Overall 0.5 / 5.0 (don’t bother)
Gay Inclusve? Very – mostly gay, some hetero secondary characters
Gay Positive? No – I don’t think they meant to be homophobic, but jeez…

Wow. I actually watched the whole thing, and in hindsight, how did I manage that? I feel like Superman now, able to watch awful movies in their entirety.

Here is the most positive thing I can say about this movie: the performances seem very earnest and enthusiastic, so kudos to the cast for bringing that energy to the show.

Unfortunately, it is far, far… far… from enough to save the film from its choppy editing, godawful camera shots, and aimless plot.

In theory, the movie is supposed to be a satire of a gay man (Jaime, played by Brian Campbell) looking for love and self-understanding via a search for a “straight lover who will be gay just for me.” The movie’s own blurb states, “In the end, Jaime is amazed to discover the one person he never thought he would – himself!”

That’s a stretch. Jaime comes from a background of casual, anonymous sexual encounters in the back of an adult bookstore. One gets the sense he’s never had a real relationship based on commitment and intimacy.

Meanwhile, at his job at an auto shop, he’s closeted. He develops a “bromance” with a (straight) fellow employee (Ray, played by Matt Edwards) who turns out to be a homophobe who tries to get Jaime into deep trouble in a completely contrived plot twist.

Somewhere along the course of the movie, the self-loathing Jaime tries to convince a peer from his backroom sexcapades to move to the suburbs with him and a pair of lesbians to pose as straight couples, so they can try to seduce married straight men. They detour on the way, however, with a series of bathroom encounters with gas station attendants. The film also includes an odd subplot involving a young man (Monty, Michael Gonring) with a self-professed fetish for “trolls” (older gay men). Monty is engaged to be married, and he leaves at the end of the movie for his bride.

I think I’m so disappointed in the movie because its foundational ideas are actually interesting to me. The fetish for straight men (and certainly for straight-acting) is prevalent throughout the gay community, so a satire about a gay man looking for a straight man who will be gay only for him suggests the possibility of both a lot of comedy and a lot of insight. Similarly, youth is highly fetishized in the gay community, so Monty’s subplot could have been woven into the story to enhance and reflect the main story’s theme. Alas. The script is a mishmash of barely coherent scenes and nonstarter plot threads.

My recommendation: Skip it.

Overall 3.5 / 5.0 (promising but fails to deliver a high-impact story)
Gay Inclusive? Very – protagonist is gay, and the mystery takes him into London’s 18th Century gay underworld
Gay Positive? Mostly – the era is definitely not gay positive, but the author’s treatment of the gay content is.

Set in 1757, Lord John Grey is the head of his family’s household until his elder brother Hal returns from a military appointment abroad. As a result, Grey has some responsibility to protect his cousin Olivia, who is engaged to marry well-to-do merchant Joseph Trevelyan, whom Grey believes to be “poxed” with syphilis. At that time in history, syphilis occupied the role HIV/AIDS does today. Worse, in fact: it was incurable, and contracting the illness virtually guaranteed the most unpleasant sort of death.

Meanwhile, another mystery erupts: it appears that vital British state secrets have been lost and might be sold to the French. Grey is tasked with investigating the crime to figure out what happened, who was involved and how to recover the lost secrets before it’s too late.

I enjoyed reading a gay-inclusive mystery set in a period of time about which I know little. Author Diana Gabaldon has done her research (in fact, she is well-known for her historical research), and I learned quite a bit about the history of gay people in Georgian England. She also includes a list of resources for anyone who wants to dig deeper and learn more.

The mystery is mildly interesting, but unfortunately fails to captivate. I was never sufficiently invested in the characters or events such that the story’s twists would have me on the edge of my seat.

Although generally sympathetic, the main character never comes alive. Apparently Lord John is supposed to be young and handsome, but he reads like he’s 60. Whenever his handsomeness was mentioned, it was always kind of jarring, because I had forgotten he was supposed to be young and winsome. That indicates a characterization disconnect.

