Overall Quality 4.0 / 5.0 (engaging and interesting)
Gay Inclusive? Very – the subject is a gay man and his beginnings in gay porn
Gay Positive? Mostly – a positive tone undercut by negative implications that go unexplored

A fascinating look into a culture and man full of unexpected contradictions.

Jeffrey Schwartz’s documentary explores the evolution of Jack Stillman – a small, unathletic child of Beverly Hills privilege – into Jack Wrangler, who epitomizes rugged male sexuality. The evolution is far from linear. Jack begins in gay porn at a time when pornography was produced for the big screen, and acting was actually expected of the stars. Sometimes adult films could even get reviews in venues like Variety.

Stillman forged Wrangler in the fire of the gay porn business in the 1960s, during the time of the sexual revolution. The gay experience was fraught with peril; the documentary largely ignores that and focuses instead on the sexual openness of the pre-AIDS period.

The documentary strikes me as a bit one-sided in this sense. In fact, with Jack as the chief narrator, the film seems more like an autodocumentary. The overall tone is self-congratulatory, although to his credit Jack seems as startled by his successes as anyone. Still, I can’t help but think there’s another side to this story not being told.

I do deeply appreciate one of the themes of the documentary: a presentation of gay men counter to common stereotype. In fact, he’s one of earliest media images that counters the stereotype of gay men as effeminate sissies; it’s interesting that his image is not just masculine, but powerfully sexualized. Jack Wrangler represents a “manly man” – rugged, handsome and sexual – who is also gay.

Which makes it so odd that Wrangler moved into straight pornography. He had his first sexual encounter with a woman on-camera. He managed to become successful even in straight adult films, including The Devil in Miss Jones 2 and Debbie Does Dallas 2.

He’s also one of the few porn stars to bridge the gap from porn to mainstream theatrical work.

Perhaps most curiously, Jack became romantically involved with vocalist Margaret Whiting, a woman twenty years his senior. They have since married.

I’m not straight, and I’m not bisexual. I’m gay, but I could never live a gay lifestyle because I’m much too competitive. When I was with a guy I would always want to be better than him: what we were accomplishing, what we were wearing — anything. With a woman you compete like crazy, but coming from different points of view, and as far as I’m concerned, that was doable. (1)

It’s a puzzling development in the personal life of an otherwise openly gay man. Watching this portion of the documentary, part of me shrugs it away: to each his own. At the same time, I can’t help but notice that it’s suggestive that gay men can “change” their sexual orientation, and that the image of a manly gay man “turns out” to be straight … or at least turns to a straight lifestyle.

The most interesting-and perplexing-event of his life is his relationship with Whiting. Wrangler is a self-professed gay man who, according to the film, can´t see himself living with another man. As a condition of moving in with Whiting, and subsequently getting married, the actor agreed to give up performing in porn films as well as having encounters with other men. He makes light of it, saying he has a healthy masturbatory life. However, for a generation of gay men who looked up to Wrangler-not to mention the era he ushered in-I have to think this is a slap in the face. Certainly there is not a list of requirements to be considered gay; what fits one person doesn´t necessarily fit another. But a out gay man married to a woman and abstaining from sex with other men? Does that even qualify as being gay anymore? (2)

Again, I return to the point that the documentary doesn’t present “another side” to the story. Despite including interviews with colleagues from his work in porn, the documentary never delves into what it all means.

—————————

Theatrical trailer:

—————————-

(1) Brother, Job. “The Anatomy of Jack Wrangler.” The Advocate. 5 November 2008. http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ektid64690.asp (retrieved 30 November 2008).

(2) Vargo, Jason. “Review of ‘Wrangler: Anatomy of an Icon.’” DVDTown.com. 26 October 2008. http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/wrangler-anatomy-of-an-icon/6426 (retrieved 30 November 2008).

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

This is the movie I wish Brokeback Mountain had been.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Harvey Milk

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

Homosexuality has a largely unhappy history in Western civilization. Thank God for men like Magus Hirschfeld (1868 – 1935), who stood up against prevailing conventional “wisdom,” and used science and basic respect to advance the cause of gay rights. Hirschfeld studied homosexuality scientifically; although we might disagree with some of his conclusions (he felt homosexuals were an “intermediate” sex), he dedicated his efforts to advocate on behalf of gay people.

