Xixax Film Forum

im not queer. but you guys need a place to discuss.

sister my sister is a wonderful movie.  i'm glad you liked it.  jodhi may who played the younger paupin sister is one of my favorite actresses.  she's in a new bbc miniseries which apparently has some very risque lesbian sex scenes...it's called tipping the velvet.  

i have yet to see i shot andy warhol.  i read about it a while ago but somehow forgot about it...i should see it soon.  mary harron did a brilliant job with american psycho.  and lily taylor as a schizophrenic counterculture dyke sounds pretty damn intriguing.

Are you single?

is who single?

Uh oh

can someone tell me what the fuck is going on.  lol.

Isn't the idea that you are using Queer in place of gay or lesbian crossing the political correctness border? I don't think anyone here has a problem with this cinema, but I always felt the approach in saying it as Queer Cinema is biting at the political correctness feeling a lot of people in dealing with subjects that seem easy to offend because it deals with groups of people spotlighted as being looked down upon in some way. I really can't speak for the gay or lesbian crowd here on what they feel because it can differentiate between each.

As for personal opinion on any of these films in this specific categories, I haven't seen any of them though off the top of my head but have come close to renting High Art.

~rougerum

She's gay and the correct answer is yep you're single

mrburgerking, it's laura nyro.  first of all she's lesbian.  second of all, she's dead.  so i think you're chances of getting laid are pretty slim.  

as for the "queer cinema" -as-politically incorrect thing, goldtrumpet, the idea is precisely to be politically incorrect.  in a way, it's like black people calling themselves the n-word.   to twist the prejudice so it doesn't mean something nasty anymore...

just an ole tactic that we minorities are crafty at.

maybe fine and dandy for you guys to use in how you want to label yourself, but for the rest of us, it sounds just dumb saying it. And mr burger king, since you are of that philosophy, I dare you to call every black man you see from now all that most notorious word......the n word. None of my business what the people of these minorities say, but it holds nothing to showing me the best way in how to say it.

~rougerum

How do you like your burgers cooked?

what the hell is dumb about calling it queer cinema?  

this thread is getting worse by the minute.  save us, godardian.

I don't think it's wrong to call it Queer Cinema, because that's the actual name of their movement I think. I've read dozens of articles that proclaim Todd Haynes is the leader of the "New Queer Cinema".

im not opposed or offended, but what do we call other films then? straight cinema?

Just wanted to interject and randomly proclaim my love for My Own Private Idaho. I only saw it recently - as part of my course - and loved it (and, incidentally, have to take an exam on it on Friday). The essays I've read on it proclaim it as a key film in the 'New Queer Cinema'. I was just wondering what anyone's take on it was. River Phoenix apparently pushed the homosexual nature of his character more than Van Sant had originally intended, and Reeves backed further away from the notion of queer than the script had suggested. I'm studying the film on a course to do with the road movie, and the film therefore takes the form of the theme of identity (a major theme in the road movie genre) in relation to queer cinema: the search for home, the hegemonic norms of heterosexuality, and existing outside that paradigm. Anyway: it's a great movie...

Quote from: cecil b. dementedim not opposed or offended, but what do we call other films then? straight cinema?

Yes, the early-nineties wave of gay films (led by Haynes and Mary Harron and films like Swoon) were dubbed "the new queer cinema."

The word queer is great; it's convenient, it sums it up, and it covers everyone it needs to cover, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered and intersex persons. I take it to mean "unconventional sexuality," and you can interpret that as conservatively or as radically as you want. I don't take offense at the word at all. It's been rather officialy recognized in the annals of film, Gold Trumpet; we're certainly not the first to use the term "queer cinema," here. It's a word generally used in literate circles as something very well-intentioned; it's not a word like "faggot" or "dyke," which tend to have more negative connotations (still, that's all up to the tone, too; words are semiotic things, and they only exist in context).

I'm sorry to see that there's already been some stupid shit (well-intentioned or not) directed your way here, pookie. And I can't believe someone implied we're just going to be here talking to ourselves; thanks to the ever-straight-but-not-narrow (I assume) children for disproving that.

Anyways, we're going to talk about movies here, and what they mean to us, just like everywhere else on the board. Definition of what "queer cinema" is is up to whoever's posting. Feel free to give your queer interpetation of a straight film or to express your straight appreciation of a queer film. I'll finally have someplace to spill my guts when I finally see My Beautiful Launderette.

Pookie, I also loved Jodhi May in Sister; she was also in The House of Mirth with Gillian Anderson, which was adapted and directed by gay English director Terence Davies (The Neon Bible, The Long Day Closes- some pretty remarkable films).

Okay, more later... Everyone feel free to post and get things rolling.

Quote from: children with angelsqueer cinema: the search for home, the hegemonic norms of heterosexuality, and existing outside that paradigm. Anyway: it's a great movie...

that's a perfect way of describing queer cinema and what the vast majority of movies within the genre are about.  

there is a certain amount of queer films, i've noticed, that rather than try to tackle those issues, simply rift on classic "straight" movie plots by giving the central couple or event or theme a homosexual twist.  these movies, i've noted, usually suck.  observe: better than chocolate, it's in the water.  any movie that proclaims to be classic or traditional "but with a gay little twist" will usually be petty.  the directors, feeling the weight of so many years of tragic, heavy queer cinema, seemingly tries too hard  to be lightweight and fun that their movies end up mild and dull...also observe: but i'm a cheerleader.  model after a traditional john waters movie, add some homosexuality and the product is a fairly inept comedy.  

the one attempt at doing this quite well has been todd hayne's far from heaven, a remake on something classic and familiar but with a gay sensibility.  well-done and with something to say.

but what i find quite interesting now is that many people are calling x-men 2 queer cinema because of the allegory between of being a mutant and homosexuality.  but the question is: is it queer cinema if it's not even intended to be?

i'm pretty ignorant about all this considering my youthful age and still lack of experience.  so feel free to correct or modify what i've said

Okay, just one more post to tie up a few things.

Gold Trumpet, I understand your concerns, but it's been years since I've heard the word "queer" used in a derogatory way. It's a word that's been embraced to the extent that many prominent universities have queer studies departments (how tenable those curriculums tend to be is another story; point is, the word doesn't bother anyone who cares).

Children, it's very cool that you're studying My Own Private Idaho. The campfire scene made me cry when I first saw that film when I was 15. I was born and raised in Portland (where Gus van Sant is from and where Idaho is set), so there was that whole local connection, too. It's a wonderful film. Still, To Die For is my favorite van Sant film.

BonBon85 and I were discussing in another topic the badness of some gay romantic comedies (I use Trick and Jeffrey as examples), how having same-sex couples acting out these dumb meet-cute scenarios doesn't really freshen up the cliches of that genre, and in fact can make them seem that much more obvious. I wonder if she's lurking around anywhere...?

I'd be up for discussing Laurel Canyon, too.

Todd Haynes is by far my favorite queer filmmaker- I've gone so far as to call Safe, in addition to being one of my favorite movies of all time, my favorite queer film, and disregarding people's befuddled reactions- because he creates stories that implicate everyone; he's remarkably un-ghettoized. His films are about (not just gay) identity and cultural currency, which is a problem every human being faces, though it particularly affects sexual minorities and other people whose identity constructs don't match the dominant templates. His films fit just as well in many other topics here as they do in this one, and I think that's ideal. We could talk lots about Todd Haynes here, and I wouldn't complain. Trivia: It's strange that he moved to Portland in '99, and then Gus van Sant moved back there from NYC (where he moved in the late '90s). My old hometown is now where two of the most respected and famous queer filmmakers live.

Seattle, on the other hand, has nothin'. [/i]

Quote from: pookiethecat

Quote from: children with angelsqueer cinema: the search for home, the hegemonic norms of heterosexuality, and existing outside that paradigm. Anyway: it's a great movie...

that's a perfect way of describing queer cinema and what the vast majority of movies within the genre are about.  

there is a certain amount of queer films, i've noticed, that rather than try to tackle those issues, just rift on classic "straight" movie plots by giving the central couple or event or whatever a homosexual twist.  these movies, i've noted, usually suck.  observe: better than chocolate, it's in the water.  any movie that proclaims to be classic or traditional "but with a gay little twist" will invariably be bad.  they're trying so hard not to be profound that they just end up mild and dull...also observe: but i'm a cheerleader.  model after a traditional john waters movie, add some homosexuality in for good measure and the product is a terribly sucky movie.

what i find interesting is that many people are calling x-men 2 queer cinema because of the allegory between of being a mutant and homosexuality.  but the question is: is it queer cinema if it's not even intended to be?

To that last question: It really can be. But sometimes it's too much of a stretch. I think that's an okay allegory, I think, but it doesn't excite me.

I agree with your list of sucky movies, Pookie. I really didn't like Better than Chocolate.

I overlapped this idea and others in my last post. I think we're pretty like-minded in not being at all timid about criticizing queer films. They often need it.

If you liked American Psycho, I predict you'll be very into I Shot Andy Warhol. I think Mary Harron is a very gifted filmmaker. She's not a queer filmmaker per se, but neofeminist filmmakers and queer filmmakers are often on the same page. It can really be almost anything that gives the lie to so-called "traditional values" and explores alternative modes and sensibilities.

I don't really know what entails "Queer Cinema", so I'm just going to list films I feel are positive portrayals:

"Crying Game" - Love this film; it one of my favorites of all time. I can watch over and over.

"High Art" - Made me fall in love with Particia Clarkson as an actress. And the rest of the cast is just as great.

"Before Night Falls" - Javier Bardem should have received the Oscar for this film. He and the film are wonderful.

"Bound" - More film-noir than a 'gay' film, and the hype of the sex scene clouds the rest of the film when this title is mentioned, but I feel this film has a very smart characters; in no way dumbing them down.

"Longtime Companion" - Haven't seen it in a long while, but I still remember the impact when I first saw it. The 'letting go' scene is so powerful.

"Philadelphia" - could have said much more, but it is a giant step for a studio to tackle a gay themes. And you can't ignore Hanks's performance, especially the scene of him crying in the street after being denied by Denzel's character and the opera scene.

Forgetting some, but all for now.

Quote from: MacGuffinI don't really know what entails "Queer Cinema"

yeah, does it mean "pro queer movies" or "movies made by queers?"

haha.  trick was awful  every time tori spelling appeared onscreen, i wanted to throw something at the tv.  

billy's hollywood onscreen kiss was another terrible movie.  though sean hayes made it somewhat bearable.  

macguffin- your list has a lot of good films.  high art in particular showed lots of promise in its first hour or so.  but i didn't really care for the ending.  the tragedy seemed forced...i found myself asking, why couldn't they just live happily ever after, dammit?!  in fact, that seems to be a problem with queer cinema.  too much frivolousness or too much tragedy.  so where is the middle ground?!  

..something also that might be good to address is that there's a double standard...bc, if any of the movies mentioned above depicted straight charaters, no one would even question their ineptitude...that's why the queer film community needs people like us to call them on it and not settle for a less than stellar product.

by the way, bound is one of the best movies.  it gave me considerable faith in the wachowski brothers.  imagine it: little f/x.  about 2 sets total.  3 major characters. and you have terribly suspenseful, riveting drama .  not to get into a matrix debate, but i hope they can bring that level of taut intensity back with the third matrix installment.

Quote from: MacGuffin

"Philadelphia" - could have said much more, but it is a giant step for a studio to tackle a gay themes. And you can't ignore Hanks's performance, especially the scene of him crying in the street after being denied by Denzel's character and the opera scene.

Forgetting some, but all for now.

Good list. I liked Philadelphia a lot more than I thought I would. Sure, it doesn't capture all the subtlety and complexity, but it's also not nearly as simplistic as it could've been.

I do remember not particularly caring for Longtime Companion, though. I'd have to revisit it.

Also really liked The Crying Game. Neil Jordan has made quite a few films I've liked a lot.  

I've also been very pleasantly surprised by Merchant-Ivory films (in case not everyone is aware, Ismael Merchant and James Ivory have been a couple for a very long time, in addition to making films together). Not just the ones with gay characters, like A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries or Maurice- both of which I found to be very nicely done- but quite a few of them. I guess I count gay filmmakers, whether or not their films are explicitly about being gay or have gay themes.

I mean, George Cukor and Vincente Minnelli were gay, and it had little to do with their films (many of which were very good), but that's equally liberating, to me: That they were able to make films of great sensitivity and technical proficiency and storytelling ability. They may have been kept from being open about their sexuality, but they weren't creatively limited by it. They managed to achieve.

Quote from: godardianA Soldier's Daughter Never Cries[/i] or Maurice- both of which I found to be very nicely done- but quite a few of them. I guess I count gay filmmakers, whether or not their films are explicitly about being gay or have gay themes.
.

The secondary yet highly enhancing nature of the gay character in Soldier's Daughter Never Cries reminds me of the sister in Election.  And though he wasn't explicitly gay in Solder's Daughter, his involvement, as an outsider and sexually confused young man (with a beautiful soprano, if you recall) really touched the gay part of me.  Same with the sister in Election.  Her treatment was sensitive yet unsentimental... not to mention funny as hell...I'd rather gay characters be well-portrayed in a supporting context than poorly-portrayed in a leading-protoganist context.

Quote from: cecil b. demented

Quote from: MacGuffinI don't really know what entails "Queer Cinema"

yeah, does it mean "pro queer movies" or "movies made by queers?"

Both. Let's try to be as inclusive as possible.

"Adventures Of Priscilla: Queen Of The Desert" - characters you laugh with, not at. Although it is pretty funny to look back and see Agent Smith and Leonard Shelby in drag.

"Heavenly Creatures" - just a damn fine piece of filmmaking.

"And The Band Played On" - great TV movie about the early days surrounding the mystery of AIDS.

"Gods And Monsters" - Why Ian McKellen is one of our finest actors working today.

Quote from: pookiethecatI'd rather gay characters be well-portrayed in a supporting context than poorly-portrayed in a leading-protoganist context.

Totally. Look at Boogie Nights and Magnolia; the gay characters are interesting, and they're not just poster children for gay rights, or something. It took a straight filmmaker to give us the perfect antidote to the insipid, narcissistic gay guys of Trick, etc. Those are two of my favorites. [/i]

anyone a fan of francois ozon?

im going to watch sitcom ina  few minutes

Quote from: MacGuffin
"Heavenly Creatures" - just a damn fine piece of filmmaking.

Word.

Quote from: cecil b. dementedanyone a fan of francois ozon?

im going to watch sitcom ina  few minutes

Abso-fuckin'-lutely. I saw a preview for The Swimming Pool when I went to see The Shape of Things, and it looked really good, and I got very excited when I saw who the director was. I've only seen 8 Women, unfortunately. I would love to see Under the Sand; I really like Charlotte Rampling.

Didn't he do a Fassbinder script posthumously?

Ah, Fassbinder... now there's a queer filmmaker. Have you ever seen The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant, Pookie? It's like he made the best gay film ever (Fox and his Friends), and then he went and made the best lesbian film ever, too. They're incredibly original, sad, funny, eccentric movies.

Chasing Amy. It hurts to admit it 'cos Kevin Smith leaves a bad taste for me, but it's remarkably insightful and funny and tender.

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: pookiethecatI'd rather gay characters be well-portrayed in a supporting context than poorly-portrayed in a leading-protoganist context.

Totally. Look at Boogie Nights and Magnolia; the gay characters are interesting, and they're not just poster children for gay rights, or something.

I think John Ritter's character in "Sling Blade" would fit that too.

godardian-

i hated hated hated chasing amy.  it pissed me as a lesbian. it pissed me off as a movie-lover.  i suppose there's some merit in garnering such a strong reaction in a viewer, but it's a highly dubious one.  i honestly felt revulsed after watching that movie...  initially, i thought it was about the complications of sexuality...are we all gay are we all straight, are we a little bit of both.  ok.  fine.  that's cool.  then it starts getting into the fingercuffs nonsense and i realize that it isn't at all about sexuality, it's about a sleazy woman with a sleazy past whose boyfriend doesn't know how to deal with the fact that she was highly promiscuous and probably has std's.  holden was portrayed as an irrational doofus, but i identified with him the entire time.  smith stuck in lesbianism for no good reason i can think of...i suppose to add an extra layer of blindfold around our eyes to the true nonsense of the motion picture...it was like "hey look she's a lesbain for no reason other than that we can gawk at the spectacle of her being a lesbian." it struck me as exploitive and even jerry springer-esque.  

i'll check out the bitter tears of petra von kant.  though i live in a city where it's hard to find any movie that isn't spy kids 2 or some such shit.  anything that's not at blockbuster i really can't get to...i'd like to see it though.

Quote from: pookiethecatgodardian-

i hated hated hated chasing amy.  it pissed me as a lesbian. it pissed me off as a movie-lover.  i suppose there's some merit in garnering such a strong reaction in a viewer, but it's a highly dubious one.  i honestly felt revulsed after watching that movie...  initially, i thought it was about the complications of sexuality...are we all gay are we all straight, are we a little bit of both.  ok.  fine.  that's cool.  then it starts getting into the fingercuffs nonsense and i realize that it isn't at all about sexuality, it's about a sleazy woman with a sleazy past whose boyfriend doesn't know how to deal with the fact that she was highly promiscuous and probably has std's.  holden was portrayed as an irrational doofus, but i identified with him the entire time.  smith stuck in lesbianism for no good reason i can think of...i suppose to add an extra layer of blindfold around our eyes to the true nonsense of the motion picture...it was like "hey look she's a lesbain for no reason other than that we can gawk at the spectacle of her being a lesbian." it struck me as exploitive and even jerry springer-esque.  

i'll check out the bitter tears of petra von kant.  though i live in a city where it's hard to find any movie that isn't spy kids 2 or some such shit.  anything that's not at blockbuster i really can't get to...i'd like to see it though.

