 by Brian Juergens |
Bird, plane, "homo": Like we need another reason not to see "Hancock"
Forget the awful posters, feverdream commercials, hasty re-shoots and sinking feeling that the entire cast is slumming it for a paycheck. (Update: Allow me to add the array of stellar notices that have lifted the film to a soaring 34% approval rating on RottenTomatoes.) If you need yet another reason to skip the ill-conceived Will Smith superhero vehicle Hancock this weekend, GLAAD may have it for you: At approximately 24 minutes into the film, while Jason Bateman’s PR whiz works to rehabilitate the superhero’s tarnished image, he shows Hancock three comic book images in an effort to inspire him. But Hancock rejects the traditional image of costumed superheroes as he responds to each one: “Homo. Homo in red. Norwegian homo.” Shades of 300, only without all the codpieces to help the insults go down. I'm sure (or would at least hope) Bateman and Smith don't personally have any ill will toward gays, but a summer movie that is meant to be enjoyed by everyone just flat-out should not be so backhanded to anyone in its audience. Ah well, saves me my curious $11. Submitted by on Wed, 2008-07-02 14:47. |
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
Ill will towards gays?
Considering Will Smith is now a totally brainwashed Scientologist (he was handing out pamphlets at the Hancock premiere), so of course he doesn't approve of homosexuality (and not a surprise, given how he refused to kiss another man in Six Degrees of Separation).
But I would've expected more from Jason Bateman, or Charlize Theron for that matter--especially Charlize, who has been a good friend of the gay community. Surely they could have asked that the lines be changed, or rectified by another character expressing disapproval of the slurs?
It's strange, here I am closing in on my forties and those childhood memories of enduring endless anti-gay slurs in 80s movies comes back to haunt me. I'm just, like, really pissed right now.
Thanks for the Warning Not to See Hancock
Nothing ruins a movie-going experience more than encountering such prejudice. It completely jars the willing suspension of disbelief required for enjoying motion pictures in the first place. Obviously the homophobic MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) does not count slurs as part of its overall rating system because it got a PG-13. There is something pathetically ironic about a "superhero" with genitalia as part of their name being homophobic.
It is particularly sad for the gay and straight black community to have homophobia reinforced by a major black actor when the black community most needs strong rolemodels reducing homophobia to reduce the stigma of HIV/AIDS in the black community to encourage more honesty, more testing, more understanding, etc.
It's time for a Bayard Rustin movie
I've heard the movie's a toss-up between a dark take on superheroes and a third act sudden redemption. Think I'll go see Kit instead.
And what's with the whale? It looks like it's either cut in half or a fake whale like they have in Disneyland.
Is this another Kevin Smith moment?
You give them too much credit
Your rationale reads like a quick, ham-fisted PR justification. It's the kind GLAAD might see hit their desk from Smith or the studio's reps.
If the audience were already pre-disposed to see the such comments as despicable, you'd have a stronger case. However, the general audience (especially the target demo for this film) is not there. It's played for laughs and it'll get them. Make no mistake here, this is a big budget film and a major box office star.
This isn't YouTube, a hastily written community play, web board comment or even TV script. It's a product of having been written and re-written and pre-screened and tested.
Unlike most actors, Will Smith has box office clout enough that if he were sensitive to homophobic humor, he could have demanded a rewrite and gotten it. He wasn't and it wasn't yet a major gay media site wants to give him an easy pass?
Ungrateful,
Will Smith became a star playing gay, no one gave his screen persona a moment's notice before SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION. A gay director made him a superstar in INDEPENDENCE DAY. But it it is ok to mock homos. I guess he also skipped screening MISSISSIPPI BURNING, where some us homos, died so that he could be a star today. This ungrateful wretch is certainly not the heir of Sidney Poitier.
I think Jonathan's right...
BOTH WILL AND JADA ARE ON THE DOWN-LOW
and all Hollywood knows it.
HANCOCK HOMO COMMENTS
Exactly
Obviously, I've not seen the film (and doubt I will), but you just know that they never would've used a different slur such as "spic" or "wop," not only because it would create a massive outcry, but because they know that the audience automatically connects "homo" with "weak," "silly," "fey," etc., and that's precisely how it's used in this context (and, on top of that, it insults Norwegians...I wonder what they think?).
