Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
500<400 (Nominations Sep 22nd)
Polls: Benelux (Results), 1944 awards (Sep 23rd), 1964 (Sep 28th), Knockout competition (Round 1)
Challenges: Silent Era, 21st Century, Japan
Film of the Week: Reindeerspotting - pako Joulumaasta, October nominations (Sep 27th)

LGBTQQIAAP ICM

Post Reply
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22934
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

LGBTQQIAAP ICM

#201

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » October 28th, 2015, 8:56 pm

brokenface on Oct 28 2015, 01:39:39 PM wrote:Also there is the issue of split vote - both Advocate and Slant were on the poll and some may have voted up one at the expense of the other if they preferred it, but with the net effect from multiple users that both got lower scores than if just one had been an option.
This may well have happened, but it shouldn't have. There was nothing stopping people from voting them both 4 along with any other list. The voting system was specifically made to avoid this issue.

Jay Mars
Posts: 2005
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

#202

Post by Jay Mars » October 28th, 2015, 9:06 pm

Kasparius on Oct 28 2015, 02:45:58 PM wrote:The list reads like every random American film that has included a gay character in the past twenty year. It also is pretty poor for older entries. It also has glaring omissions.
That was my takeaway of his list too. At first glance it looked good, really inclusive, but as I looked at it more closely I saw way too movies that weren't really LGBT themed, but just happened to have a gay character in it.

Reading my comment, I think I simply repeated what you said, but I guess I think it bears repeating.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#203

Post by xianjiro » October 28th, 2015, 9:11 pm

Kasparius on Oct 28 2015, 12:24:11 PM wrote:- clipped -

Also, most of my friends don't feel that way. Bryan, with whom I was perusing the lists earlier, thinks that these lists should be made widely available. He said he would have loved such lists when he was growing up gay in Nowhere, USA.
This reason, if no other mattered, is the single most important argument FOR the inclusion of a list that resonantes with the LGBT... community. No list will be perfect. No list will have all and just the films any single individual wants - and the nice thing is there are comments attached to lists, so if one feels really strongly about a film NOT being included, one can amend one's opinion to the list.

When I first joined the site, it took me time to find any LBGT... list whatsoever. Part was figuring out how to use the search feature, part was going through many different iterations of the listing (LBGT, GBLT, gay, etc) people generally included in the universe of sexual minorities and still part was interacting with other members and having them kindly point out this or that list that I hadn't been able to tease out of the personal lists on iCM on my own.

And, as an artist, I too am concerned about being labeled as a gay writer - I know what that means in literary circles and have learned from those who have gone before me, including Almodovar. But at the same time, his movies were the first that really touched me, his were the first to say, see, you're not a freak to be mocked and beaten and killed. I can't promise that others will feel that way, but maybe, if they can find a starting point, and if one really loves a genre, any list other than one as comprehensive as TSZDT, is really only ever a starting point.

One thought: we have other lists created by forum participants. If we do find general agreement that the current options are deficient, is there any reason we the users can't compile and defend a list of our very own?

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
XxXApathy420XxX
Donator
Posts: 18858
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#204

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » October 28th, 2015, 9:14 pm

Either way I'm sure that we can all agree on one thing: Never make this list official https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/afte ... iedearest/

Has garbage like Another Gay Movie but ignores films that are older (and revolutionary) and/or foreign.
My father didn’t have the skill of a professional cameraman. The result? Avant-garde cinema.

RateYourMusic | ICheckMovies | Letterboxd

Kasparius
Posts: 24609
Joined: Sep 14, 2011
Contact:

#205

Post by Kasparius » October 28th, 2015, 9:25 pm

xianjiro on Oct 28 2015, 03:11:58 PM wrote: One thought: we have other lists created by forum participants. If we do find general agreement that the current options are deficient, is there any reason we the users can't compile and defend a list of our very own?
While I generally think we should try to find a great list first, I really have come to the conclusion that we, as a community of film lovers, are more than able to create a viable movie list on our own. In this particular case, I would really like to see what we could come up with.