Well, it's good and necessary to have disagreements about these things. It wouldn't be very interesting if we all agreed that "the queer cinema is good."

I was able to rent Petra von Kant at my local Hollywood video, but that's in Seattle.

Quote from: cecil b. dementedim going to watch sitcom ina  few minutes

fucking hilarious! one of the best lines: "you wont let me die, will you at least let me suffer?"

Quote from: cecil b. demented

Quote from: cecil b. dementedim going to watch sitcom ina  few minutes

fucking hilarious! one of the best lines: "you wont let me die, will you at least let me suffer?"

Is this one of Ozon's older films, or newer, or....? I've never heard of it before now.

its from 1998. i dont know if you can even find a copy to rent... i saw it on showcase.

Quote from: pookiethecat
i hated hated hated chasing amy.  it pissed me as a lesbian. it pissed me off as a movie-lover.  i suppose there's some merit in garnering such a strong reaction in a viewer, but it's a highly dubious one.  i honestly felt revulsed after watching that movie...  initially, i thought it was about the complications of sexuality...are we all gay are we all straight, are we a little bit of both.  ok.  fine.  that's cool.  then it starts getting into the fingercuffs nonsense and i realize that it isn't at all about sexuality, it's about a sleazy woman with a sleazy past whose boyfriend doesn't know how to deal with the fact that she was highly promiscuous and probably has std's.  holden was portrayed as an irrational doofus, but i identified with him the entire time.  smith stuck in lesbianism for no good reason i can think of...i suppose to add an extra layer of blindfold around our eyes to the true nonsense of the motion picture...it was like "hey look she's a lesbain for no reason other than that we can gawk at the spectacle of her being a lesbian." it struck me as exploitive and even jerry springer-esque.  

I've heard this reaction from a lot of gay men and women... I, personally liked the film, but maybe that's because I didn't really watch it from that angle.  It's really the only Smith film I like.

Most of the films I would mention here have already been mentioned, but that's probably because I don't really pay that much attention to whether a film belongs in this genre (if you can call it that).  But I'm glad the topic's been started.

Okay... I guess that we can throw in Y Tu Mama Tambien?

and Almodovar's films?  

God's and Monsters was already mentioned, but Clive Barker co-produced that and I think he's a great writer (of books more than films, but this way, he counts for the category)

Opposite of Sex was an enjoyable film (to me, at least)

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMan(offensive stuff)

Why would you post that?

And back to actual discussion...
My study of My Own Private Idaho is, as I said, in relation to the road movie, but being used as an example of the 'road as search for identity' theme with regards queer cinema. The Wizard of Oz - that stereotypically queer-interpreted movie - is being used as something of a classical template for a road movie on the course, and the phrase "There's no place like home" as a kind of philosophy for the entire genre (with the double meaning of the apparently simple phrase being taken to its logical conclusion). It's very interesting to look at the film as a search for home, for the norm, but with home ending up to be the road. Sorry, if this all sounds too film-studentish: I was just wondering what your take on these themes were...

And another question - Pookie, as a lesbian: what did you think of Kissing Jessica Stein? I thought it was a pretty funny, sweet romantic comedy - but there was something kind of dubious about it too - I have a feeling that if I was a gay woman I'd find it a little offensive. After all, it does deal with this idea that the main character just chooses to be queer for a while, then decides she's in fact straight. In one way it's quite nice that a very mainstream-style romantic comedy has been made that just happens to be about two women, but then they do still make a rather large issue out of it (with the 'choice' thing), rather than just literally translating the classic romantic comedy template into a queer situation.

It's cool that the film was successful though, as it can perhaps pave the way for less self conscious gay romantic comedies to be made. It seems wrong that a genre that is to do with the lie of uncomplicated romantic love should be taken up soley by straight movies: I'm sure gay people need that escapist fantasy sometimes too...! You said earlier that you don't like it when a queer movie is uncomplicated and "lightweight" - but isn't that kind of cool - that queer movies can be just the same amount of fluff as a straight one? If you mean "tacked on homosexuality" then I guess I agree, but it's difficult to distinguish between when it's tacked on and when it truly doesn't matter. Queer films should be entitled/subjected to the frothy shit as well as the soul-searching and complex films, don't you think?

hmm... well i've seen my beautiful laundrette cos we watched it in film class last semester, to be honest i don't remember too much of it, besides another damn good performance from day-lewis.

almodovar is one of my favorite filmmakers. i wouldn't necessarily label him a 'gay filmmaker' tho. maybe.

the one storyline i did like in the rules of attraction was w/ the gay kid, the only character i felt a little sympathy for.

Oh wow…I hadn’t seen this forum before.  This is great.  As surprising as this sounds there is actually a robust little Queer Cinema movement down here in Fort Worth, TX by way of Q Cinema and the Fort Worth International Gay and Lesbian Film Festival.  It’s run by one of the main critics at the local newspaper who happens to be Gay.  It’s really interesting how different the culture of film becomes when you delve into minority specific genres.  The audience tends to be more lenient towards story/technical flaws because they are so happy to have something to identify with.  Actually, I guess you could say that this is true of Independent film in general.  Whaddya think?

Anyway, right now Q Cinema is doing a series called “Profiles in Pride.”  They are all docs and I have to admit it’s some of the best Queer cinema I’ve seen.  Here’s a list, if you can find these on video you should check them out:

The Times of Harvey Milk
Living With Pride: Ruth Ellis @ 100
The Real Ellen Story
Lance Loud: A Death in an American Family
No Secret Anymore: The Times of Del Martin & Phyllis Lyon
Hope Along the Wind: The Life of Harry Hay

BTW- One of my best friends is a Queer Filmmaker and his last film “Happy Birthday” (http://yentan.moonfruit.com) has won several awards and done great at a lot of the LGBT film festivals around the country and abroad.  I’ll let you guys know the next city it hits.  He just got a DVD distribution deal for it so I’ll let you know when it comes out.

Quote from: children with angels
And another question - Pookie, as a lesbian: what did you think of Kissing Jessica Stein? I thought it was a pretty funny, sweet romantic comedy - but there was something kind of dubious about it too - I have a feeling that if I was a gay woman I'd find it a little offensive. After all, it does deal with this idea that the main character just chooses to be queer for a while, then decides she's in fact straight. In one way it's quite nice that a very mainstream-style romantic comedy has been made that just happens to be about two women, but then they do still make a rather large issue out of it (with the 'choice' thing), rather than just literally translating the classic romantic comedy template into a queer situation.

It's cool that the film was successful though, as it can perhaps pave the way for less self conscious gay romantic comedies to be made. It seems wrong that a genre that is to do with the lie of uncomplicated romantic love should be taken up soley by straight movies: I'm sure gay people need that escapist fantasy sometimes too...! You said earlier that you don't like it when a queer movie is uncomplicated and "lightweight" - but isn't that kind of cool - that queer movies can be just the same amount of fluff as a straight one? If you mean "tacked on homosexuality" then I guess I agree, but it's difficult to distinguish between when it's tacked on and when it truly doesn't matter. Queer films should be entitled/subjected to the frothy shit as well as the soul-searching and complex films, don't you think?

So, in essence, the queer cinema movement should be glad that it makes movies just as bad and lame as mainstream cinema?  haha.  i suppose...  

In response to your other query I have yet to see Kissing Jessica Stein, but I think I can respond anyway.  I don't object to the idea that sexuality is fluid and people are capable of "switching teams."  For that reason, Chasing Amy wasn't herently offensive, and from the sounds of it, neither is Kissing Jessica Stein.  (While most awknowledge that homosexuality isn't a choice, it's equally ignorant to assume that we are all rigid and secure with our own sexualities)...Perhaps, I need to clarify.  The reason why i didn't like Chasing Amy was because the lesbianism of the main character was irrelevant to the theme (which was accepting people's past promiscuity) yet most of the gags and dialogue were spent disecting it and nitpicking the controversy of homosexuality... the irresponsible use of something controversial for the sake of being controversial was really what i responded to negatively...  (does that make sense?)  

Additionally, I found it to be a poorly executed piece of cinema, the humor juvenile and the acting atrocious...(especially ben affleck, but that's a different thread altogether...lol).   Put simply, it was a movie that didn't know anything about gay people for people who don't know anything about gay people..  So I suppose the ignorance continues...

I hope that answered your question as thoroughly as possible.

*running out and renting my own private idaho, kissing jessica stein the bitter tears of petra von kant and every other damn movie on the planet*

Quote from: pookiethecat

Additionally, I found it to be a poorly executed piece of cinema, the humor juvenile and the acting atrocious...(especially ben affleck, but that's a different thread altogether...lol).   Put simply, it was a movie that didn't know anything about gay people for people who don't know anything about gay people..  

I find the first thing to be true of all the other Kevin Smith films I've seen.

What I remember, though, is appreciating that Ben Affleck seemed to be getting a life lesson about the fluidity of sexuality, and not generalizing about a group but discovering that each individual's sexuality works differently... I don't remember it being that ignorant.

It's been a while, though, so I may have to revisit it more critically. Although I was definitely PREPARED to despise it when I first watched it.

Quote from: jmjIt's really interesting how different the culture of film becomes when you delve into minority specific genres.  The audience tends to be more lenient towards story/technical flaws because they are so happy to have something to identify with.  Actually, I guess you could say that this is true of Independent film in general.  Whaddya think?

Yeah, and it's at least as much a problem for queer film as it is for independent film in general. I'm more prone to forgive the blah mindset behind something like In and Out; they have to water things down and make them bland and acceptable for the largest possible audience. I think independent and queer filmmakers could generally stand to be a lot sharper and work a lot harder on coming up with something fresh, or at least honing their storytelling skills.

Unfortunately, I've had first-hand experience of what "supportive" is expected to mean in the queer community. As a sometime freelance reviewer, I'm honest about my opinions, as I think all reviewers should be. One filmmaker, upon my negative review of his feature, threw a giant fit and harassed the editorial staff of the gay paper in which the review ran, his own representatives, and the representatives of Portland's LGBT film festival. Now, most filmmakers EXPECT some bad reviews. They know behavior like that wouldn't be tolerated. They find ways to deal with it without making themselves look like spoiled children.

But "supportive" in these cases seems to mean "benign back-slapping and mindless congratulation," rather than helping to shape a viable, vibrant, varied, entertaining and aesthetically interesting queer cinema, which means being self-critical (as any good artist is, even if it's only in private) and open to outside criticism.

Quote from: jmjHe just got a DVD distribution deal for it so I'll let you know when it comes out.

So to speak, right? Sorry... couldn't resist.  :oops:

Someone mentioned The Opposite of Sex, which I loved. I really had hoped Don Roos would turn out to be an interesting queer filmmaker. Then he gave us Bounce. Which had the one good joke about quitting smoking; the rest felt like a whole lot of nothing to me.

Quote from: jmjThe audience tends to be more lenient towards story/technical flaws because they are so happy to have something to identify with.

When you said that, the first thing I thought of was Showtime's "Queer as Folk."  It seems to be an interesting idea, but the story and acting are laughable at times.  It almost seems like a gay "Dawson's Creek."

Anyway, does the gay community hold this show up high because it deals with gay relationships and forgive its downfalls, or do they find it not only offensive to gays, but to good television?

Indeed, Godardian, indeed.  Sometimes people just don't understand the point of criticism.  Sometimes one can be so nice and constructive about it and it still blows up in their face.  Ugh.

Hey, my friend Yen that directed "Happy Birthday" won the New Directors Showcase at Portland LGBT Festival this year.  He was pretty happy about that one.

Quote from: Pawbloe

Quote from: jmjThe audience tends to be more lenient towards story/technical flaws because they are so happy to have something to identify with.

When you said that, the first thing I thought of was Showtime's "Queer as Folk."  It seems to be an interesting idea, but the story and acting are laughable at times.  It almost seems like a gay "Dawson's Creek."

Anyway, does the gay community hold this show up high because it deals with gay relationships and forgive its downfalls, or do they find it not only offensive to gays, but to good television?

It's offensive to gays AND to good television, but... it's also so damn much fun. I mean, I think they know a lot of what they do is trite and sleazy and obvious, and they just go with it.

I hope I don't sound snobbish when I say I'm much more willing to accept this kind of thing on television than at the cinema. I'll make up for it by pointing out that some of the very BEST depictions of gays are on television: I think Six Feet Under is awesomely astute when it comes to the sexuality and relationships of all its characters, not just the gay ones.

Quote from: PawbloeAnyway, does the gay community hold this show up high because it deals with gay relationships and forgive its downfalls, or do they find it not only offensive to gays, but to good television?

First, great fucking Avatar.  Spirited Away was on of my favorite movies last year.  

What I've noticed about response to QAF is that most people like it.  I don't have cable and I haven't watched the DVD so I've never seen an episode, but my brother and all his friends love it and he thinks it's the greatest thing in the world like it completely reflects his own life.   However, "Titanic" is his favorite film of all time so...I think that it's no different than the general divide between mainstream and independent sensibilities in film.  I haven't encountered many people who find it offensive.  I wish I have seen it so I could comment further.

Quote from: godardianI hope I don't sound snobbish when I say I'm much more willing to accept this kind of thing on television than at the cinema. I'll make up for it by pointing out that some of the very BEST depictions of gays are on television: I think Six Feet Under is awesomely astute when it comes to the sexuality and relationships of all its characters, not just the gay ones.

I wouldn't be so fast to say that.  The first thing that comes to mind is that "Will and Grace" show.  I've never thought gay humor was that funny, but the characters on that show force themselves to say some kind of gay joke every two seconds.  Does that bother you, or do you really think it's funny?  Does flamboyant gays like Jack make you laugh?  If so, I find that hard to believe that these examples are truthful depictions of homosexuals.  I would think it leans more towards the heterosexual view of homosexuals.

Quote from: Pawbloe

Quote from: godardianI hope I don't sound snobbish when I say I'm much more willing to accept this kind of thing on television than at the cinema. I'll make up for it by pointing out that some of the very BEST depictions of gays are on television: I think Six Feet Under is awesomely astute when it comes to the sexuality and relationships of all its characters, not just the gay ones.

I wouldn't be so fast to say that.  The first thing that comes to mind is that "Will and Grace" show.  I've never thought gay humor was that funny, but the characters on that show force themselves to say some kind of gay joke every two seconds.  Does that bother you, or do you really think it's funny?  Does flamboyant gays like Jack make you laugh?  If so, I find that hard to believe that these examples are truthful depictions of homosexuals.  I would think it leans more towards the heterosexual view of homosexuals.

That's true as far as it goes, but subtlety and accuracy may not be fair criteria for television. I laugh at Will and Grace more often than not because they're playing with stereotypes. I don't necessarily think they're enforcing them. Megan Mullaly is a scream. She has the best character, one that (mostly) isn't even gay. What I'm getting at is, it's no worse than Friends- another sexually open show. I don't watch sitcoms looking for "truthful," though I might be more inclined to if the characters are gay; I think that's a good inclination to resist. I go in looking to laugh.

I thought Strangers with Candy was a very queer show, despite its constant smashing of sacred cows and niceties. It was even-handed in its approach, and acknowledged sexual and racial difference as sources of tension, and I really loved it.

Well, they say there is a certain amount of truth to all stereotypes.  I personally know several gay men just like Jack on W&G.  The strive to have that perception about them.  This gets into a much deeper discussion of sociology.  Some people will take on their role in society to make moving through life easier.  As strange as it sounds people are much more willing to except a goofy flamboyant gay guy around them because it gives them something to laugh at.  It also allows them to easily seperate themselves from "gayness" because they can think to themselves "I am so not like that."  However when you take an average guy that is an intellectual and politicaly active and he's gay...well that makes most people uncomfortable (sorry to leave lesbians out of this example I can just speak with more experience about gay men and how society treats them.)

Quote from: godardianThat's true as far as it goes, but subtlety and accuracy may not be fair criteria for television. I laugh at Will and Grace more often than not because they're playing with stereotypes. I don't necessarily think they're enforcing them. Megan Mullaly is a scream. She has the best character, one that (mostly) isn't even gay. What I'm getting at is, it's no worse than Friends- another sexually open show. I don't watch sitcoms looking for "truthful," though I might be more inclined to if the characters are gay; I think that's a good inclination to resist. I go in looking to laugh.

No offense to you, godardian, but that kind of goes against what you just said about "Six Feet Under"... unless you would rather categorize a television drama as more truthful than a comedy.  But IMO, comedies have more truth in them than most people think.  

Look, I'm not trying to compare the quality of "Six Feet Under" to "Will and Grace," but I think you know what I'm getting at.

Quote from: jmjWell, they say there is a certain amount of truth to all stereotypes.  I personally know several gay men just like Jack on W&G.  The strive to have that perception about them.  This gets into a much deeper discussion of sociology.  Some people will take on their role in society to make moving through life easier.  As strange as it sounds people are much more willing to except a goofy flamboyant gay guy around them because it gives them something to laugh at.  It also allows them to easily seperate themselves from "gayness" because they can think to themselves "I am so not like that."  However when you take an average guy that is an intellectual and politicaly active and he's gay...well that makes most people uncomfortable (sorry to leave lesbians out of this example I can just speak with more experience about gay men and how society treats them.)

