least well done, with some talented performers (Elvis Costello, Alanis Morrisette, Robbie Williams, Natalie Cole) all doing their very best.
Unfortunately, all the things the film does right is not enough to prevent the plot from turning into a completely bore by the end. As I said, there are some nice performances from Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd, plus a few of the musical numbers have some spark to them. But even a late and enthusiastic rendition of "Blow Gabriel Blow" was not enough to save the film from it's attempts to straighten out a brilliant gay icon.
Recommendation
As this is almost the least lovely movie that could be made about Cole Porter's life, I can only recommend it for those with a strong interest in a history of queer cinema.
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.
Silver Demon: On Creating a Queer Superhero
To look at the mainstream media's depictions of LGBTQ characters is an exercise in watching a never ending stream of victims, villains, with a few sidekicks here and there and the occasional nod to the fact that some of us are "normal" folks with day jobs, families, etc.
As far as I can tell, there are almost no queer superheroes in existence. Well actually technically there are a few. Recently, the X-Men recently got to have a big gay wedding and one of the Green Lantern incarnations got to come out. I also came across a YA novel Hero by Perry Moore
To be frank, it can be exhausting evaluating queer orientated media. In the past two decades there has been an uptick in depictions of LGBTQ individuals. Some of these have been quite good, while others have a slew of problematic elements associated with them. But the queer superhero is, for all intents and purposes, practically an endangered species. Which is why I wanted to create one.
Initially I waffled on whether or not to include homophobia in my story and/or having the character deal with their sexuality. One of the earliest versions of the main character had them repressing their attraction to other men and this in turn causing them to lose their super powers. The character would then have only regained their powers when they had come out and acknowledged their true identity. This idea eventually went off and died where all bad ideas should go to die.
Then I had the character existing in a world where homophobia did not exist (or at least was not referenced and had little impact on the story itself). This idea was eventually abandoned after I decided that my two main characters should meet at a bar called The Stonewall Tavern, a reference to the real life Stonewall Inn.
I forget exactly why, but this eventually led to a whole lot of other changes, namely the decision to incorporate homophobia and transphobia directly into the story itself. This in turn resulted in setting the main part of the story in 1969. Given that the main characters still get to meet at a place the Stonewall Inn, most people can probably accurately guess one of the major elements of the climax.
Since Batman got Gotham and Superman got Metropolis, I thought it only fair that my characters got their own city to run around in. Thus the City of Noche was born. At this point things might have gotten a bit out of control. By creating a fictional city, I was able to create a world that would allow me to metaphorically build the concept of the Isophyls directly into the story itself. This also meant I could have the Stonewall Inn overshadow the Compton Cafe, while sitting across the street from an institution I called the White Knight Tavern. Rioting in my story? Never! Ignore my shifty eyes least they deceive you! *cough*
This was probably the one part of the story I went overboard with. As I talked about earlier, I used historical figures as the basis for several characters. But I didn't stop there. Streets, business, various locations, pretty much everywhere I could reasonably do so became a reference to some element of LGBTQ history. Whether it be in reference to a significant protest, a tragedy, or our communities contributions to society, be it scientific advancement, governmental, economic, the military, technology, the arts, religion, or civil rights, if I could find a place in the story to acknowledge LGBTQ history, I did. My partners copy of Queers in History by Keith Stern became so dog eared and worn that he ended up bequeathing it to me.
Of course there is the question of what kind of personality or job would be most appropriate for my characters. I had something of a debate with myself about how masculine or feminine to make my characters. I did not wish to perpetuate the stereotype that all gay men are feminine sissies, but the problem is that in rejecting this stereotype, means enforcing the unfortunate notion of the "feminine = bad". I got around this issue by making the main cast of characters as diverse as possible.
Some people might ask the question of whether or not the world is ready for a LGBTQ superhero story, particularly one of such a nature as one I have created. Personally, I think this is the wrong question to even be asking. The never ending tide of queer victims and villains I mentioned at the beginning, requires a counterpoint in order to be turned. Ready or not, the world needs queer heroes.
