Queer as Folk (1 Viewer)

[Trace Downing]

Question:
I have a few cheapskate friends that asked me to VHS the episodes for them. These guys all make $50 Grand a year (not counting overtime), They can see it for free every Sunday at the local Levi Bar, but still want copies of their own. One is getting free HBO, because of the Cable company's lack of attention, and doesn't want to order Showtime for fear that he'll lose HBO. The others use the excuse..."I just don't watch that much TV to justify the price." They have to return the tapes after they watch it, as I'm not going to keep buying tapes every 2 weeks to let them keep the full season.
So...Why should I have to pay for a subscription to Showtime, when they don't have to, and Showtime gets lower ratings numbers because they're too cheap to get it themselves?
I value my friendships with them, but at the same time, I want the show to succeed. Without known viewers, hows Showtime to know how popular their show is? Are they being deadbeats, or what?
------------------
"I thought you said your dog didn't bite?"
"That is not my dog."

 

[John Berggren]

I would agree with your perspective. I think it would be good for them to join Showtime to show support for the show. What I would consider doing is letting them see the first four - invite them over on New Years Eve to see the Marathon, then cut them off. If they really want to see the show, they'll order Showtime. If they don't, they'll miss out.
I will always tape things for my friends _ON OCCASSION_ But I would never go to the trouble of giving them the gift of a season's TV. I agree that I don't watch that much TV, so it's a wonder I'm even glued to the set every Sunday. I don't need to make it part of my schedule to make a second tape of QAF for someone who refuses to do it for themselves.
------------------
Rationality is not a commodity which is evenly distributed.

 

[Gerard Priori]

Alan, you know that I don't like the US version--yet I still watch. 'Tis a mystery, indeed.
John, knowing that Showtime must have seen and approved all of these relatively homophobic comments from the actors in interviews (Hal Sparks comparing kissing men to kissing dogs; the actor who plays Dr. Dave stating his discomfort with homosexual displays of affection, etc.), I can't help but be extremely cynical about the show and, by extension, Showtime. They seem to be shamelessly trying to play "both sides of the fence"--they desperately want to seem very progressive and they actively seek a gay audience, yet they have no qualms about insulting their target audience in their hope of going "mainstream." The interviews seem frighteningly geared toward the comfort level of straight audiences. The intended message seems to be: "It's OK if you think the gay sex scenes are gross; the actors who play them think they're disgusting as well. Just watch the show and see how perverted these sodomites are--see if you can stomach it." For this attitude, Showtime wants praise for how "groundbreaking" and "daring" they are?
In spite of the attitude towards its target audience, I may be able to forgive the questionable marketing campaign if I thought the show was any good. I have no problems with the gay "types" on display. I just don't think that they're presented very believably. The UK version presents the same character types but it was much more grounded in recognizable reality. I think the US version presents easy characterizations, not fully fleshed out characters. And I think we could all do without the "After School Special" dialogue.
I'd also love to know why the show so self-consciously avoids any display of male frontal nudity. In spite of Mr. Sparks' comments in the Chicago Sun Times interview, I cannot be the only viewer who vehemently disagrees with (or was insulted by) his comment that there are "sections of a man's body better felt than seen." There are times in the show when I imagine they must have hired stunt camera men--the gymnastics they must be capable of in order to keep us from glimpsing any "buffalo shots" that would ordinarily be on display if the camera was used merely as a witness to events would likely qualify them for Olympic medals. The results are very distracting.
-Jerry

 

[Alan Light]

