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).

“High School Musical” recalls previous musical adventures, most notably “Romeo and Juliet” and its close cousin “West Side Story.” Basketball star Troy (Zac Efron) and brainiac whiz kid Gabriella (Vanessa Anne Hudgens) bond while singing together at a karaoke party, and afterwards contemplate trying out together for the school musical.

But they come from different worlds, er, high school cliques, and their respective cohorts conspire to keep them apart. Meanwhile, twins Sharpay and Ryan Evans (Ashley Tisdale and Lucas Grabeel) are used to being the center of their school’s drama universe, and they do not take kindly to the would-be interlopers.

The story is highly Disneyfied, of course: cute, sweet, and fluffy rather than edgy or thoughtful. It does manage to avoid saccharine, though. It has a fantasy wholesomeness wherein even the viciousness is diluted with one part incompetence and two parts good-naturedness. Still, even though the villains have no teeth, the viewer still feels the tension because the drama doesn’t revolve around specific antagonists so much as watching our heroes Troy and Gabriella overcome the circumstances set against them.

The story is nicely thematic, with both story and songs emphasizing the importance of appreciating differences and working together. I imagine most adults will appreciate the themes but inappropriately dismiss them as being the province of high schoolers. The older teenagers, meanwhile, may also appreciate the message, which will then wither before the power of Popularity. Younger teenagers and children form the ideal demographic for this feel good musical.

The movie hints at, but otherwise bypasses, one of the major themes of adolescence: the internal conflict between striving for individuality versus fitting in and belonging to the group. I also find it ironic that the movie clearly expresses that differences should be appreciated, and yet it overdoes the group distinctions in order to heighten the drama. In other words, the film suggests that the different cliques are all mutually exclusive, and that everyone must belong to one and only one such group.

Musically, the show is much better than I expected. Full confession: I’ve actually downloaded about half the album. My favorite songs are: “Get’cha Head in the Game” (note: the first 30 seconds of this song contains the shrill squeaks of sneaker on a gym floor integrated into the rhythm; the sound makes me wince every time I hear it), “Stick to the Status Quo,” and “We’re All in This Together.”

In the film, obvious lip-synching distracted in some scenes, and I’m by no means convinced all these kids were doing their own singing. A couple of them have released solo albums, but who knows?

The dance numbers are also fun, in a silly kind of way. Director Kenny Ortega also served as choreographer, and frankly he did a great job on both counts.

Possibly a first for Disney, the film also contains a gay character. Maybe. We’re never told or shown that he’s gay, so he actually falls into the “gay vague” category, but we assume it based on his manner and dress. Usually that bothers me, because for a viewer to identify a character as gay without it being spelled out in dialogue or action, usually the character has been given stereotypical gay attributes, like effeminate mannerisms. In this case, Ryan is not exactly effeminate but rather theatrical in manner. In fact, after watching a few behind-the-scenes bits on the DVD, I wonder if Grabeel based his performance on director Ortega, who himself also has a very theatrical manner; or if Ortega directed Grabeel as though the character were a younger version of himself.

Unfortunately, Ryan actually conveys at least a couple of negative stereotypes, most notably that he, along with his twin sister Sharpay, is essentially a villain. Then again, this is a Disney movie, so the villainy is watered down in two respects: first, it’s Disneyfied, so he’s actually fairly good-natured, he’s just scripted into a mildly antagonistic role; and second, he’s really just following his sister’s lead, and he himself is presented as something of a easy-going dim-bulb follower (which doesn’t exactly help, in my book). Also, I’m not thrilled that the character is like a genital-less Ken doll. It’s not like I expect steamy man-on-man action from a Disney movie. But every other character with a speaking role paired off by the end of the movie. EVERY other character. All except him.

I like the casual approach, wish he had been a good guy, wish his orientation had been spelled out a little more clearly, and appreciate the fact that he’s been included in a Disney film (despite its largely deserved gay-friendly reputation, in its productions I find Disney white-washes areas of potential controversy, with portrayals of gay people near the top of the list).

As a side-note, cutie pie Lucas Grabeel offers up an engaging performance, and his character is very stylish, easily the best dressed character in the film. He’s also a good singer and a fantastic dancer.

