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 4.0 / 5.0
Gay Inclusive? Not explicitly – villain coded as gay
Gay Positive? No – pretty negative, actually

Monster: Angels and demons
Summary: Ruby (Genevieve Cortese) tells Sam (Jared Padalecki) and Dean (Jensen Ackles) about a girl named Anna (Julie McNiven) the Angel Whisperer. Okay, she’s not actually called that, but she can overhear angels. The Winchester boys must protect her from an upper management demon named Alastair (Mark Rolston). Over the course of the episode, it’s also revealed via flashback what happened to Sam during Dean’s time in Hell.

Overall, I liked the episode. The mythology for the season (which has disappointed me) began to redeem itself. Or at least I found it fascinating to learn what befell Sam in Dean’s absence, and how he began learning to use his powers. On the other hand, the character of Anna grated on me, and Alastair annoyed me. He’s subtly coded as gay; it’s far more noticeable in the next episode than this one, however, so I’ll comment on it more there.

The show ends as a cliffhanger with a dramatic showdown between Castiel/Uriel (Misha Collins/Robert Wisdom) and Sam/Dean. The show can’t seem to decide if the angels are good guys or bad guys. I mentioned being disappointed in this season’s mythology, and this is the reason. Our intrepid (and gorgeous) heros are caught in the middle of a brewing, apocalyptic war between demons and angels. The demons are unequivocally evil, but instead of serving as a counter-balance of wisdom and love, the angels are just as bad in a different way. They’re as self-righteous as fundamentalists, and as cold and unfeeling as the demons seem to be. It casts the universe as a rather dark place, and God as frankly unworthy of devotion.

I think there’s interesting potential here. I am reminded of Star Wars, of all things. Palpatine was simultaneously Chancellor of the Republic and Emperor. What’s the best way to win a war? To be both sides. But for that to work, you have to make sure people believe that there are only two sides. The show has the potential to suggests the situation is not so simplistic … or cartoonish. Here’s hoping the rest of the season paints a nuanced picture of morality and spirituality.

4.10 – Heaven and Hell
Original Air Date. 20 November 2008

Overall 3.5 / 5.0
Gay Inclusive? Not explicitly – villain coded as gay
Gay Positive? No – pretty negative, actually

Monster: Angels and demons
Summary: Picks up immediately where “I Know What You Did Last Summer” ends. Sam and Dean run with Anna to try to escape both the angels and the demons. Ultimately, they all know they will fail. With a little help from psychic Pamela Barnes, they realize that Anna is a fallen angel. They seek her grace (it’s a physical thing) to restore her powers; otherwise the forces of Heaven and Hell will crush them.

Okay. The mythology tanks again. I mean, seriously. I don’t even know where to begin. There’s just something wrong with angels and demons fighting like humans do, throwing punches and whatnot. And, yeah, seriously, an angel’s grace is a physical thing that it can misplace.

I have to admit I’m mostly pissed off about the demon Alastair, though. Halfway through the season, and we haven’t had any gay characters, until Alastair. Now, there’s nothing to say that Alastair is gay, except that he’s effete and speaks with a pronounced lisp. Whether or not he’s actually gay is irrelevant; he’s coded as gay to enhance his alienation from the audience and emphasize his villainy.

Norman Mailer posits that Hollywood exploits a specific prejudicial stereotype:

an intrinsic relation between homosexuality and ‘evil’ … homosexuality could be used as a plot device to reduce exposition and simplify motivation. To contemporary screenwriters and movie makers, who have much less time for exposition than most novelists, the device still works” (1).

The coding also highlights Alastair’s dissimilarity from Dean – Dean being a virile, rugged, clearly hetero hero (hell, he even hooks up with Anna in the episode, although the two actors didn’t have much chemistry).

