Super Social Analysis: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and LGBT in Movies

[DisneyBoy]

With Barry Manilow having come out this week, in spite of having been married for decades apparently, it's got me thinking about whether anything has changed in Hollywood. Are gay actors really still at a disadvantage - the men in particular here - when it comes to trying to land straight roles?

I think looks and tone of voice have a lot to do with whether or not a gay man will get cast in a straight role. Someone like Matt Bomer can "pass" but I still think he's got an uphill climb in store for him if he wants to get those bigger movies.

Maybe it's not so much that the gay actors need to have access to the straight roles as that we need more gay roles written into major Hollywood pictures.

I would like to think that audiences don't need an actor to be legitimately straight in order to buy into their character arc as a fictional person in a movie, but at the same time, as Barry Manilow has attested, the fantasy of the performer being accessible to the audience member sexually is pretty vital to maintaining said performer's appeal. And the majority of audiences are straight.

And then there's the whole issue of gay actors finding success by playing straight. For so many gay people, being able to pass as straight or lie to those around them that they are straight is a daily struggle and an unfair burden. Should it really be the goal to be so good at fooling people in that way that you're able to land a big role in a big-budget movie?

When straight actors play gay in the movies they can win Awards and get acclaim for it. Would the reverse be true?

Lately with so many celebrities slowly coming out and trying to have careers in spite of it, I can't help but wonder what we are moving towards. Media is changing an awful lot and so is Hollywood, so are these actors going to be able to play predominantly gay parts for the rest of their careers, or will they prefer the challenge of playing whatever roles offer them the most exposure even if the majority are straight characters? And how will they be viewed for passing themselves off as straight? People still sneaker and make comments about Jodie Foster in spite of her great body of work. Will the snickering stop...but the bewilderment continue?

[raezen]

I almost feel silly posting this after the thoughtful post above by DisneyBoy, but I just saw the nominations for MTV awards and Ashton Sanders and Jharrel Jerome were nominated for Best Kiss. I just thought that was cute. It's only other nom is the moment Paula tells Black she loves him for Best Tearjerker. 

ETA; at second glance I was wrong. It was also nominated for Best American Story, which sounds like a weird category. 

Edited April 7, 2017 by raezen

[kiddo82]

You should check out To Die For and the Others. 

[Irlandesa]

10 hours ago, DisneyBoy said:

Are gay actors really still at a disadvantage - the men in particular here - when it comes to trying to land straight roles?

I think so because directors and studios are still going to think twice, or three times, or fifty about giving the lead (in a movie with a budget) role in a romcom, romantic drama, action adventure or superhero movie to an out actor.*  As you said, they always debate whether or not the audience will "accept" gay actors in these roles.  And it's often decided based on gut feeling or anecdotal evidence rather than hard data.  I think there are similar prejudices against black actors and even women in certain types of roles.

*Although there is a rumor out there that Matt was offered, and turned down, the lead in 50 Shades of Grey.

11 hours ago, DisneyBoy said:

When straight actors play gay in the movies they can win Awards and get acclaim for it. Would the reverse be true?

Probably not because gay actors have been playing these parts successfully for decades--just closeted.  They might win awards but not because they played the opposite of their sexuality.

11 hours ago, DisneyBoy said:

Lately with so many celebrities slowly coming out and trying to have careers in spite of it, I can't help but wonder what we are moving towards. Media is changing an awful lot and so is Hollywood, so are these actors going to be able to play predominantly gay parts for the rest of their careers, or will they prefer the challenge of playing whatever roles offer them the most exposure even if the majority are straight characters?

Media is changing.  I do think out actors have an easier time of it in TV and that might eventually move over to movies.  There will still be roles for gay actors in indies or in supporting roles.  But lead man heart throb?  That's still going to be a tough category to crack. 

[starri]

35 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

But lead man heart throb?  That's still going to be a tough category to crack. 

I don't know if that's going always going to be a hard and fast rule.  Considering the size of the 14-25 demographic on Tumblr that seems obsessed with homoeroticism, I can't imagine that in ten, fifteen years we won't see that.  For that matter, look at the outsized followings of so many of the gay YouTube "stars."