Overall, a fun little musical with a nicely thematic story and surprisingly catchy songs and dance numbers. Recommended – just don’t expect a masterpiece.

Hack writers/directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer try to spoof major contemporary and recent blockbuster movies but clearly fail to understand what makes clever parody. Merely writing a story set in “Gnarnia” with elements or diversions from a dozen other movies does not make a smart spoof or satire. They aim solely for cheap laughs, most of which revolve around bathroom humor or “comical” injury.

Most of the acting was passable, although I admit I love Jennifer Coolidge as the White Bitch (Friendberg’s and Seltzer’s take on Narnia’s White Witch), but I’m a fan of hers in general. I’m sad and impressed at the willingness of some of the actors, such as David Carradine and Fred Willard, to debase themselves in this movie.

The movie includes some gay content. Specifically, it turns out Mr. Tumnus (the faun, or half-man, half-goat, played by Héctor Jiménez) and Mr. Beaver, both characters from “Chronicles of Narnia,” are life partners. They share a couple of sloppy kisses; I won’t read too much into the gay relationship also being a bestial one, given how dumb the movie is.

The film also treats the viewer to a post-coital orgy scene wherein three of the four central characters (based on Peter (Adam Campbell), Susan (Faune A. Chambers), Lucy (Jayma Mays, desperately trying to channel Anna Faris and not quite making it), and Edward (Kal Penn) from “Chronicles of Narnia”) agree to have sex with Aslo (Fred Willard, in a terrible parody Aslan the Lion) in exchange for his help. Susan and Lucy seem suitably impressed with the experience, but Peter complains petulantly, “My butt hurts.”

The gay content is definitely exploitive (”ooh, gay stuff, ha ha ha”), vaguely insulting to gay people, and more than a little salacious; but it was also insipid and stupid. Yet I can’t discount it entirely. It’s like that unfortunate expression, “That’s so gay,” wherein the word “gay” is used as a synonym for “bad.” Not as overtly hateful as “fag,” the expression nevertheless equates gay and bad, and every time it’s used reinforces that visceral understanding of what gay means. I doubt that the filmmakers meant to be gay-negative at all, but I scored down on gay positivity because the gay-themed humor in the movie was so poorly handled.

Movies spoofed:

• Chronicles of Narnia
• Da Vinci Code
• Nacho Libre
• X-Men
• Charlie & the Chocolate Factory
• Harry Potter
• Pirates of the Caribbean
• Superman Returns
• Click (minor)
• Borat (minor)
• Star Wars (minor)
• Snakes on a Plane (minor)
• even the TV show Punk’d
• surprisingly, no elements from “Lord of the Rings” that I recognized

Overall Quality 3.75 / 5.0
Gay Content 2.0 / 5.0 (mostly hetero, but significant gay references)
Gay Positivity 3.5 / 5.0 (mixed but mostly positive)

Sacha Baron Cohen plays Borat Sagdiyev, a high profile television journalist in Kazakhstan, whose Information Agency decides to send him to the U.S. to study our customs. This satire posits the lead playing a naive and outrageously ignorant and prejudicial foreigner stoically confronting unsuspecting strangers with his, and their own, prejudices. The film incorporates anti-Semitism, homophobia, racism, sexism, classism, sexual mores, and international politics into its scathing, hilarious, and uncomfortable Candid Camera-esque comedy.

Is it offensive? Eh. Keep in mind this movie is very deliberate in both its offensiveness and its subversiveness. Hard to watch? Oh, yes. I literally turned my face away from the screen several times. Did it also keep me laughing? From the moment I saw the DVD menu.

Some people have expressed concern that viewers who lack a certain level of worldliness or sophistication will take the movie at face value and find their own prejudices reinforced. First, I find that hard to believe because the movie is just so obviously ridiculous. On the other hand, there are some awfully dumb people out there. Of greater concern would be younger viewers whose ideas and understanding of the world are still being formed. Should they see this film, I hope they ask themselves a few questions about it. What is this film trying to say? Does it succeed in conveying that message? Or is it just being outrageous for its own sake?

