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 4.0 / 5.0
Gay Content 1.5 / 5.0 (minor bits)
Gay Positivity 4.0 / 5.0

An incisive and biting look at the Hollywood industry. As with most of Stiller’s films, the humor is hit or miss, but fortunately hits the spot more often than not.

The film begins with several fake trailers which introduce the film’s characters.

• Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller), a fading action star who’s hoping to reinvigorate his career with a new war movie
• Jeff Portnow (Jack Black), a drug-addicted comedian hoping for critical success
• Alpa China (Brandon T. Jackson), a musician and actor who has parlayed artistic into commercial success through merchandising
• Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey, Jr), a method actor so serious about his craft that he literally loses himself into his roles

The film benefits from inspired casting: each real-life actor is pitch-perfect in their portrayal of a troubled on-screen actor, each haunted by his own demons. (Downey deserves special mention: he’s just amazing in the role.) In Tropic Thunder, they come together to make a Vietnam-era war movie. In order to achieve greater verisimilitude, the overwhelmed director Damien (Steve Coogan) deposits his actors (Tugg, Jeff, Alpa, and Kirk) in the middle of a real war zone. Hilarity ensues.

Satire too. I’m baffled by the disability advocacy groups who have decided to protest Tropic Thunder because of its use of the term “retard” and its portrayal of Tugg Speedman playing a mentally-challenged man (Simple Jack) in an effort to win an Oscar. That subplot is the single most cutting indictment of the Hollywood machine in the movie; the whole point is how Hollywood exploits everything from minority groups to tragedy in order to make money and win awards. If anything, Tropic Thunder is staging its own protest of the misuse of such groups of people.

As Stiller says, “It’s sort of edgy territory, but we felt that as long as the focus was on the actors who were trying to do something to be taken seriously that’s going too far or wrong, that was where the humor would come from. [The joke is on] actors reaching for roles in terms of hopefully winning awards” (1)

Much has also been made of Tom Cruise’s over-the-top portrayal of amoral executive and financier Les Grossman. It’s definitely a departure for Cruise. I found the role to be a little one-note, but no one can deny that Cruise really throws himself into it.

The movie contains a couple of items of gay interest. First, one of the actors turns out to be gay, which then leads to a chuckle-worthy cameo at the film’s conclusion. I’m delighted to report there are no negative gay stereotypes and no negative reaction to his inadvertent revelation. In fact, one character just says, “Hey, everybody’s gay sometimes, this is Hollywood.” Another character (who’s in an, um, amusingly difficult situation, then offers all kinds of sexual favors in exchange for assistance). It’s unfortunate that the gay actor is closeted, but it’s arguable that’s just the satire making another comment on the Hollywood machine. On the whole, I’m impressed with this bit of gay inclusion.

Second, one of the fake trailers advertises a fake movie called Satan’s Alley, a Brokeback Mountain-style movie set in a monastery. Robert Downey Jr. as Kirk Lazarus and Tobey Maguire play two monks falling into a forbidden relationship. I’m slightly less amused at this portrayal. Seriously, did they have to call it Satan’s Alley? What’s up with that? But the trailer is also obviously another satirical snap at Hollywood, and Downey and Maguire are pretty amusing in the spot.

Overall, recommended as a smart, funny, and entertaining satire.

————

————

(1) Access Hollywood, “Disability Advocates Call For ‘Tropic Thunder’ Protest, Stiller Responds,” 11 August 2008, http://omg.yahoo.com/news/updated-disability-advocates-call-for-tropic-thunder-protest-stiller-responds/11875 (retrieved 1 September 2008).

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

The series has hit a new low in Season 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

Long, long ago in a galaxy far away – oh, wait, wrong story. Actually in an alternate universe, or in the future, humanity lives in a galactic milieu shared with various sentient species. One of those species has introduced humans to a metaphysical experience called the Dream, a sort of collective telepathic experience. Those who can access the Dream are called the Silent; and in many parts of the politically splintered universe, the Silent are slaves and property.

Our erstwhile hero Kendi was a Silent slave himself, until he was able to join the Children of Irfan, a quasi-religious sect that seek out other Silent. And in this novel, they have a very specific target: a rogue Silent with powers never before seen. Several different parties desperately seek the rogue Silent, many hoping to use his powers to their own advantage. Will the (mostly) selfless Children reach him first?

And of course, the poor fellow comes from a family of many secrets, some of which threaten to tear the Dream apart, literally.