As far as I can tell, there are almost no queer superheroes in existence. Well actually technically there are a few. Recently, the X-Men recently got to have a big gay wedding and one of the Green Lantern incarnations got to come out. I also came across a YA novel Hero by Perry Moore
To be frank, it can be exhausting evaluating queer orientated media. In the past two decades there has been an uptick in depictions of LGBTQ individuals. Some of these have been quite good, while others have a slew of problematic elements associated with them. But the queer superhero is, for all intents and purposes, practically an endangered species. Which is why I wanted to create one.
Initially I waffled on whether or not to include homophobia in my story and/or having the character deal with their sexuality. One of the earliest versions of the main character had them repressing their attraction to other men and this in turn causing them to lose their super powers. The character would then have only regained their powers when they had come out and acknowledged their true identity. This idea eventually went off and died where all bad ideas should go to die.
Then I had the character existing in a world where homophobia did not exist (or at least was not referenced and had little impact on the story itself). This idea was eventually abandoned after I decided that my two main characters should meet at a bar called The Stonewall Tavern, a reference to the real life Stonewall Inn.
I forget exactly why, but this eventually led to a whole lot of other changes, namely the decision to incorporate homophobia and transphobia directly into the story itself. This in turn resulted in setting the main part of the story in 1969. Given that the main characters still get to meet at a place the Stonewall Inn, most people can probably accurately guess one of the major elements of the climax.
Since Batman got Gotham and Superman got Metropolis, I thought it only fair that my characters got their own city to run around in. Thus the City of Noche was born. At this point things might have gotten a bit out of control. By creating a fictional city, I was able to create a world that would allow me to metaphorically build the concept of the Isophyls directly into the story itself. This also meant I could have the Stonewall Inn overshadow the Compton Cafe, while sitting across the street from an institution I called the White Knight Tavern. Rioting in my story? Never! Ignore my shifty eyes least they deceive you! *cough*
This was probably the one part of the story I went overboard with. As I talked about earlier, I used historical figures as the basis for several characters. But I didn't stop there. Streets, business, various locations, pretty much everywhere I could reasonably do so became a reference to some element of LGBTQ history. Whether it be in reference to a significant protest, a tragedy, or our communities contributions to society, be it scientific advancement, governmental, economic, the military, technology, the arts, religion, or civil rights, if I could find a place in the story to acknowledge LGBTQ history, I did. My partners copy of Queers in History by Keith Stern became so dog eared and worn that he ended up bequeathing it to me.
Of course there is the question of what kind of personality or job would be most appropriate for my characters. I had something of a debate with myself about how masculine or feminine to make my characters. I did not wish to perpetuate the stereotype that all gay men are feminine sissies, but the problem is that in rejecting this stereotype, means enforcing the unfortunate notion of the "feminine = bad". I got around this issue by making the main cast of characters as diverse as possible.
Some people might ask the question of whether or not the world is ready for a LGBTQ superhero story, particularly one of such a nature as one I have created. Personally, I think this is the wrong question to even be asking. The never ending tide of queer victims and villains I mentioned at the beginning, requires a counterpoint in order to be turned. Ready or not, the world needs queer heroes.
December 5, 2012
Queer Review: The Boys in the Band (1970)
The Boys in the Band
Director: William Friedkin
Writer: Mart Crowley
Cast: Kenneth Nelson, Frederick Combs, Cliff Gorman, Laurence Luckinbill, Keith Prentice, Peter White, Reuben Greene, Robert La Tourneaux, Leonard Frey
Overview
Perhaps one of the more divisive queer films ever, The Boys in the Band was initially criticized upon release for it's cast of self loathing, unhappy gay men. Recent years have been more kind to it, with some critics calling for a re-evaluation of it's deptiction of pre-Stonewall gay life (the riots occurred while the film was in production). At the end of the day, The Boys in the Band best works if viewed as a product of it's time.
