From: junikka@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Jari Junikka)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: JFK to LBJ: galled by Stone?
Keywords: Oliver Stone, JFK, tabloid political thrillers, nasty Lyndon Baines
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:16:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: schaefer.1992Apr13.041658.20951
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics


Once again protesting the Hollywood's homophobia and potrayal of queers 
or lack thereof is subject to debate... I think I finally realized what
has bother me in the innumerable posts so far about the Silence of the Lambs,
JFK, and the Basic Instict.

I think that the artistic merit or the quality of a film and whether we
should protest a particular film are INDEPENDENT of each other. A good
movie can still promote stereotypes and even hatred of queers. 

Think about what are the goals of the protests. I think many people haven't
given thought what the protestors are there for. I'm sure that people 
involved in protests have varied motivations, but here is how I perceive it:

The film industry has shown reluctance to show lesbians, bisexuals or
gay men as huma beings: we have been cast in the roles of villians,
exoctic back drops or to give an extra twist of sinister to otherwise
mediocore plot. All of this relies on the general homophobia of 
the society. What is not shown is gay men falling in love, lesbians
starting a family, or any of the hundreds experience which are part
of every day HUMAN life: growing up, finding a partner, a marital
crisis, old age or even death. Think about all the films which potray
these every day events of STRAIGHT people. Some of them are quite
touching, some of them are big time money makers. [Some I remember
seeing over the last few years that I liked: the Accidental tourist,
the Beaches, Alice] 

Where are the corresponding films about queers? Quoting Queers Read
This [the infinite source of wisdom, you just has to interpreter it
to fit the situation:-)]

   I hate straight people who think stories  about themselves are 
   "universal" but stories about us are only about homosexuality.

It is time to make the film industry to realize that our lives are
relevant to the HUMANKIND. 

As stated before by several people, the Hollywood will react amount
of green each movie brings in, they hardly care if the movie was
condemned as most racist and homophobic or facists creation of 
the century, if that's what sells. [Compare to contoversial groups
like Gun and Roses etc.]

So we have to try to educate them about the potential money making
potential of films potraying queers as part of the humanity.
Eventually someone will take up the market slot. Think about it:
10% of the population queer plus families and friends will amount
to quite a good target audience.

The more protests we have over films with negative potrayals or even
potrayals which can be construed as negative [more about this later]
the clearer the potential of queer positive films become.

At the same time, these protests give us an opportunity to voice
our concerns to the masses: we gain newspaper and other media
attention, we wouldn't gotten otherwise. These allow us to educate
the masses about the discrimination which usually is not recognized
as such: the lack of attention, equal coverage or selective censorship
of our lives from the mass media. And hopefully through education
we will also make homophobic [dream on, honey] films less profitable
by decreasing the number of people who enjoy cheap shots at queers.
[I guess in real life the success of the latter method is questioable
ie. educatig the masses to the extend that homophobia in a film would
guaratee a box office loss, but what is left when hope is gone.]

To effect a change, it is important to protest ANY film which continues
the tradition of queer invisibility or bashing. Even if the plot justifies
this, like people have argued in the case of the Basic Instict or the fact
that all the characters of the film are negatively potrayed doesn't lessen
the fact the film exploiting the homophobia and the stereotypes of 
the society. As I said before, the artistic merit of a film is independent
of its societal value/inpact. [Compare this with, for example with the art
made durig the reign of the Third Reich in Germany: is it not art because 
of the horror committed by the German society at the time.]

In the case of the Silence of the Lambs, there were appeals to even
odder defenses: the murderer is not gay, but a transvestite.
So they gay commuity was happy, it wasn't us gettig the bad rep...
Bullshit, is it any more right to stereotype transexuals or transvestites?
And does it really make a difference, if 98% of the audience still sees
a metally ill faggot killer on the screen, as evideced by someone
of soc.motss who saw the movie and reported of the audiece reaction.

Some comments on two posts:

pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?)) writes:

>In article <ktkltvINNvu@news.bbn.com> rrizzo@star-trek.bbn.com 
>(Ron Rizzo) writes:
>>I didn't know what to think, aside from the less than fabulous role the
>>lavender people play in Stone's political fantasy life. 

>ok.  everyone is real mad at stone for these portrayals.  which 
>strikes me a little funny.  2 points to think of:

>	1) look at *who* oliver stone got to portray queers on 
>		the big screen.  on soc.bi we have been discussing
>		outing ad nauseum, and one point regularly made 
>		is that playing a queer is the kiss of death for
>		an acting career... especially for a heartthrob.  
>		i have younger sisters.  kevin bacon is a 
>		heartthrob.  and tommy lee jones ain't no slouch.  
>		he, in particular, played a sympathetic queer.  

I see no connection between the (perceived) career sacrifice
of an actor and whether a movie is worth protesting against.
Even if it was Harvey Fierstein playing the role of a screaming
queen gone on a murder rampage [I actually see movie potential here:-)],
it's still promoting the association homosexuality=bad, sinful, insane...

Also, if you read a last-year issue of Advocate on Hollywood homophobia,
they went through dozens of actors careers who had played queer characters.
Some had become cash box magnets despite the queer roles thay had played.
In general, those whose careers went under after playing queer roles
were in a down spiral already. They took the queer roles since that
was only (half-way) deceant roles they could get. No wonder, these
roles were "kiss of death" for some of them.

So, the "kiss of death" is more of a legend than an explanation.

>	2) as someone who was born only a few monthes before the
>		assassination, i have nomemories of this time.  
>		the overwhelming feeling i got about queers from
>		was that it was very dangerous to *be* queer then. 
>		just being queer made you a criminal, and if you 
>		did anyhtin else wrong at all, you were in much 
>		more trouble because you were also queer.  and 
>		the feeling was that this was *much* more widespread
>		then than now.  then it was ok.  

This is irrelevat. At least two argumets here: the film was not about 
the attitudes of the society towards queers. How these queers were
potrayed and the interaction between them and the society was a dressing.
They might be factual, but what percentage of the straight audience
perceive the film as documenting this or even see a glimpse of your point.

Think about similar use of racial stereotypes. Would that be acceptable
just because at the time it was the way society behaved?

>i liked the portrayals.  i liked the movie.  i want to see positive
>queers on the screen, but i'm not willing to trash this movie
>becasue of the queers.  and i liked jones' portrayal especially.  a
>man in the closet, fighting for his political/professional life, in
>denial perhaps even to himself sometimes.  

I don't see liking a movie and still protesting it excluding each other.

jari

PS: I strogly recommend Vito Russo's book The Celluloid Closet for
    a comprihensive analysis of queer in Hollywood films and for
    political commentary.