According to Apple, bisexual is a dirty word

So, I open up facebook today, and what do I see but a post from Quist about this.




There's now a petition on Change.org
Apple please remove bisexual as an unacceptable word for use in app descriptions.

Of the Day (1/4/13)

The Amazing Sassy


Please note that I have also created a deviantART account where I will be uploading select prints so they can be purchased there. This one being my favorite, is the first available for that service. Clicky Clicky!

Link
The Lesbian Blog That Shut Down the City of Pittsburgh

Historical Queer Poetry
Ghazal from Diwanby by Hafez

OH Cup-bearer, set my glass afire
With the light of wine! oh minstrel, sing:
The world fulfilleth my heart's desire!
Reflected within the goblet's ring
I see the glow of my Love's red cheek,
And scant of wit, ye who fail to seek
The pleasures that wine alone can bring!
Let not the blandishments be checked
That slender beauties lavish on me,
Until in the grace of the cypress decked,
Love shall come like a ruddy pine-tree
He cannot perish whose heart doth hold
The life love breathes - though my days are told,
In the Book of the World lives my constancy.

But when the Day of Reckoning is here,
I fancy little will be the gain
That accrues to the Sheikh for his lawful cheer,
Or to me for the drought forbidden I drain.
The drunken eyes of my comrades shine,
And I too, stretching my hand to the wine,
On the neck of drunkenness loosen the rein.

Oh wind, if thou passest the garden close
Of my heart's dear master, carry for me
The message I send to him, wind that blows!
"Why hast thou thrust from thy memory
My hapless name?" breathe low in his ear;
"Knowest thou not that the day is near
When nor thou nor any shall think on me?"

If with tears, oh Hafiz, thine eyes are wet,
Scatter them round thee like grain, and snare
The Bird of joy when it comes to thy net.
As the tulip shrinks from the cold night air,
So shrank my heart and quailed in the shade;
Oh Song-bird Fortune, the toils are laid,
When shall thy bright wings lie pinioned there?

The heavens' green sea and the bark therein,
The slender bark of the crescent moon,
Are lost in thy bounty's radiant noon,
Vizir and pilgrim, Kawameddin!

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.

On Censorship, Rape Culture, and the New Comments Policy.

Generally speaking, I tend to like to pretend that there is no topic too offensive that it could not be discussed by reasonable adults. Censorship is evil I tell you! EVIL!

There are of course moments when reality hits and I find myself forcing to take a hard look at my positions on free speech. A few days ago was one such day.

It came when I found a comment on the post Gore Vidal, Rape Apologist that basically defended Vidals' statements. Among other lovely little dripplings, the comment included the sentiment that somehow determining whether or not a rape victim was a virgin at the time they were sexually assaulted was somehow relevant.

Yeah, I too hate it when I've been conned into thinking this is now the 21st century.

In any case, I deleted the comment. I realize that I have now invited scores of people to decry my position as hypocritical. So be it. If someone out there wants to start a blog and pontificate about how morally upright rapists are, and how their slutty victims were asking for it, go ahead. But I will not allow such poison on Queering the Closet.

For the record, I have now updated the About page to include a section outlining the new commenting policy.

Queer Review: The Mechanic (1972)

The Mechanic
Director: Michael Winner
Writer: Lewis John Carlino
Cast: Charles Bronson, Jan-Michael Vincent, Keenan Wynn, Jill Ireland, Linda Ridgeway

Overview
While a greater film than the 2011 remake, and with better subtexts (both philosophical and queer), the original The Mechanic still ends up being a disappointment.

Synopsis
A seasoned hit-man , Arthur Bishop (Charles Bronson), ends up receiving a kill order for his long time friend, Harry McKenna (Keenan Wynn). While mildly upset by the news, Arthur carries out the hit, only to be approached afterwards by Harry's son, Steve (Jan-Michael Vincent). Steve, it appears, wants to also to be a hit-man (who in this film are referred to as mechanics). Arthur eventually consents to take Steve on as his tutelage. However, the company Arthur works for quickly make their displeasure with this arrangement known, which places both Arthur and Steve's lives at risk

The Queering
According to The Celluloid Closet by Vito Russo, the original script for The Mechanic had Arthur and Bishop becoming lovers, but scribe Carlino was unable to secure funding and many actors turned done the lead roles for obvious reasons. Which of course makes the version of The Mechanic that made it to screens in 1972 another example of Hollywood's drive to censure and straighten out anything queer related. Once the queer relationship is erased, then Arthur and Steve's partnership takes on a rather creepy father/son dynamic - particularly considering there is still a very clear homoerotic subtext between the two.

