The Jury Room • View topic - Question on gay and lesbian characters?

	Advanced Search

Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.


	The Jury Room • View topic - Question on gay and lesbian characters? In film and television, I have zero problem with gay or lesbian characters, if they're there for a reason. One of the complaints leveled at the recent Marple series is that one of the characters always turns out to be gay or lesbian, but it's done purely for shock value. You know, "wow, so that's why she killed the guy, to be with her lesbian lover" Is anyone else, and especially the gay and lesbian Jury Room members bothered by this? I mean, I thought this was the 21st century, and that kind of casual bigotry would be behind us, but I guess not. "I ain't a boy, no I'm a man, and I believe in the Promised Land" -Coming to the USA on January 20, 2009!


	There's a long tradition of gay/lesbian characters being "the killer" - often with a "tortured sexuality" being part of the reason for their acts. Basic Instinct came under extreme fire from protestors for its depiction of lesbian and bisexual women, and of course Cruising was a classic case for the men. If you're truly interested in the history of the depiction of GLBT characters look at THE CELLULOID CLOSET which chronicles all the crazy stereotypes that classic Hollywood and modern movies foisted upon audiences. I think in general the GLBT community has been sensitive about this issue, and thankfully there are now better examples of gay characters used more productively in movies. There have been a lot of strides made in that department. It doesn't happen as often that there is such a negative view, and now we have a whole niche of films aimed directly at that audience (though often the quality of those films falter a bit). But one thing struck me odd in your post when you said "I have zero problem with gay or lesbian characters, if they're there for a reason". Personally I prefer it when these characters just happen to be in the fabric of a story, when their sexuality is secondary to everything. There is no reason for it, they just are who they are and make no apologies or serve no plot point on the basis of who they bed. I think that is the real dream of how these characters will eventually be handled - as a part of normal every day life, and not the flamboyant witty neighbor or cross dressing drag queen killer. Alex: It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen. (Clockwork Orange)


	Quote: : But one thing struck me odd in your post when you said "I have zero problem with gay or lesbian characters, if they're there for a reason". Personally I prefer it when these characters just happen to be in the fabric of a story, when their sexual orientation is secondary to everything. There is no reason for it, they just are who they are and make no apologies or serve no plot point on the basis of who they bed. Fixed, and (almost) what he said. No one can beat the Siamese when it comes to dignity, cats, or twins . Formerly Chamucamel


	Actually I did kind of mean "sexuality", because with these characters that is what is used for the shock value. How many times has a same sex kiss been used to be an "OMG" momnent? I'm thinking of WILD THINGS , SHOWGIRLS , and that ilk. Of course films use sexuality as shock value with just about everyone, so maybe sexual orientation is more appropriate. Alex: It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen. (Clockwork Orange)


	Quote: : Actually I did kind of mean "sexuality", because with these characters that is what is used for the shock value. How many times has a same sex kiss been used to be an "OMG" momnent? I'm thinking of WILD THINGS , SHOWGIRLS , and that ilk. Of course films use sexuality as shock value with just about everyone, so maybe sexual orientation is more appropriate. I'm sorry, poorly worded, I mean if their sexuality is part of the storyline, like Brokeback Mountain or if it's simply a part of a character's makeup, like In and Out. I have a problem if their sexuality is simply an exploitive device. "I ain't a boy, no I'm a man, and I believe in the Promised Land" -Coming to the USA on January 20, 2009!


	Quote: : Actually I did kind of mean "sexuality", because with these characters that is what is used for the shock value. How many times has a same sex kiss been used to be an "OMG" momnent? I'm thinking of WILD THINGS , SHOWGIRLS , and that ilk. Of course films use sexuality as shock value with just about everyone, so maybe sexual orientation is more appropriate. I didn't actually mean to suggest that you're comment needed fixing, simply that I would phrase it differently, as I don't think characters' sexuality should necessarily be a secondary element. Sexuality--and in this I mean as opposed to simply orientation--is a key part of any character, regardless of whether they're into girls or boys. No one can beat the Siamese when it comes to dignity, cats, or twins . Formerly Chamucamel


	For me I'd rather characters didn't have sexual orientation at all unless it's part of the story. You can assume them to be whatever you want if you want to or just follow the story as presented. I think part of the problem is with Hollywood trying to be PC. Basic Instinct for example used a gay character as the killer, and that's fine. I don't protest if straight characters are killers so why should it matter at all. On it's own it doesn't, but as part of a trend it does. Now they are trying to do the opposite and bring in more g/l characters for diversity. The problem with diversity is that it doesn't work and isn't fair if it's planned. Everyone should be judged on equal ground and if the best person for the job or best character for the story is chosen then all is good. The prototype example of this is the old Ellen show where she went from being a star of a great show to a political mouth piece. -Marshall- Nun sacciu, nun vidi, nun ceru e si ceru durmiv. I know nothing, I see nothing, I wasn't there, and if I was there, I was asleep.


	I believe that in journalism there is a rule to the effect that you leave out any details that do not further the reader's understanding of the story, one example being that if you are reporting on a trial, you don't report that one of the witnesses was pregnant unless you are explaining why she had to be rushed to the hospital. Same goes for the narrative arts as far as I'm concerned.


	Future Quote: : I believe that in journalism there is a rule to the effect that you leave out any details that do not further the reader's understanding of the story, one example being that if you are reporting on a trial, you don't report that one of the witnesses was pregnant unless you are explaining why she had to be rushed to the hospital. Same goes for the narrative arts as far as I'm concerned. Thank you, that's what I was trying to say. Another example would be in a movie if they zoom in on a gun, then go about with the rest of the scene then it's telling you that gun is important (or they are trying to fool you). You need all the relevant details and a few extra for added flavor but beyond that you start to lose the thrust of the narrative so make every detail count. Zooming in on irrelevant details just doesn't work. -Marshall- Nun sacciu, nun vidi, nun ceru e si ceru durmiv. I know nothing, I see nothing, I wasn't there, and if I was there, I was asleep.