The Einstein of Sex is a biopic which explores Hirschfeld’s life and work. The film is surprisingly engrossing. It’s fast-paced and well-acted, and it’s fascinating to watch the tension between Hirschfeld’s tireless work on behalf of other gay people with his inability to process his own homosexuality in a healthy way.

The props, set design, and cinematography also deserve special mention, especially considering the film is a low-budget independent feature. Each component contributes significantly to the film’s interest and success, and many scenes look like recreated photos from that era.

The film contains quite a bit of male nudity, but it never feels out of place. In a couple of scenes it comes close to gratuitousness, but it never crosses the line.

Unfortunately, the narrative structure undercuts the movie’s effectiveness. It’s choppy, rambling, and disjointed. “The Einstein of Sex” tries to cover too much territory:

• a biography spanning Hirschfeld’s entire personal life
• an ode to Hirscfeld’s work on behalf of gay rights
• a pseudo-documentary on the state of gay rights during that era

But this is a single movie, not a mini-series. As a result, everything gets underserved.

So while this film hasn’t earned a top-shelf slot in my DVD collection, I definitely recommend it for at least one viewing. It’s an entertaining slice of important homo-history that’s undertold.

The Gay Positivity score reflects that this movie covers a lot of negative territory ranging from gay-shame to gay-hate, but the central focus in on telling the story of someone who worked positively for gay rights with a tone of hopefulness for the future.

———————

For more information about Magnus Hirschfeld:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld
http://www.stonewallsociety.com/famouspeople/magnus.htm

Overall Quality 3.5 / 5.0
No gay content

In some ways, Trekkies 2 covers the same territory as the first movie. It explores Star Trek as a cultural phenomenon and addresses fans’ appreciation for its positive message. “When people see Star Trek, that is how society should be,” one interviewee notes. “People [coming] together no matter what creed … color … sexual orientation … no matter what race.”

However, Trekkies 2 diverges in a couple of ways. First, it explores the Star Trek phenomenon internationally. (They probably could have subtitled the film: Trekkies 2: Trekkies with a Budget!) Host Denise Crosby visits Australia, Brazil, Italy, England, France, Germany, and even Serbia to discover just how much impact Star Trek has on the global community. And it’s quite fun to see, despite disparate cultures, just how similar the Star Trek fans all look and sound. In fact, I’d say it reflects the ideal presented by Star Trek: diversity existing in harmony.

Second, Trekkies 2 delves a little further into people who take Star Trek to an extreme. In fact, the documentary includes a segment specifically entitled, “Extreme Fans.” And it portrays some people who are undoubtedly quite devoted. On the whole, the film still portrays Star Trek fans in a positive light. As actress Tracey Scoggins describes in the film, women in Neiman Marcus who’ve undergone significant plastic surgery are maybe going too far, but “sci-fi fans? No, they’re fine.”

Actor Phillips Morris defines “too far” as: “If you lose yourself, your sense of identity, as a result of this, that’s a problem. If it enhances your sense of identity, your sense of self, it’s beneficial.” The documentary clearly involves both types but is heavily weighted toward the latter.

I think a member of a Klingon metal band called Stovokor said it best: “When reality stops being so lame, we’ll stop doing this.” (Author’s note: Amen!)

Material of specific interest to gay fans is curiously lacking, especially considering the gay-friendliness of the original. I am particularly disappointed in a segment included in the bonus features on the DVD called “Fan Pon Farr.” (The bonus features actually include enough additional material to nearly warrant the title Trekkies 3.) “Fan Pon Farr” discusses romantic relationships that develop between fans who bond over Star Trek or at Star Trek conventions. But it does not include a single gay couple … with the possible exception of two girls who might be lesbian, but are never identified as such. In fact, the bit includes a montage of kisses, entirely heterosexual.

I am also startled by another exclusion. Trekkies 2 dips briefly into the world of Star Trek fan-films (and in one fun case, fan-theater). In fact, it shows clips from half a dozen different fan-films. But Hidden Frontier, one of the most successful and prolific Star Trek fan-made productions, is curiously absent, even though it was already into Season 5 by 2004. Go figure.

Overall, I noted something else. There’s a sweetness that was present in Trekkies that’s not as noticeable here. Kate Mulgrew criticized the first one as a “kind of an indictment of [fans’] love for the show” (1); I disagree. But if she had said that about the sequel, I probably wouldn’t argue the point so much.

