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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early in the movie, Massimo (Andrea Renzi) dies in an unintentionally funny scene (I actually watched it twice), leaving behind both a devastated widow (Antonia, played by Margherita Buy) and a male lover (Michele, Stefano Accorsi). Antonia realizes Massimo was having an affair after going through his belongings, but doesn’t realize it’s a man until after she manages to meet him. Slowly, inch by inch, Antonia and Michele get to know each other, and Antonia finds she is an increasing part of a tight circle of friends (a family of choice) that was part of her husband’s other, secret life.

The Good

The acting was fantastic. It’s always a little hard to peg the acting on foreign films because I have to rely on subtitles, but in this case I found the characters to be fully formed, real people. In fact, the basic situation in the movie forces the actors, especially the principals, to move through a complex emotional obstacle course, and Margherita Buy and Stefano Accorsi convey the subtlety and complexity with aplomb. Similarly, the other actors breathe life into their characters.

Michele lives at the center of a tightly knit “family of choice,” and to a certain extent the family members seem scripted according to type. And yet, largely thanks to the actors as well as a thoughtful script, each of the characters come across as highly individualized. In fact, I greatly enjoyed the portrayal of this affectionate, supportive group. It’s much like a gay Italian version of “Friends.”

I also appreciate the themes raised by the movie. For example, the film explores the movement of people in and out of each other’s lives. This process can cause much grief, and yet it is a natural part of life. The viewer watches as Massimo’s death leads to Antonia growing into his secret family of choice. Similarly, Emir (Koray Candemir), an inveterate wanderer, drifts in and out of the group according to the schedule of his travels. One subplot has Mara (Lucrezia Valia), a transsexual, trying to decide whether to return to her family for a wedding. It would be the first time they would see her as a woman.

Another theme explores the idea of maintaining illusions in order to preserve love. Or, stated even more nakedly, telling lies to preserve love. Again, most people can resonate with this theme.

The Bad

Unfortunately, these themes, though interesting and thought-provoking, are undercooked. They go beneath the surface but only just. Consider, for example, the theme about preserving illusions to hold on to someone’s love. The film fails to explore this in greater depth. For example, I would argue love of self trumps love from others. I don’t mean narcissism but rather that it’s more important to have a healthy self-respect than to try to conform to other people’s standards just so they’ll like us. Mara is reluctant to return to her family, fearing rejection. But if she refuses to return (hypothetically; I won’t disclose whether she does or doesn’t in the movie), she’s rejecting herself on their behalf before they even have the opportunity. It’s as much about her relationship with herself as with her family. But these are my musings; the film raises the question but goes no further.

The editing of the film also left something to be desired. The movie drifts at points, and as the story progresses a tiresome repetition emerges (Antonia returns, leaves, returns, leaves). The film would have benefited from tighter editing. Frankly, the opening scenes showing Antonia and Massimo could easily have been deleted altogether.

The Strange

Michele’s and Antonia’s relationship stretched credulity. It’s a testament to the actors that they made their relationship engaging, even fascinating, and I can understand Antonia’s somewhat morbid fascination with her dead husband’s male lover. But their relationship takes some turns I never really understand and other turns that I found predictable. Watching their relationship evolve on screen, I wonder if the screenwriters (Ferzan Ozpetek, who also directed, and Gianni Romoli) were exploring a “what if” without really knowing what they were trying to say.

Also, I found the title a bit odd. The English title is “His Secret Life,” a pithy, descriptive, and inoffensive name. But the actual Italian title is “The Ignorant Fairies,” which I assume to be a play on words (not speaking Italian, I can’t be sure). This title raises a question for me. In fact, it’s Antonia who’s ignorant of Massimo’s relationship with Michele, not the other way around. So if the “fairy” (ahem) is ignorant, it must be in a more subtle way. How, then? The ending of the movie was hard to read, and rather than addressing the question, thumbed its nose at it.

Overall

On the surface, it’s an interesting film with thematically suggestive dialogue and imagery, and I liked following these characters as they dealt with the fallout from Massimo’s death. As such, the film made me want to go deeper into its messages, and yet when I tried to do so, found little there.

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)

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.

