|
|
Movie Review “Year One”: In the beginning … there was gay panic.
Is it ageist of me to think that this all has something to do with the fact that the film is directed and co-written (along with two writers from The Office) by 64-year-old Harold Ramis? Audiences might have found this stuff hilarious in 1987, the last time Ramis was relevant, but I’d like to think they don’t any more. The appealing Michael Cera and Jack Black, who I’ve thought was a comic genius ever since the rise of Tenacious D, are both totally wasted in this film. Hank Azaria also has a brief cameo, along with David Cross, Superbad’s Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and, yes, Paul Rudd. Paul, if you’re reading this? The gay “street cred” you got from The Object of My Affection? It’s officially gone. Buddy, enough with the unfunny “gay panic” comedies, okay? Submitted by on Fri, 2009-06-19 17:26. |
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
Ummmm...I hate to admit it....
and I think I may be the only gay man on the planet that feels this way but....
OK. Tell me where to go to turn in my gay card.
You are soooo not the only gay guy who does
Check out my new fantasy website: TheTorchOnline.com. It's like AfterElton.com for fantasy geeks! And I Twitter
Jack Black
Make that three of us.
And I kind of assumed that with his involvement with Prop 8: The Musical, he'd be a bit more thoughtful about taking that kind of role.
Having said that, sometimes a big ol' queen is just funny
Paul -- what happened?
Don't you realize the absolute necessity of a gay fan base in this day and age?
Harold Ramis -- do you read the NYT? Tony and Manola loathe comedies like this. they've made that clear since forever.
If only
Considering how gay friendly
It's not homophobia
Check out my new fantasy website: TheTorchOnline.com. It's like AfterElton.com for fantasy geeks! And I Twitter
True, but..
It's not homophobia?
Pisses me off
That gay panic found its way into this movie, especially since both actors are very funny in thier own right and could make a much more original and excellent movie without resorting to this. Good points, Brent.
And by the way, I don't think Jack Black is that hot, especially standing next to Michael Cera :)
Context of the film?
This is "Year One" so isn't the "gay panic" humor justifiable in the context of the story? It isn't some modern era high school/college/working stiff "comedy" after all. Creatively speaking, I think they may have more wiggle room than most but I'd have to see the context.
Michael Cera has been pretty funny in the past.
Not really
=)
What to expect from Apatow Productions?
Gays exist only to sneer at and to show how superior straight men are. Women are cheap and pathetic and shrewish and only good for one thing.
Same old anti-gay mindset from this particular style of "comedy".
Jack Black and David Cross.
I'm starting to get used to Paul Rudd being two-faced on his approach to gays. But Jack Black comes pretty much right from "Prop 8: The Musical," and then drops into a film with an offensive gay stereotype that should be readily recognized by anyone with even the slightest social awareness? What's up with that?
And David Cross. David, David, David. What a complete cop-out and disappointment. David Cross prides himself on his progressive political awareness. He knows better when reading a script with a character like Platt's than to support such crap (Cross' Tobias on Arrested Development was at least a parody of the ridiculousness of the closet).
When do guys like this get held accountable for their complete hypocrisy? Next time Cross starts into one of his political routines (if you've ever seen him in concert he's almost entirely political), it's gonna be awfully hard not to think of him as a great big phony.
If AfterElton ever gets a chance to interview either of these smart actors, you should ask them why they'd sell out their own ideals (and their GLBT audience) for such lame productions.
Entertainment Weekly
has a review (by Owen Gleiberman) in the new issue, which has a very different take on the film. Noting that the film includes several "terrific supporting jesters," Gleiberman writes:
He also likens it to "Bill & Ted's Old Testament Adventure," or "Hope and Crosby meet Jimmy Kimmel on The Road To Sodom."
EW can be hit and miss when it comes to calling out homophobic material - and it sounds like this one is a big miss for them.
That review makes me feel like I'm insane
Wow. It's just. So. Subjective.Check out my new fantasy website: TheTorchOnline.com. It's like AfterElton.com for fantasy geeks! And I Twitter
You don't love lisping, libertine dandies?