That issue aside, I will admit there were a few aspects of The Mechanic that I aprecciated. Carlino's story is actually fairly ambitious, with deep philosophical undercurrents present throughout. Arthur is a clear nihilist, obeying only a simple set of rules and is otherwise quite sophisticated. In addition to being a fan of classical music, he owns a copy of Bosch's "The Garden of Earthly Delights".

While displaying greater thought and intelligence than your typical thriller, the best response I could muster for The Mechanic was "eh". Granted there are a few intriguing ideas here about the nature of social constructs, particularly those constructs that dictate who can kill whom and under what circumstances. However, those points were neither deep nor incisive for me to feel that they contributed anything of real meaning to the film.

Ultimately, between the failed attempt at including a gay love affair in a mainstream motion picture and the lugubrious mood created by the stabs at philosophical depth, The Mechanic ends up becoming a very dull movie to endure. While a few plot twists at the end manage to create some suspense, there are ultimately too few tools in the The Mechanics toolbox to build a complete motion picture with.

Recommendation
For those who enjoy intelligent, nihilistic, thrillers, this could make your day, few others will want to trust this mechanic to fix a fender bender.

The Rating
2.5 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.

Off Topic: The Media, Violence, and How the Care Bears Caused the Greatest Crime Epidemic in U.S. History.

Following in the wake of the disturbing attack at at midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises in an Aurora, Colorado theater that left 12 dead and many more wounded, a rather predictable response came forth. Somehow, the entertainment media's obsession with depictions of violent acts was to blame.

Certainly, Nolan's Batman movies are not short on violent content, which is making them a lightening rod for this kind of thinking. But has there ever been a link established between violent media and real life violence? No, there has not been.

My partner, Dr. Jeffery P. Dennis, is a sociologist and this happens to be a topic I get lectured on a lot, whether I want to or not. The point he loves to drive home is that consuming violent media is not a predictor of violent behavior.

Consider the following, he will often ask of me. In the 1940's through the 60's, television programming consisted primarily of Westerns, which also consistently promoted violence as a means of solving problems. The Western was ubiquitous and unavoidable. The generation which was raised on this programming would then go onto to become part of the most massive anti-war movement in U.S. history during the Vietnam conflict.

A counterpoint to this, Jeffery also points out, is the 1980's approach. As a result of criticism of violent content, television made a concentrated effort to purge violent content. The 80's saw the purge of violent Saturday morning cartoons and the rise of "nice" children's programming. Programs, such as the Care Bears, went out of their way to promote values such as tolerance and cooperation. This did not rub off very well on the children who saw it, as the year 1993 - 11 years after the Care Bears first aired - saw the highest rate of juvenile crime in the U.S.

In short, the message of the entertainment media via the Western (violence does solve problems) combined with the message sent by U.S. government (violence is necessary to solve our problems in Vietnam), was not enough to convince the throngs of college students to stop burning their draft cards, having love ins, or fleeing to Canada.

Meanwhile, the efforts in the 80's of television programming to promote peace, love, and understanding, did little to prevent the juvenile crime rate from peaking in 1993. What I'm getting at is, there is more evidence to support the idea that watching the Care Bears cause people to engage in violent acts, such as what happened in Aurora, Colorado, than there is to support the notion that watching violent media leads to violence.

My partner is not a fringe member of sociology either. Other researchers have also decried the notion that violent media consumption causes violence. In "It's Not the Media" by Dr. Karen Sternheimer, she states that:

Media violence enables American discussion about violence to avoid the
tough questions about actual violence: Why is it so closely associated with
poverty? How can we provide families with resources to cope in violent communities? By focusing so much energy on media violence, we avoid our responsibility to pressure politicians to create policies that address these dif­ficult issues. To hear that "Washington (is) again taking on Hollywood" may feel good to the public and make it appear as though lawmakers are onto something, but real violence remains off the agenda. This tactic appeals to many middle-class constituents whose experience with violence is often lim­ited. Economically disadvantaged people are most likely to experience real violence, but least likely to appear on politicians' radar. A national focus on media rather than real violence draws on existing fears and reinforces the view that popular culture, not public policy, leads to violence.