Trace, I sympathize with your dilemma. Maybe we have the same friends! A friend of mine also doesn't want to subscribe to Showtime for fear of losing the free HBO channel he gets through his cable company's lack of attention, and several others use the same excuse "I just don't watch that much TV to justify the price."
Like you, I've been asked by many friends to tape the entire season of Queer As Folk for them so they don't have to subscribe to Showtime. I think I have created this problem myself, frankly, since in the past I have been very generous about taping shows for friends, including the entire Season 3 of Sex And The City for a few particularly close friends. I've also shared the advance screening tape of the first six episodes of Showtime's Queer As Folk with virtually everyone I know, which means all my friends have seen up to and including the January 21 episode and are pleading for more.
Here's what I do. So far my response has been "Please subscribe to Showtime to show your financial support, because it's a channel committed to significant gay programming. If they see there is a good financial interest then they'll make MORE gay themed shows." I also remind them that Further Tales Of The City is coming up in April. It's been difficult to say "no" politely like this, but I really feel strongly about it in this case.
And lo and behold several friends I never thought would lay out the money to subscribe (they make good money, they're just cheap!) surprised me by subscribing. The rest will just have to do without.
Gerard, regarding the unfortunate homophobic comments by two of the QAF actors, Hal Sparks and Chris Potter, I know for a fact that both the producers and Showtime have been very upset by the remarks and have let the actors know it. The last thing Showtime wants to do is offend the type of subscriber (gay) they are trying to attract.
In fact, you may just find that a certain supporting character is written out of the next season as a reward for his asinine comments. That is, if there is a next season. A decision will be made shortly.

 

[Mark-W]

Regarding Spend-Thrifts Who Don't Want To Subscribe:
1) Let them see the first 3 or 4 episodes.
2) Tell them that if they like the show,
they need to support it, and Showtime,
which has more gay-flavored programming
than any other network.
3) If we are starved for quality, gay-themed
shows, they need to support the ones we do have.
(Would these same people ask you to Xerox a Tom Bianchi
photography book?)
Regarding (the few) Negative Reviews of The US Version:
When is a copy ever better than the original?
I like the US version for what it is.
I appreciate every plotpoint that is
different from the Brit version.
Is is less subtle? Sure.
So are most US dramadies
compared to Brit dramadies.
(This Life, another GREAT BRIT drama,
would NEVER translate in to a US version,
the cultures are too different in our manners, affectations, and lifestyles.)
I love how Brian is being played in the US version.
He is laconic..unemotional..and it fits him.
I agree that the show appears to have no real
justification for being set in Pittsburg.
Frankly, the show would be better off set in
a city like Seattle, or Chicago.
(Not HUGE gay meccas on the scale of LA or NY
but, large enough to make sense of the club scene being
presented.)
My BIG Complaint: As much as I like the
show I HATE the opening credits.
I strongly disagree with the assessment
that Showtime is trying to appease straights
by promoting the misquided comments of a few
of the actors on the show.
Futhermore, male genitalia have been seen on Showtime
produced, gay-themed, mini-series. Lest we forget
More Tales of The City which is available
on DVD, featured unbashed male frontal nudity from
Bill Campbell right after 69'ing with his BF.
I have no problem with people disliking the US version.
And we all can sit back and watch the Brit version
whenever we want.
Still, I am really enjoying the US version. I may end
up liking it more than the Brit version, which would
be a rare thing.
Finally, I am glad that I am seeing more and more
members of the gay community not over-reacting to
things that these str8 actors may say. I am tired
of people who are offended by the gay characters in
The Birdcage or Mrs.Doubtfire.
We come off sounding like a bunch of whiners!
"I want those str8 actors saying how much they liked
kissing men!"
What offends me is Hitler.
What offends me is Jesse Helms.
What doesn't offend me is someone
saying, "I chose to play a wonderful, gay character,
and I found kissing men not to be something I like."
Sure, the guy who is playing Dr.___, in upcoming episodes,
was waaay out of line with his comments,
but he also chose to take part in this show.
No one held a gun to his head and said,
"You MUST be in QAF, and you will make out with men,
and you will LIKE it."
But then I tend to judge people by their actions
and not their words.
Maybe I shouldn't be saying anything because
I also liked Twilight of The Gold's.

Mark

 

[Mark-W]