How far we've come when horrible old stereotypes are praised for their brilliance.
Franklin Pangborn was a far better actor than Oliver Platt will ever be.
EW loves the Apatow type of comedy
Is it possible that
the participating actors didn't find the movie homophobic and that's why they were a part of it? A difference of opinion rather than a betrayal of their gay friendly reputations?
I've not seen the movie and I'm necessarily defending it but I say this because for instance, as a woman, I don't have a particular problem with the way women are portrayed in Judd Aptow's movies. Don't see the supposed misogyny that some other people do, and don't think they are portrayed any more or less accurately and fairly than men are in chickflicks.
So it could be a YMMV think rather than just everyone involved in the movie thinking, 'wow, this is raving homophobia, but screw it, it'll make money so lets do it.'
impossible
And here is what they look for in the preview: laughs. That's all they look for. Because the formula for a comedy is this: Laughs = Money in the bank. So, yes, it is likely to believe the movie makers would be thinking, "this is raving homophobia, but screw it, it'll make money"
This sounds like a movie with another lisping villain played for laughs. If it were a young woman, who had to rub oil on an obnoxious and repugnant man, and then be forced to have sex with him, would that be played for laughs?
I don't have a desire to defend the scenes this movie, that's up to the people who made the flick. but I would say that perhaps I needs to see the entire movie before passing judgment on a single scene, something I probably might not do until it's on cable, gay content or no.
So lets throw them a bone...
metaphorically speaking and leaving the lisping out of it for the moment, say the humor is about being sexually harrassed by someone you find really unattractive. There have been movies where this same dynamic has been played with an unattractive woman as the offender. So the comedy could be the role reversal where a straight man (normally the top of the sexual food chain) is forced to endure what many women endure on a regular basis, and cope with being on the bottom for a change. I suppose I could see some women finding that funny, if they weren't irked about the bad taste. But I would think straight men would find it embarassing to be reminded that it hurts to be on the receiving end (puns intended) of what some of them dish out.
So Nous Sommes Tous Sauvages.
Geeks love homophobia
http://stuffgeekslove.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/homophobia/
Most hollywood writers and certainly Judd Apatow are geeks. They are not the put upon heroes that movies like to make them out to be. Hell look at Eminem. He was someone who was bullied and he became a bully.
Hollywood also likes to make fun of people of faith but that's for another thread.
Beat me to the punch...
...I was going to say something along the same lines. And raising the subject of making fun of people of faith isn't that much of another thread, since it has it roots in the same reason for doing it.
Like Brent says above, it's laziness. Playing for cheap laughs & getting them does not equate to making a 'cheap' profit. When money comes through the door by way of a formulaic hit, it's to hell with originality and let's put a load more of the same out there and maximise the profit.
There's a large percentage of the audienced prepared to watch the same thing over and over with the slightest of variations - just enough to make them think they're getting something new. It's easily done when current culture trains them to have attention spans no longer than 15 seconds. So: why treat your audience like intelligent adults with creative imaginations when there's a smaller profit margin in it.
I don't get it
I don't get why they would do something like this
they have excellent track records: Jack Black in Proposition 8-The Musical, and Micheal Cera in the gay-friendly movie Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
I'm seriously disappointed
I am too
but it shows the limits of control actors have over material. It might well have looked quite funny in a non-offensive way on paper, and Harold Ramis directed Groundhog Day -- one of the most sophisticated comedies of its time, with a (albeit minor) gay character who wasn't treated in an offensive way.
Once you in a movie it's extremelyt hard to see how it's going to tunr out. So I don't blame Black and Cera all that much.
But I DO blame Ramis.
Not Sure
I wasn't nearly as bothered by this as you guys were. I saw the movie at midnight with some friends and found it funny. I agree that plot wise Oliver Platt's character was basically useless but I don't blame Cera's character for being grossed out, that scene was gag worthy.
I think the movie took it a bit too far with the gross out factor but it was still enjoyable.
So glad I read this
Here's the deal -- actors
gay friendly reputations?
