Actually, it’s not so funny. It’s hard to put my finger on it, but I think it comes down to, the humor feels like they’re laughing at us, not with us.

Brian Juergens at AfterElton.com stated it nicely:

Rampant dated gay stereotypes (hairdressing! fashion! lisps!)? Check. Predatory gay sexuality? Check. Straight white men running around beating gay men in the face with shovels as “comedy”? Check.

The thing is, these guys probably think that they’re being “irreverent” and “daring” by making this. Maybe they’re not homophobic at all. But if so, they’re also apparently too stupid or insensitive to realize that what they’ve created isn’t sending up stereotypes, it’s reenforcing them. And I honestly don’t know which is worse: a “filmmaker” who has a blatantly anti-gay agenda, or a “filmmaker” who is so utterly incompetent in the crafts of storytelling and satire that they don’t realize that what they’re creating is toxic crap.

In the comments, friday13fan has a similar but more measured reaction:

If they would have avoided the limp-wristed stereotypes for the zombies, it would have been more of a funny comment on straight paranoia–how many people think that people can actually be “converted” or what-not. Even more clever would have been to have parents locking their children in closets to protect them from the conversion (and stuff like that). Zombies are great for revealing the absurdity in all types of behavior. So, I don’t think Gay Zombies fails there, but it fails in that it doesn’t make explicit the absurdity of the stereotypical traits that it exploits. To me, guys necking with white makeup would have been enough to sell that they were gay! I think it’s a little hyperbolic to say that the filmmakers are utterly incompetent and creating toxic crap, but I do see where you’re coming from. They could have done much better.

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 Quality 3.0 / 5.0 (cute, but not really my cup of tea)
Gay Content 1.5 / 5.0 (minor mentions)
Gay Positivity 2.0 / 5.0 (ranges from neutral to mildly negative)

I decided to try some straight supernatural romance novels for a change of pace, so this volume is a bit outside my usual reading domain. Single White Vampire is the light-hearted story of Lucern Argeneau, a handsome if surly vampire who writes his family history as fiction novels, and his persistent editor Kate Leever, who is determined to get the reclusive Luc to do some promotional work for his books.

The humor keeps the story afloat; otherwise, I found the plot to be a bit too light and fluffy for my taste. Not enough real drama or tension to sink my teeth into. So to speak. Ahem.

The author’s take on vamps: they’re actually descendents of the technologically advanced civilization of the lost city of Atlantis. A scientist created a kind of nanite (a microscopic robot) that is so efficient at repairing human tissue it virtually stops aging and makes the person extremely long-lived. The downside is that the nanites require blood to work. The Argeneau clan run a blood bank, and they consume blood from blood bags, rather than hunting humans.

The book contains some minor gay content of questionable positivity.

• In the beginning, Kate wonders if Luc is gay. “What kind of guy wrote romances? And vampire romances at that? She had decided it was probably someone gay … or someone weird” (p. 16).
• Later, Luc wonders if Kate’s fellow romance novel editor Chris is gay. He says, “You are a romance editor. That is a woman’s job” (p. 138). The response: “Ah.” Chris grinned. “But you write them. Are you gay?” (p. 138).
• Finally, in one of the book’s funniest scenes, Luc is on a Quest for condoms, and he ends up in Chris’s room at the hotel where they’re all staying, when room service delivers the condoms. The bellhop clearly thinks the condoms are for Chris and Luc. “Chris whipped around to face Lucern, horror dawning on his face. ‘He thinks we – that you and I – he…’ He was almost incoherent with horror” (287).

The first couple of mentions don’t really bother me, even though they clearly associate gayness with weirdness and femininity. The story is too silly to take too seriously. Besides, both Chris and Luc defy stereotype by being straight.

The last scene does irritate me, however. “He was almost incoherent with horror” at the thought that some nameless stranger he’ll never see again, who was perfectly friendly, has the mistaken impression that he digs guys. Are you kidding me? That’s just plain homophobic. It’s not even in character for Chris. The author was just playing the scene for laughs. The whole thing is too inane to be offensive, but I still found that bit off-putting. (I’ll also point out that the only instances of inclusion are references; no gay characters or real content … but consider the intended demographic. I ain’t it!)

Recommended for fans of light-hearted, supernatural (and straight) romance novels.

Overall Quality 4.0 / 5.0
Gay Content 1.5 / 5.0 (minor character)
Gay Positivity 3.5 / 5.0 (a bit stereotypical but not homophobic)

When my friend first invited me to this show, I asked what it was about. “Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons,” she said. The Four Seasons, I thought. Like Vivaldi?

Not so much.

A quick trip to the musical’s website clarified the matter tremendously!

