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

LGBTQQIAAP ICM

#241

Post by Jay Mars » October 30th, 2015, 11:12 pm

Kasparius on Oct 30 2015, 05:08:12 PM wrote: "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.
Birth of a Nation is a great comparison.

And yes Silence of the Lambs did have an at least trans killer ( I don't remember if it got into his sexuality or not), but I don't remember the kinds of protests over Silence that Basic Instinct got. I may be remembering incorrectly, but if I'm right, I wonder why there wasn't. It was only a few years after Basic Instinct.

I saw The Ritz last week and was surprised at how much I laughed. It was pretty damn funny--and a pretty accurate depiction of bathhouse culture.... or at least that's what a friend told me. :whistling:

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

#242

Post by Kasparius » October 30th, 2015, 11:15 pm

Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 05:12:33 PM wrote:
Kasparius on Oct 30 2015, 05:08:12 PM wrote: "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.
Birth of a Nation is a great comparison.

And yes Silence of the Lambs did have an at least trans killer ( I don't remember if it got into his sexuality or not), but I don't remember the kinds of protests over Silence that Basic Instinct got. I may be remembering incorrectly, but if I'm right, I wonder why there wasn't. It was only a few years after Basic Instinct.

I saw The Ritz last week and was surprised at how much I laughed. It was pretty damn funny--and a pretty accurate depiction of bathhouse culture.... or at least that's what a friend told me. :whistling:
My friend Bryan told me that Silence of the Lambs had been a big deal (at least in NY circles), when we were discussing the gay killer from Cruising.

And Bryan told me to watch The Ritz too, when we were going through the LGBT lists.
Last edited by Kasparius on October 30th, 2015, 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

#243

Post by Jay Mars » October 30th, 2015, 11:28 pm

Kasparius on Oct 30 2015, 05:15:03 PM wrote:
Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 05:12:33 PM wrote:
Kasparius on Oct 30 2015, 05:08:12 PM wrote: "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.
Birth of a Nation is a great comparison.

And yes Silence of the Lambs did have an at least trans killer ( I don't remember if it got into his sexuality or not), but I don't remember the kinds of protests over Silence that Basic Instinct got. I may be remembering incorrectly, but if I'm right, I wonder why there wasn't. It was only a few years after Basic Instinct.

I saw The Ritz last week and was surprised at how much I laughed. It was pretty damn funny--and a pretty accurate depiction of bathhouse culture.... or at least that's what a friend told me. :whistling:
My friend Bryan told me that Silence of the Lambs had been a big deal (at least in NY circles), when we were discussing the gay killer from Cruising.

And Bryan told me to watch The Ritz too, when we were going through the LGBT lists.
Boy I don't remember any kind of reaction of Silence of the Lambs, but I don't doubt there was one. Maybe I stopped paying attention by that time.

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

#244

Post by monty » October 31st, 2015, 12:05 am

Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 04:43:17 PM wrote: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.
I think you're going too far by saying that the movie itself was shameful. Like I've said several times, Friedkin never set out to make a homophobic film. To blame him for how certain segments of the population misappropriated his artistic vision is totally wrong. Rather, I'd say it was shameful and despicable of those who used the film's portrayal of a particular subset of gay culture to feed into existing prejudices about gays. Granted, it's easy in hindsight to see why the gay rights movement at the time didn't want this aspect of gay culture to be projected to mainstream America as positive portrayals of gays were desperately missing. Still, I think Friedkin should be applauded for making the film he wanted to make, staying true to his artistic vision, not caving in to pressure by prettifying the reality of the milieu his story was set in. Also, if one actually watches the film, it's made clear from the very start that this scene is on the fringe - Capt. Edelson describes the world inhabited by the murder victimes as "not the mainstream of gay life. They were into heavy leather, S&M, a world unto itself.". Also, Pacino's character never once comments on the morality of the proceedings in the gay S&M scene, that is left for the viewer to decide.

