Mikey1969
Second Unit
Celluloid Closet was released theatrically; I seem to remember the interviews were shot on 35mm and framed for 1.85:1.
Home Theater
Entertainment & Streaming Content
Physical Media
Home Theater Equipment and Hardware
Other Diversions
Bargains and Classifieds
Home Theater Forum
Gay-Friendly Blu-rays (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mark-W
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 6, 1999
- Messages
- 3,297
- Real Name
- Mark
I don't understand howRobHam said:
- clicking on a thread you know from the title you will take issue with
- purposefully reading posts you know you won't agree with
- and then taking the time and effort to post inflammatory comments
I think we should keep the original title. It worked for years before in the DVD incarnation, and it works now.
If people don't like it, they don't have to read it.
If people don't like it, they don't have to read it.
Mark-P
Senior HTF Member
There is nothing wrong with the title of this thread. That anyone would be offended by the term "gay-friendly" is just plain silly.Mark Walker said:
- Joined
- Jan 6, 1999
- Messages
- 3,297
- Real Name
- Mark
I appreciate your comments. As someone else already replied, often times it is not celebrating our difference; it is a matter of being aware of our closeted history in film and how it was reflected on the screen.
And discussing the back story, subtext, and elements of a film or its history is appropriate for this forum.
Hitchcock and Welles are both fascinating directors, but knowing their back stories and the histories behind their films often makes them more entertaining and interesting.
How long does someone talk about Citizen Kane to someone who has never seen the film before they mention William Randolf Hearst?
How long does someone talk about Vertigo to a new to Hitchcock appreciator before mentioning that the prevailing theory is that Scottie is a proxy for Hitchcock?
How many folks talk about Kirk Douglas's Spartacus at any length to a film newbie without mentioning that it was the first post-HUAC film that openly listed Dalton Trumbo as the screenwriter?
There are many ways LGBT folks influenced films behind and in front of the camera. The Production Code, celebrity culture, and mass audience appeal all made that more layered, nuanced, coded and cryptic.
I don't celebrate that Rock Hudson was in the closet and showed Pillow Talk to Armistead Maupin in his bedroom and laughed about how a gay man was playing a straight man playing a gay man...it is all very Victor/Victoria without the happy ending.
I don't celebrate what I see on the screen when I watch William Friedkin's The Boys in the Band or Cruising, but they are also part of LGBT's representation in the history of film.
It will be of interest to some film buffs that openly gay silent film actor William Haines did not succeed in transitioning from silent films to talkies because his voice was not deemed masculine enough.
These are points of interest to me and many films buffs, gay or otherwise, the same way knowing that the studio and Robert Wise re-edited The Magnificent Ambersons after Welles had finished it, while he was out of the country, and against Orson's wishes. That film is forever butchered and diminished depending on who you talk to. Many would argue (and rightfully so) that The Magnificent Ambersons is much less interesting if you don't know its back story and only know it from watching the film itself without any other information.
These back stories are an integral part of discussing those films, the same way the LGBT elements in many films are integral parts of their creation and back story...even if mass audiences are largely unaware of it.
Hitchcock demonstrates that he enjoyed being around openly gay folks as early as his casting of Ivor Novello as the lead in The Lodger. Early in his career, Hitchcock spent time in Germany where he reportedly saw uninhibited unconventional sexuality. That appears to have influenced him and informed how he used a string LGBT characters, often played by known gay actors, throughout many films including Rope, Rebecca, Strangers on a Train, and North by Northwest.
At the same time that LGBT elements in films are vast they are also coded and hidden in many pre-2012 films. One might want to know, for example, that there were many lesbians in the leagues represented in the film A League of Their Own and how they were "straightened out" or omitted for the film, even if the director herself is allegedly a member of the LGBT community.
In some ways, we have not come far enough from the days when the studios made biopics like Hans Christian Andersen and Cole Porter's straightened biopic Night And Day with Cary Grant. Things clearly have not changed that much or we would not have had the the previously mentioned Can't Stop the Music in the 1980s with the pretending-to-be-and-failing-to-pass-as-heterosexual Village People.