Synopsis
Michael (Kenneth Nelson) is hosting a birthday party for fellow queer Harold (Leonard Frey) when he receives a call from his old college roommate, Alan McCarthy (Peter White) who is upset about something and wishes to speak with Michael immediately. In spite of calling again to say he won't show up, Alan does so anyways. Alan's conservative nature causes tensions to erupt between other members of the party. There are the lovers Hank (Laurence Luckinbill) and Larry (Keith Prentice) who are dealing with Larry's wandering eye. Donald (Frederick Combs) a close friend of Michael's who is currently in therapy. Bernard (Reuben Greene), the token black guy. However, it is with effeminate Emory (Cliff Gorman) that Alan clashes with the most sharply. The evening climaxes when Michael forces everyone to play an embarrassing telephone game where the participants call the one person that they truly love.
The Queering
There are two differing sides or opinions The Boys in the Band. One side argues that it is an unfortunate relic of it's era in that portrays gay men as vicious, self loathing freaks. Michael and Harold both suffer from self esteem issues and spend most of the time they're on screen together exchanging scathing barbs, many of which cut deep. Donald talks about being in therapy.
The other side argues that The Boys in the Band in fact gives a rather nuanced glimpse of queer life in the mid-1960's when persecution of gay men was at it's height in the United States.
Context is everything. Most importantly with regards to what is onscreen and for the world in which The Boys in the Band was made and into which it entered. When The Boys in the Band went into the production, the stage play was generally regarded as being ahead of it's time for it's sympathetic portrayals of gay men, in that it dared to treat them as actual human beings. But then the Stonewall Riots took place and the resulting gay liberation movement demanded more of it's films than what The Boys in the Band offered.
Historically speaking, there is another issue worth considering. Namely that there has always been an underlying tension between more feminine/fey gay men and those that are genuinely butch. It is a tension that stretches out from before Adolf Brand and Magnus Hirschfield feuded over the merits of queer culture promoting masculine or feminine identites. The Castro Clone look was in direct response to the gay = feminine stereotype. Today, the bear and twink subcultures both exist with varying degrees of animosity.
It was this very same tension that fuels much of the films drama, just as it fueled the ensuing criticism. Note how wide the spectrum of feminine and masculinity that the characters inhabit. On one end is the conservative and butch Hank, who drinks beer and teaches Math, not English for a change. The other end is occupied by Emory, who is the most flaming member of the ensemble.
It is Emory's swishy ways that leads to him being violently attacked by Alan, just as the character of Emory has been criticized. Yet Emory is also the least self loathing character. Insofar as Emory is presented as being unhappy, it is because of unrequited love, not because he hates himself.
Certainly there are queer men just like Emory who do in fact exist. Why then should they not be portrayed on screen? Considering just how diverse the make up of the cast of characters is in The Boys in the Band, Emory's femininity is not an issue.
Which leads one to an inevitable conclusion in that there is an uncomfortable alignment behind the attitude that causes Alan to assault Emory and certain criticisms that tend to be brought up any time a gay movie character gets their swish on.
In my opinion, the fact that The Boys in the Band is problematic, doesn't change the fact that it's one of the most progressive films of it's era and the fact that it's one of the most progressive films of it's era, doesn't mean that it's problematic elements can be ignored. At the end of the day, trying to figure out if the positives outweigh the negatives (or vice versa) is a rather futile exercise.
Recommendation
The boys in this band do not always create the most harmonic or delightful melody but this particular performance is well worth seeking out for lovers of queer cinema.
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.