A surprisingly taut suspense movie. Tom (Scott Speedman) discovers he is HIV+ and believes it must have been Dan (James Marsden) that infected him. He kidnaps Dan and takes a sample of blood. If the test comes back positive, he promises dire consequences. The believable acting helped involve me in the story, and the editing cleverly interposed one of the subplots, although it was confusing until the back story comes together later in the movie. The dialogue reveals layers of conflicted emotions and uncertainties that humanize both characters. However, the film ends with more questions unanswered than not, which left me frustrated and unsatisfied. I must add, though, the final shot in the movie is a beautiful piece of cinematography.

Overall, an engaging but dark movie. As for its Gay Positivity, it’s borderline. Tom’s apparently conflicted or uncertain feelings about his own sexuality and his automatic assumption that Dan must have infected him bothered me – while both issues are in character and fit the framework of the movie, it still borders on stereotyping the gay man as a disease vector.

This movie enjoys a certain believability (although Tom tracing his diagnosis back to Dan, and then hunting Dan down, after FIVE years have passed stretches credulity a bit; I barely remember what I had for breakfast today). It is easy to believe that Tom would respond to his diagnosis (and the subplot with his wife) in this manner; and frankly promiscuity and STDs in the gay community are nothing new.

But we’ve seen plenty of promiscuity, STDs, and self-hating behavior in gay film. Those images haven’t been balanced out by alternative, positive images yet. Consequently, dark movies like this, although I can enjoy it on its own merits, still disturb me from that perspective.

(**MAJOR SPOILER – don’t read if you don’t want to know, and I mean REALLY, because “will Dan test positive?” is the major source of suspense in the movie**)

I was also disappointed in the final revelation, which also stereotypes the gay man as diseased.

Overall 4.0 / 5.0 (recommended)
Gay Content 0.5 / 5.0
Gay Positive 1.0 / 5.0

When I walk my dog at night, sometimes I’ll pass a house where the window curtains remain undrawn, and I can peek for a second or two into the alternate universe of someone else’s life. It fascinates me. That’s how reading this book feels. I don’t imagine I am the target demographic for this novel, so I definitely feel like an outsider looking in. Not only am I foreign to Chinese culture, I’m not a mother or a daughter. Men figure only incidentally in this book.

But as I said, that’s part of the appeal. It’s like traveling to an exotic locale without worrying about knowing the customs or language, and fundamentally this book is about human relationships: loves, fears, uncertainties. We see the difficulties of navigating relationships (parental, romantic, and platonic) through miscommunication, cultural divides, and personal woundedness. We are treated to examples of the human spirit shining despite ourselves.

The novel tells the stories of eight women – four Chinese immigrants to the United States, and four of their American daughters. Many of the daughters have siblings, but they are largely ignored. Each woman tells her story over the course of two chapters.

I have seen the movie adaptation several times, so I had visuals in mind when I read about the characters and certain plot points. That helped me to keep the characters and stories distinct in my mind. Be warned though – if you’re new to this novel, it may be difficult to keep track of who is who. For the most part, Tan succeeds at creating unique and richly textured characters, but it can still be tricky to distinguish characters when there are a lot, and many with similar names.

Tan’s greatest strength lies in her prose. She is a poet writing narrative, and as I read I marked several pages just because I thought the words she had written were so beautiful, powerful, and apropos. However, I must admit that the novel did not have the same emotional impact on me as the movie. Perhaps I felt more removed from the book because I did not connect to the characters or stories visually.

Interestingly, the movie follows the book quite closely, and yet emphasizes different plot points, creating a different feel. The movie’s ending also departs somewhat from the book; in fact, while I thought the movie’s ending a little too sudden, it is edited to be more intense, while the novel waters down the finale with additional narrative.

On the whole, I recommend “The Joy Luck Club” as a powerful and well-written foray into the lives of eight very different and yet universally human characters. Despite humanity’s sheer diversity, we all share common threads. This novel illuminates that principle elegantly and powerfully.

Gay-wise, there is one brief mention of a gay hair stylist (he is only referenced; he does not appear). One of the characters (Waverly) identifies him as gay and suggests he has AIDS, leading another character (Jing-Mei, who gets her hair cut by him) to feel momentarily diseased. This portrayal may be appropriate for the specific characters; in fact, the author may have intended it to characterize Waverly as mean and spiteful. Nevertheless, every time a defamatory stereotype, such as gay men being diseased, appears without positive images to balance it out, the portrayal functions as confirmation of the stereotype.