Ah, Dean. I have mixed feelings about Dean’s revelation of what happened to him in Hell, and what he did in response. It interests me, this idea of Hell as a machine that breaks a soul down until it’s rendered into its most fearful and angry parts, until it creates evil. The scene where Dean talks about it is very powerful, as well. Ackles has great range. At the same time, I find it off-putting. The fact that Dean has always been tortured (since the very beginning) is frankly part of his appeal. He’s a vulnerable tough guy. Chicks (and gay guys like me, apparently) dig that. But this twist takes it to a new level.

The episode “Yellow Fever” hinted at this development. Dean was susceptible to the spiritual disease because he had used fear as a weapon, presumably in Hell.

Part of my uncertainty how to take this derives from the way the mythology has been handled this season: like a cartoon. Hollywood has an unfortunate tradition of taking genuinely powerful and meaningful spiritual concepts and grinding them down to their grossest (as in un-subtle and un-nuanced, not disgusting) and most crass elements in order to use them as drama machines. Is that what’s happening here?

I want to see where the writers take this (although they have a poor track record of exploring what overarching themes mean). I believe in the power of forgiveness, redemption and atonement in the real world. I wonder how – and if – these principles will be explored in the Supernatural universe.

————————

A clip of the showdown between the angels and the demons. I include the scene to demonstrate Alastair’s mannerisms. He arrives shortly after the 1 minute mark.

WARNING – spoilers – the events are the episode’s climax.

————————

(1) John Weir, “FILM; Gay-Bashing, Villainy and the Oscars,” The New York Times, 29 March 1992, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE4D81E31F93AA15750C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all (retrieved 30 May 2008)

Overall 2.0 / 5.0
Gay Content 5.0 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 4.5 / 5.0

The series has hit a new low in Season 3.

The events at the end of Season 2 opened the door for the House of Shadows to return to Dante’s Cove and wreck havoc. Meanwhile, Griffen (Jensen Atwood), a representative of the “council of Tresum,” shows up to throw a wrench into everything by taking Diana’s (Thea Gill) power. Kevin (Gregory Michael) is still Ambrosius Vallin’s (AKA Bro, William Gregory Lee) sex slave, but he is desperately conniving to escape and get back to Toby (Charlie David), who in the meantime is being seduced by straight-boy-turned-gay Adam (Jon Fleming).

After the first season, Here! TV started billing Dante’s Cove as a “guilty pleasure.” I’d say Season 2 was reasonably successful in that vein. Season 3 is just bad, however. Not so bad it’s good, just bad.

Awful, cringe-worthy writing. Check. Lame special effects. Oh, yeah. (Season 2 had much better effects, for some reason). Questionable directorial choices. Yup. Clunky, wooden acting. You know it.

Even the sex and nakedness irritated me! They had a sex scene every ten to fifteen minutes. It bothers me that they used it as a substitute for story-telling. If I want to watch porn, I’ll watch real porn. Full-frontal nudity appeared even more often than the sex. Unfortunately, they really only included one “type” of guy – muscle-bound – and I didn’t really find many of the naked guys that appealing.

To tell you the truth, though, the thing that hurts the show the most: there’s no one to root for. Grace (Tracy Scoggins), previously a villain, became my favorite character this season. Thea Gill was wasted, and they didn’t reveal whether Griffen was a villain or hero until last episode or two. Everyone else turned evil, selfish, or stupid; or they were new, and I didn’t have a chance to develop an emotional investment in their character.

I understand that this is a soap opera, and it’s intended to be over-the-top. They’re aiming for so-bad-it’s-good, but they made some poor choices, and overshot.

On the plus side, Grace’s character gets the royal treatment: she has the best, most evocative storyline. Scoggins takes full advantage of it. Atwood brings a much needed low-key performance to the show. It also remains refreshingly gay-positive.

Here’s my wish-list for Season 4 of Dante’s Cove. The writers of Supernatural take over, and Dean (Jensen Ackles) and Sam (Jared Padalecki) roll into town. Can you imagine the possibilities? I can… Mmmmm.