	Yeah, but sexual orientation is almost a political view and it is definitely a lifestyle, it affects almost all aspects of a person's life. So it would be hard not to have it come up in a narrative even casually. I don't see that many characters included for diversity's sake. Anybody got an example of that lately? There's an organization called GLADD which tracks characters in movies and television that are gay, and they say it's been going down over the last few years. My favorite gay character has been Rupert Everett in My Best Friend's Wedding , because he was allowed to be who he was and not have to apologize for it. Rupert had a good career before that film, and then everyone knew who he was and that he was homosexual in real life. Suddenly he didn't get parts unless they were gay, although he had played plenty of straight men rather convincingly before the role. That drives me nuts that his personal identity kinda ruined his career. I'm hoping this is changing with people like TR Knight, Neil Patrick Harris, and Portia DiRossi. But they are small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. Where is a gay Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie (wait... At least one of those admits to being bisexual)? As liberal as we think Hollywood is, there is a stigma to being gay and a "that's so brave of them" attitude when someone plays a gay character. It's seen as Oscar bait to actually take on a gay role, and it shouldn't be that way. But then there's always that idea when anyone plays an "outsider" or even just (gasp!) gains weight for a part it shows how great of an actor they are. But you do get sick of just seeing GLBT killers like Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs , Sharon Stone's turn in Basic Instinct , the multiple killers of Cruising , the transvestite in Dressed to Kill , and even to a degree Mr. Norman Bates of Psycho . More recently how about the implication of the gay leader of the bad army in 300 ? You get tired of the use of "different" as evil when there should be some normal well-adjusted people represented as well. I remember there was a lot of hubub about a possible gay character on LOST , and the producers confirmed they would "out" someone eventually. In the end the character they chose was one of the EVIL OTHERS, a man who kidnapped a child and tortured the castaways to no end. Yeah, thanks guys. Progress? Alex: It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen. (Clockwork Orange)


	Eey-None-See-Ate!!


	Quote: : Where is a gay Tom Cruise... I thought Tom Cruise was the gay Tom Cruise. By the power of Grayskull!


	Dan Quote: : Quote: : Where is a gay Tom Cruise... I thought Tom Cruise was the gay Tom Cruise. Well, not openly. But do we really want to go there? I have reliable sources that tell me there are tons of closeted actors and actresses out there. And you know there would have to be just given the nature of the business and the types of people it attracts. But there's something unique about most of the big actors - they are almost self-sexual. They are so in to themselves that they believe their own press, and seek out people who feed their massive egos. Doesn't really matter who these people are... I'd like to see Tom Cruise play a gay character. I think it would be a hoot! I'm sure he hasn't yet out of some strange fear that it would fuel a tabloid feeding frenzy. He goes out of his way to take on macho womanizing roles. Well... except for that vaguely homoerotic turn in INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE which I suspect came closest to his true personality. I'm just saying! Alex: It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen. (Clockwork Orange)


	Quote: : I'm sorry, poorly worded, I mean if their sexuality is part of the storyline, like Brokeback Mountain or if it's simply a part of a character's makeup, like In and Out. I have a problem if their sexuality is simply an exploitive device. I'm not so sure your clarification actually clarified and it may be just as poorly worded... I mean, sexuality is central to the theme of Brokeback as well as In and Out , and in neither of those cases is it simply part of a character's makeup. And who's to say what is used just as an 'exploitive device'? I think I understand what you want to say, I just don't think it's come across well... There shouldn't 'have' to be a reason for someone's sexual orientation in film, it just is. Perhaps the casual bigotry is in the demanding there to be a reason why the character is gay. As far as the later post talking about wanting narrative arts to be more like journalism... I think that completely misses the boat. I mean, I don't read the newspaper like I read a novel and certainly don't do either like I watch a film. Thomas Hardy wouldn't be Thomas Hardy without excessive descriptions of things that are present but not pertinent to his novels. And I want to connect with a character in a movie in a way I don't care to connect with the juror in a trial. And, finally, Brett... Don't you think that the 'same-sex' kiss being used as an OMG moment will continue until we've seen it enough that it no longer has the 'wow'-factor? As it is, it's almost the actors/actresses/singers themselves and their persona that bring the OMG reaction. It wasn't Denise Richards kissing a girl that was OMG... It was the fact that is was Neve Campbell. It wasn't Madonna's kiss at the music awards that rattled people, it was the fact that she kissed Britney... These days, it seems there's only and OMG reaction from people that really do need to be exposed as often as possible so they can just get over it. My DVDs My Wine


	I maintain that it's a distraction if it doesn't serve the story. I recall a scene from a 1990 movie called Internal Affairs where Andy Garcia's character's female cop-partner and he share a long glance at a beautiful woman. The scene served no purpose and led to nothing, yet the audience was led to believe it had some significance to the story. Including such irrelevant details in a 400 page novel may be one thing, but including it into a 2 hour movie is pointless and simply agenda driven. Put it another way: if the idea is to more frequently populate movies with a certain number of gays just for the sake of being more inclusive and more reflective of daily life, then (assuming it is really secondary characters we are talking about) what are some useful cinematic shorthand methods for dramatizing that a given minor character is gay? Keeping in mind that one presumably also wants to avoid gay stereotypes.


	The same sex kiss certainly still has a WOW factor. I don't know why but it does. How many people and movies have used it just to make jaws slack a little? Hell, for the upcoming GET SMART film apparently The Rock and Steve Carell share a smooch, and all day I have been seeing interviews with both of them about it as if they had done something groundbreaking. It's a comedy bit, one we've seen before, and The Rock was playing it gay way back in BE COOL . I guess it's just the mere thought... Now the Britney and Madonna kiss was pretty hot, and obviously wrecked Britney's career in the long run. One kiss from that crazy old soulsucking vampire, and she spun completely out of control. By the way, the camera cut away too quickly during the broadcast because Madonna planted one on Aguilera as well and nobody seemed to notice. I'm not a HUGE fan of Madonna's music or anything, but I gotta admit she puts the HO back in Showgirls. She knows how to cause a commotion. It all reminds me of Nirvana back in the day wearing frumpy Salvation Army house dresses and kissing each other on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE at the end of their song just to get a rise out of people. That's very rock and roll. But you know it's all becoming old hat now that Miley Cyrus has released pics of her kissing her friend. Maybe we are all finally over it since her "backless" sheet pictures caused more of an outcry. Actually FUTUREMAN, that scene in INTERNAL AFFAIRS sounds kind of interesting as a character beat. It's a nonverbal way to show you something, and it doesn't sound like an offensive way to do it. But I admit I have not seen it, so I can't judge either way. Alex: It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen. (Clockwork Orange)


