Gay-Friendly Blu-rays (1 Viewer)

[Jason_V]

The other way to look at that is they knew they had to be subtle when it came to depicting gays on screen. So if this was the way to do it, this was the way to do it. Was it perfect? But by our current thoughts, but back then? It was most likely the only way to have it happen.

Another example would be Philadelphia. I know a lot of people don't like the film because it shows another gay man dying of AIDS. But that film hit the mainstream with an actor everyone loved and may have done more for out gays in film than any of us really realize. It opened the door for that kind of story and a plethora of others. Some good, some bad, but they all contribute to the gay genre.

 

[Mark-W]

Well, I think something can be obvious to some and still be subtle. But that may be a "sublte" distinction....
Ok good point about the screenwriter. Perhaps a gay writer would not want to use a characters homosexuality to reinforce a character's vilainy. Still I have always read their sexuality in the film (ie, their being viewed very clearly and unquestionably as a couple by all other characters) as an example of their 'otherness', and by implication (again perhaps only my personal perception) their evil.

I think films are also of their time and some things that were not offensive are now. Whether we give films some latitude for this or not depends on who you ask. I just got done watching Carousel and was taken aback by how physical abuse is talked about in such a benign manner...How someone can "hit you hard" and it not "hurt at all" and both women are looking at the sky like they are talking about what it feels like being in love. UGH.

I would go so far as to say that it is hard to take issue with Rope if it is based on actual people who most seem to agree were a gay couple that did get a thrill out of killing people or a person. They were portrayed again in the film Swoon, this time as produced by a mostly LGBT production team and cast.

Did too many films make their gay characters seem perverse or protray them as killers back in the day compared to other gay characters? Sure. That is where the representation issue comes in. It is not that LGBT folks were portrayed as killers, it is that these portrayals were not balanced by more positive images of LGBT folks on the screen.

Hitchcock seems to have had lots of gay characters in his films, from Rebecca's Mrs Danvers, North by Northwest's murderous henchmen with his "woman's intuition," closeted actor Anthony Perkin's cross-dressing Psycho and the fellas who were Strangers on a Train. Because Hitchcock seems have done whatever he could to manipulate his audience, I suspect he did this to creep out the audience even though there is every sign that Alfred and Alma had no issues with being friends with LGBT people all the way back to (relatively) openly gay actor Ivor Novello who starred as the title character in Hitchcock's The Lodger.

I don't know that I like that Hitchcock did that, but I understand it much more than I do the glorification of spousal abuse in Carousel.

 

[mackjay]

Did too many films make their killers seem gay back in the day compared to other gay characters shown and kind and compassionate? Sure. That is where the representation issue comes in. It is not that LGBT folks were portrayed as killers, it is that these portrayals were not balanced by images of LGBT folks as generally good people.

I think this was true enough to be quite noticeable in many cases. Take the film noir "The Big Combo" (1955) in which two hitmen live (and evidently sleep) together, or "The Pawnbroker" in which a ruthless mob boss and one of his henchmen openly portrayed as gay. Non-lethal gays are usually shown as silly and effeminate, as in "The Public Enemy" (1931) and elsewhere in pre-code Hollywood which tended to read 'gay' (in the homosexual sense) as code for trivial, exotic and generally abnormal, something to be avoided. A bit later, remember Cary Grant's famous line about "Going 'gay' all of a sudden!" (wearing a dress)

 

[Mark-W]

Speaking of Cary Grant, the following link summarizes his oft-reported long term love affair with Randolph Scott. As it relates to his films and Hitchcock, I remember reading that Grant figured out what Hitchcock was trying to imply with his casting as the professor in Rope and, because of this, either turned down the role or was told to by his publicity team.

[color=rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;font-size:large;]Mr Blackwell, the notorious fashion critic, lived with Cary and Randolph for several months. In his memoir he said that he considered them, “deeply, madly in love, their devotion complete…Behind closed doors they were warm, kind, loving and caring, and unembarrassed about showing it.”[/color]

Their good friend, Carole Lombard, when joking about Grant's notorious cheapness said, "Their relationship is perfect. Randy pays the bills and Cary mails them.”

http://www.homohistory.com/2013/07/cary-grant-and-randolph-scott-hollywood.html?m=0

 

[Jason_V]

The things I learn around here. Thanks Mark!