I want to address some of the cited "failings" of the
US version of QAF..
1) Hal Sparks
Jerry said, and rightly so, that Hal's acting is
leaving something to be desired. Well, I could agree.
First of all, the character Hal is playing is a bit dim
and immature. So if Hal doesn't seem to register much,
well, for me, that fits the character.
Hal's "like kissing a dog" comments. I don't think
they were mean spirited, just stupid.
Would the show be better off if they replaced Hal with
another actor?
YES.
I find it hard to believe it is that
difficult to find an actor willing to play this character,
and do a decent job of it.
Have any of you seen that LAME, highly-sexed series
on Mtv called Undressed? It has lots of
man-on-man action, (At least one gay, running storyline
per season)played by actors that would
easily be better at playing Micheal than Hal Sparks.
The guys are CUTE, and given the lame scripts, do
a decent job acting in them. Even that hottie
from Showtime's Ressurection Blvd played a gay lover on
Undressed!
Frankly, Brian (Gale) and Micheal (Hal) do not
look like they would ever be best friends.
(Vince and Stewart look like they could be lovers,
Brian and Michael definetly do NOT.)
Who here would mind if they make a mid-season casting
replacement for Micheal? NOT ME.
2)As for Chris Potter
making his statements about wanting to run home and
take a shower after his simulated mansex:
Did anyone here see Susan Sarandon when she talked
about her skimpy costume for The Rocky Horror Picture
Show?
Basically, she said it was very compfortable,
but that she should get paid "stunt pay" for making
out with people in films.
So, gay or straight, simulating
sex on screen is apt to make one
want to "clean up" afterward.
EVEN I would want to run home and take a shower if I had
to simulate sex with Hal Sparks.

HOWEVER, knowing that Chris felt such a strong aversion
has already tainted my enjoyment of his scenes with Hal
in those latter episodes.
Still, I would rather see another actor in the part.
"The part of Dr.David will now be played by
_______, who is replacing Chris Potter."
Hell, we survived two Darrens on Bewitched!
I do find that I love the show. But I love it for
the following characters:
1) Ted. I would fall for Ted in about 10 minutes.
He is easily the most likeable character on the show.
He is what Brian fears: Average-looking (only by
we-ho standards, actually) and doesn't give a rip
about Brian's allure.
2) Emmett. He is everything that Micheal fears:
Openly gay, and unapologetic about who he is.
3) Justin. A far cry more appealing as a person
than Nathan. Justin doesn't seem quite as conniving.
4) Brian. Sure, Gale is playing him a bit deadpan,
but it is working for me. I have dated a few Brians,
and the most successful of them never appeared to feel
anything (except for horny).
Okay, well, I have done my part to keep this thread alive.
It is now 90 minutes til 2001, and I clerly need to
get the hell of this computer!

Mark

 

[Alan Light]

I think it's too late to replace any actors this season. About two weeks ago they were in the middle of filming the 17th episode (out of 22 for the season) so they must be up to ep. 18 or 19 by now. Also, I like Hal Sparks! He's adorable. I've had a crush on him ever since Talk Soup, and I don't think his Michael is bad at all. The one I initially didn't care for was Gale Harrold's Brian, but now I suppose I'm used to the cast and wouldn't change anyone.
It's interesting to hear who everyone likes and doesn't like. I'm starting to think it's almost like a Rorsarch (sp?) test (those tests where you see what you want to in ink blots). Among my friends, who they like and don't like is just all over the map and completely contradictory to one another.

 

[Dylan Davis]

"Frankly, the show would be better off set in a city like Seattle, or Chicago.(Not HUGE gay meccas on the scale of LA or NY but, large enough to make sense of the club scene being resented.)"
Agreed. While not like the gay club scenes in LA or NY, Chicago has a HUGE gay population. I would have liked to see the show set here too.
As for Hal Sparks, I think he is really cute, and would NOT like to see him replaced. I think he is very believable as Michael. I especially liked the scene in the bathroom stall with Brian. He seemed very genuine then.
Cant't wait for the new epsiode this weekend.
Dylan

 

[todd s]

My wife & I were watching the show the other night. We were trying to figure out if the cast was gay or not. Just wondering if anyone knows. Thanks!

 

[Alan Light]

Hal Sparks tells USA TODAY he's an avowed heterosexual who was initially "worried he might like" playing gay.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/enter/tv/let002.htm

 

[Alan Light]

Todd, two of the QAF actors have said they are openly gay: Randy Harrison who plays Justin, and Peter Paige who plays the flambuoyant Emmett. Gale Harrold, who plays Brian, refuses to discuss his sexuality. The other actors have said they are heterosexual.

