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 4.0 / 5.0 (engaging and interesting)
Gay Inclusive? Very – the subject is a gay man and his beginnings in gay porn
Gay Positive? Mostly – a positive tone undercut by negative implications that go unexplored

A fascinating look into a culture and man full of unexpected contradictions.

Jeffrey Schwartz’s documentary explores the evolution of Jack Stillman – a small, unathletic child of Beverly Hills privilege – into Jack Wrangler, who epitomizes rugged male sexuality. The evolution is far from linear. Jack begins in gay porn at a time when pornography was produced for the big screen, and acting was actually expected of the stars. Sometimes adult films could even get reviews in venues like Variety.

Stillman forged Wrangler in the fire of the gay porn business in the 1960s, during the time of the sexual revolution. The gay experience was fraught with peril; the documentary largely ignores that and focuses instead on the sexual openness of the pre-AIDS period.

The documentary strikes me as a bit one-sided in this sense. In fact, with Jack as the chief narrator, the film seems more like an autodocumentary. The overall tone is self-congratulatory, although to his credit Jack seems as startled by his successes as anyone. Still, I can’t help but think there’s another side to this story not being told.

I do deeply appreciate one of the themes of the documentary: a presentation of gay men counter to common stereotype. In fact, he’s one of earliest media images that counters the stereotype of gay men as effeminate sissies; it’s interesting that his image is not just masculine, but powerfully sexualized. Jack Wrangler represents a “manly man” – rugged, handsome and sexual – who is also gay.

Which makes it so odd that Wrangler moved into straight pornography. He had his first sexual encounter with a woman on-camera. He managed to become successful even in straight adult films, including The Devil in Miss Jones 2 and Debbie Does Dallas 2.

He’s also one of the few porn stars to bridge the gap from porn to mainstream theatrical work.

Perhaps most curiously, Jack became romantically involved with vocalist Margaret Whiting, a woman twenty years his senior. They have since married.

I’m not straight, and I’m not bisexual. I’m gay, but I could never live a gay lifestyle because I’m much too competitive. When I was with a guy I would always want to be better than him: what we were accomplishing, what we were wearing — anything. With a woman you compete like crazy, but coming from different points of view, and as far as I’m concerned, that was doable. (1)

It’s a puzzling development in the personal life of an otherwise openly gay man. Watching this portion of the documentary, part of me shrugs it away: to each his own. At the same time, I can’t help but notice that it’s suggestive that gay men can “change” their sexual orientation, and that the image of a manly gay man “turns out” to be straight … or at least turns to a straight lifestyle.

The most interesting-and perplexing-event of his life is his relationship with Whiting. Wrangler is a self-professed gay man who, according to the film, can´t see himself living with another man. As a condition of moving in with Whiting, and subsequently getting married, the actor agreed to give up performing in porn films as well as having encounters with other men. He makes light of it, saying he has a healthy masturbatory life. However, for a generation of gay men who looked up to Wrangler-not to mention the era he ushered in-I have to think this is a slap in the face. Certainly there is not a list of requirements to be considered gay; what fits one person doesn´t necessarily fit another. But a out gay man married to a woman and abstaining from sex with other men? Does that even qualify as being gay anymore? (2)

Again, I return to the point that the documentary doesn’t present “another side” to the story. Despite including interviews with colleagues from his work in porn, the documentary never delves into what it all means.

—————————

Theatrical trailer:

—————————-

(1) Brother, Job. “The Anatomy of Jack Wrangler.” The Advocate. 5 November 2008. http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ektid64690.asp (retrieved 30 November 2008).

(2) Vargo, Jason. “Review of ‘Wrangler: Anatomy of an Icon.’” DVDTown.com. 26 October 2008. http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/wrangler-anatomy-of-an-icon/6426 (retrieved 30 November 2008).

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 3.0 / 5.0 (pleasant but unfulfilling)
Gay Content 3.0 / 5.0 (well, definitely non-straight, anyways)
Gay Positivity 3.5 / 5.0 (mixed, but more positive than not)

I’d call 20 Centimeters a pleasant diversion that never really comes together.