All very, very astute. There really is a grain of truth in all stereotypes. It just behooves us not to go through our own lives making assumptions based on them; that's where they become harmful.

And certain straight people really are much more happy to see a noticeable difference in gay people to themselves. I think it's because they're afraid of seeing something so "different" appear to be so much like them, and it does give them that sense of superiority. But that's really their problem, not the flamboyant person's. And some people are just naturally more flamboyant than others. Just like some straight guys are naturally much more macho than others. It doesn't really make them any more or less straight.

Quote from: Pawbloe

Quote from: godardianThat's true as far as it goes, but subtlety and accuracy may not be fair criteria for television. I laugh at Will and Grace more often than not because they're playing with stereotypes. I don't necessarily think they're enforcing them. Megan Mullaly is a scream. She has the best character, one that (mostly) isn't even gay. What I'm getting at is, it's no worse than Friends- another sexually open show. I don't watch sitcoms looking for "truthful," though I might be more inclined to if the characters are gay; I think that's a good inclination to resist. I go in looking to laugh.

No offense to you, godardian, but that kind of goes against what you just said about "Six Feet Under"... unless you would rather categorize a television drama as more truthful than a comedy.  But IMO, comedies have more truth in them than most people think.  

Look, I'm not trying to compare the quality of "Six Feet Under" to "Will and Grace," but I think you know what I'm getting at.

No, I just think Six Feet Under is the exception, and has a more varied, relaxed, and rich view of sexuality even than most films I've seen. It's much more than I demand from television, and when it comes to these matters, it's even more than I hope to find at the cinema. That's what I meant about some things on TV being even more sexually astute than most films. I was also using it as a counter-example to Queer as Folk.

I do probably differentiate between sitcoms and something like Six Feet Under, though.

Quote from: children with angels

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManetc etc

Why would you post that?

A better question is: Why would anyone go to Blockbuster?  :o

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManok well then i will try to do better, ok and godardian i would expect you to contribute to this

i think gay people should be offended by kissing jessica stein

the whole idea of it is so shallow , it reminds me of what sean hayes said about gay men in the future

" soon they are gonna make them all pocket size"

this film treats homosexuality a thing that so many people have suffered over , and turns it into a " Neat thing to do...........kinda like yoga"

i am not talking about the film, just the idea of it

i am sure they were clevor enough to throw in some fake emotions to win over the all too fake p.c police

but come on this film is just wrong, its like tom arnold telling people

" as a jew i think ........."

has he earned the right to say that , or are his motives as such that he wants to get in on all the good things that come with being jewish and side step the rest, kind of like jerrys dentist on seinfeld

feedback please

I haven't seen Kissing Jessica Stein, so I'm unprepared to comment on it. A film about someone who's considered themselves heterosexual up to this point and now finds themselves sexually curious about their own sex but decides in the end to continue being heterosexual while having their worldview and frame of reference expanded could be a really interesting story about modern love and sex. Then again, it could just be dull, pandering crap. I'm willing to give it a go, but it's not at the top of my list. I wanna see 25th Hour and The Pianist- neither of which I've seen yet- first. Being a queer film isn't enough to put it at the top of my "to see" list; there's gotta be something more to it.

Also, just because a lot of people HAVE suffered dearly for being homosexual in the past doesn't mean they must always do so. It shouldn't be suffering, and it also, like heterosexuality, will never be a walk in the park; it's just a sexual orientation. Gay people still deal with the same goods and bads of life- relationship disappointments, paying bills, going to school/work- everyone has to. And there are also more than a few people who may be 90% hetero, but have had a few enjoyable same-sex experiences here and there, or vice versa, and it's no big deal. It shouldn't be the identity crisis that politics and society have so often forced it to be.

its weird children i just read your opinion on kissing jessica stein after i posted mine

i am tellin you that film is very i dunno

Quote from: RegularKarateIt's really the only Smith film I like.

Most of the films I would mention here have already been mentioned, but that's probably because I don't really pay that much attention to whether a film belongs in this genre (if you can call it that).  But I'm glad the topic's been started.

Okay... I guess that we can throw in Y Tu Mama Tambien?

and Almodovar's films?  

Yes. And yes. I loved Y Tu Mama. It was grown-up, not in any stodgy way, but just nicely cosmopolitan about how sexual categories and feelings are not always as concrete as would make us feel secure.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks Chasing Amy is really an exception to the Smith rule.

i guess my point is, this is not a fucking country club you could just waltz in on

in some ways its like " i wanna be black"

well dude thats noble that you want to be black , seeing that maybe your desire to be black is based on your love of their culture

but its not that easy, its not all fun and games and yes the good is great but the bad does exist and you can not have one with out the other

and last i checked you un like jessica stein can not turn it on and off when the fad becomes yesterdays news

not to compare gays with what black people have went through

richard chamberlin worked steady through his youth with out having to deal with the type of pain sydney poitier went through

because when your blck your black , gay you can hide

one might add that it must suck having to hide, but for black people its not even a option that exists, that is why gay people have it one up on them

but back to my point, its too important a issue to be tretaed in such a shallow fashion am i right

is it cool to treat being a lesbian like drinking a cosmo

its very trendy to be a lesbian lets make a movie about it woop te do

meanwhile would the real deal get the props that Kissing got

should this not piss you off

so to sum up, its not all about pain and suffering with you people

but i think for some people its a all too important life fact and to reduce it in such a way is kinda wrong, and you get mad at me for calling mesh a fag

no this is wrong, this is like what bruce lee went through in hollywood when he saw his culture treated in such a weird manner

To the person who dissed Blockbuster, I ask you to realize it is the best people like me and others have because my city limits only has around ten thousand people in it. That's all for now.

~rougerum

the best thing kurt cobain ever said was that he did not want to say fuck you to wall mart because when he was a kid wallmart was all he had

thats some cool shit

dissing blockbuster i roll my eyes at that shit, we all fucking got started there

i did

maybe the older memembers remember the days of " bobs videos"

but that is not my point, blockbuster has movies

maybe when you get older and your tastes expand you move on to seek other places

but to dismiss blockbuster out right is just dare i say dumb

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetTo the person who dissed Blockbuster, I ask you to realize it is the best people like me and others have because my city limits only has around ten thousand people in it. That's all for now.

~rougerum

Believe me, I've been to Blockbuster many, many times myself. I lived in a small town for a few years, and that was, indeed, all we had. What I meant was, "Why would anyone go to Blockbuster if they had any other choice?" But what I was really trying to do was put a little smiley face on it all. I hated having to go to Blockbuster. The selection sucks, the people there sucked, and the company itself sucks.

godard i have to say i am let down here, i brought up a debate that you would think that you could dig right into

and you are just avoiding it and at best just throwing a few cliches around

but yet when i say a tiny little mean remark you are all over that

is that you saying that you have hit your ceiling of debate

all you know how to do is spew tired old cliches at people when they say things outside the excepted box

i think on this post i brought up strong points , while still staying true to my views

but you just want to wait to hear me call mesh a fag so you could write a 10 page diatibe about how hate full i am

i do not think i am hatefull, you were just trained to think that if anyone says any little thing not excepted by the code they are wrong

my posts prove that i am not in any way a rush limbaugh type

but since your so shallow you miss the important stuff and go straight to the " fags" how is that differnt then some soccer mom who scans her kids music for the words " shit"

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMan

meanwhile would the real deal get the props that Kissing got


so to sum up, its not all about pain and suffering with you people

but i think for some people its a all too important life fact and to reduce it in such a way is kinda wrong, and you get mad at me for calling mesh a fag

no this is wrong, this is like what bruce lee went through in hollywood when he saw his culture treated in such a weird manner

What's "the real deal" in this case?

I'm stunned you would use a the words "you people" in this context. Who are you, Ross Perot??

I have no idea whether Kissing Jessica Stein is a good film in any way or not; like I said, I haven't seen it. But it has to be pointed out (since not everyone seems to know this) that not all gay people have the same life experiences. To some people, being gay is really no big deal. To others, it's what they build their life around. To others, it's a secret they have to keep at all costs. I don't think it's automatically wrong to depict a woman that's usually heterosexual being curious or attracted to another woman and exploring that. If you think of sexuality as separate gated communities or a country clubs that are "members only," then I suppose it could bother you. But since I know sexuality is much more fluid than that, and that a lot of the sociocultural baggage that's hung on it is extraneous bullshit, it doesn't bother me.

Anyways, from what I've read/heard, the issues you bring up are also addressed in the film; in fact, isn't that a major part of the plot?

the real deal would be a real lesbian writting her love story from her point of view

would hollywood jump all over it, if say they the couple in question looked rather plain and ordinary

and the you people line backs up my point, about how you can not debate me so you look for hot button words and you twist them around

its like me writting a song about how fucked up cancer is and i use the word "shitty" in the song and all these snobby soccer moms want to dissmiss my song out right just because of one word

kind of like when people at church get mad at magnolia because of tom cruise saying cock, if they get past that part they will find a movie that many people find to be very pro church values

now being the snob that you are, you will say that you are so much better then a soccer mom because soccer moms do not know who godard is

but if the mini van fits drive it

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMangodard i have to say i am let down here, i brought up a debate that you would think that you could dig right into

and you are just avoiding it and at best just throwing a few cliches around

but yet when i say a tiny little mean remark you are all over that

is that you saying that you have hit your ceiling of debate

all you know how to do is spew tired old cliches at people when they say things outside the excepted box

i think on this post i brought up strong points , while still staying true to my views

but you just want to wait to hear me call mesh a fag so you could write a 10 page diatibe about how hate full i am

i do not think i am hatefull, you were just trained to think that if anyone says any little thing not excepted by the code they are wrong

my posts prove that i am not in any way a rush limbaugh type

but since your so shallow you miss the important stuff and go straight to the " fags" how is that differnt then some soccer mom who scans her kids music for the words " shit"

Yet again, you've failed to actually read my posts. Never have I used the word "hate" to describe you. I think your posts are sub-literate, very poorly argued, full of contradictions, and inspired by pointless aggression and some sort of self-deluded idea that you're being "rebellious," really challenging the status quo. I've never insisted you stop posting or told you not to use certain words. I'm giving my opinion of what you've written, which is part of free discourse and is not censorious. Your incredibly petty, simplistic views absolutely beg for another point of view to be shown. Your own shallowness, as proven by your constant and astounding inability to comprehend posts or make articulate or coherent posts of your own, is astounding.

I won't continue to respond to this, because you're either too lazy to actually read what I've written, or you're too thick to comprehend it.

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMan



Anyways, from what I've read/heard, the issues you bring up are also addressed in the film; in fact, isn't that a major part of the plot?

i dealt with this earlier, when i said they will throw in some fake politics to make the p.c police happy

and yes like pavlovs dog, you fell for it

you wont repond to this because you cant you have shown the limit of your logic

and guess what i am winning fans over second by second, why are you not ?

and the people who get it, can not be called hicks as much as you wish they would

your a tired old cliche my man

godardian is a tired old cliche? He has to write and think in the realm of something gimmicky to even become that. Stating opinions straight forward is not that, but writing thoughts in a series of rap like talking that says as much for cleverness as for an opinion stated, hmmm...........

~rougerum

again i log on and see blacksanta arguing with someone. sheesh, you seem to be in a pissy mood today.

i know your right cecil

i need to clear my head , but even in the midst of this heavy block i created a whole art garfunkle post

some of my best work

now ifonly we could some how get a thread going where we could talk about boobies

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMannow ifonly we could some how get a thread going where we could talk about boobies

theres some talk of that in, i think, the movie confessions thread

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMan
i dealt with this earlier, when i said they will throw in some fake politics to make the p.c police happy
and yes like pavlovs dog, you fell for it

I understand that you don't want to read everything because words hurt your head, but you expect everyone to respond to every last thing you say.

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DOES HE HAVE TO SAY HE DIDN'T SEE THE FILM?!!!  HOW CAN HE BE "FALLING FOR IT" IF HE HASN'T SEEN IT AT ALL?

I don't blame Godardian for not wanting to reply when you're being so thick headed.

and you are so quick to label everyone... so fucking quick...

listen... godardian can be film snobby sometimes, really, but he usually makes valid points and is pretty level headed about everything.

Your posts can be great when you're not trying to make a point about something stupid because you're so stubborn and ignorant about certain things.

maybe i will move to new zealand and clear my head

and words dont hurt my head, i need them much like you need air

but its bullshit i cant handle it drives me nuts, now should it drive me this nuts well no

but im working on it

dont want to end up like lenny bruce holding old newspapers and bitching about why the world has done me wrong

So apparently, there's a big new wave of Fassbinder films coming out on Criterion DVD soon, which I'm excited for. Looks like it'll be Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, and then a trilogy of later films including The Marriage of Maria Braun.

I'm wondering who's seen anything by Fassbinder and what you made of it. It's interesting that Todd Haynes will be doing some sort of video introduction/interview to the Criterion release of Ali: Fear Eats the Soul after the success of Far from Heaven; it seems Fassbinder was obsessed with Douglas Sirk, and Haynes is obsessed with Fassbinder; Fassbinder is like the missing link between Sirk and Haynes, and wrote some very interesting essays of his own on Sirk's films.

The only films of Fassbiner's that I've seen are:

Fox and his Friends

The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant

The Marriage of Maria Braun

And I've loved them all. Fox and his Friends was exploring gay intra-community issues like class in a very perceptive way- in 1974! I usually classify it as my favorite gay film, ever. And Petra von Kant is way up there when it comes to lesbian films, too.

I'm wondering if anyone else has seen it. I thought I might float the idea of, if everyone hasn't already seen it, making it sort of a semi-formal point of discussion at some point. People could see it sometime during one week (no need to be as specific and real-time as the PTA fest they're talking about in that topic, just any time during that week) and then discuss it over that weekend. Everyone speak up if you think you can/would want to do this.

thanks godardian.  this weekend is going to be replete with some fascinating gay cinema viewing  (in between my "normal" activities like end-of-the-year parties).    

though i'm not too fond of the whole checking out a pile of gay themed movies and seeing the stares...that ever happened to anyone?  most of the time, blockbuster people are too film illiterate to even tell...like there was this one clerk who had a crush on me.  and he'd get me free movies and whatnot.  i don't think he had seen any of the titles i was renting or else he would have caught the message. :lol:

Quote from: pookiethecatthanks godardian.  this weekend is going to be replete with some fascinating gay cinema viewing  (in between my "normal" activities like end-of-the-year parties).    

though i'm not too fond of the whole checking out a pile of gay themed movies and seeing the stares...that ever happened to anyone?  most of the time, blockbuster people are too film illiterate to even tell...like there was this one clerk who had a crush on me.  and he'd get me free movies and whatnot.  i don't think he had seen any of the titles i was renting or else he would have caught the message. :lol:

That, or he was having one of those wily and very unrealistic delusional fantasies straight guys can often have about girls who like girls.  :lol:

Do report back after your massive viewing. Hope I Shot Andy Warhol is among those somewhere, if you can find it... that's just riveting, in my opinion.

Sorry G but I'll be in L.A. all next week so I won't be able to watch any Fassbinder to discuss.  I'd love to check out some when I get back though.  I'm ashamed to say that I've never set down and watched any of them.

Quote from: godardianI hated having to go to Blockbuster. The selection sucks, the people there sucked, and the company itself sucks.

LOL, The anger seems genuine, Godardian.  I fucking hate the place myself.  Whenever someone in front of me asks the clerk for help in selecting a movie, and the clerk invariably stares back at them, dumbfounded, muttering something nonsensical, I have to fight this overwhelming urge to give the customer some good advice.  The sad thing is, I know that as soon as I turn 17, I'm working there...so...call me a hypocrite.  (I just love movies too much  :wink: ).

Quote from: pookiethecat

Quote from: godardianI hated having to go to Blockbuster. The selection sucks, the people there sucked, and the company itself sucks.

LOL, The anger seems genuine, Godardian.  I fucking hate the place myself.  Whenever someone in front of me asks the clerk for help in selecting a movie, and the clerk invariably stares back at them, dumbfounded, muttering something nonsensical, I have to fight this overwhelming urge to give the customer some good advice.  The sad thing is, I know that as soon as I turn 17, I'm working there...so...call me a hypocrite.  (I just love movies too much  :wink: ).

That's cool, though. It's like you'll be going in undercover, and then- BAM! Blockbuster Conglomerate Inc. will find themselves with a real movie-lover on their hands, subverting the lackluster system from the inside. :o

JMJ- I'm sure we won't be able to get the Fassbinder thing together before you're back from your trip. I'm thinking at some point in the future. People could throw out a time they think they could do it- a couple weeks from now, a month from now- and then we could plan it for around then. I realize it's not gonna be easy for everyone to find a copy of Fox and his Friends (even if they are interested in doing this), so I'm gonna give it some time and see if anyone else expresses an interest.

Solid...I'm down for whateva.

The Deep End. How could I have failed to mention The Deep End?? From 2000; Tilda Swinton is blackmailed by Goran Visjin (ER) because her son (that kid from The Virgin Suicides is having an affair with a lecher of a club owner (Josh Lucas) who dies on their property in an accident, but whom she's convinced her son has killed, and she feels she has to go to great lengths to cover it up. It's sort of Hitchcockian, sort of melodrama, sort of cool modernist.