Kasparius
Posts: 24609
Joined: Sep 14, 2011
Contact:

#206

Post by Kasparius » October 28th, 2015, 9:25 pm

Ettinauer226XL on Oct 28 2015, 03:14:03 PM wrote:Either way I'm sure that we can all agree on one thing: Never make this list official https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/afte ... iedearest/

Has garbage like Another Gay Movie but ignores films that are older (and revolutionary) and/or foreign.
I think Moviedearest was part of our old facebook group and was Larry friendly.
Last edited by Kasparius on October 28th, 2015, 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
monty
Posts: 12749
Joined: May 09, 2011
Contact:

#207

Post by monty » October 28th, 2015, 10:16 pm

Kasparius on Oct 28 2015, 03:25:00 PM wrote:
xianjiro on Oct 28 2015, 03:11:58 PM wrote: One thought: we have other lists created by forum participants. If we do find general agreement that the current options are deficient, is there any reason we the users can't compile and defend a list of our very own?
While I generally think we should try to find a great list first, I really have come to the conclusion that we, as a community of film lovers, are more than able to create a viable movie list on our own. In this particular case, I would really like to see what we could come up with.
Indeed. However, it would never be eligible for official status, no matter how good a list it turns out to be.

Kasparius
Posts: 24609
Joined: Sep 14, 2011
Contact:

#208

Post by Kasparius » October 28th, 2015, 10:54 pm

monty on Oct 28 2015, 04:16:33 PM wrote:
Kasparius on Oct 28 2015, 03:25:00 PM wrote:
xianjiro on Oct 28 2015, 03:11:58 PM wrote: One thought: we have other lists created by forum participants. If we do find general agreement that the current options are deficient, is there any reason we the users can't compile and defend a list of our very own?
While I generally think we should try to find a great list first, I really have come to the conclusion that we, as a community of film lovers, are more than able to create a viable movie list on our own. In this particular case, I would really like to see what we could come up with.
Indeed. However, it would never be eligible for official status, no matter how good a list it turns out to be.
Why? If 400<500 can achieve that status.

User avatar
monty
Posts: 12749
Joined: May 09, 2011
Contact:

#209

Post by monty » October 28th, 2015, 10:59 pm

Kasparius on Oct 28 2015, 04:54:12 PM wrote:
monty on Oct 28 2015, 04:16:33 PM wrote:
Kasparius on Oct 28 2015, 03:25:00 PM wrote:While I generally think we should try to find a great list first, I really have come to the conclusion that we, as a community of film lovers, are more than able to create a viable movie list on our own. In this particular case, I would really like to see what we could come up with.
Indeed. However, it would never be eligible for official status, no matter how good a list it turns out to be.
Why? If 400<500 can achieve that status.
You have some catching-up to do, kas. The powers-that-be here have decided that an official list needs to come from an officially recognized expert or group of experts. The annual forum list is an exception to that rule - it got official status as a nod of good-will and appreciation from the The Guys (as in the case of the Reddit list).
Last edited by monty on October 28th, 2015, 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kasparius
Posts: 24609
Joined: Sep 14, 2011
Contact:

#210

Post by Kasparius » October 28th, 2015, 11:14 pm

monty on Oct 28 2015, 04:59:34 PM wrote:
Kasparius on Oct 28 2015, 04:54:12 PM wrote:
monty on Oct 28 2015, 04:16:33 PM wrote:Indeed. However, it would never be eligible for official status, no matter how good a list it turns out to be.
Why? If 400<500 can achieve that status.
You have some catching-up to do, kas. The powers-that-be here have decided that an official list needs to come from an officially recognized expert or group of experts. The annual forum list is an exception to that rule - it got official status as a nod of good-will and appreciation from the The Guys (as in the case of the Reddit list).
You mean The Guy?

Also based on the current lists on ICM, that "recognized group of experts" rule is laughable.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#211

Post by xianjiro » October 28th, 2015, 11:37 pm

Ugh!

I sure wish the 'rules' were spelled out on the iCM website - clearly and plainly, with a brief discussion/explanation why so many lists don't currently meet these 'rules.' (I'm certain many were adopted before the rules came into being - life is about living and learning, and rules are created from experience.) And @mjf314 has shared rules with me though I'm not sure it's been all of them, and probably some of the other mods as well - I'm appreciative of that - but this 'sharing' here and there makes it a feel a bit too cloak and daggery.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22934
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#212

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » October 29th, 2015, 12:45 am

xianjiro on Oct 28 2015, 05:37:00 PM wrote:Ugh!