Unfortunately, its most unusual features strike me as contrivances designed to lend interest to the story’s main plot. With stronger writing and direction, the central story wouldn’t needn’t the help – the pre-op transsexual Marieta (Mónica Cervera) wants to have a sex-change operation, but she finds herself in a romantic relationship that wouldn’t survive the procedure. Meanwhile, she’s a sex worker who plies specific fetishes while desperately trying to break into the world of conventional, gainful employment. Those dilemmas offer plentiful drama and tension.

As it is, the script is sloppy, and the movie tries to compensate with a couple of extraneous elements. Marieta is narcoleptic, and whenever she falls asleep, she dreams of multilingual musical numbers. Visually, the song-and-dance sequences are interesting, but I found their lyrics inane. Their content reflects Marieta’s mood but in most cases didn’t seem thematically helpful to the story.

I have mixed emotions about the conclusion. I don’t want to give it away, so I’ll put it this way: Marieta has to choose between her relationship with a hot guy (Raul, played by Pablo Puvol), and her relationship with her female identity. If she takes the former path, it means she’s learned to accept herself as she is, all parts intact, and found love and happiness, but she sacrifices her understanding of herself as a female in order to be with this man. If she takes the latter route, it means she’s being true to herself, which is always a path of integrity, but she loses a great relationship because she can’t make peace with herself-as-she-is. That’s how I see it, anyways – if I possessed a female gender identity while living in a male body, one ending might stand out to me as “better” than the other.

Marieta’s relationship with Raul interests me, and I wish the film had delved deeper into it. Raul does not see himself or Marieta as “fags,” even though he loves being the sexually passive partner, and the fact that Marieta has oversized male genitals. I understand that in many cultures, a man may not identify as gay as long as he is not the receptive partner, but that’s not the case here. Raul adheres to rigid sexual roles even though both he and Marieta clearly defy convention, which doesn’t strike me as gay-positive (i.e., gay is so bad, he falls into denial). On the other hand, they are in a sexually nebulous realm, and Raul is just applying one possibly interpretation (out of many) to their relationship. It may be the only sexual reference point he knows. Marieta is more worldly, and as a result, she is more sexually fluid. Still, her identity as unilaterally “female” is very powerful, and it drives the central plot.

If you’d like to watch an offbeat foreign musical with a gay element, check out Yes Nurse! No Nurse!.

One of the musical numbers:

The movie’s trailer:

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

Original air date: 30 October 1995

Overall 4.5 / 5.0 (a great episode)
Gay Content 3.0 / 5.0 (a major same-sex relationship)
Gay Positivity 4.5 / 5.0 (perhaps the most gay positive Star Trek TV episode)

The Trill are apparently the most sexually open-minded species in the Star Trek universe (see my review of “The Host” from The Next Generation). Still, they have their own taboos.

The trill are a race of humanoids who host symbionts, or sentient symbiotic organisms, in their bodies. The symbionts live for hundreds of years; after one host dies, the symbiont is transplanted into a new one. It is strictly verboten for a joined Trill to rekindle a relationship with someone involved with a former host. The penalty is severe: exile, without the symbiont being allowed to join with a new host when the current host dies.

Trill scientist Lenara Kahn (Susanna Thompson) comes to Deep Space Nine to experiment with artificial wormholes. As the Science Officer, Jadzia Dax (Terry Farrell) assists her. Dax and Kahn (the symbionts) were husband-and-wife under different hosts. As they work together, Jadzia and Lenara fight a growing attraction toward one another. Are they willing to risk exile for their love?

“Rejoined” is an engaging episode that encapsulates the best of Star Trek: the exploration of ideas and cultures through deeply realized characters in whom the viewer is invested. Farrell and Thompson enjoy great on-screen chemistry, and a thoughtful and dramatic script explores their relationship in an organic and suspenseful way.

Neither Jadzia nor Lenara blink at the prospect of falling in love with someone of the same sex, even though the original pairing between their symbionts was heterosexual. Additionally, neither Sisko (Avery Brooks) nor Doctor Bashir (Alexander Siddig) indicate any aversion to a same-sex relationship. The conflict arises because of the Trill taboo against “re-association.”