Because so much of the LGBT history in cinema is coded and closeted, one simply cannot go searching for "LGBT" as a film genre and have films like Rebecca, Bell, Book, & Candle , The Maltese Falcon or Double Indemnity show up. These are not "LGBT films," but they do have LGBT-coded subtexts and back stories.
Knowing that the Peter Lorre character in The Maltese Falcon is gay, coded to be identified as such by the comments about his perfume, is a valid point of interest for folks interested in that film.
Billy Wilder stated in an interview that Double Indemnity is a love story between the two men, that Walter Neff and Barton Keyes were purposely "too close," and that the film represents post-war anxiety about male same-sex bonding. For those looking for evidence of that in the film itself, here are the final lines of Double Indemnity:
Walter Neff: "Know why you couldn't figure this one, Keyes? I'll tell ya. 'Cause the guy you were looking for was too close. Right across the desk from ya".
Barton Keyes: "Closer than that, Walter."
Walter Neff: "I love you, too. "
Film buffs who research Double Indemnity will want to know why those characters are the way they are. Why does Walter Neff have pictures of shirtless men on the walls in his apartment? They are boxers, yes, but they are also pictures of physically fit men without shirts on. Billy Wilder knew exactly what he was doing.
Unless this forum is a place where being a film buff, film historian and film academic is not tolerated, a thread like this has a completely legitimate reason for being at this excellent forum.
If one wants to see how LGBT folks have been portrayed throughout the entire history of film up until today, and the LGBT character in the film is not the lead, or their character is coded, one is probably not going to find out about that film's LGBT-elements unless a thread like this one exists.
Current case in point: ParaNorman. The film has a gay element near the end. It is a minor revelation...but precisely because it *is* so unexpected and quickly seals the fate of one character's hopes is probably why the filmmakers put it there. It is funny. And it should *not* be as surprising as it is. The film is saying something about accepting differences and not being "phobic" in many ways. This revelation near the end clearly contains a message from the filmmakers:: "Don't assume. And this should not be a big deal." Therefore ParaNorman is precisely a "gay-friendly" film without being a "gay film."
Sparatacus: Blood & Sand is not an "LGBT show," but there are LGBT characters on that show and their sexuality is treated as non-issue. I found that completely refreshing and wonderful.
Where is the best place to post a comment about that show's accepting presentation of its LGBT characters to a group of forum members who would want to know about that LGBT aspect of the show if not a in a thread like this one?
Is this not the most appropriate thread for posting comments like that?
If that comment, "I appreciated that two of the gladiators are having a same sex love affair." was posted in the review thread for that show, Steve Tannehill, for example, would not have found out about it...and who knows how welcomed that comment would have been in that thread given the reception the completely factual, gay allegory back story for Bell, Book, & Candle was received in that film's review thread.
As for the title of this thread:
Spartacus: Blood and Sand is a "gay-friendly" program, but is is not a "gay program."
The films of James Whale are "gay-friendly" but are not "gay films" (for the most part).
The films of Billy Wilder are often "gay-friendly," but they are not "gay films."
The films of Alfred Hitchcock are often "gay-friendly," but they are not "gay films."
Downton Abbey is not a "gay program," but it is "gay-friendly."
The term "Gay-Friendly" itself implies that this thread and the films and programs discussed here are not exclusive to the LGBT community nor do they amount to a private clubhouse where only a select few get admitted.
Hence, the title of this thread is completely appropriate given the content included herein.
(Thanks Steve and Mark-P!)
Coded gay subtext is part of film history. I still scratch my head that anyone would be bothered by the mere existence of thread that they could simply choose not to read if they did not like the topic.
And discussing the back story, subtext, and elements of a film or its history is appropriate for this forum.
Hitchcock and Welles are both fascinating directors, but knowing their back stories and the histories behind their films often makes them more entertaining and interesting.