 

[Will Krupp]

http://www.homohistory.com/2013/07/cary-grant-and-randolph-scott-hollywood.html?m=0

From the "if you can't hide it, paint it red" school of thought...

 

[Mark-W]

Just a heads up that series 2 of In the Flesh starts this Saturday night on BBC America.

GLAAD has an article on the show and a link for watching series 1 for free via streaming for a few more days:
http://www.glaad.org/blog/catch-gay-zombie-drama-flesh-and-tune-saturday-season-2

Also, I see that Amazon UK has Blu-ray available for pre-order for series 1 and 2 combined.

This would push me to finally buy that zone and region free Blu-ray player.

Will do, Jason! (It will probably be a couple of weeks, since I still have to finish Mad Men and it is "clogging up" my Netflix queue at the moment.)

Speaking of finishing things, I spent a bit of time this weekend deleting things off of my DVR and in a few cases finally watching the programs. One three-part BBC series really impressed me: In the Flesh.

Let me start by saying zombie-themed stories are probably the last thing I ever want to watch. I have a decided absence of interest in zombie films, save for Shaun of the Dead, though I did rent Warm Bodies and found it enjoyable enough.

I DVR'd In The Flesh when it aired on BBC America a few months ago and now it is coming to DVD on October 8th. (Here is the Amazon link.) It features Luke Newberry as a sufferer of PDS (Partially Deceased Syndrome) who is in a medically supervised treatment program and is returning to his family.
Based on the promos, I thought this would be a comedy akin to Warm Bodies.

What it turned out to be is a sweet, sometimes funny, sometimes tragic, often moving gay-friendly program.
Here is a synopsis:
After an event known as "The Rising," where everybody who died in the year 2015 has risen from the dead, an inevitable Zombie war breaks out as the human race battles to rid the planet of brain eating Zombies. When the war is eventually won by the living with heavy losses on both sides, the remaining undead are headed up and put in a holding center where Norfolk, now ravaged and destroyed by war, used to be. Scientists then discover a chemical compound which subdues the Zombie craving for brains and the government subsequently decides to release these Partially Deceased Syndrome (PDS) sufferers back into the community they had recently tried to destroy. here is where the story begins as we follow Keiren Walker, a young PDS sufferer, as he is returned back to his parents in a sleepy village.

I do *not* think the DVD cover represents the series well; the images below are more accurate to the tone and look of the show.

And this promo image

This program is a not-too-subtle allegory for reintegrating any group of discriminated-against folks back into their families and into the larger society.
While it does not seem like much of a spoiler to me, the reason this series is gay-friendly is because

Spoiler

the lead character is gay

.

Keiran's back-story is revealed while the events that originally led to his death start happening again; it makes for some incredible moments that I am still thinking about three days later.

Reviews were very positive, including this review from The New York Times:
If you’ve avoided vampire/zombie television until now because you think it’s either dumb sci-fi or drippy romance aimed at teenagers,“In the Flesh,”[color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif;font-size:15px;] a three-part mini-series that begins Thursday on BBC America, gives you a chance to find out just how well written and layered some of these shows are...[/color]

...To watch “In the Flesh” is to be dismayed by how many real-world precedents the tale has. The list of people who have been reviled and labeled, explicitly or subtly, as something less than human is long: blacks, Jews, foreigners, people with AIDS, people with disabilities. Zombies notwithstanding, this appealing series, created and written by Dominic Mitchell, works this territory as credibly as any more conventional drama.

-NEIL GENZLINGER for The New York Times​

I had no idea a zombie-themed program would make me feel so much.
I guess it is time I give The Walking Dead a chance, eh?

BTW, a second series in the works.

The DVD does not have any specs listed other than an AR of 1.78:1.
I am hoping for a commentary track, as I think it has the potential to be incredible.

