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

Brian Juergens at AfterElton.com stated it nicely:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My recommendation: Skip it.

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

This is the movie I wish Brokeback Mountain had been.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Harvey Milk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall Quality 4.5 / 5.0 (fun, engaging story)
Gay Inclusive? Moderately – two secondary (but important) gay characters
Gay Positive? Very – both characters are well-rounded and fully fleshed-out

A supernatural (or urban fantasy) mystery adventure. Mercy Thompson is a sassy, free-spirited, and no-nonsense walker – that is, a shapeshifter who can transform easily from human to coyote, thanks to her Native American heritage. She lives in a world shared by werewolves, vampires, witches, and the fae (fairy spirits, ranging from gremlins to ogres to mythological monsters).

She has an uneasy but generally congenial relationship with the werewolf pack next door. In fact, she finds herself torn between the pack’s Alpha (Adam), and a former werewolf flame (Samuel). The romantic triangle is not resolved in this book – in fact, it’s not resolved until the end of Book 3.

The romance takes second place to the main story – a mysterious attack on Adam’s pack that leaves Adam on the verge of death and his (human) daughter Jesse kidnapped. Who would perpetrate such an attack? And why?

Briggs brings a lot of strengths to the book, including great characterizaton and a well-conceived alternate universe in which magic and supernatural creatures are real. The world-building (seeing how the supernatural elements fit into the “real” world) was just as interesting to me as the main plot. Briggs even manages to work a little social commentary into her world-building. The fae, for example, have recently been outed to the public, and most of them have been moved onto reservations.

Gay-wise, Adam’s pack includes a gay werewolf named Warren (who was a cowboy before he was turned), and his boyfriend Kyle. They are close friends of mercy’s, and both of them are sensible and helpful fellows with meaty parts in all three books.

A brief explanation why I included the negative stereotypes of heterosexism and gay without agency. The werewolf world is apparently even less accepting of gays than the normal world, and apparently Warren had a hard time of it until he was finally welcomed by Adam. Well, a harder time of it, because some of Adam’s other werewolves still do not deal well with him. It’s great that Adam is not prejudiced, and it paints his characters nicely, but it’s frustrating to see a gay man requiring a popular straight man’s “approval” to be accepted by the rest of the group.

I don’t weight these factors heavily, however. Yeah, I would have preferred if gayness were no big deal in the werewolf world. But even so, Warren and Kyle are two great characters, and Briggs (through protagonist Mercy) clearly cares about them. Major kudos to Briggs for writing them into the story, making them such great characters, and giving them some substantive scenes.

Story-wise, a minor complaint: the story weakens near the end. In part to increase tension, and in part to conclude the novel’s central mystery, the plot becomes convoluted and twisted as it winds to a conclusion. It’s a little hard to follow, and it throws the novel’s pacing off. Still, the author manages to end the book with a bang, and how’s this for a recommendation: I finished the book and immediately went out and bought the next two.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).