How long does someone talk about Citizen Kane to someone who has never seen the film before they mention William Randolf Hearst?
How long does someone talk about Vertigo to a new to Hitchcock appreciator before mentioning that the prevailing theory is that Scottie is a proxy for Hitchcock?
How many folks talk about Kirk Douglas's Spartacus at any length to a film newbie without mentioning that it was the first post-HUAC film that openly listed Dalton Trumbo as the screenwriter?
There are many ways LGBT folks influenced films behind and in front of the camera. The Production Code, celebrity culture, and mass audience appeal all made that more layered, nuanced, coded and cryptic.
I don't celebrate that Rock Hudson was in the closet and showed Pillow Talk to Armistead Maupin in his bedroom and laughed about how a gay man was playing a straight man playing a gay man...it is all very Victor/Victoria without the happy ending.
I don't celebrate what I see on the screen when I watch William Friedkin's The Boys in the Band or Cruising, but they are also part of LGBT's representation in the history of film.
It will be of interest to some film buffs that openly gay silent film actor William Haines did not succeed in transitioning from silent films to talkies because his voice was not deemed masculine enough.
These are points of interest to me and many films buffs, gay or otherwise, the same way knowing that the studio and Robert Wise re-edited The Magnificent Ambersons after Welles had finished it, while he was out of the country, and against Orson's wishes. That film is forever butchered and diminished depending on who you talk to. Many would argue (and rightfully so) that The Magnificent Ambersons is much less interesting if you don't know its back story and only know it from watching the film itself without any other information.
These back stories are an integral part of discussing those films, the same way the LGBT elements in many films are integral parts of their creation and back story...even if mass audiences are largely unaware of it.
Hitchcock demonstrates that he enjoyed being around openly gay folks as early as his casting of Ivor Novello as the lead in The Lodger. Early in his career, Hitchcock spent time in Germany where he reportedly saw uninhibited unconventional sexuality. That appears to have influenced him and informed how he used a string LGBT characters, often played by known gay actors, throughout many films including Rope, Rebecca, Strangers on a Train, and North by Northwest.
At the same time that LGBT elements in films are vast they are also coded and hidden in many pre-2012 films. One might want to know, for example, that there were many lesbians in the leagues represented in the film A League of Their Own and how they were "straightened out" or omitted for the film, even if the director herself is allegedly a member of the LGBT community.
In some ways, we have not come far enough from the days when the studios made biopics like Hans Christian Andersen and Cole Porter's straightened biopic Night And Day with Cary Grant. Things clearly have not changed that much or we would not have had the the previously mentioned Can't Stop the Music in the 1980s with the pretending-to-be-and-failing-to-pass-as-heterosexual Village People.
Because so much of the LGBT history in cinema is coded and closeted, one simply cannot go searching for "LGBT" as a film genre and have films like Rebecca, Bell, Book, & Candle , The Maltese Falcon or Double Indemnity show up. These are not "LGBT films," but they do have LGBT-coded subtexts and back stories.
Knowing that the Peter Lorre character in The Maltese Falcon is gay, coded to be identified as such by the comments about his perfume, is a valid point of interest for folks interested in that film.
Billy Wilder stated in an interview that Double Indemnity is a love story between the two men, that Walter Neff and Barton Keyes were purposely "too close," and that the film represents post-war anxiety about male same-sex bonding. For those looking for evidence of that in the film itself, here are the final lines of Double Indemnity:
Walter Neff: "Know why you couldn't figure this one, Keyes? I'll tell ya. 'Cause the guy you were looking for was too close. Right across the desk from ya".
Barton Keyes: "Closer than that, Walter."
Walter Neff: "I love you, too. "
Film buffs who research Double Indemnity will want to know why those characters are the way they are. Why does Walter Neff have pictures of shirtless men on the walls in his apartment? They are boxers, yes, but they are also pictures of physically fit men without shirts on. Billy Wilder knew exactly what he was doing.
