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 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.

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.

On the whole, I like this movie. Despite its many flaws.

The film benefits from some great acting. Certainly, it enjoys a caliber of talent unusual for an independent feature. Jacqueline Bisset as Lila, despite the schlocky role, gives a performance that provides an emotional heart to the movie. Steve Sandvoss is pitch perfect as the sweet, conflicted, not-quite-naive Mormon (Aaron). Rebekah Johnson brings a feistiness that brings the stock fag-hag character (Julie) to life. Wes Ramsey as protagonist Christian does a good job as well, with the exception of a couple of overwrought monologues. But the monologues were written that way, so it’s hard to blame Ramsey too much. (Wait until he tells the story of getting left behind in the woods. You’ve got to be kidding me.)

The character of Christian irritates me. It’s like the writer (C. Jay Cox) said to himself, I want this person to be Gay Everyman. But his version of Gay Everyman happens to encompass a whole lot of stereotypical behavior. Meanwhile, the character of Aaron was very engaging: sweet, kind, and sincere. I really wanted Aaron to find happiness. Probably the filmmakers intended the central conflict to hinge on whether Aaron and Christian got together. But in watching the movie, I cared about that only insofar as it meant Aaron was able to exorcise his personal demons. Although I did appreciate Christian’s rather dramatic personal growth over the course of the film.

I have mixed emotions about the character of Keith (Erik Palladino), the gay man suffering from advanced AIDS. I always have mixed emotions about HIV/AIDS in gay-themed films: I tire of the association of disease, HIV/AIDS in particular, with the gay community, so I get frustrated easily when it seems like every other film throws in an HIV+ character for some kind of street cred.

On the other hand, HIV/AIDS is an important part of the history of the gay community, and remains a continuing concern. Especially since many young gay people nowadays don’t seem to take HIV/AIDS seriously.

But Keith’s role in the film is just over-the-top in a film already brimming with negative gay clichés. Christian finds meaning and depth by getting to know this gay man, who used to be like Christian, until AIDS enlightened him to the true meaning of Christmas.

That character is indicative of what’s fundamentally wrong with the movie. I can value having a guy in the movie who has AIDS, who has actually stopped and looked at the events of his life (including but not limited to the disease) and actually managed to squeeze out insight and wisdom. Consider the HIV+ character of Ben (Robert Gant) in “Queer as Folk.” But that’s not exactly how Keith’s character is portrayed; he’s too one-note, with too many one-liners, to have the depth needed for his role.

The movie is simply too heavy-handed without having the depth of character or thematic goods to back it up. One scene portrays an argument Christian has with some random trick that sleeping together is much more intimate than sex, and how the preference for the latter over the former is an unhealthy reversal of priorities in the gay community. That experience apparently helps Christian to appreciate the value of the depth and moral center that Aaron offers. It could have worked, had it been written and directed with any subtlety or nuance.

And then there’s the treatment of the Mormon Church.

In a lot of ways, “Latter Days” is an uncomfortable film. It benefits from an underlying sweetness, which mostly originates in the performances (especially Lila and Aaron). And the lead characters, unoriginal though they may be, are basically likeable – that helps a whole lot.

But the charm is undercut by a hateful edge: at the same time it’s trying to be a gay love story, the film is also attacking the Mormon Church (and, by extension, any organized religion which considers homosexuality sinful). The filmmakers have the right to make whatever kind of movie they want; and if they want to attack the Mormon Church, so be it. I’m not a fan of Mormonism, based upon what I know if it, so I have no argument with that. But using the medium of film to attack something lends a certain ugliness to the feel of the work. Trying to be a sweet love story and an assault on a particular group of people at the same time makes for a strange viewing experience. Even being unfamiliar with Mormon missionary work, I had the sense that certain facts were distorted or dramatized in order to highlight the condemnation of Mormonism. Ryder (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is too much a caricature of intolerant evangelism to really take seriously.

Consider the thoughts of reviewer and commentator Eric Snyder on this subject:

“Cox is allowed some poetic license, of course; he never claimed he was making a documentary. But I have to question his motives. As a former church member, Cox knows how missionaries really talk and act, and he knows how the church really operates. He is skewing the facts either A) because doing so helps his story progress, or B) because he wants viewers to dislike the church as much as he does. I hope it is option A, as that only makes him a bad filmmaker — good filmmakers use the facts of the world as they actually are to tell their stories, and don’t resort to making stuff up — while option B would make him something worse. Intentionally distorting the facts so your opponent looks more evil than he is smells like propaganda — which, again, is Cox’s right as a filmmaker, but which makes him seem like a guy with an ax to grind, not a guy with a story to tell” (1).