I would also like to point out that attempts to censor violence in media often generate peripheral targets. Both the Hays Code and the MPAA were ostensibly about censoring violence but both also contributed to the erasure of queer lives from Hollywood films. The Hays Code was very explicit in it's forbidding of "homosexual" behavior and characters. The MPAA, which was created to replace the Hays code, is well documented in it's pattern of assigning harsher ratings to films with queer content or contain positive depictions of female sexuality. This Film is Not Yet Rated is an excellent primer on the MPAA's hypocrisy.

As was pointed out in This Film is Not Yet Rated, the MPAA is notorious about assigning higher ratings in general for sex and nudity while ignoring violent content. The truly weird part of the MPAA's policies though, is the way that bloodless, non-consequential violence is typically let off the hook. Kirby Dick used the James Bond Goldeneye film, which featured lots of extras being gunned down to little effect, to illustrate this point.

Ultimately, maybe this gets at the heart of the issue. The news media loves to blame the entertainment industry for senseless acts of violence. But I would argue that the news media deserves a lot of criticism for it's sanitizing the devastating impacts of U.S. military interventions around the globe. This was not the case during Vietnam, when graphic footage was regularly broadcast into people's homes during the evening news program.

Perhaps this is what helped fuel the anti-war protests during Vietnam. That the heightened knowledge the protesters quite likely had of the consequences of violence - brought about thanks to violent depictions in both news and entertainment - made more people wish to take a stand against U.S. military intervention in Vietnam.

Therefore, I would argue that we should *not* be calling for less violence in media but for more. Rather than cries of censorship, we should be calling upon the news and entertainment media to make more of an effort to show the consequences of violence, no matter how disturbing or upsetting those consequences may be.

I will be honest, the efforts to erase violent media often feel more like an effort to shove the issue under the proverbial carpet. If we want to live in a more peaceful world, than perhaps we should stop pretending that the devastating impacts violent acts have on those who are subject to violence (be they physical, psychological, or sexual) do not exist.

Maybe we should spend less times chastising films such as The Dark Knight and focusing more energy on ensuring that the victims of violence can make their voices and stories be heard.

Classic Review: Psycho (1960)

Psycho
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writer: Joseph Stefano. Based upon the novel by Robert Bloch.
Cast: Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles, Janet Leigh, John Gavin, Martin Balsam, John McIntire

Overview
The granddaddy of all slasher films, Psycho tells the story of a man driven to madness by an overbearing mother, or so it seems so at the beginning.

Synopsis
When Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) steals $40,000 from her employer, she flees, only to find herself at the creepy and derelict Bates Motel, run by the pleasant but oddly sinster Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). Soon afterwards, a private Detective (Martin Balsam), Marions' boyfriend, Sam Loomis, (John Gavin) along with her sister, Lila (Vera Miles) come to Bates Motel looking for Marion. All of them make startling discoveries about the true nature of the Bates Motel and its' caretaker.

The Queering
Watching Psycho for the first time recently, the old saying that "familiarity breeds contempt" kept running through my head. Unfortunately for Hitchcocks' classic slasher flick, I knew too much of the plot going in and the infamous shower scene failed to do much of anything for me. At the time of the release, Hitchcock took extreme measures to avoid the plot from becoming widely known so as to avoid spoiling the shocking twists. He was quite wise to do this. I spent most of the first part of the film, forcing myself to pay attention and not give into boredom. After the shower scene and my knowledge of the plot dropped off, I became a lot more engaged with the film and Hitchcock's mastery of the cinematic medium became more apparent.

However, given the nature of the villian, I was a little worried that the film was going to engage in some rather overt transphobia. Ultimately, I am not sure that this was he case. Yes, the bad guy does crossdress, (technically speaking) but the behavior in this case is more reflective of multiple personality disorder, than anything to do with the experiences of transgender/transsexual individuals. There's even a line from a psychologist at the end, explicitly stating that the character is not a transvestite. I might otherwise make a point about the problematic terminology used here, but given that Psycho was made in 1960 I don't really feel like it. Furthermore, other than a single instance of limp wristedness, I did not notice any attempt to overly feminize the villian, nor did I discern a queer subtext. Ultimately, the film is much worse when it comes to stigmitizing mental illness and one need look no further than the title for proof of that.