Anyways, has anyone else seen it? I really like it. [/i]

Quote from: godardianThe Deep End. How could I have failed to mention The Deep End?? From 2000; Tilda Swinton is blackmailed by Goran Visjin (ER) because her son (that kid from The Virgin Suicides is having an affair with a lecher of a club owner (Josh Lucas) who dies on their property in an accident, but whom she's convinced her son has killed, and she feels she has to go to great lengths to cover it up. It's sort of Hitchcockian, sort of melodrama, sort of cool modernist.

Anyways, has anyone else seen it? I really like it. [/i]

Does it really qualify as Queer Cinema though? The son just happened to be gay, and the subject matter didn't revolve around it. It's really the mother's story.

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: godardianThe Deep End. How could I have failed to mention The Deep End?? From 2000; Tilda Swinton is blackmailed by Goran Visjin (ER) because her son (that kid from The Virgin Suicides is having an affair with a lecher of a club owner (Josh Lucas) who dies on their property in an accident, but whom she's convinced her son has killed, and she feels she has to go to great lengths to cover it up. It's sort of Hitchcockian, sort of melodrama, sort of cool modernist.

Anyways, has anyone else seen it? I really like it. [/i]

Does it really qualify as Queer Cinema though? The son just happened to be gay, and the subject matter didn't revolve around it. It's really the mother's story.

Not with a very technical definition, probably. But I thought it was interesting how the issue seemed to exist so seamlessly in the story, anyways; I'd honestly like to see more stories where the characters "just happen" to be gay. I think it's a worthy thing to talk about here, if only for the fact that it integrates the homosexuality of one character into a plot that, you're right, really doesn't revolve around it as an issue. They did play it at the LGBT film festival the year it came out, so if that committee can find a way to include it, I figure I'll give it a shot.

Wasn't it an update of a Max Ophuls film? I should know; I have the DVD, and it has a ton of extras about the inspirations/making of, etc. Lots of interesting technical stuff, too.

the deep end was fantastic. but yea, its more of the mother's story, her relationship with that one dude.

When I said "I should know" above, I was chastising myself, not boasting. Words need so many qualifications to ever come close...

I wish I'd been able to take part in this conversation earlier! I'm pleased to see that it's mainly stayed within the realm of intelligent commentary (excluding portions of pages 4,5 and 6). So here's a bunch of responses to various things that have been brought up.

When I first saw 'Kissing Jessica Stein' last year, I really loved it; I thought it  managed to avoid the sitcom mentality that I was expecting and was a really enjoyable and honest film, and I thought the ending was great. Afterwards, though, I wondered what its politics were -- Jessica Stein has a fling with lesbianism, and then goes back to being straight.  Did I like it more because I was striaght, and was it playing things safe, trying to get a wider acceptance? Maybe, but I decided it didn't matter, because the movie was reasonably intelligent and well made and enjoyable, and represents a spectrum that I suppose can't be denied. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have experimented and gone back to their original orientation. Plus, the lesbian experience was shown as a positive thing, and the other lead female -- who used to date guys as well -- is shown at the end in a happy relationship with another woman.

On the other hand, a reprehensible movie like Boat Trip, in which Horatio Sanz apparently thinks he's gay and then eventually realizes with joy that he's straight, is marketed to appeal to  people who think being gay is either funny, gross, or both, but not much in between. I can't believe that movie was even made.

On the subject of Chasing Amy, I liked the movie a lot, but agree that the lesbian element was unnecessary, and seemed obviously the product of a guy whose POV  barely extended beyond that of a horny guy whose opinions on lesbians is that watching girls make out is TOTALLY hot.

Also, of note to myself and JMJ -- I believe a Fassbinder retrospective may be making its ways to the screens of Dallas. If not, James, let's check out a few DVDs when you get back from LA.

Yikes, this post is getting long. Anyway, there hasn't been any mention of my favorite queer film, and one that I think truly transcends the bounds of sexual orientation -- Hedwig And The Angry Inch. This movie truly connected with me on a very personal level. Anyone else like it?

Yes. Loved Hedwig the movie to death. Didn't love Hedwig on stage in NY (w/ Ally Sheedy as Hedwig, a notoriously troubled stretch of its run), but then loved it again on a small stage in Portland years later as a revival.

Anyway, I think the film is wonderful.

John Cameron Mitchell is hosting a fresh batch of weekly new-to-IFC films, including Magnolia. Should be interesting to see what he might have to say about it.

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMansay what you will but man on man butt slamming will always be both funny and gross

Sure, that's a fine opinion to have. Heterosexual sex is pretty gross too, if you think about it from a technical side, and is frequently the subject of much hilarity.

But don't forget that sexual intercourse is just one element of sexuality, homo or hetero. If you have a problem with the act, fine. But don't disregard or disrespect the legitimacy of the emotions behind it.

im not saying that i am against the emotions behind it

but you cant compare it to heterosexuality, heterosexuality is a product of nature lets not  drag god into this lets just talk science here

the penis and the vagina were both created to come together , thats why one has one thing and the other has another thing

you combine them and boom, you got life

all forms of life are created this way, thats the only way you can re prouduce , if you take sperm from a man and eggs from a woman and thats how life is created, you can talk about doners and labs, but that is all a variataion on the same thing. Nature had a plan lets not talk about god, just science

thats what bugs me about p.c freaks they want to talk science when the subject of god is brought up, yet when this topic comes up they keep there fucking yaps shut

(edited)

now do i think that some people are born gay ???

yes i do , and for that reason alone i think its not cool to hate someone based on the fact that they are gay

however i am not going to let the p.c police tell me that its not funny or gross which it is


but this i will say i was kind of bummed out during the end of american idol, because i thought to myself " if the world knew that this clay guy was gay, he would not have gotten the support he has gotten"

so i felt very sad for this guy, he could not thank his boyfriend on tv, and that was a very important moment in his life, if he had a boyfriend wouldnt it have been nice to thank him then.

so yeah i felt bad, so i am far from a gay basher

and i thought it was un cool for kissing jessica stein to exploit this subject for its own shallow reasons

but come on the truth is the truth, basic common sense and science tell us this

(edited)

but telling a gay person not to be gay is like telling a person with parkinsons not to shake

its not fair , and its not cool

but my point stands

prove to me that gay sex is a legit sex act

to clear up my thing about american idol, i am glad he made it that far because he was judged for the only thing that mattered on that show is talent, but i think if america knew he was gay he would not have went that far because it would of clouded their judgement

so i was happy that he was able to make it that far based on talent, but bummed out that it is a issue in the first place

because it wouldnt be with me, i can careless who he fucks as long as he is a great singer

and well if he does have a guy at home that he could not share that moment with, well that does make me feel bad for him

but the facts are the facts

and well i dont see myself tying someone to the back of my car just because they are gay any time soon

in fact i wanted that jenny jones guy to get the death penalty for killing that gay guy, i mean what the fuck just because the guy has a crush on you , you fucking shoot him

fuck you


i dunno if cute harmless jokes feed this hostility, maybe i should stop

but my scorn is more so at uptight super liberal assholes

and well nothing piss's them off more then a few cute jokes

but this i will say my opinion on sceince and its relation to sexual intercourse will always be this way

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMan
prove to me that gay sex is a legit sex act

By those standards, it certainly isn't a legit sex act. I wouldn't deny that. But also by those standards, heterosexual sex for any reason other than procreation is also a non-legit sex act.

Quote from: Ghostboy

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMan
prove to me that gay sex is a legit sex act

By those standards, it certainly isn't a legit sex act. I wouldn't deny that. But also by those standards, heterosexual sex for any reason other than procreation is also a non-legit sex act.

well it is because man and woman sex was meant to feel good because that is natures way of getting us together, nature needed men and woman to fuck so it created organs that give pleasure when they are combined

and since it feels good we do it a lot and well at one point most of us will procreate at some point

but not george cloony, ohh no he will just keep on fucking hot chicks well into his 90's

what a man

now ok sure you can say man on man love also offers pleasure

but so does sticking your dick in a bowl of soup for some people

and for some people its other peoples soup

so ya know differnt strokes for differnt folks, but the quote un quote sex act itself is that of a man and a woman

who says that homosexual sex isnt "natural" anyway? how can you be sure what "nature" is or what its (her, whatever) intentions are anyway?

keep in mind that this whole procreation stuff is just your interpretation of what sex is supposed to be, or meant to be by nature.

Here we go again. Keep this shit here. (http://xixax.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=529) Some of us just want to talk about movies.

Quote from: Ghostboy
By those standards, it certainly isn't a legit sex act. I wouldn't deny that. But also by those standards, heterosexual sex for any reason other than procreation is also a non-legit sex act.

This has always been my take on the matter, as well. Very astute, Ghostboy.

So, how does the second week in July (the one after the U.S. holiday) work for everyone as far as doing a Fox and his Friends round-up?? I figure that's over a month from now, so it gives everyone plenty of time.

This post contains Spoilers....

I finally saw My Own Private Idaho.  The majority of it was really beautiful (the campfire scene was just wonderful...the portions in Italy too were riveting).  Some parts just didn't work for me...The homeless hustlers' existence just didn't connect...(What was up wtih Bob's Shakespearean monologues?)  I also thought the performance art-sex scenes were unnecessary.

The ending was perfect- extremely sad but true...if it had ended any other way, it would have been sappy and sentimental... and I loved the flicker of hope it gave when the second truck picks him up.  River Phoenix's performance was so understated and tender...  Keanu Reeves' was the perfect object of desire...And I liked that his character never pretended to be anything than what he was.  He knew he'd reform, he knew that he liked women, and that he'd be the "good son" and he stuck to that goal.  

Gus Van Sant's sensibilities were so weird and warped and...intelligent.  The perfect style to accompany the story he was trying to tell.  I had just never seen something that offbeat before...maybe that's why certain parts didn't click. Still, wonderful directing...and this is the guy who made Goodwill fucking Hunting?  

My favorite scene: the part where the Italian girl is sitting against the tree, crying and Mike goes and comforts her and she says, "I think I'm in love" Just the juxtaposition of Phoenix's hurt but kind reaction and the fact that she'd be crying because she wasin love...It just had a lot of heart.

Beautiful film.

oh yeah...godardian, fox and his friends isn't available at my bb.   :cry:   i'll keep on scrounging around for it though.

santa, i agree you with you on many points, but anybody who didn't know clay aiken was gay is a fucking retard. period, end of story.

and why are you talking about this now, did it just come out or something?

Quote from: pookiethecatThis post contains Spoilers....

I finally saw My Own Private Idaho.  The majority of it was really beautiful (the campfire scene was just wonderful...the portions in Italy too were riveting).  Some parts just didn't work for me...The homeless hustlers' existence just didn't connect...(What was up wtih Bob's Shakespearean monologues?)  I also thought the performance art-sex scenes were unnecessary.

The ending was perfect- extremely sad but true...if it had ended any other way, it would have been sappy and sentimental... and I loved the flicker of hope it gave when the second truck picks him up.  River Phoenix's performance was so understated and tender...  Keanu Reeves' was the perfect object of desire...And I liked that his character never pretended to be anything than what he was.  He knew he'd reform, he knew that he liked women, and that he'd be the "good son" and he stuck to that goal.  
.

That campfire scene made me cry (when the film came out. I was 15... not that I need to make excuses. Magnolia makes me cry, too). If the bulk of your erotic inclinations are towards your own sex, and that puts you in the minority, you're bound to experience something like the River Phoenix character experienced at some point. I like to think that scene resonates with anyone who's been rejected by someone they think they're in love with for whatever reason, but it probably does have an extra level of significance for those of us who've had the rejection come for that specific reason.

Have you seen The Hours, Pookie? What did you make of it?

"In the final scene of the film we see that, despite his apparent yearnings for a 'normal' life, Mike has found a home - it is nowhere and everywhere. It is the road that 'probably goes right around the world'. It is a home... on the range."

-Extract from my exam answer I wrote on My Own Private Idaho yesterday.

:lol:  How ridiculously film-student does that sound...?! I had to chuckle as I wrote it...!  :lol:

Interesting point: apparently Van Sant always thought it was Scott (Reeves) who picks up Mike at the end.

Quote from: godardian

If the bulk of your erotic inclinations are towards your own sex, and that puts you in the minority, you're bound to experience something like the River Phoenix character experienced at some point. I like to think that scene resonates with anyone who's been rejected by someone they think they're in love with for whatever reason, but it probably does have an extra level of significance for those of us who've had the rejection come for that specific reason.

Have you seen The Hours, Pookie? What did you make of it?

First of all, I don't find it odd at all that you would cry at the campfire scene.  The part where Mike says "I think I could love without being paid..." or something to that effect definitely had a bare, passionate quality that I nearly cried at.  That said, I'm 15 myself, so it could also partially be a 15 year old thing...  hehe, we need some objectivitiy here.  

I have been in many many situations where I've thought I wasin love with someonel but she turned out to be straight.  In fact that IS my only  situation thus far in life. but that's a different thread altogether, hehe So yeah, I related to that specific aspect of the campfire scene (other than just how effective it was executed by van sant) but I think it might have held a larger emotional weight if a) River Phoenix's tendencies toward the same sex were fleshed out more...not just in relation to his love for Scott b) I were a gay male and more deeply felt the attraction that Mike had towards Scott, hte latter of which is a more personal thing that doesn't have much to do with the film itself. Like I said...I still found it be extremely powerful stuff.

Childrenwithangels--. your assessment definitely taps into the optimism of the ending.  though i view it more as a tragedy with a teensy amount of hope.  Interesting nonetheless

I haven't seen The Hours.  But I love Julianne Moore (as most of us PTA fans do) and the thought of her with a girl is, well, at the risk of sounding lascivious, enticing...hehe.What'd you think of the film, godardian?

Quote from: pookiethecat

Quote from: godardian

If the bulk of your erotic inclinations are towards your own sex, and that puts you in the minority, you're bound to experience something like the River Phoenix character experienced at some point. I like to think that scene resonates with anyone who's been rejected by someone they think they're in love with for whatever reason, but it probably does have an extra level of significance for those of us who've had the rejection come for that specific reason.

Have you seen The Hours, Pookie? What did you make of it?

First of all, I don't find it odd at all that you would cry at the campfire scene.  The part where Mike says "I think I could love without being paid..." or something to that effect definitely had a bare, passionate quality that I nearly cried at.  That said, I'm 15 myself, so it could also partially be a 15 year old thing...  hehe, we need some objectivitiy here.  

I have been in many many situations where I've thought I wasin love with someonel but she turned out to be straight.  In fact that IS my only  situation thus far in life. but that's a different thread altogether, hehe So yeah, I related to that specific aspect of the campfire scene (other than just how effective it was executed by van sant) but I think it might have held a larger emotional weight if a) River Phoenix's tendencies toward the same sex were fleshed out more...not just in relation to his love for Scott b) I were a gay male and more deeply felt the attraction that Mike had towards Scott, hte latter of which is a more personal thing that doesn't have much to do with the film itself. Like I said...I still found it be extremely powerful stuff.

Childrenwithangels--. your assessment definitely taps into the optimism of the ending.  though i view it more as a tragedy with a teensy amount of hope.  Interesting nonetheless

I haven't seen The Hours.  But I love Julianne Moore (as most of us PTA fans do) and the thought of her with a girl is, well, at the risk of sounding lascivious, enticing...hehe.What'd you think of the film, godardian?

I liked it, and I think it's well worth seeing for the performances, but as a whole, something seems to be missing. Maybe it's just what you're talking about- the lascivious part, or the part that has some erotic spark or some kind of energy. It does have energy, but it may be a little too detached for its own good. I mean, what made the book wonderful was that it was extremely intelligent but also a good old-fashioned love-sex-death-fest that keeps you turning the pages. And I think maybe the movie tried to be a little too "classy" for its own good, and skimped on the vibrancy of the book. And it could've used a little more vibrancy. Still, though, it's well worth seeing, particularly if you're interested in what makes things tick when it comes to sex/love/domestic roles/identity, etc. The girls are definitely the reason to see it, though; the one really consistently weak part, I thought, was the handling of the Ed Harris character. Tom Hanks made a better grandiose martyr to AIDS in Philadelphia; the one Ed Harris plays in The Hours comes dangerously close to feeling like a sort of concession or one-dimensional caricature, more something filmmakers trying too hard to be classy might come up with, rather than something interesting.

I do recommend seeing it, but I'd recommend the book more strongly. It's an astoundingly brief/fun/gratifying/smart read, too.

Quote from: bonanzatazsanta, i agree you with you on many points, but anybody who didn't know clay aiken was gay is a fucking retard. period, end of story.

and why are you talking about this now, did it just come out or something?

damnit taz i told you to keep quiet about what we did last night, i turn fag one night and the guy has to go and monica lewinsky on me

and about lcay , dude your right but lots of people do not know he is gay , would he have went that far if they knew he was

and now because of you i will never become the next reuban

For just a moment, I'm going to turn this item into "where has godardian been?" I apologize in advance for hijacking it for just this one post.

I have actually missed most of you, but I was finding Xixax to be too draining of my time and emotional/mental energy. I had to ask myself if spending so much time writing and arguing here was affecting my life or the world in any meaningful way, and my answer to that caused me to take a long sabbatical. Some of the kinds of conversations I was finding myself getting into here were a total waste and only fed into a very inaccurate take on reality, sort of like calling in to the Rush Limbaugh show. I needed to take a step back, hit the streets, become more politically active and active in my community (there is a Depression on, as we all know, so there is no lack of volunteer opportunities, etc.), and after meeting quite a few people from all walks of life, I decided that the sort of infrequent but vehement nastiness I've experienced here from time to time is much less likely to occur in a face to face setting, that people feel more comfortable expressing ignorance, hate, and vitriol towards you when you're "virtual" than in actual life. In that context, focusing on actual life has been extremely refreshing.