 

[Mark-W]

Todd S-
Your question brings up an interesting delemma:
1) It is natural to be curious about the sexual orientation
of actors who play gay characters in films.
(Some people tend to be a bit reactionary to this
questioning: We never ask if so-and-so is a murderer
in real life, when he plays a serial killer on film!
Well, when you kill someone on film, it is all fake:
You don't really stick a knife in that person,
but when you pretend to make love with someone on film,
you really are sticking your tongue in
another man's mouth, or, in the case of QAF,
sucking another man's nipples
or laying, for the most part, naked on another guy.)
Sure, it is not actual sex, but it would feel
at least like foreplay with another guy.)
2) Both gay and straight actors think
twice before taking on gay roles.
a) Gay actors don't want to be typecast and limited
to playing gay parts, which, if their lucky, make up
10% of available parts in films and shows.
Being older seems to help: young guys who can
pass for straight usually stay closeted professionally,
but older gay actors,
who aren't usually up for romantic parts,
seem to suffer less reprocussions from coming out.
Just look at this list of "high profile," openly gay,
50-year-old-and-over actors:
Sir Ian McKellan,
Nigel Hawthorne,
Sig John Geilguld (deceased now),
Quentin Crisp
And that is just off the top of my head...
Barring Quentin, these other actors frequently play
obstensibly str8 characters.
For younger actors, saying the the closet seems to
be the "smart thing to do" for now:
Rupert Everett is the only openly gay male actor
(under 45) who I can think of that got a
"high visability" str8 part
(in Oscar Wilde's Ideal Husband)
after being openly gay.
Sure he has played str8 lots of times,
but in smaller films like Cemetary Man
and Dance With A Stranger,
which would never attract mainstream audiences anyway).
b) Straight actors frequently publicly announce
their "striaghtness" ASAP (after acepting a gay role)
if they are not widely known for their personal sexual exploits.
(i.e. There would be little/no reason for Charlie Sheen
to announce he is straight if he decided to play a
gay character in a film.)
Dean Cain, who has protrayed gay characters twice now,
actually had to tell his agent he wanted to do
The Broken Hearts Club, because there
was some fear (on his agents part, not his)
that "playing gay" twice in his thus far
rather limited career, might impact his
future prospects.
He also said, he understands why his many gay
actor friends remain in the closet: it is not
homophobia, it is preception. Tons of people who
work behind-the-camera are out, but in front of the
camera, it impacts studios' perceptions of what
you can and cannot do. (They're prone to
pigeon-holing EVERYONE).
(This is why I don't find Hal Sparks' initial
"straight annoucement" too troubling.)
Personally, I am content every time a relativly unknown
actor refuses to discuss his or her sexuality. The
whole "role model" thing is just crap IMHO; this
is 2001, and young people have more openly gay people
to look up to than every before. And actors don't
make the best role models anyway. I'd rather have
kids looking to great artists or people who did
something great, like Ghandi, than some actor.
It is interesting how knowing that the guys playing
Justin and Emmet are gay in real life made me like
them more initially than the other actors involved on
the show.
Mark

 

[Gerard Priori]

And following the same theme of Mark's last post:
Why is it that American actors hardly ever come out of the closet? (And if they do, it's usually because they're dying or their career is already over. Even Nathan Lane, whose sexuality must have been a surprise to nobody, took years to come out.) On Mark's list of gay actors, where are the Americans? (I swear this country disgusts me more and more as each day ends.)
Of course gay actors in Hollywood staying in the closet is homophobia. They may rationalize it however they wish but the fact remains that America is a fiercely homophobic country with a slavish devotion to conformity. Typecasting may be the rule rather than the exception but the reason for it is homophobia. And the actors who willingly hide and play the game are definitely part of the problem.
The disgusting phenomenon that we're left with is a parade of self-announced straight actors on the covers of all the gay media outlets stating "I'm not gay (god forbid), but I play one on TV." And I'm supposed to get enthusiastic about this? I can't.
When Susan Sarandon, in the ROCKY HORROR interview, joked about wanting stunt pay for making out in films, it was to let us know that eroticism in films isn't at all erotic on the set while filming the scenes. Chris Potter's comments were specifically about his gay scenes in QAF--shameless macho posturing to let the readers know he's a "real man"; not only did he say that he wanted to shower after his gay sex scenes, he also said that he has always been uncomfortable with public displays of homosexual affection.
Other notable differences between Sarandon's and Potter's attitudes are that over the years Susan has been very supportive of her ROCKY HORROR fans--she's been to many of the conventions, she's taken her daughters to see the film, and she never speaks down to those of us who love the movie so much. Also, she has given interviews about her lesbian scenes in THE HUNGER and she's never said anything stupid and derogatory. I've never heard of Chris Potter until QAF an he's already on my shit list.
I don't buy for a second that Showtime didn't know about those comments before they were published. I still think they're trying to play both sides of the audience. If the series continues to mimic most of the major plot points of the original UK version, Chris Potter isn't long for the show anyway. So Showtime can drop him from the show for his hateful remarks (even though his character would be written out anyway had he not said anything stupid), gay media outlets can once again praise Showtime for its "bold" business decision and we can all shower Showtime with praise and subscription dollars for being so gay positive. The reality is that Showtime isn't as progressive as they'd like us to believe. When they start producing gay themed entertainment that isn't presented and advertised like it's some kind of kinky freak show, I'll start believing the hype.
-Jerry