Someone above said that the actors are not diminishing their gay friendly reputations if they don't feel the movie plot is homophobic. I beg to differ.
If they don't get it, that trotting out tired, offensive, and sleazy stereotypes about gays is NO LONGER funny let alone appropriate, then how can they be gay friendly?
But yawn, another lady comes on here and defends prejudices against gay men. Not predictable at all.
Um, excuse my vagina?
I wasn't aware a penis was required to have an opinion. And since I was not the only dissenting opinion but the only one who identified as female, I have to assume your issue is with more with my sex, than with my opinion.
I don't defend prejudice against anybody. I merely stated that what one person finds offensive, someone else finds thought provoking and someone else finds yawn inducing.
excuse me sister
I have nothing against women, merely suggesting it would be more difficult for a women to properly empathise with discrimination against gay men.'
Which you have clearly shown, as you seem to make excuses for offensive stereotyping against gays in movies, as you have in this thread, contrary to the vast majority of posters here.
Toddle off to afterellen now, where somebody cares.
Seems it's not just straight men who act like dicks
So you have nothing against women eh? Then what's with the extremely rude comment about "toddling off to afterellen"? It seems you not only don't respect women, you don't respect lesbians. And frankly, would she be able to sympathize quite well if she were a lesbian?
I understand your point, but I don't agree with it, but either way, she simply expressed a differing opinion than yours, and her gender/sex has nothing to do with that.
You too can be saved by the blog! www.savedbytheblog14.blogspot.com
I may be straight, but I'm not narrow.
surprise suprise...
Another woman who disagrees with the majority view in this thread, ie that the storyline includes a sleazy, caricatured and offensive stereotype of gay men.
Obviously gay panic being used for laughs in movies is not a problem for you.
Actually...
...the point I was disagreeing with was that women can't fully empathize with gay men. I made no comment on how offensive the movie was, as I haven't seen it yet, and will hold back on my opinion until then.
You too can be saved by the blog! www.savedbytheblog14.blogspot.com
I may be straight, but I'm not narrow.
Well, that was rude wasn't it?
Seriously man, that wasn't nice or called for.
Really, Goldberry, man to man, that 'toddle off to afterellen now, where somebody cares' comment was just deliberately offensive. Not just to the poster involved, but also to other women and to AfterElllen, which has a different vibe to AfterElton but is just as good. And if you haven't read it recently, I suggest you do.
Having said that, I understand your point that sometimes (and the sometimes is the operative word here) women don't comprehend the gay male experience. But why should they? Usually gay men make a pig's ear out of explaining things. On another thread I was trying to explain to a female poster I tremendously admire how the advent of AIDS was a redefining moment for gay men, but lost my basic point in a flurry of my own windbaggery. And we ended up in a silly argument about other things. But that was my fault, rather than hers. I didn't explain myself properly and she took umbrage - and I can understand why (and obviously, if she's reading this, I apologise).
The one thing you - as a gay man - should always remember is that women (lesbian or straight) have earned the right to comment on gay issues. When the Aids crisis hit, the strongest allies gay men have had are the lesbians - and they've stayed with us. They've always been there for the queer boys from the word go. And the shaming thing is that had the roles been reversed and there had been some lethal strain of candida or thrush that had been killing off lesbians, I have the horrible suspicion that most gay men wouldn't have been even half so supportive and active as lesbians were for gay men.
And as for straight women, just look at Elizabeth Taylor or Princess Di or Judith Light or Sharon Stone or those hundreds of thousands of unnamed women nurses or mothers, aunts, sisiter or cousins who led the public fight for adequate funding of healthcare. They changed attitudes worldwide. It wasn't the men who did this - it was the women.
You want a 'fierce advocate of gay rights' then get yourself a lesbian. Just look at the Prop 8 hearings. Those lesbians rocked the place. They were far better than the men when when it came to articulated legal brilliance and passion. I'm no legal expert, but from my reading of things, the only reason why the gay people who got married in California prior to Prop 8 stayed married was becase of the arguments put forward by the lesbians.