Quality

Dreamer benefits from a very strong, vivid opening sequence. But gradually following that, the story loses steam and focus. The novel has two basic acts: first, find the ultra-powerful rogue Silent; second, save the Universe. The first act is considerably more interesting than the second because it’s more character-driven. In fact, the focus shifts from Kendi in the first half to various secondary characters in the second. Meanwhile, a handful of minor characters introduce potentially interesting or meaningful subplots, which never go anywhere. In other words, the book starts with a razor sharp story and involving characters, but then the storylines get sloppy. I enjoyed some of the twists, for example, events on the home world of the Children of Irfan took me by surprise. But ultimately, the story winds down to a relatively weak ending.

Gay Content

For me, the most compelling reason to keep reading was Kendi, an engaging and gay protagonist. One of the subplots centered on his strained relationship with a former boyfriend, Ben. I really wanted to know how it would work out for them.

And Harper handled the gay components of his novel quite deftly, particularly considering he’s straight. I found the lack of gay angst in this novel quite refreshing! I grow tired of authors (or filmmakers, or TV producers) who say they’ll include gay characters only when it’s appropriate to the story. Kendi and Ben are gay, and it’s just who they are, the same way I’m gay, and it’s just who I am.

At the same time, Harper doesn’t treat their gayness as an artifact, i.e., pointing out at the beginning of novel, “Look at me, I’m innovative, I have a gay protagonist!” and then never mentioning it again. No, in fact, as author and blogger Brent Hartinger observes, “The series goes into great detail about his childhood, his feelings of being “different,” and his stormy relationship with another man. It’s integral to the story, not mere window-dressing” (1).

Harper and his editor clearly have a pleasantly low-key attitude about including gay content. In an interview with StrangeHorizons.com, Harper describes how he approached his editor Laurie Anne Gilman:

“Will Steven Harper become known as ‘that gay SF writer’?” I asked [Gilman]. “The label doesn’t bother me, but I’m worried about sales.”

“Gay characters don’t hurt sales these days,” she said. “Do what you like” (2).

Overall

On the whole, it’s a decent story. I mildly recommend it on its own. But if you’re hungry for a science fiction tale with gay characters handled very positively, definitely pick it up.

————————————

(1) Brent Hartinger, “Book Review: Dreamer by Steven Harper,” AfterElton.com, 24 January 2007, http://www.afterelton.com/blog/2007/01/25/book-review-dreamer-by-steven-harper (20 July 2007). By the way, I love the AfterElton website; I highly recommend you check it out.

(2) Mahesh Raj Mohan, “Interview: Steven Piziks,” StrangeHorizons.com, 6 October 2003, http://www.strangehorizons.com/2003/20031006/piziks.shtml (20 July 2007). Note that “Steven Harper” is a pseudonym.

Okay, so the setup isn’t the most original: gay gal trapped in the closet in the face of a conservative cultural environment (in this case Chinese). But the script gives enough heart and humor to the characters and story to make it a charming, engaging, and even moving experience. I’m also a sucker for happy endings, however contrived. And I appreciate the clever complementary storylines.

We begin with our protagonist Wil (Michelle Krusiec), a closeted lesbian who endures her mother’s attempts to match her up with eligible male suitors. Then Wil falls in love and must navigate the difficult balance of satisfying her girlfriend Vivian (Lynn Chen) as well as her mother’s expectations. At the same time, her strict and conservative grandfather (Jin Wang) demands that her mother (known simply as Ma, played by the luminous Joan Chen) marry as well, thanks to an unexpected personal development. In fact, until she bags herself a man, she’s no longer welcome in his home, and Ma moves in with Wil.

With a light-hearted approach, director Alice Wu addresses the thematic richness of this story. On the one hand, she avoids the heavy-handed approach that would have doomed the movie as a torpid morality play. On the other, “Saving Face” ends up a little shallow, stirring up the thematic waters but failing to dive head-first into them. The direction benefits from adept acting across the board (especially Joan Chen), which gives the movie heart and emotional richness. Cute scenes and clever one-liners (”One billion Chinese; two degrees of separation”) make for a charming presentation.

Both mother and daughter are living in respective closets about their relationships, and both struggle to be true to themselves as well as satisfy their parents’ expectations. For most of the movie, they’re both paralyzed by their inability to completely defy convention but unwillingness to do something untrue to their feelings. As Cynthia Fuchs, the Film and TV Editor of PopMatters.com, writes,

“What’s at stake here is the very concept of face, not only as reputation and legacy … but also as the means by which everyone of every culture gets through the days, performing in order to please others, to get ahead, to avoid trouble, to survive.” In fact, it is this universal experience that makes a movie about the intersection of lesbian and Chinese cultures so accessible” (1)

I have little patience anymore with stories portraying closeted or semi-closeted gay characters who, with much hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth, struggle mightily with their sexual identity and coming out process, not because they’re unrealistic but because they’re over-done. But in this case, Vivian is already self-accepting and out to her family. And Wil represents a more common and contemporary semi-closeted state. She seems to have made peace with her lesbianism but chooses not to make waves with her family; she doesn’t actively conceal it, but neither does she address it. It’s easy to exist in a closet gray zone when you’re unattached, because the world can just gloss over your homosexuality by categorizing you as single. When she finds herself in love, she must reconsider her priorities. Or, as Fuchs says, she must take a hard look at the ways she conforms her behavior to please others and avoid trouble. Fortunately, “Saving Face” enjoys a satisfactory, albeit a bit hackneyed, ending.