I sure wish the 'rules' were spelled out on the iCM website - clearly and plainly, with a brief discussion/explanation why so many lists don't currently meet these 'rules.' (I'm certain many were adopted before the rules came into being - life is about living and learning, and rules are created from experience.) And @mjf314 has shared rules with me though I'm not sure it's been all of them, and probably some of the other mods as well - I'm appreciative of that - but this 'sharing' here and there makes it a feel a bit too cloak and daggery.
A forum list could be adopted, it'd be an uphill climb though especially for a genre list. Monty's just exaggerating because he's bitter that his own personal list is not considered adequate for adoption.

Whatever mjf shared is probably correct. Basically the source has to be meaningful to the userbase. That can be through academic recognition, popular recognition, or particular meaning to the website.

Lists made by individuals require those individuals to be recognized, which is why Monty doesn't qualify, lists made by user or reader polls may be OK depending on the context.

There was a more detailed discussion a few weeks before the mods were announced. I can't link it now but I can look for it later if you want.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 10800
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#213

Post by mjf314 » October 29th, 2015, 1:48 am

There has been a lot of rules discussion in other threads but I'm too lazy to find it right now.

Forum lists are allowed, but there's sort of an unwritten rule that specialized user polls should come from a forum or website that specializes in the area (it's not an official rule, so an exception could possibly be made in the future if there's a good enough reason, but I don't think there are any exceptions yet). For example, the western list comes from a western forum, the spaghetti western list comes from a spaghetti western website, the horror 500 list comes from a horror forum, the silent era list comes from a silent cinema website, and the Hong Kong list comes from a Hong Kong cinema website.

In the case of LGBT, I think The Advocate list would be more interesting to the average gay person than an iCM Forum list. The Advocate's explanations of each choice also helps.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22934
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#214

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » October 29th, 2015, 1:49 am

mjf314 on Oct 28 2015, 07:48:12 PM wrote:In the case of LGBT, I think The Advocate list would be more interesting to the average gay person than an iCM Forum list. The Advocate's explanations of each choice also helps.
Despite my complaints about The Advocate list, I agree.

Kasparius
Posts: 24609
Joined: Sep 14, 2011
Contact:

#215

Post by Kasparius » October 29th, 2015, 1:50 am

mjf314 on Oct 28 2015, 07:48:12 PM wrote: In the case of LGBT, I think The Advocate list would be more interesting to the average gay person than an iCM Forum list. The Advocate's explanations of each choice also helps.
True but the omissions are glaring. The fact that there is only 1 Fassbinder film, and not even the best one, is kind of unforgivable. Also no Cocteau, Jean Genet, etc...
Last edited by Kasparius on October 29th, 2015, 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 10800
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#216

Post by mjf314 » October 29th, 2015, 1:56 am

Kasparius on Oct 28 2015, 07:50:59 PM wrote:
mjf314 on Oct 28 2015, 07:48:12 PM wrote: In the case of LGBT, I think The Advocate list would be more interesting to the average gay person than an iCM Forum list. The Advocate's explanations of each choice also helps.
True but the omissions are glaring. The fact that there is only 1 Fassbinder film, and not even the best one, is kind of unforgivable. Also no Cocteau, Jean Genet, etc...
One solution would be to adopt both The Advocate and Slant, but if we adopt 2 LGBT lists at the same time, everyone will say "How can you adopt 2 LGBT lists when [other popular niche] doesn't even have one?" so I think we'll have to choose one and possibly adopt a second one in a few years.

Kasparius
Posts: 24609
Joined: Sep 14, 2011
Contact:

#217

Post by Kasparius » October 29th, 2015, 2:07 am

mjf314 on Oct 28 2015, 07:56:49 PM wrote:
Kasparius on Oct 28 2015, 07:50:59 PM wrote:
mjf314 on Oct 28 2015, 07:48:12 PM wrote: In the case of LGBT, I think The Advocate list would be more interesting to the average gay person than an iCM Forum list. The Advocate's explanations of each choice also helps.
True but the omissions are glaring. The fact that there is only 1 Fassbinder film, and not even the best one, is kind of unforgivable. Also no Cocteau, Jean Genet, etc...
One solution would be to adopt both The Advocate and Slant, but if we adopt 2 LGBT lists at the same time, everyone will say "How can you adopt 2 LGBT lists when [other popular niche] doesn't even have one?" so I think we'll have to choose one and possibly adopt a second one in a few years.
Or adopt both and explain that while both are very good lists, they complement each other.
Last edited by Kasparius on October 29th, 2015, 2:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
XxXApathy420XxX
Donator
Posts: 18858
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#218

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » October 29th, 2015, 2:08 am

I'm down with adopting both.
My father didn’t have the skill of a professional cameraman. The result? Avant-garde cinema.