Lord John is a secondary character from Gabaldon’s better know Outlander series (which I have never read). Reviewer Susan Scribner of TheRomanceReader.com comments,

I like Lord John throughout the Outlander series he has always come across as sympathetic, complex and slightly tormented, but this story doesn’t shed much new light on his core character. He’s always been a bit of an enigma, and he remains elusive.

That’s problematic when Grey is at the center of the story and occupies nearly every page of the tale. Considering Gabaldon’s exquisite attention to historical detail, I would expect a multilayered character of depth and unexpected internal contradictions. Instead, we find someone who is genteel and devoted to duty, and that’s about it. Even his gayness, which he must keep secret given the social mores of the time period, fails to render him more than mildly interesting.

At the same time, the story hints at repressed passions and an undercurrent of powerful emotions. Perhaps future stories will allow Lord John to unfold more fully as a human being caught in multiple traps: the repressive social standards of the era, the excruciating necessity of maintaining a pristine image in his social class and the painful denial of a loving, committed relationship.

In fact, I was dying for Grey to get some action! I hoped his new valet, Tom Byrd, would develop a requited attraction to his master. But no. Nothing. The most important romance in the novel – which the reader doesn’t really delve into until the end – is heterosexual.

On the whole, I find this book to be promising, but little else. I hope that Gabaldon grows into this genre, and that future volumes chronicling Lord John Grey do him justice.

Overall Quality 2.0 / 5.0 (A+ for effort, but hard to really recommend)
Gay Inclusive? Very – it’s a dramatic gay romance
Gay Positive? Mostly – a few instances of internal & external homophobia pop up

From the same filmmaker (Jeff London) as Regarding Billy, we have Arizona Sky.

The movie opens with a scene between teenage Jake (Blaise Embry) and Kyle (Kyle Buckland). They have been having a secret romance, but now Jake’s family is moving away. They promise to keep in touch, but we all know how adolescent promises like that turn out.

Fast forward fifteen years, and we meet an adult Jake (Eric Dean). He’s a movie producer deeply dissatisfied with his life. His straight best friend (Brent King) calls him on it, and Jake decides to take a vacation to his home town, where he looks up Kyle (Jayme McCabe).

I was engaged by the first half of the movie. From the moment adult Jake met adult Kyle, however, the script took a sharp left into hokey and hackneyed. I was almost ready to buy into the foundational idea that maybe Jake and Kyle, even after 15 years, still had a powerful connection. But as soon as we meet the adult Kyle, it’s apparent that these two have grown into such fundamentally different men, I could not understand why they were so impassioned about one another that they would be driven into histrionics.

Maybe it has something to do with the self-indulgent script. Every scene is at least 10 or 20 percent longer than it should be, and the movie is incredibly talky. I like thoughtful screenplays, but even I was dying for something to happen.

The basic story is sweet. Most of the acting ranges from passable to competent. (Note I said “most”). A charming performance from Eric Dean is probably the movie’s highlight; I also really enjoyed the repartee between him and his straight best friend. Arizona Sky is gay-positive on the whole, a few instances of homophobia notwithstanding.

Everything shows potential, from the acting to the script. The movie just never gels. Its disparate parts are all off just enough that I spent the whole movie divorced from the experience. I never stopped being aware that I was watching a movie.

Overall Quality 4.5 / 5.0
Gay Inclusive? Very – an engaging and moving story of the gay rights movement and one of its heroes
Gay Positive? Very – although a tragic tale, it is fiercely empowering

This is the movie I wish Brokeback Mountain had been.

Don’t get me wrong – Brokeback Mountain was a masterpiece of film-making, and it was robbed of its rightful Academy Award. But I have a love-hate relationship with such movies – beautiful, moving, and important stories that are horribly tragic and unhappy. I’m glad that a gay love story finally hit the mainstream with Brokeback Mountain, but it did nothing to dispel myths like gay-love-is-doomed and bad-things-will-happen-to-you-if-you’re-gay.