A gratuitous picture of Sam and Dean from the CW’s Supernatural:

Original airdate: 3 February 1999

Overall 4.0 / 5.0 (entertaining; I always get a kick out of the alternate universe episodes)
Gay Content 2.0 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 1.5 / 5.0

Grand Nagus Zek (Wallace Shawn), leader of the Ferengi people, is trapped in Star Trek’s alternate universe, where the Federation does not exist. To free him, Quark (Armin Shimerman) and Rom (Max Grodénchik) must steal and deliver a cloaking device to the Regent of the evil Alliance (the alternate Worf, Michael Dorn).

In the alternate universe, Kira (Nana Visitor) is both evil and bisexual (well, more precisely, she’s a sexual opportunist). She is, in fact, the classic vision of the stereotypical evil lesbian.

Norman Mailer has written that he believed at one time

“‘that there was an intrinsic relation between homosexuality and ‘evil.” It was a time when homosexuality could be used as a plot device to reduce exposition and simplify motivation. To contemporary screenwriters and movie makers, who have much less time for exposition than most novelists, the device still works” (1).

Alternate-Kira is involved in a lesbian relationship with Alt-Ezri Dax (Nicole de Boer). Alt-Ezri starts out as a greedy, amoral, and self-serving pirate; but she manages to develop a conscience by the end of the episode. In fact, at the tail end of the episode, she and Alt-Leeta (Chase Masterson) flirt with each other. Alt-Leeta appears to belong to the Rebels, who are the good guys in the alternate universe.

If it weren’t for Alt-Ezri’s change of heart and Alt-Leeta’s presence, I’d really be excoriating this episode! It’s still fairly gay-negative, though.

I have two major complaints.

First, the villainy of the gay characters: Alt-Kira is unrelentingly evil, and even though Alt-Ezri seems to turn a corner, she’s otherwise duplicitous and amoral during the episode. Even when her close friend Alt-Brunt (Jeffrey Combs) is killed, she hardly bats an eye. The story portrays her as a cold, unfeeling bitch.

If there were positive gay characters to counter-balance this kind of portrayal, I admit I’d still probably complain about it … “Oh, that old gay villain stereotype popped up again on Deep Space Nine, I wonder what they were thinking” … but I wouldn’t be accusing them of homophobia.

Imagine that Dr. Bashir (Alexander Siddig) were a gay character but all his story-lines remained largely the same. Since he’s an important, helpful, and occasionally heroic figure on the show, I would have to weigh a single episode utilizing a negative stereotype against seven seasons of positive portrayal. But that positive portrayal isn’t there. The handful of other occurrences of gay themes are either minor or negative themselves.

So we’re left with a show that seems to posit that homosexuality is bad; that homosexual characters do bad things. “Their existence in the evil mirror universe, and the simultaneous absence of positive gay characters in our universe makes an unmistakable statement that same-sex attraction has no place in a positive vision of the future” (2).

Second, the lesbianism does not reflect a genuine effort to be gay-inclusive. The show is pandering to the worst instincts of an adolescent fan-boy fantasy.

The lesbianism is hinted at early in the episode, but only fully revealed with a surprise kiss between Kira and Ezri that is clearly intended to be shocking and titillating. “It’s only intention seems to stimulate the straight-male fantasy of woman-on-woman action” (3).

In my analysis of “The Host” from Star Trek: The Next Generation, I try to look on the bright side. Even though the overall exclusion of gay people from the vision of Star Trek is disappointing and offensive, I appreciate even subtle or minor inclusion as a step forward. But “The Host” aired in 1991. “The Emperor’s New Cloak” takes place two Star Trek series and eight years later. If this is the kind of portrayal the Star Trek franchise is evolving toward, it’s heading in the wrong direction.

—————————-

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

—————————-

(1) John Weir, “FILM; Gay-Bashing, Villainy and the Oscars,” The New York Times, 29 March 1992, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE4D81E31F93AA15750C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all (retrieved 30 May 2008)

(2) David Sinclair, “Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Characters on Star Trek – a 12-year saga of deceit, lies, excuses and broken promises,” 19 October 2003, (retrieved 30 May 2008).

