|
|
Post by kims on Sept 5, 2024 23:26:20 GMT
It's a shame that gay excludes being a positive role model. Still the fear that gays are predators, may somehow convert a hetero?
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 6, 2024 5:28:49 GMT
It's a shame that gay excludes being a positive role model. Still the fear that gays are predators, may somehow convert a hetero?
***
Occasionally the reverse happens...where it is a goal of some heterosexuals to convert homosexuals to heterosexual behavior.
***
One thing that did seem to happen in Hollywood is where the studio boss dictated which people would be married to whom. In more than a few of those cases I suspect it was the mogul setting up a lavender marriage to keep a popular star away from a scandal if they were engaging in gay or bisexual activities. And in some of those cases the unions did produce children; though, usually they did not produce children and were marriages in name only. |
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Oct 17, 2024 13:12:37 GMT
Out of curiosity, are there any sources you particularly recommend? There's such a cottage industry in publishing these days, the problem being, of course, that so little of it is first-hand. There seems to be an awful lot of the "they're-dead-so-I-can-say-what-I-want" variety. The first one I remember was Hector Arce's "The Secret Life of Tyrone Power: The drama of a bisexual in the spotlight" (1979). Interestingly, the paperback edition omitted the "bisexual in the spotlight" part of the title, so who knows what kind of pushback or failure of nerve there may have been. I bought it because it was the first time I'd seen a book promising to "go there", but it turned out to be relatively coy by today's standards.   |
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Oct 17, 2024 17:36:27 GMT
Out of curiosity, are there any sources you particularly recommend? There's such a cottage industry in publishing these days, the problem being, of course, that so little of it is first-hand. There seems to be an awful lot of the "they're-dead-so-I-can-say-what-I-want" variety. The first one I remember was Hector Arce's "The Secret Life of Tyrone Power: The drama of a bisexual in the spotlight" (1979). Interestingly, the paperback edition omitted the "bisexual in the spotlight" part of the title, so who knows what kind of pushback or failure of nerve there may have been. I bought it because it was the first time I'd seen a book promising to "go there", but it turned out to be relatively coy by today's standards. Since I don't support the notion of a fixed sexual orientation (i.e. born a certain way), and that everyone can be "bisexual" (have sex with different genders which often isn't root in any behavioral driven sexual orientation), I just don't see what is so "oh-my" with regards to who anyone has sex with. Such books tend to be homophobic since if one feels there is an "oh my" element, that tends to mean they view such behavior in a negative light. |
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Oct 18, 2024 0:05:51 GMT
Since I don't support the notion of a fixed sexual orientation (i.e. born a certain way), and that everyone can be "bisexual" (have sex with different genders which often isn't root in any behavioral driven sexual orientation), I just don't see what is so "oh-my" with regards to who anyone has sex with. Such books tend to be homophobic since if one feels there is an "oh my" element, that tends to mean they view such behavior in a negative light. With respect, james, you're deflecting a bit and seem quick to tut-tut anyone showing an interest in the history of public understanding of sexual identity, which has taken a long and winding road to get to the enlightened point you're speaking from. In this case much of that understanding came from a better knowledge of history, much of which had been censored or rewritten to avoid confronting such issues. For me, the "oh-my" factor of the book I mentioned came from the fact that, in 1979, homosexuality had only recently been declassified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association and it would be decades until the last state laws fell in 2003. Self-identified gay Americans were still early on in the work of understanding ourselves and our place in society and a book like Arce's provided a look behind the veil of secrecy and dishonesty around the subject. In a very real sense it was liberating to understand that others had preceded us, especially ones we may have admired, but who had been prohibited from affirming a sexual identity in a public way. Yes, we've come a long way, baby, but I think it's a mistake to discount the impact such discoveries about public figures had on an emerging group identity by using a more modern template to judge it. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 18, 2024 3:50:29 GMT
I think about this thread every so often, when I am watching something and discover a new actor (new to me) who makes me wonder about their true orientation.
It does seem a bit too easy to say everyone is bisexual, even if that is true...a point of enlightenment being reached about one's ability to go in multiple directions, whether or not they ever do, is another issue.
I agree that there is a history to all this. I find it more fascinating to look at how orientation/identity has fluctuated in terms of acceptance on screen...and in real life...but sometimes the movement is just as much backwards or sideways as it is forwards.