	Time for me to chime in! First may I say OMG PARKLIFE Ok my excitement has died down and I can breathe again. My issue with gay and lesbian characters goes beyond either the gay person/plot point for shock value or the gay/lesbian as killer angle. Here is a list of a number of things I think is wrong with gay and lesbian characters today. 1) Why must the gay character be buff beautiful and shirtless all the time in gay-themed films? I know our community is shallow but jees! 2) Why must the gay or lesbian character in films without a gay-theme be odd looking... And yes by that I mean fat, not pretty/handsome, or creepy? 3) Why is practically every gay-themed film have the character falling in love, coming out, or suffering with AIDS in some way? It is not that its bad that these stories are being made, it is that this is basically what all these films are about? 4) As pointed out in The Celluloid Closet, why is the gay or lesbian character is always violently killed in either an action film or thriller/horror film? Case in point that I most vivdly remember is Anne Heche's vulcanologist co-worker who was obviously supposed to be a lesbian being vaporized by a volcanic vent in front of our favorite flip-flopper. 5) Why does a lesbian film have to be about their fight internally about loving men or women? Even the gay characters at least in a TV Show are given bisexual tendencies. In a comedy it can be funny but again JEEES! 6) Why does the gay or lesbian character always a coffee barista, hairdresser, waiter, or actor/actress who is sharing an apartment with friends? Why can't they be the gay lawyer like Brian on Brothers & Sisters (although his new husband is a chef, and former waiter....) or perhaps a firefighter, librarian, manager (outside of a clinic or restaurant). It just seems gays/lesbians are always given the oddest of jobs that are low paying. There are a ton of well-off gays and lesbians y'know. 7) Why does the gay or lesbian character have to be the best friend of the lead? Why does the gay/lesbian character always have bed someone in a shocking scene rather than just normal dating or waking up with a monogmous partner, getting out of bed, and scratching a boxered ass on the way to pee like I do in the morning? Most of the time its again about the nudity and the sex. Sexuality is great if done right but so many times its more about shock than a hint of normalcy. Am I making good points? Thoughts? I'm Addison Dewitt. I'm nobody's fool, least of all yours. There is only room for one diva here, and that's f@#cking me! - Gay, Straight, or Taken? Contestant I was a simple girl with an evil plan. Oh yes! This snarky bitch is back.


	Hey Addison! You make good points, but I fear we'll hijack the thread if we start talking about those movies made by and for the GLBT community. They are different animals than what you see in mainstream movies, and this discussion is about the way the community is portrayed in big Hollywood films or mass entertainment. We could start a whole 'nother thread about the problems with the films actually made to that niche audience. I like what you said about them being odd looking in mainstream cinema. That's usually true. And they are usually given menial unimportant jobs. I remember there was a gay lawyer in The Firm though, and that was a nice inclusive nod without hitting anybody on the head with it. But that is the exception and not the rule. My father to this day thinks gay people are not capable of being professional, and I can't help but think his world view is supported by the movies. And speak for yourself... I wake up glamorous! Of course my gym schedule, strategically placed lighting, and refusal to wear boxers or urinate may have something to do with it. Alex: It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen. (Clockwork Orange)


	Quote: : Hey Addison! You make good points, but I fear we'll hijack the thread if we start talking about those movies made by and for the GLBT community. They are different animals than what you see in mainstream movies, and this discussion is about the way the community is portrayed in big Hollywood films or mass entertainment. We could start a whole 'nother thread about the problems with the films actually made to that niche audience. Point taken... But then we have to ask though just for rhetorical purposes, "when is a gay film not meant for mainstream?" The Birdcage, Making Love, Boys In The Band, Philadelphia, Bear Cub, and Personal Best were all mainstream movies. Just because its labeled "indepdendent" doesn't mean it should be instantly tucked away. Big Eden, Mysterious Skin, and Beautiful Thing could have been bigger hits if marketed better or even more notable stars were added to the cast. Just a thought. Quote: : And speak for yourself... I wake up glamorous! Of course my gym schedule, strategically placed lighting, and refusal to wear boxers or urinate may have something to do with it. I'm sure you "glisten" deary... I'm Addison Dewitt. I'm nobody's fool, least of all yours. There is only room for one diva here, and that's f@#cking me! - Gay, Straight, or Taken? Contestant I was a simple girl with an evil plan. Oh yes! This snarky bitch is back.


	I don't know....it seems to me that after years & years of homosexuals being treated in negative light in the media that the past decade and half we have seen major strides in the way gays & lesbians are presented. As homosexuals are given the same legal status in society as straight people and as the straight community continues to discover that homosexuals don't pose a threat to their own relationships & their sexual orientations I fully expect the media to reflect that in the way those characters are presented. I mean face it, the media is usually a little behind real life and entertainment executives are basically conservative creatures of habit and first & foremost they are about covering their own asses....the more we see gay couples getting married, getting divorced, having fights, raising children the more you will see gay characters who are just like everyone else populate the mass media. You can't undo generations worth of perceptions & depictions in 10 or 15 years. It is happening, not as quickly as people in the gay & lesbian community might want it to happen but progress is being made. "Why are you letting Sam Kinison and an Indian lesbian wreck your wedding?"-Mr. Awesome


	Birdcage ? Definitely a mainstream movie and a good example. But the source material was an independent French film which was a surprise hit in the '70s, so its roots are very un-Hollywood. But boy did they ever Hollywood that one up! It was like a minstrel show to me - Robin WIlliams overacting everything and Nathan Lane right along with him for the nitrous oxide inspired ride. Hank Azaria was a cartoon character. They all fit the "odd body" type cliche, and the love of Judy Garland had me wincing. My favorite moment? Seeing Gene Hackman in drag. That alone almost saved the movie for me. Making Love and Boys in the Band were mainstream Hollywood movies, but both were pretty inept. The first was a soap opera treatment of a woman finding out her husband is gay. It was so silly and wrong without much to grab on to other than three hot leads. The second was a hit Broadway play which William Friedkin of Exorcist and Cruising fame directed. That one was bitter and mean spirited like most of Friedkin's movies. Sort of a straight man trapped at a horrific gay party, and so he decides he is "glad he is straight" story. With that bunch I wouldn't blame him. Philadelphia was for all the straight people to start coming to terms with AIDS. By the way Hanks was a lawyer in that one, so another example of breaking the mold with a professional. But again, a typical Oscar grab by a notoriously straight Hollywood actor rather than a real gay one. Loved how Hanks outed his drama teacher during his Academy Award win which became the basis for IN AND OUT . Personal Best is hard for me to remember, but it was just a "based on a true story" sport biopic. I think the lesbian angle was just meant to spice things up, and it was historically accurate. Good example of using the sexuality for exploitation. Bear Cub ? Mainstream? Um... Where? That was a small indie film from another country that was cut to ribbons by censors here. Until the unrated DVD came along it was butchered to be "safe" to release in America, and I'd be baffled if anybody but you and I saw that on this board. And I don't glisten... I GLOW! Glistening implies I sweat. No, when I work out I just spray my body with oil to look like I might be misting a little. And Harold. I see what you mean about the media, but apart from Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films... I'm not seeing casual portrayals of the GLBT community in recent movies. Could anyone imagine a gay superhero movie working? No way. How about a gay action hero? Nope. Gay romantic comedy? Oh good gosh no. Not in mainstream movies... Alex: It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen. (Clockwork Orange)