Unless this forum is a place where being a film buff, film historian and film academic is not tolerated, a thread like this has a completely legitimate reason for being at this excellent forum.
If one wants to see how LGBT folks have been portrayed throughout the entire history of film up until today, and the LGBT character in the film is not the lead, or their character is coded, one is probably not going to find out about that film's LGBT-elements unless a thread like this one exists.
Current case in point: ParaNorman. The film has a gay element near the end. It is a minor revelation...but precisely because it *is* so unexpected and quickly seals the fate of one character's hopes is probably why the filmmakers put it there. It is funny. And it should *not* be as surprising as it is. The film is saying something about accepting differences and not being "phobic" in many ways. This revelation near the end clearly contains a message from the filmmakers:: "Don't assume. And this should not be a big deal." Therefore ParaNorman is precisely a "gay-friendly" film without being a "gay film."
Sparatacus: Blood & Sand is not an "LGBT show," but there are LGBT characters on that show and their sexuality is treated as non-issue. I found that completely refreshing and wonderful.
Where is the best place to post a comment about that show's accepting presentation of its LGBT characters to a group of forum members who would want to know about that LGBT aspect of the show if not a in a thread like this one?
Is this not the most appropriate thread for posting comments like that?
If that comment, "I appreciated that two of the gladiators are having a same sex love affair." was posted in the review thread for that show, Steve Tannehill, for example, would not have found out about it...and who knows how welcomed that comment would have been in that thread given the reception the completely factual, gay allegory back story for Bell, Book, & Candle was received in that film's review thread.
As for the title of this thread:
Spartacus: Blood and Sand is a "gay-friendly" program, but is is not a "gay program."
The films of James Whale are "gay-friendly" but are not "gay films" (for the most part).
The films of Billy Wilder are often "gay-friendly," but they are not "gay films."
The films of Alfred Hitchcock are often "gay-friendly," but they are not "gay films."
Downton Abbey is not a "gay program," but it is "gay-friendly."
The term "Gay-Friendly" itself implies that this thread and the films and programs discussed here are not exclusive to the LGBT community nor do they amount to a private clubhouse where only a select few get admitted.
Hence, the title of this thread is completely appropriate given the content included herein.
(Thanks Steve and Mark-P!)
Coded gay subtext is part of film history. I still scratch my head that anyone would be bothered by the mere existence of thread that they could simply choose not to read if they did not like the topic.
TravisR said:
Doctorossi
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 841
- Real Name
- Schuyler
If I'm going to humor you, please humor me, as well:RobHam said:
What if it were either of those threads? I don't see a thing wrong with either (nor any other ethnic/religious/cultural subgroup-themed discussion thread).
What's your point?
Well said, Mark.
Religion, politics, and sexual orientation – the three subjects that are generally accepted as the biggest causes of flaming on mainstream web-boards. When a pro-lobby of any kind starts a thread on any of these three subjects, invariably an anti-lobby will participate.Doctorossi said:
The end result is usually hate.
I am not anti-gay, but found people posting about homosexual sub-texts in mainstream films humorous as it seems to validate a particular caricature of gay people.
Others clearly don’t see the humour to be had.
The end result is usually hate.
I’ve participated in web-boards for over 16 years, and have seen this end result played out too many times because a specific interest web-board strayed into religion-sex-politics.
This particular board is fascinating because it brings together many different areas of expertise within the film and home theatre market. It also requires real names to be used rather than have people hide behind online identities, and it allows heated debate without heavy-handed interference.
Introduce any of the trio of inflammatory subjects (religion. sex, politics) into this liberal environment and it will inevitably start to escalate in intensity – as has been recently happening here.
The end result is usually hate.
Offensive?
I have my opinion, and you have yours.
Ethan Riley
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,286
- Real Name
- Ethan Riley
I think "hate" is too harsh a term in this instance. I think people are simply getting riled up when the thread veers into political and sexual discussions, harassment and juvenile teasing. That won't happen if ppl behave like adults and simply stick to the topic of the movies themselves. In other words, we all need to grow up.RobHam said:
I have an interesting thought...and yes, the movie I'll bring up may be too "low brow" for many of you...