Overall 4.0 / 5.0 (recommended)
Gay Content 3.0 / 5.0 (major gay characters and storyline)
Gay Positivity 2.5 / 5.0 (mixed portrayal)

It’s unusual for me to find a movie I really enjoy but don’t consider gay positive, but “Loggerheads” manages to fit in that space. It’s a smart and thematically rich story, which always appeals to me. Loggerheads are a breed of turtle which always return to the their birthplace. The phrase “at loggerheads” expresses unresolved conflict or disputes. Each of the characters in the story seem to be trying to return to a metaphoric birthplace, a moment in their lives when they made a life-altering choice they would like to re-visit. But they cannot seem to manage this; they have become their own greatest obstacle in perpetuating the conflict in their lives.

I do not want to reveal too much about the plot. The story unfolds carefully and organically through a “fractured” storyline relating three subplots occuring in three different time periods. Mark (Kip Pardue) is a drifter living on the beach, watching for loggerhead turtles. He meets George (Michel Kelly), and the two slowly become intimate. Separately, Grace (Bonnie Hunt, an underrated actress giving another lovely performance) finds herself obsessing over a child she gave up for adoption years earlier. And finally, Robert and Elizabeth (Chris Sarandon and Tess Harper) seem to be leading an ordinary suburban life, but gradually it becomes clear that enormous personal upheaval has left their family shattered.

The stellar ensemble cast manages wonderfully understated performances. In an era of big budget special effects and over-the-top blockbusters, a quiet movie bubbling with emotional energy captivates. For example, in one scene Robert, a minister, refers to AIDS as God’s punishment against gay people. I expected him to launch into some vitriolic, hate-mongering sermon on the evils of homosexuality. Instead, after a moment of quiet consideration, he simply says softly, “God punishes.”

A bit more drama, especially at the climax, would have offered the audience a more powerful cathartic experience, but for the most part the low-key direction of the film helps build tension and underscores the few scenes when the emotion really does break out. The movie avoids overwrought melodrama, but it also means the film sometimes lacks intensity. Don’t look for “Brokeback Mountain: North Carolina.”

The three storylines, connected by a single character, naturally converge by the end. The conclusion doesn’t offer any major surprises, nor much emotional release, but it does emphasize the importance of doing what’s right for oneself, not what’s right for someone else.

Two of the major characters are gay, and two unnamed extras may or may not be a gay couple. The film is sensitive to its gay themes, and its gay characters are both well-rounded, well-developed personalities. So far, so good. Unfortunately, the movie also incorporates substantial negative clichés which bring the gay positivity score down. The overall quality of “Loggerheads” wins my acclaim, but – emphasizing that Overall Quality and Gay Positivity are distinct scores – I’m not going to recommend the movie to anyone seeking a really positive, powerful, and upbeat portrayal of gay themes.

** MAJOR SPOILER ALERTS – The following explains the Gay Positivity Score in greater detail, but contains major plot spoilers. Do not read any further if you don’t want to know. **

Specifically, Mark is HIV+, and he dies prior to the end of the film. This development serves the plot, and I also readily recognize that HIV and AIDS are (tragically) important elements of the gay community, and these stories are important to tell. That’s part of the reason the Overall Quality score remains high.

But this film also offers two enduring and negative gay stereotypes: the gay person as diseased, and the idea that it never ends well for gay people. In terms of film history, gay people just don’t have happy endings in nearly the same proportion that straight folks do. This film, by repeating those stereotypes, reaffirms them.

Robert and Elizabeth, who are Mark’s adoptive parents, are religiously anti-gay. Robert expresses his belief that God has punished Mark with this disease. At the same time, he avoids hate-mongering. Other characters are, at least by implication, more sympathetic. Their neighbor Ruth remains in contact with Mark even after the adoptive family splintered. Similarly, at the end of the film, Mark’s birth mother Grace meets Mark’s boyfriend George, which suggests she accepts her deceased son’s romantic inclinations.

Overall 2.0 / 3.0
Gay content 2.0 / 3.0
Gay positivity 1.5 / 3.0

I have some serious criticisms of the movie “Rent,” which I shall detail momentarily. But first, let me say I enjoyed the movie overall. The urban cinematography was compelling, and the cast appealingly photogenic. The overarching story of urban bohemian life clashing with the urban corporate upper crust meshed well with the drug abuse, AIDS, and artist-cum-protester sub-plots, creating an engaging tapestry of story-telling.