RateYourMusic | ICheckMovies | Letterboxd

User avatar
XxXApathy420XxX
Donator
Posts: 18858
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#219

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » October 30th, 2015, 1:17 am

I chickened out last time I tried to do this. Attempt #2 tomorrow. Going to a store near the village so that I can buy an lgbt pride silicon bracelet before getting my haircut. It'll be nice to have something that shows my sexuality for the very few times I'm out in public (well, there's work too I guess).
My father didn’t have the skill of a professional cameraman. The result? Avant-garde cinema.

RateYourMusic | ICheckMovies | Letterboxd

User avatar
monty
Posts: 12749
Joined: May 09, 2011
Contact:

#220

Post by monty » October 30th, 2015, 1:18 am

Ettinauer226XL on Oct 29 2015, 07:17:06 PM wrote:I chickened out last time I tried to do this. Attempt #2 tomorrow. Going to a store near the village so that I can buy an lgbt pride silicon bracelet before getting my haircut. It'll be nice to have something that shows my sexuality for the very few times I'm out in public (well, there's work too I guess).
Why not make your own instead? Be an individual. Also, as far as I remember from Pacino in Cruising, hankies are the big thing to signal which way you swing...
Last edited by monty on October 30th, 2015, 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#221

Post by xianjiro » October 30th, 2015, 1:27 am

monty on Oct 29 2015, 07:18:57 PM wrote:
Ettinauer226XL on Oct 29 2015, 07:17:06 PM wrote:I chickened out last time I tried to do this. Attempt #2 tomorrow. Going to a store near the village so that I can buy an lgbt pride silicon bracelet before getting my haircut. It'll be nice to have something that shows my sexuality for the very few times I'm out in public (well, there's work too I guess).
Why not make your own instead? Be an individual. Also, as far as I remember from Pacino in Cruising, hankies are the big thing to signal which way you swing...
Cruising was about the 70s, not about gay culture through time. Most gay men are quite confused by the extensive hankie code that was bandied about at the end of that decade. Best I could tell, five years ago, it was still only used, and not universally or widely, in the leather community.

But. That said, I do have a rainbow hanky but flagging with it might lead others to think one is into a whole host of activities one might or might not be interested in.

Go with your first choice @Ettinauer226XL.
Last edited by xianjiro on October 30th, 2015, 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
XxXApathy420XxX
Donator
Posts: 18858
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#222

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » October 30th, 2015, 1:30 am

xianjiro on Oct 29 2015, 07:27:16 PM wrote:But. That said, I do have a rainbow hanky but flagging with it might lead others to think one is into a whole host of activities one might or might not be interested in.
Good thing there isn't a brown colour in a rainbow. Unless you're into that.
My father didn’t have the skill of a professional cameraman. The result? Avant-garde cinema.

RateYourMusic | ICheckMovies | Letterboxd

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#223

Post by xianjiro » October 30th, 2015, 1:52 am

Ettinauer226XL on Oct 29 2015, 07:30:56 PM wrote:
xianjiro on Oct 29 2015, 07:27:16 PM wrote:But. That said, I do have a rainbow hanky but flagging with it might lead others to think one is into a whole host of activities one might or might not be interested in.
Good thing there isn't a brown colour in a rainbow. Unless you're into that.
To use the vernacular so omnipresent in the 90s - word!

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

Kasparius
Posts: 24609
Joined: Sep 14, 2011
Contact:

#224

Post by Kasparius » October 30th, 2015, 2:11 am

monty on Oct 29 2015, 07:18:57 PM wrote:
Ettinauer226XL on Oct 29 2015, 07:17:06 PM wrote:I chickened out last time I tried to do this. Attempt #2 tomorrow. Going to a store near the village so that I can buy an lgbt pride silicon bracelet before getting my haircut. It'll be nice to have something that shows my sexuality for the very few times I'm out in public (well, there's work too I guess).
Why not make your own instead? Be an individual. Also, as far as I remember from Pacino in Cruising, hankies are the big thing to signal which way you swing...
Monty, word to the wise, if you meet a gay guy don't mention Cruising. It is utterly hated by a certain generation of gays.