Milk also brings a tragic story to the big screen: the assassination of gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk. Yet Milk is empowering in a way Brokeback Mountain was not. Instead of vaguely feeling bad about being gay, I felt inspired, charged up and ready to fight for my rights. Milk also brings to the big screen the struggle not just for equal rights but also for freedom from the physical and emotional violence that gay people have long endured.

Just this week, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee claimed on The View that gay rights are not civil rights because gay people have not been subjected to a history of violence like black people. Such a willfully ignorant statement is nothing short of appalling; and yet, it is representative of a surprisingly large swath of the population. Many do not acknowledge or do not care about the persecution of gays in Nazi Germany; the institutionalized violence against gay people by police in previous decades and by religious organizations (like the Mormons using electro-shock therapy to “cure” homosexuality); and individual hate crimes that have claimed the lives of people like Matthew Shepherd.

Thank God for Milk, and what a timely film it is. The movie dramatizes Milk’s move to San Francisco and his subsequent rise to the position of City Supervisor (after several failed attempts). Once in the position, a significant portion of the movie details his fight against Proposition 6, which would have enabled the state of California to fire any teacher known to be gay along with any teacher who supported them.

Fast forward 30 years, and Californians once again vote on a proposition of concern to gay rights – Proposition 8, which successfully banned gay marriage (after the California Supreme Court legalized it).

My only criticism of the film falls on the editing, and I’m not sure what the Gus van Sant could have done differently. He’s just covering so much territory in the space of a couple of hours that much of the story gets told in fast-forward. Nevertheless, the movie was engrossing from start to finish, and the phenomenal acting from all quarters – both Sean Penn and Josh Brolin deserve extra mention – imbues the story with life.

Please see this movie. Please take your friends and family to see it. Particularly in the aftermath of Proposition 8’s passage, a lot of people seem to dismiss the gay community’s reaction as sore losers throwing a tantrum because they didn’t get their way. They do not – perhaps because they are not willing to – recognize how a group of people have been systematically oppressed throughout even the history of a country that espouses the values of equality and the separation of church and state.

Milk is a sad tale, but one encoupled with hope. I walked out of the theater both devastated and determined. One thing can be said of Harvey Milk: his hope lives on in those of us who are willing to embrace it.

“If a bullet should go through my head, let that bullet go through every closet door”

- Harvey Milk

Overall Quality 2.0 / 5.0 (some potential, but misses the goal)
Gay Inclusive? Very – the story focuses on a gay character putting together a gay soccer team
Gay Positive? Moderately – the gays prevail, but only in the midst of rampant homophobia

The gay pathos in this movie got old fast. Maybe I’m just over it in my own life, so I don’t have much patience for it in my entertainment. I wearied of both the difficulty the main character had in coming out, and the over-the-top homophobia thrown in his face. If it had been handled better, maybe I would have been moved. I wasn’t.

The film starts with Ecki (Maximilian Brückner), a soccer (i.e., European football) player on a local team, beginning to realize he might be gay. Neither his teammates nor his father (Dietmar Bär) react well. In fact, his teammates go into homophobe-overdrive. They say all kinds of hateful and nasty things, and then they kick him off the team. Ecki says he’s going to put together a gay team, and that his gay team will kick his former team’s collective ass in four weeks.

Yeah. The whole story is completely contrived. It’s sad too – I like all of the characters, and they imbue the movie with a kind of happy charm that kept me watching. But turn after turn, the story is just forced.

As one example (out of many): the leather daddy Rudi (Jochen Stern) who suddenly turns out to have an estranged son (Marcel Nievelstein) in the 3rd grade; after the obligatory and dramatic break-up of the gay team (”oh no! what will they do now!”), the son mysteriously shows up at his father’s house and helps rally some of the team members; and then the young son shows up at the actual game, all by himself, in a completely different city. That boys gets around! His mother, almost violently antagonistic toward Rudi when we first meet her, miraculously shows up 5 minutes later, and at the end of the movie she’s cheering Rudi’s soccer success. What?