Anyhow, it is interesting to note how far the pendulum has swung the other way today. Now even gay thugs and murderers are somehow likable - like Vito Spatafore on The Sopranos.
Last edited by monty on October 31st, 2015, 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

#245

Post by Jay Mars » October 31st, 2015, 12:54 am

Just because he didn't intend it to be homophobic doesn't mean it wasn't. This is actually the worst kind of ignorant hatefulness--like Washington Redskin fans who don't understand why their team is is so offensive to American Indians. Intention isn't necessary to be completely offensive. If this isn't something you get, well, I guess you just don't know or care to try and empathize with what it's like to be part of a marginalized group.

So keep applauding Freidkin for "not giving in" to marginalized people who hoped maybe a great filmmaker might not want to make a movie that would add to an already toxic atmosphere. Truly a brave stand.

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

#246

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » October 31st, 2015, 1:15 am

It's quite fascinating seeing what was considered more normal back then and just how wrong it seems now. Like this:

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:

#247

Post by Kasparius » October 31st, 2015, 1:19 am

Oh god, that Eddie Murphy stand up is insanely cringe inducing

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

#248

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » October 31st, 2015, 1:21 am

Reminds me of when I wanted to jump to the top 100 for my overall ranking. Watched a bunch of Looney Tunes shorts and was shocked with how open they were with racist jokes.
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:

#249

Post by monty » October 31st, 2015, 1:26 am

I guess it's time for Friedkin himself to weigh in on this:

The novel on which Cruising was based wasn’t really set in that world, but actually the softer scene of gay nightlife in the Upper East Side.I was wondering if you hadn’t set Cruising in S&M nightclubs, if you had put it in the more mainstream gay world, would the reaction have been different — and perhaps even more negative?

Friedkin: It was never a choice for me. I didn’t like the novel Cruising. When I read it, I thought, “There’s nothing here.” I didn’t find it particularly well written, but I did like the setup. I like the idea of a guy going into a world with which he was not really familiar to try and lure a killer. That setup interested me. The book and its setting did not, and it didn’t come together for me until those four events I mentioned to you. When it all came together, and by then D’Antoni had lost the option, and Jerry Weintraub picked up the option and called me and he said, “You know I optioned Cruising.” And I said, “Why?” And he said, “Because I heard you were interested in it and I want to be in business with you.” I told them that I wasn’t interested in it, and it wasn’t until the Bell articles [about gay men being murdered on the west side] that I saw a way to make that film. It was really Matty Ianniello who operated or owned — I’m not sure, I believe he had partners — the Mineshaft, and he gave me the contacts to be able to film there. So it wasn’t until all that came together that I thought I could make a film out of this material.The Mineshaft was a private club, and I had access to it. I knew a lot of the guys and they allowed me to film what was going on there, night after night. And also, along with that, there was the undefined AIDS epidemic. There was this disease that was claiming people’s lives in a very strange way, and then there were these murders happening, basically, in a similar environment. That’s what attracted me [to the subject matter].Cruising drew me because of the exotic nature of the S&M clubs, in particular the Mineshaft, which many gay people were only vaguely aware of at that time.
Now, I have to say that I was not conscious — nor am I still, nor am I now — of the fact that this was going to cause violence to gays to increase. And I don’t believe it did. I know of no instances of more violence to gay people or a setback to gay liberation because of Cruising, but I do understand that that’s how it was perceived by people in the movement. I understand that totally, and I did only after we started shooting.I never believed we would have massive protests against the picture for the very thing I just mentioned to you, but shortly afterwards, I do understand that clearly a lot of people in the movement felt that this would set back the movement and was not the best foot forward for the gay community. When I started the project, I had no inkling of that.


Do you think the reaction would be different if you’d released this film 20 years later?

That’s speculation. I have no idea. I mean, I’m only vaguely aware, and very peripherally, of the fact, because it’s been stated by Stephen Soderbergh that he couldn’t get any distribution company to release the Liberace film in theaters and so he got HBO, which has a much wider distribution than all the theater chains put together… Other than whatever warnings may have been on that or not about young children seeing this, anyone can see it in their home, and so I imagine it was disappointing to Soderbergh to not have the film in theaters, but he said, and I quote, “No studio would release it because it’s too gay.” I find that weird. I think that people are so past that now.I mean, as you know, there are openly gay characters all over series television today, and their sexuality has little to do with the plot of these things… almost nothing to do with them. They’re just gay characters, and that’s an evolution of where it now belongs. Gay characters are, let’s face it, part of the mainstream.