Is it possible that in an attempt to be "gay friendly", it goes to far? Not just in the subtext of the movie I'll mention...but when it is on purpose to be blatant. Is blatant a bad thing...or does it depend on the movie?
Let's chat about the movie in question...
I have friends who think the movie is great cause it "plays it up". Others criticize the movie cause it makes a mockery of "gayness"...even though the entire movie is mockery.
Personally I think any movie should be viewed on its own merits. A "spoof" movie should be treated as such and when it touches a tough subject, it should be a given that tongue and cheek should apply. Granted, even I think in this movie...the "gayness" is over the top...but when veiled against the fact that many people "miss" the gayness in the movies it spoofs(mainly cause there are some people that dense)...it has to be over the top.
So, when it comes to "gay friendly"...
Does Meet the Spartans help....or hurt?
Is it possible that in an attempt to be "gay friendly", it goes to far? Not just in the subtext of the movie I'll mention...but when it is on purpose to be blatant. Is blatant a bad thing...or does it depend on the movie?
Let's chat about the movie in question...
I have friends who think the movie is great cause it "plays it up". Others criticize the movie cause it makes a mockery of "gayness"...even though the entire movie is mockery.
Personally I think any movie should be viewed on its own merits. A "spoof" movie should be treated as such and when it touches a tough subject, it should be a given that tongue and cheek should apply. Granted, even I think in this movie...the "gayness" is over the top...but when veiled against the fact that many people "miss" the gayness in the movies it spoofs(mainly cause there are some people that dense)...it has to be over the top.
So, when it comes to "gay friendly"...
Does Meet the Spartans help....or hurt?
- Joined
- Jan 6, 1999
- Messages
- 3,297
- Real Name
- Mark
I would think that it is up for discussion in terms whether one liked the film or didn't or found the portrayal problematic or not the same way folks discussed if Ridley had lost his way or not with Prometheus or discussing how the gay themed Eating Out films celebrate raunchiness the same way the Porky's films did back in the 80s.schan1269 said:
I think discussing ideas around "helps or hurts" veers pretty close to conversations that might be best left away from here. It is easy to discuss whether the Eating Out films are presented well on Blu-ray or not, and whether you found the plot and cast engaging or not...Does the film work for you as a spoof or not. Discussing if you think those films hurt or help the LGBT community is, to me, veering too close to topics that are subject to unending, potentially problematic debate which would be out of place at this forum.
Based on my time at Showtime's forum back in the days when Queer As Folk was being aired, those debates regarding if it was "good or bad for the gay community" got very heated, and it was all gay men fighting among each other.
Folks can discuss Hitchcock's veiled use of LGBT characters and the historical facts regarding that, but a debate about whether Ms Danvers should have been presented as a lesbian or not because of how it might impact the LGBT community seems pretty clearly not something that is appropriate for this forum.
JohnMor
Senior HTF Member
I get a bit weary of the PC revisionism (and hence, rejection) where The Boys in the Band is concerned. Mart Crowley wrote it based on his life and friendships at the time. Times and society have changed, thank God. But it's still a valid piece of drama, although of its time. But I had to roll my eyes when Friedkin said that about the character of Emory. People pick on that character as something offensive and unrealistic, but ironically have no problems with Jack McFarland on Will & Grace or Mitchell & Cameron on Modern Family and how they're depicted. Emory is a far more fully developed, non-stereotype character than Jack McFarland, and it's accomplished in 2 hours, instead of 8 seasons.
And don't get me started on people who are offended by the Silence of the Lambs killer. Idiotic to say the least, IMO. What is offensive about having a serial killer depicted as gay or trans-gendered? There have been plenty of straight serial killers in movies, and gay serial killers in real life, like John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer.