The characters (well, the gay ones, anyway) are the highlight of the film. There’s the closeted guy. The alternative gender identity person. The three leather daddies in a 3-way relationship. A hunky and effeminate gay Turk. A couple of black players (who unfortunately turn out just to be set dressing). Ecki and his down-to-earth boyfriend, a nurse.

At first, I was a bit put off, especially by the crude leather daddies, but then I thought, why not? First, all of them turn out to be more nuanced than you’d expect. Second, they’re representative of a segment of the gay community. Finally, the thing the gay community really wants – equal respect – shouldn’t just apply to the “normal” gays. If we do that, we’re missing the point of the rainbow.

Check it out if you’re a fan of gay-oriented sports films (because, let’s face it, there aren’t a whole lot out there). Otherwise, give this one a pass.

Overall Quality 4.0 / 5.0 (entertaining, if light, read)
Gay Inclusive? Moderately – two secondary gay characters
Gay Positive? Very – both characters are well-rounded and important to the story

Okay, yeah, I have to admit – the plot is nothing new. Mysterious Monster Makes Mayhem; Sassy Star Saves the Day.

Specifically, the vampires are up to no good – a newly made vampire possessed by a demon begins wrecking havoc on the Mercy Thompson’s small community. It’s up to her, along with her werewolf allies and lone vampire friend, to figure out what’s going on and put a stop to it.

Once again, with textured characters and a involving alternate world, the author brings the story to life. It says a lot about the characters when they each have their own minor concerns that almost rival the main story for interest.

For example, Mercy’s gay werewolf cowboy friend (whew!) Warren returns. At one point, he’s wounded by the Big Bad of the story; and certain members of his pack – sensing weakness in a guy they never really cared for because he’s gay – try to take advantage to knock Warren from his position in the pack. It’s a relatively minor thread, but the relationships (good and bad) that exist between these characters possess a vitality that keeps me turning pages as fast as I can.

On the other hand, the fact that subplots nearly eclipse the main story doesn’t speak well of the main story. Considering Briggs’ inventiveness in her world-building, it’s a bit of a let-down to find the central plot to be relatively formulaic.

Nevertheless, Blood Bound was an immensely entertaining and enjoyable read with an exciting climax and meaty denouement (an improvement over the first book’s conclusion). A great read for a rainy Sunday afternoon.

——————-

See also my review of the first Mercy Thompson book, Moon Called.

Overall Quality 4.0 / 5.0
Gay Content 1.5 / 5.0 (minor bits)
Gay Positivity 4.0 / 5.0

An incisive and biting look at the Hollywood industry. As with most of Stiller’s films, the humor is hit or miss, but fortunately hits the spot more often than not.

The film begins with several fake trailers which introduce the film’s characters.

• Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller), a fading action star who’s hoping to reinvigorate his career with a new war movie
• Jeff Portnow (Jack Black), a drug-addicted comedian hoping for critical success
• Alpa China (Brandon T. Jackson), a musician and actor who has parlayed artistic into commercial success through merchandising
• Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey, Jr), a method actor so serious about his craft that he literally loses himself into his roles

The film benefits from inspired casting: each real-life actor is pitch-perfect in their portrayal of a troubled on-screen actor, each haunted by his own demons. (Downey deserves special mention: he’s just amazing in the role.) In Tropic Thunder, they come together to make a Vietnam-era war movie. In order to achieve greater verisimilitude, the overwhelmed director Damien (Steve Coogan) deposits his actors (Tugg, Jeff, Alpa, and Kirk) in the middle of a real war zone. Hilarity ensues.

Satire too. I’m baffled by the disability advocacy groups who have decided to protest Tropic Thunder because of its use of the term “retard” and its portrayal of Tugg Speedman playing a mentally-challenged man (Simple Jack) in an effort to win an Oscar. That subplot is the single most cutting indictment of the Hollywood machine in the movie; the whole point is how Hollywood exploits everything from minority groups to tragedy in order to make money and win awards. If anything, Tropic Thunder is staging its own protest of the misuse of such groups of people.