Jay Mars
Posts: 2005
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

#225

Post by Jay Mars » October 30th, 2015, 6:56 am

Kasparius on Oct 29 2015, 08:11:43 PM wrote:
monty on Oct 29 2015, 07:18:57 PM wrote:
Ettinauer226XL on Oct 29 2015, 07:17:06 PM wrote:I chickened out last time I tried to do this. Attempt #2 tomorrow. Going to a store near the village so that I can buy an lgbt pride silicon bracelet before getting my haircut. It'll be nice to have something that shows my sexuality for the very few times I'm out in public (well, there's work too I guess).
Why not make your own instead? Be an individual. Also, as far as I remember from Pacino in Cruising, hankies are the big thing to signal which way you swing...
Monty, word to the wise, if you meet a gay guy don't mention Cruising. It is utterly hated by a certain generation of gays.
He can mention Cruising. But assuming it's an accurate depiction of anything is what's frowned upon.

User avatar
monty
Posts: 12749
Joined: May 09, 2011
Contact:

#226

Post by monty » October 30th, 2015, 12:24 pm

Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 12:56:25 AM wrote:
Kasparius on Oct 29 2015, 08:11:43 PM wrote:
monty on Oct 29 2015, 07:18:57 PM wrote:Why not make your own instead? Be an individual. Also, as far as I remember from Pacino in Cruising, hankies are the big thing to signal which way you swing...
Monty, word to the wise, if you meet a gay guy don't mention Cruising. It is utterly hated by a certain generation of gays.
He can mention Cruising. But assuming it's an accurate depiction of anything is what's frowned upon.
But isn't that frowning just an expression of political correctness, refusing to look reality in eye? I mean, Friedkin did his utmost to infuse his film with authenticity in its depiction of the hedonistic hardcore gay S&M subculture during the late 70s:

Friedkin shot in real leather bars in Manhattan’s meatpacking district and hired actual patrons of the bars to appear as extras, with the instruction to dress and act just as they would without cameras or Al Pacino present. The director reportedly even researched the film by hitting some gay clubs dressed solely in a jockstrap.
Cruising went from being a near-universal object of opprobrium, a black mark on everyone’s resume, to becoming, decades later, a historical curiosity. The intervening AIDS epidemic — the first cases of “gay cancer” were diagnosed just a year after the movie came out — turned Friedkin’s thriller into a kind of unwitting documentary, with the leather-bar scenes a window onto an urban milieu and a Zeitgeist of hedonism that would be forever altered, if not to say largely wiped out, within a few years.
- Source

Friedkin himself on Cruising:
A guy named Arthur Bell wrote an incredible series of articles in The Village Voice about deaths in the S/M clubs. They were kind of a warning to the gay community to stay out of these clubs because they were dangerous. The fact that the Mineshaft and many other S/M clubs were owned by a guy I knew named Matty “The Horse” Iannello. He was the boss of the west side. Virtually every business on the west side of New York was either owned or partially owned by him or paying him protection. I asked him if I could film in the clubs. I went down there and saw a number of people I knew and they allowed me to film. They had no problems with me filming in there with Al Pacino.

I thought there might be some negative criticism of the film, but I thought that that would come from more of the so-called 'straight community' who were not used to seeing those events depicted. To be accurate, the film was about the S&M world. It was a murder mystery set against the backdrop of the S&M world at that time, in the late-seventies. It was not about the gay community at all. But, here's the historical fact about it. Gay liberation had begun to make powerful steps forward and I'm sure when 'Cruising' came out, it was not the best foot forward for gay liberation. I recognize that in hindsight but I didn't at the time."