Unfortunately, satire – whether subtle or brazen – rarely invites as much introspection as it probably intends or might be hoped. A movie like this, which is not unlike watching a 90-minute train wreck (if train wrecks were humorous), makes it easy to point fingers at the dumb-asses of the world and laugh at them. But all of us, every one, harbor our own prejudices and biases, often very subtle. Does a film like this invite us to soul-searching to see how our own ideas about the world may overlap those foolish frat boys or ignorant rodeo-goers?

Speaking of whom, let me address the gay content in Borat.

Despite Borat claiming, “We hang homosexuals in my country,” the whole point of the comedy is to elicit other people’s prejudices. And he does just that.

• Bobby Rowe, the rodeo’s producer, replies to Borat’s statement about hanging homos, “That’s what we’re trying to do here” (1).
• Alan Keyes explains to Borat that he fell in with some gay folks; note that Keyes infamously disowned his lesbian daughter.
• There’s also a naked wrestling scene between Borat and his overweight producer Azamat (Ken Davitian), during which they end up in several intimate poses. After the fight, Borat chases Azamat through their hotel, buck naked, brandishing the “cake-topper.”
• Before that, Azamat takes care of Borat’s private parts while dressing him, with hints that “care” occasionally involves sexual contact.

While the humor in those scenes is a little gay exploitive (”look, straight guys doing gay stuff, ha ha”), it’s mostly just dumb. And confrontational. Borat habitually greets men by kissing them on each cheek, which clearly makes more than a few uncomfortable.

So the question is, does this movie portray gay folks and issues in a positive light? On the whole, I think it’s positive, although I wouldn’t recommend this movie if you’re looking for laughs that don’t involve homophobia or humor that exploits gay life, behaviors, or situations. But you can’t take a movie like this seriously, and Borat’s homophobia doesn’t bother me at all because it’s so caricatured and cartoonish. In some ways, I’d almost judge the gay positivity of this film like a documentary exploring homophobia in middle America. The gay negative themes are there because that’s the reality, but the presentation isn’t really for or against. It’s just saying, “Look.”

Then there are two aspects of the movie’s gay positivity that I like. First, it’s clearly exploiting not just gay behavior and situations for humor (which isn’t so cool), but homophobia itself (which is a little bit innovative). Second, the film paints the cartoonish Borat as an example of extreme ignorant foolishness. Because he’s also attitudinally homophobic, the movie casts homophobia as ignorant and foolish. “Borat” actually invites the viewer to laugh AT Mr. Rowe’s hatefulness toward gay people.

The humor of Borat is to find the uncomfortable place and then push, push, push. His complete unself-consciousness and ignorance provides a blank slate for his victims to paint their own prejudices and biases. But for every ignorant cowboy or frat boy, the film portrays people behaving with dignity when confronted with increasingly outrageous behavior, such as a genteel southern group trying to teach Borat American dinner table manners. During such moments, the humor seems to try to exploit basically genial people. Yeah, you’ll still chuckle, especially knowing all these people signed off on being included in the film. But those moments are less incisive, cutting satire than those showing Borat at the rodeo, or at a Pentecostal church where Borat is the LEAST outrageous person present.

Many of the claims about Cohen uncovering deep-seated middle American prejudices are overstated. For example, gay rights activist Peter Tatchell states,

“Borat has done a public service by showing that there are sections of US society who have not truly accepted their black brothers and sisters” (2).

Yeah, right, that’s news. Is anyone honestly surprised that there’s prejudice in America, or in the world? Is anyone surprised that people say dumb things in response to provocative situations, especially when they’re drunk? The film has greatly upset the real nation of Kazakhstan, concerned about its portrayal as backward, ignorant, and prejudicial. And no, I in no way believe Kazakhstan is really like that. But are they going to try to convince me that there’s not a grain of truth in Borat’s parody of them?