	I'm talking more about TV than I am movies and I should have been more specific. Like I said change isn't happening quick enough but as you have to think that as gay culture & gay people go more & more mainstream, so will the depictions of gay & lesbian characters in movies. Still, with all that progress is moving forward. I for one would love to see a gay superhero....off the top of my head the only comicbook one I can think is Northstar from Marvel's Alpha Flight ....oh and he is Canadian and now that I think of it...also dead. "Why are you letting Sam Kinison and an Indian lesbian wreck your wedding?"-Mr. Awesome


	[Quote: ="BrettCullum"] Bear Cub ? Mainstream? Um... Where? That was a small indie film from another country that was cut to ribbons by censors here. Until the unrated DVD came along it was butchered to be "safe" to release in America, and I'd be baffled if anybody but you and I saw that on this board. [/b] <ahem> Check my DVD Spot Gay portrayals in film and television aren't as positive as one would like, but they are a universe better than they were when I was growing up in the 70s, when a gay character was either a screaming neurotic or a psychotic killer. In the recent dreadful Andromeda Strain remake, Ricky Schroder's character's homosexuality was accepted without comment, and there have been positive gay portrayals on a plethora of TV shows over the past few years. Still, as long as filmmakers degay real-life heroes, as Paul Greengrass did to Mark Bingham in United 93 , we still have a long way to go to seeing fictional gay heroes portrayed in on the screen. "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."--Edward Abbey


	I'm surprised that no one has pointed out what I think is the best portrayal of a Gay character ina mainstream movie: Val Kilmer in Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang. I think that Kilmer absolutely steals the movie away from Downey -- not easy -- and just kills without any of the usual h'wood b.s. Like mincing, prancing or lisping in sight. Chalk that up to Black's awesome script as well. I find it really weird that all the great gay roles go to the straight actors. While yes, Hanks did a fantastic job, why also couldn't have been a gay actor? Same as Banderas who has played gay for at least half his roles it seems. That, I would think, would be Almodovar's fault.


	Quote: : I'm surprised that no one has pointed out what I think is the best portrayal of a Gay character ina mainstream movie: Val Kilmer in Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang. I think that Kilmer absolutely steals the movie away from Downey -- not easy -- and just kills without any of the usual h'wood b.s. Like mincing, prancing or lisping in sight. Chalk that up to Black's awesome script as well. Despite his playing against stereotypes, you can't really argue that his sexual orientation wasn't used as a punchline for the entire movie. It's definitely not a case of a character who just happens to be gay. No one can beat the Siamese when it comes to dignity, cats, or twins . Formerly Chamucamel


	First, let me just say... Addy, it's not exactly an OMG! Moment that I post here... I'm here just a bit more often than you are it seems... I could just as easily say OMG!!! Addy!!!... now we need Sarah to chime in and it's like old times. but I digress.... Future Quote: : Put it another way: if the idea is to more frequently populate movies with a certain number of gays just for the sake of being more inclusive and more reflective of daily life, then (assuming it is really secondary characters we are talking about) what are some useful cinematic shorthand methods for dramatizing that a given minor character is gay? Keeping in mind that one presumably also wants to avoid gay stereotypes. I'm not condoning the idea that we need to 'more frequently populate movies' with the idea of being inclusive and reflective. If we have to think about it that hard, we're missing the point. And I'm not saying we need to specifically point out sexual orientation for everyone either or that gay stereotypes are necessarily a thing to be avoided. I mean, stereotypes are based on fact. Exaggerated fact perhaps, but there is a basis for it. And I agree with Harold that things have certainly come a long way and it's about a journey, not a destination. It's a step in the right direction that Hollywood is more accepting to putting gay characters into film regardless of stereotypical association. The next hurdle will be showing gay characters as the alpha male and Omega female.... Perhaps "The Rock" playing towards that is one 'semi-step' in that direction. Movies that I think are breaking the mold... Many of Almodovar's films portray a variety of sexual orientations and handle them straightforwardly with care and attention... All About My Mother and Bad Education being two favorites. Before Night Falls ... A Hollywood example would be Chasing Amy ... It at least addressed the issue head-on and directly, didn't pander to stereotype (not nearly as much as the stoner duo of Jay and Silent Bob) My Own Private Idaho ... Venus ... The character of Ian was clearly homosexual and his releationship with Peter O'Toole mirrored the heterosexual marriage in some ways. The underrated Home at the End of the World. ... and I'm sure there are tons and tons I'm not thinking of at the moment.... I'll also give a shoutout to Kilmer's Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang character... again, I'm not advocating some sort of homosexual affirmative action... I just don't understand hollywood's need to cut homosexual scenes from Alexander so that it appeals to a broader audience or think we should shy away from the issue. My DVDs My Wine


	Yes, everyone brings up great examples. But I am only seeing independent films listed for the most part. Almovodar is foreign and independently produced, the Val Kilmer movie was considered an indie project, and same with something like My Own Private Idaho . I'm not seeing many normalized gay characters at the forefront of big glossy expensive Hollywood pictures. It shows a true vote of "no confidence" in the idea you can have a positively portrayed GLBT person in the cast of a money making film. Well, unless they are a killer or someone to throw off a balcony (like Mel Gibson did to the mincing royal queer). And the casting issues are even worse. Think about Hairspray where the female mother lead is usually played by a gay man, and look who they got? A "straight" Scientologist! Ugh! There was even rumblings that the GLBT community should boycott that film because of that decision. Alex: It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen. (Clockwork Orange)


	Quote: : There was even rumblings that the GLBT community should boycott that film because of that decision. Which serves as an example of the rigid intolerance of the politically correct queers. Yes, Miss Travolta isn't fooling anybody with that "I'm hetero" act, but boycotting the movie because he was cast as Edna? That completely ignores the contributions of the director, Adam Shenkman, who is gay, the composer, Mar Shaiman, who's a big ol' 'mo, and of course the author and director of the original movie, John Waters. We're going to have gay heroes and gay romances, but it is going to happen when America tells the movie industry that it's OK to treat them like adults. "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."--Edward Abbey