Of course, I’m sad that the relationship doesn’t work out. I suppose it vaguely endorses the negative cliché that gay relationships never work out. And yes, I wish it weren’t just an anomaly, a one-off situation. It’s a cop out to do a “gay episode” and then never show another open, accepted, well-adjusted gay relationship. In some ways, having a great episode like this just highlights the other disappointments.

But “Rejoined” is still a big step forward. I’m thrilled to see a same-sex romance as a central feature of an episode of Star Trek, wherein the gender of the participants is a complete non-issue, and which leads to Star Trek’s first ever on-screen gay kiss!

—————————-

For more posts on all things gay in the Star Trek universe, check out my Gay Star Trek Main Page.

—————————-

(Please click for Part One of my review and analysis of “The Outcast.”

Thank You, Star Trek…

Let me start with the singular, but important, positive attribute of the show: It brought the issue of sexual bigotry into millions of homes, and made a plea for tolerance.

So before I launch into my criticisms, let me first say: thank you, Star Trek, for making this episode. I have a lot of problems with it, and I think the show could have done more, and better. But at the same time, I appreciate the episode being made at all.

Having said that, I must qualify my appreciation.

…For Stale Crumbs

Defamation by Invisibility

In Part One of this article, I noted other examples of gay content on TV around the time “The Outcast” was aired. I criticized the nature of the content in hindsight, but also recognized any mainstream representation was an improvement during that time period. In the same spirit, I appreciate The Next Generation making any kind of effort for the gay community.

But I have to stress, this show offers no gay content. It is pure allegory. Even when discussing romantic relationships, Riker and Dr. Crusher frame their comments in the context of heterosexual romance – how men and women deal with each other regarding attraction, sex roles, and sexuality. When discussing what men find attractive, Riker doesn’t offer a single phrase to the effect of, “And then some men are attracted to other men instead of women.”

Without some demonstration of inclusiveness, the episode isn’t inclusive at all. Instead, it suggests that gay people don’t exist in the 24th Century, at least not in Starfleet. They preach tolerance for diversity, but fail to demonstrate that value in practice.

Author Henry Jenkins writes:

”If allegory depends upon the readers’ abilities to fill its silences with their own voices, to complete the statements the text has left unfinished, the fans saw only the gaps and the evasions. Nowhere do any of the characters make explicit reference to the possibility of homosexuality nor do they directly confront homophobia. Homosexuality remains a connotative ghost, still that form of sexual desire that dares not speak its name [emphasis mine]…. What made this episode particularly dangerous was its insubstantiability [sic], its refusal to state directly and explicitly what its message was intended to be (6).”

It’s Just a Phase / Not Real / A Mental Illness

And then, the show posits that “deviant” sexuality can be cured, a stance taken by anti-gay activists. Even after Soren’s eloquent and moving plea for tolerance at her trial, the court still finds her guilty and sentences her to psychotectic therapy, which is successful. Riker tries to “rescue” her, but Soren rejects his advances and apologizes for creating such an unpleasant situation.

In effect (if not intent), the episode endorses the idea that sexual “deviants” can be “straightened out,” which will make them happier and more productive members of society. Both the American Psychological Association (8) and American Medical Association (9) take the position that reparative or conversion therapy may be harmful to the individual.

Furthermore, it implicitly supports the view of gay people as sexual predators who seek to convert others into “deviant” behavior. Yes, it’s supposed to a reverse allegory, which could be interpreted as heterosexual society demanding that gay people be “cured.” Probably, the viewer is supposed to leave the show thinking, “Wow, that’s awful what they did to poor Soren; we shouldn’t do stuff like that.”

It’s problematic, however, because J’naii society is used as an allegorical stand-in for both mainstream society and the gay community, and it is they who insist on the reparative therapy.

The Gay Villain

Atara Stein, an associate professor at Cal State University, Fullerton, writes:

“This episode could be read, of course, as a reverse allegory of discrimination against gays and lesbians, but the fact that it is reversed (the character’s rebellion consists of affirming heterosexuality) testifies to how careful Star Trek’s creators are to maintain a level of deniability. In addition, the androgynous species, presumably representative of gays and lesbians, turn out to be the bad guys, enforcing their ‘deviant’ sexuality by means of brainwashing [emphasis mine] (7).”