Anyway, I'll be in and out of here irregularly. I will retrieve and respond to any sincere PM, and would love to be in touch with the many friendly folks I've (virtually) gotten to know here.

Back to the business at hand: I wrote a Fassinber-comes-to-DVD piece for the LGBT paper I occasionally contribute to, which I thought I'd post here in its superior (untouched by the grubby fingers of copy editors) form:

It's difficult to think of a more unique queer cinematic voice than that of the late, great German auteur Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Fassbinder directed 41 films before his untimely death (related to drugs and stress) in 1982 at the age of 37, during post-production on his adaptation of Jean Genet's "unfilmable," novel, Querelle. He was a notorious personality; demanding of himself and others, prone to excess in all areas of his life, and a sexual radical who galvanized and offended. He was a very publicly self-described gay man; he married women (his boyfriend was best man at his second wedding).

Fassbinder's reputation and influence are far-reaching. In the seventies, canonical feminist film critic Laura Mulvey wrote many an ecstatic word on Fassbinder's juicy narrative style and astute social observation (in a Fassbinder film, class, race, gender, age and sexuality are omnipresent factors affecting every relationship and interaction), and the profound influence upon both of fifties melodrama-meister Douglas Sirk. Mulvey and her academic ilk fused their admiration of Fassbinder and revisionist appreciation of Sirk, joining the two names forever in the annals of film history. More recently, from a very different point on the cinematic spectrum, well-respected mainstream filmmaker Michael Mann (The Insider, Heat) has said, "Fassbinder was everything."

Fassbinder has also, of course, been a perennial touchstone for our best queer filmmakers. John Waters declared him "the most talented director of his time," and both Francois Ozon (Swimming Pool) and Todd Haynes(Far from Heaven)- two of the most interesting gay directors working today- are clearly Fassbinder devotees. Ozon's Water Drops on Burning Rocks was from an unfilmed Fassbinder script, and Haynes's exposure to Fassbinder as a college student had a profound and recurrent impact upon his work. In 1976, queer film scholar Thomas Waugh wrote, "It's clear that the gay activist community must extend its solidarity to all oppressed groups within society... Fassbinder's films, with their perspective of a whole range of society's outcasts, victims, and exploited classes, are an inspiring affirmation of this principle."

The recent spate of Fassbinder DVD releases affords the home viewer an excellent opportunity to be so inspired. The most deluxe of these is The Criterion Collection's 2-disc release of 1974's Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, which concerns the marriage of Emmi, a sexagenarian German cleaning woman, to Ali, a much younger Moroccan immigrant, and its consequences at the hands of xenophobic and ageist neighbors, children, coworkers, and "friends." This romance of the frowned-upon variety, revealing the hypocrisy and prejudices of an apparently benign milieu, mirrors Douglas Sirk's All That Heaven Allows, a film mirrored in turn by Todd Haynes in last year's Far from Heaven. In fact, one of the best supplementary features of the Ali set is From Fassbinder to Sirk and Back, a 20-minute video introduction by the always erudite Haynes himself, which, along with a BBC documentary on German cinema and other extras, makes this extensive, meticulous release something of a film school course in a box.

Of the many less deluxe (but still very nicely restored) Fassbinder DVDs released by the Wellspring company, two are of particular interest for their probing explorations of queer lives: 1972's The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant and 1975's Fox and his Friends.

Fox is probably Fassbinder's "gayest" film. The director himself stars as the title character, a poor, carefree carnival worker who, when the carnival is shut down and his boyfriend is jailed, falls in with a group of upper-class gay men. When Fox realizes his dream of winning the lottery, his new boyfriend, Eugen, proceeds to teach him how to emulate his superiors by shopping for antiques and wearing tailored clothes; he also allows Fox to purchase them a posh apartment and financially bail out Eugen's family's bankrupt business. Fox is trapped in the mutable, status-dependent acceptance of his lover and his community, but Fassbinder doesn't paint Fox as an entirely passive victim or the bourgeois gays as mustache-twirling villains; they're merely participating in a power structure that encompasses everyone. Fassbinder knew that the oppressed are, sadly, quite capable of oppressing others; there's always a hierarchy, and his illustration of that inevitability through Fox's experiences is riveting, provocative (particularly in the understandably defensive post-Stonewall climate of 1975, when his complex worldview was often mistaken for muckraking by queer viewers and press), and heartbreaking.

InThe Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant, it's the love between two women- Petra, a brittle, vulnerable, ultra-successful fashion designer and Karin, her beautiful runway-model protégé- that's shattered by underlying social structures. Petra seduces Karin by offering her career opportunities and the trappings of wealth; Karin conceals, with cruelty and infidelity, her disgust with herself over using Petra. Elsewhere on the class food chain, Marlene, Petra's personal secretary, is obviously in love with her but, as a servant, is persona non grata. Marlene is treated badly by both Petra and Karin and suffers all literally without a word (the dialogue-free Marlene becomes a spectral Greek chorus figure in Petra and Karin's tragedy). Petra is highly stylized, one of Fassbinder's most visually stunning films (Michael Ballhaus, cinematographer on both Petra and Fox, now frequently works for Martin Scorsese on films like Age of Innocence and last year's Gangs of New York), and has a liberating, entirely unexpected happy ending.

Fassbinder espoused the idea that a film itself cannot change the world, it can only, in a spirit of hope, present the audience with a recognizable world in need of changing. His need to show us, through consummately entertaining stories, the mechanisms of society as they affect individuals is best summed up in something he wrote in an essay on All That Heaven Allows, saying of its unhappy lovers: "You can understand both of them, and both of them are right, but no-one will ever be able to help either of them unless, of course, we change the world. We all cried over the movie, because it's so hard to change the world."

that's awesome.  i'm gonna have to check those fassbinder movies out.  i bought the dvd for bitter tears of petra von kant.  and it strikes me in repeated viewings as a work of incredible austerity.  

though it's been a while since i've posted, ive seen a few queer movies that i think were exceptional.

boys don't cry- wow.  this movie pummelled me.  hilary swank and chloe sevigny had sooo much chemistry.  and i don't know if anyone's noticed this about the movie, but the use of popular music is soooo good...definitely on the same par as pta/wes anderson, perhaps even more effective because of its  subtlety...featured  the cure, the cardigans, little texas...i liked the beauty in ugliness motif too (ie the visuals of this gorgeously lit power plant; the entire concept of brandon finding love in this vile, hick ignorant town).  i'm excited to see what kimberly peirce does next.    

kissing jessica stein- the screenplay was brilliant-it never sold its characters' intelligence short.  romantic (heterosexually and homosexually).  another movie with great integration of music.  

well, i gotta go study for a goddamn test...

Quote from: pookiethecatthat's awesome.  i'm gonna have to check those fassbinder movies out.  

though it's been a while since i've posted, ive seen a few "queer" movies that i think were exceptional.

boys don't cry- wow.  this movie pummelled me.  hilary swank and chloe sevigny had sooo much chemistry.  and i don't know if anyone's noticed this about the movie, but the use of popular music is soooo good...definitely on the same par as pta/wes anderson, maybe even better because it didn't draw attention to itself, instead just integrating itself into the emotion of the given scene...featured  the cure, the cardigans, little texas...i liked the beauty in ugliness motif too (ie the visuals of this gorgeously lit power plant; the entire concept of brandon finding love in this vile, hick ignorant town).  i'm excited to see what kimberly peirce does next.    

kissing jessica stein- the screenplay was brilliant-it never sold its characters' intelligence short.  romantic (heterosexually and homosexually).  another movie with great integration of music.  

well, i gotta go study for a goddamn test...

Get ready for THIS:

I believe the next Kimberly Peirce project is going to be the film of Dave Eggers's Hearbreaking Work of Staggering Genius.

Quote from: godardianGet ready for THIS:

I believe the next Kimberly Peirce project is going to be the film of Dave Eggers's Hearbreaking Work of Staggering Genius.

Also:

Nov. 07, 2002 - Kimberly Peirce (Boys Don't Cry) is in final negotiations to helm CHILDHOOD'S END based on Arthur C. Clarke's science fiction novel for Universal Pictures/Beacon Pictures. The book, published in 1953, focuses on the arrival of aliens, via giant spaceships, on every major city on Earth. The aliens, who are called Overlords, create a world free of mankind's problems for five years, until it is discovered that this era is signaling a halt to the human race. The pic is being produced by Beacon's Armyan Bernstein (SPY GAME) and Rudy Langlais (The Hurricane) and will be overseen by Universal Pictures production president Scott Stuber and senior vp production Donna Langley. Senior vp production and development Suzann Ellis will shepherd the project for Beacon. As of yet, no screenwriter has been attached.

peirce adaptation of 'staggering genius?'  holy shit holy shit holy shit holy shit.

that's going to be fucking brilliant.

this alien thing sounds...unique.

The tailor in "The Public Enemy" (1931) was gay.
I haven't read anything in this thread, so I hope that's what it's about. :(

Quote from: ShanghaiOrangeThe tailor in "The Public Enemy" (1931) was gay.
I haven't read anything in this thread, so I hope that's what it's about. :(

Is that a bad thing? Why frowns, Shanghai? I've never seen it, but that sounds very interesting. It would be remarkable to see how that particular little fact presented itself in film circa 1931.

P.S. Feel free to read the rest of the thread, too- it may trigger more contributions from you once you get a feel for how open the discussion is meant to be here, and the interesting things all serious posters have contributed.

He frowns at the end of every one of his posts, gay themed or not.

Welcome back, Godardian.

Not EVERY thread

Quote from: GhostboyHe frowns at the end of every one of his posts, gay themed or not.

Welcome back, Godardian.

Now that you mention it, I remember that. "The Frowns of Shanghai Orange." Great title, eh?

Man, I hadn't heard about Kim Pierce doing A Staggering Work...I think the last time I read anything about it, Dave Eggers was possibly going to direct it himself. I'm sure she'll do a good job, if it happens, but she probably wouldn't be my first choice. Same with Childhood's End (but I haven't read that, so I'm just goign off Mac's synopsis). Whatever she does, I'm looking forward to it. I loved Boys Don't Cry.

Quote from: godardianFor just a moment, I'm going to turn this item into "where has godardian been?" I apologize in advance for hijacking it for just this one post.

I have actually missed most of you, but I was finding Xixax to be too draining of my time and emotional/mental energy. I had to ask myself if spending so much time writing and arguing here was affecting my life or the world in any meaningful way, and my answer to that caused me to take a long sabbatical. Some of the kinds of conversations I was finding myself getting into here were a total waste and only fed into a very inaccurate take on reality, sort of like calling in to the Rush Limbaugh show. I needed to take a step back, hit the streets, become more politically active and active in my community (there is a Depression on, as we all know, so there is no lack of volunteer opportunities, etc.), and after meeting quite a few people from all walks of life, I decided that the sort of infrequent but vehement nastiness I've experienced here from time to time is much less likely to occur in a face to face setting, that people feel more comfortable expressing ignorance, hate, and vitriol towards you when you're "virtual" than in actual life. In that context, focusing on actual life has been extremely refreshing."

well im glad to see that u've returned godardian. seems like ur sabbatical was a successful one. i ask u though; can't u find a healthy balance btwn. xixax and actual life? i think u'll find that xixax is kinda like a rollercoaster, /w ups and downs, corkscrews and sharp turns, faulty seat restraints, drunk roller coaster attendants, and so on. we do experience the occasional derailment or 2, as do most roller coasters. (did u see what happened to thunder mountain at disney world?) point being, I would say a good 8 out of 10 rides here r pleasant ones. i encourage u to stick around. its like i always say, in order to get anything out of xixax u got to put sumthing into it. (actually ive never said that)

just wanted to add "lianna" the early john sayles movie, to the forum.  

it's about the wife of a professor who discovers she's a lesbian when her husband cheats on her multiple times and she meets a professor who "shows her the ropes" if you will.

it was incredibly poorly edited.  the movie had individual moments of greatness but they were strewn together terribly.  scenes ended abruptly and with no warning.  and the 2nd act lacked any pacing whatsoever.  rucking fidiculous.

the romance between this homely candian housewife with a bad perm and an old bag professor was pretty unsexy.  or maybe it's just that sayles doesn't know how to direct a sex scene worth a shit.  

at any rate, i'm pretty disappointed by this movie's overall lack of cohesiveness and sex appeal.  but at the same time, the scenes where they go to the lesbian club have a sort of freshness in spirit that i admire.  individual scenes like that make this movie worth checking out as an ultra-low-budget example of how you can do cool things with limited resources- as well as the roots of an intriguing still-vital director.

-pookie

From New York Post via Salon:

"DIRECTOR Ang Lee is following up his tepidly received "Hulk" with a gay western about an affair between two cowboys. "Brokeback Mountain" is based on a story by Pulitzer Prize-winning author E. Annie Proulx, says the Hollywood Reporter. The film follows a ranch hand and a rodeo cowboy who find themselves unexpectedly falling in love on the plains of Wyoming and Texas in the 1960s."


Ang Lee previously directed the gay-themed comedy The Wedding Banquet, which I remember liking quite a bit. This should be interesting, if it ever comes to fruition.

Quote from: MrBurgerKing

Quote from: pookiethecatcan someone tell me what the fuck is going on.  lol.

first tell me who that woman in your avatar is.. if it's you perhaps we can have some sex?

POOKIES AVATAR:(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Fimages%2Favatars%2F17435071403f9b665cd4663.jpg&hash=75c72f27f4644aaa3f507eee258069a7357285ee)

i just wanted to point out that now this exchange with the current avatar is the funniest thing i've ever read.

hey, i dug up this old thread cuz i heard about this new showtime series: the l world.  looks kinda interesting...supposedly a lesbian answer to queer as folk...stars jennifer beals, lauren holloman, eric mabius (of welcome to the dollhouse fame) pam grier (as the only straight character) mia kirshner, and a buncha other people.  it may suck but some of the episodes are apparently written by guin turner (american psycho, i shot andy warhol) and directed by rose troche (the safety of objects, six feet under) who have both proved to be excellent filmmakers.  anyway here's the site.

http://www.sho.com/site/lword/home.do

has anyone mentioned happy together yet.

no, whats that

Quote from: pookiethecatno, whats that

They actually have... somewhere... I think. A fine Asian movie and a fine example of queer cinema...

Directed by the inimitable Wong Kar-Wai (who also did In the Mood for Love).

Read a bit more about it here (http://imdb.com/title/tt0118845/).

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: pookiethecatno, whats that

They actually have... somewhere... I think. A fine Asian movie and a fine example of queer cinema...

Directed by the inimitable Wong Kar-Wai (who also did In the Mood for Love).

Read a bit more about it here (http://imdb.com/title/tt0118845/).

P.S. I may have to get Showtime now, pookie! That sounds really interesting, with some REAL talent involved (particularly Troche, Turner, and Kirschner, all of whom we don't hear from often enough).

yeah, kirshner was amazing in exotica.  i really like jennifer beals too.  she stole the show in roger dodger... i think it's a pretty good cast with some good talent.  though i'm pretty nervous how a show like this will work- it can't won't and shouldn't be the next queer as folk... women are completely different from men...and considering the more established talent involved in the writing and directing, it'll most likely be less soap opera-y, and more nuanced in its characters.  

already it's gotten complaints for only being about lipstick lesbians and having no actually gay actresses on it... afterall, how gay can this show actually be if it's basically a bunch of hetero-y women flitting around- having sex with each other?  if the characters' only sign of gayness is who they sleep with (without any realism for what lesbians are actually like)- the show will be unrealistic and not worth anyone's time except as a fetish to male heterosexuality.

Ledger & Gyllenhaal to Play Gay Cowboys
Source: The Hollywood Reporter

Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal are in talks to play gay cowboys in the next film from The Hulk director Ang Lee, says The Hollywood Reporter.

Brokeback Mountain revolves around two men who meet one summer in Wyoming and form a bond and love that spans 20 years. The film tracks that time period and their evolving relationship. The start date has yet to be determined.

The Focus Features project was adapted by Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana from a short story by The Shipping News screenwriter E. Annie Proulx.

The Salon (http://salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2004/01/14/brokeback/index.html) article (I think the "expert" at the end is a little high, but otherwise I liked most of the rest of the article):

Will Jake and Heath shatter Hollywood's taboo against gay sex?
Director Ang Lee is set to cast Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger in "Brokeback Mountain," a story of two cowboys in love. But are studios -- and audiences -- ready for a passionate big-screen kiss between men?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Rebecca Traister

Jan. 14, 2004  |  Welcome to Gay New 2004. It follows Gay Old 2003, when sodomy became legal in all 50 states, gay marriage or "civil unions" became a possibility in three, and the media pulled a muscle patting itself on the back for accepting a fistful of swish television characters. Now, for the first time in as long as most of us can remember, a sweeping gay romance is about to get the imprimatur of mainstream -- or at least prestigious -- Hollywood stamped all over it. ("Making Love," from 1982, with Harry Hamlin and Michael Ontkean? Anyone?)

The casting call is out for "Brokeback Mountain," the Ang Lee-directed adaptation of Annie Proulx's short story, replete with sunsets, horses, howling windstorms and a heartbreaking love story between two young cowboys. Although the casting isn't yet official, Hollywood sources say that heartthrobs Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger are in negotiations to star.