 

[Alan Light]

Wow, strong stuff Jerry. I'm just curious, which network do you think has done better than Showtime? (Sundance, maybe?) Showtime has a long history of gay programming - from the groundbreaking sitcom "Brothers" in the early 1980s to the Tales Of The City sequel (Showtime presents the third series in April) and QAF. How much original gay themed programming have you seen on HBO?
It never struck me that Showtime "presented and advertised QAF like it's some kind of kinky freak show." It was hyped, yes, even over-hyped, but everything is over-hyped today. QAF's promotion is similar to lots of other programs vying for a viewer's short attention span in a 500-channel universe.
Regarding some of the actors homophobic-sounding comments, you say "I don't buy for a second that Showtime didn't know about those comments before they were published." This sounds a bit conspiracy-theorist. To believe that would mean believing that Showtime huddled ahead of time with the actors and planned out what they should say. The actors unfortunate comments strike me as off-the-top-of-their-head (open mouth - insert foot) remarks, and the actors have since backpedaled like crazy for making them.
Regarding closeted actors, I share your frustration. Author Armisted Maupin, in his Advocate interview a while back, had some great comments along this line, thinly veiled remarks aimed toward an un-named Sean Hayes. He could have directed similar comments to David Hyde Pierce or Rosie O'Donnell or many others.

 

[Gerard Priori]

I've not seen Showtime's BROTHERS. I have seen their TALES sequel and I enjoyed it very much, I look forward to the next installment. However, the press coverage for their TALES series always talks about how brave Showtime was in light of the fact that public television caved into pressures from the religious right and dumped production on the planned TALES sequel due to its gay content, giving viewers the impression that there is something "deviant" in the piece that's sure to thrill people looking for something "different."
Gay programming never seems to be advertised as if it's about normal people in fascinating and dramatic situations; they always seem to me to be advertised by highlighting the "kink" factor. Even the ads for Showtime's recent HOLIDAY HEART was sold with an attitude that came across as "see macho actor Ving Rhames in a dress acting campy" as they showed images of him as a night club drag queen doing a Supremes lip-sync. The film itself was an interesting enough story with the tired theme of homosexual as sexless guardian angel.
The theme of most gay programming on TV is "gays are heterocentric too," which I'm sure comforts the straight masses who are always so eager to have everything be about them. QAF was a great opportunity to have a solid show about homocentric homosexuals dealing with life on their own terms and we're given poor melodrama featuring dimwitted characters who, once again, allow the straight masses to feel morally superior.
Unlike many gay people, I am not advocating that the show clean up its act and stop presenting the promiscuity and drug use (gays by no means dominate the market on loose sex and drug abuse). While each of the characters may represent some type of gay person and some type of gay behavior, I never feel that I'm watching fully-fleshed characters. People are complex and do great and horrible things for reasons that seem quite reasonable (and perhaps inevitable) in their specific context. If QAF presented the same characters as it does with better acting and writing, I'd be behind the Show 100%. But I've already ranted about what I find so poor about the show, so I'll say no more about that.
Surely Showtime has a PR department and surely the interviews, in which the stupid comments were made, were scheduled. I'd be surprised if Showtime doesn't closely guard the marketing of its projects; they must have seen the interview comments before they were published and they probably approved them for print. I don't think it was a calculated conspiracy. Perhaps the marketing department is clueless. But the fact remains that the impression I get from these interviews is, as I've said, one of holding hands of uncomfortable straight audiences and saying, "it's OK to think gay sex is disgusting because the actors do, too."
The catering to the comfort level of straight audiences is nothing new and is hardly unique to QAF. On an episode of WILL 'N' GRACE (that's 'N' like Amos 'n' Andy), Grace freaks out when she is kissed by a woman. If the show was so progressive and gay-affirming, wouldn't it have made more sense for her to explain to the woman that she just wasn't interested? They could have made some jokes without the knee-jerk discomfort with same-sex affection. Instead, we get the knee-jerk overreaction, indicating to the audience that it's OK to be absolutely repelled by same-sex affection, after all, it's so funny.
I don't watch everything on TV, but for my time and money the most satisfying bits of homosexuality on TV today are Willow and Tara on BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER and Keller and Beecher on HBO's OZ. Neither show delves much into gay issues and the characters on neither show self-identify as gay. In the case of OZ, the relationship is rife with distrust and betrayal (but, and this is very important, the distrust and betrayal are shown to have nothing whatsoever to do with the homosexuality. There is no indication in OZ that homosexuality is in any way dysfunctional--though certainly dysfunctional people may be homosexual). But on both shows, the performances and writing make the characters' discovery of the love that each has for the other seem quite real. Despite the supernatural elements on BUFFY and the hyper-violence of OZ, both shows get the feelings of the relationships right; they both read beautifully. If only the relationships on QAF played like either of these two shows.
I just loved the original UK version of QAF as it was quite gay and honestly homosexual. QAF US may be gay, but I don't find it to be honestly homosexual.
-Jerry
------------------