	Including gay characters for the sake of it is always awkward in movies, because it's done as intentionally as minority casting is. You'll never see too many black cast in a movie, because the producers wouldn't want it to be labelled as "urban." It is a little tougher to include a gay character without putting some kind of focus on their sexuality. Hell in a movie, the only indicator that a character is straight is that they're dating or ogling characters of the opposite sex. In that regard, any other character that is not in a relationship with another character could be either straight or gay. If they're not focusing on gay stereotypes, they'd just blend in (you know, like real gay people do). I think this is a step in the right direction though. Look back in the movies of the 80's and prior, and see how may gay bashing jokes there are. Those are nearly gone at this point. "I like money more than I like people, because people cannot be exchanged for goods and services." http://www.dvdspot.com/frontpage.php?me ... Abagel1980


	I remember back during the civil rights movement when an African American leader (I forget who) said something to this effect: "Blacks won't achieve true equality when they get full voting rights and elect black mayors and representatives; They will achieve full equality when they realize some of these men do not deserve our vote even though they are black, and we then vote them out of office." To put this into gay and lesbian context as far as movies are concerned - true equality will be achieved when these characters are admired or disliked based COMPLETELY on the merits of the role they are playing and COMPLETELY APART from their sexuality. You may think this analogy fails in cases where the nature of a character's sexuality is part of the story; In my opinion, it does not.


	Very cool profile of Russell T. Davies ("Dr. Who," "Torchwood") in today's New York Times that ties in with what we've been talking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/arts/television/15lyal.html?_r=1&ref=television&oref=slogin . They somehow even sneak a non-sexual reference to Tom Cruise in the story. Who Altered British TV? ‘Who’ Indeed By SARAH LYALL CARDIFF, Wales RUSSELL T DAVIES, perhaps the most admired writer and producer working in British television drama, was once confronted at a wedding by a fellow guest bristling with indignation about a scene in Mr. Davies’s hugely successful, family-friendly science fiction series, “Doctor Who.” In the scene Capt. Jack Harkness, a swaggering intergalactic hero who exuberantly lusts after both men and women, plants quick kisses on the mouths of both the title character and the title character’s female sidekick as they face imminent death. (Everyone survives.) Mr. Davies’s first instinct — as a reasonable person, as a happily gay man — was to be relaxed and placatory, he said. But something snapped. “I was standing there saying, ‘You’re a bad mother, and your children will either grow up to be lesbians, or they will be taken into care because they’ve been badly raised,’ ” he recalled in a recent interview near the “Doctor Who” set. He began to chuckle. “ ‘You are ignorant, and you’re bringing up your children in ignorance, and that will backfire on you.’ ” Luckily, the woman’s husband escorted her away before a fistfight broke out. But the incident was jolting, in part because it was such an anomaly. Mr. Davies, 44, had already won these arguments, at least with most people, years before. So successfully has he pushed the boundaries of British television that he sometimes forgets how far it, and he, have come. “He has basically changed the face of television in the U.K.,” said John Barrowman, who plays Captain Jack in both “Doctor Who” and a spinoff series, “Torchwood,” which is aimed at adults. “He has taken subject matter that nobody else will touch, and he has put in characters that nobody else will bother doing.” And he has done it with mainstream programs that are immensely popular. In the last three and a half years he has built “Doctor Who,” “Torchwood” and another spinoff, “The Sarah Jane Adventures,” into Britain’s most successful homegrown drama franchise. Mr. Davies recently announced that he would step down as executive producer and head writer of “Doctor Who” at the end of 2009, in order to pursue other projects (he won’t say what they are). But at a time when young audiences are fleeing television for the Internet and other hipper media, “Davies has made family television cool again,” in the words of The Guardian. It is hard to overstate “Doctor Who’s” significance for Britons of a certain age. First broadcast in 1963, when many households here were just getting used to that novel new device, the television set, it was a triumph of family viewing, a science fiction show that (unlike, say, “Star Trek,” with its particular audience) parents and children stayed home to watch together. The show followed the adventures of a time-traveling character whose spaceship was cunningly disguised as an old-fashioned telephone booth and who saved the universe by means of immortality, brilliance, a mordant sense of humor and an array of useful enemy-thwarting devices. It remained on the air in one form or another until 1989, the potential awkwardness of having a succession of different actors in the title role explained airily away by the Doctor’s ability to morph into a different body every few years. The new “Doctor Who” is broadcast during Britain’s family friendliest hour — just after dinner on Saturday nights — and it too has morphed into something else altogether, science fiction that is playful, sophisticated, emotionally resonant and peppered with lightning-quick allusions to literary works, to classic “Doctor Who” episodes from long ago, and to historical events and people. But Mr. Davies presses his grown-up themes with a whisper and a laugh, not a shout. No one actually has sex on screen in “Doctor Who.” And when Captain Jack makes an appearance (only rarely, since he now has his own show), his sexuality is an issue only in that his constant, equal-opportunity flirting tends to annoy his colleagues, busy as they are fighting intergalactic evil. “He takes ‘Doctor Who’ and pushes the envelope the whole time, not in terms of taste and decency but in terms of ideas and emotional intelligence, the size of feeling and epic stroke of narrative breadth,” said Jane Tranter, the BBC’s head of fiction. She said that no one at the BBC had ever had a problem with Captain Jack or with any of Mr. Davies’s plotlines. “How ridiculous would it be that you would travel through time and space and only ever find heterosexual men?” Ms. Tranter said. Hiring Mr. Davies to remake the beloved but, finally, creaky old series was a daring, even counterintuitive move by the BBC. First there was the worry that “Doctor Who” had already had its day, that it belonged to another era altogether. But more than