Should the contracts not get signed, though, there will be no shortage of well-groomed actors with representation who could be candidates to don the Stetsons and chaps. In the months since Lee announced that he would direct the movie, fans have taken to Internet chat rooms with a vengeance, begging the unhearing movie gods to cast everyone from Viggo Mortensen and Brad Pitt, or Jude Law and Benicio Del Toro, or Joaquin Phoenix and Johnny Depp (all of whom are a bit ripe to play characters whose stories begin at age 19).

"He's always been Hollywood's trembling-lipped sensitive boy," pointed out one hopeful fan about Depp. Another opined that Jude Law's "good looks and intense charm would make even a straight cowboy swoon." Both Depp and Law have played gay before (in "Before Night Falls" and "Wilde," respectively).

Some computer-savvy cinephiles have gone so far as to create a beefcakey "Brokeback Mountain" poster featuring Josh Hartnett and Colin Farrell, who will reportedly play bi-curious in his upcoming role as Alexander the Great in "Alexander."

The story by Proulx ("The Shipping News"), which originally appeared in the New Yorker, has been adapted by Larry McMurtry ("Terms of Endearment," "The Last Picture Show") and his partner, Diana Ossana. Director Lee ("The Ice Storm," Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon") has chosen to make it his follow-up to last summer's "The Hulk," which was viewed as a commercial and critical disappointment. Lee's longtime co-writer, James Schamus, who runs Focus Features, a division of Universal Pictures, will produce the picture with Ossana. Shooting is set to begin this summer.

Schamus, also a Columbia University film professor and co-founder of the now-defunct independent film bastion Good Machine, said via e-mail that he could not comment on casting decisions before anything has been made official, since it would "inevitably result in injured feelings and misunderstandings." But, he wrote, "it's still in process, and it's been remarkably hassle free -- no one has raised even an eyebrow and people across the board are responding in a really passionate way to the story and the characters."

That not an eyebrow would be raised at the casting of two tadpole heartthrobs to play young men who get it on in a pup tent, share a passionate kiss on a windblown night and get gruffly teary-eyed as they talk about their unutterable feelings for each other is almost too Pollyanna-ish to be believed. But Scott Rudin ("The Hours," "The Stepford Wives") -- who planned to make "Brokeback Mountain" in the late 1990s with Gus Van Sant ("Good Will Hunting") directing, but now has no connection to the movie -- agreed.

"It's an amazing project; I'm incredibly jealous. And I don't get jealous," Rudin says. As for the process of signing up willing actors, he laughed at the notion that it would be difficult. "You've got a great filmmaker and parts for two movie stars. I can't imagine why any actor would not want to play one of those roles. Anyone who gets in that movie is lucky to be there; it's an absolutely beautiful script. Who would want to turn that down?"

But not everyone is confident that bona fide movie stars would risk their straight cred by mounting steeds and locking lips. One Hollywood executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, says, "Realistically, let's talk about the giggle factor. I mean, it is a story about gay cowboys! That is the most daring thing you can do." If the I's do get dotted on Gyllenhaal and Ledger's contracts, it's worth noting that both will run less of a risk of being "taken for gay" than many of their colleagues; Gyllenhaal dates supercute wunderkind Kirsten Dunst, while Ledger squires Naomi Watts, 11 years his senior, to lots of events covered by Us Weekly.

Sean Griffin, an assistant professor of cinema and television at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, was even skeptical that the film could actually get produced as advertised. He says, "When studio money [from Focus Features' parent company Universal] is involved, you never know how far things are actually going to go. You never know who's going to actually show up for this thing. I'll withhold judgment until I actually see a major on-screen kiss."

Griffin is alluding to Hollywood's habit of bleaching movies about homosexuals of their sensuality and romance. Films like "54" and "Fried Green Tomatoes" were, in the words of one producer, "totally de-lezzed" or "de-gayed." "A Beautiful Mind," Ron Howard's multiple-Oscar winner about mathematician John Nash, glossed over his reported homosexual relationships. Even "Philadelphia," a Columbia TriStar movie hailed as Hollywood's first gay love story, showed little sign that Tom Hanks, in an Oscar-garnering performance as a man in the late stages of AIDS, had ever met, much less made love to, his partner, played by Antonio Banderas.

What we've been left with have been a raft of fabulously witty and stylish characters played by openly gay actor Rupert Everett ("My Best Friend's Wedding," "The Next Best Thing"), tortured, foreign gay artists (Stephen Frye as Oscar Wilde in "Wilde," Jonathan Pryce as Lytton Strachey in "Carrington," Leonardo DiCaprio as Rimbaud in "Total Eclipse" and Javier Bardem as Reinaldo Arenas in "Before Night Falls"), and that old chestnut, the gay hustler/psychopath/drug-addict/serial killer ("The Silence of the Lambs," "The Talented Mr. Ripley," "High Art," "My Own Private Idaho").

But short some Hollywood alchemy that reworks the very DNA of the "Brokeback" script, the film can't possibly duck down any of these escape routes. First published in the New Yorker in 1997, where it won both an O. Henry short story prize and a National Magazine Award, and then in Proulx's 1999 story collection "Close Range," it's the tale of sheepherder Ennis Del Mar and rodeo rider Jack Twist. The two men meet and fall in love as 19-year-olds in 1963, tending a herd on the titular Wyoming mountain. The tale follows the men's clandestine relationship for 20 years: their marriages to women, the birth of their children, regular mountaintop assignations, the impossibility of their permanent union, and the gradual acceptance of the grave repercussions of their love.

The story is, very simply, about its two main characters and their passion for each other. There is no murder mystery, no one suffering from AIDS, no drug addiction and no heterosexual romance to move the plot along and distract from the homosexual relationship.

The rights to the story have bounced around Hollywood since its publication. Schamus had them briefly when he was still at Good Machine. Rudin later planned to make the movie with director Van Sant (at the height of his mainstream popularity after the success of "Good Will Hunting"). It wasn't long before it was rumored that that film's stars, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, would take on the roles of Ennis and Jack. But the project couldn't quite get off the ground under Van Sant and was later offered to Kimberly Peirce ("Boys Don't Cry") and Todd Haynes ("Poison," "Far From Heaven"). It languished in no man's land for several years before Lee and Schamus picked it up again in November 2003.

It will now be up to Lee and his actors to determine how raunchy or demure the physical relationship between the two taciturn Westerners will get on-screen. A draft of the script is noncommittal on this point, allowing room for the prim and the explicit in its description of Jack and Ennis' first sexual encounter: "AS THE FOLLOWING ACTION OCCURS, WE PULL AWAY TO THE NIGHT LANDSCAPE, AND WE HEAR ONLY THE SOUNDS ... THE BELT BEING UNBUCKLED, RUSTLE OF JEANS, ENNIS SPITTING, SHARP INTAKES OF BREATH ... ENNIS raises up, gets to his knees, unbuckles his belt, shoves his pants down with one hand, uses the other to haul JACK up on all fours ... JACK doesn't resist ... ENNIS spits in the palm of his hand, puts it on himself. They go at it in silence, except for a few sharp intakes of breath."

According to this early draft of the script, it is only after "ENNIS shudders" that "THE CAMERA MOVES BACK INSIDE THE TENT, as both fall asleep."

Later, in one of the screenplay's most powerful moments, the two men -- each married and a father -- meet again after a separation of many years, supposedly to share some platonic, ass-slapping drinks as straight men. But when they meet on the very visible stairway to Ennis' apartment, they "seize each other by the shoulders, hug mightily, squeezing the breath out of each other, saying sonofabitch, sonofabitch. Then, as easily as the right key turns the lock tumblers, their mouths come together."

It's the kind of sad-happy-hot scene that -- when well-cast -- can shoot sexual currents off the screen, sparking the hearts and libidos of receptive audiences. But those audiences are used to getting singed by Bacall and Bogart, by Deborah Winger and Richard Gere, by Kate and Leo. Are they ready for the unbridled lust of Gyllenhaal and Ledger?

"In the '60s and '70s and early '80s, various studios tried to see if things like this might work," says Griffin. "They even tried a full-on romance, 'Making Love,' in 1982, where there was an on-screen kiss. It was about the relationship between these two men. And people ran screaming out of the theaters. There was major fleeing up the aisles. And that's exactly what's kept people worried. That's why you didn't see Antonio Banderas and Tom Hanks kissing on-screen in 'Philadelphia.'"

But that's just the sort of fear that many hope is fading. Stephen Macias, GLAAD's brand-spanking-new entertainment media director, says, "GLAAD certainly hopes that as gay characters and gay stories continue to evolve, films will focus on the sexiness, the romance ... that our sex lives won't be edited out anymore. From what I've been hearing about this film, progress is being made."

Rudin points out that these days there are more outlets for films than there were even five years ago. "When I had ['Brokeback Mountain'], it was a very, very tough thing to get made. Basically, studios didn't want to make it. There are many more avenues for smaller movies now. And I think it's really smart for Focus to make it. Whatever it turns out to be it will be a lightning rod for the press."

And the press loves nothing more than gay lightning rods. Perhaps you've heard, as Griffin put it, that "gay is the new black." Sure, Will doesn't have sex with men and seems strangely attracted to Grace. And yes, "Queer Eye's" Fab Five intersect with Amos and Andy in several critical cultural capacities. That gay reality show, "Boy Meets Boy," was, as one writer put it, "a good natured gay-baiting miniseries." But some television has made real strides. "Six Feet Under" features a relationship between two men, one of whom is a retired cop. They kiss, embrace, fight, and go to bed and to couples' therapy together.

Griffin argues that the recent embrace of all things gay isn't to be laughed at. The more gay characters populate the pop-culture landscape, the less pressure will be faced by their progeny. "No one film suddenly has to be the holy grail," says Griffin.

According to another scholar, it's perfectly appropriate that "Brokeback Mountain" may be the movie that shatters Hollywood's gay-sex taboo. Chris Packard, an adjunct professor at New York University's Gallatin School and the author of the forthcoming book "Queer Cowboys," says that this story "makes plain what's implicit in the cowboy stereotype, in terms of an alley-cat, roaming sexuality that is always alive. Cowboys are such central figures in pop culture and such idealizations of mainstream macho masculinity that we should start to include the homoerotic aspect of that masculinity. They are like the fathers of the civilized culture that's going to follow them into the wilderness."

that article gave me a raging hard on.

Quote from: Pthat article gave me a raging hard on.

The casting director in my libido tells me that Justin Theroux and Ron Livingston as the cowboys would be much sexier... but Gyllenhaal and Ledger are really good actors; it could be a good or even great movie.

Ang Lee is really good at capturing the relationship-ness and complexity (not just the "sexiness," as that GLAAD spokesperson said) of relationships, whatever the orientation might be; The Wedding Banquet is proof enough of that.

Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin is excitedly preparing for his first ever homosexual role, in a biopic of Liza Minnelli's late costume designer Halston. Flamboyant Halston, real name Roy Frowick, died in 1990 of AIDS - and his intriguing life is set to be the subject of a new movie with Baldwin as the unlikely first choice to take on the role. He says, "These people I know that are producing a film and they want me to play Halston in the movie. They want me to go to a nutritionist, lose 30 pounds and get really hollowed out because he was very ill. It's an amazing part." But Baldwin explains the biggest shock of all won't come from his altered appearance: "There's a full-blown love scene with a guy in that."

HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE GAY???!!!

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coke-babies.com%2Fwriting%2Fflorida%2Fflorida5%2Fskeletor.jpg&hash=4653a9058d8d8df746d0f071486a389339f8e9c0)

Not Skeletor, too!!!!

i can't see jake and heath together.  they're so physically dissimilar.  i dunno...i like em both, but not together.  i can see jake with justin theroux...and heath ledger with jude law.  

random thought:

when is the recently outed portia de rossi gonna do a lesbian movie?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tucsonweekly.com%2Ftw%2F2002-08-15%2Fcin-1.gif&hash=5ae2e66c7c0532a69435f351e5fdda8b65179629)

i didnt know she was a lesbian.  are all the ally mcbeal chicks going to come out soon?

Quote from: pookiethecati can't see jake and heath together.  they're so physically dissimilar.  i dunno...i like em both, but not together.  

Sometimes, yes, physical dissimilarities can equal a lack of onscreen chemistry. But the other side of the coin is that physical dissimilarities can make sparks fly... a lot will depend on the characters and the story as far as whether or not jake and heath are right for each other.  :)

I didn't know about Portia de Rossi, either. Was she outed against her will, or did she come out?

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: pookiethecati can't see jake and heath together.  they're so physically dissimilar.  i dunno...i like em both, but not together.  

Sometimes, yes, physical dissimilarities can equal a lack of onscreen chemistry. But the other side of the coin is that physical dissimilarities can make sparks fly... a lot will depend on the characters and the story as far as whether or not jake and heath are right for each other.  :)

I didn't know about Portia de Rossi, either. Was she outed against her will, or did she come out?

she never came out formally, but she got engaged to francesca gregorini, a singersongwriter, who is barbara (bondgirl and mrs. ringo starr) bach's daughter.  so it's pretty open.  plus there are lots of gossipy pictures of the two making out in public and such.

Quote from: godardianBut the other side of the coin is that physical dissimilarities can make sparks fly...

what's an example, gay or straight, in which that is the case... i don't doubt that there are.  it's just fun to think about.

Quote from: pookiethecat

Quote from: godardianBut the other side of the coin is that physical dissimilarities can make sparks fly...

give me one example, gay or straight, in which that has occurred.   8)

Well... there's John C. Reilly (big brawny guy) and Melora Walters (short tiny thing) in Magnolia... and of course Harring (curvy, soft brunette) and Watts (spunky blonde) in Mulholland Dr., which the Ledger/Gyllenhaal thing would be a sort of male equivalent to as far as physical differences...

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: pookiethecat

Quote from: godardianBut the other side of the coin is that physical dissimilarities can make sparks fly...

give me one example, gay or straight, in which that has occurred.   8)

Well... there's John C. Reilly (big brawny guy) and Melora Walters (short tiny thing) in Magnolia...

indeed.  but there wasn't exactly sparks between them, ya know.  there has to be a better example...

emmitt and the old dude on queer as folk?  hehe.

Quote from: pookiethecat

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: pookiethecat

Quote from: godardianBut the other side of the coin is that physical dissimilarities can make sparks fly...

give me one example, gay or straight, in which that has occurred.   8)

Well... there's John C. Reilly (big brawny guy) and Melora Walters (short tiny thing) in Magnolia...

indeed.  but there wasn't exactly sparks between them, ya know.  there has to be a better example...

emmitt and the old dude on queer as folk?  hehe.

Ha. I think the Harring/Watts sparks were undeniable, at any rate. I guess it depends on whether you see different physical "types" as incompatible opposites or intriguing contrasts...

indeed, no one denies their sexual chemistry.

portia's been out for a few years now. i think she did a les scene, or maybe i just imagined she was banging lucy liu during ally reruns.

Tonight, as part of a French Film Festival, I saw Drole de Felix (The Adventures of Felix) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0228242/)  A movie about this gay, Arab guy who goes on a road trip to Marseilles, hitchhiking in search of his father.  On the way he meets people.  Stuff ensues.  So it's really a run-of-the-mill roadtrip film with smatterings of man love here and there.  I was with a film-buff friend of mine, as we had just gotten out of seeing Amelie on the big screen (another part of the French Film Fest; just as brilliant the second time around, BTW, but most everyone here knows that), and we kinda laughed as we watched the sparse audience file in, mostly girls, and a select few males.  I was surprised there wasn't a larger turnout, especially considering our predominantly liberal campus.  But that's beside the point.

The film was funny at times, though not really all that insightful or groundbreaking.  There's a small bit of man-nudity, for those of you sick of women getting nekkid in film all the time.  Turnabout is fair play I guess, and I also guess that's part of the appeal for women.  That, and you know the thing about men liking watching lesbians get it on?  Well, I think it goes both ways for women and gay guys, too.  At least for this audience.  Anyway, good, nice drop-in-the-bucket film (it's only 95 minutes) if you're interested in that sort of thing.  *** (7/10)

Hello, cowboy

So Ang Lee plans to make a gay western? Alex Cox didn't know there was any other kind
Thursday January 22, 2004


When I lived in Los Angeles, the pursuit of the object of my affections led me to hang out with some fairly strange crowds. I was a member of the Ambrose Bierce Black (And Other Colors) Norton Motorcycle Club for a while, lived in the back of a sausage factory in Venice and made the acquaintance of a man called Swatty.
Swatty was seriously mad, and died quite young of some brain ailment. He worked for a company called Arrow Glass and Mirror, in which context he claimed to have installed two-way mirrors in John Wayne's pad in Brentwood. What did John Wayne want the two-way mirrors for, I asked, astonished. "So he could watch his buddies fuck, of course!" said Swatty, who also insisted that Wayne was gay and that "he came to the door in a dress".

All of this stuff made its way into a film I made called Repo Man, where the actor Tracey Walter tells Swatty's story. The scene caused anxiety to Universal's army of lawyers and executives. Indeed, the studio was so ambivalent about the film that it hired the publicist for Pan Am, one Dick Barkle, to trash the movie: "I hope they never show this film in Russia!" Barkle declaimed. But when the film came out, no one said anything about the John Wayne scene.

