QUEER CINEMA

Started by modage, June 02, 2003, 05:33:46 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User actions

Pwaybloe

#45
June 03, 2003, 03:40:46 PM
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?

jmj

#46
June 03, 2003, 03:44:04 PM
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.
Gorobei Katayama: You're Good.
Heihachi Hayashida: Yeah, yeah. But I'm better at killing enemies.
Gorobei Katayama: Killed many?
Heihachi Hayashida: Well - It's impossible to kill 'em all, so I ususally run away.
Gorobei Katayama: A splendid principle!
Heihachi Hayashida: Thank you.

godardian

#47
June 03, 2003, 03:44:38 PM
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.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

jmj

#48
June 03, 2003, 03:51:12 PM
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.
Gorobei Katayama: You're Good.
Heihachi Hayashida: Yeah, yeah. But I'm better at killing enemies.
Gorobei Katayama: Killed many?
Heihachi Hayashida: Well - It's impossible to kill 'em all, so I ususally run away.
Gorobei Katayama: A splendid principle!
Heihachi Hayashida: Thank you.

Pwaybloe

#49
June 03, 2003, 03:53:53 PM
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.

godardian

#50
June 03, 2003, 03:59:21 PM
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.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

jmj

#51
June 03, 2003, 04:04:39 PM
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.)
Gorobei Katayama: You're Good.
Heihachi Hayashida: Yeah, yeah. But I'm better at killing enemies.
Gorobei Katayama: Killed many?
Heihachi Hayashida: Well - It's impossible to kill 'em all, so I ususally run away.
Gorobei Katayama: A splendid principle!
Heihachi Hayashida: Thank you.

Pwaybloe

#52
June 03, 2003, 04:08:50 PM
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.

godardian

#53
June 03, 2003, 04:09:46 PM
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.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

godardian

#54
June 03, 2003, 04:13:13 PM
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.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

godardian

#55
June 03, 2003, 04:14:32 PM
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
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

godardian

#56
June 03, 2003, 07:10:14 PM
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.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#57
June 03, 2003, 07:11:50 PM
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

godardian

#58
June 03, 2003, 07:15:17 PM
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.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#59
June 03, 2003, 07:22:52 PM
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
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User actions