Unless some Colussus-like super-homosexual kicks his ass in the final reel, I don't see how the movie can redeem such unfortunate and unnecessary dialogue.
Compare this to the French movie OSS 117: Cairo Nest of Spies, a hilarious 2006 film just released in the US--there are several homoerotic jokes in the film, where the hero's sexuality--but not, it should be pointed out, his masculinity--are called into question, and even though he (the hero) reacts negatively to such an assumption, those around him not only do not make negative comments, but are entirely accepting.
Thanks for the warning
Will Smith is soooo............ HOT!!!!!
Saw Hancock - loved it
I saw Hancock last night and thought it was great.
Yes, he might be homophobic, but he also hates kids, and treats women like sex objects. In fact, Hancock hates everyone! Every bad thing he does is to shock and pretty much all those scenes got a laugh.
Yes, he's changing by the end of the movie, but it's not a complete process. Do we really need to see him apologise to the whale, the yacht crew, the woman he patted on the behind, the kid, the police, the makers of the freeway signs... I could go on.
http://scifihunks.blogspot.com/
Thank you Ann Coulter (aka. scifihunk)
David - Oh, come on
David - Oh, come on now. Don't you think that's unfair and unnecessarily harsh? The context to which Scifihunk refers is certainly the accurate context. In other words, the slurs were indeed spoken by an unsympathetic character who was intended to be seen as a bad guy. He denigrated most anything that was good and positive, and all of those comments were meant to show him as messed up. To extend that thought, it was messed up to be homophobic. Pointing out that context hardly makes Scifihunk into Ann Coulter. In fact, Will Smith in the movie is equivalent to Ann Coulter.
You can certainly make the case that, despite the context, just having the slurs in there is a bad thing because many in the audience will just focus on the slurs and not on the context. I have mixed feelings about that, myself. But I think Scifihunk was not deserving of being slammed for his opinion.
There's always a case
You can also make the case that having homophobic slurs coming out of a character who is despciable as evidenced by his treatment of women and children put queers into the category of women and children, people who it isn't cool to be mean to. And that the producers were responding to America's increasing acceptance of homosexuals by making intollerance of them a point of dissonance with the character.
Are there young men in America who are going to feel an affinity with the Hancock character because he doesn't want to be perceived as gay? Absolutely, but they'll also be sitting in a theater at least subconciously knowing they aren't supposed to be rooting for this guy.
''Farewell, pansies!''
Pansies
WW - I'm curious about the context of that sign. I haven't seen the trailer, or even the first movie. Who are "our heroes", and is there any indication of why the "Farewell Pansies" sign would be there?
I'm thinking the moviemakers totally did not intend that as a gay slur. I looked the word up in the dictionary, and there are two "slang" definitions: 1. a weak or cowardly man; 2. a male homosexual. Personally, I've always interpreted the word as the first definition. I did a little survey here at the office. The younger guys thought it meant weak or afraid to take a risk or something in that vein. However, the gay guy in his 50s instantly said it was a gay slur. It's my impression that the word as a gay slur has been dying out over the past decade or two, and the other meaning has taken precedence. Even the gay guy said that it was much more common when he was young.
So, bottom line, I'm guessing the sign was totally innocent, and "our heroes" were being chastised for running away, or something like that. If the gay angle to the word has indeed been dying out it seems wise for us to not bring it up in a case like this. Let the meaning die completely.
Why ''pansies''?
Whether or not it's a generational thing, I looked up ''pansy'' in my Random House Dictionary. The first definition, of course, is the flower. The second was: Slang (disparaging and offensive) A. a male homosexual, and B. a weak effeminate and often cowardly man. If our heroes are being chastised for running away, why not have a banner that reads: ''Farewell, cowards!'' or ''Farewell, chickens!'' Why pick a ''disparaging and offensive'' word that has anti-gay connotations? Bad call!
As for ''Hancock,'' I can understand why Smith's use of ''homo'' could be used to show what a jerk he is. But when it goes unchallenged, there are those (especially kids) who might get the idea that it's a perfectly fine insult (especially since it's spoken by the film's hero). I haven't seen the movie, but is there any arc in his character where Hancock is shown to be more enlightened in how he treats gays later in the film? Probably not.