This aspect of the episode astounds me. The producers have gone on record offering this show as their token gesture to the gay community (even though there’s no actual gay content). But the society supposedly standing in for the gay community turns out to be villainous!

Once again, I wonder how much the final script varied from the original. A lot of people have input into the scripts (other writers and producers, studio approval, etc), and perhaps what was originally a fine story incrementally broke down into a series of mixed messages in order to appease a large group of less progressive people.

“Do As I Say, Not As I Do”

So the episode “The Outcast” makes a plea for tolerance of sexual diversity, while the show refuses to include any openly gay characters.

Worse, when they make an episode intended to placate their gay audience, not only is homosexuality omitted, it is also maligned through the subtext.

As Franklin Hummel, a member of the gay science-fiction group Gaylaxians, says:

“The depiction of Soren’s society seemed to be something taken right from Rush Limbaugh’s show or Pat Buchanan’s campaign literature. [They talk] about how the feminist and homosexual political agendas want to destroy the traditional family and make society into a sexless, genderless collection of politically correct clones, and if you don’t toe the line, you’ll be censored. Soren’s society was a depiction of those people’s worst nightmares. It seems to me that if you were of that mindset to begin with, this show did nothing but confirm those unfounded fears, and nothing to challenge them” (10).

I have tried to seek out its positive aspects (mostly that an episode recognizing gay concerns peripherally was even made). And I want to make one last point in this vein: while I criticize the producers for a homophobic episode, I also have to recognize that they’re creating a product to sell, and they have to appeal to their demographic.

Which means, the demographic itself shoulders some responsibility for the homophobic content of the show. I suspect if the fan base had responded with overwhelming outrage (or even just disdain) at the poor representation, future episodes would have been much more gay friendly.

I complain that this show sends a mixed message to its audience; I also suspect the producers receive mixed messages from the viewers in response to gay content as well. So if I’m going to accuse people of homophobia, with whom should I start?

—————————

Soren’s argument against discrimination after she has been accused of being gendered:

“I am female. I was born that way. I have had those feelings, those longings, all of my life. It is not unnatural. I am not sick because I feel this way. I do not need to be helped. I do not need to be cured. What I need, and what all of those who are like me need, is your understanding. And your compassion. We have not injured you in any way. And yet we are scorned and attacked. And all because we are different. What we do is no different from what you do. We talk and laugh. We complain about work. And we wonder about growing old. We talk about our families and we worry about the future. And we cry with each other when things seem hopeless. All of the loving things that you do with each other – that is what we do. And for that we are called misfits, and deviants and criminals. What right do you have to punish us? What right do you have to change us? What makes you think you can dictate how people love each other?”

—————————-

For more posts on all things gay in the Star Trek universe, check out my Gay Star Trek Main Page.

—————————-

(6) John Tulloch and Henry Jenkins, Science Fiction Audiences: Watching Doctor Who and Star Trek, Routledge: 1995.

(7) Atara Stein, “Minding One’s P’s and Q’s: Homoeroticism in Star Trek: The Next Generation,” Genders Journal, Volume 27, 1998. The text of the article can be read here: http://www.genders.org/g27/g27_st.txt

(8) “APA Discredits ‘Ex-Gay’ Movement,” 365gay.com, 11 August 2006, http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/08/081106apa.htm (retrieved 20 June 2008).

(9) “AMA Policy Regarding Sexual Orientation,” American Medical Association, last updated 24 April 2008, http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14754.html (retrieved 20 June 2008).

(10) Henry Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers, New York University Press: 2006 (pp. 106-7).

Overall 4.0 / 5.0 (recommended for fans of the series)
Gay Content 2.0 / 5.0 (three minor gay characters)
Gay Positivity 4.0 / 5.0

Welcome to The Canterbury Tales meets Star Trek: Voyager. The central story posits that aliens capture the Voyager command crew (with the exception of Captain Janeway and the Doctor – must be lonely on the Voyager bridge) while on an away mission. The aliens take the crew to a prison camp.