For me, there are also some interesting issues related to the attempts of certain parties to censor Psycho or more precisely, what some censors wanted to censor. Objections were raised over the use of the term "transvestite". The shower scene had one shot of female buttocks removed and some censors were worried that a shot of Curtis's nipples had made it into the final cut. Psycho is also famous for quiet likely containing the first scene where a toilet is being flushed and Hitchcock had to fight hard to make sure that this moment was not cut. Oddly enough, the fact that two people are brutally murdered on screen does not seem to have raised quiet the number of objections as the above items, although some film critics apparantly did protest the graphic violence after the film was relased.

From a technical perspective, Psycho is very well constructed, using complex camerawork and bold editing during key sequences. The image of the Bates Motel and shower scene have become etched into our cultural memory for a reason. Anthony Perkins gives the most chilling performance as Norman Bates - the audience does not need any line about the highway being undertraveled to know that there is a reason why no one stays at the Bates Motel. No one else really is given enough to do to leave much of an impression. I may have been underwhelmed by the lack of suspense to the plot (having forknowledge of what would happen before even seeing this) but I cannot deny Hitchock's genius in constructing this classic.

Recommendation
Anyone with an interest in classic films, horror and slasher flicks, or evenjust generally the history of cinema should drive themselves Psycho in order to see this.

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.

Philosophical Issue: Dear Politifact, Please Learn the Difference Between Fact and Opinion.

As for me, all I know is that I know nothing, for when I don't know what justice is, I'll hardly know whether it is a kind of virtue or not, or whether a person who has it is happy or unhappy.
-Socrates

I'll start out by saying that I used to like Politifact. Liked it a lot, in fact. When polititians, political parties, and other groups make claims about legislation, about the economy, about each other, or anything else, there needs to be as many legitimate sources as possible making damn sure whether or not those claims are accurate. However, I lost a lot of respect for Politifact over their recent decision to bestow the ignoble title of 2011's "Lie of the Year" on the Democratic parties claim that "Republicans voted to end Medicare".

Let's summarize what happened here. The Democrats claimed that "Republicans voted to end Medicare" because Republicans voted to replace the current system with a very different system - referred to as the Paul Ryan plan becuase he came up with it - that would still bear the moniker of Medicare. That the Democrats used hyberbolic scare tactics in the process is undeniable. I wont get dragged into a discussion on whether or not Paul Ryan's plan is better as it is not particularly relevant.

Furthermore, it has been suggested that Politifact made the decision to label the Democrats claim as "Lie of the Year" for political expediency in order to appear more objective. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, there is still a fundamental problem with Polifact's decision, one that I have not seen anyone else point out. The question is this: On what grounds is the Democrats claim a lie?

It goes like this. Back in first grade, one assignment I remember doing involved distinguishing between facts and opinions. Now most people I imagine can (usually) tell the difference between the two. A factual claim is one that can be verified as true or not ture. An opinion is a matter of perspective, one that is dependent upon the values, likes, and/or dislikes of the holder. One is entitled to one own's opinion but not one's own facts, as the saying goes. If one makes a factually inaccurate claim, then one is lying, but making statements of opinion cannot possibly be lies. Fair enough?

Regarding the Democrats claim that "Republicans voted to end Medicare", I think it's easy enough to see that this is an opinion, based upon how one defines Medicare. Basically, the Democrats are arguing that the Paul Ryan plan is a different system, one that has too little resemblance to Medicare to be called Medicare.

Of course, there is one possibility that would make the Democrats claim a factual one, rather than an opinion. Now what would this situation be? It comes down to the linguistic method one might use to define Medicare.

First, there are two competing theories of language. One is prescriptivism which holds that there can only be one correct use of a language. The other is descriptivism, which holds that there is no correct or incorrect use of a language, we can only talk about which uses are more popular.

Since the Paul Ryan plan that the Republicans voted to replace the current system with will still be called be called Medicare, there is a legitimate argument to be made that Paul Ryan's plan is still Medicare, so long as we are sticking to the descriptivist view of language.

However, if one subscribed to the prescriptivist view of language, then one could reasonably "fact check" the claim of "Republicans voted to end Medicare". So, how would the prescriptivist view of language go about this? Well, since originally Medicare was one system and the Paul Ryan plan is a completely different system that just happens to fill a similar purpose using a different method, then the Paul Ryan system is not Medicare.

Therefore, it would be incorrect to refer to the Paul Ryan plan as Medicare and the Democrats are factually correct in claiming that Republicans voted to end Medicare. To be fair, I am not a prescriptivist, so if someone out who is and would like to make an argument for why the Paul Ryan plan is still Medicare using the prescriptivist school of thought, then go right ahead.