Also, it's worth remembering that today Cruising is shown at gay film festivals - surely a vindication for Friedkin if ever there was one?
And bear in mind that one of the film's most eloquent champions was the film critic Robin Wood, who incidentally happened to be gay himself.
Last edited by monty on October 30th, 2015, 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bobby Peru
Posts: 528
Joined: May 08, 2011
Location: Southampton, England
Contact:

#227

Post by Bobby Peru » October 30th, 2015, 2:28 pm

It's a 35 year old film, and was made at a time when there was still a LOT of homophobia in movie making. I think if you used the handkerchief thing now, the vast majority of people wouldn't understand it (myself included).
I did get a nice Human Rights Campaign gay pride t-shirt from their shop in San Francisco, which used to be Harvey Milk's camera shop back in the 70's.

User avatar
monty
Posts: 12749
Joined: May 09, 2011
Contact:

#228

Post by monty » October 30th, 2015, 2:32 pm

Bobby Peru on Oct 30 2015, 08:28:25 AM wrote:It's a 35 year old film, and was made at a time when there was still a LOT of homophobia in movie making.
That is neither here nor there when it comes to Friedkin's film. Like he says, "the film was about the S&M world. It was a murder mystery set against the backdrop of the S&M world at that time, in the late-seventies. It was not about the gay community at all."

And I don't think most gays at the time knew anything about the gay hardcore S&M scene, which is why they were so shocked when they got to see an accurate depiction of it. It is after all a very particular underground gay culture whose goings-on most people would be blissfully unaware of.

Also, like Friedkin says, the backlash against the film had much to do with the timing of its release:"Gay liberation had begun to make powerful steps forward and I'm sure when 'Cruising' came out, it was not the best foot forward for gay liberation."
Last edited by monty on October 30th, 2015, 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kasparius
Posts: 24609
Joined: Sep 14, 2011
Contact:

#229

Post by Kasparius » October 30th, 2015, 3:07 pm

monty on Oct 30 2015, 06:24:26 AM wrote:But, here's the historical fact about it. Gay liberation had begun to make powerful steps forward and I'm sure when 'Cruising' came out, it was not the best foot forward for gay liberation. I recognize that in hindsight but I didn't at the time."
That is the most important thing you quoted, it's easy to cry political correctness, Monty, but when one of the only films at the time, dealing with the gay community, is not a film that showed them in a good light, you can easily understand why that generation was particularly upset with the film. It doesn't matter that it's not a homophobic film, it hurt the community quite a bit.

And for the record, I like Cruising a lot.

And the film too.

User avatar
monty
Posts: 12749
Joined: May 09, 2011
Contact:

#230

Post by monty » October 30th, 2015, 3:16 pm

It may not have shown the gay S&M scene in the very best of lights but Friedkin has never wanted to be anyone's propagandist. He aimed for truthfulness, wanting to show the reality of what went on at that scene at that time. I think Friedkin should be applauded for not prettifying things, for not bowing to gay politics but instead sticking to his artistic guns. Sadly, today that kind of daring to defy the powers of political correctness, daring to tackle controversial issues heads-on is sorely lacking in the American filmmaking community. Nowadays everything just a bland watered-down soup whose ultimate goal is to please any and every subgroup there is.
Last edited by monty on October 30th, 2015, 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kasparius
Posts: 24609
Joined: Sep 14, 2011
Contact:

#231

Post by Kasparius » October 30th, 2015, 3:27 pm

I think your comment is very short sighted. Your talking about a group that was particularly vilified, that barely had a voice, not some annoying PC brigade. While I have no problems with cruising as a straight guy looking at it with 2015 glasses, the truth of the matter is that the film negatively impacted an entire community. One famous gay critic at a screening, got up and started screaming "you are killing gay men!!"

Even Friedkin understands that it was a negative thing for the community.

Again, this is not about the artistic merits of the film. Seen in a vaccum it is a far greater film than many gay classics, but that is not the point I'm making. You should see the vehement reaction you get when you bring up Cruising to gay guys who are 45 and older.

User avatar
monty
Posts: 12749
Joined: May 09, 2011
Contact:

#232

Post by monty » October 30th, 2015, 3:39 pm

Well, are these mature gays attacking the film for what they perceive to be its lack of truthfulness in portraying the S&M scene at the time? If yes, can they back up their claims? Like, did they practice S&M in those clubs during the 70s?
Alternatively, are they hating on the film cos they think it contributed to fostering an unfair image of all gays as being like those cruising S&M dudes in the film? If so, is there anything to substantiate such a claim? Also, they should be reminded of Friedkin's comment that the film wasn't about the gay community at all, but the 70s S&M scene alone.