You owe the women here an apology, man. Not only do they add immeasurably to the wit, wisdom, intelligence and experience of this site, the've done the same for individual gay men over countless years.
ok...
Maybe the "toddle off" comment was a bit of a wind up.
But surely your blanket comment that gay guys wouldn't be half as supportive of lesbians is a generalisation that is equally wrong for you to make about gay men. But that's ok, because it's guys you are criticising.
What about Harvey Milk? Though I do agree that there were a couple of very impressive lesbian contemporaries of his who appeared on the Harvey Milk documentary.
I mean no disrespect to women or lesbians, merely suggested that around here I have noticed (Madeleine especially) constantly seems to take a conservative approach when comments are made about negative depictions or treatment of gay men. For example, the "So you think you can villify" thread where she got into a very heated discussion with Nukely whilst she supported Nigel Lythgoe's right to villify effeminate men.
So half an apology - I mean no disrespect to women or lesbians, merely I ask that if they come onto this forum they should try to see anti gay male prejudice from a gay male perspective, and show some actual, basic support. The same would be expected of me should I venture onto "after ellen".
Now can we get back to the topic?
Oh go the whole hog, big boy
There's no 'maybe' here. The women on this site deserve an apology. Be a man and just give it. Y'know this isn't a big deal: just do it.
No, seriously, I don't think that gay men would have been as supportive of lebians as lesbians have been of gay men. It's is based on observations of the gay scene over the last two decades. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I don't think anyone can do that. If you can make me wrong in terms of activity and support then please do. The lezzers were actively and actually fantastic. I'm not sure I can remember when gays have been so supportive of lesbians.
And as for Nukely and Madeleine's argument, well it's good that it happened. She's allowed to have a different positon as much as Nukely does. That's called debate.
So no. The women on this site aren't deserving a half apology. Apologise to them properly.
factions v community
I was bang out of order with my comments about "toddle off" and I apologise for any hurt I may have caused anyone. From time to time, I can be out of order.
Well I suppose there can be factions within the gay and lesbian community itself, though I don't consider necessarily whether male or female are any more guilty of it than the other. On the whole though, the community tends to be supportive inwardly across the spectrum.
So, my view remains that you are stereotyping one side at the expense of the other. You are entitled to your observations of course, though that would also mean (to be consistent) I'm entitled to mine. Though my comment was wrong, and won't be repeated.
It is more difficult to empathise with the travails of the other group than your own immediate group (you conceded that is the case "sometimes" in your first post). Empathy is at the higher level, one above merely sympathising.
Though I was in a fairly sour mood last night for making the mistake of going onto a general forum about the Bruno controversy. Some of the bigotry expressed by some there was kind of depressing and may have soured my outlook, my view really is wouldn't we be better standing up to this kind of stuff together rather than having a barney amongst ourselves?
Apology accepted
That was really all I was upset about, the offhand and frankly quite rude comments towards women. I understand your point about not being able to fully understand the gay male perspective, I just don't necessarily agree with it, but that's not why I jumped into the discussion.
But I'm not trying to start a fight, so sorry for the poor karma votes, and when I've seen the movie I'll let you know my perspective.
You too can be saved by the blog! www.savedbytheblog14.blogspot.com
I may be straight, but I'm not narrow.
THANK YOU
Darrien, thanks for coming to my rescue, we might make a good tag team ;)
You too can be saved by the blog! www.savedbytheblog14.blogspot.com
I may be straight, but I'm not narrow.
gay male perspective...
" I mean no disrespect to women or lesbians, merely I ask that if they come onto this forum they should try to see anti gay male prejudice from a gay male perspective, and show some actual, basic support."
I'm neither a man, and neither a gay man....but I'm gay....just a woman though. ;-)
with that said, sometimes i see things from a 'gay' point of view....but other times, i don't think i'll see things from a gay male perspective, only because i'm NOT a gay man. Just because someone sees something differently, that doesn't mean they are excusing it. It has nothing to do with sexuality, gender, or color, or whatever else. people have different viewpoints on all sorts of subjects.
