It's hard, these days, figuring out what you can and can't say about homosexuality. This is a problem I never imagined the gay rights movement would lead us to.
David Axelrod described the new world order most succinctly on behalf of the White House. Discussion of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's sexual orientation "has no place in this process. It wasn't ⦠an avenue of inquiry on our part and it shouldn't be on anybody else's' part." Printing an old photo of Kagan playing softball goes too far. If you think I'm overstating the case, even Andrew Sullivan has agreed to shut up about it. This is serious.
Ramin Setoodeh from Newsweek also learned -- the hard way -- the current preference for avoiding The Subject unless you're clear on the party line. His misbegotten essay about gay actors portraying heterosexual characters was not well received, but it did have a point, which Dan Savage distilled in one sentence on Joy Behar's show better than Setoodeh's whole article: American audiences still retain some powerful notions about sexual orientation that they carry with them into the theater, and that can affect their view of how convincing an actor's performance is. That is as unfortunate as it is inarguable. Setoodeh tripped over his own argument (as who among us has not), but it doesn't seem to me Newsweek needs to apologize for publishing it in the first place, as GLAAD demands. The excellent responses are well worth the provocation.
But it's not just Democrats and the gay left who want to stifle discussion of sexual orientation. George Rekers is all set (he keeps saying) to file a defamation suit because people have the nerve to infer he might be a little light in the loafers after his excellent adventure with a young man not his husband in Europe.
What all of these stories have in common is that none of the participants actually wants to fully shut off discussion about homosexuality. Axelrod, Setoodeh, GLAAD and Rekers all have track records, and with the exception of Setoodeh, leverage the subject when it suits their purposes (which, for GLAAD and Rekers is nearly all the time). What the politically inclined among them are trying to do is corral us into having only the discussion they want us to have.
I confess there are plenty of times I'd like that, too. But I try to keep a bit of humility about the limits of my own knowledge and opinions, and if I'm provably wrong, accept the correction as generously as I can, accounting for my disappointment.
This has always been the fundamental problem with Don't Ask, Don't Tell and its fountainhead, the closet. Such regimes cannot succeed unless everyone is properly coerced and follows the rules with precision. If anyone says what they're not supposed to, the whole edifice trembles. Which is to say both ideas embody human folly.
This is, and has always been, exactly the antithesis of the first amendment. Americans (and we're not the only ones) can only ignore something for so long before somebody will speak up or out. And that is true whether the White House or GLAAD or the military establishment or George Rekers is trying to enforce a narrow view - and it's true whether what's being said is good or bad for any particular party.
25 Comments for “Speak Up”
posted by Jorge on
A lot of people don’t respect the First Amendment and a lot of people don’t respect basic civility. There’s people who get bent out of shape because they don’t want dinner table or wine cooler conversation to enter the public square. So instead of people making fools of themselves and being corrected in public (or not!), they stay bigoted and rise to powerful positions where they can do a lot of harm.
By the way, if it weren’t for that gorgeous softball pose, Kagan would come off looking more like a man than Martina Navratilova. She looks cuter than Serena Williams.
posted by David Link on
I don’t know, Jorge — all I could think of was George Costanza.
posted by Debrah on
Hmmm……..
…….I have no idea why Mr. Link didn’t give me a nod for the Setoodeh tip in a previous comment.
How rude!
LIS!
posted by Jorge on
Must be all that pasty white blubber.
posted by Debrah on
A stupendous one on the Kagan “controversy”.
Tight-sexy-diva-belly-bursting hilarious, Maureen!
Ingeniously, so.
Supremely Girly Girl
posted by Debrah on
“Must be all that pasty white blubber.”
*********************************************
“George Costanza” lost lots of weight recently.
Haven’t you heard?
posted by Bobby on
“”George Costanza” lost lots of weight recently.”
—You should have seen him in “The Fury” in 1980, he was a sexy blue eyed blond, totally buffed, muscles everywhere and he played a popular kid and a bully very convincingly. He was nothing like his character John Costanza.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
I can’t imagine Jason Alexander ever being “sexy”, but you can certainly give him credit for his latest efforts.
However, Jerry Seinfeld is sexy……. in a subtle, low-key, comic genius kind of way.
posted by Bobby on
Check out this picture, Debrah.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/dannynsk/PDVD_007.jpg
The guy in the blue football jersey is Jason Alexander, I was wrong about him being blond and the movie which I mistakenly called “The Fury” when it’s really balled “The Burning.” It’s one of the films that exploded the slasher category.