I read a pretty persuasive theory--and I am fully aware that I am saying this as a middle-aged gay man, so I'm very very sorry if this comes off like mansplaining--that said that slashfic is a safer way for women to objectify men because two men together completely eliminates male gaze from the equations.  And while on the one hand, I think it's great that people have an outlet for sexytimes, I also find myself somewhat annoyed that it's burst forth into a plethora of self-published male/male erotic ebooks.  I think it's great that these women have found an audience and a following, but if you try to find gay male content on Amazon, that's like 95% of it now.  But that's a gripe for the book forum.

TL;DR:  I think demographically the super-duper leading man heartthrob may be on its way out.

The bigger challenge, perhaps, is the male power fantasies:  your Jason Bournes, James Bonds, James T Kirk...

[Irlandesa]

5 minutes ago, starri said:

I don't know if that's going always going to be a hard and fast rule.  Considering the size of the 14-25 demographic on Tumblr that seems obsessed with homoeroticism, I can't imagine that in ten, fifteen years we won't see that.  For that matter, look at the outsized followings of so many of the gay YouTube "stars."

Oh I think the audience is already more advanced than what is represented on screen.  My question isn't about who the consumers will be but rather what the money people will think.  And I think they are likely still going to be largely cis white straight men who are going to believe what they believe about what an audience wants.  That's why I do think it'll take a while.  Not never but not as fast as it should be.  I'd be happy to be proven wrong. 

8 minutes ago, starri said:

I read a pretty persuasive theory--and I am fully aware that I am saying this as a middle-aged gay man, so I'm very very sorry if this comes off like mansplaining--that said that slashfic is a safer way for women to objectify men because two men together completely eliminates male gaze from the equations.

I read that too.  I've also heard that it's a way to see romantic partners treated well. 

While some of that may be true, I also think women finding both people in a couple dreamy instead of just one.

[methodwriter85]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

Oh I think the audience is already more advanced than what is represented on screen.  My question isn't about who the consumers will be but rather what the money people will think.  And I think they are likely still going to be largely cis white straight men who are going to believe what they believe about what an audience wants.  That's why I do think it'll take a while.  Not never but not as fast as it should be.  I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

While some of that may be true, I also think women finding both people in a couple dreamy instead of just one.

I feel like the lowest common denominator still remains the young, straight white male. That's what the bulk of movies are aimed at, even though there's so much evidence that audiences are willing to embrace narratives that don't fit into a Michael Bay movie. (And honestly, I work at a movie theater. You know who I mostly see there? Black families and young women.)

Television is way ahead of recognizing the whole slash thing.

I'm still dying to see a movie about a straight male who's allowed to explore his sexuality with another man and not be the worser for it. There's Coffee Date, and then there's the Angels of Sex, a European movie about a couple who add another man to their relationship. (Not a perfect movie, but I thought it worked. And they all had steaming hot chemistry with each other.)

And no, I'm not including HumpDay or the movie version of Dare. (God, that adaption was such a waste of such a good short film.)

Edited April 8, 2017 by methodwriter85

[starri]

6 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I'm still dying to see a movie about a straight male who's allowed to explore his sexuality with another man and not be the worser for it. There's Coffee Date, and then there's the Angels of Sex, a European movie about a couple who add another man to their relationship. (Not a perfect movie, but I thought it worked. And they all had steaming hot chemistry with each other.)

There's an Argentinian movie called Plan B along those lines.  Guy loses girlfriend, mistakenly thinks her new boyfriend is bi, decides to play gay and tempt him away from her to get her back.  And then they end up falling for each other anyway.  It's very much a Spanish-language mumblecore movie, very talky without a lot of action, but they commit to the premise in a way no American movie would.

[Luckylyn]

I love Coffe Date.  It's really unique to have a straight male explore his sexuality in film.  I love the short film  Dare but was extremely disappointed with the film version.

