QUEER CINEMA 2007: AT LEAST WE STILL KNOW HOW TO ACCESSORIZE

A reader recently asked me what I thought of the state of Queer Cinema in 2007.

I threw up a little in my mouth.

Two years since the Brokeback Mountain "revolution", queer cinema is, in my view, generally harmful, mostly offensive and profoundly lacking.  In fact, 2007 would more aptly be described as the year in homophobic cinema.  The biggest gay movie of the year, Chuck & Larry, was a piece of Hollywood trash that would have likely landed Adam Sandler and his co-star what's-his-name in jail if this country had hate crime laws equal to the ones found in most EU nations and Canada.

And then there was Wild Hogs.

Four of Hollywood's biggest names, John Revolting, William Macy, Martin Lawrence and Tim Allen starred in a film that could very well have been produced by Exodus International.  The film's premise is simple.  Four middle-aged heterosexual men realize their lives are a mess and that they have become ineffectual, impotent failures--incredibly gay, in fact.  And from the very beginning of the film until the four heteros regenerate testicles, the homophobic "that's so gay" jokes will make you long for the gay-loving humor of Chuck & Larry.  The homophobic gay jokes finally stop when the four friends stand up to bullies with their fists and rediscover their manhood.  Yes, Wild Hogs is as offensive as that.  And it does contain two gay characters that make the Chuck & Larry stereotypes seem benign.

I suppose I failed to do the obligatory gay blog post on the year's ten best in queer cinema 2007 because 2007 was a new low for Hollywood--and if Hollywood is any reflection of the state and nature of American society, America is not a healthy place for queers.  In fact, between Hollywood, YouTube celebrities, the failure of ENDA and Hate Crimes legislation, same sex marriage bans, all of the Republican Presidential candidates and all of the Democratic Presidential Candidates--except for crazy Dennis Kucinich, and the relentless attacks from Evangelicals and the Vatican, if you have any self-esteem left, its a testament to your strong and enduring character.

In fact, the production and distribution of Wild Hogs might suggest that queer visibility has done nothing but made us more high profile targets.

A footnote: Yes, there were some gems in 2007 (Small Town Gay Bar, The Bubble, Fat Girls and For The Bible Tells Me So)--but they were all Indies or foreign and had nothing to do with Hollywood and commercially viable distribution channels.

One of the most extraordinary aspects of America's gay minority is it's docile and even obsequious acceptance of the treatment doled out by Hollywood.  Consider the thriving film and TV presence for African-Americans, a community with less expendable income than queer America and only slightly greater in numbers, 13.4 percent of the United States population vs 10 percent for the gay and lesbian population.  Considering the numbers of gays and lesbian working in film and television in Los Angeles and New York, this disparity in service is even more dramatic--but closet life is a silent and homophobia-supportive world.

Where are our Denzel Washingtons, Will Smiths, Morgan Freemans and Jamie Foxes?  Where are the films representing our real lives, our real issues and our real achievements?  Hollywood cuts the gay out of Alexander but wouldn't dare cut the black out of Glory.

If racism was as easily and as glibly expressed in film and television as is homophobia, the reaction would be substantially different.

Ironically, who is more Christian than an American queer?  No one turns the other cheek with such charm and willingness.  We just keep getting slapped but, frankly, if you're like me, you're running out of cheeks to turn.

The state of queer culture in America is deplorable.  We squander our political clout on candidates who at best half-heartedly support us.  We accept representation by the most ineffectual and impotent advocacy groups in the history of the American Civil Rights movement.  And we worship slavishly at the alter of the most homophobic and anti-gay film industry in the western world.  Planning your Oscar party?

But as long as we have Carson Kressley telling heterosexual fat women how to look good naked, all is right with the queer world--at least that's how we seem to behave.  I'm coining a new term: gapathy, apathy taken to a heretofore unimaginable level by gay America.

Comments

[jerry]

if you put blacks and gays into percentages, and in the same minority category, do you remember that there are gay black people? or are they not included in your 10 percent. then if this was a pie chart or something there would be an overlap or are black gays not important cuz they are already a minority?
sounds you are angry just because you want to be.

RR: YOU GET AN F IN READING COMPREHENSION

Richard, you are right. We need to do something. But who is there to rally around?

Also, the seeming ranter with poor grammar above me did have a slight point. Black GLBT people do make up a percentage of us, therefore, we cannot constitute a separate group from the black community as a whole. People are members of both.

I do wish that they had edited their comment though. I hate to see things like that.

RR COMMENTS: SPEAKING AS A JEW, I FEEL VERY WELL REPRESENTATED IN HOLLYWOOD MOVIES, BUT LIKE ANY MEMBER OF TWO OR MORE "MINORITIES" I WEAR DIFFERENT HATS.

[Ed Deluzain]

Thanks for this post. I like your term "gapathy." I might take the concept a step further and coin "demapathy," and even "leftapathy."

[EJ]

Thank god/goddess/buddha/who/whatever for you.....i feel like a total minority within a minority for having the same thoughts.....keep up the fantastic work!

[Ed Deluzain]

I give you an A+ in reading comprehension, and I'm one of only a few certified reading specialist in the State of Florida. Your insights and inferences are extraordinary, but you know that. jerry is just plain wrong. But a reminder: don't think all Catholics accept and subscribe to the hierarchy's "teachings" on homosexuality. Because we don't.

[jerry]

@ R: can't remember anymore what your post is talking about but if i get an F in reading, you get an F minus in spelling- 'representated' puhleezee
@anonymous who hated my poor grammer, at least i used my name.
@ed : what am I wrong about?
with this, maybe I should start my blog and talk about how difficult it is being black and gay. I am sure I would have a lot to 'rant' about.
i just resented your comparing gay rights to black people's rights like gays are just members of the white community and not rainbow colored like the rest of America.
do i still get an F?

RR COMMENTS: NO, NOT AN "F", YOU GET A "B" FOR BIGOT.