A history of homosexuality as presented in the cinema. It makes some good points, even if some are a little obvious. As an example, Lilly Tomlin, the narrator, points out that female homosexuality seems to be a little less objectionable to the public than male homosexuality -- and it's true in my experience. I've always been curious about alternative life styles and spent a good deal of time in and around gay bars in Greenwich Village and San Francisco (including the one and only original Black Cat Cafe on Montgomery), used the words "campy" and "gay" before they entered the mainstream lexicon. And as a cultural anthropologist I went through the workshop on Human Sexuality Training at UC Berkeley. I don't really care one way or another about a friend's gender orientation. Yet I still wince a bit when I see men kissing on screen, while I find lesbian love scenes can be a turn on. The movie offers no explanation for this common experience -- nor can it, since no one has figured it out as far as I know. (I'll skip some technical guesses here.) Oh, a note. I haven't read the book this film is based on, but anybody who wants to explore the dynamics of a gay community should check out Frances Fitzgerald's "Cities on a Hill."
The movie pulls a lot of information together and makes a convincing case for its chief argument, which is that gay people have been unfairly treated on the screen. In early movies they were mainly lisping and limp-wristed stereotypes, good mainly for laughs. Think of prissy Franklin Pangborn or Edward Everet Horton. I guess it must seem demeaning to gay people, but it really IS funny to see a person assume a different identity and use a bit of overkill. It's always amusing to see Robin Williams act gay (or do his Yiddish schtick) on TV. The humor in mixed identities goes back at least to Greek comedy. To explain why it's funny, you'd have to have a philosophy of jokes and humor, and a better one than Freud's.
In a second filmic developmental stage, both male and female gays became villains. Again the movie offers no explanation for the change, although again maybe none is possible. And modern movies STILL turn many heavies into homosexuals -- even a liberal fave like "Z", for instance. Or Gene Hackman's aide in "No Way Out" or Hitchcock's "North by Northwest." I can't see any particular reason for this overlay of "evil." It may be amusing to act out an identity different from the one with which you were biologically endowed, but it isn't naturally enraging to hand the same problem over to a villain. Not that there aren't evil gay people, just that there's no reason to think that there are more evil gay people than evil straight people, so why are they disproportionately represented on screen? I think I can take a simple guess at this answer. A lot of middle Americans hate queers. I would guess that if you were going to come out, it would be a lot safer to do it in a blue state than in a red state.
The narration keeps us up with the clips we're seeing on screen but carries an accusatory tone -- YOU did it, you Fascist. I don't especially like it because, frankly, I didn't do a thing and neither did anyone else I know. Actually I think homosexuality may be Mother Nature's way of damping population explosions. (It increases among crowded mice.) The most penetrating remarks, and the only funny ones, come from the talking heads who have been in one way or another affiliated with movies about gays. Some of these interviewees are really witty and direct. Susan Sarandon points out that lesbians embrace affectionately and sometimes kiss at the end of the film while male buddies run off bravely to die together, as in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," in which "they get their guns out because they can't get their d***s out."
There's a lot more to be said on the subject, and on this film, but let us observe the limitations on space. The movie ends on a somewhat upbeat note. Hollywood is now beginning to deal with homosexuality in a mature way. "The Boys in the Band" is given as an instance. But the movie was released in 1996 and doesn't bring up a newer trend that may be emerging. If gays were stereotypical jokes in early movies, and villains in later ones, they may now be turning into sidekicks on the screen or into supporting people who turn the movie into something "hip." Vide: "Copycat," "Victor/Victoria," "Internal Affairs," "Single White Female," and a slew of others. It's probably their most encouraging cinematic function yet, showing us that homosexuality needn't be an earth-shattering mental disease at all.
The movie pulls a lot of information together and makes a convincing case for its chief argument, which is that gay people have been unfairly treated on the screen. In early movies they were mainly lisping and limp-wristed stereotypes, good mainly for laughs. Think of prissy Franklin Pangborn or Edward Everet Horton. I guess it must seem demeaning to gay people, but it really IS funny to see a person assume a different identity and use a bit of overkill. It's always amusing to see Robin Williams act gay (or do his Yiddish schtick) on TV. The humor in mixed identities goes back at least to Greek comedy. To explain why it's funny, you'd have to have a philosophy of jokes and humor, and a better one than Freud's.
In a second filmic developmental stage, both male and female gays became villains. Again the movie offers no explanation for the change, although again maybe none is possible. And modern movies STILL turn many heavies into homosexuals -- even a liberal fave like "Z", for instance. Or Gene Hackman's aide in "No Way Out" or Hitchcock's "North by Northwest." I can't see any particular reason for this overlay of "evil." It may be amusing to act out an identity different from the one with which you were biologically endowed, but it isn't naturally enraging to hand the same problem over to a villain. Not that there aren't evil gay people, just that there's no reason to think that there are more evil gay people than evil straight people, so why are they disproportionately represented on screen? I think I can take a simple guess at this answer. A lot of middle Americans hate queers. I would guess that if you were going to come out, it would be a lot safer to do it in a blue state than in a red state.
The narration keeps us up with the clips we're seeing on screen but carries an accusatory tone -- YOU did it, you Fascist. I don't especially like it because, frankly, I didn't do a thing and neither did anyone else I know. Actually I think homosexuality may be Mother Nature's way of damping population explosions. (It increases among crowded mice.) The most penetrating remarks, and the only funny ones, come from the talking heads who have been in one way or another affiliated with movies about gays. Some of these interviewees are really witty and direct. Susan Sarandon points out that lesbians embrace affectionately and sometimes kiss at the end of the film while male buddies run off bravely to die together, as in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," in which "they get their guns out because they can't get their d***s out."
There's a lot more to be said on the subject, and on this film, but let us observe the limitations on space. The movie ends on a somewhat upbeat note. Hollywood is now beginning to deal with homosexuality in a mature way. "The Boys in the Band" is given as an instance. But the movie was released in 1996 and doesn't bring up a newer trend that may be emerging. If gays were stereotypical jokes in early movies, and villains in later ones, they may now be turning into sidekicks on the screen or into supporting people who turn the movie into something "hip." Vide: "Copycat," "Victor/Victoria," "Internal Affairs," "Single White Female," and a slew of others. It's probably their most encouraging cinematic function yet, showing us that homosexuality needn't be an earth-shattering mental disease at all.