Going back to the topic at hand, how is one supposed to get anywhere by keeping sexuality in the closet? Americans love sexuality, did you know the only bachelor president we had was Buchanan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan
By the way, I thought it was totally gross when Al Gore french kissed Tipper in front of everyone at a politically rally. We gays don’t have to go that far, but we can and we should come out.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Damn, Mr. Alexander was hot in 1981! (Although probably too stocky for Debrah’s taste.)
I’d never heard of The Burning (1981) — not to be confused with its sequel, The Painful Red Itchiness!
But based on the IMDb synopsis, it does seem almost like a “beta-test” version of 1984’s A Nightmare on Elm Street: a killer who’s been horribly disfigured in fire, and makeup/gore effects that were both over-the-top and technically sophisticated for their time.
The Fury (1978) on the other hand, belonged to the death-by-telekinesis subgenre — in other words, a Carrie (1976) cash-in, albeit with impressive advances in the special-effects department.
posted by Throbert McGee on
By the way, in case anyone feels like playing “Six Degrees of George Costanza,” Holly Hunter made an inauspicious big-screen debut as one of the teenage victims in The Burning. And as far as I can tell, the ethnic-looking guy with his arms wrapped around Alexander in Bobby’s .jpg is none other than Fisher Stevens, who would later turn up as Steve Guttenberg’s Indian colleague in Short Circuit.
(“Who’s Johnny,” she said…”)
posted by Throbert McGee on
There, fixed my own comment
Speaking of horror movies that were technically advanced within their genre, though not necessarily breaking new FX ground for movies overall — probably 98% of moviegoers were unaware of just how technically difficult it was to shoot Johnny Depp’s death scene in the original Nightmare on Elm Street. There was a lot more labor (and time, and money) involved than just a concealed pump filled with gallons of stage blood — though again, the special-effects were only drawing on techniques that had been used before outside the horror genre.
Do any other former Fangoria readers know how the “blood geyser” scene was actually created?
posted by Bobby on
“I’d never heard of The Burning (1981) — not to be confused with its sequel, The Painful Red Itchiness!”
—It’s a film worth watching once, it has lots of surprising, the dialogue is cute, you’ll laugh at seeing how people dressed in the 1980s, the murders are fun, and it has a story. Today movies have more technology than story, seriously, a grand theft auto game has better story and dialog and action than the typical Hollywood film.
Other than that, today’s action movies seem too fast, they’re doing martial arts and it looks like a blur, it’s totally unrealistic and unbelievable.
“But based on the IMDb synopsis, it does seem almost like a “beta-test” version of 1984’s A Nightmare on Elm Street: a killer who’s been horribly disfigured in fire, and makeup/gore effects that were both over-the-top and technically sophisticated for their time.”
—There are major differences, Freddy Krueger talks, jokes, teases, he’s a fun monster. Besides, the fact that he kills only when you dream gives the screenwriter unlimited scenarios for creative deaths. Of course, if you’re talking makeup wise, we agree.
“Do any other former Fangoria readers know how the “blood geyser” scene was actually created?”
—I don’t and I love Fangoria, I’m just not interested in the production aspect because it takes away the magic of watching a movie. Besides, the production part of a film sucks, it’s hours and hours of work, sometimes really tedious. TV, advertising and film are NOT really glamorous professions when you look at the production side.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Agreed with that — making the killer supernatural gives them an excuse to create what are essentially “magical” death scenes. That’s kind of what I was getting at in the Elm Street trivia question — if you watch the scene carefully, the blood apparently defies the laws of physics, in that it neither drips down on the floor nor splatters all over the walls. (Then, too, there’s gotta be about an elephant’s worth of blood there — far more than would fit in Johnny Depp’s circulatory system.)
Anyway, here’s an explanation of how the scene was done, encoded in ROT 13 cyphertext to avoid spoiling it for Bobby. (To read it, just copy-and-paste the encrypted text below into the text field at the ROT13 link.)
posted by jpeckjr on
These comments went off topic really fast . . . a vain attempt will now be made to comment on David’s essay.
With the exception of DADT, which applies only to GLBT members of the military, what aspect of the First Amendment is in play in any of the conversations, articles, etc, David notes, with the exception of DADT? Has Congress made a law prohibiting or even regulating conversation about homosexuality?
We are in a strange new era with this conversation, I think. But for me the strangeness is that I no longer assume the conversation will be uncomfortable or off-limits or shouldn’t be held. What can we say? Perhaps, more than we used to be able to say.
At the same time, we are being reminded that broad generalizations from single specific cases is still a dangerous practice. Mr. Setoodeh saw some performances by actors he knew to be homosexual and generalized. Generalizations were made about softball players from a single photograph of Ms. Kagan. I think Dr. Rekers exercised extremely poor judgment in choosing a companion for his European trip. While I’m not especially troubled by the ramifications to him from that poor judgment, he can file the defamation suit and we’ll see what happens.