(3) Michael Ricci, “Forbidden Gay Frontier: Where Star Trek Hasn’t Boldly Gone,” AfterElton.com, 20 April 2006, http://www.afterelton.com/archive/elton/TV/2006/4/startrek3.html (retrieved 30 May 2008).

(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).

Original air date: 16 March 1992

Overall Quality 2.5 / 5.0 (not one of their finer efforts)
Gay Content 2.0 / 5.0 (it’s the closest they come to a gay episode, but it’s all allegory)
Gay Positivity 2. 0 / 5.0 (decidedly mixed, leaning towards negative)

“The Outcast” is one of the most important episodes in the Star Trek universe regarding the inclusion of gay content, and certainly the most important in The Next Generation. Note, however, that the episode includes no gay characters nor any gay relationships. The episode does not reference same-sex inclinations or pairings at all.

Plot Summary

The Enterprise is assisting the J’naii, a completely androgynous race, to track down a shuttle that’s gone missing. Commander Riker (Jonathan Frakes) works closely with a J’naii named Soren (Melinda Culea) to locate the shuttle, and Soren reveals that she is one of a minority of J’naii who was born with a gender identity…female, in her case. They begin a relationship, but J’naii society considers gender identity a sickness, and those who “suffer” from it are subject to psychotectic (i.e., reparative) therapy.

Jeri Taylor, who worked as a producer on the series, wrote the episode. Taylor is probably the most gay-friendly of all the producers associated with the Star Trek franchise (1).

The Strengths & Weaknesses

Commenting solely on the quality of episode, it’s a mixed bag. I found the exploration of an androgynous race to be thought-provoking. It seems unlikely that all alien species would reproduce through sexual dimorphism, and some form of asexual reproduction strikes me as a likely alternative.

But after Soren reveals she’s part of a persecuted minority, the episode changes tone into an issue-driven storyline.

The good part: she makes an intelligent, impassioned, and articulate argument against prejudice, and it’s easy to make the jump from the issue being gender identity to sexual orientation. I have included the full text of her argument at the end of Part Two of this article.

The bad part: delving into an issue-of-the-week story introduces an artificial feel to the plot, and forces the characters to become mouthpieces. That in turn alienates the viewer from the story, and the viewer becomes aware of the episode as a narrative with an agenda. It feels heavy-handed and forced, and it’s just less engrossing and enjoyable.

I wonder how much the final product diverged from Taylor’s original script. Taylor has proven herself a talented writer at other points, and I question whether the same or a similar message could have been conveyed through a more organic and engaging story.

It doesn’t help that the plot contains a series of contrivances. Why is Riker working on the project, and piloting the shuttle, instead of Geordi or Data? Because he needs to be working closely with Soren to develop feelings for her; screw the chain of command! Why would Worf make a blatantly sexist comment, and neither Doctor Crusher nor Counselor Troi get in his face about it? That’s out of character for all three. It’s because the script needs to make a point about gender and sexism, and they are the tools through which it’s done. But it’s jarring, and once again forces the viewer out of the story.

The Gay Content

Let’s place this episode in context. The year is 1992 (over 15 years ago from the date of this writing). In 1991, the sitcom Roseanne introduced a regular gay character, Leon (played by Martin Mull), which was extremely progressive at the time. Also in 1991, the red ribbon made its debt as a symbol of the campaign to stop AIDS.

Ellen wouldn’t come out until 1997, and Will & Grace wouldn’t premiere until 1998. Philadelphia, Brokeback Mountain’s spiritual precursor, wouldn’t open until 1993.

The major shows with gay characters or content in 1992 included: Roseanne, Northern Exposure, The Simpsons, One Life to Live, The Real World New York (the premiere season), and Melrose Place.