In any case, what I am getting at is that, as a descriptivist, the claim that the Democrats are wrong can be considered a valid opinion, but so is the opinion that the Democrats are right. What Politifact has done here, is present a valid opinion as to why the Democrats are wrong. What the Politifact editors have failed to establish though, is why exactly they believe the Democrats are lying. In order for the Democrats to be lying, they would have to be making a claim that is factually incorrect, not merely holding an opinion to which there happens to be an equally valid counter opinion.

In a free society, in order to know the truth, we must be able to freely express our opinions and others should be able to freely express their counter opinions. I will allow Politifact the benefit of the doubt in arguing with the Democrats claim here is incorrect. Politifact has the right to claim that the Democrats are wrong, but to call a validly held opinion a lie is misleading. Worse, to engage in this type of propaganda, particularly by an organization that claims to check facts not censor opinions, should be anthema to any one who legitimately supports free speech.

In labelling the Democrats claim 2011's the "Lie of the Year", the editors at Politifact have clearly conflated fact and opinion, thereby making an already contentious debate even more inflamatory. Not to mention, in doing so they would have failed a test that any first grader should be able to pass.

Queer Review: Howl (2010)

Howl
Directors: Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman
Writers: Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman
Cast: James Franco, Todd Rotondi, Jon Prescott, Jon Hamm, Aaron Tveit, David Strathairn, Bob Balaban, Andrew Rogers, Mary-Louise Parker, Heather Klar, Jeff Daniels, Allen Ginsberg (in archival footage)

Overview
The issues of censorship and the question of what constitutes obscenity come together in this dramatic telling of the trial for Allan Ginsberg's poem "Howl". The trial itself is a little dry but the imaginative sequences inspired by the poem itself make the time spent viewing worthwhile.

Synopsis
One part of Howl focuses on the obscenity trial for Allan Ginsberg (James Franco) which features several literary experts testifying on the literary merits of the the poem. Another part features Ginsberg in a mockumentary segment answering questions about the poem from an inquiring researcher. The third part has Ginsberg reading the poem at Six Gallery Reading on October 7, 1955, which was the public debut, and also features some glorious animated segments inspired from the poem.

The full text of Howl can be read here.

The Queering
It is sometimes easy to forget that America in the 1950's was the very epitome of intolerance, as evidenced here when Allen Ginsberg's publishers are forced to justify the legitimacy of the poem in order to avoid criminal charges. You read that right, actual criminal charges. Shig Murao (who was unfortunately not depicted in the film) actually went to jail for selling Howl and Other Poems. First Amendment, what First Amendment?

The problem with the film Howl is that we didn't really need to see a dramatization of the trial itself. The scenes where literary critics debate the worthiness of the Howl are tepid and add little to the movie. The scenes where Ginsberg is being interviewed are a bit more interesting, as these feature James Franco giving a completely natural performance of the late poet and his defence here that Howl represents a sort of pure expression of human expression makes more sense than anything we see in the trial.

However, where the film really takes off are when Franco reads the poem in public and during the animated segments. These sections, set to Franco's narration, are what make the movie worthwhile. We did not need the trial to see the literary merits of the poem Howl, these wonderful sets of animated imagery - which honour Grinsberg's work and bring the poem itself to life - should be enough to convince anyone of the poems merits.

Recommendation
No reason to go around howling like a mad man to find this, but worth taking some effort for those interested in the subject matter.

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: This Film Is Not Yet Rated

This Film Is Not Yet Rated
Director: Kirby Dick
Writers: Kirby Dick, Eddie Schmidt, and Matt Patterson

This Film Is Not Yet Rated is a documentary about the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the board responsible for providing movie ratings in the United States. Personally, I would classify Kirby Dick's movie as a "film essay" in that it's not altogether unbiased, Kirby Dick is pursuing a specific thesis here with a remarkable tenacity. That thesis is as follows, that the power wielded by the MPAA is not for the purpose of providing a guide or tool for parents, but rather, the MPAA's real purpose is to act as a tool for the major film studios in order to better control what movies and content can be seen by the larger public.

The major issues that Dick addresses include the secrecy surronding the ratings process and the impact a rating can have on the box office potential of a particular movie. Supporters of the MPAA frequently point out that submitting a movie the MPAA is entirely voluntary and that filmmakers do not have to accept the rating that is assigned. That is, filmmakers can always release a movie as unrated, therefore the MPAA is not an institution in the business of censorship.

