Do Gay People in Films Always Have to be Stereotypes?

Originally published on www.biggaypictureshow.com

In the past I’ve written about a number issues I have when it comes to gay men in films and films that are gay-centric in particular. One of these issues is that they are usually sold on sex, making us all fit into the sexual deviant paradigm that so many people have afforded us, the other issue I’ve written about is why we have to have gay films – after all why can’t they just be films.

This being said, ‘gay films’ are here and for the foreseeable future they are here to stay, because let’s face it, many Hollywood studios are still reluctant to release a mainstream gay-centric film, despite the success of Brokeback mountain almost a decade ago. This then brings up the issue that most of the gay men that we see in films are the flappy, fashion conscience, witty, bitchy character whose retorts and comments are used for comic affect.

These characters can be found in many rom-coms, such as Bridget Jones’ Diary, as well as teen flicks like Mean Girls. We are undoubtedly being put into more films now and being allowed to be openly gay – and all exposure is good exposure in a way, I suppose. Even if the studios are still a little worried to make us the leading star, at least we are there.

However, I can’t get over the fact that many gay-centric films made by LGBT production companies and filmmakers have to use these characters as well. I’ve reviewed and watched a few films recently that heavily feature characters like this. Yes, there are gay people like this, but would it hurt the filmmakers and studios to feature more down-to-earth, non-stereotyped gay characters in a gay movie? After all, we’re bombarded with these stock characters in nearly every romantic comedy that gets churned out.

It looks as though whilst we are getting some representation in mainstream movies, the issue of being stereotyped will always be there. It’s just a shame that gay centric comedy films and rom-coms don’t display enough diversity, to show other gay men and people in Hollywood that we aren’t all like that stock character they know so well. Perhaps if the entertainment made for the gay community were more varied in its depiction of gay people, a little more of that diversity would seep through into the mainstream.

Review: Keep the Lights On

Originally published on www.biggaypictureshow.com

Keep the Lights On tells the story of a Danish filmmaker, Erik (Thure Lindhardt), who’s working on a new documentary and living in New York City. He enters a loving yet complicated relationship with Paul (Zachary Booth), a struggling drug and sex addict. The film takes a rare and honest look at the complications that impact on most relationships and the negative effects addiction can cause for yourself and a partner, all put together in a way that makes you not think of this as a ‘gay film’.

The film itself is based on the director Ira Sach’s own relationship with literary agent Billy Clegg, who has published a memoir discussing his own past struggles with addiction. Luring you in with a great concept, I got excited by the idea of this film and was very intrigued about how it would tackle the sex addiction aspect, as most gay themed films just tend to focus on muscly model-esque men having sex and getting naked at every given opportunity.

However this film completely avoids that and the sex scenes are both relevant to what’s happening and actually drive the plot along, and in one case shows us that sex isn’t exactly how it looks in porn or Hollywood. So a big thumbs up has to be given to them for not falling into the littered realm of cliché and mind numbing sex scenes.

The way the film is shot is also very good, as it has an almost vintage, gritty realist look to it, and for an independent film I was pleasantly surprised that it didn’t look like someone had just filmed something in their back garden with a home video camera, which is often the case. In fact the film as a whole looks like Transamerica in terms of the way it was shot. The music used, when coupled with the imagery, is excellent as it really helps set the scenes and allows you to know if you’re in for a heavy moment or not.

This being said, I wasn’t completely satisfied when it came to watching this film. What Keep The Lights On lacks is perhaps the most important part – the ability to get the viewer engrossed and concerned about what they are watching. As the film progressed I realised that I had little concern for the characters, which mainly stemmed from the slow moving plot.

Also I felt that if someone watched this film who hadn’t read up on it beforehand and knew what it was about, then this slow burning plot would definitely confuse them and leave them wondering what the hell was going on. However, despite not feeling for the characters, the two lead actors give quite gritty and realistic performances as lovers, so hats off to that.

Keep The Lights On has so much going for it in its premise and the music, and acting and shooting is all great. However, the slow developing plot that makes you lose interest allows the film to fall flat. They could have done so much more with this film, but they just missed the mark. But credit to them for not turning it into a gay sex and sausagefest.

Review: The Blue Angel

Originally published on www.moviemuser.co.uk

As a lover of old Hollywood films, especially those made during the film industry’s golden age – because in my opinion the films were just better as they had a type of mystical Hollywood gloss painted over them – I was excited at the prospect of reviewing a film from 1930. This was in part to see a film from this era that I’d not heard of. It was also because the film was made not long after the transition into the talkies and, of course, it features film legend Marlene Dietrich.