If you liked “Saving Face,” you might try:

• “The Wedding Banquet” (1993). The gentle, lovely story of a gay Asian male balancing his romantic relationship with his parents’ wishes.
• “The Joy Luck Club” (1993). Cinematically superior but far more histrionic; both films address the clash of Chinese, American, and Chinese-American cultures, as well as the generation gap within deeply family-centric Chinese culture. The original book by Amy Tan also makes for an exceptional read. No real gay content, though.

——————————–

(1) Cynthia Fuchs, “Saving Face,” PopMatters.com, 28 May 2005, http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/s/saving-face-2005.shtml (15 May 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.

Overall Quality 3.0 / 5.0 (mildly recommended)
Gay Content 2.0 / 5.0 (several minor gay characters)
Gay Positivity 3.0 / 5.0

“Scary Movie 4″ gets off to a rocky start by pitting Shaquille O’Neal and Dr. Phil against the villainous puzzles of the movie “Saw.” Although I’m impressed with their ability to make light of themselves, it’s more uncomfortable than funny. The movie picks up thereafter, successfully integrating the stories from “Saw” (2004), “War of the Worlds” (2005), “The Grudge” (2004), and “The Village” (2004) into a fairly cohesive plot. Aliens are invading, and our intrepid heroine Cindy (Anna Faris) must find a way to stop them, with some supernatural help.

Faris excels in the role. She brings the perfect combination of emotionally engaging, endearingly oblivious, and comically deadpan to the role. She is, as always, the highlight of the franchise. The other roles are either too brief or brusquely written to stand out. Regina Hall, for example, is also an enjoyable mainstay of the series as Brenda Meeks, but the script gives her little to work with. I suppose the scriptwriters (Craig Mazin, Jim Abrahams, and Pat Proft) were less concerned with character than humor.

Which is my central criticism of the movie. Of course a spoof will fall flat without humor, but successfully integrating the other story elements – character, plot, and theme – creates a gestalt effect which allows the film to become more than the sum of its parts, like director David Zucker’s classic “Airplane!” (1980). Unfortunately, “Scary Movie 4″ never achieves that gestalt effect. The first “Scary Movie” (2000) still reigns as the best of the franchise; this fourth entry easily surpasses the second (2001) and third (2003). Still, don’t pay full price.

The film also spoofs “Brokeback Mountain” in a humorous scene. The bloopers reel on the DVD reveals at least one of the actor’s extreme discomfort with the scene though; even the idea of a same-sex kiss obviously made him squeamish. The residents of “The Village” are also celebrating the domestic partnership between two men, who kiss in one scene and sloppily make out in another. The use of gay content seemed good-natured, and it’s hard to take anything seriously in a spoof. Nonetheless, the gay jokes struck me as vaguely exploitive, à la “look, two men kissing, omigod that’s so funny!”

Overall 1.5 / 5.0 (don’t bother)
Gay Content 4.0 / 5.0 (mostly gay, but secondary characters and subplots non-gay)
Gay Positivity 2.5 / 5.0

So the premise starts off on the wrong foot with me. The lead characters, Stephen (Greg Lauren) and Danny (Christopher Gartin), are enforcers for a mafia boss, Don Patrizzi (Tony Lo Bianco). The film, being a comedy, treats their career lightly, but they’re still essentially a soft-peddled version of Leopold and Loeb. And I hate, I detest, I despise that awful movie cliché of gay person as villain.

The film is flippant enough it’s difficult to take the characters seriously as villains…or at all. In fact, they’re even charming enough I liked them. When I wasn’t bored with them. And I recognize what director Kristen Coury and scriptwriter Joseph Triebwasser are trying to do: turn the gay stereotype of effeminacy on its head by showing two macho gay men successful in the underworld of organized crime.

Unfortunately, in trying to make fun of one gay stereotype, they exploit a plethora of others. Additionally, the story is forced, and the humor simply unfunny.

The Plot Summary

It’s a complicated plot, and I have to give this to the filmmakers: they introduce the viewer to the story slowly and organically enough that the viewer can follow what’s going on.