Hollywood makes assumptions about what audiences will want to see and is very slow to adapt when times change.   The hesitation to give openly gay actors leading roles  is ridiculous in this day and age.  There is an audience out there (White Collar fans, Magic Mike fans) that very much enjoys Matt Bomer but the rummer is he was passed over for Superman and 50 Shades because he was openly gay.  The man is extremely talented, gorgeous, and has a fan base.   Lessor known actors have been given opportunities.  On the shallow side of things, female audiences can be quite enthusiastic about gay actors the same as straight characters.  I remember someone telling me that US Queer as Folk audience was predominately straight women.  Slash fics and art has a large female audience.  So the audience is out there but Hollywood prioritizes young straight white males who they assume are homophobic and racist over all other groups.   They just claim white men won't want to see minorities, women, or gay characters as justification for repeatedly going for the cliche white straight male lead instead of other options.  I think Hollywood underestimates what white males will choose to see and devalues other audiences whose money should be just as valuable to studios as white males.

[VCRTracking]

I love The Others. Very creepy.

[JustaPerson]

The twist really got me when I saw it. My face was pretty much the :O emoji

[DisneyBoy]

If that's the one where she plays the lady of a Victorian house I'm going to have to skip it. She was really starting to get botoxy at that point and I find that really spooky. Ditto with that Wives movie she remade.

[kiddo82]

Not sure when the Others was made in relation to Moulin Rouge but I'm pretty sure they came out the same summer.  I think she'd look relatively the same.  But either way it's a good movie and she's great in it.

Edited April 8, 2017 by kiddo82

[starri]

Moulin Rogue! and The Others both came out in 2001.

If there's a big difference in how she looks, it may just be because Baz Luhrmann really knows how to film her.  I just thought she was stunningly beautiful in the former, probably the best she ever looked on film.  Luhrmann directed her in what was essentially a very long commercial for Chanel No. 5 disguised as a short film in 2004 that had similar results.

She has periods these days where her looks settle a bit and she looks almost human.  But from the mid-90s to the early 2000s, she was astonishing.

[DisneyBoy]

Maybe it was just the way she was lit or her makeup in the few clips I saw for The Others but she just spooked me out. It's sad to say because she's definitely a beautiful woman but she's very pale and the blonde hair and waxy skin complexion - brought on by Botox or makeup or both - combined to create something really alien-looking that makes me feel uncomfortable.

She was so stunning in Batman Forever and in Moulin Rouge. I really wish Hollywood actresses could be allowed to age gracefully instead of opting for plastic surgery out of the fear that mother nature will screw them.

I don't think of myself as a shallow person. I will happily watch a movie with an actor who has an asymmetrical face or lots of wrinkles or a recording hairline... but certain things can weird me out, especially when I have to see them in close-up. I'm going to add Quentin Tarantino to that list. His face terrifies me, regardless of whether he's had any work done or not.

Edited April 9, 2017 by DisneyBoy

[katha]

I really admire Kidman as an actress, because I think she does something that can be quite alienating for audiences, particularly where female movie stars are concerned: She doesn't shy away from playing cold, she's got no problem making a character off-putting and non-sympathetic and she doesn't insist on some sort of basic charisma or likability factor that will endear her to audiences. Some actors want to make audiences like them in every movie, no matter if they play hero or villain or something in between. Kidman doesn't care. That's why she can be so chilling and effective in To Die For or The Others.

Cumberbatch always seems to me to have subscribed to the Kidman school of acting, with his willingness to play cold and not go for audience sympathy (his performance in a little movie called Wreckers is about the most terrifying thing I have ever seen, the sheer horror of gradually recognizing that his supposedly sympathetic and kind character is twisted and manipulative and abusive in quiet ways and the people in his thrall will probably never get away from him because he's so good at slowly brainwashing people). And it's served him very well in his career. But of course he's a man, so there's much more tolerance for making acting choices like that.

[aradia22]

Not to go credit by credit through her resume but I don't think Nicole Kidman has some unique quality of coldness. I thought she was very winning and compelling in Moulin Rouge. And she tried... if not typical ingenue then some variation of an older, commercial of that with movies like Bewitched and The Stepford Wives. I think she's just had some bad projects, whether that was her decision or it was what was being offered to her is anyone's guess. Grace of Monaco. Some other stuff. That's not a question of acting style or persona. 

