|
|
polly peachum-wright (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} wallflower) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2005-11-19 12:39:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| Current mood: | *thud* |
Seasons of Wank
(Yes, more RENT movie wank.)
The RENT movie is coming out next week, but ever since the first trailers came out this summer, art2 (on BroadwayWorld.com), aka arthurs1 (on IMDB), has not been happy. He believes that the RENT movie (as well as Chris Columbus and Sony) is homophobic and is choosing to diminish the male/male relationship and beef up the male/female and female/female relationship (in trailers, ads, and even the movie itself) as a way to keep straight folks and "libido liberals" happy, and as a result he has made it his mission to make people see this by spreading the word (though he has not seen the movie and there's some speculation that may have not even seen the stage show), which, despite whatever good intentions he may have had, has not worked out well for him--most people do not agree.
On BWW, he is the author of such thread titles as The Rent movie trailer appears to be homophobic, How will Chris Columbus show the male-male kisses in RENT?, and Sony and Columbus appear to have put RENT through the anti-gay shredder. (All the BWW threads, despite the headdesking of many members, go on for many pages...and include a lot of penguin pictures.) On IMDB, his posts are similar, with such titles as The selective homophobia of Rent and pseudo-trendy liberals, Apparent confirmation that Chris Columbus commits an act of homophobia (because Angel is in drag when kissing Collins), The promotion of Rent fails the honesty test, An Oscar for obfuscation, and Chris Columbus appears to have de-gayed RENT to get a PG-13 rating. He's even written a letter to GLAAD. (For those without access to IMDB: Dear GLAAD,
I am writing about the official promotion of an upcoming movie called RENT (Sony, directed by Chris Columbus). This movie is based on a Broadway stage play by the same name that contains an important male homosexual relationship.
In the trailer put out on the film's website, the gay male relationship is marginalized and minimized to the point of it being almost impossible to discern as homosexual. Yet the heterosexual relationship gets ample air-time with lingering close-ups and intimacy that leave no doubt that this is a heterosexual relationship. It is conceivable, in my view, that the minimization of the important gay male relationship has been done for homophobic commercial reasons.
Many thanks for taking the time to read my letter. I believe you perform an important function in relation to fair, accurate and inclusive portrayals of gays in the media. )
Now, because of a review of the film in the Washington Blade, he's returned to BWW with the Rent is confirmed to be selectively homphobic (actual thread title) and is saying that he has been "vindicated": this one review that agrees with him proves that he's been right all along. (All the other threads have died down, but this one is still going.)
For those that don't want to sift through everything, here are some random samplings from the book of art2/arthurs1:
The real issue is the comparative treatment of the heterosexual and homosexual relationships in the trailer. If you watch the trailer, you will have no doubt that heterosexual love is being promoted and celebrated. But you get no similar sense of celebration or, indeed, presence of the gay male love. The images of male-male interaction that are present in the trailer could easily be interpreted as platonic, which I have no doubt was the intention of those who made the trailer.
Just keep in mind that libido liberals (which includes playwrights, actors, directors etc) are still uncomfortable with the notion of the passionate male-male kiss. While they claim to support gay rights, they flood the culture with images that exclude the erotic male-male interaction. Their philosophy is that it is OK to eroticize male-female and female-female but not male-male. These libido liberals are the hypocrites of our time, and it is the obligation of everyone who is interested in fairness to keep an eye out for them. This isn't me being nasty, it's simply me holding these hypocrites up to the light and pointing out their deceit and double standards.
You fail to understand the dynamics of modern-day liberalism and movie studio politics. To the executives, male-male affection is more offensive than female-female affection or male-female affection. To the executives, the shock impact of male-male affection can be ameliorated by ensuring that one of the parties is dressed as a woman.
Funny how many of you are justifying Chris Columbus sticking to the stage production's drag persona-version of Angel yet at the same time saying nothing about the female homosexual marriage sub-plot that is added by Columbus. In many of your minds, it's imperative that Chris has stuck to the stage production if it serves to obscure the male-male nature of the gay male relationship but not so imperative if it's to enhance the female-female nature of a relationship. Seems to me that many of you have got some serious double standards you need to deal with.
I believe there has been a systematic effort on the part of the trailer and poster-makers to remove or diminish any notion of gay male affection. This is straight out of the homophobic handbook. The people who are involved in this may just as well have gotten their instructions from people in the religious right. What Chris Columbus has actually done remains to be seen, but I'm not optimistic going by what I've seen.
I don't resile from what I've said. Note that I have backed up my statements with evidence (or lack thereof) from the trailers and poster. You would have to be as naive as a new-born baby if you didn't realize that movie studios bend over backwards to dimish or remove displays of gay male affection. It's as if many of those in positions of power are genetically pre-disposed to male-directed homophobia. I include self-loathing gay men in this.
It looks to be a systematic playing down of gay male affection from faceless wonders behind the scenes.
If the critics see it my way, then I think I'm justified in what I'm saying. I saw the signs coming in the way RENT was being promoted in the trailers and poster. The gay male relationship/affection was minimized at nearly every step. Alot of you are going to be eating humble pie in the way you criticized me in my earlier posts.
(Just for funsies, if you'd like more art2/arthurs1, check out his IMDB profile for his posts on boards like Jenna Jameson, Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Jennifer Aniston, and....Get Rich or Die Tryin', among other things. Fap on, my friend, fap on.)
ETA: On pages 4 and 5 Anthony Rapp came onto the scene and offered his opinion that no one involved with the film is at all homophobic, and art2 responds by saying, "stop covering up for Columbus and Sony, Anthony. They've done a disservice to gay men in general and I truly believe you should be ashamed of yourself for being associated with them." ...wow.
Whiteboy Spice:If after Art sees the film he still has a gripe about Angel and Collins, then we'll talk. But till then it's a bit moot, cause he's making all sorts of assumptions.
I think it goes without saying that NO ONE I have worked with on the film is even a little bit homophobic, and trust me, that's something about which I would be very aware.
It's very interesting to see this conversation unfold, though.
Anthony
art2: The evidence that RENT is selectively homophobic has been building from the trailer to the poster to the film. It's a silver snail's trail of aversion to anything considered to be "gay male". It has been confirmed by independent observers, thus vindicating my position since day one. Moreover, I love the way some of you take twists and turns to defend the staid Angel/Collins depiction while at the same time condoning the fleshing out and sexing up of the female-female relationship. Honestly, some of you should be directing straight porn movies.
As for what Anthony said eariler, stop covering up for Columbus and Sony, Anthony. They've done a disservice to gay men in general and I truly believe you should be ashamed of yourself for being associated with them.