The performance showcases the music of the prolific group, while exploring the history from their humble beginnings, rise to fame, and ultimate denouement. All four members (Tommy DeVito, played by Erik Bates; Nick Massi, played by Steve Gouveia; Frankie Valli, played by Joseph Leo Bwarie; and Bob Gaudio, played by Andrew Rannells) take turns narrating part of the story.

The script keeps the narrative, which spans years, moving at a snappy pace. All four principal actors bring their roles to life with emotional and sympathetic performances. By the end, it’s hard to say whether the audience is applauding the performance or Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons.

The show includes one minor gay character, a producer named Bob Crewe (Jonathan Hadley). He’s a campy character, and when he’s first introduced, the gay stereotypes are played for laughs. That irritated me. None of the characters react badly to him, though; and as the show continues, the character becomes less flamboyant. Honestly, I was happy the show included a flash of gay at all. Besides, I don’t know the guy – maybe that was his real personality.

On the whole, a pleasant surprise. I went half-expecting to be bored throughout the whole thing. Instead, it turns out to be entertaining and engaging. Recommended!

My blog concerns itself with portrayals of gay people in all forms of media, but I don’t often discuss music. Still, I came across a fascinating MSNBC op-ed about Katy Perry and her songs “UR So Gay” and “I Kissed a Girl.” Tony Sclafani argues that the songs are “gay-unfriendly” and goes on to lambaste the media for celebrating these songs and sending mixed messages to impressionable young minds. Click here to read “Katy Perry and the media’s ‘Kiss’ of hypocrisy.”

I’ve never liked “UR So Gay.” The whole song is a put down. It takes the expression “That’s so gay,” uses the word gay as a derogatory term, and applies it to a person. That’s hateful. It equates “gay” with “bad.”

I was once at a store with a friend looking at Halloween decorations, and she didn’t like one. She said, “That’s gay.” I gave her a surprised look, and she shrugged it off and said, “You know what I mean.” But no, I actually don’t. How is using what I am as an insult, not an insult to me?

I hate the expression “that’s so gay” more than the term “fag.” At least people recognize that “fag” and “faggot” are offensive terms, on the lines of racial epithets. “That’s so gay,” on the other hand, is insidious. It poses as a socially acceptable statement, but it’s no less prejudicial than calling someone a “fag.”

By contrast, I think “I Kissed A Girl” is a fun song. A couple of lines stand out as potentially problematic: “It’s not what good girls do / Not how they should behave.” But the next two lines are: “My head gets so confused / Hard to obey.” In other words, we’re talking about a girl who has been socially programmed to believe that good girls don’t kiss other girls. Who hasn’t received that kind of social programming in our culture?

So she breaks the programming. That’s what every gay person has to do! It’s one of the struggles of being gay. And then: “I kissed a girl and I liked it.” She describes the experience: “Ain’t no big deal, it’s innocent.”

I just don’t see the same homophobia in “I Kissed A Girl” that’s present in “UR So Gay.” It’s interesting that these two songs came from the same artist, which leads me to think that “UR So Gay” is unintentionally homophobic, that is, she just didn’t think through what she was really saying. That doesn’t make it less homophobic, but it does make me inclined to be a little more forgiving.

Here are the lyrics to “UR So Gay”:

(Verse 1)
I hope you hang yourself with your H&M scarf
While jacking off listening to Mozart
You bitch and moan about LA
Wishing you were in the rain reading Hemingway
You don’t eat meat
And drive electrical cars
You’re so indie rock it’s almost an art
You need SPF 45 just to stay alive

(CHORUS)
You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like boys
You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like…

(Verse 2)
You’re so sad maybe you should buy a happy meal
You’re so skinny you should really Super Size the deal
Secretly you’re so amused
That nobody understands you
I’m so mean cause I cannot get you outta your head
I’m so angry cause you’d rather MySpace instead
I can’t believe I fell in love with someone that wears more makeup than…

(CHORUS)
You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like boys
You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like…

(BRIDGE)
You walk around like you’re oh so debonair
You pull ‘em down and there’s really nothing there
I wish you would just be real with me

(CHORUS)
You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like boys
You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like
Oh no no no no no no no
You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like boys
You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like…
penis!

And “I Kissed a Girl”:

This was never the way I planned
Not my intention
I got so brave, drink in hand
Lost my discretion
It’s not what, I’m used to
Just wanna try you on
I’m curious for you
Caught my attention

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don’t mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don’t mean I’m in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

No, I don’t even know your name
It doesn’t matter
You’re my experimental game
Just human nature
It’s not what, good girls do
Not how they should behave
My head gets so confused
Hard to obey

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don’t mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don’t mean I’m in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

Us girls we are so magical
Soft skin, red lips, so kissable
Hard to resist so touchable
Too good to deny it
Ain’t no big deal, it’s innocent

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don’t mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don’t mean I’m in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

This movie can’t decide what it wants to be. The script tackles serious, heavy topics like abortion, divorce, children dying, and infidelity as though they’re sources of humor. In fact, the movie bills itself as a comedy, and while it elicits a few chuckles here and there, it’s largely unfunny. Meanwhile, Everyone fails to probe the dramatic issues enough to yield any meaning or purpose.