I will say that unless you're Charlize Theron, it seems difficult for actresses to find the same success making the kind of mid-tier action movies that actors do to keep themselves afloat. I'm not talking about Kate Beckinsale or Mila Jovovich who work almost exclusively in that genre. I mean people who are able to cross from those movies into something more... award-sy. Like Denzel Washington. And to a lesser extent Mark Wahlberg, Will Smith, etc.

[kiddo82]

I kinda feel like Emily Blunt has been able to cross over like that as well.  (Edge of Tomorrow, the Snow White sequel, etc.). And while I don't recall her ever being nominated for an Academy Award, movies like Sicario, Into the Woods, and Girl on the Train have at least gotten her into the conversation to varying degrees.

Edited April 10, 2017 by kiddo82

[starri]

18 hours ago, katha said:

She doesn't shy away from playing cold, she's got no problem making a character off-putting and non-sympathetic and she doesn't insist on some sort of basic charisma or likability factor that will endear her to audiences

When she played the villain in the Paddington Bear movie, she said in an interview that her kids were horrified to discover she wasn't playing Paddington's mom.

I think it's cool that she'd do a kid's movie, no matter the role.  She said she loved the books as a child, had always wanted Paddington to come live with her, and figured this was as close as she was going to get.

[afterbite]

On 4/7/2017 at 9:44 AM, DisneyBoy said:

Lately with so many celebrities slowly coming out and trying to have careers in spite of it, I can't help but wonder what we are moving towards. Media is changing an awful lot and so is Hollywood, so are these actors going to be able to play predominantly gay parts for the rest of their careers, or will they prefer the challenge of playing whatever roles offer them the most exposure even if the majority are straight characters? And how will they be viewed for passing themselves off as straight? People still sneaker and make comments about Jodie Foster in spite of her great body of work. Will the snickering stop...but the bewilderment continue?

This is, in part, why I'm torn about the notion of being upset/not upset about non-gay actors playing gay roles. On the one hand, it'd be great to have more good gay actors be able to get work, but I also think that this could promote the idea that there are gay roles out there for gay actors, so it's totally okay that they aren't considered for "straight" roles. This seems like an area where there should be cross-over - straight folks can play gay folks and vice versa. I realize that this doesn't necessarily conform with the state of where we are, because that ability to cross over is more heavily weighted for the straight to gay than vice versa (with the caveat of 'for out actors'). Then again, I'll confuse myself further by thinking of it in terms of race. If a character is written to be Latinx and described as Latinx, I don't think just anyone with a skin tone in the socially acceptable range should be in the part. It's really all a matter of parity and the lack thereof, of course. If a plethora of well-rounded roles that were written without resorting to damaging stereotypes were available and were awarded based on how good someone is in that role, the conversation wouldn't feel so necessary. But, we have things like appropriation, harmful stereotyping, inequity between who is awarded a role and who should have been considered for it, etc., so I will continue to give myself headaches about this when I think about it.

Edited April 11, 2017 by afterbite
bad at the grammar

[Ms Blue Jay]

18 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

I kinda feel like Emily Blunt has been able to cross over like that as well.  (Edge of Tomorrow, the Snow White sequel, etc.). And while I don't recall her ever being nominated for an Academy Award, movies like Sicario, Into the Woods, and Girl on the Train have at least gotten her into the conversation to varying degrees.

I really thought Emily did a fantastic job in The Girl on the Train.  It's one of those grittier parts that make you feel uncomfortable - kind of a lighter version of Angelina Jolie in Girl, Interrupted.  On Twitter I saw some mocking of both her and the movie which I didn't understand at all.  Why, because's it's a genre film?  Because it's based on a book that a female wrote? Give me a break.   She was also good in Looper, and The Devil Wears Prada clearly made everyone in Hollywood notice her.

[kiddo82]

You raise an interesting point, Ms Blue Jay.  What's the book turned movie that Girl on the Train was held up against?  Gone Girl.  The biggest superficial difference between the two is that while Gone Girl is as much about Nick as it is Amy, Girl on the Train is really only about Rachel with some Megan thrown in.  Girl on the Train did alright for itself but was neither the commercial nor critical success that Gone Girl was.  Now maybe people just liked Gone Girl better and that's fine but was there at least some dismissive of Girl on the Train as being "just" a chick flick?