I had no real reason to believe that Wayne was gay. I just liked the story, and the demented idea of the Duke answering his own front door in a strapless cocktail outfit. I had also heard that Wayne lived on a battleship, but that story didn't have the same resonance.

There is something deeply sexually ambivalent about the western, its heroes, and its villains. Its tales take place in the mental space of adolescent boys, where men are men and women have barely been invented.

Owen Wister's novel The Virginian is often credited as being the template for the western hero. Its hero courts two women, it is true, but at a "courtly" distance. The sincerest scenes are those involving male companionship ("You have a friend, and his ways are your ways. You travel together, you spree together confidentially, and you suit each other down to the ground ... ") The book is a celebration of manly admiration for other men, and this tone - of worship for the self-reliant, efficient, outdoor male, up for a shootout, or a lynchin' - continues unbroken throughout all the western films that followed it.

From the silents to Stagecoach to Once Upon a Time in the West, the most a woman in a western can aspire to is to be static, and to end up being saved. Men, on the other hand, get to ride horses, harbour grudges, gamble, drink, kill other men, and - in the later excesses of the genre - inflict and suffer the most excruciating tortures. This is what makes westerns such tremendous fun for boys, and so boring for women.

I don't mean simply that westerns are misogynistic: some of them, particularly the early talkies like Stagecoach, feature lively female characters who stick up for themselves. Wayne, interestingly, does some of his best work playing opposite strong women such as Claire Trevor or Maureen O'Hara. But think of the Duke and like as not you remember Wayne the implacable lone tracker in The Searchers, Wayne locked in an endless Oedipal fistfight with Montgomery Clift, Wayne surrendering the girl to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

John Ford, the director of Wayne's greatest films, was either a complex or a very simple man. His principal interest appears to have been liquor, enjoyed in the company of men, or else alone. Though he had a long marriage and several guilty affairs, women didn't feature strongly on his radar. It is no coincidence that Ford "discovered" the magnificently phallic buttes of Monument Valley and made this the archetypal western landscape. It is the most masculine landscape imaginable.

In the 1950s, that troubled period of war abroad and witch-hunts at home, the western hero became more troubled, more introspective, less interested in women than before. All women do in Bud Boetticher's films is trip over their feet while running away. In the films of Peckinpah and Anthony Mann, they barely appear at all. By the early 1960s, a new western protagonist appeared: narcissistic, masochistic, obsessed with desire not for love or money but for revenge. This is the character Brando plays in One-Eyed Jacks: the Rio Kid, who thinks only of getting his own back on his betrayer, Dad Longworth (Karl Malden), and who sleeps with his daughter just to aggravate him. As a result of this, Rio gets stripped to the waist and whipped in the most over-the-top cowboy torture scene of its day.

Sadism of this sort may not be nice, but I suggest it is the inevitable outcome of a story structure (or a society) in which men's longing for other men is not allowed to take its natural course. Fine art historians have known this for centuries: why else are there so many paintings and statues of St Sebastian, stripped naked and whacked full of arrows? At least until Derek Jarman's Sebastiane, man-as-sexual-object was something society had managed to ignore. But man-as-skinny-object-of-religious-violence? Bring it on!

The hero-as-whippee reached its apogee in spaghetti westerns, which redefined the genre to such an extent that it has never recovered. In addition to countless scenes of One-Eyed Jacks-style beatings, the spaghettis also gave us Wayne's only undisputed successor: Clint Eastwood. Since he appeared in A Fistful of Dollars, Eastwood has specialised in a masochistic and monastic persona from which he rarely deviates. Only in non-westerns does Eastwood ever have a girlfriend. In several of the westerns he directed, including The Outlaw Josey Wales, Eastwood has a wife, but she is conveniently murdered in the opening five minutes.

This is how far women had come between the 1920s and the turn of the century: in Stagecoach only a prostitute has autonomy; in The Searchers women are no longer protagonists - they are objects of search, of theft; by the time of the spaghettis and Eastwood's westerns, they are lucky to survive past the credits. There are a handful of westerns, such as Johnny Guitar and Corbucci's Great Silence, with strong female protagonists. But they are exceptions, famous in isolation, in a desert of men, horses and phallic rocks.

Some of the greatest westerns seem to exist almost exclusively in queer studies territory, including my own favourite, The Wild Bunch. Women appear only peripherally in Peckinpah's masterpiece: they don't have names, they betray men, they get shot for their pains. But men are filmed lovingly, from every imaginable angle, before and after torture.

Lonesome Cowboys was the first officially gay cowboy movie. It was one of a series of dramatic films credited to Andy Warhol, and actually directed by Paul Morrissey. In advance of its London screening, Warhol was quoted as saying something like: "Well of course the cowboys were all gay. There was nothing else to do out there on the range, except for wrangling cows, and sucking and fucking!"

The film was promptly banned by the British censors, which is a pity as it would have made an interesting contrast to the more conventionally structured westerns we were getting at the Essoldo in the late 1960s. Western pornos have been around since the discovery of the countryside, and have been mostly gay rather than hetero for generic reasons: men like westerns, women don't; men like hanging around western sets and old barns, women, for some reason, don't.

Years back, some wit made a video assembly of scenes from a genuine western and scenes from a hardcore gay porn movie. The mainstream film was Mark Rydell's The Cowboys, a 1970s western starring, I regret to say, John Wayne. The plot is rather horrible: Wayne, an obsessive cattle driver, hires a gang of children to act as cowboys, and some die, in predictable ways. In the subversive re-edit, Wayne stands beside the ol' corral, shouting: "Whip 'em, boys! Hog-tie 'em! Hold 'em down!" Intercut with this were scenes from one or more porno-westerns, in which cowboy-types got it on together in various corrals and barns. It was a splendid and subversive device, though I imagine copyright restrictions meant it did not receive too much play beyond the confines of film school.

Now Ang Lee is to direct a gay-themed western. I am sure that it will be good. It may even be great, if its author remembers John Ford's wise dictum about the genre: "A western, gay or straight, is at its best when it is long on action, and short on dialogue." He didn't really say the gay or straight bit. But what the heck? I say print the legend.

Michelle Williams Climbs Brokeback Mountain
Source: The Hollywood Reporter

Michelle Williams (Dawson's Creek) will star in Ang Lee's cowboy love story Brokeback Mountain for Focus Features. She'll be joining Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal in the film which starts shooting in May.

Adapted by McMurtry and Ossana from a short story by The Shipping News writer E. Annie Proulx, the story centers on two men (Ledger and Gyllenhaal) who meet one summer as sheepherders in Wyoming and form a bond and love that spans 20 years. The film tracks that time period and their evolving relationship.

Williams would play Ledger's wife, Alma, who has to deal with her husband's secret love.

I don't know if this has been said, but: I am REALLY looking forward to watching a movie featuring a gay romance.  I am straight... but there is always something so fantastically unrequited about homosexual affairs.  Think about it, this movie will have the ultimate love story formula to it.  Given the circumstances and time period, their love will probably remain uncomsummated, in the sense that they'll never be together.  I guess I'm F*cked becasue I enjoy painful emotions, almost as much as I do pleasurable ones.  I look forward to bawling my face off to this one.  And if this movie is done right, maybe it will transcend the giggle factor it is sure to induce.

Quote from: ThrindleI don't know if this has been said, but: I am REALLY looking forward to watching a movie featuring a gay romance.  I am straight... but there is always something so fantastically unrequited about homosexual affairs.

Run, don't walk to your local video store and rent/buy Wong Kar-Wai's Happy Together.

Quote from: MacGuffinMichelle Williams Climbs Brokeback Mountain
Source: The Hollywood Reporter

Michelle Williams (Dawson's Creek) will star in Ang Lee's cowboy love story Brokeback Mountain for Focus Features. She'll be joining Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal in the film which starts shooting in May.

Adapted by McMurtry and Ossana from a short story by The Shipping News writer E. Annie Proulx, the story centers on two men (Ledger and Gyllenhaal) who meet one summer as sheepherders in Wyoming and form a bond and love that spans 20 years. The film tracks that time period and their evolving relationship.

Williams would play Ledger's wife, Alma, who has to deal with her husband's secret love.

Am I the only one who, upon first hearing of this, thought of South Park, when Cartman said that all indie movies are about "gay cowboys eating pudding?"

haha, yeah, I thought about that too.

Quote from: ThrindleI don't know if this has been said, but: I am REALLY looking forward to watching a movie featuring a gay romance.  I am straight... but there is always something so fantastically unrequited about homosexual affairs.  Think about it, this movie will have the ultimate love story formula to it.  Given the circumstances and time period, their love will probably remain uncomsummated, in the sense that they'll never be together.  I guess I'm F*cked becasue I enjoy painful emotions, almost as much as I do pleasurable ones.  I look forward to bawling my face off to this one.  And if this movie is done right, maybe it will transcend the giggle factor it is sure to induce.

Thank you for saying all of that, because I never found the time to write it anywhere myself, but I feel exactly the same way. I'm in the midst of writing something similar to this.

From IMDB (the bit about Watts doesn't surprise me a bit- clearly, she's open-minded on the sexuality front). I do hope this will be a "real" movie and not just some eye-candy sort of deal... I think we're in safe hands with Ang Lee, though.

P.S. I doubly second Happy Together, both for the (very) human gayness and the painful emotions.

"Hollywood heart-throb Heath Ledger is finding his latest role as a gay cowboy to be his most challenging - because he's been ordered to work out for the part. The Australian star has appeared in a number of physically demanding roles - but has been told to work on his physique for the first time in his career for the upcoming Brokeback Mountain. The 24-year-old says, "Oddly enough, it's the one job that I've been asked to build on and kind of work out. You'd think you would kind of build up and work out to play a superhero or something, but it ends up being for a gay cowboy story." A Knights Tale star Ledger was encouraged to take the role opposite Jake Gyllenhaal in the Ang Lee movie by girlfriend Naomi Watts."

cool cast. ill see it. it will be something different at least.

Hathaway & Quaid Climb Brokeback Mountain
Source: The Hollywood Reporter

Anne Hathaway and Randy Quaid are joining Ang Lee's gay cowboy love story Brokeback Mountain, starring Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, says The Hollywood Reporter. Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana wrote the script.

Based on a short story by E. Annie Proulx (The Shipping News), the Focus Features film centers on two men (Ledger and Gyllenhaal) who meet one summer as sheepherders in Wyoming and form a bond and love that spans 20 years.

Hathaway plays the strong-willed ex-rodeo queen wife of Gyllenhaal's character, while Quaid will play the hard-bitten foreman who employs the two cowboys. Michelle Williams has already been cast as the wife of Ledger's character.

Anne Hathaway is one of my fave actresses. She has been stuck in crap for so long. Hopefully this and the upcoming havoc will prove right.......most likely wrong though. Whatever I stick by it. Also, shes hot.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2Fbonanzataz%2Fsouth_park_pudding.txt&hash=e1c3862528a42df3b8ed65703abdbd50ec002830)

Jake: Say Tom, do you have any pudding left?
Heath: I ate all mine up, silly.
Jake: Well, then, now what do we do? Why don't we just explore our sexuality?
Heath: Oh, good idea... let's.

I was waiting for someone to bring this up.

"Independent movies are always about gay cowboys eating pudding!"

Quote from: someoneFocus Features

That's enough for me to see it.

Quote from: llewkcoR tsehC

Quote from: someoneFocus Features

That's enough for me to see it.

Yes, they're definitely the best "boutique" indie distributor. Almost all their films are worthwhile. They also have a good history with the gays, what with Far from Heaven and Ozon's films...

Is Ozon gay?

So much for my prognosis on 'Swimming Pool'.....

Quote from: GhostboyIs Ozon gay?

So much for my prognosis on 'Swimming Pool'.....

Yes, he is, although his only literally "gay" (in content) film that I know of is Water Drops on Burning Rocks and, if you consider the ripe Sirkian elements of 8 Women to be any sort of "gay sensibility"...

On Swimming Pool: Don't you think gay or women directors tend to be more empathetic with and interested in female sexuality in a genuine way, though, as opposed to many (the majority of?) "typical" straight male filmmakers?

Saw Lost and Delirious a couple days ago.  Directed by Lea Pool, who may be familiar to some because she has another film on Criterion.  Good flick, but nothing transcendental.  Though for some, the ending might appear that way.  It stars Piper Perabo and a couple other familiar faces whose names I forget.  The story is told oddly as the main character isn't really given that much to do except talk to the gardener and play shoulder for her roommate, Paulie, who gets her heart broken by the other roommate, Tori, because of her fear of losing the favor of her conservative parents.

The dialogue in some places is bad, but maybe that's intentional, as these are sixteen-year-old girls we're talking about.  Still, everytime I heard them mention "rage more" I cringe.  I really admire, have a soft spot for, these types of stories.  I don't know what it is.  Perhaps it is that the film is able to somehow capture what it feels like to be young, to have the world at your feet, and see nothing but possibility.  Those movies are some of the best, but this one, at least, keeps it real and grounded in reality.  This may be a downer for some, but incredibly apt for other people.

Quote from: OnomatopaellaSaw Lost and Delirious a couple days ago.  Directed by Lea Pool, who may be familiar to some because she has another film on Criterion.  Good flick, but nothing transcendental.  Though for some, the ending might appear that way.  It stars Piper Perabo and a couple other familiar faces whose names I forget.  The story is told oddly as the main character isn't really given that much to do except talk to the gardener and play shoulder for her roommate, Paulie, who gets her heart broken by the other roommate, Tori, because of her fear of losing the favor of her conservative parents.

The dialogue in some places is bad, but maybe that's intentional, as these are sixteen-year-old girls we're talking about.  Still, everytime I heard them mention "rage more" I cringe.  I really admire, have a soft spot for, these types of stories.  I don't know what it is.  Perhaps it is that the film is able to somehow capture what it feels like to be young, to have the world at your feet, and see nothing but possibility.  Those movies are some of the best, but this one, at least, keeps it real and grounded in reality.  This may be a downer for some, but incredibly apt for other people.

I remember not liking this movie too much... I'd seen Pool's Set Me Free and LOVED it. I felt that more than some of the dialogue was pretty awful... Pool is not an English-language director, and I think it showed.

When is the Pool movie coming out on Criterion, and please tell me it's Set Me Free!!

My mistake.  I misread the Criterion thread and thought the Pool film was under the coming soon column, but it appears it's under the not likely column.  Sorry to get your hopes up.

http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=174&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=lea+pool&start=180

Of course, that was from September.  I don't know if anything's changed since then.

Does anyone watch "Queer as Folk"?  And if you do... do you know if the character of Brian is actually gay or not?

I ask because I am letting my shallow side peek through and I'll just admit it, he's bloody gorgeous.

(By the way I know this isn't cinema talk...  but I didn't want to start an entire new thread that will be replied to once.)

Hi Thrindle,

I watch QAF and the actor is not gay in real life and yes, he IS bloody gorgeous.  QAF is in its 5th season has lost much of it's impact.  I believe it's the first time I saw a graphic sex scene between men on TV, even cable.  Have you checked out the L word?  They have a super-sexy actress, Kate Moening who plays a character similar to Brian.  I'm female, btw.

I've heard about "The L Word" but I don't think it's playing in Canada yet.  I'll definately check it out.  I'd love to see a female Brian character, minus the stereotypes that would come with being a woman....

Anna Faris Climbs Brokeback Mountain
Source: Alex Thursday, May 20, 2004

In a USA Today chat (via AnnaFaris.net) with "Scary Movie" trilogy star Anna Faris revealed that she has a small role in director Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain, starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Heath Ledger, Anne Hathaway, Randy Quaid, Michelle Williams, and Scott Michael Campbell.

Adapted from a short story by "The Shipping News" writer E. Annie Proulx, the story centers on two men (Ledger and Gyllenhaal) who meet one summer as sheepherders in Wyoming and form a bond and love that spans 20 years. The film tracks that time period and their evolving relationship.

Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana wrote the screenplay. Thanks to 'Alex'.

Discuss this news on the Coming

hmm, that sounds kind of gay

Quote from: NEON MERCURYhmm, that sounds kind of gay

What, the "discuss this news on the coming" part??  :wink:  (I think that cut and paste had a mind of its own.)

Larry McMurtry writing the screenplay is a good sign. That in combo with the Proulx and Lee connections means no silly gay-romantic-comedy fluff; we will hopefully have real human beings in this one.

Sean Hayes joins Brokeback Mountain
Source: Variety

'Will & Grace' funnyman Sean Hayes has signed on to appear in director Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain during the summer hiatus from his hit series. He joins Jake Gyllenhaal, Heath Ledger, Anne Hathaway, Randy Quaid, Michelle Williams, Anna Faris and Scott Michael Campbell.

Adapted by Larry McMurtry from a short story by "The Shipping News" writer E. Annie Proulx, the story centers on two men (Ledger and Gyllenhaal) who meet one summer as sheepherders in Wyoming and form a bond and love that spans 20 years. Hayes will play an openly gay ranch hand whose free spirits and sense of humor help ease the tensions caused by the forbidden relationship.

Ang Lee speaks out about Brokeback Mountain!
Source: Variety

Adapted by Larry McMurtry from a short story by "The Shipping News" writer E. Annie Proulx, Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain centers on two men (Ledger and Gyllenhaal) who meet one summer as sheepherders in Wyoming and form a bond and love that spans 20 years.  Ang has said that he hopes his film will come across as "gay romantic comedy fluff; without any semblance of real characters".   He went on to say he hopes his film would be a "gay version of How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days".