As Stiller says, “It’s sort of edgy territory, but we felt that as long as the focus was on the actors who were trying to do something to be taken seriously that’s going too far or wrong, that was where the humor would come from. [The joke is on] actors reaching for roles in terms of hopefully winning awards” (1)

Much has also been made of Tom Cruise’s over-the-top portrayal of amoral executive and financier Les Grossman. It’s definitely a departure for Cruise. I found the role to be a little one-note, but no one can deny that Cruise really throws himself into it.

The movie contains a couple of items of gay interest. First, one of the actors turns out to be gay, which then leads to a chuckle-worthy cameo at the film’s conclusion. I’m delighted to report there are no negative gay stereotypes and no negative reaction to his inadvertent revelation. In fact, one character just says, “Hey, everybody’s gay sometimes, this is Hollywood.” Another character (who’s in an, um, amusingly difficult situation, then offers all kinds of sexual favors in exchange for assistance). It’s unfortunate that the gay actor is closeted, but it’s arguable that’s just the satire making another comment on the Hollywood machine. On the whole, I’m impressed with this bit of gay inclusion.

Second, one of the fake trailers advertises a fake movie called Satan’s Alley, a Brokeback Mountain-style movie set in a monastery. Robert Downey Jr. as Kirk Lazarus and Tobey Maguire play two monks falling into a forbidden relationship. I’m slightly less amused at this portrayal. Seriously, did they have to call it Satan’s Alley? What’s up with that? But the trailer is also obviously another satirical snap at Hollywood, and Downey and Maguire are pretty amusing in the spot.

Overall, recommended as a smart, funny, and entertaining satire.

————

————

(1) Access Hollywood, “Disability Advocates Call For ‘Tropic Thunder’ Protest, Stiller Responds,” 11 August 2008, http://omg.yahoo.com/news/updated-disability-advocates-call-for-tropic-thunder-protest-stiller-responds/11875 (retrieved 1 September 2008).

Overall Quality 3.5 / 5.0
Gay Content 5.0 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 4.0 / 5.0

Homosexuality has a largely unhappy history in Western civilization. Thank God for men like Magus Hirschfeld (1868 – 1935), who stood up against prevailing conventional “wisdom,” and used science and basic respect to advance the cause of gay rights. Hirschfeld studied homosexuality scientifically; although we might disagree with some of his conclusions (he felt homosexuals were an “intermediate” sex), he dedicated his efforts to advocate on behalf of gay people.

The Einstein of Sex is a biopic which explores Hirschfeld’s life and work. The film is surprisingly engrossing. It’s fast-paced and well-acted, and it’s fascinating to watch the tension between Hirschfeld’s tireless work on behalf of other gay people with his inability to process his own homosexuality in a healthy way.

The props, set design, and cinematography also deserve special mention, especially considering the film is a low-budget independent feature. Each component contributes significantly to the film’s interest and success, and many scenes look like recreated photos from that era.

The film contains quite a bit of male nudity, but it never feels out of place. In a couple of scenes it comes close to gratuitousness, but it never crosses the line.

Unfortunately, the narrative structure undercuts the movie’s effectiveness. It’s choppy, rambling, and disjointed. “The Einstein of Sex” tries to cover too much territory:

• a biography spanning Hirschfeld’s entire personal life
• an ode to Hirscfeld’s work on behalf of gay rights
• a pseudo-documentary on the state of gay rights during that era

But this is a single movie, not a mini-series. As a result, everything gets underserved.

So while this film hasn’t earned a top-shelf slot in my DVD collection, I definitely recommend it for at least one viewing. It’s an entertaining slice of important homo-history that’s undertold.

The Gay Positivity score reflects that this movie covers a lot of negative territory ranging from gay-shame to gay-hate, but the central focus in on telling the story of someone who worked positively for gay rights with a tone of hopefulness for the future.