If you don’t know the story of “Rent,” where have you been? It depicts the lives of several twenty-somethings living in a ghetto in New York over the course of one year. I really enjoyed the music, as well, particularly the high-energy “Tango Maureen” and “La Vie Boheme.” I am not typically a big fan of soundtracks, even for musicals, but I have seriously considered purchasing the soundtrack for this movie. I would mildly recommend this movie.

“Mildly?” you ask. I suggest watching the movie with eyes wide open. I find “Rent” to be misleading on several levels. For one thing, it does not present as much diversity in its characters and stories as a viewer probably thinks at first glance. Yes, they are all over the board in terms of race, gender, and sexual orientation. But the characters portrayed are all far, far more alike than they are different. Even the characters who are not indigenous to a lower socio-economic stratus (Maureen and her girlfriend, played by Idina Menzel and Tracie Thoms, respectively) are completely assimilated into it; their backgrounds seem to give them no different perspective on events from that of the other counter-culture characters.

Indeed, Maureen is the ultimate representation of counter-culture in the movie, staging an important protest, and her lawyer girlfriend is adopted by the group and identifies completely with their position.

The implication is that alternative sexuality automatically places a person into a counter-culture sphere of experience. While not entirely untrue, I still find that position to be naive and disingenuous – it’s just not that black-or-white.

Meanwhile, the antagonists of the story, reflected by Benni, are presented as one-dimensional cardboard cutouts.

For my part, I felt a tremendous disconnect from both the characters and the story. I come from a profoundly suburban background. I have never known anyone in my life whom I knew to have AIDS, which means that even though AIDS is a big part of the overall gay story, it is not really part of my own story as a gay man. After seeing a movie like “Rent,” I almost feel as though I should apologize for that, as though I’m offending the gay community for only distantly and peripherally sharing in this collective tragedy. In the end, being gay isn’t enough for me to identify fully with this story.

Which brings me to the “Gay Content” and “Gay Positivity” scales on which I rated this movie.

My point-of-view seems mildly controversial among my circle of friends, most of whom absolutely adore this play. As I said, I mostly enjoyed “Rent,” and in the interest of full-disclosure, this really isn’t my favorite kind of movie to begin with. I also think the movie’s portrayal of gay characters/stories is important and positive in several ways.

For example, it presents gay characters and life in a (relatively) normative way for mainstream audiences (though I would suggest the audience pre-selects itself for liberal leanings). I love seeing two gay characters singing a love song and kissing on-screen. I love that Angel, a gay character, is presented as such a strong and unifying force within the story. When Angel meets Mark and his roommate, while dressed in Santa-esque drag, he (she?) is strong and economically powerful enough to be handing out money.

I would also argue that, whatever my criticism of the movie’s portrayal of things gay, it is a work of art, and as such has intrinsic value. But I also see a bit of propaganda in it. Disenfranchised counter-culture rebels are good; corporate upper class suits are bad. Socialist manifesto cum performance art? The propaganda oversimplifies a complex situation, and muddies the value of the work as art. See Walter Chaw assessment in his review of the movie for http://filmfreakcentral.net: “[Rent's] politics are obvious and unchallenged, and its characters are broad stereotypes engaged in shallow versions of complex issues.”

Indeed, Hollywood remains perpetually uneasy about movies that portray gay characters and gay life unless the portrayal falls into certain, pre-determined “safe” categories. The gay characters must be stereotypically, flamboyantly gay (portrayed via cross-dressing or effeminate behavior) or they must be disempowered (metaphorically represented by being diseased and/or marginalized). Although “Rent” has strong gay characters and stories, it clearly falls into both these categories. No new ground is broken here.

(**Note – this rest of this review contains minor plot spoilers.)

Look first at Tom Collins (Jesse L. Martin) – he’s named after a drink, for God’s sake! His annual Christmas gift is a bottle of Stoli. Yes, it’s true that many gay people drown their sorrows and self-destruct over bottles of Stoli. Let’s face it – most stereotypes are born in reality and contain a grain of truth. That doesn’t make them authentic or positive. And! In the first five minutes, Tom is beaten senseless by thugs on Christmas (Jesus hates fags, right? Give me a break.).