However, like most good things they always seem a bit too good to be true, and that is certainly the case when it comes to this film. It’s being released as part of a Masters of Cinema series in a dual format (DVD & Blu-ray) edition that also features both English and German language versions of the film. The movie depicts the downward spiral of a school teacher (Emil Jannings), whose attempts to catch his students frequenting a local cabaret bar leads to his own enthusiasm for the bar’s main attraction, Lola (Dietrich), which results in both his life and fortune entering a time of turmoil.

Despite being included in the Masters of Cinema collection, unfortunately I couldn’t find anything too magnificent about it. In fact I can think of a few other films from the 1930s, such as Grand Hotel and Of Human Bondage, that would benefit more from a new HD release. They also feature legendary stars such as Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Greta Garbo, who are all on par with Miss Dietrich, if not better.

The film itself is rather boring, bland and has minimal dialogue to begin with; in fact it made me think of a rather bad version of the 1970 hit, Cabaret. It does have some good points when it comes to the use of the camera, mainly due to the panning that was very difficult back then due to static cameras, but apart from that there’s not much else to go on about.

Maybe it’s been seen as worthy to be included in this new collection due to it being the first collaboration between the director Josef Von Sternberg and Dietrich (it was also her ticket to Hollywood), who would make many more films together, but apart from that I can’t see any other reason why it would be included.

One thing I will say is that we get a clear indication of the twilight years of Marlene’s career, as she spent most of them as a cabaret singer touring the world. But apart from that, unless you’re a huge fan of Dietrich or old movies I’d give this a miss.

The production code may have come down but we still aren't mainstream

Originally published on www.biggaypictureshow.com

After the production code was brought in during the 1930s it became much harder to show several different things on the Hollywood Screen.

There were restrictions on the length of time a couple could be seen kissing, whether you could show a couple in bed together, even a scene from Disney’s Snow White had to be cut because she was shown in bed with the seven dwarfs, and then there was the restriction of showing homosexuals on screen due to what was know as sex perversion.

However after existing in Hollywood for over thirty years the final part of the code, which just happened to be the section concentrating on sex perversion, came down in 1968, finally allowing homosexual characters to be shown in Hollywood films.

There had been gay characters shown in films prior to 1968, but these films were from countries such as Italy and Great Britain, but with the dominance of the Hollywood film they hadn’t made enough of a global impact.

After the production code had fully come down gay people were finally being shown in some films, but we had a very odd portrayal as throughout the 1970s and 80s we were mainly shown in a negative light, usually as villains or victims.

As the 1990s came around gay people finally began to get a slightly better portrayal, that meaning that we weren’t necessarily tragic or villains, as we were now cast in the role of the ‘gay best friend’ in several Hollywood rom-coms, where we minced about helping our girl friends shop for the perfect shoes. Hello stereotype. But we were far from leading characters.

Over this period of time we were getting more of a leading role in some independent films such as My Own Private Idaho by Gus Van Sant, but these were seen by limited audiences and we were once again just missing out on the mainstream, and we weren’t leads in big blockbuster films.

It wasn’t until the 2000s with the release of Brokeback Mountain that we finally saw a mainstream Hollywood Blockbuster depict two gay men as the lead characters, alas they were very tragic figures but it was a true portrayal of the time. But since this we have still not seen many big Hollywood films featuring gay characters as leads.

Yes there was Milk and The Kids are Alright that both garnered much success, but this is only two where there could have been many more.

Maybe its Hollywood’s fear of not appealing to a big enough audience or maybe it is the fear of the actors to not be seen as gay and alienate a large section of their audiences, that we will never know.

But what we can see is, whilst these fears hover around behind the doors of Hollywood it looks as though we haven’t come tremendously far in the last 40 years, so maybe we will just have to wait another 40 and live with the fact that we do have exposure in many indie films these days. Every little counts after all.

Why Do We Have Gay Films?

Originally posted on www.biggaypictureshow.com

I’ve been wondering recently why when it comes to films do we have ‘gay films’ and not just films?

It is easy to see why some films get lumbered under this specific category of movie; it may be theme, especially if it’s dealing with LGBT issues, the leading actor or actress if they have a large gay following or are gay themselves. The director who may have a history of directing these so called ‘gay films’ or even the studio/distributor – Peccadillo is well known for its LGBT orientated movies.

So yes, there may be films that do cater more towards the gay community, which in itself is a good thing for gay people who sat and watched films for decades before someone was able to depict something well known to them. But it isn’t just gay people who enjoy these movies, the same way that gay people don’t just enjoy ‘gay movies.’ It appears that every movie with the slightest hint of a gay narrative is automatically classed as a gay movie, but you don’t see every other film in Hollywood that concentrates on the relationship between a man and woman classed as a straight movie, do you?