I agree
I agree, and for exactly the reasons you give, that it would have been better to use "Farewell Cowards" or something. But I'm guessing the filmmakers didn't even think of that because they didn't think of the word as having that gay connotation. I hate to speculate about people I don't know, but I'd guess if they DID know how strong that connection was for older generations they would not have included it.
Where I grew up the word pansy was inter-changeable with "wuss" or "panty-waist" (not that we kids ever used that one!) or "weak tit" (my brother's favorite!). For example, if I said to my brother on a cold winter day "let's go outside and play", and he replied that it was too cold, I'd be liable to sneer "you pansy".
I wouldn't use the word myself today simply because I know of how some people could take it. I'm just saying that the filmmakers probably made an innocent choice that turns out to be unfortunate.
Dreamworks Gay Slur
Dreamworks was unfortunately sold a few years back to Viacom (parent company of CBS and parent company of MTV, the parent of MTV Logo, the parent of AfterElton), so it is not under the gay-friendly control of its original founders (the SKG part of Dreamworks, G was Geffen, the gay billionaire after whom part of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center is named). Dreamworks' library of earlier films, the ones you knew would be gay-friendly, was then sold off as a seperate asset. So now, Dreamworks is just a label with no guarantee of being gay-friendly.
Dennis I'm sure you want to make the case for Michael Richards
Can't you just see his career being revived in the hilarious comedy NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! ?
It's all about how we're just to "P.C." these days, and it's ruining everything.
Next: Woody Allen in Jewboy Fucks a Shiksa
You're completely missing
You're completely missing the point. Michael Richards was perceived as a good guy up until that point, and then his rant revealed his darker side, and the prejudice within him. Were his comments used by anyone to endorse racism in any way? Or did they simply destroy his career, show the dark side of his soul, and serve as a learning tool for how AWFUL racism and the word "nigger" are?
In "Hancock" the homophobic slurs also show the dark side of the character, and it's clearly presented as such. If taken as presented, it shows how WRONG it is to be homophobic. If you made a movie about a guy who was a racist it would be appropriate to have him call someone a "nigger" to show the depth of his feeling. If you make a movie about a serial killer of women you show him mutilating or otherwise destroying his victims. If you make a movie about a low-life sleazebag you might have him say "fuck" every other word to reflect his character. That's how cinema, in fact art of all types, works, and how it should work. Art should reflect reality, not a sanitized reality. The character "Hancock" is a superhero, and the reality is that a LOT of screwed up, overly macho straight guys would react exactly how the character did in that situation. Since his comments were obviously not meant to endorse the attitude on behalf of the filmmakers, but rather to ridicule it, I see no reason to be upset by it.
And yes, we ARE too PC these days.
Hollywood is full of self-loathing homosexuals
Most of them being dispeptic agents who peddle the bullshit that "gay won't pay" in Hollywood. Not to mention Barry Diller, David Geffen, Scott Rudin, Joel Schumacher, Sandy Gallin and their cadre of barely legal sycophant trophy boys that they pass amongst them selves.
I don't give a f*** about Will Smith, if he is gay, he gives other gays a bad name. I don't need that. Unlike these unhappy individuals I have nothing to prove. I may not have billions in the bank but at least I get to run my own life and not to be someone else's idea of what my life should be like.
"All that money gets you is a gravestone."
"Cinema, in fact art of all types" works quite differently
But lets get back to the real subject which is (as usual) internalized homophobia.
We think so little of ourselves we let them get away with anything they want, for fear of being calld "P.C." -- which as we all know is worse than being an axe murderer.
Well you can play that game if you want but include me out.
I'd Reverse That
Actually, I'd totally reverse that concept. We think so little of ourselves that we see offenses everywhere and take offense when none was meant. Well you can play that game if you want but count me out.