It would be interesting to hear how today's generation of gays react to the film. It does seem that critical opinion has changed and it's now being shown regularly even at gay film festivals...
Last edited by monty on October 30th, 2015, 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kasparius
Posts: 24609
Joined: Sep 14, 2011
Contact:

#233

Post by Kasparius » October 30th, 2015, 5:24 pm

The thing is, Monty, that you sound a lot like the conservative dicks who talk about a gay agenda. There is no gay agenda, it's a small community that has been vilified and wronged for years who just ask for equal rights and a little respect.

If cruising came out today it wouldn't be a problem, because there are many other films that portray the gay community in a balanced way. The problem is that when Cruising came out, gays where either not portrayed in film, or portrayed in the most trivial and stereotypical way possible. Mean Streets comes to mind, where the only gay character is a drunk queen who tries to seduce heteros. I love Mean Streets, but that scene kind of makes me cringe.

It's not that Cruising is inaccurate, it's that it's showing an underground niche gay movement, at a time where it's pretty much the only gay portrayal on film, and it's confirming a homophobe's convictions. Depravity, murders, etc...

The gay community didn't have the voice it has today, so when the only representation of your community on screen is one that reinforces negative views, it's only natural that they feel animosity and hatred towards Cruising.

I don't think you understand what NYC meant to the gay community at the time. It was a refuge for many LGBTs, and after Stonewall things were looking up. There was a conservative view that the village was a refuge for depraved homosexuals and was in dire need of a clean up. Cruising, even though I understand that it was not Friedkin's intention, was for all intents and purposes reinforcing and cementing that idea. Therefore stalling the progress that the LGBT had been making, and when you add to it the Reagan era and the Aids epidemic that was about to hit the community hard, Cruising just feels like the beginning of a very difficult decade for the LGBT movement.

User avatar
HVM
Posts: 3695
Joined: Jul 09, 2012
Location: Republic of Czechia
Contact:

#234

Post by HVM » October 30th, 2015, 6:17 pm

Monty, feel free to watch this and get some insight into the era.

I loved Cruising a lot when I saw it (I hadn't seen a lot LGBTQ films before and it was nice to see something where being gay was portrayed rather in a matter-of-fact way and also didn't deal with the topics of coming out and AIDS). But that was here & now, not there & then with impications, consequences Kas writes about.
1918 - 100 - 2018

Jay Mars
Posts: 2005
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

#235

Post by Jay Mars » October 30th, 2015, 10:43 pm

Monty is really hung up on the accuracy of the depiction of the S&M subculture and isn't (or chooses not to) see the bigger picture. Like Kas said, there was no strong voice for gay rights at the time. Not only was homophobia accepted, it was expected.

This is the same debate I recently had with someone about Basic Instinct. Remember how controversial it was when it was released? In 1990 it was another in a long line of movies that reinforced the idea that homosexuals are depraved, violent, sociopathic, poisonous. No one was saying the movie was inaccurate or that there couldn't have been lesbian (or bisexual, I guess) killers; they were saying stop reinforcing stereotypes too many readily believe about us. Basic Instinct was sort of the last straw a decade after the mess that was Cruising (and the equally vile Windows).

Today we have multiple and diverse representations of our community so movies like this are less problematic. But stop saying it was "accurate" or Freidken did research or whatever. That isn't the point. This was the era of Anita Bryant and police raids and the Upstairs Lounge Firebombing. It was a shameful movie that fed into the preconceived prejudices of an already deeply homophobic nation. Accepting that isn't political correctness. It's history.
Last edited by Jay Mars on October 30th, 2015, 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
XxXApathy420XxX
Donator
Posts: 18858
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#236

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » October 30th, 2015, 10:49 pm

Basic Instinct is a hell of a lot better than Cruising though.
My father didn’t have the skill of a professional cameraman. The result? Avant-garde cinema.

RateYourMusic | ICheckMovies | Letterboxd

Jay Mars
Posts: 2005
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

#237

Post by Jay Mars » October 30th, 2015, 10:51 pm

Skip both of them and watch The Ritz instead!