Ryan (Matt Fentiman) and Grant (Mark Hildreth) are having a commitment ceremony, attended by family members, all of whom bring their current relationship foibles to the event. The title seems to suggest that “everyone” suffers relationship woes, including the couple tying the knot. In one scene of pre-wedding jitters, Grant asks Ryan if he knows any happy couples. Ryan retorts, do you know any happy single people? And that seems to be the central message of the movie: everyone is miserable!

Here’s an interesting juxtaposition: After Everyone, I watched Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001). In that, the protagonist Frodo (Elijah Wood) wishes that the terrible circumstances of that fantasy tale had not come to pass. The wise wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) replies, “So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.”

This powerful message easily applies to the misdirected couples of Everyone. In great movies, the stories place their characters into terrible or challenging situations and then depict what they do with what is given to them. But this movie ends where it begins, without any sense of growth, evolution, or insight. Only one couple seems to find any healing: Grant’s brother (Andrew Moxham) and his wife (Anna Williams). Even that felt forced.

The movie enjoys high production values and passable performances, but I felt disengaged from all the characters, and plot-wise and thematically the movie just doesn’t take the viewer anywhere new.

Overall: Tepid. At first engaging but ultimately unsatisfactory.

Positivity-wise, the movie started off strong. Grant and Ryan seem at first to have the strongest relationship of any of their siblings. Unfortunately, the movie heads in the direction of several negative stereotypes, and those incidents fail to contribute any value to the story. Very disappointing.

Walliams and Lucas have a great ability to find comedy in the ordinary, to take a typical everyday circumstance and turn it into a laugh-fest merely by tweaking the circumstances or exaggerating certain behaviors or having the characters say/do what we think but would never say/do. They’re at their best when the humor is an incisive but good-natured observation about humanity’s foibles and foolishness.

Occasional pieces bare teeth, however, and cross a line into mean-spiritedness. For example, the sketches about “Fat Fighters” grow increasingly ugly. The subtlety of the early bits have given way to crude and openly hostile treatment. These pieces are more uncomfortable than funny.

Fortunately, such sketches are an exception to the flavor of the humor overall. Don’t let this minor criticism scare you off! Season two remains in its last half a great improvement to an already funny first season. Highly recommended!

Episode 4
Original Air Date: 9 November 2004

• The fourth episode presents a Maggie (David Walliams) and Judy (Matt Lucas) sketch of gay interest. After a Christmas service (this is apparently the Christmas episode), Maggie learns that the church Choir Master is gay and partnered to a fellow named Steven.
• This episode also includes a good example of one way Walliams and Lucas have innovated from the first season by incorporating fast-paced, standalone bits: a very funny short sketch of a corner store cashier (Lucas) making observations about a customer (Walliams).
• Daffyd (Lucas) storms his local library with a selection of gay books in order to create a gay section, only to find it already has a quite popular one. More odd than funny.
• Sebastian’s (Walliams) sketch in this episode has an ugly tone. The Prime Minister (Anthony Stewart Head) and his wife are having a baby, and Sebastian reacts with jealousy. Unfunny.
• On the whole, another funny one, but with more than the usual number of quirky head-scratchers.

Episode 5
Original Air Date: 16 November 2004

• The Prime Minister is on a television set preparing to give a televised interview; the interview is planning on asking some difficult questions. Sebastian doesn’t like that. I have never been a fan of the character of Sebastian; this is my least favorite of his sketches in the season. It’s not even that he’s so ugly and mean-spirited in it; he’s simply insipid.
• Daffyd’s friend Myfanwy has married her girlfriend Rhiannon, and he attends their reception at the bar after skipping the actual nuptials. Daffyd argues he couldn’t go to the service because he’s gay and wouldn’t be welcome at the church; they point out that the vicar is a gay man performing a gay wedding. Then Daffyd argues that two women should not adopt. “It’s not right!” he says. He then proceeds to spout off some very anti-lesbian stereotypes; when they retaliate verbally, he says he won’t tolerate homophobia in the village. I have mixed emotions about this piece. As far as the humor goes, it’s laughable, but as much shocking as comic. But regarding the gay positivity, Daffyd’s sketches have strayed from their original satirical brilliance. I appreciate how Daffyd has become a mouth-piece for ignorance and prejudice, and yet his behavior casts an ugly tone. Daffyd’s first few pieces in the first season delighted me; the key ingredient was Daffyd’s naïveté, simplicity, and basic good-natured. Slowly those are falling away, and being replaced with an insistent internalized homophobia which simply doesn’t amuse me.
• As a side note, one of the recurring characters in the series is mental patient Anne (Walliams), whose sketches tend to be odd but fairly funny. In this episode, she leaves behind a sketchbook which, when the pages are flipped, turns out to be an animated illustration of a penis getting hard and then ejaculating. It was a very funny piece and quite, as the British might say, “rude.”
• Overall, Episode 5 was more dumb than anything.