Films such as Brokeback Mountain and My Own Private Idaho are often considered to be LGBT films due to the storylines involved. In those cases it’s the gay romance between the two leading characters in Brokeback Mountain and the presence of gay hustlers within My Own Private Idaho.

But in the equal society that we now supposedly live in, where gay people are treated the same as straight people – with the same rights and the same representation in the media (supposedly, at least) – it is surprising that these films can’t be seen for what they are, before they are lumbered into the LGBT category. After all, Brokeback Mountain is the story of unrequited love that we see all the time in films and My Own Private Idaho is another narrative that we regularly see on the big screen and on television, a story about a young person coming of age. However, due to the presence of gay people within these narratives they automatically become ‘gay films.’ Any other film harbouring these narratives wouldn’t be labeled so quickly.

It feels as though it is about time that Hollywood wasn’t so black and white when it came to their movies – after all we’ve had colour for over 70 years. It’s about time that films like these stopped being categorised by the slight difference in their plotline and were recognised for the films that they truly are.

Review - She Monkeys

Originally published on www.biggaypictureshow.com

She Monkeys is an intriguing, dark and eerie tale of two girls engaged in a confusing underlying lesbian relationship set against the backdrop of the equestrian vaulting world. With a relationship that’s brimming with physical and psychological challenges, lead character Emma (Mathilda Paradeiser) does whatever it take to master the rules of this almost twisted game, failing to resist the temptation of taking control from Cassandra (Linda Molin).

The film was shot and is based in Sweden, but is subtitled in English for all of you out there who enjoy a good foreign language film, and this film is pretty special. You can see why it won a host of awards on the festival circuit over the last 12 months, even taking the Best Narrative Feature trophy at the Tribeca Film Festival as it grips you from beginning to end even if Swedish isn’t your mother tongue.

Overall the film put me in mind of a cross between the Hollywood film Black Swan and the more independent My Own Private Idaho, for a number of different reasons. The film has some of the same themes that were included in Black Swan, with the underlying lesbian relationship and the competitiveness of the two lead characters that ultimately makes them both appear a little psychotic, while the way it’s shot and set against the eerie music brings in a sense of Gus Van Sant’s Idaho.

Imagery in the film overall was brilliant as it helps maintain the film’s realism and gives it its overall feel of eeriness, which fits in perfectly with the script.

Despite the similarities to Black Swan’s competitive lesbian undertones, the film has another strong theme running through it – lost youth. This can be seen in the plot surrounding Emma and Cassandra, as Emma appears to want to remain young and not deal with the pressures of adulthood, such as sexuality and the torment of love and relationships. It can also be seen within the subplot of Emma’s younger sister Sara, whose longing for her much older cousin and the desire to wear a bikini gives us an insight into how children today are growing up too fast in an overly sexualised society.

The acting in the film is great all round, but the person who steals the show is definitely Isabella Lindqvist as Sara, whose powerful portrayal of a lost, confused and troubled little girl attempting to deal with the pressures of being a child but wanting to be an adult outshines everyone else. It makes you feel a lot of empathy towards the character and children experiencing such issues around the world.

Overall Verdict: This film is a highly enjoyable feature debut and I would highly recommend it to anyone looking for something a little different, as it tackles themes that Hollywood just isn’t brave enough to explore.

More Film News ...

Originally posted on www.thefancarpet.com

Cooper For Motor City?

Actor Dominic Cooper is currently in talks to join new action thriller Motor City.

The new Albert Hughes film originally had Chris Evans in the frame to star, but by the looks of things all that has since changed.

Cooper who is currently making his way in Hollywood after staring in The Devil’s Double and this summers hit film Captain America, alongside Chris Evans, would be seen playing a recently released prisoner who is on a mission to get revenge on the person that framed him and landed him in prison. So far it sounds like a pretty standard thriller to me.

According to film studio Warner Bros. the film will be produced by Joel Silver under his Silver Pictures Company.

However at this precise moment in time, the screenplay that was written by Chad St John currently has no dialogue, so unless the film is done entirely in mime it could be some time before this sees the light of day.

Red Dawn Remake To See The Light Of Day

News has surfaced that the Red Dawn remake is finally going to get released.

The film that had been scheduled for release quite a while ago now had its cinematic release due to the bankruptcy issues faced by the MGM film studio.

But with their bankruptcy issues behind them now, it looks like the film will now finally get a release for all those out there who were waiting for it.

The independent film studio FilmDistrict has struck up a deal with the studio, which will now see the film get released some time during 2012, so there won’t be much longer to wait now.