Edited April 14, 2017 by kiddo82

[kiddo82]

39 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

The thing is, Gone Girl is seen as a prestige film.

Exactly, which I don't particularly understand.  It's like being enamored with the Hangover but not even entertaining the idea of Bridesmaids.  You don't have to love both, or like both, or even see both.  Sometimes it just comes down to something as innocuous as a matter of preference but it strikes me as odd to love one and totally dismiss the other.  

[starri]

Lazy Eye.  Now streaming on Netflix.

Two middle-aged gay guys who haven't seen each other in fifteen years reconnect in the California desert.  It's basically just a two person play on film (in fact, it may have started as one), but I really believe that it's one of the best of these low-budget films I've seen.

It may just be that the subject matter is very relevant to me.  Still, I recommend it.

[raezen]

Sounds like the third act of Moonlight . Which isn't a bad thing.

[methodwriter85]

On 4/8/2017 at 0:40 PM, Luckylyn said:

I love Coffe Date.  It's really unique to have a straight male explore his sexuality in film.  I love the short film  Dare but was extremely disappointed with the film version.

Oh, I fucking hated the Dare film version. They basically made it all about Emmy Rossum's character, who had maybe 5 lines in the short film version. At the time Emmy was one of the big ingenues, so I get why they put the focus on her, but it was still a big mistake. The guy that they picked as Light Boy was just creepy and didn't have the appeal the short film version did. (I figured they thought the original guy was too old, although they did have him cameo as a teacher in the movie.) What a waste of the extremely cute Zach Gilford. They should have gotten a guy that Zach would have had actual chemistry with.

I did like Plan B. It was a bit long and slow, but you really did see how these two guys fell for each other. If you want to watch it for a hot gay scene, you won't get it, but it's a nice movie.

Mulligans...the movie where a young college boy falls for the closeted father of his best friend while vacationing with his friend's family. I did enjoy it, and the dad really was a DILF, but Charlie David just looked and acted too damn old to be a 19-year old guy. (He was 27 or so when he did it, but already looked around 30.) Normally I ignore that, but his character's youth and the fact that he's a young boy is supposed to be a part of it. I think the character was also supposed to be someone that was butch and no one would have ever guessed he was gay, but Charlie David...isn't.  It didn't help that the actor who played the DILF(Dan Payne) is only 8 years older than Charlie David. They kind of lampshade that in the plot by saying that the parents were pretty young when they had their 30-year old blond college boy.

The Awakening, a Norwegian film about a young boy who falls for his girlfriend just works better in the sense that you can feel the age difference. The lead was about 18 or 19 when he did the part, and he looked believable as 16.

[starri]

God, Mulligans is such an awful movie.

[methodwriter85]

2 hours ago, starri said:

God, Mulligans is such an awful movie.

To be fair, I haven't watched it in 8 or so years, and I mainly focused on how hot Dan Payne is. It also had some pretty decent sex/kiss scenes.

But yeah, the two "college" friends both looked about 30.

Charlie David's other effort, Judas Kiss, just made absolutely no sense. I guess it was a time travel movie, but I still don't quite get it.

Edited April 15, 2017 by methodwriter85

[starri]

I'd be willing to bet the age gap between Dan Payne and Charlie David is less than the gap between Dan Payne and Thea Gill... Nope, she's younger than I thought she was, and only about two years older.

I actually kind of like Judas Kiss.  As far as I know, he financed and starred in it, but had nothing to do with the script or direction of the film.  I was impressed by how well (going back to our discussion of King Cobra) Brent Corrigan acquitted himself fully-clothed.

[Silver Raven]

I love Make the Yuletide Gay.  It's a silly Christmas movie about a college boy who's out at school but closeted to his family.  His boyfriend winds up showing up at his family's house over Christmas vacation and the closeted kid has to deal with it.  It's just a slight thing, but it's really funny, And the kid's parents are hilarious.

There's a cameo by Gates McFadden, and out actress Alison Arngrim plays the obnoxious neighbor who is the mother's nemesis.

[starri]

I like that one too. 