Episode 6
Original Air Date: 23 November 2004

• A series of very brief sketches in the sixth episode show two prim and proper ladies at lunch (played by Walliams and Lucas). One lady (Walliams) tries to set the other (Lucas) up with a series of men. She has Polaroids of each: they turn out to be full-frontal nude shots of the men. Very funny.
• Finally, Daffyd enjoys another amusing sketch. He returns to the pub after a gay rugby league game, followed by the handsome gay rugby team. Daffyd, meanwhile, is the only member of his team, being the “only gay in the village.” Except that the elderly gentleman who fill the bar argue they’re gay too, and cite sexually explicit acts as proof. Daffyd ends this funny and silly bit by saying he’s leaving the village and going to a place where he’ll be the only gay: San Francisco.
• Sebastian also has his best piece yet. The Prime Minister is celebrating a re-election victory with his staff. Sebastian and the Prime Minister dance, the PM disentangles himself, and Sebastian starts crying. The PM shows pity, and Sebastian French kisses him. A light-hearted and very laughable piece.
• The second season concludes with another strong, funny episode.

DVD Extras

• The DVD includes a very interesting but oddly paced and shot documentary. It would have benefited from some tighter editing. Nevertheless, the documentary provides some interesting insight into the world of “Little Britain.”
• We also find a special “Comic Relief” episode, which hosts several British celebrities (George Michael, Elton John, and Robbie Williams). The episode is more strange than funny, and it sorely misses the laugh track.
  • George Michael meets Andy, the indecisive and supposedly wheelchair-bound fellow played by Matt Lucas. Michael can barely contain his own amusement at the scenario.
  • Daffyd interviews Elton John. The piece was very funny, loaded full of double-entendres, but John himself fell flat, and his concluding line just comes across as dumb.
  • Robbie Williams really gets into his role when he’s dressed as a lady by “ropey transvestites” Emily (Walliams) and Florence (Lucas).
• The deleted scene include some pretty funny ones; but for most of them, it’s obvious why they were deleted.

The first season of “Little Britain” was brilliantly funny but suffered from a couple of serious problems, such as repetitive sketches and “character-fatigue.” By the end of the first season, the comedy was growing a bit stale.

With the second season, the dynamic duo of Matt Lucas and David Walliams reinvigorate their comedy universe of “Little Britain.” The second seasons presents a greater variety of characters and faster-paced sketches. The later episodes feel nearly as fresh as the early ones. Some of the new characters, such as Maggie and Judy, are simply hilarious. The second season is also far, far more risqué (or “rude,” as the British would say) than the first.

As ever, the duo remain gay friendly (Lucas is openly gay himself). A disproportionate number of sketches contain material of gay interest. Largely, the gay content enjoys a good-natured approach. At the same time, I maintain my complaint from the first season: there’s not much variety around the gay characters. They all tend to be campy and theatrical, indulging in stereotypical behaviors. The gay-friendly vibe offsets any offense I might take; so too the fact that all the characters in the series are ridiculous. I do note we get several low-key gay men presented: a church choir master, his partner, a vicar. Nevertheless, these are minor characters who barely even speak; and I remain mildly disappointed to see so little range in the primary gay characters.

Episode 1
Original Air Date: 19 October 2004

• The first episode introduces several new sketches, a couple of which are simply delightful and kept me laughing hard throughout the whole season. First we have “Bubbles,” a grossly obese woman (Matt Lucas in a fat suit) at a health spa who has a habit of losing her robe. Next we have Judy (David Walliams) and Maggie (Lucas), two English ladies who seem to be holding on to Britain’s old glory days. Judy in particular seems to be living a century ago; every time she eats something made by someone she doesn’t approve us (which is anyone not white, Protestant English), well, let’s say the food doesn’t sit well.
• Daffyd “the only gay in the village” Thomas (Lucas) returns as well, of course; he remains one of the most popular characters. In this mildly funny sketch, he comes out to his parents. Daffyd is dramatic, while his parents’ reaction is low-key (”That’s nice, dear”).
• Sebastian (Wallace), a lusty aide to the British Prime Minister (Anthony Stewart Head), also returns. I tend to find Sebastian’s school-girl antics tiresome, but this sketch is one of his better bits. Sebastian feels scorned because the Prime Minister is taking Gregory from Treasury on some important business, so Sebastian flirts with the opposition leader to make the Prime Minister jealous. Sebastian doesn’t know the meaning of subtlety, however, so his version of flirting is outrageously funny.
• A very funny episode, and a great beginning to a new season!