I did wonder myself about whether the filmmakers had an ax to grind, but I was equally confused by the mixed messages in the movie, because there’s just so much gay negativity.  And not just around the conflicted Mormon boy. Of course, Aaron is the most tortured of all the characters. Sometimes literally: wait until the scenes from the prison, er, hospital trying to “fix” him following Aaron’s attempt to “fix” himself, in a manner of speaking.

The film portrays a society which persecutes and literally tortures gay people because of unyielding, unthinking homophobia. Aaron persecutes and tortures himself because he has internalized that perspective. But what is the alternative presented, the other side of the story?

Is it someone like Gene Robinson or Mel White, well-known gay men committed to spiritual work in the world? No.

Or even someone like the aforementioned Ben from “Queer As Folk,” who certainly suffers from his own inner demons but is still a person of impressive depth and learning? No.

It’s a promiscuous (even when he’s pining for Aaron, he still brings tricks home!), theatrical, superficial flake who is held up in the film to represent openly gay life. What does that say? It’s an odd juxtaposition, at the least. Take the worst of the anti-gay world and the most clichéd of gay life, and throw them together!

As stated, I like this film. It benefits from a basic sweetness and an engaging exploration of the universal human longing for affection and understanding and the peeling away of the protective emotional layers we wrap around ourselves. Some of the scenes are fantastic. I especially enjoyed the penultimate scene, the emotional climax of the movie. Even if the plot that led us to that moment was contrived and forced, it’s still a great moment.

But keep your expectations low – the film suffers from a heavy-handed approach to theme and a cookie-cutter approach to characterization and plot that prevent the film from truly shining.

—————————

(1) Snyder, Eric. “Latter Days,” EricDSnider.com, March 2004, http://www.ericdsnider.com/movies/latter-days (17 August 2007)

The second half of the first season reveals some “character-fatigue.” Many of the personas portrayed by Matt Lucas and David Walliams are one-gag bits. In other words, there’s a single aspect of the character or relationship that provides most of the humor, and the sketches from one episode to the next all play off that single aspect.

For example, Andy (Lucas) stays in a wheelchair, cared for by Lou (Walliams). From one sequence to the next, Lou asks Andy what he wants (what movie, what food, what activity), Andy tells him, Lou points out that Andy doesn’t actually like what he picked, Andy insists, Lou gives in, and afterwards Andy reneges and says he doesn’t want it. All the Lou and Andy bits are funny, but they also grow successively less laughable and more repetitive.

The bonus material on the DVD suggest that Walliams and Lucas would film all of a particular character’s season one sketches in one or two days. The duo seem to have underestimated the need to keep successive sketches fresh with new and evolving gags. They can only vary the same thing so many times before it gets old.

Hopefully Season Two will introduce some new characters and fresh perspectives on old favorites. And also a little more variety around the gay characters portrayed. Daffyd, Sebastian, and the occasional other gay representation are all a bit one-note. I laughed a lot through these episodes: Walliams and Lucas are masters of exploiting a variety of situations for the inherent comedy. But the last half of Season One tends toward merely amusing whereas the first half was brilliant.

Again, I will limit my discussion of each episode to the sketches of explicit interest to gay viewers.

Episode 5

Daffyd. Our favorite gay villager is getting tested for HIV despite being a virgin. Very, very funny – probably the best Daffyd sketch since the first one. The nurse’s last line to Daffyd is fantastic.

Des Kaye. Former host of a children’s TV show (until fired) now works at some retail store. While on break, he tells his sob story to the newbie, which includes accusing the TV show’s new host of winning the gig by having an affair with the head of programming (both men). He describes them as being “queer.” More uncomfortable than funny.

Episode 6

Des Kaye. In a follow-up to the previous Des Kaye sequence, the head of programming and new host show up at the store where Des works. They acknowledge they’re a couple. Des asks them for money, and then behaves vindictively. Again, more uncomfortable than funny – I personally don’t care for the Des Kaye bits.

Sebastian. Still like a 16-year-old girl out of “Mean Girls.”

Also, a random bit has Walliams playing a guy pitching a whole lot of absurd cereal ideas to a cereal company. One of his ideas: “Sugar Poofs,” gay men frosted with sugar. Odd.

Note, this episode includes full-frontal male nudity.

Episode 7

Daffyd. The title character hosts a “Gay Night” at the pub but clearly doesn’t expect anyone to show up. Then when a whole gang does, he tries to keep them out. Kind of dumb: one of my least favorite Daffyd bits.

Sebastian. While on an excursion, Sebastian tries to seduce the Prime Minister. In fact, we even see Walliam’s naked backside as he tries to go to the bed with the P.M. Unusually amusing for a Sebastian piece.