that, Mr. Davies was a risk taker with no obvious science-fiction credentials other than a fanatical lifelong devotion to “Doctor Who” and a headful of ideas about where to take it next. At the time, in 2003, he was best known for “Queer as Folk,” a 1999 series that chronicled the lives of a group of hedonistic gay men in Manchester with a frankness never shown before on mainstream television. (It was later remade in the United States.) “Queer as Folk” was revolutionary not only because of its racy subject matter but also because of the matter-of-fact way it presented its characters: ordinary people, if unusually attractive and sexually frisky, who happened to be gay. Criticism of its content tended to be overshadowed by admiration for its wit and verve and for the mature fun of its story lines. Mr. Davies used the same philosophy when Captain Jack came on the scene in “Doctor Who” — make it entertaining, not didactic. “I thought, ‘It’s time you introduce bisexuals properly into mainstream television,’ ” he said, laughing. He tends to see the joke in most things and talks about television with a words-spilling-over-each-other enthusiasm. What better way to introduce a charming bisexual character, he asked, than to make him “an outer space buccaneer?” “The most boring drama would be” — here he put on a whiny, fractious voice — “ ‘Oh, I’m bisexual, oh my bleeding heart’ nighttime drama. Tedious, dull. But if you say it’s a bisexual space pirate swaggering in with guns and attitude and cheek and humor into prime-time family viewing: that was enormously attractive to me.” “Doctor Who,” “Torchwood” and “The Sarah Jane Adventures,” which is aimed at children and stars one of the original characters from early “Doctor Who,” have helped win numerous awards and accolades for Mr. Davies, who was named Industry Player of the Year in 2006 at the Edinburgh Television Festival. This season’s opening episode of “Doctor Who” drew 9.14 million viewers — more than one-seventh of the population of Britain. (In the United States “Doctor Who” appears on the Sci Fi Channel. “Torchwood” appears on BBC America and this season was its highest-rated program ever.) Mr. Davies, who was born in Swansea, Wales, is tall and solid, his broad face dominated by a pair of black-rimmed glasses similar to those worn by Doctor Who himself. His middle initial doesn’t stand for anything; He added it early in his career to distinguish himself from a radio host who shared his name. He lives partly here and partly in Manchester and has a longtime companion who works as a customs inspector for the British government. After a childhood in which his twin obsessions were television and comic books, he found work as a writer and producer in children’s television. He wrote for soap operas, contributed to long-running dramas and, before “Queer as Folk,” wrote “The Grand,” a multipart drama set in a hotel in the 1920s. Some of his programs have been more successful than others, but most get talked about. In 2003 he tackled religion, to controversial effect, with “The Second Coming,” a two-part drama in which a video-shop owner from Manchester realizes he is the son of God. But it is the transformation of “Doctor Who” that has cemented Mr. Davies’s reputation. In the old days the program could be one-dimensional, almost cheesy, with cheap special effects that sometimes verged on the Ed Woodian. But serious money is being lavished on the new production. And under the care of Mr. Davies, who writes or supervises the writing of every episode, it has been imbued with newfound sensitivity, pathos and humor. The hope is that that will be true even after Mr. Davies leaves. After the 2009 season, which is to consist of four specials rather than weekly episodes, he will be succeeded by Steven Moffat, the writer behind the successful series “Coupling” who has written some memorable “Doctor Who” episodes in the past few years. Over these recent seasons the Doctor has traveled to far-off planets where unspeakable creatures do unspeakable things. He has traveled to Pompeii while Vesuvius erupted. He has rescued Queen Victoria from a giant werewolf, embarked on a heartbreaking love affair with Madame de Pompadour — it ended tragically, on account of her mortality — and saved Earth from annihilation by numerous bad-tempered aliens. Mr. Davies’s “Doctor Who” has examined the bonds that tie us to even annoying family members. It has plumbed the mysteries and possibilities of chaste love. It has made the case against slavery and violence, played with existential questions about past, present and future and explored what happens when everyone is about to be annihilated by poison gas spewing from automotive exhaust pipes. Alert viewers will notice the frequent juxtaposition of peril and comedy — the Doctor and his sidekick, Donna, start bickering about how to pronounce the name of some extraterrestrial villains who are within an inch of murdering her, for instance — as well as other signature Davies touches. When the Doctor meets Shakespeare in an episode set during the writing of “Love’s Labour’s Lost,” Shakespeare throws him a lustful glance. “Davies dresses these things up in such a friendly plotline that we all have a warm glow, and he gets away with murder,” said Peter Bazalgette, the former chief creative officer of Endemol, the production company that has been responsible for some very popular British programs, including “Big Brother” and “Deal or No Deal.” “It genuinely represents the liberalization of society, which he is leading and reflecting. I think he’s a genius.” Then there is “Torchwood,” which Mr. Davies describes as “science fiction for adults.” Broadcast later in the evening, it follows the adventures of a group of operatives who thwart the aliens that have a habit of finding their way to Cardiff. It is darker, sharper and less chaste than “Doctor Who.” Mr. Barrowman looks like a bigger and better Tom Cruise and has the charismatic bravado the role requires. Captain Jack makes no apologies; No one asks him to. In one episode Captain Jack has a full-on fighting-and-making-out session with a former lover turned enemy. Whatever he does, Captain Jack has great fun doing it, which is the point, Mr. Davies said. “I often get asked to write dramas or films about a man coming out of the closet to his wife, or a man coming out of the closet to his children, or a man who’s beaten up because he’s secretly gay,” Mr. Davies said. “I always refuse if it’s a negative take on homosexuality — if the only aspect being portrayed is the trouble, the tears and the angst.” He continued: “There’s enough of that out there. Why bother? Drama is easy when it’s tragedy. Anyone could write a scene of a man crying in the rain saying, ‘I’m sorry.’ But actually it’s much more fun to see a man in a bar trying to pick up another man. That’s tense. There’s a whole minefield of emotions there.” 'You can't make chicken salad out of chicken s***'