Btw, any fans of Boys in the Band here?
Last edited by monty on October 31st, 2015, 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

#250

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » October 31st, 2015, 1:33 am

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:

#251

Post by Jay Mars » October 31st, 2015, 1:39 am

So you've just quoted Freidken admitting he was clueless. To bring back Kas' reference, Freidkin sounds a bit like D.W. Griffith when Birth of a Nation was being protested by the NAACP and other Black groups.

And you never did answer his question: Do you admire Griffith for not giving in to the big bad black protesters and sticking to his artistic vision?

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

#252

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » October 31st, 2015, 1:45 am

Is it weird that I like Birth of a Nation in a so bad it's good way? It's just so ridiculous in its racism that I couldn't take it seriously.
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:

#253

Post by xianjiro » October 31st, 2015, 1:45 am

Kasparius on Oct 30 2015, 07:19:43 PM wrote:Oh god, that Eddie Murphy stand up is insanely cringe inducing
I don't even have to rewatch it to remember it and remember how horrible it made/makes me feel. :satstunned:

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

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

#254

Post by monty » October 31st, 2015, 1:52 am

Come on, trying to tar Friedkin with the same brush as Griffith is totally uncalled for. By making such an unreasonable inference, you've effectively shut down any possibility for a real discussion.

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

#255

Post by Jay Mars » October 31st, 2015, 1:54 am

Ettinauer226XL on Oct 30 2015, 07:45:25 PM wrote:Is it weird that I like Birth of a Nation in a so bad it's good way? It's just so ridiculous in its racism that I couldn't take it seriously.
No, it's not weird. Birth of a Nation is brilliant filmmaking with repugnant ideology, kind of like Triumph of the Will. There's a lot to like in both, but as long as you're aware of and sensitive to their issues you won't look crazy talking about how much you like them.

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

#256

Post by Jay Mars » October 31st, 2015, 1:54 am

monty on Oct 30 2015, 07:52:15 PM wrote:Come on, trying to tar Friedkin with the same brush as Griffith is totally uncalled for. By making such an unreasonable inference, you've effectively shut down any possibility for a real discussion.
Why?

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

#257

Post by monty » October 31st, 2015, 1:56 am

@Jay: Would you have preferred for Friedkin to have stuck to the book, setting his film to "the softer scene of gay nightlife in the Upper East Side" ?

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

#258

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » October 31st, 2015, 1:57 am

Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 07:54:38 PM wrote:
Ettinauer226XL on Oct 30 2015, 07:45:25 PM wrote:Is it weird that I like Birth of a Nation in a so bad it's good way? It's just so ridiculous in its racism that I couldn't take it seriously.
No, it's not weird. Birth of a Nation is brilliant filmmaking with repugnant ideology, kind of like Triumph of the Will. There's a lot to like in both, but as long as you're aware of and sensitive to their issues you won't look crazy talking about how much you like them.
It's funny cause I'm a total Leni Riefenstahl fanboy but I didn't like Triumph of the Will. The Olympic films and The Blue Light were amazing though. Nazi Propaganda films actually tend to be quite boring, at least compared to other propaganda.
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:

#259

Post by xianjiro » October 31st, 2015, 1:58 am

Ettinauer226XL on Oct 30 2015, 07:45:25 PM wrote:Is it weird that I like Birth of a Nation in a so bad it's good way? It's just so ridiculous in its racism that I couldn't take it seriously.
Now that I've seen more of Griffith's oeuvre, I have found myself more than once defending him as an artist and not just a shill for the KKK. Not that I want to be an authority on Birth of a Nation, but if I could ask Griffith a question, it would something like: What were you thinking? We're you trying to be so over-the-top racist in an effort to lead people to not accept that stereotypical characterization of what we now call African Americans? Were you trying to make the point of just how insidiously evil racism is? (Not sure I'm getting the words out quite the way I want.) However, I'm not currently convinced that Griffith was a rabid white supremecist - until I see proof to the contrary I'll continue to argue that we can't make that assertion based only on what we see in BotN.