To be fair if a remake didn’t get to see the light of day it probably wouldn’t be the worse thing, as Hollywood seems to be churning out remakes and reboots and re-vamps every five minutes these days.

The film also boasts quite a star-studded cast; well it does now after the delay anyway. The film will see Chris Hemsworth, Adrienne Palicki, Alyssa Diaz, Josh Hutcherson and Isabel Lucas all pull together to ensure this remake finally makes an impact on the box office.

So now we just have to sit back and wait for an official release date.

Film Release Dates Moved Up

News has surfaced that three films set for Christmas releases have had their release dates moved forward.

The Adventures of Tin Tin, War Horseand Mission: Impossible 4 have all had their Christmas release dates pushed forward by at least a few days.

The Adventures of Tin Tin has seen its release date move up two days to December 21^st and War Horse has had its release date changed by three days, which will now see it released on Christmas day.

Dreamworks Spokesman Chip Sullivan said,“After seeing the film, it became clear to us that War Horse is something audiences should be able to see when they’re together with their families on Christmas Day.”

He later added, “They have the time to see multiple movies during the holidays, and we want to be one of their choices when they are most available.” 

Tom Cruise’s new Mission Impossible adventure will see it be released five days before its December 21^st release in IMAX cinemas.

Brad Bird, the director of the new film told the Los Angeles Times’ hero complex blog, “I wanted the first people that see the film to see it big with a sharp image and great sound systems, so when they went out and talked about the movie they saw, we would know that they had seen it at its best.”

It looks like the studios are competing against each other in the Christmas rush, and with Dreamworks getting the heads up with two films it should be fun to see which movies receive the best box office performance.

Review: Arthur

Originally posted on www.thefancarpet.com

With Hollywood remaking films left right and centre it was no surprise that when Dudley Moore’s iconic role of Arthur was going to be remade with comedian Russell Brand in the title role a doubtful shadow was cast over the whole project, with many feeling that the film should be left alone.

Now I, like many others don’t believe film’s should be remade and should be left as they are, but after sitting down to watch the new and up to date Arthur I found myself being pleasantly surprised.

The movie was a whole concoction of brilliant one liners, hilarious laugh out loud moments, such as some highly amusing elements involving a life sized gummy bear, a boxing ring and a rather extreme wedding photo shoot. All this was coupled together with some rather sweet and touching parts and also some very sad parts that the audience will definitely get behind, you’ll know what I mean when you watch it, I definitely didn’t see it coming.

Besides the brilliant comedy that was the film, the acting was also on top form. Jennifer Garner was absolutely hilarious as the psychotic and completely crazy Susan and Brand really stood out as he made the childish and completely incapable character of Arthur his own, and he really makes you feel for the character. One downfall with the choice of stars was Greta Gerwig as the lovingly sweet Naomi who, was no match for the incredible screen presence of Liza Minnelli from the original film.

But I must be honest the stand out performance of the whole film came from Helen Mirren as nanny Hobson. Her quick one liners and her impeccable comedy timing stole the show from the remainder of the cast, and her emotional force during the developing of the relationship between her character and Arthurs was really heart warming and made the whole film worthwhile.

Overall the film was pretty flawless, apart from some parts that seemed just a little too extreme even for a movie of this nature, you’ll see what I mean during the central station segment. But overall I must say I thoroughly enjoyed the film and it will make you laugh out loud, feel sad, touched and may even make you cry a little. One of the best remakes I’ve seen.

We Remember: The Celluloid Closet

Originally posted on www.differentscene.co.uk

Over the decades there have been numerous films that have openly centred on gay people and gay themes, then there are those that explored it more covertly with undertones of homosexuality.

One film took a look at a huge selection of these films, from early Hollywood cinema that enforced the production code that labelled homosexuality under the bracket of sex perversion preventing the display of gay themes, to more recently where a number of films have been able to explore homosexuality.

The Celluloid Closet began its life as a book back in 1981 and was written by Vito Russo. Then in 1996 it was turned into a documentary film narrated by the ever-talented Lily Tomlin.

The film takes a look at 100 hundred years of Hollywood cinema and explores the way in which they tackled homosexuality, from the beginning of cinema with the often present effeminate male character, that although was never openly stated as being homosexual, relied heavily on a stereotype that was developing in society. To the days of the production code that didn’t allow a man and woman to be shown in bed together, never mind two men. This is where homosexual themes in cinema went underground and became more covert, up until the 1960s when the gay rights movement began and the production code was finally disabled, allowing homosexual themes to be explored more openly.