User avatar
HVM
Posts: 3695
Joined: Jul 09, 2012
Location: Republic of Czechia
Contact:

#238

Post by HVM » October 30th, 2015, 11:06 pm

Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 04:43:17 PM wrote:homosexuals are depraved, violent, sociopathic, poisonous.
I've been to Tesco twice today. I AM (or at least I'm holding back).
1918 - 100 - 2018

Kasparius
Posts: 24609
Joined: Sep 14, 2011
Contact:

#239

Post by Kasparius » October 30th, 2015, 11:08 pm

Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 04:43:17 PM wrote:Monty is really hung up on the accuracy of the depiction of the S&M subculture and isn't (or chooses not to) see the bigger picture. Like Kas said, there was no strong voice for gay rights at the time. Not only was homophobia accepted, it was expected.

This is the same debate I recently had with someone about Basic Instinct. Remember how controversial it was when it was released? In 1990 it was another in a long line of movies that reinforced the idea that homosexuals are depraved, violent, sociopathic, poisonous. No one was saying the movie was inaccurate or that there couldn't have been lesbian (or bisexual, I guess) killers; they were saying stop reinforcing stereotypes too many readily believe about us. Basic Instinct was sort of the last straw a decade after the mess that was Cruising (and the equally vile Windows).

Today we have multiple and diverse representations of our community so movies like this are less problematic. But stop saying it was "accurate" or Freidken did research or whatever. That isn't the point. This was the era of Anita Bryant and police raids and the Upstairs Lounge Firebombing. It was a shameful movie that fed into the preconceived prejudices of an already deeply homophobic nation. Accepting that isn't political correctness. It's history.
To use one of Monty quotes against him, I'm going to replace Cruising with Birth of a Nation.

"Maybe Birth of a Nation didn't do much to further the cause of African Americans, but I applaud D.W. Griffith for sticking to his artistic guns."

I'm exagerating, of course, but you see my point.

Cruising is better than Basic Instinct by far, and I love Verhoeven.

In the same line as Basic Instinct, Silence of the Lambs also had a gay/trans serial killer.

@Jay Mars: I've been meaning to see The Ritz, I love Richard Lester.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#240

Post by xianjiro » October 30th, 2015, 11:08 pm

Very interesting discussion guys - I've heard and seen these arguments before and as a not-so-innocent bystander I read lots of truth on both sides. I totally get why Cruising was 'misunderstood' and hated, especially the further one got away from the Village or maybe the Castro.

This discussion reminds me of the 80s and 90s as Pride celebrations spread into the heartland from the coasts. As organizing committees came together, there was almost always a discussion about 'those people' - do they really have to dress and act that way? What kind of message is it sending? And you know, 'those people' were the ones that made the evening newscast. Why? Not because they were 'normal' but because they were sensational - snap - and straight America could gasp, cover their collective mouths and children's eyes.

So were the drag queens, leathermen, dykes on bikes, clubbois, and topless women really the problem?

Were the drag queens and hustlers the problem when they finally said no to the NYPD that famous night in 1969?

In my view, the LGBTQQIAAP 'community' needed to find the internal integrity to say: Pride is our holiday - our day to celebrate our diversity and come together and remember we are not alone and we don't have to allow ourselves to feel anything we don't want to feel. And Pride was so much fun! So liberating! So uplifting! Joy!

Personally, I thought Cruising was a good, well-executed artistic work. I will say that it's timing was unfortunate but no one knew what hell was until the 80s ticked by. No, it didn't help things and made it easier to continue vilification of the country's most despised minority. (I'd bet Jesse Helms thought Cruising was a documentary and referred to it way too many times [or did he think the NEA funded it?]) But it sure would have been nice if we had other images coming from media besides those furthest from the mainstream.

Will & Grace was considered a breakthrough and loved by many, but it always made me cringe. I'm not sure that instead of enjoying Modern Family today, I would have lambasted it if it aired in 1992. Okay, those are both TV programs, but TV is what reaches mainstream America - well, that and rom-coms and superheroes on the bigger screens these days - so it's easier to talk about them and their impact on the zeitgeist.

And alas, the work of Fassbinder or Almodovar had little impact outside Europe and limited segments of North America - but those willing to watch such films were already allies, even back then, for the most part.
Last edited by xianjiro on October 30th, 2015, 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

Post Reply