Queer Issue: A Few Memorial Day Reflections on DADT and it's Repeal.

As of this writing, DADT repeal legislation has been passed by Congress but still has to be implemented and there is a whole bunch of shenanigans being done by homophobic politicians to prevent and make difficult that implementation.

Whatever. While I believe that repealing DADT was necessary, I never felt that it was the really huge victory that led to so much cheering and celebrating in the queer community. My reasoning for this view is two fold.

First, while I am not a complete pacifist, I am against the current occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. This begs the question, does supporting the repeal of DADT, mean supporting the military occupations Iraq and Afghanistan? While I do not always agree with Mathilda Bernstein Sycamore, she does make a good argument that this is the case in "A Fine Romance: Democracy Now's Amy Goodman and Lieutenant Dan Choi"

In its eagerness to jump on the bandwagon in support of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the antiwar left becomes complicit with US wars. These reporters can't get past their joy at finding a gay struggle to support, in order to step back and realize, wait: maybe this particular gay struggle is contrary to everything I supposedly represent. That's the nightmare of assimilation we're living in -- add "gay" to any reactionary goal, and the liberals will jump on the bandwagon, but the founding values of gay liberation -- fighting police brutality; challenging US imperialism; ending oppressive institutions like marriage and the military and organized religion; and creating personal autonomy for sexual merrymaking outside of conventional norms -- nope, we rarely hear anything about those queer values.

Irregardless of whether or not supporting the DADT repeal would in fact equate to supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a more pressing issue I want to talk about. While it is often perceived that we treat our veterans with only the respect and dignity that they justly deserve, the reality is actually a bit different. Let me put it bluntly, our country has a truly shitty history when it comes to the treatment of veterans. Not just kind of shitty, really, really shitty.

When I first started this article, I thought I was going to have to search high and low to find the data to back myself up on this. Frighteningly enough, I did not have to.

Let us start with something most people will have heard about, the Washington Post article, "Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility" that uncovered the nightmarish conditions facing returning veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The article opens up with the following paragraph:

Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.

I tried to find information on whether or not conditions had improved at all since the Washington Post report was made in 2007, but failed. The Wikipeda article on the "Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal" only has information on a few administrators being fired and the government planning a review.

But the conditions at Walter Reed, whether they were fixed or not, is not the only issue. According to a government report by The Housing and Urban Development and Veterans Affairs departments:

-- More than 3,000 cities and counties reported 75,609 homeless veterans on a single night in January of 2009; 57 percent were staying in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program while the remaining 43 percent were unsheltered. Veterans represent about 12 percent of all homeless people counted nationwide during the 2009 assessment;
-- During a 12-month period in 2009, about 136,000 veterans -- or about 1 in every 168 veterans -- spent at least one night in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program. The vast majority of sheltered homeless veterans -- 96 percent -- experienced homelessness alone. Four percent of homeless veterans were found to be part of a family. Sheltered homeless veterans are most often single white men between the ages of 31 and 50 and living with a disability;
-- Veterans are 50 percent more likely to become homeless compared to all Americans and the risk is even greater among veterans living in poverty and poor minority veterans. HUD and VA examined the likelihood of becoming homeless among American veterans with particular demographic characteristics and found that during 2009, twice as many poor Hispanic veterans used a shelter compared with poor non-Hispanic veterans. African American veterans in poverty had similar rates of homelessness;

Again, that is not all the damning information I was able to find. According to the Think Progress Twitter Feed @TPHealth:

Something to think about this #MemorialDay: 10.9% of Iraq & Afghanistan veterans are unemployed, 2 %points higher than national average

Also, let me not forget the Time magazine article "Sexual Assaults on Female Soldiers: Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in which we get the following information:

The Pentagon's latest figures show that nearly 3,000 women were sexually assaulted in fiscal year 2008, up 9% from the year before; among women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number rose 25%. When you look at the entire universe of female veterans, close to a third say they were victims of rape or assault while they were serving — twice the rate in the civilian population.

To sum this all up, those that are cheering for the DADT repeal are arguably also cheering to allow LGBTQIA soldiers the chance to not only risk their lives serving their country, but for them to also face substandard medical treatment, greater difficulty in finding employment, an increased risk of homelessness, and for female soldiers, a greater chance of being raped. Ain't the DADT repeal just grand?