[pivot]

I think part of it is that people were put off by the twists in Gone Girl and were uninterested in watching another movie with a twist. And Gone Girl is by the most popular and respected of that authors' books.

[xaxat]

With ‘Kalushi,’ South Africans finally get to portray themselves in a film about the anti-apartheid struggle

Quote

One of the most unique features of a new South African biopic about an anti-apartheid hero earning accolades worldwide is the nationality of the people behind and in front of the camera: for a change, they’re South African. . . 

The film stars an entirely South African cast. That distinguishes it from a slate of international biopics in which national heroes were portrayed by foreigners like Morgan Freeman, Idris Elba, and Denzel Washington (the efforts of foreign actors to master South African accents is a source of ongoing entertainment in the country). The dialogue in Kalushijumps between English, Zulu, Xhosa, Afrikaans and other dialects heard throughout South Africa, which has 11 official languages and where many locals converse in two or three.

In the film, “South Africans have been given an opportunity to play themselves and to honor their heroes on the big screen and to do it in their own languages—these are subtleties you never get from a Hollywood actor,” says Mandla Dube, the film’s producer, director, and co-author of its screenplay. “We have to trust our own process of storytelling without being apologetic about it.”

[VCRTracking]

Why Sherry Lansing Threatened Mike Myers: "I'll Take Your F—ing House"

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn. When a boss' dressing down of you is so bad that you actually go into the fetal position, THAT'S bad. I wish we could have seen the original idea of Wayne's World 2(based on the Ealing comedy Passport to Pimlico) because the one they ended up making(based on Field of Dreams, but a rock festival instead of a baseball field) was lame. I almost feel bad for Mike but then I remember The Love Guru. I know some people would hear that story and think "What a bitch" but I know a lot of male executives who go off into a screaming rafe for only minor reasons, hers was justified.

Edited April 21, 2017 by VCRTracking

[starri]

And of course, if she was a man, this wouldn't be remarked on at all.

[proserpina65]

On ‎04‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 2:02 PM, VCRTracking said:

I love The Others. Very creepy.

That's the movie she should've been nominated for, not Moulin Rouge.  And she should've won for it, too.

[methodwriter85]

On 4/8/2017 at 7:41 PM, starri said:

Moulin Rogue! and The Others both came out in 2001.

If there's a big difference in how she looks, it may just be because Baz Luhrmann really knows how to film her.  I just thought she was stunningly beautiful in the former, probably the best she ever looked on film.  Luhrmann directed her in what was essentially a very long commercial for Chanel No. 5 disguised as a short film in 2004 that had similar results.

She has periods these days where her looks settle a bit and she looks almost human.  But from the mid-90s to the early 2000s, she was astonishing.

Lion was probably the most human I've ever seen her look since the 90's. She must have let the Botox degrade a little bit before getting pumped back up for Big Little Lies. (Which does actually fit the kind of person she's supposed to be in that- an affluent housewife with not much to do except raise the kids and maintain her looks.)

It's kind of a shame when you think about it, especially knowing that her plastic look really started around the time that she and Cruise split up. At the same time, her career took off during that time so it's not like she didn't get positive reinforcement for what she did to her looks.

Her willingess to be cold is why if they ever did a remake of Ordinary People, I'd want her as Beth. I could totally see her in that part because I don't think she'd shy away from the moment in which you realize that Beth really does hate Conrad; can't even stand to touch him. I always loved that the film didn't try to redeem Beth or make her suddenly become a loving mother to Conrad.

Edited April 21, 2017 by methodwriter85

[methodwriter85]

On 4/15/2017 at 7:04 PM, Silver Raven said:

I love Make the Yuletide Gay.  It's a silly Christmas movie about a college boy who's out at school but closeted to his family.  His boyfriend winds up showing up at his family's house over Christmas vacation and the closeted kid has to deal with it.  It's just a slight thing, but it's really funny, And the kid's parents are hilarious.

There's a cameo by Gates McFadden, and out actress Alison Arngrim plays the obnoxious neighbor who is the mother's nemesis.

...Alison Arngrim has been married to a man since 1993. She's an ally who became very active in AIDS activism after her on-screen husband got infected.