I don't think you should ask anyone to try and see anything from a gay male perspective, because gay, straight, woman or man, they might not see it how you do. even if they did try, maybe they still won't see it....but really, it doesn't mean they are excusing anything.
I think most of the time on AE, we all agree on most things such as homophobia or gay panic...but hey....every now and then, we'll see things really differently. sort of like the movie BRUNO....lots of people (gay and straight) think it looks hilarious, and lots of people (gay and straight) don't think it looks hilarious and only will end up offending.
thanks Liz...
for your thoughtful response. I agree with all or most of that. I guess I have been asking people to put themselves in the shoes of others. Like many things there are shades of grey, my belief though is that if one person sees something as problematic or demeaning, and another person disagrees, at least take the time to listen and see both sides.
To me it's self evident that most US comedies are made to appeal to LCD (that's lowest common denominator) humour. Most straight men I know can be and are a lot more sophisticated than this. Or at least if my straight friends call me a name at least they are only saying it to me, everyone's in on the joke, and I'll give them a serve back.
Like the original article about this film implies, it's about as funny as grandma's funeral and while it's not a huge problem in the scheme of things, it is an irritant and it is holding gay people back from genuine acceptance.
If they were to balance it out with more good representations, no-one would care as much.
*sigh*
I'm not going to rehash my discussion on Nigel Lythgoe, I stated my feelings (he was wrong, but I saw where he was coming from, and btw I am boycotting the show because of the hurt it caused) and Nukely and I came to some sort of resolution that we were both just angry and frustrated.
Why should I come and present a perspective that isn't my own? Yes, I come in here with a straight woman's perspective on things, but I don't see how that makes me any less of an ally and supporter. If you don't know that I am 100% on your side in the fight against homophobia then you need to wake up from whatever coma you're in. If you went to afterellen I would expect you to comment with a gay male perspective, nothing more or less.
My "conservative approach" is just me trying to see both sides, it's just what I do.
And half an apology isn't an apology.
You too can be saved by the blog! www.savedbytheblog14.blogspot.com
I may be straight, but I'm not narrow.
awake from the coma now...
We're good
I think the weakest thing anyone can say to someone is "shut up" and that is what the toddle off comment comes down to. When people make those kinds of comments to me, about me, I do shut up, in my own fashion. But only because those individuals have shown how lost they are and how low they can sink. They prove thenselves to be less worthy of meaningful discourse.
At one point on that other thread, I may have felt that Madeleine's opinion was the opinion of a straight woman, but quickly remembered that I have read the opinions of several gay men who tended to agree with her. Though, like me, her perspective will always influence how she sees the world, her actual opinion may be shared by others who couldn't be more different.
Final thoughts before this discussion is done to death.
Nukely, it means alot to hear you say that. I am glad that even though we both felt quite passionate and stuck to our views, we were both willing to actually open dialgoue with one another, and that is the only way one can learn and grow.
Goldberry, thank you for the apology, I really didn't think we needed to make a fight over this, and I'm glad we both calmly diffused the situation.
It makes me so happy that I can come to AfterElton and have a real, serious, thoughtful, passionate discussion with people, even if I don't see eye to eye with them. That is a lot more than I can say about my experiences on Facebook, where things tend to deteriorate into name calling, insults and stubborn childish comments. Basically this site, and the people here make my day.
You too can be saved by the blog! www.savedbytheblog14.blogspot.com
I may be straight, but I'm not narrow.
thanks luv...
No problemo. Well, you make me feel guilty with posts like that.
I can only afford to run one fight at a time and there's one going on over on another site (kidding). In fact, my posts are a bit more intelligent when the dr jeckyll side of my persona is posting, lolz.
Also, I like the avatar, is that from Twilight?
It's a photo of Rob
It's a photo of Rob Pattinson and Kristen Stewart from the Twilight Vanity Fair photo shoot. She's gorgeous, and he is the man of my dreams, so I had to pretend it was a photo of me, lol.
You too can be saved by the blog! www.savedbytheblog14.blogspot.com
I may be straight, but I'm not narrow.
I was keeping an eye on this thread and want