The film is a great documentary for anybody who is interested in film and anyone who is interested in the representation of homosexual characters within film history. It gives you a great insight into how a number of negative representations began surrounding homosexuals and how these started in the medium of film, and helps you see how being gay in not only cinema but in society has come a long way since the early 1900’s.

I think it’s a great documentary, and is extremely important when discovering the history of LGBT cinema. The film should be seen by everyone in order to help them understand how the powerful movie companies repressed homosexuality and how this had a lasting effect. It also helps you see that although it was repressed it is still there in an enormous amount of films, and shows the viewer that gays in cinema have come a long way, even since the 1980’s never mind the 1930’s.

We Remember: Brokeback Mountain

Originally posted on www.differentscene.co.uk

In the latest instalment of We Remember we are taking a look at probably the most pinnacle moment in movie history when it comes to gay characters on screen, Brokeback Mountain.

Now I myself have a little bit of an issue when it comes to this film, fair enough it is a good film and the lead actors are brilliant in it and it was a huge moment for the gay community to see two very successful actors play gay for a big movie production. But my issue is that I don’t think it deserves the huge amount of praise it gets, yes it is good but I didn’t really think it was Oscar worthy?

Now there are probably a number of people who would like to sit me down now and tell me why this film was Oscar worthy and I would welcome them, but for the time being let’s just discuss the film.

For gay cinema goers this film was a definite stand out as the gay community finally had a huge blockbuster movie that centred around two closeted homosexual characters who were completely in love but because of the times they couldn’t be together, and that is extremely sad and this is heightened by the fact that this sort of thing would have happened to a huge amount of gay men back then, who would have got married, had children and repressed their homosexuality.

The best thing about this film has to be the fact that after a while you stop thinking about the fact that these two men are gay, and just watch it as an up to date love story for the 21^st century, and this is probably why it did get the praise it got and the awards it received.

I mean who would have thought that twenty or thirty years previous to this, that there would be a film with two hugely respected and well known Hollywood actors playing gay characters in a huge film that centred around them? And who would have thought that it would have grossed over $100 million at the box office? Not many that’s for sure, but it was about time it did happen.

All in all this film is a land mark in gay cinema, and I think it may be a long time before another film like this comes along, and the acting from both Jake and the late great Heath Ledger was absolutely brilliant.

So it is a definite watch for anyone who is gay or just enjoys cinema with a gay twist. I think after writing this I must go back and watch it again and see if I still stand by the opinion that it didn’t deserve Oscar glory.

They don't make films like they used to!

So recently I’ve been thinking about films, and I’ve come to the conclusion that films today just aren’t as good as they used to be.

Sure films today are amazing, we have the ability to produce loads of special effects and we can even watch films in 3D now, allowing the films to almost come to life right in front of us, but they are just lacking that certain something.

Sure films made 50 years ago don’t have the amazing technical special effects that we have and the majority of them are made in black and white but they just had that something special, they had a certain magic about them if you will.

Maybe films today just don’t seem as magical because Hollywood and all the other picture houses around the world churn out about a million films a week these days (a slight exaggeration but you get what I mean), or maybe its because of the high rate of illegal downloading that stops people from going and experiencing the magic of the cinema, as you can now watch any film at anytime from the comfort of your own front room.

But does it really compare to the excitement of seeing something on the big screen? The answer to that I believe is no. It doesn’t because; you have other distractions at home to prevent you from getting totally engrossed in the amazement of the film.

I also think the magic of film has been lost due to us expecting more from films. Just think about it 70 years ago when the Wizard of Oz went from black and white to colour, that would have been absolutely amazing but now we expect bigger productions, more special effects and high action chase scenes. Our thirst for technology and advancement has taken away the brilliance of cinema.

The celebrity culture we now have has also taken away the cinematic magic that once was. Before you had these huge Hollywood stars like Marlon Brando, Bette Davis, James Dean and Marilyn Monroe who you could only access through the cinema system and they remained what they were because of this, elusive and unattainable film stars.

Now we have the likes Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt who my have hugely successful film careers, but are now more famous for being famous, we seem to care more about their relationship and how many children they have adopted rather than their film roles. I mean I have never actually seen Colin Farrell in a film, yet I seem to know everything about his personal life through magazines and TV shows.

The point I’m getting to is, I think the public have so much access to the media and those who are at the centre of it that we seem to view their lives as the movie narrative and not the film anymore. We have also become more dependent on big explosions and animated monsters that the movies actual message and plot.

It looks as though that Hollywood magic that once was has been replaced by a media saturated public that don’t really care much for the film anymore but more about the hustle and bustle surrounding the production of it.

No wonder they called it the Golden Age of Hollywood.