I like Melvin's phrasing about nerve...because yeah, sometimes I think people lose nerve or gain nerve, for whatever it's worth and wherever it leads them.
Years ago, when I was at the USC School of Cinema-Television (mid 1990s) I was in a course that was kind of a director's symposium. During the semester we had to make 5 short films. My second major was journalism, so I was always more interested in writing for the screen not directing for the screen...and this course where I had to direct five films was a challenge. After it was said and done, I was immensely proud of my five little films because a lot of creativity, success and failure (which led to learning) was put into them.
There was a guy in that course that I became friends with...he was a very attractive, fiery, intriguing, and sweet sort of guy. He asked me to help with two of his films, and I used him as an actor in one of my films. The great thing about this course was we all kind of helped each other on our various film projects, learning together. Anyway, I thought about this guy over the years, wondering what happened to him. And also wondering how bisexual he was...because he put himself forward as straight but there would be things where he would intimate he also liked guys but then homophobia would creep in, and so I never just had a deep discussion with him about any of that, like I did with other friends at the time (men and women).
So a few nights ago, I thought about some people from my college days, because I am going to start writing my autobiography, or at least start structuring some chapters of it. And I decided to do a google search on this guy to see if he was still alive and what he might be up to. Also, I was kind of curious to see if he still looked the same as I remembered him.
He is still alive, he has a business in the Los Angeles area, in film...a website with contact info, and I am debating whether to reach out. But I kind of decided this time, that if I do, I valued his creativity and loved those films we all made in her our early twenties...so whether he's with a man, with a woman, single, or whatever, I am going to approach it as a friend, because while I was a good friend to him, I don't think I was a very good or good enough friend to him.
Why am I mentioning this here? Maybe because after a point, after all the speculating, what really matters is if the person is someone you value, respect, appreciate. Not who they are sexually.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Oct 18, 2024 17:17:57 GMT
Since I don't support the notion of a fixed sexual orientation (i.e. born a certain way), and that everyone can be "bisexual" (have sex with different genders which often isn't root in any behavioral driven sexual orientation), I just don't see what is so "oh-my" with regards to who anyone has sex with. Such books tend to be homophobic since if one feels there is an "oh my" element, that tends to mean they view such behavior in a negative light. With respect, james, you're deflecting a bit and seem quick to tut-tut anyone showing an interest in the history of public understanding of sexual identity, which has taken a long and winding road to get to the enlightened point you're speaking from. In this case much of that understanding came from a better knowledge of history, much of which had been censored or rewritten to avoid confronting such issues. For me, the "oh-my" factor of the book I mentioned came from the fact that, in 1979, homosexuality had only recently been declassified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association and it would be decades until the last state laws fell in 2003. Self-identified gay Americans were still early on in the work of understanding ourselves and our place in society and a book like Arce's provided a look behind the veil of secrecy and dishonesty around the subject. In a very real sense it was liberating to understand that others had preceded us, especially ones we may have admired, but who had been prohibited from affirming a sexual identity in a public way. Yes, we've come a long way, baby, but I think it's a mistake to discount the impact such discoveries about public figures had on an emerging group identity by using a more modern template to judge it. You're correct that I do question the motive behind showing an interest in a public figure's sex-life, as well as the generally accepted concept of "sexual identity" as it relates to people. Of course, not in your case (or anyone I feel I know well at this forum, with regards to these topics). So sorry to anyone that felt my reply was directed, directly at them. |
|
|
|
Post by kims on Oct 18, 2024 23:18:59 GMT
This a.m. I watched COMPULSION. The 1959 film carefully suggests that the characters based on Leopold and Loeb have an intimate relationship. The attorney played by Orson Welles suggests that the press and prosecution will focus on that they have no other friends or girlfriends and this will be a factor against them- walking around the implication that gays are monsters.
I wonder if the 1924 press did mention homosexuality and if the film COMPULSION added to the myth of gays being maniacs? I'll be busy cleaning up my yard for a few more weeks, but maybe you all have some insight? I will get the book when I have time to read again.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 19, 2024 1:28:24 GMT
One thing occurs to me about the word 'bisexual' and its usage. I remember some gay friends telling me that they thought when a person declares themself as bisexual, it is the first step in coming out as gay. Some gay individuals don't think bisexuality exists, that it's one way or the other.
If you tell a straight person (straight identified person) who thinks bisexuality exists, that it doesn't exist, then they will sometimes find their inner homophobia...and reassert they are straight.