And don't get me started on people who are offended by the Silence of the Lambs killer. Idiotic to say the least, IMO. What is offensive about having a serial killer depicted as gay or trans-gendered? There have been plenty of straight serial killers in movies, and gay serial killers in real life, like John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 1999
- Messages
- 3,297
- Real Name
- Mark
Personally I don't have a problem with Emory and his moments during the telephone game were the most sympathetic in the film IMHO. I just don't like how negative and angry most of the characters are, but that is no different that complaining about how negative and angry everyone is in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?JohnMor said:
The documentary Making the Boys, which is available on DVD, was really enlightening for me. I had no idea that Natalie Wood was such a good friend of Crowley's. It made me really want to go back and see more of her films and even Robert Wagner's. Too bad the Blu-ray of West Side Story is not all that it could be. At least Gypsy is now out on Blu.
That is one of the things I've never understood...
Gay for Pay(Stonestreet and Cliff Gorman) and playing gay, being gay(JTF and Robert La Tourneaux).
I've never understood how an industry full of "left leaning individuals" lets itself deal with double-standard. Not that I want a political discussion...but...
How does a group of people into "telling the story of their lives"(as in what actors/writers/directors get to do) find ways to allow a closed minded "protection for everybody" ruin it for those who get it.
Gay for Pay(Stonestreet and Cliff Gorman) and playing gay, being gay(JTF and Robert La Tourneaux).
I've never understood how an industry full of "left leaning individuals" lets itself deal with double-standard. Not that I want a political discussion...but...
How does a group of people into "telling the story of their lives"(as in what actors/writers/directors get to do) find ways to allow a closed minded "protection for everybody" ruin it for those who get it.
He's not even the only trans gender killer in a mainstream movie! I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers a certain DePalma thriller...JohnMor said:
JohnMor
Senior HTF Member
Yeah, there is one photo of Natalie in that documentary which is absolutely stunning. I really wished I liked that film version of Gypsy more, because I love Natalie in that role. She makes that movie for me. But I really hate everything else about it. LOL. Still may pick up the blu one day though, just for her.[I said:
Don't forget "straight for pay" too - Neil Patrick Harris on How I Met Your Mother and Matt Bomer on White Collar.schan1269 said:
I think we've reached a point where it shouldn't matter what an actor does in his own life, he's a performer hired to breathe life into a character. The rest doesn't matter.
JohnMor
Senior HTF Member
LOL. True. I could understand being offended if that was the only depiction of LGBT people onscreen, or if there were no real life LGBT serial killers, but neither is the case.
I remember when Basic Instinct was being picketed over negative portrayals which was a load of crap. I think Mark really nailed it when he said that there should be no problem when we just stick to the movies which is what most of us want to do anyway and not get into larger societal meanings of things. this is a movie board after all =)
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Sign up for our newsletter
and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more
Latest Articles
-
Star Trek: Lower Decks – Season 4 Blu-ray Review- Started by: Josh Steinberg
-
You Never Can Tell Blu-ray Review- Started by: Matt Hough
-
A few words about…™ – 3 Godfathers — in Blu-ray- Started by: Robert Harris
-
Money Talks Blu-ray Review- Started by: Matt Hough
-
Stand and Deliver Blu-ray Review- Started by: Matt Hough
Members online
- Larry Gelfand
- PMF
- jayembee
- Josh Steinberg
- Dick
- jim_falconer
- Walter Kittel
- JohnRa
- mskaye
- RocketRobz
- Josh Dial
- Andrew Budgell
- Bryan Tuck
- Brian L
- EricSchulz
- Osato
- scott2hotcott
- Jimbo.B
- SwatDB
- Heartess
- Chip_HT
- Jay_Z_525
- sleroi
- John Dirk
- Charles Smith
- laserphile 1
- Sultanofcinema
- battlebeast
- mbb10429
- PODER
- Brian Ogilvie
- Adam Lenhardt
- Harry-N
- Wayne Klein
- ABaglivi