But that said, I found it so very, very painful to watch simply because of the portrayal of black men. I was disgusted beyond description and found it impossible to write it off as a product of the times (like Warner Bros cartoons of the 30s and 40s). There is something more there. But again, I'm glad we have these records of just how insidious racism was many years ago. I also hope we are leaving a record so that people 80 years from now can judge how we have and have not overcome racism, sexism and homophobia in our culture. (And yes, I recognize I've not included all the forms of prejudice at work in society.)

Learn from the past. Do something different today. Make the world better for tomorrow.

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

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

#260

Post by monty » October 31st, 2015, 2:01 am

Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 07:54:53 PM wrote:
monty on Oct 30 2015, 07:52:15 PM wrote:Come on, trying to tar Friedkin with the same brush as Griffith is totally uncalled for. By making such an unreasonable inference, you've effectively shut down any possibility for a real discussion.
Why?
Friedkin never had any homophobic agenda. His was not an inflammatory appeal for gay haters to go on a gay killing spree.
Griffith, on the other hand, had a clearly racist motivation for making his film, which effectively is a recruitment ad for the KKK.

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

#261

Post by Jay Mars » October 31st, 2015, 2:02 am

monty on Oct 30 2015, 07:56:51 PM wrote:@Jay: Would you have preferred for Friedkin to have stuck to the book, setting his film to "the softer scene of gay nightlife in the Upper East Side" ?
I would have preferred he choose not to make the movie at all. Or do what responsible artists do when representing groups they aren't a part of by being sensitive to their social positions and and respectful of their plights and stories. I wouldn't write a book about Vietnamese refugees in California without listening to Vietnamese voices about my project. If I suddenly heard a chorus of voices from that community saying my book was hurtful, inaccurate, insensitive, or any other negative adjective, I'd serious rethink it.

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

#262

Post by Jay Mars » October 31st, 2015, 2:03 am

monty on Oct 30 2015, 08:01:00 PM wrote:
Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 07:54:53 PM wrote:
monty on Oct 30 2015, 07:52:15 PM wrote:Come on, trying to tar Friedkin with the same brush as Griffith is totally uncalled for. By making such an unreasonable inference, you've effectively shut down any possibility for a real discussion.
Why?
Friedkin never had any homophobic agenda. His was not an inflammatory appeal for gay haters to go on a gay killing spree.
Griffith, on the other hand, had a clearly racist motivation for making his film, which effectively is a recruitment ad for the KKK.
Again you're conflating intention with end result. I'm only talking about the results of their work. Intentions are immaterial. But if Freidkin really didn't intend to make something homophobic, why didn't he listen when objections were raised by people who know more about it than him?
Last edited by Jay Mars on October 31st, 2015, 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

#263

Post by monty » October 31st, 2015, 2:09 am

Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 08:02:07 PM wrote:
monty on Oct 30 2015, 07:56:51 PM wrote:@Jay: Would you have preferred for Friedkin to have stuck to the book, setting his film to "the softer scene of gay nightlife in the Upper East Side" ?
I would have preferred he choose not to make the movie at all. Or do what responsible artists do when representing groups they aren't a part of by being sensitive to their social positions and and respectful of their plights and stories. I wouldn't write a book about Vietnamese refugees in California without listening to Vietnamese voices about my project. If I suddenly heard a chorus of voices from that community saying my book was hurtful, inaccurate, insensitive, or any other negative adjective, I'd serious rethink it.
Yeah, self-censorship should always be the solution whenever there's the slightest possibility that any group might feel trampled upon by an artistic expression.
Try advocating that line of thinking to the Charlie Hebdo guys. No, freedom of speech must reign supreme and no legitimate artist should allow himself to be taken hostage by any one particular pressure group.

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

#264

Post by mjf314 » October 31st, 2015, 2:13 am

Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 07:54:38 PM wrote:
Ettinauer226XL on Oct 30 2015, 07:45:25 PM wrote:Is it weird that I like Birth of a Nation in a so bad it's good way? It's just so ridiculous in its racism that I couldn't take it seriously.
No, it's not weird. Birth of a Nation is brilliant filmmaking with repugnant ideology, kind of like Triumph of the Will. There's a lot to like in both, but as long as you're aware of and sensitive to their issues you won't look crazy talking about how much you like them.
I didn't like either film, but The Birth of a Nation at least had some good things about it. I thought Triumph of a Will was a complete failure at filmmaking and a complete failure at propaganda. I can't imagine the film convincing anyone that Nazism is good (even someone who has never heard of the Holocaust).