All of these shows were cutting-edge in their inclusion of gay characters or stories, and many fell far short of ideal. For example, Matt (Doug Savant) on Melrose Place was basically a genital-less Ken doll. Billy Douglas (Ryan Philippe) on One Life to Live was a troubled teen struggling with his sexuality in a homophobic environment.

Still, they all occurred at a time when any kind of representation on network TV was a step up from invisibility. And I think it’s important to remember that when considering “The Outcast.”
Expectations and Disappointment

Star Trek: The Next Generation’s two major mistakes were (A) trying to be inclusive by making homosexuality itself the story, and (B) including homosexuality only through allegory. The episode, on a literal level, isn’t gay inclusive at all.

Rick Berman says in Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion,

“We thought we had made a very positive statement about sexual prejudice in a distinctively Star Trek way, but we still got letters from those who thought it was just our way of ‘washing our hands’ of the homosexual situation” (2).

I suspect the producers thought that gay people wanted a “gay episode.” In the early days of gay inclusion on TV, that’s about the most we could hope for: that one episode that might revolve around gay themes, such as the gay wedding on Northern Exposure.

But that’s not really what gay and gay-friendly Star Trek viewers desired. Rather, they wanted full-throttle inclusion in the Star Trek universe. They wanted to see themselves portrayed within Starfleet, not necessarily as objects about which a story is told, but as part of the social milieu in which the stories are told. Gene Roddenberry’s 1991 comment only fueled the desire:

“My attitude toward homosexuality has changed. I came to the conclusion that I was wrong. I was never someone who hunted down ‘fags’ as we used to call them on the street. I would, sometimes, say something anti-homosexual off the top of my head because it was thought, in those days, to be funny. I never really deeply believed those comments, but I gave the impression of being thoughtless in these areas. I have, over many years, changed my attitude about gay men and women” (3).

Note that Roddenberry also told The Advocate that the fifth season of The Next Generation would include gay crew members (4). His comments raised hopes and expectations for gay inclusion, but I suspect a comment made by Ronald Moore in 1997 summarized the prevailing attitude in 1991:

“We have no plans to [include gay characters], chiefly because dealing with one’s sexual orientation in Gene’s 24th century is kinda simple: ‘Hey, Captain, I think I might be gay.’ ‘Okay. Now get back to fixing those transtators.’ It’s not really an issue to these people, so ‘exploring’ it doesn’t hold much promise” (5).

In other words, if a character’s sexual orientation is not explicitly and specifically germane to the plot, why bother addressing it at all? This homophobia is unintentional, the product of missing the point; but it still renders the gay person an outcast from the Star Trek universe. What an ironic title for this episode then.

But I digress from the show itself.

Please click for Part Two of my analysis of “The Outcast.”

————————-

————————-

(1) It is said that Taylor suggested that Seven of Nine (Jeri Ryan) on Star Trek: Voyager should be a lesbian, although this idea was discarded. She also wrote a couple of important Star Trek: Voyager novels, including Pathways, which included secondary gay characters.

(2) Larry Nemecek, Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, Pocket Books: 1992.

(3) David Alexander, “Interview with Gene Roddenberry: Writer, Producer, Philosopher, Humanist,” The Humanist, March/April 1991. The text can be read here: http://67.104.146.36/english/STAR_TREK/humanistinterview/humanist.html (retrieved 11 June 2008).

(4) Joe Clark, “Star Trek: The Next Generation – Queer Characters Join the Enterprise Crew,” The Advocate, 27 August 1991. The text of the article can be read here: http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/advocate.html (retrieved 11 June 2008).

(5) “Answers,” Star Trek News, 16 July 1997, http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6952/ron41.txt (retrieved 11 June 2008).