 

[Jason_V]

Okay, so two things this fine evening:

First, we've started rewatching the US version of Queer as Folk. The first time around we made it through the first two seasons...now we're committed to getting through all five. At some point, I loved this show and thought it was the end-all and be-all of television. Something different is happening for me now: most of the characters are annoying the bejesus out of me.

Brian, for instance, in season one has always been narcissistic and self-absorbed. I'm finding that characterization magnified this time around for me. Justin is annoyingly grating, Melanie too much of a stickler, Lindsay a push over, and so forth. Maybe it was the time in my life the show was on made me see it in a different way than I do now. The only character I actually liked then and now is Michael.

Everything about the show feels completely dated to me now and almost laughable. It's also obscene the amount of tricks Brian is able to get his hands on (no pun intended).

Second, we watched a movie called Morgan tonight. I expected a low budget...well...piece of crap. What we got was a surprise. Certainly not perfect, it had enough heart and realistic portrayals of people for me to give it four stars on Letterboxd. The film revolves around a gay man who was paralyzed in a bike accident and his quest to figure out who he is now that he may not be able to compete ever again.

I had a problem with two of the actors-one major role and one minor-but don't let that dissuade you. Relatively short (90 minutes), good transfer and an enjoyable film.

 

[mackjay]

First, we've started rewatching the US version of Queer as Folk. The first time around we made it through the first two seasons...now we're committed to getting through all five. At some point, I loved this show and thought it was the end-all and be-all of television. Something different is happening for me now: most of the characters are annoying the bejesus out of me.

Brian, for instance, in season one has always been narcissistic and self-absorbed. I'm finding that characterization magnified this time around for me. Justin is annoyingly grating, Melanie too much of a stickler, Lindsay a push over, and so forth. Maybe it was the time in my life the show was on made me see it in a different way than I do now. The only character I actually liked then and now is Michael.

Everything about the show feels completely dated to me now and almost laughable. It's also obscene the amount of tricks Brian is able to get his hands on (no pun intended).

I had seen most, but not all of the US version of QAF and it never appealed to me for some of the reasons you mention. Then several years ago I watched all of the UK version and found it much better: intelligently written, well acted, much more involving. It's been a while, but I recall that it went to darker places than the US one.

 

[Mark-W]

Even Michael annoyed me before the series ended. It felt like the show mistook shock value for entertainment and compelling drama. Did these characters grow and learn from their mistakes? Ben was the one character I really liked and then they gave him a stupid storyline, too.I enjoyed the British version.I will have to check out Morgan!

Okay, so two things this fine evening:First, we've started rewatching the US version of Queer as Folk. The first time around we made it through the first two seasons...now we're committed to getting through all five. At some point, I loved this show and thought it was the end-all and be-all of television. Something different is happening for me now: most of the characters are annoying the bejesus out of me.Brian, for instance, in season one has always been narcissistic and self-absorbed. I'm finding that characterization magnified this time around for me. Justin is annoyingly grating, Melanie too much of a stickler, Lindsay a push over, and so forth. Maybe it was the time in my life the show was on made me see it in a different way than I do now. The only character I actually liked then and now is Michael.Everything about the show feels completely dated to me now and almost laughable. It's also obscene the amount of tricks Brian is able to get his hands on (no pun intended).Second, we watched a movie called Morgan tonight. I expected a low budget...well...piece of crap. What we got was a surprise. Certainly not perfect, it had enough heart and realistic portrayals of people for me to give it four stars on Letterboxd. The film revolves around a gay man who was paralyzed in a bike accident and his quest to figure out who he is now that he may not be able to compete ever again.I had a problem with two of the actors-one major role and one minor-but don't let that dissuade you. Relatively short (90 minutes), good transfer and an enjoyable film.

 

[Jason_V]

I had seen most, but not all of the US version of QAF and it never appealed to me for some of the reasons you mention. Then several years ago I watched all of the UK version and found it much better: intelligently written, well acted, much more involving. It's been a while, but I recall that it went to darker places than the US one.