Episode 2
Original Air Date: 26 October 2004

• The second episode introduces another fantastically funny new character: University lecturer Linda (Walliams). Students come to her with some request or another, and she calls Martin upstairs to find the answer. She also describes the students in the most offensive, and hilarious, terms imaginable. The first bit has her calling Martin on behalf of a “big fat lesbian.” It doesn’t sound so funny in writing; but through characters like Linda or Judy/Maggie, Lucas and Walliams are making fun of prejudice itself.
• Sebastian and the Prime Minister are in the middle of an adversarial summit with the American president (a caricature of George W. Bush, played by Vincent Marzello). The president’s aide (Lucas) is as effeminate and lispy as Sebastian is theatrical, and the two get into a girly hand-slapping fight. Mildly amusing.
• Daffyd is manning the gay and lesbian stall at a village festival; he’s hawking items like dildos and poppers, but he refuses to sell to non-gays. Then he meets the new vicar Glen (Hywel Simons) and assumes the church will be homophobic, only to find Glen himself is gay and involved with a man in a ridiculous vinyl outfit (Walliams). “What ever happened to good old fashioned religious homophobia?” Daffyd mourns and storms off, wanting to be the only gay in the village. Another smart and funny Daffyd piece; probably my favorite of the season.
• Ultimately, an excellent episode.

Episode 3
Original Air Date: 2 November 2004

• The third episode includes an odd duo of pieces about the police and a serious car accident. The first one is funny, but weird; the second decidedly unfunny. Walliams and Lucas have an admirable ability to mine ordinary life for comedy, but there are occasional misfires.
• Sebastian is jealous of one of the Prime Minister’s former aides. Frankly, a boring and tiresome sketch.
• Daffyd auditions for Hamlet but apparently doesn’t make it. “It’s very difficult for gay people to make it in theatre,” he tells his friend Myfanwy (Ruth Jones). Then Daffyd’s brother appears, looking for advice on how to come out to their parents. He brings his boyfriend Pedro (Walliams), a super nelly Spanish queen. Daffyd doesn’t want his brother to come out. I did not enjoy this piece; it is easily the least gay positive of all Daffyd’s sketches. Daffyd’s rejection of his brother casts an ugly tone over the whole bit. Funny last line, though.
• Overall, not nearly as funny as the first couple of episodes.

Just your average boy-meets-girl, girl-sends-boy-on-impossible-quest, boy-meets-fallen-star-who’s-a-girl, boy-falls-in-love-with-star, what’s-a-boy-to-do kind of fairy tale.

Specifically, a star named Yvaine (Claire Danes) falls into Stormhold, a magical realm completely contained within England. Our hero Tristan (Charlie Cox) promises to retrieve the fallen star for Victoria (Sienna Miller) in order to win her hand in marriage. But others also seek the star for more sinister purposes. The fratricidal sons of a recently deceased king want the enchanted gemstone that knocked poor Yvaine out of the sky, because the heir who retrieves it becomes the next king. Additionally, a fantastically sinister witch (Lamia, played by Michelle Pfeiffer) desires the star with the hope of cutting out Yvaine’s heart and eating it, and thereby gaining immortality and renewed youth.

The diverse plot threads interweave – and coalesce at the finale – organically, poetically, and cleverly. The screenplay, direction, and cinematography demonstrate a gestalt effect wherein the result is greater than the sum of the parts. Altogether, “there is a narrative flow that makes you want to be swept along” (1). Kudos to Matthew Vaughn (director and screenwriter), Jane Goldman (screenwriter), Ben Davis (cinematography), and Gavin Bocquet (production design)! The magnificent and sweeping imagery of the movie, and the dramatic musical score by Nan Eshkeri, serve to accentuate the mythicality of the tale, and lend an epic feel to the fairy tale.

The actors contribute to the gestalt effect and help the story shine. Michelle Pfeiffer is radiant in her role as evil witch Lamia. She provides depth and humanity to an otherwise cartoonish, classic fairy tale villain, and her own enjoyment of playing the character comes through. She owns every scene in which she appears. And my goodness, she has aged gracefully and gorgeously!

Claire Danes has certainly grown up (into Gwyneth Paltrow) since her days on the TV series “My So-Called Life.” Her attempt at an English accent threw me at first, but she brings a soft-edged sarcasm to Yvaine that I enjoy. The unusual character makes for a challenging role; and although there are some miscues, on the whole Danes navigates the role ably.

