If believe he meant if we're discussing gay-friendly movies, it follows that the folks reading and posting here probably ought to gay-friendly/accepting, too. (That would include the significant majority of non-gay folks I know.)
Does that mean, that a straight man such as me, can't discuss the achievement that Satyricon is?
One of my best buddies seems to have a sincere like for lesbian-themed or lesbian directed movies...and not just titillating ones. For folks that find to this topic problematic, it is pretty easy not to read or post in this thread. The repeated posts in this thread by someone that appears to resent this thread's existence is head-scratching, much like someone who hates female-centric melodramas constantly posting in a thread about Lifetime's made-for-TV movies. This thread had a long history in its DVD iteration with very little of this type of unpleasant thread-crapping. Reasonable folks will understand that to have a thread where we can report, "Hey have you seen, this?" or "This just got released and you might want to check it out." based on the movie's gay-themed text, sub-text or background story, of which there are plenty of examples already, is a reasonable type of thread to exist as much as a thread on films that are all released by Criterion. I know from the previous DVD thread, I became aware of several films that I would have missed otherwise. I would not know to go to Amazon and look up Latter Days
and think I would find a film about two gay men who fall in love while one also struggles with his faith... or a film like the recently released Weekend
. MattH posted his review of Weekend
which it is now buried in the forum where no one will find it who is not actively looking for it. By mentioning that film here and including a link to Matt's review, it makes it easy for anyone to find since this thread will be updated much the way the bargains thread gets updated. By just checking a thread like this, I might find out about movies that I would otherwise be unaware of. This is especially true since many gay-themed films are indie films made on shoestring budgets with no money for advertising campaigns, no wide distribution, and if really lucky, might have been included in a LGBT film festival. If you did not see it there, you might not know it even exists, hence this thread. The other need this thread meets is for someone, for example, who is new to Hitchcock not knowing how clever he was to slip Ms Danvers affections for Rebecca through the production code's homophobic standards because Hayes Office could not find the gayness in the text...it was all how the screenplay was acted out by the brilliant Judith Anderson. Others, for whatever illogical reason apparently feel that by acknowledging or discussing certain components of a film's subtext, themes, or back-story, we are staking a claim of ownership on the entire film, like Marvin the Martian with his flag on Planet X. It is pretty clear no one is saying "This is ours!" except for the person complaining about it. I had no idea we had so much power to take films away from folks. I did not know I was running into folks' homes and taking their blu-rays from them by stating something like the fact that the writer of Rope
, Arthur Laurents, says that The Way We Were
is actually based on his relationship with another man. .or that he dated Farley Granger while they were making Rope
and how Alfred and Alma even took them out to dinner as a couple. That somehow those films are now taken away from all the folks who enjoy them other reasons and know nothing about those aspects of either film. I do find it interesting to watch a film like The Way We Were
knowing the screenwriter was actually retelling his own life story, rewriting his part as the female lead. It made me want to go back and rewatch that film. How that would ruin or take away the film for anyone else is just beyond any rational or reasonable explanation. At this point, again, it is just seems like thread-crapping.