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

#265

Post by Jay Mars » October 31st, 2015, 2:14 am

monty on Oct 30 2015, 08:09:34 PM wrote:
Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 08:02:07 PM wrote:
monty on Oct 30 2015, 07:56:51 PM wrote:@Jay: Would you have preferred for Friedkin to have stuck to the book, setting his film to "the softer scene of gay nightlife in the Upper East Side" ?
I would have preferred he choose not to make the movie at all. Or do what responsible artists do when representing groups they aren't a part of by being sensitive to their social positions and and respectful of their plights and stories. I wouldn't write a book about Vietnamese refugees in California without listening to Vietnamese voices about my project. If I suddenly heard a chorus of voices from that community saying my book was hurtful, inaccurate, insensitive, or any other negative adjective, I'd serious rethink it.
Yeah, self-censorship should always be the solution whenever there's the slightest possibility that any group might feel trampled upon by an artistic expression.
Try advocating that line of thinking to the Charlie Hebdo guys. No, freedom of speech must reign supreme and no legitimate artist should allow himself to be taken hostage by any one particular pressure group.
If you respect that community, yes.

And where did I say he shouldn't have been allowed to make the movie?

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

#266

Post by monty » October 31st, 2015, 2:17 am

Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 08:03:42 PM wrote:
monty on Oct 30 2015, 08:01:00 PM wrote:
Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 07:54:53 PM wrote:Why?
Friedkin never had any homophobic agenda. His was not an inflammatory appeal for gay haters to go on a gay killing spree.
Griffith, on the other hand, had a clearly racist motivation for making his film, which effectively is a recruitment ad for the KKK.
Again you're conflating intention with end result. I'm only talking about the results of their work. Intentions are immaterial. But if Freidkin really didn't intend to make something homophobic, why didn't he listen when objections were raised by people who know more about it than him?
Friedkin: I know of no instances of more violence to gay people or a setback to gay liberation because of Cruising, but I do understand that that’s how it was perceived by people in the movement.

Also, by him, as you put it, "not listening", do you mean to say that he should have made the S&M scene more glamourous than it really was or that he should have shut down his project entirely? I think either alternative would entail an end to F's artistic integrity, a censorship and compromise that he rightfully rejected.

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

#267

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » October 31st, 2015, 2:23 am

Off topic but HOW COULD I FORGET TO MENTION THIS. Especially cause Cruising has a scene of this sex act, Paul Morris on Foucault:

Image
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:

#268

Post by monty » October 31st, 2015, 2:23 am

Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 08:14:06 PM wrote:
monty on Oct 30 2015, 08:09:34 PM wrote:
Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 08:02:07 PM wrote:I would have preferred he choose not to make the movie at all. Or do what responsible artists do when representing groups they aren't a part of by being sensitive to their social positions and and respectful of their plights and stories. I wouldn't write a book about Vietnamese refugees in California without listening to Vietnamese voices about my project. If I suddenly heard a chorus of voices from that community saying my book was hurtful, inaccurate, insensitive, or any other negative adjective, I'd serious rethink it.
Yeah, self-censorship should always be the solution whenever there's the slightest possibility that any group might feel trampled upon by an artistic expression.
Try advocating that line of thinking to the Charlie Hebdo guys. No, freedom of speech must reign supreme and no legitimate artist should allow himself to be taken hostage by any one particular pressure group.
If you respect that community, yes.

And where did I say he shouldn't have been allowed to make the movie?
It does mightily sound like you want him to never have made the film he did.
Also, as for respecting communities, do you think the Muhammed caricaturists deserve their current predicament for having shown disrespect to certain Muslim communities? Do you think Life of Brian should never have been made as it disrespects the Christian community? Self-imposed censorship and an end to freedom of speech FTW.