In fact, she and the adorable Charlie Cox enjoy an easy on-screen chemistry that makes their love story believable and adds texture to the film. Cox plays Tristan as a sweet-natured, endearing, fumbling lad who grows into a good-natured, heroic, and dashing protagonist.

Thematically, the metaphor-rich, mythic movie has a lot going for it. Most obviously, “Stardust” is a love story that also asks what true love means. Common fairy tale form demands that the hero go on an epic quest in order to win the heart of his true love. But “Stardust” posits that true love demands nothing in return: no quests, no prizes, no proof.

Furthermore, “Stardust” emphasizes the importance of looking past the surface. Nothing is quite what it seems; and in the realm of Stormhold, that truism is taken to extremes! No character turns out to be what they seem. The story allows various characters to reach inside and find their true selves; it also forces exposure of the characters trying most desperately to be what they’re not. “Each character undergoes a transformation that reveals his or her hidden, truer self, and potential for both good and for evil” (2).

That being said, the movie misses some wonderful opportunities to probe more deeply by tending toward the lowest-common-denominator presentation of many of its characters (more on this shortly), and failing to stray too far from fairy tale convention. “Stardust” is a quirky tale in many ways, innovative in a few, but revolutionary in none. Perhaps we will someday have a fairy tale that is unmistakably contemporary in tone and texture, if not content, but “Stardust” is not that tale.

Still, “Stardust” is a fantastic, lovely story. “While many big stars grace the cast, the film’s real star is the sense of wonder and boundless possibility that [this] magical world creates: [that] even a country boy can become a dashing hero and find true love with a fallen star” (3). The movie is sweet and charming, with feel-good positive messages, and awe-inspiring presentation. “Stardust” will appeal most to those who enjoy love stories and/or fantasy tales. Otherwise, its charms probably won’t have much sway over the viewer.

The film may well have a difficult time finding an audience. In fact, the movie should have done better box office thus far. But “Stardust” has received relatively little publicity, and the studio seems uncertain how to market it. And even though it’s based on a work by well-known and respected author Neil Gaiman, neither he nor the book have the name recognition of many other book-based fantasy films. It’s unjust that “Eragon” (2006) did better box office in its first few weeks than this beautiful story.

“Stardust” is probably more comparable to “The Princess Bride” (1987), or perhaps “Willow” (1988). Many reviews have noted the comparisons. Both “The Princess Bride” and “Willow” are unconventional fairy tales which didn’t find a core audience until release on video and DVD, after which they achieved cult followings. Indeed, the similarity is particularly striking between “Stardust” and “The Princess Bride,” which share a narrative style, light-hearted approach, and true-love story.

But an important difference separates the two: “The Princess Bride” benefits from a relentless sense of humor that helps broaden its attraction; it’s as much comedy as fantasy. Along those lines, “The Princess Bride” eschews the conventions of fantasy and fairy tales in favor of skewering them with satire. While “Stardust” doesn’t take itself seriously (it’s just a fun movie, and knows it), the fantasy emphasis, relatively conventional fairy tale form, and lack of a comedy-all-the-way vibe narrows the demographic appeal.

I have tried to do my part, though. I saw it first on a Friday, and then went again the following Sunday. I’ve talked this movie up to anyone who will listen. And I’ll be first in line to buy the DVD. Let me state it plainly: unless you hate fantasy or love stories, watch this movie!

That is not to say the film is perfect. Minor inconsistencies pop up repeatedly, likely stemming from the adaptation and condensation of the book. Then there are two things about this movie I simply don’t like. Well, more precisely, one thing I don’t like and another about which I have mixed emotions.

I don’t like the sexism of the film. It’s very conventional regarding sex roles. All the women in the film fall into one of two distinct categories: damsel in distress requiring rescue, or evil hag. These folks would probably have a heart attack if they ever met Xena the Warrior Princess.

True, Yvaine has a dramatic moment at the film’s climax, “and it would seem for a moment that women’s agency has been recovered and the gender story of the movie has been somewhat redeemed. But then Tristan asks her why she didn’t use her special powers earlier in the story. Her answer, ‘I can’t shine without you’” (4). The only women who exercise personal agency, power, and/or independence, are evil.

The sexism creeps into other areas as well. For example, Captain Shakespeare (Robert De Niro) teaches Tristan how to swordfight and be a pirate, while teaching Yvaine how to dance and play the piano. Not to mention that when he dresses the two, he directs Yvaine to the silky gowns, because those are of course the most sensible clothes for cross-country adventuring.

Apparently the sexism doesn’t bother too many women, though. As mentioned, I’ve seen the movie twice. I had two female companions my age at the first viewing, and they walked out of the theater chatting wistfully about meeting prince charming someday. My mother saw the movie with me the second time, and I explicitly asked her if the sexism bothered her, and she said, no, it’s just like any old-style fairy tale.