 

[Mark-W]

I do want to add something to
Jerry's discussion as it relates
to Susan Sararon and The Hunger.
Susan has made some comments about
her lesbian sex scene with Catherine:
(Remebering her phrasing as best I can..)
Susan said,
"They wanted me to be drunk, and
didn't agree. I thought it was much more interesting
if my character went [to bed] willingly. And I don't
care what your previous sexual history is, you don't
have to be drunk to want to go to bed with Catherine
Denueve!"
Did I mention I adore Susan?
As for some other comments:
I notice Brit men are much more "par for the course"
on doing frontal nudity too. If you have a favorite
Brit actor, you don't have to look to far into his
filmography (usually) to find films he did full frontal
nudity in.
The ones that come to mind:
Jude Law (in Wilde and others)
Jeremy Northam (in A Fatal Inversion)
Jeremy Irons (in Damage)
Ralph Fiennes (don't recall, but it was there)
Rupert Everett (in Cemetary Man)
Ewan MacGregor (like I have to mention him;
It would be shorter to mention films
he hasn't let it "all hang out" in!)
and on and on and on...
American actors?
Um?
Bruce Willis
Kevin Bacon
Eric Stoltz
and
Harvey Keitel
are the ONLY one that come to mind...
The Brits are UNDOUBTABLY more compfortable with
sexualtiy than the US is. Also, America is more
compfortable with lesbainism, because that is
the straight male fantasy.
In fact, playing
a bisexual is what put Sharon Stone "on the map"
so to speak. The same would NOT be true for
a man who played a bisexual.
Hell, Queer As Folk ran on NORMAL television there!
So does This Life, which had a few moments of
hot "bonking" here and there too.
I do NOT believe Showtime, or the US producers of
QAF had any idea they had reason to worry about what
Hal or Chris would say in interviews.
I seriously doubt they would've even hired Chris
if they had known he would say what he did.
While I am sure the producers knew and scheduled
the interviews with Chris and Hal, I am sure they
didn't go over what they could and could not say
during those interviews. They were going into interviews
not preparing for presidential debates!
Does anyone EVER do practice "run throughs" for
silly little magasine interviews with relatively
unknown (and unimportant) actors?
I seriously doubt it.
"Oh, Bill, you have an interview with US magazine
on Tuesday, let's practice what you're going to say..."
That just don't sound realistic to me,
especially if "Bill" is thus far a nobody.
As a side note, I thought Holiday Heart
sucked on so many levels. I mean, who the hell develops
a relationship with a man who once put a gun to your head?
But, I am not Black, and I know there are aspects to
African American culture that I do not fully understand
(as much as I would like to).
Mark

 

[Alan Light]

I can't speak for Showtime, I just don't see how it makes sense that Showtime could be pleased with the homophobic remarks at the very same time they are spending $10+ million to attract gay subscribers, much less the idea they helped plan the remarks in first place and are allowed by Newsweek magazine to see an article before it's printed.
I can't speak for the QAF producers either, but a respected acquaintance of mine who is so close to the producers that he dines with them regularly and can be seen as an extra behind the main characters in various bar scenes tells me
that the comments greatly distressed the producers to the point that certain actions will be taken next season, if there is a next season. I'm sworn not to say more than that.