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

#269

Post by Jay Mars » October 31st, 2015, 2:25 am

monty on Oct 30 2015, 08:17:23 PM wrote:
Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 08:03:42 PM wrote:
monty on Oct 30 2015, 08:01:00 PM wrote:Friedkin never had any homophobic agenda. His was not an inflammatory appeal for gay haters to go on a gay killing spree.
Griffith, on the other hand, had a clearly racist motivation for making his film, which effectively is a recruitment ad for the KKK.
Again you're conflating intention with end result. I'm only talking about the results of their work. Intentions are immaterial. But if Freidkin really didn't intend to make something homophobic, why didn't he listen when objections were raised by people who know more about it than him?
Friedkin: I know of no instances of more violence to gay people or a setback to gay liberation because of Cruising, but I do understand that that’s how it was perceived by people in the movement.

Also, by him, as you put it, "not listening", do you mean to say that he should have made the S&M scene more glamourous than it really was or that he should have shut down his project entirely? I think either alternative would entail an end to F's artistic integrity, a censorship and compromise that he rightfully rejected.
How nice that he doesn't know of any instances of more violence because of the movie. That isn't a self-serving statement not based on any fact at all.

Your last paragraph suggests you don't understand censorship. No one is saying the movie should have been shut down by the government or banned from theaters.

Why is it when screaming freedom of speech, people like you dance around to celebrate the filmmaker but want to shut down people criticizing the film? Freedom of speech goes both ways.

As for the artistic integrity angle, well whatever. He could have chosen any number of projects but for some reason settled on this. I don't know why listening to people who said, "hey maybe you might want to make something that isn't going to hurt the very people you claim not to hate," would have been a blow to artistic integrity.

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

#270

Post by Jay Mars » October 31st, 2015, 2:30 am

God lord Monty. Do you really not get it or are you having me on?

Mohammed cartoonists don't respect radical Muslims--and they don't have to! Monty Python didn't respect Christian mythology--and they didn't have to!

Nowhere did I say satire or critique should be limited. And anyone engaging in critique or satire of another group is open for criticism too. But you're the one who keeps saying Freidkin didn't intend for the movie to be homophobic despite the fact that it deeply was. You're the one who keeps quoting him claiming he respected the gay community while simultaneously ignoring their protests. Stop mixing up arguments.

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

#271

Post by monty » October 31st, 2015, 2:32 am

Hey, feel free to criticize the film but what I take exception to is saying unreasonable stuff like F's film is comparable to Birth of A Nation. I'm pretty sure F would be appalled by that, and rightfully so I might add.

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

#272

Post by Kasparius » October 31st, 2015, 2:39 am

monty on Oct 30 2015, 08:23:54 PM wrote:
Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 08:14:06 PM wrote:
monty on Oct 30 2015, 08:09:34 PM wrote:Yeah, self-censorship should always be the solution whenever there's the slightest possibility that any group might feel trampled upon by an artistic expression.
Try advocating that line of thinking to the Charlie Hebdo guys. No, freedom of speech must reign supreme and no legitimate artist should allow himself to be taken hostage by any one particular pressure group.
If you respect that community, yes.

And where did I say he shouldn't have been allowed to make the movie?
It does mightily sound like you want him to never have made the film he did.
Also, as for respecting communities, do you think the Muhammed caricaturists deserve their current predicament for having shown disrespect to certain Muslim communities? Do you think Life of Brian should never have been made as it disrespects the Christian community? Self-imposed censorship and an end to freedom of speech FTW.
Taking the mickey out of massive religious groups who count billions of followers and do evil shit daily is the same as being insensitive to a marginalized community without a voice?
Last edited by Kasparius on October 31st, 2015, 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

#273

Post by Jay Mars » October 31st, 2015, 2:41 am

monty on Oct 30 2015, 08:32:53 PM wrote:Hey, feel free to criticize the film but what I take exception to is saying unreasonable stuff like F's film is comparable to Birth of A Nation. I'm pretty sure F would be appalled by that, and rightfully so I might add.
Wasn't comparing them. I was comparing the reactions from minority communities and the way they were ignored.