For myself, I agree with Debbie from the blog Body Impolitic: “Lots of fairy tales are like that: 21st century ones don’t have to be, and shouldn’t be” (5).

I understand the book (which I have not read) is much more nuanced regarding characters and relationships. It would seem the movie sacrifices shades of gray for black-and-white, and takes a reductionist approach to all its characters by fitting them into familiar, conventional roles.

Which brings me to the other item, about which I have mixed emotions: the gay content. It’s never explicitly spelled out that one character is gay, so I’ll put it in the “gay vague” category, but it’s pretty obvious what the filmmakers intended. The portrayal is more disappointing than insulting, and decidedly mixed: kudos for inclusivity and friendly treatment; scorn for negative stereotypes.

(WARNING – Moderate Spoiler as I discuss the gay content and positivity in greater detail)

Robert De Niro plays Captain Shakespeare, a pirate with a fearsome reputation who aids Tristan and Yvaine. In fact, his role is absolutely crucial in the movie and impacts multiple subplots. But he has a secret softer side.

Again, it’s never established clearly that he’s gay. He may merely be a mincing transvestite. But in Hollywood, that’s usually code for gay. The stunt casting of De Niro for this role, and his completely over the top performance, does prompt some laughter, but sometimes it was the kind of chuckling that’s half because it’s funny, and half because I-can’t-believe-he-just-did-that. As Orson Scott Card says, the laughs he earns are “hearty but cheap, like a character in a lowbrow sketch-comedy show. I’m not saying it’s not funny; I’m just saying it doesn’t fit in this
movie” (6).

The aspect of the character that bothers me the most is his ultimate lack of agency, which defies the logic of the story. Captain Shakespeare teaches Tristan how to fence. At the beginning of the movie, Tristan tests his fencing skills, and turns out to suck hardcore at it. After Shakespeare’s done with him, he’s a master with a blade. And yet, when Shakespeare himself is later threatened by Prince Septimus (Mark Strong), he’s completely at the mercy of his aggressor. What?!

Oh, right, I forgot. Because gay men are weak, of course, and couldn’t possibly overpower a straight man. In fact, Tristan’s training ends with his requisite victory over Captain Shakespeare, followed later by Prince Septimus completely overpowering Shakespeare, who then must be rescued like the aforementioned damsel in distress.

I do see some off-setting factors that make the gay positivity mixed rather than purely negative.

1. The inclusivity. Frankly, “Stardust” has broken new ground by including even a “gay vague” character. It’s a wide-release, fantasy-genre, fairy tale-style, family-friendly movie with gay content in it. It speaks poorly of the gay-friendliness of the fantasy genre at large that such inclusion should be remarkable. But there it is, and for this particular film, I have to say kudos. I really do appreciate the gay element, even if it is minor and clichéd. I feel frustrated being so grateful for crumbs, but considering other fantasy movies give the gay community nothing, I have to take what I can get. And the inclusion has a gay-friendly vibe to it. Largely because…
2. …the character is a good guy, and the script and story treat him sensitively (relatively speaking). His crew ultimately accepts and embraces him, even though they always knew he was “woopsie.” And Captain Shakespeare aids the protagonists tremendously, imparting wisdom, important skills, and saving their lives. It could be argued the character serves as reminder that even effeminate guys can be commanding and possess warriorly skills; Tristan starts the movie as a very poor fencer, and it’s Captain Shakespeare who teaches him the impressive and successful swordplay he later employs.
3. The film even implies a happy ending for Captain Shakespeare, as he flirts with a handsome lad during the movie’s denouement. Or, as AfterElton.com phrases it: “Hot fop action” (7)!
4. The subplot is thematically rich. If they’re going to be clichéd about it, they might as well mine the stereotypes for as much meaning as they can. And happily, they do. The role provides a nice point-counterpoint to the whole gender role issue, to reputation versus being true to oneself, and to the outside mask versus the internal truth.

Of additional gay interest:  Rupert Everett has a minor role,  and Ian McKellen narrates.

—————————-

(1) Ebert, Roger. “Stardust.” Chicago Sun-Times.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070809/R EVIEWS/70710009/1023, 10 August 2007 (5 September 2007). Please note, I am quoting a positive line from Ebert, but I don’t want to misrepresent his review: he gave the movie a decidedly lukewarm reception.

(2) Tubbs, Gregg. “Movie Review: Stardust.” UMC.org.
http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.3090985/k.72C0/Movie_Review_Stardust.htm (5 September 2007) More than a review, Tubbs’ piece aims to stimulate discourse on the deeper meaning of the movie.

(3) Ibid.