But it does seem to me to be a “between time,” between “the love that dare not speak it’s name” time, and “makes no difference any more” time. I suspect we’re closer to the first time than to the second one.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Not to mention, underlit — all to help you not notice the fact that certain scenes are 100% CGI and the actor’s body isn’t even “there,” physically. A movie like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon used CGI only to digitally remove the wires that the actors and stunt people were suspended from during many of the fight scenes — and personally, I wouldn’t have minded if the wires were visible, because the acrobatics and athleticism of the actors was so impressive. (The two principle actresses in CT,HD, namely Michelle Yeoh and Ziyi Zhang, had no martial arts experience, but many years of grueling ballet training supplemented with stage-combat training.)
But “realistic” vs. “unrealistic” is not exactly the right term to use. After all, a REAL gunshot sounds like a very loud cap-gun, and seems “fake” compared to what we’re used to in the movies! And REAL martial-arts combat either ends in seconds with a very quick knockdown/crippling move followed by running away as fast as you can, or else turns into a drawn-out wrestling/grappling match on the ground. And when night-action scenes are “realistically” lit, the results can be confusing and unsatisfying for the viewer.
So it’s really about being “satisfying” or “unsatisfying” to watch — and I agree that a lot of modern action movies fall into the latter category, because they rely too much on too-fast-to-appreciate CGI sequences.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Possibly because Link’s musings on this particular subject are yawn-inducing to people under 40?
posted by Bobby on
Hey Throbert, I think it’s cool we share the same taste in movies.
“if you watch the scene carefully, the blood apparently defies the laws of physics, in that it neither drips down on the floor nor splatters all over the walls. (Then, too, there’s gotta be about an elephant’s worth of blood there — far more than would fit in Johnny Depp’s circulatory system.)”
—You’re right, that was probably for dramatic effect.
“A movie like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon used CGI only to digitally remove the wires that the actors and stunt people were suspended from during many of the fight scenes — and personally, I wouldn’t have minded if the wires were visible, because the acrobatics and athleticism of the actors was so impressive.”
—Here’s my problem with movies like that, when I watch The Karate Kid I can imagine doing those moves, so I can connect with the story even if I’ve never taken any karate lessons in my life. When I watch Superman it’s the same, anyone can imagine himself flying the way that superhero flies, it’s the reason some kids put on a superman costume and jump from a second floor. But with Crouching Tiger it’s simply beyond belief, with or without wires.
“But “realistic” vs. “unrealistic” is not exactly the right term to use.
—You’re right, I should have used the term “believable.” For me to believe in something it has to look real even if it isn’t. I can believe in Harry Potter, I can’t believe in Crouching Tiger.
“After all, a REAL gunshot sounds like a very loud cap-gun, and seems “fake” compared to what we’re used to in the movies!”
—Well, you’re right about that, I’ve been to the gun range and it gets pretty loud.
“And REAL martial-arts combat either ends in seconds with a very quick knockdown/crippling move followed by running away as fast as you can, or else turns into a drawn-out wrestling/grappling match on the ground. And when night-action scenes are “realistically” lit, the results can be confusing and unsatisfying for the viewer.”
—The problem with me isn’t the lighting, it’s the speed. If it’s too fast it’s hard to follow, the brain can only process so much information. Lately all action and sci-fi movies seem too fast for me.
“So it’s really about being “satisfying” or “unsatisfying” to watch — and I agree that a lot of modern action movies fall into the latter category, because they rely too much on too-fast-to-appreciate CGI sequences.”
—That’s a good point to, it’s the reason I’m not going to watch “Clash of the Titans.” Movies have lost their art, they have become marketing vehicles, they are utterly predictable. Where’s the creativity? At least in Saw IV you have a scene with a graphic autopsy, the removal and cutting of the stomach and the discovery of a small tape inside said stomach. That’s creative, that’s original. The critics hate the Saw series yet those movies are always full of surprises, it takes lots of thinking to keep developing more deadly contraptions, the plot lines alone are hard to explain yet fascinating to watch. Besides that, the last non-horror movie I liked was Valkyrie.
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
You and Bobby need to look out for Turistas and The Ruins next time they’re on cable.
Both very bizarre, horrific, and gory.
Sans the special-effects of most second-rate sensational fare.
Personal relationships, horror, and gore!
And quite interesting.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Exactly right, it was done to look really cool, and the laws of gravity (and anatomy) be damned! But because there was an explicit supernatural/fantasy element, the unrealism didn’t bother you.