In all fairness, the public is often sold a much different image of the services provided to veterans then the reality of what really goes on. Memorial Day features a lot of patriotic flag waving, but almost no serious talk of the difficulties faced by veterans. At least none that I know about. I dislike public memorials for veterans because to me, they feel like ribbon cutting opportunities for politicians, that allow them to ignore the greater problems faced by veterans at a time when those politicians should be solving them. We owe it to those that have served our country in the military to understand their sacrifices and to see to it that they are treated properly upon their return from war. A couple of nice speeches and statues will not accomplish that at all.

WikiLeaks had a good quote from their article
"2011-05-30 Memorial Day in America: What the US Government Wants Americans to Remember vs. What WikiLeaks Thinks Should Be Remembered" to close this all out with:

American society does not remember the stories that soldiers like Ethan McCord [...] will live with for the rest of their lives. Society does not share the burden of memory that a soldier deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq experiences. It adorns yellow ribbons to the vehicles it drive around, awards medals to soldiers, offers minimal health care and ways to reincorporate into society upon return from deployment but little is done to give soldiers a public fora for expressing the anxiety, anguish, fear, pain or stress that a soldier brings back with him or her from a war zone.

Queer Issue: Who am I?

Okay, here is the issue I promised you earlier, the solution to the conundrum I raised here. That conundrum being, how do I define who I am, without using negative descriptions? For example, anything that begins with "I am not...".

Well, let me say it again, I do not wish to define myself as a man. Biologically, I am male, yes. Now by "biological" I am referring of course to our physical bodies, which have certain rules and restrictions placed upon them. Yes, I could have surgery to change my body but as I like I said before, I have chosen not to. However, there are restrictions placed upon what I can do. For example, I am not aware of any techniques that have been developed that allow a person to change their genetic code whole sale. We are stuck with whatever allowance or combination of X and Y chromosomes we were given at birth. Nor could I one day decide that I wanted my heart removed so I could put a giant nuclear reactor in my chest like Tony Stark did in the Ironman movies.

However, while our biological/physical bodies may have certain restrictions placed upon them, there are no rules that state that those bodies in turn force us into certain behaviors, self expression, outward appearance, or capabilities. Just because one has a penis or a vagina or is an intersex individual, does not mean that one should be restricted along gender lines in one's clothing choices, career and educational pursuits, or how one behaves in public or private.

That is to say, biology is where we begin, it does not have to restrict where we end up. Our physical bodies should not dictate how we identify ourselves or how we are treated by society.

But I am getting ahead of myself here a bit. What I wanted to talk about was how attending a wedding in Illinois led me to the solution I had wanted for some time now. It was while sitting in the audience, listening to a preacher give a heteronormative spiel along the lines of how "God made man for woman and woman for man" that it hit me. Why the hell do we focus so much on gender polarization so much anyways?

Why is gender itself, even necessary as a societal construct. As I talked about earlier, there are reasons, mostly medical, that make it reasonable to define ourselves along biological traits. However, there is almost no reason for us to make laws or impart social norms that create restrictions along gender. Think for example, of the laws in place at the time of the Stonewall Riots that said one had to have three items of clothing that matched your gender or one would be arrested. So let me repeat what I said earlier, biology is only the beginning, not the end. We are born with a particular set of body parts and genes, but these physical attributes are not a prison for our destiny. We can choose who we are.

What I am getting at is this: How come we cannot simply see ourselves as people? This finally, is my solution. I am not a man, nor am I a woman. I am human. That is all.

Queer Review: I Love You Phillip Morris (2009)

I Love You Phillip Morris
Directors: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Writer: John Requa, Glenn Ficarra. Based upon the novel by Steve McVicker.
Cast: Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor, Antoni Corone, Rodrigo Santoro, Leslie Mann

Overview
For a comedy starring both Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor, I Love You Phillip Morris somehow managed to do a wonderful, although unfortunate, job of flying under the radar. However, this fast moving picture that sounds like it is about battling cigarette addiction, is really the story of a man who has no identity and yet still desperately seeking his true love.