(4) Debbie. “Neil Gaiman’s Stardust: Evil Crones, Decorative Maidens, and One Shackled Mother.” Body Impolitic. 12 August 2007. http://laurietobyedison.com/discuss/?p=417 (5 September 2007)

(5) Ibid.

(6) Card, Orson Scott. “Stardust: the book and the movie.” Uncle Orson Reviews Everything. 12 August 2007. http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2007-08-12.shtml (5 September 2007).

(7) Juergens, Brian. “Stardust? More Like Fairydust!” AfterElton.com Best. Gay. Week. Ever. 16 August 2007. http://www.afterelton.com/bgwe/08-17-07?page=0%2C3 (5 September 2007).

Ugly, brutish, and more than a little dumb. If that describes your perfect film, knock yourself out. As for myself, I am underwhelmed.

On the bright side, I thought the cinematography was surprisingly well done for a low budget movie. The grittiness meshed well with the material. The principal actors, particularly Bret Roberts as Travis and Brian Austin Green (yeah, that one) as Jacko, did great jobs with their role. Green in particular lent a natural believability to his role, even when the script itself was wooden.

Travis is an aspiring boxer with hopes of moving to Vegas as a professional. His best friend, Jacko, is a mildly psycho and hugely homophobic loser. The main thrust (ahem) of the film lies in how homophobia in the run-down, urban setting plays out in their lives.

Unfortunately, the plot has a couple of serious flaws. For example, it’s too small a movie spread over too long a time. In other words, the movie begs for tighter writing and editing. I’d almost argue the basic story is better suited to a short film: a shorter format would force the filmmaker to be clearer, more concise, and more focused on the central theme of the movie, without muddying it with subplots that don’t really go anywhere (such as Travis’ and Jacko’s family situations).

The most serious flaw is also the most crucial plot point: the idea that Travis, a boxer who specializes in a body-to-body move called the “Clinch,” habitually gets an erection during that move. I found it hard to believe. Outside of that single moment, Travis doesn’t read as gay. In fact, he seems pretty resolutely heterosexual, with no evidence of even internal conflict or uncertainty. About the gayest thing he does in the film is to refrain from joining his friend Jacko in gay bashing some poor soul. In fact, by the end of the movie, I was not questioning Travis’ sexuality as much as Jacko’s. Someone with that much to prove has something to hide.

Oh, and throw in a whole lot of clichés … the broken families, the girlfriend, the aging trainer with one last hope (Travis), the violent northside/southside rivalry, the local cop … yeah, call me underwhelmed.

I also scored the movie low on the Gay Positivity scale, though I have tried to think about this film a little more deeply. Is there a positive side I’m not seeing because I’m so upset about the gay negative stuff? Moreover, am I being overly reactive? That is, am I saying, “Omigod, they’re dissing gay people!” and get all angry, without realizing that’s the point of the film – to explore the issue of dissing gay people, what it means, how it works, why it exists?

On the positive side… Well, for one thing, the one and only clearly gay person portrayed is just a regular guy. Well, sort of. Insofar as regular guys happily duck into a dark and dirty alley in a bad part of town to give a blowjob to an unknown albeit cute boy.

Oh, and then he gets bashed so badly he ends up paralyzed. Maybe not so positive.

Still, the sheer amount of homophobia shown in the movie reflects poorly on the homophobic characters, an important component of off-setting the negativity of homophobia. And yet, the film never really demonizes the homophobia, per se. Rather, the homophobia ends up being part of the texture of the landscape, of the psychology of this particular micro-civilization. The group dynamics that act themselves out over the course of the film take place within a framework of homophobia, with significant plot points prompted by the egregious anti-gay attitude.

But the film never really explores that there’s a deeper underlying connection between homophobia and violence (I mean more than just the gay bashing violence), and it never clearly indicts homophobia as destructive on oneself, not just on others.

Yes, of course, the destructiveness of homophobia is shown in the film: the gay bashing, or how graffiti alleging a gay relationship prompts a vicious, violent triple assault. But is it clear how, say, Jacko’s own homophobia is destructive to himself, his own sense of self, his own healthy self-regard, to his personal experience and hopes for the future? I see it, but it’s an issue I’ve thought about. Would your average person watching this film make the mental leap? Given what’s in the film, probably not.

One Amazon.com review comments that the portrayal of gay characters in this movie is a refreshing change from “easily digestible, non-threatening image of gay men” such as the characters of “Will & Grace.” I disagree completely. Only one (minor) character is clearly gay, and he gets violently bashed. We may question Jacko’s or Travis’s sexuality, but the film presents no real evidence to say either is gay. So, instead, we have a film in which the sole gay, after flirting with Travis, is threatened and victimized. To be a refreshing change from a non-threatening gay like Will, we’d need a tough gay character who can stand up emotionally and physically to the homophobia and triumph in the end. I would love to see that character. But s/he is not found in this film.