To my mind, the most sublime moment of satire in the movie was when Borat declares at the rodeo that his nation supports America’s “War of Terror” and the audience roars its approval. That’s a powerful statement. If Borat had said that to an individual, he might have gotten a mildly befuddled “thank you” or “good.” But there’s an equal chance the person would have gently corrected him, “War ON terror, not war OF terror.” They might try to explain that they’re not really interested in annihilating Iraq. But instead, the crowd just cheers wildly and applauds. It’s more ridiculous than anything. Most of them (unfortunately, I can’t say “none”) probably (unfortunately, I can’t say “definitely”) have no interest in waging a war of terror on other parts of the world. They’re just applauding because they didn’t really listen, or think about what was said, and everyone else is applauding too, so maybe they just misheard. It’s not particularly meaningful.

And yet, I think that’s exactly the mentality that leads to war in the first place: an unwillingness to listen to objective evidence, or to think critically about the information that’s presented, and then the individual or group pushing for war manages to build enough momentum to reach critical mass, at which point enough people support the war just because everyone else is and because we have to “support our troops.” The same group-think principle morphs from a silly moment to a terrifying one.

As a side-note, the film does contain a moment of full-frontal nudity. In one scene, Borat proudly shows off photos of himself with his teenage son, played by Adrien Cortez, AKA gay porn star Stonie. In the snapshots, revealed onscreen, Borat poses with his face alarmingly close to the son’s naked penis.

————————–

(1) David Marchese and Willa Paskin, “What’s Real in ‘Borat’?”, Salon.com, 10 November 2006, http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/11 /10/guide_to_borat/ (7 May 2007).

(2) Peter Tatchell, “Borat – Parody or Prejudice?”, PinkNews.Co.Uk, 3 November 2006, http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/opinion/2005-2904.html (7 May 2007).

It all began with Roald Dahl’s pen, when he wrote “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” (1964), wherein several “lucky” children win a contest to enter the self-contained magical universe of Willy Wonka’s world famous Chocolate Factory. The book was adapted in 1971 into “Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” (1971) starring Gene Wilder. Now Tim Burton has remade the story in his own vision, and I’m finding it impossible not to compare the two film versions. But at the same time, I’m not sure how useful that is. They’re just so DIFFERENT.

Although directing skill varies widely, few directors have such a distinctive style that they easily stand out from other directors. Tim Burton is one of the few. His vision of Roald’s story is darker, almost vaguely menacing. Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka as the boy-who-never-grew-up smacks of psychological disorder and is slightly unnerving to behold. And yet, there’s something appealing about the freedom to speak without self-censorship. And isn’t play-as-work the dream of any working adult?

It’s interesting to watch Depp’s Wonka interact with the children. They’re so ill-mannered and arrogant, they’re practically begging for a thrashing. If you were a kid in their company, you just know they’d make you feel worthless and inadequate. If you were an adult in their company, you’d want to throttle their parents for not teaching their kids how to behave. But social decorum constrains us. Not so with Willy Wonka, whose stature as adult and proprietor of the establishment insulates him from the consequences of his own childish, not-quite-sadistic streak.

The visuals are brilliant, with lush, bright colors and uniquely designed sets. Still, even visually the production seems dark. For example, after the children first enter the factory, they enter a huge chamber filled with rolling grassy hills dotted flowers and trees, and a river of chocolate. Everything is edible, even the grass. In the 1971 film version, the set feels like an open field at midday, all bright and cheery. In Burton’s version, although the colors are intense and multi-hued, the room is clearly completely contained and darkly lit, giving the impression of a field at night lit by spotlights.

I actually prefer this Charlie (Freddie Highmore) to the other (Peter Ostrum), who always irritated me. His innocence seemed forced and almost smarmy, like a goody two-shoes. But Highmore brings the same innocence and hopefulness to the role with an understated charm. Of course, Highmore has great big open eyes reminiscent of a puppy. Maybe that has something to do with it.

Both humor and pacing, meanwhile, are inconsistent. Many of the performances are just strange, and it’s hard to know how to react to them. In the scene where the children first meet Wonka, they are treated to an egocentric animatronic display celebrating Mr. Wonka. Fireworks in the display set the animatronic figures on fire, and the children watch as plastic flesh melts and glass eyeballs pop out. It’s hilarious and horrible and completely bizarre, and how are you supposed to react to that?

As for the film’s pacing, the opening sequence struck me as overlong. A couple of times I found myself thinking, “Get on with it already.” The meat of the movie is Wonka and his factory.