	Quote: : First, let me just say... Addy, it's not exactly an OMG! Moment that I post here... I'm here just a bit more often than you are it seems... I could just as easily say OMG!!! Addy!!!... now we need Sarah to chime in and it's like old times. but I digress.... Darling... I only said OMG because I haven't seen you for a while I didn't know you were around. It was a scream of happiness! I have not been on for a while and I was happy to see you! I'm Addison Dewitt. I'm nobody's fool, least of all yours. There is only room for one diva here, and that's f@#cking me! - Gay, Straight, or Taken? Contestant I was a simple girl with an evil plan. Oh yes! This snarky bitch is back.


	In a slow spot on the job, this topic came back up, and we tried to find a mainstream movie where a gay character's sexuality was perhaps remarked upon, but not exploited, and the characters(s) were not a flaming stereotype, and we oddly found Adam Sandler's Big Daddy where two of his buddies are gay, but neither one of them is flamboyant or flaming, and it's merely remarked upon as they're talking about getting older, growing up and settling down. Weird to find a positive portrayal in a Sandler flick of anyone , but I rewatched it tonight, and yep, it's just a fact of life that's barely noticed. "I ain't a boy, no I'm a man, and I believe in the Promised Land" -Coming to the USA on January 20, 2009!


	Quote: : I'm not seeing many normalized gay characters at the forefront of big glossy expensive Hollywood pictures. It shows a true vote of "no confidence" in the idea you can have a positively portrayed GLBT person in the cast of a money making film. I don't necessarily think that's a huge disappointment though... I mean, I rarely find well developed character stories in big glossy expensive hollywood pictures either... Small steps before leaps and bounds... I tend to be attracted to smaller films both domestic and foreign anyway and there is certainly a ground swell of acceptability in that realm. On topic, the LGBT film festival (Frameline) kicks off in the area this week... 237 films in this year's festival... 18 first time directors.... 36 countries represented... Perhaps these movies won't ever see a mult-plex theater but they are getting made, getting distribution and the segment of the industry is growing. My DVDs My Wine


	I live almost exclusively in the "art house", and my DVD collection reflects that as well. Sure, the GLBT community is well represented in the independent world, and logically that makes sense. Indie movies always deal with subject material that Hollywood would never take on. You're also right that most all big budget films are pretty shallow in painting their characters no matter who they are. But across the board they are people who can be drawn in shorthand, and that almost always means... Straight. But the main issue is why the big mall screens are only going to show us a world where being gay is equated with being intensely unhappy or a killer? Sometimes both. Or as Addison pointed out - sexless and unattractive, but funny in a swishy way. Sure there are the notable exceptions, but on the whole it is a good barometer of acceptance, and the stereotypes continue to not be favorable. My hope is that smaller studio funded projects such as BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN prove to studios that a lot of people will support those movies where the gay characters are treated more fairly. That film was made on a dime and did quite well both critically and at the box office. Of course it was no Spiderman 2 ... Alex: It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen. (Clockwork Orange)


	Quote: : My hope is that smaller studio funded projects such as BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN prove to studios that a lot of people will support those movies where the gay characters are treated more fairly. That film was made on a dime and did quite well both critically and at the box office. Of course it was no Spiderman 2 ... I don't know about barometer of acceptance but I am interested in seeing how the similarly budgeted Milk does when it finally hits theaters. Instead of the romance loving crowd, this film will gear towards political drama/biography. My DVDs My Wine


	An article I ran across... NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - Gay-pride season seems to be extending well beyond its official month of June. Gay marriage is now legal in California, stars are coming out of the closet (and woodwork) as never before, and NewFest -- the New York Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Film Festival -- has kicked off the summer cycle of gay film festivals with its 20th anniversary run. So why are independent gay films doing worse than ever at the box office and among critics? Strand Releasing, which had 22 films in theaters last year (most with GLBT themes), grossed just $462,000. Killer Films, once a consistent producer of acclaimed "queer" projects, has shifted its focus to true crime dramas and other films, with tepid critical and financial success. At the same time, the 2005 Toronto Film Festival's gay-themed best Canadian feature winner, "C.R.A.Z.Y.," hasn't been able to secure U.S. Theatrical distribution. Gay characters might have gone mainstream at the movies ("Brokeback Mountain") and on TV ("Brothers & Sisters" and other shows), but that success hasn't led to more mainstream projects featuring them in main roles. There's merely been more awareness of a target audience of affluent young consumers seen as willing to support any film with a gay theme, including schlocky genre films (the sex comedy "Eating Out") similar to the kind of lowbrow fare generally aimed at straight audiences. While smaller gay films are failing at the box office, their production is being fueled by the same venues that are drawing gay audiences away from theaters: cable TV, DVD and the Web. Small-town audiences who can't find gay films in their local Wal-Mart can head to Amazon, subscribe to Netflix or turn on MTV-owned basic cable channel Logo. Distributor Regent Entertainment, owner of the gay-focused Here! Pay channel, is more than doubling its annual film production/acquisition slate to about 25 releases in the next year for brief theatrical runs. While Regent's 12 films in theaters in 2007 grossed just $335,000, Regent/Here! CEO Paul Colichman says the channel's $7-per-month fee, DVD revenue and low marketing costs make theatrical releases a worthwhile loss leader. FROM FESTIVAL TO SMALL SCREEN NewFest artistic director Basil Tsiokos says that long-running festivals like his, San Francisco's Frameline and Los Angeles' Outfest serve more as launching pads for DVD and cable than for theatrical runs. One such example is TLA Releasing's "Another Gay Sequel: Gays Gone Wild," a sequel to 2006's "Another Gay Movie," which parodied gay and straight cinema cliches. Tsiokos estimates that he's seen nearly 5,000 GLBT-themed features since he began as an intern in 2006. ("I'm joining an ex-gay ministry," he jokes about his "Clockwork Orange"-esque experiences.) But despite their sometimes poor quality, he says that the new genre films aren't necessarily bad. "There are two ways to look at them: You can say some pander to viewers, but they also open films to different audiences," he says. "It's not just the 'I'm coming out' and 'I have AIDS' films anymore." Colichman adds that genre films mark progress regardless of their quality. "Before our films with Chad Allen, had anyone seen a gay detective?" he says, referring to the Here! Channel's Donald Strachey telepics, including "Third Man Out" and "Shock to the System." On a more ambitious scale, Focus Features is one of the few specialty filmmakers that has been willing to bet on gay subject matter, with good reason: "Brokeback" became its most successful release ever. Focus now is producing a Woodstock film which, while not a gay film per se, is based on a gay man's memoir, and the studio might be taking its biggest risk by making Gus Van Sant's long-gestating Harvey Milk biopic, "Milk." Both have the potential to appeal to mainstream, discerning audiences. But aiming outside the gay-ghetto marketplace makes them anomalies. For despite breakthroughs like "Brokeback," gay films already are well down the same path as 1970s black films, where quality projects like "Sounder" were the exception and blaxploitation flicks were the rule. Cable's demand for cheaply made gay movies has ushered in an era of gaysploitation that only the most talented filmmakers and daring companies are likely to resist. Reuters/Hollywood Reporter I'm Addison Dewitt. I'm nobody's fool, least of all yours. There is only room for one diva here, and that's f@#cking me! - Gay, Straight, or Taken? Contestant I was a simple girl with an evil plan. Oh yes! This snarky bitch is back.


	So in essence we're saying the mainstream media is done exploiting GLBT characters because they are not money makers any more, and now the GLBT community is just exploiting itself with cheap made for cable projects in high demand rather than properly released films. Sounds like progress to me. Gaysploitation is a genre I could get behind... Oh... poor choice of words there! Alex: It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen. (Clockwork Orange)


	Quote: : Quote: : My hope is that smaller studio funded projects such as BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN prove to studios that a lot of people will support those movies where the gay characters are treated more fairly. That film was made on a dime and did quite well both critically and at the box office. Of course it was no Spiderman 2 ... I don't know about barometer of acceptance but I am interested in seeing how the similarly budgeted Milk does when it finally hits theaters. Instead of the romance loving crowd, this film will gear towards political drama/biography. The fact that Milk is being made is great. Here are a few plot ideas for films that might be interesting... 1) A "divorced" gay dad moves into a new suburban neighborhood and tries to raise two kids and find love again while still having his ex in the picture. The break up is civil not a stereotypical man runs off with floozy scenario. 2) A screwball comedy in the tradition of Bringing Up Baby and What's Up Doc?. 3) A reporter takes on a big story about a serial killer and his partner helps. Sterotypical in plot ... I bet these scenarios could make marketable films with talent better than a Lifetime movie. I'm Addison Dewitt. I'm nobody's fool, least of all yours. There is only room for one diva here, and that's f@#cking me! - Gay, Straight, or Taken? Contestant I was a simple girl with an evil plan. Oh yes! This snarky bitch is back.