I've always told people that in a certain period of time, perhaps 20-30 years, people will look back with wonder that gay people were considered second class citizens at one time. There's no way around that, that future will come. It's also true that the gay community will eventually look back in wonder at the time when they felt separate from the rest of society, and when there was a need for a "movement". That time will also come, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I see definite signs all the time among the younger gay people I know. Being gay is much more just a part of their lives than it is a huge central dominating force that colors all aspects of how they interact with the world. They have NO internalized homophobia at all (at least the ones I know), and they think very highly of themselves. But they don't tend to understand the overreactions to little things. Like it or not, that's the way of the future. And that sort of "post-gay" world is, at it's core, what those of us who were born in an earlier time are ultimately fighting for. Please don't mistake their attitudes for something they're not.
Along those lines...America Not As Far Along As Folks Dream
"Little things"? In a multi-million dollar movie
that's opening in a zillion theaters this weekend?
And what's with this bit about "the gay community will eventually look back in wonder at the time when they felt separate from the rest of society, and when there was a need for a "movement". That time will also come, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I see definite signs all the time among the younger gay people I know. Being gay is much more just a part of their lives than it is a huge central dominating force that colors all aspects of how they interact with the world." ?
Ah yes, the infinite wisdom of youth!
Well I'm 61 and Brain Boitano will be doing a Triple-Lutz in the 9th Circle before I start apologizing for that fact.
No age-ism here
David - Congrats on being 61. And I totally mean that. I'm about the last person you'll ever catch discriminating in any way about age. But I don't discriminate in EITHER direction. There's nothing wrong with being young, and there's nothing wrong with being old. A lot of years does not guarantee wisdom, nor does a lack of years guarantee stupidity. And the reverse is equally true. Age is literally just a number to me.
So nothing in my comments reflected age. Rather, they reflected the changing realities of the world and society in which we live. We ARE headed toward a post-gay world, it's just a matter of when it will arrive. The signs of that are everywhere. And they're especially reflected in the attitudes of younger gays. They're not stupid, and it's not that they don't understand the past. They simply have been raised in an environment totally different than that in which you were raised. That's not a value judgment, it's just a reality. And the babies of today will be raised in a different world yet. The world that gay people faced in the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc. doesn't exist any more, and since the world has changed it's only natural that people facing that world change.
One of the guys who works for me has a daughter who just graduated from high school. She was talking about her prom, and the two or three gay couples who went together. The class treated them like any other couple, cheering for them as they went through the arch like they did for all the other couples. To my friend's daughter it was simply no big deal. Similarly, Anna Quindlen in Newsweek was talking about her son telling her matter-of-factly at supper one night about a friend at school who had just come out. Anna marveled at the way in which it was no big deal.
David, it's not age-ism to recognize those realities, and to change one's outlook on the present and the future based on those realities. It's not something to bemoan when the 20-somethings I know see being gay as just one aspect of their life, and as not dominating all aspects of their existence. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE ALL BEEN FIGHTING FOR. We have a long way to go, and, believe me, they know that, but it truly is a different world. I think we're all better off if we recognize that world, and react to it as it is.
Which brings us back to Hancock. So what if it's a multi-million dollar movie in a zillion theaters? If the movie isn't expressing homophobia, and it certainly is not, then it's not a big deal worth getting enraged about. We can certainly discuss whether it's a bad idea to use "homo" in that context with a certain number of idiots guaranteed to be in the audience who won't understand the context. But to extend that to the idea that the film-makers themselves are expressing homophobia is indeed a silly overreaction.
David, I've seen you previously make sneering comments about young people. You deserve total respect for who you are, but why should not young people deserve respect as well? I know stupid old people and I know stupid young people. Making assumptions about someone because of their age is wrong no matter which direction one comes from.
Why so sure?
How can you say "I'm sure" and follow it up with "at least hope" they're not personally holding ill will towards gays? Is this personal bias because you see one or both as fellow travelers on the progressive road or do you have hard evidence of them being positive towards gays?
Yes let's get back to "Hancock" -- and it certainly IS
Very casually. Very "in passing." Very "matter-of-factl." And that's the most effective way. Stick the knife in fast but when you do make sure you go for the jugular.
As for youth and age, here's a piece I just wrote on someone OLDER THAN ME!
http://www.laweekly.com/film+tv/film/don-bachardy-on-christopher-isherwood-the-man-he-loved/19200/
Hard to imagine, isn't it?
I want to be Don when I grow up.