Surprisingly, the film contains the suggestions of two gay characters. They make a very brief appearance near the beginning, serving to update the viewer (and Charlie, who overhears them talking) about the status of the five golden tickets. These two men are walking their dogs, and the film suggests they are gay through their mannerisms, like two effeminate and flamboyant queens walking their precious little Boo-Boos. In a way, they fit seamlessly into the film, because everyone’s behavior seems exaggerated. It’s an interesting situation, because their mannerisms are so stereotypical that I am tempted to score down on the Gay Positivity. But if that hadn’t had those mannerisms, I might not have even pegged them as gay characters, and they would disappear into invisibility.

I did not score for Gay Positivity due to insufficient gay content.

The movie is mediocre at best. The plot and characters fail to track. Protagonist Melanie’s (played by Reese Witherspoon) zigzag journey (from sweet to ugly to uncertain to enlightened) disconcerts and jars the viewer. Other characters, while charming, are all one-note. In fact, I wonder why the writer even gave them names instead of just descriptors: Good Guy Southern Gentleman Romantic Interest; Closeted Gay Guy; Flamboyant Gay Fashion Designer; Unpolished Southern Mother; Icy Elitist Politician Mother; and so on. Meanwhile, the lazy script forces a bittersweet ending by excluding the possibility of any alternative. The silly ending just re-emphasizes how the movie, and its leads, lacks chemistry and sparkage.

I am considerably more intrigued by the gay content in the film. It’s not that the gay characters had major roles. They didn’t. But I do observe two curious phenomena in this film. One is the re-visioning of small town, rural life as convivial to gay people. Second, even more fascinating, the good guy scores points by being gay-friendly.

In small town life is that, yes, everyone knows everyone’s business; but there’s also an extended family vibe. This movie’s re-visioned small town life posits that, yeah, Bubba might be a black sheep, but he’s OUR black sheep. Unfortunately, though that’s possible, it’s also unlikely, and the representation disingenuously glosses over a more hateful and destructive reality. I see this both ways. On the whole, I like positive, inventive portrayals that show a world that could be. Nevertheless, I find the Hollywood myth of the rural South very curious.

But the movie reveals a far more interesting theme when good guy Jake (Josh Lucas, channeling Matthew McConaughey) champions gay and recently outed Bobby Ray (Ethan Embry). First, let me emphasize, this is a positive theme. In fact, it’s WONDERFUL that the hero of the movie is gay-friendly and explicitly endorses being gay-friendly and, by extension, implicitly condemns homophobia.

Still. What does it say that the gay character requires endorsement by the popular straight character to be accepted? To a certain extent, this scenario disempowers the gay character.

Yes, it’s great that his straight compatriots accept and endorse him. But look at it this way. What the movie says is, “Hey, you can accept a gay guy in your social circle as long as he’s accepted by the popular guy (or, at base minimum, some hetero).” What if the popular guy in some social group doesn’t accept the gay guy? Will the rest exclude him? Or what if no one guy is brave enough to stand up and say, “Hey, let’s include him.” So no one does. Without that straight guy, the gay guy is disenfranchised and condemned to outsider status, without the agency to help himself.

Writer Sarah Schulman made an observation to Slate.com about the movie “Rent” (2005) which applies just as well in this case.

“In a time when people denied the existence of gays and lesbians, work that asserted that gays and lesbians existed with some minimum of human integrity could be coded as progressive. But since the AIDS crisis, most Americans personally know people who are openly gay. 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.”(1)

I love that Jake scores good guy points off Bobby Ray by defending him, a positive trend because it correctly postulates that homophobia is bad. But it also strikes me as exploitive. I might be less critical, though, if Bobby Ray didn’t encapsulate the disempowered Gay Eunuch stereotype.

He’s gay in name only; otherwise he’s sexless and powerless. As a gay eunuch, he’s not threatening. And that’s what bothers me about Jake scoring good guy points off him; he never really accepts Bobby Ray as a living, breathing gay man; and the audience never has a chance to accept him as such vicariously.