 

[Mark-W]

Yah, Alan, I am totally in agreement with you
on this one. Some members of "gay community"
get up in arms when straight people don't sound
like they fully support us.
(Sometimes it is justified,
like with the QAF guys,
and sometimes it isn't.)
Remember when The Advocate made Madonna
"coward of the year" (or whatever they call it)
for simply stating that she was straight?
How retarded was that?
But it showed that gay people, as a community,
pay attention (and react, right or wrong)
to what is said about them or their orientation.
The idea that anyone would think it would be
smart marketing to have actors on a show (that
will be made or broken by it's gay fans) make
comments that will understandibly piss of gay
consumers (as Jerry rightfully is) is just not..
well...accuate.
Finally, I like to say, that I have been perusing
Showtime's other original programming, and I am impressed
that they TRULY seem to "honor diversity."
They have a wonderful black drama, Soul Food
and a very cool latino drama, Resurrection Blvd.
Where are ABC, CBS, and NBC on representing
black-centric and latino-centric shows?
I don't see any. (And the FOX --or is the
WB?-- seems to think
African-Americans only like comedies.)
Showtime has really impressed me. Period.
Mark

 

[Dylan Davis]

Queer As Folk is a soap opera. Like Melrose Place or As The World Turns, or What The Fuck Ever. We should be glad that for once we can see gay men kiss and have sex. Not unlike Heather Locklear and "whatever man" have had, for YEARS on national tv.(No offense to Heather...LOVED Amanda!) It's about time, and HOORAY!!! for Showtime. No camera shot to the shocked hetero "friend" watching in the wing.
"I swear this country disgusts me more and more as each day ends."
me too, but amen for Showtime and the likes.
Dylan Davis

 

[Trace Downing]

Jerry;
I've read your posts, and (correct me if I'm wrong) you seem to object to the political implications of the show, more than the narrative itself.
Granted, it isn't perfect. But it's also only 4 episodes into the series. You've only seen 6. This isn't a movie, where the characters have to be fleshed out within the first hour. This is a TV series, where they can take their time in revealing the true characters. I'm not saying it WILL rise above the cliches, but I am willing to give it a try.
Take Beecher for a second. When Oz first started, we were sure he was dead meat. We didn't really feel that much for him, other than Schillinger making him his bitch, and feeling sorry for the poor sap. We didn't realize how much over the edge he went until theend of the first season, when we all of the sudden found his backbone. He immediately turned into a completely different character in the course of 14 episodes. Or, if you have it, he evolved into someone he thought he'd never be. Brilliant writing BTW.
Have you ever seen the first season of Seinfeld? Yeech! Star Trek: TNG took more than a full season to start hitting it's stride. Sure there were a couple of gems in season 1, but most of it was pure cheese, even the costumes. X-files was cryptic and confusing in it's first season. Newhart, IMO, didn't even begin until Stephanie arrived, in season 3 I believe. Hell, even The Cosby Show took a few seasons before they got comfortable with their smarmy selves, and suburban happiness.
Yes, I think The Sopranos is a much better show than QAF. But, since I'm not in the mob, I can't readily identify with the characters, I'm just fascinated by them. I can identify with the characters in QAF, since I live in their world on a day to day basis. Yes, it's cliche, simple, and I would like to see more complex story lines, but I have a feeling we eventually will...just give it time.
Yes, they may be copping out with some of the realism, as far as trying to get straights to watch it. But baby steps have always been made in Television. And lets face it, The British aren't as adolescent as we are when it comes to sex, or sexuality. They can be more frank with the subject, and more honest, because they don't have Phylis Schlaffly, Donald Wildman, Pat Robertson, or James Dobson threatening boycotts on everyone who says the word "GAY" in public.