The most disappointing gay romcom I can think of in recent memory has to be the 10-Year Plan. It had such a great traditional romcom premise and semi-competent acting could've made it a decent film. Alas, the acting was absolute shit.

[starri]

So, they've done a 4K remaster of Merchant/Ivory's Maurice, based on EM Forster's posthumous novel of the same name.  Forester actually wrote it before WWI, but figured a gay love story wouldn't go over well at that point, so he kept it hidden until the year after he died.  Film includes a young, hot Hugh Grant, and a young, IMPOSSIBLY GORGEOUS Rupert Graves.  And Forster, even in those days, gave it a happy ending.

Well worth seeing on the big screen if it comes to a town near you.  But well worth seeing period.

[methodwriter85]

It bugs the fuck out of me that gay movies with happy endings (especially dramas) are STILL on the rare side, like gay men aren't allowed to have relationships that actually last and always end in either tragedy or infidelity. Thirty years later the ending of that movie is still progressive. How fucked up is that?

I was really looking forward to Monster Pies because the boys looked cute as hell until I read

Spoiler

that one of them kills himself.

Because of COURSE that happens. I just hate that the narrative that gay men must always have tragic lives is still persistently even though we now live in a society where two boys can go to prom together and everyone is okay with it. (At least in the Western World.)

Netflix's gay movie selection is pretty awful so I tend to look for gay shorts. Here's one I really liked, called "We Are Animals", which is set in an alternative version of 1985 where gay men have been detained and given chemical castration pills.

The acting's a little rough at times (but not as bad as I've seen in some feature-length gay films) but I really thought the premise was cool and the two leads have smoking hot chemistry with each other. In a skeevy way, but still hot.

Edited May 6, 2017 by methodwriter85

[Luckylyn]

10 hours ago, starri said:

So, they've done a 4K remaster of Merchant/Ivory's Maurice, based on EM Forster's posthumous novel of the same name.  Forester actually wrote it before WWI, but figured a gay love story wouldn't go over well at that point, so he kept it hidden until the year after he died.  Film includes a young, hot Hugh Grant, and a young, IMPOSSIBLY GORGEOUS Rupert Graves.  And Forster, even in those days, gave it a happy ending.

Well worth seeing on the big screen if it comes to a town near you.  But well worth seeing period.

I love Maurice.   The boat house ending is just so lovely and sexy.

 

Speaking of Rupert Graves.  He's also in a great movie called  Different for Girls about a man reunited with his high school best friend who has transitioned into a woman.  He's thrown by his attraction to the woman his buddy has become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMUtd_pchHY

Edited May 6, 2017 by Luckylyn

[methodwriter85]

I definitely liked Different For Girls. Glad it came out when it did- now it would be dragged down by activists who would claim the film is transphobic because it didn't cast a transgender actress for the lead.

Streaming on Netflix right now is Esteros, a movie about two childhood buddies that are reunited during one weekend. Here's the trailer:

It's only about 82 minutes long so parts of it are a bit rushed especially the resolution, but I thought it was a pretty sweet film.

Color me shocked that

Spoiler

the movie ends with Matias deciding to say "fuck it" and going for Jero. I was totally prepared for a dour, happy/sad ending where the two would look wistfully at each other one last time before moving on. That's how gay indie movies usually seem to end, especially if one half of the equation is either straight or deeply closeted.

It's nothing ground-breaking but the guys have decent chemistry and the acting didn't drive me up a wall. That's all I ask for. Oh, and both guys manage to avoid suicide or some other tragic death. That's about as low as my bar is when it comes to gay cinema.

Edited May 6, 2017 by methodwriter85

[starri]

3 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

That's about as low as my bar is when it comes to gay cinema.

...because that's all we get.

There's a podcast called BGM: Bad Gay Movies, Bitchy Gay Men that's kind of like How Did This Get Made for these little gay indies.  The content is kind of a bit too bitchy at times, and I've honestly disagreed with their assessments of quite a few of the films.  But they had an episode recently with an actor who's been in a few of the movies they've covered, and even he admitted "Yes, we know they're terrible."

[methodwriter85]

26 minutes ago, starri said:

...because that's all we get.