	Those are some good big screen ideas... Here are some of mine... Personally I think the remake of THE WOMEN was done all wrong with female casting... It should have been called THE MEN , and featured an all gay cast. Honestly it's the only way that script could work is to make it that campy. And just think, you could still have the fashion show - only this time do it in black and white while the rest of the film is in color. It would look like a Bruce Weber photo shoot. To me we haven't really had any "gays in space" movies that I can recall, except for Russell Davies launching TORCHWOOD for British Tele. I don't get why Joss Wheedon never made anyone on FIREFLY gay. STAR WARS had a gay couple in the new and old trilogy, but we never got to see C3P0 and R2D2 at an intimate level. You just knew they were... Perhaps that is the best example of a casual nod to the lifestyle. We need a sci fi franchise with gay people on board, and no... George Takei does not count! The Wachoskis need to go back to their BOUND roots, and make a gay male heist film. Let's face it SPEED RACER flopped, so they have nothing to loose. And isn't one of them transitioning to a female? I'd like to see them take on another crime drama with gay characters. Paul Verhoeven needs to realize his movies are hitting more with gay men than anybody else. Who else can Quote: SHOWGIRLS or BASIC INSTINCT ? And who else bought all of those copies of STARSHIP TROOPERS simply for the shower scene and the one of Casper Van Dien getting whipped shirtless. Paul make a big ole messy gaysploitation film! Alex: It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen. (Clockwork Orange)


	Quote: : Those are some good big screen ideas... Here are some of mine... Personally I think the remake of THE WOMEN was done all wrong with female casting... It should have been called THE MEN , and featured an all gay cast. Honestly it's the only way that script could work is to make it that campy. And just think, you could still have the fashion show - only this time do it in black and white while the rest of the film is in color. It would look like a Bruce Weber photo shoot. YES!! Hmmm how to do this... I wish we could do this in the 30s/40s style but sadly we can't. So it would have to be contemporary... I will brainstorm on this and send you some ideas privately... It would be way better than the remake with Meg Ryan coming out - that looks like a disaster! To me we haven't really had any "gays in space" movies that I can recall, except for Russell Davies launching TORCHWOOD for British Tele. I don't get why Joss Wheedon never made anyone on FIREFLY gay. STAR WARS had a gay couple in the new and old trilogy, but we never got to see C3P0 and R2D2 at an intimate level. You just knew they were... Perhaps that is the best example of a casual nod to the lifestyle. We need a sci fi franchise with gay people on board, and no... George Takei does not count! Why not a Torchwood style film? Sexuality is fluid in the later centuries after all! How about a Live action Cowboy Bebop-like story with non-camp gay roles and a few sexy babes along the way. Instead of the mystery ex-gf moll... Its a man! The Wachoskis need to go back to their BOUND roots, and make a gay male heist film. Let's face it SPEED RACER flopped, so they have nothing to loose. And isn't one of them transitioning to a female? I'd like to see them take on another crime drama with gay characters. Diamonds are a "girl's" best friend after all! How about a thriller with Rupert Everett, Tim Olyphant, Raul Esparza, Scott Caan, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Seymour Phillip Hoffman remaking Topkapi as a gay film? Or a Thomas Crown Affair treatment? Whata about a political thriller about the first gay man nominated to the senate or president? I'm Addison Dewitt. I'm nobody's fool, least of all yours. There is only room for one diva here, and that's f@#cking me! - Gay, Straight, or Taken? Contestant I was a simple girl with an evil plan. Oh yes! This snarky bitch is back.


	Quote: : Whata about a political thriller about the first gay man nominated to the senate or president? It's been done-- Advise and Consent. However, you two are thinking too small. Think big, Roxie, think big! Making gay films is inherently self-defeatign because non-gay audiences won't be able to relate. Instead, focus on making universal films with gay protagonists. Does Spike Lee set out to make black films? OR does he try to make films about the black experience that will still have appeal to all people? Brokeback Mountain is a good film, but only gay guys want to see it more than once. We need more movies like Victor/ Victoria , with sympathetic gay characters who do not scare straight audiences. Robert Preston's portrayal of Toddy has done more to break down the barriers to general acceptance of gays than anything else in film. Yes, he's flamboyant, but he's also attractive, empathetic, and entertaining. He even maintains his dignity in a Spanish flamenco dancer's frock, with a heartfelt Vous! As he tosses a rose to Alex Karras. "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."--Edward Abbey


	Quote: : We need more movies like Victor/ Victoria , with sympathetic gay characters who do not scare straight audiences. Robert Preston's portrayal of Toddy has done more to break down the barriers to general acceptance of gays than anything else in film. Yes, he's flamboyant, but he's also attractive, empathetic, and entertaining. He even maintains his dignity in a Spanish flamenco dancer's frock, with a heartfelt Vous! As he tosses a rose to Alex Karras. Now that you mention it, what about Karras' character, Squash? He's a minor character, but he's one of the cinema's rare "straight-acting" gays. Agnes, it's me...Billy.


	It looks like Cinematical follows The Jury Room. A posting that has the same idea as this thread. Imagine!


	You been out cheatin' on us?


	J.M. Quote: : Very cool profile of Russell T. Davies ("Dr. Who," "Torchwood") in today's New York Times that ties in with what we've been talking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/arts/television/15lyal.html?_r=1&ref=television&oref=slogin . They somehow even sneak a non-sexual reference to Tom Cruise in the story. My wife and I have watched Torchwood since its inception, we find it even better in many ways to Doctor Who . One thing that bothers us though is that the gay element of the show does not seem to add much to the plot, and in some cases detracts from it. A good example is the character of Ianto, who seems to exist only to serve coffee to Captain Jack and be his resident "boy toy". Where is the character development here? I get the feeling that Russell T. Davies is showing the gay thing in Torchwood just because he can, and if he spent more time developing the characters and the relationships, the show would be much better off. On a side note, why the heck did they kill off Toshiko, the one really strong and competent woman character on the show (much more so than the flaky gap-toothed Gwen). But I digress... Cheers, Paul Kile My collection: http://www.dvdspot.com/member=PaulKile

Discussion Title: Question on gay and lesbian characters?
Title Keywords: Jury Room View topic Question lesbian characters?

Omgili Home

About

FAQ

Plugins

Usenet