So, over the past month or so, I’ve seen a fair amount of film-related stuff. 1 homo movies, 1 transgender movie, 1 homo miniseries, 1 political fiction movie, and a comedy.
- First the comedy: I saw the 40 year old virgin at a party, held by a friend, that ran in to over time. It was funny and engaging, I was kinda surprised. Some of the people watching swore that it was a mostly accurate portrayal of the single hetero male in his 20’s scene, and the life of people working in retail.
- Next the political fiction movie: Saw this one in the theater with Dennis. Steven Gaghan, who did the screenplay for Traffic, also wrote and directed Syriana, and it shows. Both movies cover an intensely political subject in recognizably similar ways. Everything seems real, nothing makes sense, the scenarios are plausible, but no one seems to have a sense of the bigger picture, and almost no one is interested in it. Those who are, lose. Actually, pretty much everyone loses. I think it’s probably a bit more cynical than the reality, but likely accurate in many ways. Not easy to watch or follow.
- Third, the homo miniseries: I’ve been watching Angels in America on DVD at Dennis’s place basically since we started dating, and we just finished it last week. I’m kind of iffy on it. I love Mary-Louise Parker. (actually, she looks a bit like WAA). Meryl Streep was amazing. And Al Pacino did an incredible job as someone I loved to hate, yet sympathized with. The religion angle I wave my hand at; it seems like a random babble of nonsense, and it’s a major part of the series, but it seems so surreal and irrelevant. I did like Ethel Rosenberg bit. The acting was amazing, the characters were all strong and well developed, but the story just didn’t engage me that much. And the politics of it, well, that was like a splinter rolled in salt, shoved somewhere non-essential: non-ignorable, irksome, but not overpowering. It is a show where a straight marriage is fouled up by having a gay guy in it (BBM, anyone?) I feel for both of the parties to that debacle. Then there’s the required omnipresent AIDS theme. The actor who played Mormon boy looked familiar, but I couldn’t recognize anything else he was in from his IMDB profile. *shrug*
- As per
‘s suggestion, I watched Soldier’s Girl. This recounts the story of Barry Winchell, a private who dated an ftm performer, Calpernia Addams in Tennessee. It details his escalating conflict with his psycho (insecure) roommate (Fisher?), and an incoming trainee (Glover?) who Fisher goads into conflict with Winchell. It alternates this with scenes of the developing relationship between Barry and Calpernia, and Barry’s training. The voice over is not intrusive, it is told in Calpernia’s voice. I knew what the ending would be, I knew it would be hard to watch. I actually watched it right before my trip to the relatives, poor strategic timing, but oh well. It’s well worth the watching (thanks for the recommendation, DS). It’s all believable, and it’s pretty sick the way things unfold. But I call this a transgender movie quite deliberately. Not as an “us” v “them” move, we’re both gender deviants to alot of people, but because the issues are different, and I think it’s a distinction that ought to be made. I like the masculinity of my body. I’d like more of it, not less. I looked up the background on the story, apparently it was carefully researched. Calpernia said it was remarkably close to the truth on her website. She also asks anyone who meets her to please NOT bring it up. Very understandable. But it added some punch to the story. It’s very messed up. - And finally, I watched Heights. This one tells a simple, but compelling story of a day in the life of several people. An engaged couple (a photographer, and an executive of some sort), an aspiring actor, a successful and influential actress, and a writer interviewing models for an english photographer. All of them tie together in various ways. A gay or maybe bi man in a straight relationship fucks up the relationship, and probably his gay lover’s career in the process. A theme I’ve seen alot of recently. The theme attracts with truth, and repels with the pain it causes. Not to imply that bi guys can’t have happy stable relationships with women, both monogamous and not, but I’ve seen it play out as a broken couple more often than as a happy couple. As a sidenote, after seeing Elizabeth Banks in this one, her role in the 40yo Virgin was a bit jarring. =)
I liked them and would recommend them all, if they interest you.