Synopsis
Police Officer Steven Russell (Jim Carrey) is happily married and enjoying a "normal" life, when he makes the unfortunate decision to track down his birth mother. When she denies that he is even hers, he gets upset, quits the force, and moves away. Later, after an unfortunately timed car accident, Steven reveals to his wife (Leslie Mann) that he is gay and becomes a con artist to pay for what he terms "the expensive gay lifestyle". When Steven is caught, he winds up in prison where he meets Philip Morris (Ewan McGregor) and the two fall fast in love. Once they are reunited outside prison, Steven gets a job as a Chief Financial Officer (even though he lacks the credentials, education, and the necessary experience) and is soon engaged in yet another con job that lands him in jail yet again.

The Queering
First off, it is important to note that Steven Russell is a real person who managed to escape from prison multiple times in a narrative so preposterous, it seems that it could only be the province of fiction. But this movie is entirely true. Every single word of it. In fact, it might as well have been a documentary. And if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

In any case, this fast paced, whip smart, and consistently entertaining comedy about two gay lovers makes for a fun con job of a film. What I find remarkable though, is that this story, which includes several scenes of gay sex, was able to land two major stars, Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor. It is hard to think of a more perfect role for the rubber faced impersonator Jim Carrey than a con man who takes on several identities. The only performance of Carrey's that compares would be the one he gave in The Truman Show. Ewan McGregor is good, even though he tends to fade into the background at times, though I would excuse this as his character is supposed to be a bit of a wallflower.

At the heart of I Love You Phillip Morris is a tender love story between two mismatched individuals. There are some raunchier elements to the comedy, but these are mere window dressing. Steven Russell claims - although many reasonable people might have reason to doubt him - that his attempts to escape prison were for the love of his life, Philip Morris. These attempts, which are shown later on in the film, include dying some scrubs using felt pens to make green scrubs so he could impersonate a doctor and faking his own death by AIDS.

Altogether, the character of Steven Morris is a fascinating enigma and I bet there will be many post-screening discussions as to whether he was a bad guy for the crimes that he committed or merely another flawed human. While one may wish to know more about him, and the article I love you Phillip Morris: a conman's story may shed some insight into the matter, he remains somewhat of a blank slate. While this ambiguity may bother some people, I would argue it is fact the film's greatest strength.

Recommendation
Highly recommended. Can be easily enjoyed by all audiences.

The Rating

Trailer


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

Queer Review: Chasing Amy (1997)

Chasing Amy
Director: Kevin Smith
Writer: Kevin Smith
Cast: Ben Affleck, Jason Lee, Dwight Ewell, Joey Lauren Adams

Overview
Chasing Amy represents the most mature work of the bawdy and controversial Kevin Smith. Frequently crude, caustic, and absolutely hilarious, Chasing Amy will probably offend even the most liberal audience members.

Synopsis
When Holden McNeil (Ben Affleck) is introduced to Alyssa Jones (Joey Lauren Adams) by a mutual friend, Hooper X (Dwight Ewell), he finds himself falling fast in love with her. It is not long though, before Holden is shocked to discover that Alyssa is actually a lesbian and not interested in being anything other then friends with him. He eventually manages to wear her down her defenses and soon they are in a serious relationship, which upsets Holden's friend, Banky (Jason Lee).

The Queering
I can recall when I was in high school and watching Chasing Amy at a drama club cast party where the host's parents were away. I was the only one who was not drinking, so I was given the honor of controlling the remote control. Even with out being drunk, I can not recall that many movies where I laughed harder. In retrospect, the thrill at seeing something forbidden ended up being more intoxicating then any spirits could have matched.

Re-watching Chasing Amy now, many years later, I do have a somewhat different take on it. First, let me get the criticisms out of the way. Kevin Smith is the funniest writer working today in Hollywood, but I would not to be the first to point out that his directing abilities stink. Most of the scenes are poorly staged and the cinematography is crude. Also, while Joey Lauren Adams gives the most memorable, and at times, moving performance, she too often lapses into over the top histrionics. Ben Affleck and Jason Lee are not all that great either, but manage to succeed thanks to both of them giving rather charismatic and natural performances.

Chasing Amy however has more strengths then weaknesses. The characters are well developed and feel like the sort of real people one comes into contact with everyday rather than the invention of a screenwriter. This is particularly true in several scenes, such as when Alyssa and Banky compare battle wounds acquired through ill advised sexual mis-adventures or when Alyssa and Holden discuss what it means to lose ones virginity.