I would argue that Crouching Tiger also had an overt fairy-tale / fantasy element, which is why the unrealism of the wire-assisted martial arts didn’t bother me a bit. (Same as I didn’t mind when 98-lb. Sarah Michelle Geller managed to send 250-lb. demons/vampires/ogres crashing through the wall with one roundhouse kick — she had “super slayer strength,” and you simply had to suspend disbelief.)
On the other hand, compared with Buffy or Elm Street, it was relatively easy to miss that Crouching Tiger takes place in a “magical universe,” and see it as simply a period piece where people happened to be doing physically impossible things — and if you don’t get that it’s a fairy tale, then certainly all the flying through the air and bouncing on bamboo stalks seems ridiculous. (Part of the problem is that the fairy-tale-ness was obvious to Chinese audiences, but less so to Western viewers. A lot of Westerners, for example, had trouble buying the plot device that Ziyi Zhang’s character would’ve gone to such extraordinary lengths to retrieve a freakin’ hair comb from a highway bandit! I grew up immersing myself in collections of “Fairy Tales From Many Lands” at the base library in Turkey (anything to avoid the dreaded Hardy Boys collection when I ran out of other stuff to read — this was before my Dad started encouraging me to check out certain approved titles from the “adult” section of the library, like Edgar Rice Burroughs and Isaac Asimov).
By chance, Bobby (and Debrah) have you ever seen Brotherhood of the Wolf? At the risk of spoiling it too much, that’s a movie where the seemingly supernatural goings-on all ultimately involve trickery and stage-magic ostensibly using technologies available in the late 1700s.
And then there’s The Brothers Grimm — set in the early 1800s, and presenting the title characters as not only folklorists (as in real life), but also as skeptics a la Penn & Teller or “Mythbusters” — who weren’t above using stage magic to earn some extra money. But the twist in this case is that unlike Brotherhood of the Wolf, which is set in our naturalistic universe, The Brothers Grimm takes place in a Harry Potter-like universe — where magic really works, although most “Muggles” are unaware of it.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Debrah — I don’t have cable, but I’ll keep an eye out for both those titles on YouTube.
Have you seen The Descent? Or The Feast? You might like ’em, if you enjoy gore that doesn’t pick on women, or token brown people, or those awful white people who had it coming.
My preference in horror films where people meet their ends at the hands/claws of creatures that are either magical or “mutants” with sub-human intelligence. Because the cannibalistic-psycho-genius thing gets old and nihilistic real fast, and eventually leads to boring torture-pr0n stuff like the SAW franchise turned into, The Human Centipede, whose sole redeeming value might be to reinforce the message that it’s evil to experiment on non-consenting human beings. (As if that message needed reinforcement.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
Oops, I forgot to add…
…and because of this, it made total sense to me that she would chase down the guy and kick his ass just to get the damn comb back! (It wasn’t a magical comb, or anything — just a very pretty one with sentimental value.)
posted by Bobby on
Hey Debrah,
Turistas it’s a good film, the only problem is it takes almost an hour for the real horror to start, most of them movie seems to be “cute kids go to Brazil, drink beers, party and fornicate with women.” All that is fine, but when I watch a horror film I expect the horror to arrive a little quicker. Interestingly enough, the really scary thing about Turistas is that Brazil does have a black market for organs and there are stories of people going through what happened in Turistas.
I also saw The Ruins, it was compelling considering how many Americans travel to Mexico and how many of them decide to go of the beaten path.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
I agree that Turistas gets a late start with the action.
That guy, Josh Duhamel, who is married to Fergie and who is also a former soap star, played one of the main characters. LOL!
The initial goofy, frat-esque partying is yawn-inducing; however, once the story gets in motion, it’s quite riveting.
I accidentally came upon it a few years ago during holiday….late at night…..because I couldn’t sleep.
But that one woke me up.
And, as you say, the basic story line is a scenario that actually happens.
Mexico is another story and a hotbed of decadence and corruption that one could talk about endlessly.
I’m glad you saw those two and Throbert should check them out as well.
posted by Bobby on
“And, as you say, the basic story line is a scenario that actually happens.”
—Brazil has too many problems, it’s funny that the slogan on their flag reads “order & progress” when in reality they have neither.
“Mexico is another story and a hotbed of decadence and corruption that one could talk about endlessly.”
—True, but I will admit it’s a great place to take a vacation, you can find great deals in all-included resorts, the diving is spectacular, the pyramids quite amazing, the food is better than what you’ll get at any Mexican restaurants in the states, and if you watch yourself it’s a great place to visit. On the other hand, if you get caught with drugs and don’t have the good luck of dealing with a corrupt cop, you’ll find yourself in jail dealing with a system where you’re guilty until proven innocent.