The counterpoint to this is that an unrated film has greatly reduced distribution options and many companies, such as Blockbuster, will not carry NC-17 rated films. Furthermore, movies with R ratings typically make less money than those with PG-13.

This may all seem fine and well until one considers the inconsistency (and genereal strangeness) with which the MPAA issues ratings. Of particular interest to the GLBTQIA community is how films with queer content are regularly given higher ratings then straight films with otherwise comparable content. There is one montage devoted to comparing scenes from various movies to drive this point home.

Then there is the whole issue of the MPAA's coming down harder on depictions of sex in movies than on violence. Take for instance Boys Don't Cry which features a graphic sequence of two characters getting murdered in cold blood, an equally graphic rape scene, and one character being stripped naked and humiliated in front of others. However, those scenes were not what lead to the MPAA initially giving it an NC-17 rating. What lead to the NC-17 rating was an extended close up of a female characters face, while she was having an orgasm during a love making scene.

Another issue of particular concern is the favoritism shown towards studio films versus the treatment given to independent productions. Matt Stone, who directed and produced Orgazmo and South Park, discusses how the MPAA was easier to work with in regards to South Park.

This should not come as a surprise as the MPAA is not a neutral entity but is an organization that was set up to be controlled by the major studios. While liberals will undoubtedly be concerned with the MPAA's tendency to censor artists, conservatives should worry about the stifling of competition that the MPAA both creates and encourages.

Furthermore, as Kirby Dick highlights through a couple of extended sequences, the MPAA is one of the most secretive organizations in America, right up there with the CIA. The identities of those actually rating the movies are never made public, nor are the members who are part of the appeals board. As one interviewee points out, a government board might be preferably as not only would it force the entire decision making process to be transparent, but also allow for judicial review. Neither of these things are currently present or available within the MPAA.

In the final analysis, I believe that this film deserves to be seen by anyone who is interested in knowing more about how the MPAA operates and the generally dangerous practice of censorship.

Queer Issue: The Impact of Words

This isn't a queer issue per se, but there are two recent events that I want to comment on, both dealing with censorship either directly or indirectly. One is the removal of the word "nigger" from a recent edition of Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The other is the backlash that has been generated against Sarah Palin due to the connection (however weak) her aggressive rhetoric played in the horrific tragedy that took place in Arizona that left 6 dead and a U.S. Congresswoman hospitalized in critical condition.

Regarding the censoring of Huckleberry Finn, the publishers have justified their decision by claiming that teachers were becoming increasingly reluctant to teach the book, due to the use of a modern pejorative for people of color. My response to this is simply, huh?

Yes, the term "nigger" is a pejorative today, but it's use was perfectly acceptable at the time Huckleberry Finn was published. Rather than not teaching the book, I think teachers should use it as a learning opportunity. That is, they should have students read the uncensored version and then provide students with a history of the word and discuss why it's considered offensive today.

What I mean is this, are not teachers supposed to educate on sensitive issues, not cover them up? Students need tools and information in order to be able to evaluate complicated information in an increasingly complex world. By ignoring the issue itself, teachers are sending all the wrong messages to those they are supposed to be teaching.

Moving on to the second issue, the backlash against Sarah Palin, I have this to say. Using angry, violent, and threatening rhetoric is a problem. Not because it might lead to situation that occurred - and there is little actual reason to think that Palin's comments did cause the shooting - but because such rhetoric appeals to emotions and not to reason. There should be little discussion that reason in today's political climate is what we need now, not amped up emotional appeals.

These two issues are more connected then one might think. Thanks to the unsubstantiated charges that our rancorous political climate is the cause that lead to the shooting, I have seen the suggestion made that certain words (gun, shooting, etc.) and threatening statements should be banned from anyone with a microphone or in the media, etc.

I do not believe that this is a good idea, censoring certain words will only make reasoned discussion harder. Nor do I think that Sarah Palin or any other right wing commentator should be considered responsible for what happened.

However, remember that that the angry and violent political discourse that has taken place is wrong, not because it could cause violence, but because it leaves out reason, which is all that we should be using to guide our way forward.

Queer Issue: DADT Commercial that Fox News Refused to Air

In case people haven't noticed, I'm rather opposed to the very concept of censorship. If it's that worth censoring, it's that much worth viewing. So, be sure to enjoy the repeal DADT commercial that Fox News refused to air.