Original airdate: 5 May 1990

Overall 4.5 / 5.0 (quite good – recommended)
Gay Content 1.0 / 5.0 (ambiguous, but hinted at)

Trader Kivas Fajo (Saul Rubinek) abducts Data (Brent Spiner) in order to add the unique android to Fajo’s collection of rare and valuable items. The episode proves to be an interesting exploration of Data’s personality when subjected to a difficult situation. Rubinek excels as the villainous and amoral Fajo. The exchanges between the two represent some of the best of Star Trek: amazing and believable drama set in a science fiction universe.

Some viewers believe Fajo was coded as gay. He’s a flamboyant personality, wearing a purple suit that’s almost drag, who at one point tells Data, “Personally I’d be delighted to see you go around naked.”

That’s the extent of any gay content. So, perhaps we have a gay character, who turns out to be (stereoptypically) a villain, and who is communicated (albeit ambiguously) to be gay through clichéd coding. Or he’s not gay, and Star Trek once again shows itself to be inclusive with the exception of gay people, and utilizes gay coding in order to confirm or enhance a character’s villainy and alienation from the audience. Not gay positive either way.

Notably, Data as an android lacks any sexuality, but he is “fully functional,” as he sometimes describes himself. One would presume that Data would have neither preference nor objection to either sex. However, any romantic interludes that Data experiences are heterosexual in nature. For example, he has sex with Tasha Yar (Denise Crosby) in “The Naked Now” (episode 2) and experiments with human romance and sexuality with a female in “In Theory” (episode 99). He never has any same-sex romantic experiences.

—————————-

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

“Ja Zuster! Nee Zuster!”

Overall Quality 3.5 / 5.0 (campy good fun)
Gay Content 2.0 / 5.0 (significant gay character and subplot)
Gay Positivity 3.0 / 5.0 (still a few lingering, though mostly insignificant, issues)

A quirky (to put it mildly) Dutch musical based on a Dutch TV series from the 1960s about a rest home run by firm but kind Nurse Klivia (Loes Luca), and her confrontations with her mean-spirited and high-strung landlord, Mr. Boordevol (Paul Kooij).

The story centers around the landlord’s attempts to evict Nurse Klivia and the oddballs living in her resthome. He apparently wants to set up luxury apartments or somesuch so he can rake in the dough. A subplot involving a thief (Gerrit) trying to overcome his larcenous ways interweaves the main story.

Another subplot introduces gay content to the film. It appears the villain is gay (yawn), but in an interesting twist, resuming his love affair with a long-lost boyfriend (Wouter, played by Paul de Leeuw) restores his good nature. Mr. Boordevol transforms from Mr. Scrooge (“Bah, humbug!”) into Tiny Tim (“God bless us, every one!”).

Although turning good when he gets some gay lovin’ is a refreshing twist, gay-man-as-villain is still woefully overdone. Also, a dark flip side: a gay man, when lonely, turns evil. That said, these issues pale before the cartoonish feel-good fun of this campy musical.

The filmmakers have done a great job of making the film feel like a 60s sitcom. The colors and visual set-up are reminiscent of a simpler, just-colorized era of film and television.

The music isn’t the stuff of classics, but it’s so silly and catchy it’s fun to watch. One must-see musical sequence involves Gerrit (the hunky Waldemar Torenstra) singing to a flock of pigeons on a rooftop wearing nothing but his tighty-whiteys.

The movie alternates from endearing to dumb and back again with lightning speed, but the energetic and enthusiastic cast help save the film from itself. I recommend the film as a pleasant diversion, especially if you’re in the mood for something different from the usual DVD fare.

“Neverland” recasts “Peter Pan” into modern urban legend. It’s an interesting take, but the film comes across like a first draft.

The pacing is off, and the acting inconsistent. The movie works best when its humor is tongue-in-cheek. My favorite scene introduces the viewer to Hook (Gary Kelley). He’s waxing melodramatic about the importance of his job at a theme park, while trying to fend off amorous overtures from a guy dressed as a crocodile (Kevin Christy).

Unfortunately, most of the movie takes itself too seriously and veers into pretentiousness toward the end.

If you like offbeat, darkish, independent films, I’d recommend this. Otherwise, skip it.