Director: William Friedkin
Writer: Mart Crowley
Cast: Kenneth Nelson, Frederick Combs, Cliff Gorman, Laurence Luckinbill, Keith Prentice, Peter White, Reuben Greene, Robert La Tourneaux, Leonard Frey
Overview
Perhaps one of the more divisive queer films ever, The Boys in the Band was initially criticized upon release for it's cast of self loathing, unhappy gay men. Recent years have been more kind to it, with some critics calling for a re-evaluation of it's deptiction of pre-Stonewall gay life (the riots occurred while the film was in production). At the end of the day, The Boys in the Band best works if viewed as a product of it's time.
Synopsis
Michael (Kenneth Nelson) is hosting a birthday party for fellow queer Harold (Leonard Frey) when he receives a call from his old college roommate, Alan McCarthy (Peter White) who is upset about something and wishes to speak with Michael immediately. In spite of calling again to say he won't show up, Alan does so anyways. Alan's conservative nature causes tensions to erupt between other members of the party. There are the lovers Hank (Laurence Luckinbill) and Larry (Keith Prentice) who are dealing with Larry's wandering eye. Donald (Frederick Combs) a close friend of Michael's who is currently in therapy. Bernard (Reuben Greene), the token black guy. However, it is with effeminate Emory (Cliff Gorman) that Alan clashes with the most sharply. The evening climaxes when Michael forces everyone to play an embarrassing telephone game where the participants call the one person that they truly love.
The Queering
There are two differing sides or opinions The Boys in the Band. One side argues that it is an unfortunate relic of it's era in that portrays gay men as vicious, self loathing freaks. Michael and Harold both suffer from self esteem issues and spend most of the time they're on screen together exchanging scathing barbs, many of which cut deep. Donald talks about being in therapy.
The other side argues that The Boys in the Band in fact gives a rather nuanced glimpse of queer life in the mid-1960's when persecution of gay men was at it's height in the United States.
Context is everything. Most importantly with regards to what is onscreen and for the world in which The Boys in the Band was made and into which it entered. When The Boys in the Band went into the production, the stage play was generally regarded as being ahead of it's time for it's sympathetic portrayals of gay men, in that it dared to treat them as actual human beings. But then the Stonewall Riots took place and the resulting gay liberation movement demanded more of it's films than what The Boys in the Band offered.
Historically speaking, there is another issue worth considering. Namely that there has always been an underlying tension between more feminine/fey gay men and those that are genuinely butch. It is a tension that stretches out from before Adolf Brand and Magnus Hirschfield feuded over the merits of queer culture promoting masculine or feminine identites. The Castro Clone look was in direct response to the gay = feminine stereotype. Today, the bear and twink subcultures both exist with varying degrees of animosity.
It was this very same tension that fuels much of the films drama, just as it fueled the ensuing criticism. Note how wide the spectrum of feminine and masculinity that the characters inhabit. On one end is the conservative and butch Hank, who drinks beer and teaches Math, not English for a change. The other end is occupied by Emory, who is the most flaming member of the ensemble.
It is Emory's swishy ways that leads to him being violently attacked by Alan, just as the character of Emory has been criticized. Yet Emory is also the least self loathing character. Insofar as Emory is presented as being unhappy, it is because of unrequited love, not because he hates himself.
Certainly there are queer men just like Emory who do in fact exist. Why then should they not be portrayed on screen? Considering just how diverse the make up of the cast of characters is in The Boys in the Band, Emory's femininity is not an issue.
Which leads one to an inevitable conclusion in that there is an uncomfortable alignment behind the attitude that causes Alan to assault Emory and certain criticisms that tend to be brought up any time a gay movie character gets their swish on.
In my opinion, the fact that The Boys in the Band is problematic, doesn't change the fact that it's one of the most progressive films of it's era and the fact that it's one of the most progressive films of it's era, doesn't mean that it's problematic elements can be ignored. At the end of the day, trying to figure out if the positives outweigh the negatives (or vice versa) is a rather futile exercise.
Recommendation
The boys in this band do not always create the most harmonic or delightful melody but this particular performance is well worth seeking out for lovers of queer cinema.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)