Episode 8

Daffyd. Barmaid Myfanwy comes out as lesbian, devastating Daffyd’s illusion of being “the only gay in the village.” Unfortunately, the Daffyd sketches are getting a bit old. I like the character and premise, but they need some fresh material.

“Little Britain” is a wickedly funny sketch comedy show centering around a duo of performers: David Walliams and Matt Lucas, who married his long-time partner Kevin McGee not too long ago (1).

The show purports to reveal insights into British culture by following the antics of a series of characters and personas created by Walliams and Lucas. Many of the creations are gay or gay-friendly, including Daffyd (“the only gay in the village”) and Sebastian (an aide to the British Prime Minister, played by Anthony Stewart Head, who’s also infatuated with his boss). The first several episodes reveal insightful satire and clever wit.

Some of the bits are hit-and-miss, as is often the case in comedy; but “Little Britain” hits the mark far more often than not. I will limit my discussion of each episode to the parts of particular interest to gay viewers. On the whole, while I do have issues with some of the portrayals, I am extremely impressed with the inclusivity and gay friendly attitude of “Little Britain.”

Episode 1

In one sketch, we meet one of the most famous of Lucas’ characters: Daffyd, who lives in the Welsh town of Llanddewi Brefi and purports to be the “only gay in the village.” The stock gag is Daffyd’s insistence that he’s the only gay person in his entire village, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. A secondary gag centers around his dress: Daffyd always wears completely outlandish outfits.

In Episode 1, he’s wearing a bright red rubber suit. He moans about being the only gay in the village, when barmaid and Daffyd’s friend Myfanwy tells him that another gay has moved to Llanddewi Brefi. Walliams walks in, wearing a bright blue rubber suit. Nevertheless, Daffyd continues to insist he’s the only gay in the village.

This sketch is stellar: it’s hilarious, brilliant satire. Daffyd’s behavior could have been off-putting, but Lucas imparts a sweetness to the character that makes him engaging. Lucas also manages to keep the performance just shy of going over the top. Well, let me rephrase that: it goes over the top only insofar as it’s clever and not dumb.

The sketch does introduce the viewers to a issue that we increasingly encounter over the rest of the season: most of the gay characters portrayed are shrill and/or effeminate.

For example, another sketch introduces us to Sebastian, an aide to the British Prime Minister. I won’t deny the Sebastian sketches make me chuckle, but on the whole Sebastian annoys me. He’s like Rachel McAdams’ character from “Mean Girls” (2004), insecure, jealous, and vindictive.

In the first sketch, Sebastian is jealous over the attention the P.M. shows Gregory (Habib Nasib Nader) from Treasury during a private meeting. Sebastian acts like a petty school-girl. Whereas Daffyd’s sketches impress me with their clever satire, Sebastian’s just strike me as foolish and vaguely insulting. Daffyd enjoys a good-natured vibe lacking in Sebastian; and I appreciate the parody of gay culture in Daffyd’s sketches. Sebastian’s sketches, on the other hand, strike me less as spoof and more as a taunt to gay culture for its shortcomings.

But Sebastian’s sketches must be read in context. First, given the nature of the series, it’s hard to take any bit too seriously: they’re all ridiculous, in the end. Second, if only the gay characters were flamboyant and over-the-top, that’d be one thing. But all the characters are like that. Still, I wish there had been a little more balance in the portrayal of the gay characters, because that’s what’s missing for gay people in the media in general. I would have liked to see one of the foils (the deadpan characters, like the P.M., around whom Walliams’ and Lucas’ act out their sublime ridiculousness) as a gay person. And/or a character who spoofs the hyper-masculinization of portions of the gay community, rather than just characters who trend toward the girly end of the spectrum.

Episode 2

Daffyd.

Another favorite sketch involving Daffyd: he goes to his neighborhood convenience store to pick up his copy of “Gay Times,” only to discover it’s already been sold! Daffyd is in a rage: he’s the only gay in the village; no one else should be buying his magazine!

Daffyd deduces the blacksmith bought the issue, and he races to the smithy to confront him. He arrives to discover the blacksmith is super-hot hunk Rhys (Graham Beasley); but the revelation of who bought the magazine sends Daffyd fleeing.

Very, very funny; and Beasley is jaw-droppingly gorgeous.

Sebastian.

While going over an opinion poll with the P.M., Sebastian slips in his own opinions: that the P.M. should be seen in shorts and should wrestle a man. In walks the P.M.’s wife, and Sebastian’s jealousy begins to rear its ugly head again. In the end, however, Sebastian ends up on top. Inane.

Episode 3

Daffyd.