First we meet Stephen and Danny, who are dearer to Don Patrizzi’s heart than his own heterosexual but “effeminate” sons, Frankie (Lou Carbonneau) and Vito (Danny Mastrogiorgio). I put the word “effeminate” in quotes because all they do differently is cook and sew, but they’re obviously being contrasted with the more “masculine” Stephen and Danny, who literally don’t even know how to boil an egg.

Then Stephen’s parents (Beth Fowler and Frank Pellegrino, channeling Edward James Olmos in his performance) spring a surprise visit on the boys. His parents know about their son’s boyfriend, but they don’t know he’s a hit man. And Stephen’s dad works for the FBI! Oh my!

And that’s not all! Don Patrizzi’s daughter (Rebecca Creskoff) is engaged to a pleasant young man, Damon (Brian Lane Green), whose Midwestern parents (Tovah Feldshuh, Patrick Collins, easily the highlights of the film) turn out to lead a right-wing militia group coming to New York to attempt a takeover of the federal government.

In theory, hilarity ensues.

Trying (and Failing) to Upend Stereotypes

The film’s central conceit places the macho protagonists in positions requiring qualities traditionally not ascribed to gay men: physical power, exuberant self-confidence, an inclination and willingness to violence and intimidation. I appreciate the portrayal of these guys as powerful. They are not victims, and I was ready to enjoy this innovative presentation. Unfortunately, the filmmakers went too far in the opposite direction, reducing the heroes to thugs. Even with a light touch, it’s inescapable that these men live in dark world of violence.

Which brings me to the moral issues raised by the film. The script seems to assume an immunity from moral implications, by virtue of it’s classification as a comedy. Soft-selling a patently immoral role is fatuous and irresponsible. I admit I see this both ways, though, and treat it as a minor issue. Especially considering the film is a farce, a far cry from a dramatic movie that seriously presents gay men as villains.

But the boys don’t even succeed as kick-ass action stars! They could have played it as some kind of dark-side, anti-hero James Bond, but their paltry attempts at action are uninspiring.

Then the film introduces the Don’s own sons in order to contrast them to Stephen and Danny. In other words, their presence shores up the image of Stephen and Danny as masculine and macho. Unfortunately, they don’t work as well as characters. For the first half of the movie, I kept wondering, “Are they supposed to be gay? What’s going on with them? I’m confused.” (A not uncommon state for me).

Later, heading into the climax of the film, the Don hosts a dinner party for Stephen’s parents. They enlist his other macho Italian-American enforcers to server as waiters, and an effeminate friend (Richard, played by Edward Hibbert) teach these mafia goons to “act gay.” Subsequently, these presumably ultra-straight men act like diva drama queens. This is supposed to be a send-up, but I found it exploitive.

It’s true that stereotypes have their basis in truth, and although I count “girly gays” as a negative cliché, I only do so because the gay film canon lacks balance. People like Richard and Bruno (Meshach Taylor) do exist in the real gay community, and more power to them. Ultimately, each person should live according to what’s in their hearts, not what kind of sex parts they have. And those people who live outside of “the norm” develop a strength most people do not understand or appreciate.

I complain about this cliché simply because the “girly gay” or “butch lesbian” occurs in media portrayals far more often than the reverse, and while there are effeminate gay men, so too are there macho guys like Danny and Stephen. And yes, even violent gays like Leopold and Loeb (much as I would like to disown them from the community).

It comes down to this: most portrayals of gay men are derogatory, which falsely reinforce the notion that all gay men are like that. The idea of all gay men as effeminate also correlates to the idea of them as weak (thanks to the sexism still prevalent in our society). I will say this about “Friends and Family”: even though I don’t think its send up of gay stereotypes is successful, it’s at least obvious in what it’s trying to do. Thus, I did score this film a little higher on the “gay positivity” scale than I otherwise would have. But like I said a moment ago, the film goes too far in trying to make fun of certain stereotypes.

Overall

On the plus side, Greg Lauren and Christopher Gartin are two handsome, charming actors. The film enjoys high production values, especially for an independent feature. The script managed to elicit a few chuckles, and I appreciate what the filmmakers are attempting.

But the leads have little chemistry, and barely even hold hands (literally: in one scene, during a romantic song, the Don and his wife hold hands, but while Danny and Stephen smile at each other and move their hands closer, I’m not entirely convinced they’re even touching). The acting is also inconsistent. I loved every moment of Tovah Feldshuh’s performance, but I cringed every time I heard Meshach Taylor speak. (But wasn’t he fun on “Designing Women”?)

On the whole, don’t waste your time.

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.