Through the process of planning their escape, Chakotay, Tuvok, Tom Paris, B’Elanna, Neelix, and even Kes tell their personal stories leading up to their involvement with the initial Voyager mission, before the ship got lost in the Delta Quadrant.

Quick note – the story is set after Kes’s departure from the ship, and shortly after Seven of Nine’s arrival.

The individual stories make for fascinating and illuminating reads. Taylor enjoys a clever and engaging writing style. It would be easy to lose momentum in a novel like this, but the author manages a brisk pace through a series of unique stories that range from moving to revealing to amusing. The individual stories certainly outshine the more prosaic and implausible imprisonment/escape plot.

A word of warning – these stories will probably hold little interest for anyone who doesn’t know the characters from the TV series.

The book includes three minor gay characters. George Mathers is Harry Kim’s roommate from Starfleet Academy. He has an unrequited crush on Harry, who responds to the situation with grace and compassion: “An immense wave of friendship, of caring and concern and, yes, of love, swept over Harry” (115). It’s mildly disappointing to see a gay character fall in love with an unavailable straight guy (I’d much rather see a successful gay romance), but I’m thrilled with both the inclusion and Harry’s response.

Meanwhile, Noah Mannick and Brad Harrison are part of the Voyager crew stranded in the alien prison camp. They have “only recently become a couple” (176). One frustrating aspect of their relationship: at one point Noah suffers from severe cramps, probably the result of contaminated drinking water. Then we never hear about him again.

So was Noah okay? Did he and Brad make it back to the ship? The novel doesn’t tell us either way. Unfortunately, Noah and Brad are very minor characters, present more to flesh out the situation and, perhaps, demonstrate some gay inclusiveness. To that end, once again, I am delighted to find them present in the novel. I just wish we had seen more of them.

On the whole, could she have done better by the gay characters? Sure: they could have enjoyed beefed up roles, with more compelling subplots of their own, or at least a bigger role to play in the overarching story, and positive endings. Nevertheless, I’m happy to find them at all. Star Trek: Voyager has been one of the least gay-inclusive iterations of the Star Trek franchise, so I’m glad that gay people are represented somewhere in the Voyager universe.

As an interesting side-note, fictional Star Trek novels are not usually considered canon, or official. But Jeri Taylor wrote Pathways (along with Mosaic, which details Captain Janeway’s personal back-story) to provide reference material for the show’s main characters. She specifically intended the books to be canon. We never see Noah or Brad on the show, but presumably they’re in there somewhere. IMDB.com does indicate a Crewman Noah Lessing (played by Rick Worthy).

—————————-

For more posts on all things gay in the Star Trek universe, check out my Gay Star Trek Main Page.

—————————-

I liked Gregg Araki’s “The Living End” for the first three-quarters, after which it lost me because the style abruptly changed.

At first, it comes across as theater of the absurd. Luke’s (Mike Dytri) encounter with the gun-wielding lesbians, followed by the wife with a knife, suggested the filmmakers were making a movie about the sheer absurdity of the things that happen in life. So much about life doesn’t make sense; we pretend it does, but really, it doesn’t. That resonated with me, and so I responded to the film.

But then the movie turned nihilistic, painting a bleak picture. All that waits for us is death (and sometimes not even that). Not so much my kind of movie.

The two main characters, Luke and Jon (Craig Gilmore), are HIV+ during the Reagan era. Faced by fatal injustice and disdain, they stop caring and follow their anger. Which takes them on a road trip.

As for the gay positivity, without really knowing how to read the movie (is it nihilistic? absurdist? am I missing the point?) it’s hard to put the portrayal of the main characters in perspective. They’re hardly role models. In fact, they embody a number of stereotypes. But they’re also well-rounded enough to avoid any clichés.

They strike me as a fantasy born out of anger about the injustice gay people face. Gay people die because straight people don’t care enough to make it stop. There’s just enough truth in that statement to make me pay attention.

If you like dark, edgy, independent movies, you might give this one a shot.