At the same time, fandom is what it is. The documentary’s goal isn’t to portray the most impressive fans, but rather those most interesting and most devoted. And it succeeds in that goal.

Trekkies 2 also revisits some of the individuals introduced in Trekkies, such as Gabriel Koerner and Barbara Adams in some entertaining and engaging segments.

I recommended the first Trekkies even for casual fans, but like its more extreme subjects, Trekkies 2 will likely hold greater appeal for more devoted fans of the franchise.

Click to visit the Trekkies 2 website.

————————-

(1) Andy Scahill, “A Brand New Voyage,” Out in America, 8 August 2002, http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/Out%20in%20America-mulgrew%20interview.htm (retrieved on 12 May 2008).

Overall Quality 4.0 / 5.0 (Definitely recommended for any Star Trek fan, even if casual)
Gay Content 2.0 / 5.0 (Brief but clear inclusion)
Gay Positivity 5.0 / 5.0 (Very positive portrayal)

A documentary looking into the impact of Star Trek on fans, and just how far some fans will go to show their love…

Kate Mulgrew criticized Trekkies as a “kind of an indictment of [fans’] love for the show” (1). However, I respectfully disagree with her assessment. In fact, the documentary comes across as remarkably positive and upbeat.

Yes, it portrays people who take their love for Star Trek to extremes. Many of them come across as quite intense. Self-described “Spinerfan” Anne Murphy can see the hill at whose base Brent Spiner lives from her home, and she will apparently contemplate the hill when she’s feeling upset because it makes her feel closer to Mr. Spiner. Or take Rich Kronfeld, who would consider having his ears surgically altered to resemble a Vulcan’s, if he could afford it. Or dentist Denis Bourguignon whose practice is fully Star Trek-themed, and who dresses in Starfleet uniforms on a regular basis.

Yet even these examples depict people who have only found something they love enough to celebrate in their own lives, and the documentary takes pains to share stories of how Star Trek has positively impacted people – inspiring them to pursue their dreams, to overcome adversity, and to live better lives.

According to many fans, Star Trek has special relevance for disaffected and rejected people. One participant in the documentary says, “Nobody is ostracized because they’re different, and I think that attracts a lot of people because elsewhere in their lives, they don’t have that kind of freedom.” Star Trek presents a hopeful and optimistic vision of the future in which peoples of different origins, creeds, races, beliefs, etc. are all accepted equally. “Especially gay men and lesbian women,” adds another interviewee: “They live in a world … that’s not accepting. There’s a dream that one day down the road there will be acceptance.”

That’s reading into Star Trek a bit. In fact, Star Trek has been famously non-inclusive when it comes to gay people. At best, it skirts the issue and tries to address it through metaphor. For the most part, the only actual gay people in the Star Trek universe appear in fan-based (and therefore non-canon, or unofficial) works.

But that’s kind of what this documentary is all about: Star Trek is no longer just a story being told on TV or at the movies. Star Trek has reached critical mass. As Majel Barrett Roddenberry notes, “This is our 20th century mythology.” It’s a philosophy, perspective, and lifestyle adopted by a surprising number of people. “People don’t realize just how important a show can be,” notes Joyce Mason, host of the radio show “Talk Trek and Beyond.”

If anything, Trekkies reveals that the community of Star Trek fans is as enriching and rewarding as Star Trek itself. Star Trek fans establish clubs and groups with other fans, and their experience tends to echo those of gay people. Consider this quote: “My family thinks I’m the odd one of the family. [But] I found this club, and I found out I’m not the only one, so I guess I’m not so weird after all.”

Interestingly, the documentary also touches upon the subject of slash, which is a genre of fan-fiction that depicts two people of the same sex in romantic interludes.” The “literature” of Kirk/Spock slash is quite well established, in fact.

I applaud documentarian Roger Nygard, and host and co-executive producer Denise Crosby, for their inclusiveness in this film. By mentioning phenomena such as slash, and interviewing gay fans, they have demonstrated an openness sometimes lacking in “official” Star Trek works.