I maintain that straight men find gay men threatening because they worry, on some visceral level, that sexual gay men will do to them, what has been done to women: sexualize, objectify, and demean/disempower them. Consider the straight men who say they have no problem with gay men as long as the gay man doesn’t come on to them. If the gay men are gay eunuchs, it’s fine; they’re non-threatening. But as soon as the gay men evince a form of sexual power, they become a threat, and the straight man’s tolerance plummets. I’m glad that Jake accepts Bobby Ray and defends him; that’s positive. But Bobby Ray is like a genital-less Ken doll in the film, and I find Jake’s defense disingenuous because I don’t think he’s defending a real gay man, but instead a non-threatening facsimile.

But! This is also an artifact of the character of Bobby Ray, who’s more plot device than person. He exists for Reese to behave badly towards in one scene, establishing how low she’s sunk by becoming part of that hoity-toity New York society. Then he’s there for Jake to score good guy points later on. In between, he serves various plot-related functions. He’s never a real person.

Having considered all this, it certainly raises my eyebrows to learn that the scriptwriter, C. Jay Cox (who also wrote and directly “Latter Days” (2003), is openly gay (2); and that GLAAD nominated this movie for “Outstanding Film – Wide Release” in its 2003 Media Awards. But given a moment of reflection, it makes more sense. The category specifies a wide release film, and in all honesty, how many of those contain a notable (even if secondary) amount of gay content that is, at least superficially, genial and good-natured toward gay folks?

Overall, I can’t really recommend the movie on its own merits; it’s kind of just dumb. And as far as the gay themes go, while I like the character of Bobby Ray and I’m intrigued by the themes suggested by the movie, I’m ultimately underwhelmed.

————————–

(1) June Thomas, “The lesbian writer Rent ripped off,” Slate.com, 23 November 2005, http://www.slate.com/id/21310171 (15 May 2007).

(2) Mike Goodridge, “Small-town boy: with Sweet Home Alabama, out screenwriter C. Jay Cox confronts his rural roots,” The Advocate, 1 October 2002, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2002_Oct_1/ai_92084110 (15 May 2007).

Overall Quality 4.0 / 5.0 (recommended)
Gay Content 2.5 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 4.0 / 5.0

A fresh and funny film that offers an over-the-top presentation without taking itself too seriously.

Scriptwriter Charles Busch plays Angela Arden, a former singing sensation, whose voice and family life are cracking. Her husband Sol (Philip Baker Hall) and daughter Edith (Natasha Lyonne) hate and abuse her; only her son Lance (Stark Sands) offers support, but even that turns out to be conditional. Then Sol dies, and a clever, endearingly melodramatic whodunit follows, with a surprisingly clever twist ending.

Busch plays Angela to perfection, with a strong supporting cast including Hall and Frances Conroy as housekeeper Bootsie. Sands and Lyonne are a bit more inconsistent, but both offer strong moments. Lyonne in particular enjoys some of the movie’s best one-liners, impeccably delivered. Jason Priestley, as the mysterious and sexually freewheeling Tony Parker, didn’t quite get the memo for the movie’s tone, though. The movie as a whole succeeds in part because it parodies Old Hollywood without condescension or too much self-seriousness. Priestley didn’t quite manage that balance; his performance could have been just fine; but in this case was jarringly out of sync with the rest of the cast.

Regarding gay content, Arden’s son Lance is gay, and Tony Parker could perhaps be described as omnisexual trending toward hetero.

On the surface, the treatment isn’t terribly positive. Lance ain’t exactly a role-model and incorporates a number of derogatory stereotypes. He’s kicked out of the school for allegedly inciting a homosexual orgy among the math professors, with himself on a lazy susan. And in the scene where he comes out to his mother, Angela asks, “Son, are you a cocksucker?” He also dresses as Angela at one point. And yet, it all fits into the movie, and in the context of the ridiculousness of the characters and the plot, this treatment of the gay content becomes part of the spoof and satire.

In fact, it’s really not a gay movie at all. Rather, it’s an extremely gay-friendly movie, with a drag queen at the lead playing an over-the-top femme fatale (which gay men seem to adore in droves), with some minor but clear gay content. Oh, and throw in a little full-frontal nudity, and we have a film tailored for a gay audience.

You have to take this film for what it is, but if you can manage that, it’s a terrific 90 minutes.

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!”