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

#274

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » October 31st, 2015, 2:41 am

Since when did Bill Maher get in this thread
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:

#275

Post by monty » October 31st, 2015, 2:49 am

Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 08:30:35 PM wrote:But you're the one who keeps saying Freidkin didn't intend for the movie to be homophobic despite the fact that it deeply was.
What do you mean by the film "deeply was" homophobic?
Friedkin made an accurate depiction of a very specific subset of gay culture at the time - nobody is arguing against that I presume?
And I repeat, it's made clear from the very start that this scene is on the fringe - Capt. Edelson describes the world inhabited by the murder victimes as "not the mainstream of gay life. They were into heavy leather, S&M, a world unto itself.". Pacino's character never once comments on the morality of the proceedings in the gay S&M scene, that is left for the viewer to decide.

Also, anyone saying F showed disregard for the gay community's concerns simply is not true:

At noted gay author Guy Rechy's suggestion, Friedkin before Cruising's release deleted a scene showing the Gay Liberation slogan "We Are Everywhere" as graffiti on a wall just before the first body part is pulled from the river, and added a disclaimer:

"This film is not intended as an indictment of the homosexual world. It is set in one small segment of that world, which is not meant to be representative of the whole."


Also, in Exorcising Cruising, a behind-the-scenes documentary on the Cruising DVD, Friedkin notes that the film was enthusiastically supported by much of New York City's leather/S&M community.

Then there's Roger Ebert:

When director William Friedkin announced plans to set a movie in that milieu, and to film it as much as possible on location, the New York gay community rose up in protest. “Cruising,” they said, would present a distorted view of gay life. It would imply the small subculture of S&M was more prevalent than it is, and that, if gays were “into” violence, attacks on them would somehow be justified. The validity of these arguments is questionable.
Last edited by monty on October 31st, 2015, 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

#276

Post by xianjiro » October 31st, 2015, 2:53 am

mjf314 on Oct 30 2015, 08:13:36 PM wrote:
Jay Mars on Oct 30 2015, 07:54:38 PM wrote:
Ettinauer226XL on Oct 30 2015, 07:45:25 PM wrote:Is it weird that I like Birth of a Nation in a so bad it's good way? It's just so ridiculous in its racism that I couldn't take it seriously.
No, it's not weird. Birth of a Nation is brilliant filmmaking with repugnant ideology, kind of like Triumph of the Will. There's a lot to like in both, but as long as you're aware of and sensitive to their issues you won't look crazy talking about how much you like them.
I didn't like either film, but The Birth of a Nation at least had some good things about it. I thought Triumph of a Will was a complete failure at filmmaking and a complete failure at propaganda. I can't imagine the film convincing anyone that Nazism is good (even someone who has never heard of the Holocaust).
Could Triumph of the Will have been meant more to boost the egocentrism of those subscribing to the Nazi line? Or maybe push those fellow travelers into the camp?

I don't think many arguments, however they are made (ahem, including here) are likely to be successful at changing the view of someone who is opposed to the argument to begin with. Personally, I think people who like propagandist arguments and media are those already predisposed to that argument. One wants one's viewpoint reinforced.

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:

#277

Post by Kasparius » October 31st, 2015, 2:53 am

Oh yeah, Roger Ebert, that noted Homosexual. Oh wait...

Again, you're missing the main point, which is that the film added fuel to homosexual hatred at a time where Cruising was pretty much the only film dealing with homosexuals at all.

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

#278

Post by xianjiro » October 31st, 2015, 2:56 am

Ettinauer226XL on Oct 30 2015, 08:23:03 PM wrote:Off topic but HOW COULD I FORGET TO MENTION THIS. Especially cause Cruising has a scene of this sex act, Paul Morris on Foucault:

Image
So trying to find a reply.

:angry: Coming up totally blank! :P

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

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

#279

Post by Jay Mars » October 31st, 2015, 3:01 am

Yeah, instead of Roger Ebert, why don't you read Vito Russo's Celluloid Closet. Or just google Cruising + homophobia. This is all ground well covered.
Last edited by Jay Mars on October 31st, 2015, 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

#280

Post by xianjiro » October 31st, 2015, 3:01 am

Oh my. There's going to be a barbecue at Twelve Oaks tonight! (fanning self)

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

Post Reply