Ultimately, I wouldn’t call Trekkies eye-opening. I don’t think anyone would be surprised that some Star Trek fans can be kooky or eccentric. Instead, it was a fascinating foray into the culture of Star Trek, and a worthwhile and amusing exploration of its positive virtues. Recommended for any fan of Star Trek, casual or hardcore.

Click to visit the Trekkies website.

———————————

(1) Andy Scahill, “A Brand New Voyage,” Out in America, 8 August 2002, http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/Out%20in%20America-mulgrew%20interview.htm (retrieved on 12 May 2008).

This is a fascinating documentary film based on the book of the same title (full disclosure: I have not read the book).

I actually expected a dry presentation of accounting irregularities: “And then they implemented the mark-to-market form of accounting.” Accountants gasp in horror; I merely yawn.

And yet, as Bethany McLean (one of the authors of the book) points out early in the documentary, what makes this story so compelling is the human drama. Ultimately, the Enron scandal exposes the vicious cycle of hubris, greed, and tainted success.

In very, very brief terms: Jeffrey Skilling introduced an innovation in how Enron managed its books, allowing the company to post profits before they received them.

From there, it became a slow and steady slide toward creative accounting and ultimately fraud, including leading Enron to create an artificial energy shortage in California in the early 2000s in order to drive prices up. But inevitably, the house of cards collapsed.

The documentary does an excellent job of explaining the complex history of the scandal to a non-technical viewer; by focusing on the human element, the film draws the viewer into the drama. I started watching the movie shortly before going to bed, thinking it would make me sleepy. Instead, I stayed up late watching the compelling story. The film makes clever use of interview clips, stock footage, random camera shots, and music to keep the momentum moving.

Overall 2.0 / 5.0 (a tepid film, the good moments not worth enduring the bad ones)
Gay Content 4.0 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 4.0 / 5.0 (surprisingly positive, largely thanks to Glenn’s and Peter’s apparently solid relationship and his parents’ progressive attitude)

Gay porn icon Colton Ford (real name Glenn) wants to leave behind the adult industry and launch a career in mainstream dance music.

Although mildly interesting, this documentary screams amateur. For example, the viewer frequently hears the interviewer’s voice, quiet and off-screen. A more professional documentary would either (1) include the interviewer in the presentation, media-style, so the viewer isn’t straining to hear the questions, or (2) phrase the questions and edit the film such that the viewer doesn’t even need to hear the questions.

In addition, the documentary can’t decide on its topic. Half the film follows Glenn’s attempts to sign a record deal, and the other half (by far the more interesting) explores the private lives of porn stars. Meanwhile, the camera work and editing are distracting at best.

Glenn’s adventure in the music industry travels in circles. Likewise, the documentary offers the viewer a cycle of tedious, repetitive scenes. Glenn’s astonishingly egotistical manager Kyle presents the dramatic highlight of this portion of the film. Neither Glenn nor Kyle have a clue; the former comes across as naive, and the latter as too self-absorbed and arrogant. It’s a great example of the blind leading the blind. By the end of the documentary, Glenn dismisses Kyle, who refuses a final interview.

The other portion of “Naked Fame” is more engaging, although it still suffers from the same poor editing and directionless narrative. Glenn and his boyfriend Peter (porn star Blake Harper) have a surprisingly touching, nurturing relationship. The highlight of the film portrays Peter’s breakdown on a street corner as he starts crying, while Glenn comforts him, because he feels like a lost soul. It’s a jarring moment because one doesn’t normally think of porn stars as having souls.

But these are real guys, and even though the breakdown is followed immediately by some twinks recognizing Peter and somewhat surreally commenting how they masturbate to his films, both Peter and Glenn come across as down-to-earth, caring, three-dimensional people. Peter even reluctantly returns to nursing in order to support Glenn’s efforts to become a professional singer.

My second favorite moment in the documentary spotlights ex-porn star, ex-addict Sharon Mitchell, who’s pursuing a Ph.D. in Sex Education. She offers some insight on how porn stars who wish to break into the “legitimate” world must make peace with their past, because they will never be able to leave it behind.

As a side-note, I wish the film had shown more of Glenn’s family. His parents are obviously so progressive and loving, I wish we had been treated to more of the family dynamic. How do they act with Peter? What was it like for them when they found out that Glenn did porn? What is Glenn’s relationship with his siblings like? Heck, Glenn and Peter are interesting subjects. If only director Christopher Long had had the chops for it.