There's a podcast called BGM: Bad Gay Movies, Bitchy Gay Men that's kind of like How Did This Get Made for these little gay indies.  The content is kind of a bit too bitchy at times, and I've honestly disagreed with their assessments of quite a few of the films.  But they had an episode recently with an actor who's been in a few of the movies they've covered, and even he admitted "Yes, we know they're terrible."

I find that more often than not, foreign gay films are usually a lot better than American ones, especially the really terrible ones filmed for about 100 dollars in Los Angeles featuring buff gym studs who can't act, such as this and that.

I really, really wanted to like the Ten Year Plan. Again, it's such a great gay-flipped romcom premise, but it just wasn't executed competently. And my bar is LOW when it comes to romantic comedies. It couldn't even hit a Hallmark level.

Although I don't think anything could hit as low as The Singing Forest. It's a movie about two men who were lovers during the Holocaust, and find each other in another life. One is the father of the woman the other one is about to marry.

Jorge Ameer films are all usually terrible, but this one just really takes the cake. Especially with the reveal that

Spoiler

the father raped her mother, and because his daughter is the product of rape, her soul is more of a half-soul, enabling her to reunite the two lovers.

No, I am not kidding.

Edited May 6, 2017 by methodwriter85

[Silver Raven]

Spider-Man: Homecoming is full of actors of color:

Bokeem Woodbine

Donald Glover

Zendaya

Hannibal Buress

Tony Revolori

Kenneth Choi

DJ Khaled

Jacob Batalon (as Ned Leeds, Peter's best friend)

There are several others with what looks like minor roles.

[kiddo82]

MTV Awards making news for gender neutral categories

I posted on the this topic about a month ago in the TV thread after I read an article that actor Asia Kate Dillon, who identifies as gender non-binary, was conflicted as to which Emmy category (male or female) to submit for.  The resolution was that Dillion would submit in the best supporting actor category as the term "actor" in itself is gender neutral while "actress" is not. And while I don't have a problem with potential nominees choosing the categories that they feel best represent them, I don't think gender specific categories are inherently an issue.  First of all, strictly speaking from a business standpoint, the acting categories are the categories most people tune into the telecasts for and I don't foresee either the movie or television academies slashing those categories in half any time soon.  Furthermore, and I said this in the other thread, the roles for men and women are different and the reception of men and women is different.  Having mixed categories doesn't just make that go away.  And let's face it, a lot of these awards are about luck, timing, and popularity.  They are highly politicized enough so taking gender out of the equation by having separate categories actually eases some of that.  Imagine the utter grossness that could have been spewed leading up to this year's Oscars had Casey Affleck been competing directly against Stone, Portman, et al.  And maybe MTV does have it right but I've never once felt that the actress categories were relegated as particularly less than anyway.  No one sees Julianne Moore's (long overdue) Oscar as second fiddle to Eddie Redmayne's because she won in a category solely made up of women. Same with Larson and Dicaprio.  Same with Davis and Ali.  Same with any other actress/actor combo since the dawn of time.  Frankly, gender specific acting categories are a pretty innocuous slice of our culture.  

Edited May 10, 2017 by kiddo82

[BetterButter]

‘Whitewashing’ Accusations Fly as Zach McGowan Cast as Hawaiian WWII Hero

[methodwriter85]

Don't the Globes now use the term "best male actor" and "best female actor" now?

[xaxat]

It's not just an accusation. It's a fact.

Quote

(Producer Ken) Petrie notes that as with any true story, “there is a weight to be shouldered, and the material requires the utmost care and authenticity.”

HAHAHAHAHA! 

[thuganomics85]

They can't even use the old "he's more bankable!" excuse here.  Don't get me wrong, I like Zach McGowan enough, but I really doubt there are that many people who will be on the fence about this film, and suddenly go "Oh, shit!  Roan from The 100 is in this!"  Or, "Well, it looks kind of interesting, but now that I know it has The Superior from Agents of Shield, it's on my must watch list!"

And it's not like there aren't bankable enough Hawaiian/Pacific Islander out there, between Jason Momoa and Dwayne Johnson.  I wonder if they even tried?

I guess things never change....