———————

For more information about Magnus Hirschfeld:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld
http://www.stonewallsociety.com/famouspeople/magnus.htm

Overall 3.75 / 5.0
Gay Content 4.5 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 3.0 / 5.0

“Edge of Seventeen” is one of the better coming-out-and-coming-of-age tales. It is less saccharine and more poignant than many, and it benefits from a thoughtful script and a fantastic cast. Eric (Chris Stafford) is a high school junior who gets a summer job at an eatery at a local amusement park. There he meets Rod (Andrew Gabrych), with whom Eric shares his first romantic and sexual experience. The rest of the film follows Eric through his confused, convoluted path to greater self-awareness as he navigates the treacherous waters of sex and romance, friendship, and familial relationships.

The camera’s eye never flinches from Eric’s emotional roller-coaster, and his painful naïveté is completely engrossing. Stafford’s performance is spot-on, especially his nonverbal acting. He expresses hopefulness and devastation, cluelessness and realization, ecstasy and pain with amazing clarity and potency.

On the other hand, several sequences felt forced, particularly when he comes out to his mother. Yes, it’s powerful and affecting, but that scene derails the film from character-driven to plot-driven, which proves disconcerting enough that I disengaged from the characters.

The other actors also shine. Lea DeLaria, in particular, steals every scene. Her portrayal of Angie (the Wise Lesbian) borders on over-the-top, but the sheer energy and enthusiasm she brings to the role eclipses the other actors.

Tina Holmes’ performance as Eric’s best friend and sometime girlfriend Maggie is much more subdued and yet just as moving. It’s heart-breaking to watch Eric’s and Maggie’s relationship evolve through the twists and turns. Eric get so wrapped up in his own pain and fear, so desperately craving acceptance and affection, that he doesn’t see how every word tortures poor Maggie.

On my first viewing, several years ago, I identified so much more with Eric that, although I felt bad for Maggie, the tragedy of her situation didn’t really penetrate. She is an innocent victim of Eric’s confused identity, and Eric himself a victim of society’s inability to love its members unconditionally. The movie offers a subtle indictment of a culture that represses a subpopulation it doesn’t understand and fears to accept. Eric and Maggie are both victims to the same victimizer: socially ingrained, accepted homophobia.

As for the gay negativity, an awful lot of the drama proceeds from coming-out woes and, as mentioned, society’s homophobia. Other drama comes from some of the less savory elements of the gay community. My question is not so much whether Eric has emotionally matured by the end of the movie, but whether he’s been co-opted by the culture that sometimes causes as many problems as it answers. He finds a second home at a local gay bar run by Angie, but will he end up like one of the regulars, drunk and alone at the bar when last call is announced, eternally hoping for Mr. Right or at least Mr. Right Now? Will he manage to find the maturity and intimacy that Rod and another random trick (Jeff Fryer) were incapable of?

Angie is a figure who, while firmly enmeshed in the gay culture (she owns a local gay bar and serves the underage Eric alcohol), also manages to exceed the limitations of that culture in order to find enough wisdom to counsel Eric. She is part of the culture, but not a slave to it, and perhaps that’s the difference.

When I score for gay positivity, I ask myself if I consider the characters to be a inspiration for me, if I would like to have their lives as my own. Is the portrayal hopeful or melancholy? A story like Edge of Seventeen is powerful and meaningful. It contributes significantly to the gay film canon by memorializing what it’s like to grow up gay in a certain era and culture. But to answer my own questions, you couldn’t pay me to step into these characters’ lives (although I’d love to have Angie’s house). The ending is ambiguous regarding its positivity, but given the context of the rest of the film, I would tend to say it’s on the melancholy side.

As a side-note, I don’t feel much nostalgia for the ’80s, which is a little before my time. Nevertheless, the soundtrack perfectly complemented the movie and helped to create a gestalt effect that evoked the era more strongly than the clothing or hairstyles.