What is most refreshing is about Chasing Amy is the sense that Kevin Smith has the same attitude regarding political correctness that most fundamentalists have towards the anti-Christ. Hideous slurs and inappropriate language are thrown about like confetti at a parade. Through it all though, Smith manages to deliver a subversively pro-gay, pro-equality message. For example, take Hooper X who plays a black militant who screams about the white menace in order to sell comic books but is really actually a sassy black queen when out of sight of his fans. Later Hooper X has a speech where he gives a much needed bemoaning about the double discrimination faced by black queers and how his black power act is necessary for him to receive professional recognition.

Between the constant onslaught of political incorrectness and the fact that Holden does manage to sleep with Alyssa, many have argued that Chasing Amy is in fact homophobic. To me though, nothing could be more untrue. What Chasing Amy really does is revel in the sexual freedoms brought to light by Alfred Kinsey. This is also why the scene between Banky and Alyssa is noteworthy. Too often male and female promiscuity is treated differently by society, yet here, the promiscuous behaviors of a man and a woman are shown in the same light.

This is also a movie with the most sexually fluid cast of characters that I have seen. Alyssa is eventually revealed to have slept with guys other than Holden. Banky also clearly harbors feelings of some sort for Holden, which Holden acknowledges by forcefully kissing Banky in a key scene. Bisexuality is too often ignored or given short shrift by movies, yet here, Kevin Smith's uninhibited explorations of love and sexual relationships makes for some of the most compelling and hysterical queer cinema to have come out of the 90's.

Recommendation
Highly recommended for anyone who can laugh at (rather than be offended by) Kevin Smith's brand of crude humor.

The Rating

Trailer



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

Back from vacation.

It has been a little while since I posted anything here. That was because I was away on vacation with my boyfriend attending the wedding of his nephew in Indiana. This is not going to be a post of much substance, but I thought I would give people a little preview of articles I am planning on doing in the near future.

First off, two new Netflix movies were waiting for us when we got back, so you guys can expect new queer reviews of Chasing Amy and I Love You Philip Morris soon.

Also, at one of the restaurants we stopped at, my boyfriend noticed that they had some Chick Comics out on display. I am therefore planning on doing an article on the issue of supporting businesses that support homophobia.

While I was at the wedding itself an idea came to me about the dilemma of defining myself that I wrote about here. Will therefore be writing more about this in the future.

This is unrelated to going on vacation but I thought I would offer up some thoughts on the TV series Glee. Ultimately, whether this one gets done or not depends on if I have the time to do it.

Queer Review: Spartacus (1960)

Spartacus
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writer: Dalton Trumbo. Based upon the novel by Howard Fast.
Cast: Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Jean Simmons, Charles Laughton, Peter Ustinov, Tony Curtis

Overview
Although he later to try and distance himself from the film, auteur Stanley Kubrick - who would later go on to direct such revered classics as 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining - got his start by directing the epic Spartacus. Unfortunately, none of the talent he would demonstrate in later movies is on display here and Spartacus ends up being less an epic adventure and more an epic time waster.

Synopsis
Spartacus (Kirk Douglass) is a slave training under the auspices of Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov) to become a Gladiator when Varinia (Jean Simmons), the slave woman that he had been in love with, is sold to Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier). This event serves as the impetus for a slave revolt that threatened to destroy the Roman Empire.

The Queering
Spartacus was made at a time when Hollywood was still competing with television for ticket sales and was clearly designed to show off the new technology of Panavision. There are some really nicely shot scenes of vast crowds and armies marching across the wilderness. Unfortunately, great cinematography does not make a great movie, otherwise we would have winner here.

It is hard to tell where exactly things go wrong as there is some great talent both behind and in front of the camera. A good place to start would be the romance between Spartacus and Varinia which causes proceedings to grind to a halt every time the two start looking at each other sappily. Then there is the epic battle scene which fails to get the blood pumping. Worst of all, Spartacus himself is so poorly developed by the screenplay that he never warrants much interest beyond a shrug, even when he is dying all Christ like on a cross.

The most interesting scenes are those that offer a behind the scenes look at the corrupt political maneuvering that was going on in the Roman senate while Spartacus was carrying out his revolt. These scenes are not only highly topical considering todays current political climate, but also have an authenticity about them that the rest of the film sadly lacks. There are also several blatant swipes at McCarthyism which should not come as a surprise considering that screenwriter Donald Trumbo had been blacklisted at the time.