Quote from: GhostboySean Hayes joins Brokeback Mountain

that guy needs to get roles that arent gay men.

i just hope they don't use any soft-focus in it. especially around the fire place.

This is one of the only threads that has a mention of Anne Hathaway, yet i feel I can't talk about how pretty she is here.  :(

Quote from: Stefen KingThis is one of the only threads that has a mention of Anne Hathaway, yet i feel I can't talk about how pretty she is here.  :(

That's crazy!! This isn't an anti-heterosexuality thread, ya know.  :)  Homos who can't embrace heterosexual feelings in others are as dumb as hets who can't accept same-sex feelings in others. We all of us alike just need to get over ourselves.

Sean Hayes as comic relief is the movie's first uh-oh. This is much less a case of "Wow, that sounds great," and much more a case of "Wow, I hope that doesn't ruin the movie."

Actually, that bit of news was just me being sarcastic.  :wink: But I guess it was a little too realistic, so... the cat's out of the bag -- there's no reason to worry.

I certainly expect the movie to be well rounded and honest, and it's definitely one of the films I'm looking forward to the most at the moment.

Quote from: GhostboyActually, that bit of news was just me being sarcastic.  :wink: But I guess it was a little too realistic, so... the cat's out of the bag -- there's no reason to worry.

I certainly expect the movie to be well rounded and honest, and it's definitely one of the films I'm looking forward to the most at the moment.

Did you come up with that? You oughta write for The Onion! Like all great satire, it's absurd... but not so absurd as to be unbelievable (I believed it- the movies have done much, much worse).

Yeah, I had to resist adding some detail about his character wearing a trademark purple nekerchief or suede chaps.

Quote from: GhostboyYeah, I had to resist adding some detail about his character wearing a trademark purple nekerchief or suede chaps.

:yabbse-thumbup:

I have to say, I'm very impressed with the whole fake Variety item. It seemed really real, but if you had it running in a venue where people knew it was fake, it would be hilarious. You should create a "humor corner" of some sort on your blog and post such things there. That was good stuff.

This is what happens when Mac leaves town

Quote from: StefenThis is one of the only threads that has a mention of Anne Hathaway, yet i feel I can't talk about how pretty she is here.  :(

there will be no such 'pro-heterosexual' talk in this thread....
instead you must talk about how beautiful ang lees testicles look pressed agianst your chin while a remix of roxettes 'it must have been love(but it s over now)' done by spiritualized playing in the background....

Why did you have to bring up that song? Now I have to go listen to it.

Quote from: StefenWhy did you have to bring up that song? Now I have to go listen to it.

... :wink:

This afternoon I read the E. Anne Proulx story upon which Brokeback Mountain will be based, and it's quite beautiful. It reads almost like a Terrence Malick film, if that makes any sense. It's also very sad. This will not be a happy film.

There's been talk of Lee's decision to not include any graphic sexual content in the film, and how he's 'chickening out,' so to speak. I think that's fairly ridiculous. Anyone making that sort of criticism is looking at the film with an agenda, and not with the hope that it's a strong and mature and relatable story, something I'd wager queer cinema could use more than explicit sex scenes. There's some sex in the book, but its by no means a purely sexual story.

Now that I know the narrative arc of the piece, I have utter confidence in Lee's ability to tell this kind of story (as opposed to the hope, not quite met, I reserved for his 'Hulk'), so its success will, I think, depend on the screenplay. I've dearly loved some of the movies made from McMurtry's novels, so I hope his screenwriting skills are up to par.

I have no relevant argument to post at the moment, all I can muster is an opinion.  

The people who would be offended by homosexual intimacy shown on screen, shouldn't watch the movie anyway.  It really pisses me off how frightened people are of sex - of any kind!  To tone down sex in a movie that features gay relationships, is to miss the point completely.  If you can't explore the subject matter honestly, why even bother making the film?  (I know that's harsh, but realism to me is the only art form)

It's sad that this message has to be so corny, but it is sooooo true: all we need is love.

Quote from: ThrindleTo tone down sex in a movie that features gay relationships, is to miss the point completely.

The point that's being missed, though, is that graphic sex does not necessarily an honest movie make.

Quote from: GhostboyThe point that's being missed, though, is that graphic sex does not necessarily an honest movie make.

I don't necessarily agree with you on that.  If this movie were being made about two heterosexual people, there would be no question of implementing sex as a form of honesty.  Would Monster's Ball have been as effective without that incredibly honest sex scene?  It was very graphic.  It was necessary for the movie.

Having said that, sex is thrown around without shame in most movies.  So what if it's thrown around once again?  

I'm just saying that if this movie weren't about two guys, this would not be much of an issue.

'Monster's Ball' was more effective because of the sex scene, but it was an appropriate creative decision on the part of the director (on the flip side, the graphic sex scene with the hooker in the same film was unnecessary to the cumulative effect of the film). But just because a film is explicit doesn't mean its more honest, or vice versa, and the same goes for eroticism; some of the most erotic films I've seen are not graphic at all.

I know exactly where you're coming from, and if the film in question was something along the lines of, say,  'The Object Of My Affection' ending with the gay guy getting the girl, I'd be calling foul all over the place.  There's certainly less enthusiasm from the public for graphic homosexual sex scenes, not to mention relationships in general. That unfortunate conundrum, however, is not an excuse in and of itself to include graphic sex.

This is not coming from a prude, by any means.  My point here is simply that, considering the people creatively involved with this film, the chances that any lack of graphic sex is anything but an artistic choice for the betterment of the film are pretty small.

I remember watching the first episode of Six Feet Under with someone and he said something like "Is that necessary?" when the two men kissed, but I'm sure he wouldn't have said anything if it was a man and woman.

Brendan Fraser to Play a Gay Secret Agent
Source: Variety Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Revolution Studios is coming out of the closet with the comedy Gay Secret Agent, says Variety. Brendan Fraser is in talks to play the title character, with Brad Hall and Andrew Gottlieb writing the script.

The film, whose tone will be equal parts Our Man Flint, 007 and "Austin Powers," will be produced by the Revolution-based team of Suzanne and Jennifer Todd, producers of the "Powers" films.

While agents like James Bond and Austin Powers have been recidivist romancers of femme fatales, Fraser's agent will be flamboyantly gay. It is a designation that proves helpful in secret agenting, as it turns out.

So what, is this like, The Quiet American meets The Birdcage?

http://sify.com/movies/bollywood/fullstory.php?id=13498919

Vandalism against Girlfriend spreads


Tuesday, 15 June , 2004, 22:28

New Delhi: Vandalism against screening of controversial Hindi movie Girlfriend on lesbianism spread to more places across the country forcing suspension of its screening with Sangh Parivar demanding a ban on the movie terming it "an attack" on Indian culture.
Reports of saffron party activists indulging in ransacking of theatres screening the film were received from Bhopal, Indore and some other parts of Madhya Pradesh as also Nagpur and Bhubaneswar, taking on from protests witnessed on Monday in Mumbai and Varanasi.

In Varanasi, 12 Kranti Shiv Sena workers were arrested on charges of arson, damaging public property and indulging in brick-batting following an FIR lodged by the owners of a cinema hall.

A group of saffron workers allegedly ransacked the 'Man Mandir' cinema hall in Indore. The mob later rushed to two other cinema halls in the city but failed to cause any damage as police was present in strength there.

Police said it has identified workers of Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal, who allegedly indulged in violence at the cinema hall, and would be registering cases against them.

In Nagpur, activists of Sangh Parivar disrupted the screening of the film in a city theatre.

Two leading cinema halls in Bhopal also stopped screening the film following demonstrations by Bajrang-Sena activists, who raised slogans and burned posters of the movie.

Reports of similar protests against the screening of the movie were received from some other parts of Madhya Pradesh.

Condemning the film, VHP working president Ashok Singhal termed it as an "attack on Indian society and culture."

"It should be banned. I don't know what the Censor Board is doing. If it cannot prevent such films from reaching cinema halls, it should be closed down," he told reporters in New Delhi on Tuesday.

Singhal said there would be wide-spread protests against the movie.

The BJP asked the Censor Board to review the movie and delete portions which are "objectionable and against Indian culture."




http://sify.com/movies/bollywood/fullstory.php?id=13499102

Now, gay activists frown on 'Girlfriend'


Wednesday, 16 June , 2004, 08:49

Mumbai: Gay activists in India are up in arms over what they call the negative portrayal of lesbianism in a new film, "Girlfriend", which has also drawn fire -- for different reasons -- from the Shiv Sena.

"'Girlfriend' reinforces all the negative stereotypes about lesbian and bisexual women," said Chatura, of the Organised Lesbian Alliance for Visibility and Action (OLAVA).

"Not only is it a cheap and titillation-oriented film masquerading as one that's liberal, but it portrays the minority community in a negative light," said Chatura.

"It has repercussions for people whose parents are trying to come to terms with their sexuality and gives bosses a tool with which to harass us," she said.

"Girlfriend", starring Isha Koppikar and Amrita Arora, is about two women who are close friends, sleep on the same bed and have once shared a sexual encounter. When one of them falls in love with a man, the other is consumed by jealousy and assumes the role of the jilted lover.

Critics say the film portrays lesbians as being unnatural and assumes that their sexual preferences are the result of psychological problems.

Leading homosexual activist Ashok Row Kavi said: "We have a major problem with director Karan Razdan for demonising lesbians. The film takes our sexual identities and makes a joke of them," he said.

An open letter to the director, published in Mid-Day, lamented that the film would dent decades of campaigns by gay rights activists.

"(The) film contains the worst possible misnomers about same sex attraction. More than two decades of work done by gay and lesbian activist groups will suffer thanks to this homophobic film," said the letter, written by Tejal Shah.

Sena activists, claiming homosexuality was an affront to Indian culture, disrupted shows of the film in Mumbai and the holy city of Varanasi, but gay rights campaigners made it clear they were not making common cause.

"We're not going to allow the Sena to do this to us. They didn't bother when the same director's previous film, 'Hawas' which was also all about lust and sex, was released, so why is it that this film is being targeted?" asked Row Kavi.

An analyst said Indian films lack sensitivity over issues such as homosexuality. "Subjects like lesbianism need sensitive and mature handling, for which the context should be sensible," said analyst Indu Mirani.

"Unfortunately, here there was nothing of the sort. It was just a whole heap of titillation. The message the film gave out was that a homosexual relationship is bad as compared to a heterosexual one, which is a skewed morality."

Bollywood has a long way to go before learning to tackle sensitive and risque themes with maturity, she suggested.

"Because currently writers and directors are only looking at these films as a way of being 'different' and making quick money," Mirani said.

"For a film industry that has barely moved away from the boy-meets-girl, boy-gets-girl formula, maturity is a long way off."

The work of Derek Jarman, Kenneth Anger, and Andy Warhol/Paul Morrisey hasn't really been discussed yet. What does everyone think of these films, within a 'queer cinema' context?

Has anyone seen Touch of Pink (http://www.sonyclassics.com/touchofpink/site.html)?

A touch too pink?
Some members of Canada's Ismaili community are seeing red over the
gay-themed film Touch of Pink

By KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE
The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040724/BACKLASH24/TPEntertainment/Film

The post-release picture that Touch of Pink is painting is not as rosy as
its title suggests or its romantic-comedy pedigree will have you think.
Despite strong reviews and respectable (if lower than expected) returns at
the box office in Toronto and Vancouver, where it opened last Friday, the
gay-themed South Asian comedy is proving too divisive for some and, for
others, downright offensive. Touch of Pink is a touch too much in some
quarters and not pink enough in others.

The gay community (ethnic and otherwise) is embracing it as a heartfelt,
albeit predictable, gay coming-out story that treads the same grounds as,
for example, The Wedding Banquet. Some members of filmmaker Ian Iqbal
Rashid's Ismaili community, on the other hand, are taking strong exceptions
to it - not so much for its gay content as for its portrayals of them as
crass nouveau riche and sexual hypocrites.

The film follows the coming-out journey of Alim, an Ismaili Muslim Canadian
who works as a film-set photographer in London where he shares his real life
with his white partner and his imaginary one with the ghost of Cary Grant, a
manifestation of Alim's lifelong fascination with Hollywood lore. His life
is turned upside down when his mother pays him a visit and, later, when he
returns to Toronto for the family wedding of his cousin (a dentist) complete
with status-obsessed mother and circle of friends.

In an open e-mail letter to "Ismaili friends, family members, relatives and
acquaintances," community member Naaznin Rajani has urged the Ismaili
Council to actively discourage other Ismailis from attending the movie.
Describing the experience of watching Touch of Pink with a friend, Rajani
writes that both were "thoroughly humiliated, very insulted, ashamed of
ourselves as to how our Ismailis are being portrayed." Rajani suggests the
film depicts Ismailis as "racist as well, not building bridges with dhorias
[white people]."

"For every letter that has been critical, I have received dozens thanking
and congratulating me for making this film," Rashid responded. "The story of
Touch of Pink is very much the story of my life. The events and characters
are based on my personal history. I love my family and my community and what
I wanted to portray was an honest, affectionate and entertaining story which
doesn't shy away from the hypocrisies and debates that exist in every
community."

Critical response from within the South Asian cultural community has fallen
more within Rashid's line of thinking than Rajani's. Reviewing the film for
mybindi.com, an on-line resource for "cool" South Asian culture, Mohit
Rajhans praised Rashid on his sensitive handling of the community. "I was
really proud of the way Ian treated this angle of the South Asian community,
as he did it with dignity and without a lot of stereotypes," Rajhans writes.
"For Canadians, finally a film can be shown in the world market that depicts
South Asians as just another minority group living in Canada, which suffers
from modern-day issues and not the back-dated conflicts that have been
prominent on screen."

The polarized responses to the film indicate more than artistic differences.
While the South Asian and Muslim community in general has made tentative
steps toward tolerating, if not accepting, homosexuality, the fact remains
that Touch of Pink is more in-your-face than the community is comfortable
with at this stage. This is still a community, as Rashid points out in an
e-mail, where there's no word for homosexual in Kutchi, his native tongue.

In her letter, Rajani doesn't take issue with Alim's sexuality - "I know for
a fact that there are Ismailis out there who . . . belong in that society" -
but instead with his lack of discretion, especially in a scene where he
kisses his boyfriend during a traditional Muslim wedding. "I haven't seen
that happening in real life in our community," she writes. Another scene
that depicts a kiss between Alim and his soon-to-be-married male cousin is
also hitting a nerve in the community.

For its Canadian co-producer Jennifer Kawaja of Sienna Films, the questions
that Touch of Pink deals with, and by extension its difficulty attaining the
instant box-office glory of similar movies such as Mambo Italiano, go beyond
the comfort level of one community. "The question is, can an explicitly gay
film [one that has kissing] . . . cross over and break out?" ponders Kawaja,
pointing out that Mambo doesn't feature any on-screen kissing between its
gay characters.

"Can a film which suggests that even some straight people are gay break out?
Add to that, will the communities it's about - the Muslim community for
example - come out within the context that immigrant communities tend to be
more conservative while they are struggling to make it into Canadian
society?"

In artistic terms, a hard-to-categorize film, or one where a target audience
can't be clearly identified, may be a sign of its creative complexities.
Touch of Pink is at once a romantic comedy, a gay coming-out story, an
ethnic identity quest, and a whimsical homage to Hollywood's Golden Age -
but that may also be its cross to bear at the box office.

"My sense is that for most people in Canada, the idea of seeing a loving,
gay relationship on a big screen is a first," says the film's Canadian
distributor Hussain Amarshi of Mongrel Media. "Straight people don't seem to
be seeking out gay romantic comedies, unless they are watered down like
Mambo Italiano. Touch of Pink, by being brave and forthright about gay
relationships, is stretching the boundaries in significant ways. Suddenly a
kiss is not just a kiss."

How the movie fares domestically at the box office in the weeks to come
(assuming it holds over and expands nationwide) will depend on whether
Canadian audiences of various cultural and sexual identities can be
persuaded to think otherwise.

Quote from: godardian on April 30, 2006, 10:38:27 AMThe Celluloid Closet

That film forever screwed up how I watch Ben Hur.

Quote from: MacGuffin on April 30, 2006, 12:06:01 PM

Quote from: godardian on April 30, 2006, 10:38:27 AMThe Celluloid Closet

That film forever screwed up how I watch Ben Hur.

Or did it make it that much more FUN??

Seriously, Gore Vidal was by far my favorite part of Celluloid Closet, which is good but fallible. Then again, when isn't Vidal the most lucid and articulate of any group?

Quote from: Lucid on April 30, 2006, 02:35:11 PM
I'm totaly with you, godardian.  Overall, I find Rope really entertaining and a great watch, despite the fact that there are a lot of problems with the representation of Brandon/Phillip's not-so-veiled homosexual relationship. 

Quote from: godardian on April 30, 2006, 10:38:27 AM
a homophobic inclination to depict gays and lesbians as deviant murderers

Exactly.  The parallel established between the duo's deviant sexuality and the deviant act they've just committed was really driven across right after the murder, when Brandon reflects on his "art" while basically jerking off the champagne bottle (also notice that Phillip is the one who has to pop the cork for him).  So often it is implied that there is a self-centeredness to their sexual behavior that's intertwined with a deep lack of morality.  It was great to hear Arthur Laurents address the issue, if only in a very general way, in "Rope Unleashed."  I also thought that Farley Granger was so great in the film.   :yabbse-thumbup:         

Have you guys watched Robert Walker's more obvious homosexual killer in the British version of Strangers On A Train?