Bored, Daffyd wishes there were more activities for gay people, but there aren’t, because he’s the only gay in the village. But friend and barmaid Myfanwy whips out a newspaper and proceeds to read through tons of local events for gay people, including a gathering of gay Trekkie’s in her own bar going on right then! Daffyd chases them out: “They don’t want your sort around here!” Cute but lackluster compared to the first two Daffyd sketches.

The whole character of Daffyd reveals a fairly insecure and otherwise unremarkable person who has seized on his outsider status as a badge of honor and source of identity. Consequently, he feels threatened whenever his place on the pedestal as “the only gay in the village” comes into question. He provides a fantastic blank slate on which to skewer a lot of stereotypes about, and behaviors within, the gay community. But sketches like this one also begin to suggest a certain internalized homophobia.

Sebastian.

Reading unfavorable newspaper headlines to the P.M., Sebastian grows very upset. He wants the P.M. to remain in office “forever.” They end up embracing, but Sebastian won’t let go. Sebastian’s sketches are mildly amusing, but the government aide has the emotional maturity of a 10-year-old, and I find watching his vapid jealousies play out time after time to be tiresome.

Bernard Chumley.

Episode 3 introduces a new character played brilliantly by Matt Lucas: “theatrical legend” Bernard Chumley. Unfortunately, despite his past fame, Mr. Chumley is living in poor housing. In this bit, he meets and tries (very ineptly) to seduce young aspiring actor Joe, who really just wants money.

This bit is only mildly funny; the character is more pitiable than humorous. In some ways, this is more of a dramatic short play. It’s amazingly well-performed, multilayered, and clever.

Episode 4

Daffyd.

Probably my least favorite of the Daffyd bits thus far, because it teeters on the edge of a negative portrayal without the compensating benefit of much humor. Daffyd goes to the local hair salon for a cut, but his normal stylist is out, so new stylist Yfan, or “Fannie,” will cut his hair. Fannie, played by Walliams, is a very flamboyant and effeminate gay man, who kisses his leather daddy boyfriend during the bit. Again, we’re talking about a comedy sketch show in which <em>all</em> the characters are over-the-top, so I can’t take it too seriously. Rather, it’s important to recognize the ways in which stereotypes about the gay community are spoofed by the sketch. At the same time, I return to a comment made earlier in this review: I wish the show had offered more balance in terms of the gay characters portrayed because they all tend toward effeminate and/or flamboyant.

———————

(1) “Little Britain star Lucas ‘weds’,” BBC.co.uk, 18 December 2006, <a href=”http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6188161.stm”>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6188161.stm</a> (8 August 2007).

Overall Quality 4.0 / 5.0
Gay Content 2.0 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 3.5 / 5.0

My dad calls this show “topless raunch meets Cirque du Soleil.” The word “raunch” doesn’t feel quite right. This is a Cirque du Soleil performance, so everything is highly stylized and metaphorical. And yet, some of the costumes even had fake pubic hair, so it’s not exactly haute couture. Say rather “salty” or “burlesque,” and I’ll agree.

“Zumanity” displayed lots of beautiful bodies in a variety of choreographed scenes, but it also incorporated different kinds of physiques. A couple of players were large women, for example, and the cast also included the most muscular little person I’ve ever seen. The show was not so much erotic as titillating, including such fare as a fishbowl swim-dance routine with two topless Asian women and a mid-air gymnastics routine posing as bondage play. A relatively small cast and theater gave the show a more intimate feeling as well.

My favorite part of the performance involved a sequence of scenes that provided a wonderful metaphor for male sexuality. First the male performers play-act an audience for a strip show with a dominatrix brandishing a whip. Other female strippers then come out and offer the men lap dances. They maneuver the men into a common area and then disappear. A cage descends from the ceiling and traps the men (what a great metaphor)!

The men then become aggressive, sublimating their sexual energy. Two of the men begin a choreographed gymnastic routine-cum-fight. And yet, they intersperse the fight with brief intimate gestures, before resuming the assault. The fight ends with a full on kiss between the two men. How interesting that the show chose to portray male-on-male sexuality through aggression rather than affection.

Admittedly, much of the erotic content of the show as a whole seemed divorced from love, affection, and intimacy. Were the producers highlighting the frequent homoeroticism present in male aggression? Or did they feel homo-affection would alienate the primarily straight audience? When the two men kissed, the audience audibly gasped.

At the end of the show, the same two men also engaged in simulated and clothed but surprisingly graphic gay sex. The emcee (a drag queen who strongly hints at her own gayness) highlights the act and makes a joke: “They may not repopulate, but they sure can decorate.”

I consider the gay content to be vaguely disingenuous, but I give the show’s producers kudos for incorporating it to the extent they did. And I love a show that can make me think. Add in the delightful comedy which begins pre-show and continues throughout, and we have a winner.