I tried watching the UK version when it first hit DVD back in the day. I think I was too young for it and didn't appreciate what was happening, so I bailed after the first episode. I'll have to give it another look.

Even Michael annoyed me before the series ended. It felt like the show mistook shock value for entertainment and compelling drama. Did these characters grow and learn from their mistakes? Ben was the one character I really liked and then they gave him a stupid storyline, too.I enjoyed the British version.

I can't wait for Ben to come into the show in S2, Mark. I've always thought he's a massive step up from Doctor David. It's entirely possible this is all due to Robert Gant too...so who knows.

I don't think any of them have learned a dang thing so far in S1. For example, Brian does something terrible to Michael by outing him to Tracy, Michael is so angry with Brian he doesn't want anything to do with him...and he goes back to Brian within an episode or two. I mean..come on.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

I remember watching the British version of Queer as Folk on DVD on the old multi-region APEX player. Never got into the American version, tried it when it aired on Showtime, wasn't my thing.

I may have posted about this before, if so, forgive me. I'm getting forgetful in long threads.

There were two gay henchmen in the James Bond movie Diamonds are Forever. They were Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. When ABC showed Diamonds as part of its ABC Sunday Night Movie in 1975, all references to homosexuality were removed. The most glaring one was when the pair blow up a helicopter, then walk away hand-in-hand. This was the first Bond movie I bought on VHS and when I saw that scene, I literally yelled at the screen. I never realized that Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd were a couple!

Now I don't know how to feel about their characters. 1971 Hollywood was not known for its portrayals of gays and lesbians. More often than not, they were homocidal maniacs, or unhappy in their lives.

By the way, be on the lookout for Larry Kramer's The Normal Heart, coming May 31st on HBO.

 

[Mark-W]

I love this post, Steve!

I thought the trailers for The Normal Heart have it debuting on May 25th, no doubt, to be re-aired many times.
Matt Bomer, Julia Roberts and Mark Ruffalo. It is going to be good!

I remember watching the British version of Queer as Folk on DVD on the old multi-region APEX player. Never got into the American version, tried it when it aired on Showtime, wasn't my thing.

I may have posted about this before, if so, forgive me. I'm getting forgetful in long threads.

There were two gay henchmen in the James Bond movie Diamonds are Forever. They were Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. When ABC showed Diamonds as part of its ABC Sunday Night Movie in 1975, all references to homosexuality were removed. The most glaring one was when the pair blow up a helicopter, then walk away hand-in-hand. This was the first Bond movie I bought on VHS and when I saw that scene, I literally yelled at the screen. I never realized that Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd were a couple!

Now I don't know how to feel about their characters. 1971 Hollywood was not known for its portrayals of gays and lesbians. More often than not, they were homocidal maniacs, or unhappy in their lives.

By the way, be on the lookout for Larry Kramer's The Normal Heart, coming May 31st on HBO.

 

[Matt Hough]

Yes, The Normal Heart is tops on many of our "coming soon" viewing lists. I've never even seen it on stage (I have read the play), so this is going to be quite an experience for me.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Maybe it was the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame Concert that was 5/31. Anyway, I need to program the DVR for The Normal Heart. I suspect this will be a better translation to screen than was Angels In America, which was pretty good but not nearly as good as the Broadway production, which I lucked into seeing one weekend many years ago.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

DVR confirmed it, The Normal Heart debuts May 25th. I'm actually looking forward to seeing Jim Parsons in something other than Big Bang Theory. I wish they had filmed his performance in Broadway's Harvey.

 

[Mike Frezon]

It's the cover story of this week's EW:

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Not surprising since EW and HBO are both Time/Warner companies.

 

[mackjay]

Wow look at Matt Bomer....woof!!

 

[Mark-W]

Wow look at Matt Bomer....woof!!

He's pretty on the inside, too. (This story is quite touching and occurred while he was filming The Normal Heart.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rance-collins/matt-bomer_b_5094608.html

Not surprising since EW and HBO are both Time/Warner companies.