Gay-wise: At the beginning of the film, Peter (Rick Sparks) describes himself as “pansexual,” which to him means, “I like sex.” To me, that conveyed a sense of openness in the film. This is “Peter Pan” for outsiders. A bit later the viewer sees the scene introducing Hook, described above. I’m not thrilled that the bad guy is gay (such a stereotype!), but at that point it seems kind of fun in a subversive way.

Unfortunately, the tongue-in-cheek approach stops there. Hook becomes a gay sexual predator whose ultimate fate follows stereotype, Peter evinces no sexuality throughout the rest of the movie (he’s a little boy who won’t grow up), and the only references to gay people are derisive. For example, the Lost Boys refer to the pirates (Hook’s apparently gay henchman) as “fags,” and Tinkerbell (Kari Wahlgren, my favorite in the movie) tries to demean Peter Pan by suggesting he doesn’t like girls. I’m not impressed.

This movie is a cake made with Clichéd Story batter, spiced with strong hints of Bad Writing and Clunky Acting, half-baked, then frosted with Negative Gay Stereotypes, and garnished with a Poorly Done Ending.

Other than that, I loved it.

Joking aside, it has high production values, and director Victor Salva manages to salvage some clever performances, especially from father figure Del Farraday (Dean Stockwell). Actually, this movie strikes me as strangely reminiscent of “The Deep End” (starring Tilda Swinton). In fact, this movie could accurately be titled “The Deep End 2: Daddy’s Day.” Well, that might be an interesting feat, considering “Rites of Passage” predates “The Deep End” by two years, but still.

Both are not-very-thrilling thrillers wherein parents with strained relationships with their gay offspring become entangled in crimes involving their children’s gay romantic interests, to the extent of being stupid in order to artificially prolong the drama. Specifically, daddy Del Farraday and his two grown sons D.J. (Robert Glen Keith, who enjoys several awkward and ill-timed lines) and Campbell (a charming if sullen Jason Behr) end up at a remote, secluded cabin for a weekend of hashing out family issues. Meanwhile, two escaped convicts from a nearby penitentiary are prowling the area looking for some buried treasure, er, money. Yeah, been there, done that. But lo! Gay Campbell has an unexpected connection to creepy criminal mastermind (and apparently gay daddy figure) Frank Dabbo (James Remar).

As for the gay positivity, well, I’ll just list the negative gay stereotypes for you.

(** MINOR SPOILER ALERT: This list contains minor spoilers in that I mention some plot points, but I don’t specify characters. Skip to the paragraph after the list if you desperately don’t want to know. **)

1. Difficult coming out: Gay man is rejected by his family
2. The Victimized Gay: Gay man violently assaulted for being gay
3. The Gay Dies and the Diseased Gay: Gay man dies of AIDS (off-screen), and another dies violently
4. The Lonely Gay / Gay Love is Doomed: One gay man is unable to sustain a healthy relationship, and another dies alone (off-screen)
5. The Gay Villain: Everyone who’s ultimately guilty of anything is gay, or has a gay connection
6. The Gay Ends Badly: Gay man (alone out of all the characters, mind you) goes to jail

In my reviews, I’ve parsed out a dozen or so categories of negative gay stereotypes, but it really comes down to two general types: in most media portrayals, if you’re gay, either bad things happen to you, or you are bad. Both categories apply to this movie, and in spades.

On the positive side … um … well … hm. This isn’t really a positive thing, but it offers some balance: the film portrays Campbell as a sympathetic figure who has simply gone through some rough times, not unlike many gay men, and made foolish choices as a result. In fact, if the movie’s emphasis had fallen on Campbell going into a tailspin after losing his family, making unhealthy choices, but finding his way back to solid footing through making peace with his father and brother, I probably would have been much more kindly disposed.

If you like dark, gay-baiting, heavy-handed independent features that should have been made as stage plays, knock yourself out. Otherwise, don’t waste your time.