I remember when I tried to get you to see “The 40 Year Old Virgin” with me last summer… ugh I wish I could remember your response.. “That title engenders zero interest with me”. I’m glad you finally saw it, it is a really sweet, well written movie.
Did you ever get around to starting Lucifer?
Yeah, that sounds like something I would say. =)
I’ve made it through graphic novel #4. I’m saving the rest for a really down day.
I didn’t like Angels in America; I’m pretty familiar Judeo-Christian scriptures, and I can’t for the life of me figure out the origin or even the purpose of the religious apparitions in the story. Just had me going “wtf” most of the time. I’m not even sure what message they’re trying to convey.
I was excited to see that series especially with so many of my favorite actors, but it really didn’t turn out to be what I expected at all. =P
I remember the Mormon guy from Phantom of the Opera. He’s kinda cute. ^^
I never saw the angels in Angels in America as necessarily religious, or, at least, not in any strict Christian sense. They’re emanations, they’re a group attempting to hold onto old powers in a changing world.
Also – remember that, while the HBO movie was only made a couple of years ago, Angels itself premiered in 1994. The issues it deals with were much more topical then, the “required omnipresent AIDS theme” wasn’t a cliche, and creating a strong connection between gay rights and other politically progressive movements was of the utmost importance.
Sigh. Your comment wasn’t here when I started writing mine. : (
It’s okay.
You, at least, got your dates right; for some reason I split the difference between Angels and Rent, since I tend to make the same argument for both of them.
Realize that Angels is dated material. It was written at a time (1990-91) when some of this information (e.g. the Reagan coverup) was still newly available and AIDS had a different impact on life expectancy than it might today. This was a huge play in terms of getting (straight) people to sit and watch something about AIDS, in a play that was considered to be “about America” rather than “about those gay people.”
I think you are being quite unfair to the material, which thankfully was realized for TV without some dreadful updating to the present day. Certain parts of the story couldn’t have been updated (Roy Cohn, for example) and I was glad that they kept the sense of relative importance of things (like AIDS) from that era in the making of the film version. They also preserved Kushner’s archness quite well, I thought — it is a nice capturing of the sensibilities of an era.
Having said this, it is not without its dramaturgical problems, for example Joe’s complete disappearance from the plot after Harper leaves.
I am a little exhasperated by the AIDS material, but I also view it as a marker of the time the material was written. I preferred Rent’s characterization of it at least in part because, well, it wasn’t just a gay disease in Rent. And it’s not just a gay disease in reality. Particularly not in the global reality. It’s reasonable, given the limited scope of the piece.
I did like it overall, and the rest of the dated material doesn’t bother me so much. Note, I loved the Ethel Rosenberg parts, even though I don’t really know anything about Ethel Rosenberg. What I meant about the politics of the play was largely the treatment of Joe, particularly the Louis breakup and the subsequent disappearance. I liked the Harper story, though it seemed like she was only there to leave Joe and grow in the process. Joe is used as a whipping boy in alot of ways. *shrug*
I like how when you list Genre’s you list “Homo Movies” and “TransGender Movies” as thier own Genre. Like, there isn’t a Drama or Buddy Comedy that happens to have gay characters, no, it is a “Homo Movie.”
In reality, are there Gay versions of Laurel and Hardy Buddy Comedies? I am thinking Will and Grace here (albeit television, with Jack as the Lucille Ball-esque “break-out” character)? Every “Homo Movie” I can think of is either Depressing (A dude in Philidephia gets Aids, A high-school crossdresser is beaten, etc..) Depressing but Supposedly Uplifting (Yeah, character X was beaten/ostracized/killed/infected with hiv, but we learned shit and there were hugs), a Musical, or Super Duper Depressing (Gay Cowboys).
No Comedy/Horror/Sci-Fi/Etc….
I know gay people can be funny, is there some weird kryptonite-like effect that prevents this humor from coming out when celluloid is present?
Can’t remember it’s name. *shrug*.
OMG, and it wasn’t even that long ago. Did the experience mean NOTHING to you?!
*doink*