Movies, television and books are overwhelmingly full of imagery suggesting that if you’re gay, either (1) you are bad, or (2) bad things will happen to you. Interestingly, Mimi (Rosario Dawson) walks the same mean streets in a stripper’s minimal clothing with no problem. Go figure. Oh, and then there’s that interesting scene where Angel dies, and Mimi seems dead, but then comes back to life. Angel just stays dead.

One friend argues that mainstream audiences won’t accept as realistic gay characters with HIV unless the effects of HIV are real, i.e., terminal. I’m not sure I agree; but even so, I would just call that pandering. Besides, realistic? When was the last time you spontaneously broke into song walking down the street? On second thought, don’t answer that…

When I complained to her that most gay-themed movies (especially the mainstream ones) contribute to the stereotype that if you’re gay, either you are bad or bad things will happen to you, my friend offered a thought-provoking response: there are different kinds of dying. A death can be positive if it brings the survivors together, and if the deceased is remember fondly, with compassion and respect. Which is definitely the case with Angel’s death in the film. Indeed, Mimi’s return to life is even attributed to Angel’s intervention in the afterlife.

I cannot deny that Angel (Wilson Heredia) is probably the most positive character in the film. He is strong and loving, and brings the other characters together. He is also afflicted with HIV, and spends most of the movie in drag. Despite his positive qualities, he is still a stereotype. Even when he and Tom kissed on-screen, I couldn’t help but notice that Angel was a pretty girl in drag at the time.

I do recognize that this movie puts on film the story of a lot of gay people. HTV/AIDS is an important part of gay history and community and, through the literally life-and-death political movement the epidemic has given birth to, has done a lot for gay folks like me who have no direct experience of it (knock on wood). And our drag queens have been at the forefront of the gay rights movement from day one. It is important that these stories be told. But just telling the story is no longer sufficient to be considered progressive.

That criticism is more serious than it might appear on the surface. In fact, that’s precisely why it’s more serious. “Rent” is a regressive view of gay life presented as progressive. People watch this movie thinking they’re being forward-thinking, and as a result, they come to view this kind of portrayal as forward-thinking. But it’s not. If anything, it’s at least one large step backwards. This movie strikes me as reminiscent of “Boys in the Band.”

As lesbian writer Sarah Schulman (who admittedly has her own gripes with the movie – see the fascinating interview on Slate.com) states, “At this point, to simply represent or acknowledge that gay people exist is no longer inherently progressive, and to depict gay people as people who have no agency is retrogressive.” In other words, the gay characters are all disenfranchised and disempowered by circumstance, economics, disease, and their own self-destructive behaviors. Yes, they exist. They even love and kiss. I reiterate, that’s no longer enough to say the portrayal is positive.

In the end, this is one of the most multilayered films I’ve ever reviewed for its presentation of gay characters and stories. First, it portrays loving gay characters in loving relationships. That’s good for mainstream audiences to see. Score one for the film. Second, the film tells an important story. However tragic it may be, HIV/AIDS is part of the gay community’s history. This movie tells that story in a raw and forceful way. Score two for the film.

But in the end, the portrayals are still stereotypical and negative. To that morass of imagery that Holly has amassed over its years of gay characters, stories and movies, this film does, in fact, add more negative imagery. While the negativity may be offset by the positive layers/levels, at the end of the day, this movie still presents gay characters and stories epitomized by assaults, disease, death, and self-destructive behavior.

I’ve spent most of this review dwelling on the things gay in the film, and really “Rent” is about much more than that. I have glossed over Mimi’s struggle with drug addiction and her difficult but burgeoning relationship with HIV-positive heterosexual Roger (Adam Pascal). I have barely mentioned the lesbians in the film (I’m sorry!), although they are two of the most interesting characters in the work.

Nor have I discussed the thematic impact of the “Rent” story being a year-in-the-life documentary by a counter-culture filmmaker (Mark) who ultimately, in his own view, sells out to the mainstream.
This has already been an unusually long review, and I could easily write “Rent: the Review Part 4: the Rest of the Movie.”

As for the overall quality of the film, I refer you back to the beginning of the review – I mildly recommend the movie. How could I not recommend a movie so thought-provoking that I wrote a review this long!? But again, I urge you not to take this film at face value.