I would like to point out that there is one queer scene of note. That is the scene where Crassus uses veiled references to make a failed pass his manservant Antonius (Tony Curtis). This scene was cut in the original 1960's release but later restored in the 1991 edition. If one wishes to see it, one can have fun sitting through all 3 hours and 16 minutes of the restored edition or one can watch the clip below.


Recommendation
Of little interest outside of anyone with a strong interest in film history or films with queer subtexts.

The Rating

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: X-Men - First Class and the Unfortunate Straightening Out of Hollywood.

I probably spend more time watching movie trailers than I should. In fact I tend to be a little bit obsessive about it and I would argue that there is nothing wrong with this when so many movie trailers for redundant action movies and lame comedies are more thrilling and funny than the product they are selling.

This has nothing to do with what I actually want to talk about, other than it was while watching the trailer for X-Men - First Class that I noticed something that caught me attention. I have written before about the queer subtexts in the first and second X-Men movies. Therefore, I was a bit shocked when I noticed Mystique making out with a guy. After all, was not Mystique originally supposed to be a lesbian in the comic books? Although thanks to the Comics Code Authority, readers never actually saw her become the lover of the character Destiny (Irene Adler).

In any event, even though I have not seen X-Men - First Class, I must admit to being annoyed that one of the queer characters appears to have been straightened out. Unfortunately, this is a typical Hollywood practice that dates back to the days of the Hays Code, when depictions of queer characters was outright forbidden. This practice of course is that of taking previous material that contains queer characters or stories of real life queer individuals, and washing any queerness out.

Back during the days of the Hays Code, a movie such asThe Lost Weekend (1946) would have had to take any queer characters and straighten them out. Otherwise, the film could not be made as the Hays Code forbid depictions of "sexual perverts". While rather reprehensible, this practice might be understandable at a time when the rules were completely intractable. However, it did not end when the Hays Code was eventually replaced with the MPAA. To me, this is where things get really annoying.

It is bad enough that there are already too few depictions of LGBTQIA characters on film, but when filmmakers take a property or the story of a real person and massage it so that the queerness becomes invisible, the insult stings that much worse.

There have been many books that have been "straigtened out" in the years following the collapse of the Hays Code. Fried Green Tomatoes was made in 1991 and the two main characters are never once shown to be the lesbian lovers they were in the book. A more recent example would be Let Me In (2010) which not only increased the romantic factor between the leads but eliminated the queerness from the main relationship altogether.

Again, I think this practice is bad enough when it comes to fictional characters, but I would argue that the re-writing of history is even worse. When the world is portrayed as having been shaped by only straight individuals, and the accomplishments of queers are ignored, it is nothing less then an insult to our community. Take for instance, Enigma (2001) which was clearly based on the work of Alan Turing but has the character pursuing a romantic relationship with a woman or A Beautiful Mind (2001) which never mentions that John Nash "had recurring liaisons with other men".

It feels to me as if though Hollywood Producers are saying the same thing to the queer community that the evil Xerxes threatened to do to King Leonidas in 300:

There will be no glory in your sacrifice. I will erase even the memory of Sparta from the histories! Every piece of Greek parchment shall be burned. Every Greek historian, and every scribe shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Sparta, or Leonidas, will be punishable by death! The world will never know you existed at all!

300 is of course a good movie to bring up here as a complete list of it's historical inaccuracies would be pretty long. For starters, Xerxes was not that evil baddie that he was portrayed as. Also, the über macho Spartans portrayed in 300 were also known to practice pederasty. Pederasty, for those who do not know, is the practice of older men having sex with young boys.

To me, this might not be an issue if there were more examples of characters who were queered up. However, the the only example that I know of is V for Vendetta (2006)

Invisibility is not a the only problem facing the queer community, although it can be argued that every other issue (homophobic and transphobic motivated violence, job and housing discrimination, etc) is made that much more serious when people are left unaware to even the existence of LGBTQIA individuals. There are also plenty of sources to blame besides Hollywood for the erasing of Queers from history. Take for instance the "Don't Say Gay Bill" that would forbid discussions of "homosexuality" in Tennessee schools.

However, Hollywood exacerbates an already serious problem whenever queer characters and individuals are made to appear straight. History and fictional stories are not things that should be rewritten merely to serve the whims of those who find depictions of queer characters objectionable. Censorship is the objectionable practice here and the truth is what should be told.