There are many men (and women) that I've known whom I think were/are gay, but society won't let them be gay, so they are trapped in clinging to the safer life of straight-identified. There is a lot of psychological abuse in our society about this...some of the abuse is inflicted by the self, due to the person's own self-loathing.
It's just a complex issue nowhere close to being resolved, because political and religious institutions continually play into it with their biases...as well as movies and TV shows and news media...not to mention the individual's sometimes confused definitions of gender, orientation and sexuality.
|
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Oct 23, 2024 13:54:41 GMT
I wasn't exactly sure where to post this, but I think it goes best here. TCM recently showed the 2024 documentary Merchant Ivory and it's still available for streaming. I wanted to post it here because the particulars of their relationship were equally as interesting to me as the discussions about filming the movies. Both men were good examples of an older generation (basically mine) which grew up with no other expectation than that they would be hiding their true natures for the rest of their lives, the alternative being so unforeseeable at that time. Their romantic and sexual relationship was a matter of course among those they worked with but wasn't discussed (and still isn't by some, out of respect) publicly, leaving the public to fill in the blanks with their imaginations. In a documentary interview Ivory tells how he was friendly with Merchant's family and it was accepted that the men had an unusually close relationship, but no words were ever uttered as to how deep it really went. When asked about his own family, Ivory described it at as pretty much the same and when pressed as to whether or not they "knew", he said no. And yet he seemed never to have internalized any of the shame the general public attributed to homosexuality and was able to deal with the subject forthrightly in some of his films, in a particularly groundbreaking way in Maurice (1987), based of E.M. Forster's posthumous novel. Anyway, I just wanted to give a heads-up about the documentary for anyone not yet familiar.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 23, 2024 16:54:41 GMT
While I am a huge fan of Merchant-Ivory's filmmaking, I don't think they can really be held up as a model example of a gay couple. They certainly were not monogamous. I think there were three-way relationships they had with others, and sometimes one would cheat on the other.
For example, they both were sexually involved with composer Richard Robbins. And Ivory had an affair with journalist Bruce Chatwin who later died of AIDS.
Their relationship had plenty of drama in it, it wasn't oh these two refined gay gents having a quiet simple life as companions away from the set. Do I think they loved each other deeply, yes, I would say they did. But there weren't really like some of the very committed gay and straight couples we find in the motion picture business. Their relationship had flaws and problems, as many relationships do.
|
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Oct 23, 2024 23:20:18 GMT
While I am a huge fan of Merchant-Ivory's filmmaking, I don't think they can really be held up as a model example of a gay couple. They certainly were not monogamous. I think there were three-way relationships they had with others, and sometimes one would cheat on the other.
For example, they both were sexually involved with composer Richard Robbins. And Ivory had an affair with journalist Bruce Chatwin who later died of AIDS.
Their relationship had plenty of drama in it, it wasn't oh these two refined gay gents having a quiet simple life as companions away from the set. Do I think they loved each other deeply, yes, I would say they did. But there weren't really like some of the very committed gay and straight couples we find in the motion picture business. Their relationship had flaws and problems, as many relationships do. What I meant to hold up as exemplary (as in typical) was the situation in which they found themselves at that time, having to navigate social restrictions while maintaining a relationship without actively acknowledging it. Their relationship, as you mentioned, could be contentious and open-ended at times and interviewees commented on that in the documentary, many marveling how the movies actually got made under such circumstances. However their commitment to their relationship ebbed and flowed, their commitment to the work was passionate and I actually do think of them as "two refined gay gents", regardless of the unconventional nature and volatility of the relationship itself. I decided to post about it in this thread rather than under Documentaries because I thought it fit the subject of your thread. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 24, 2024 0:07:04 GMT
While I am a huge fan of Merchant-Ivory's filmmaking, I don't think they can really be held up as a model example of a gay couple. They certainly were not monogamous. I think there were three-way relationships they had with others, and sometimes one would cheat on the other.
For example, they both were sexually involved with composer Richard Robbins. And Ivory had an affair with journalist Bruce Chatwin who later died of AIDS.
Their relationship had plenty of drama in it, it wasn't oh these two refined gay gents having a quiet simple life as companions away from the set. Do I think they loved each other deeply, yes, I would say they did. But there weren't really like some of the very committed gay and straight couples we find in the motion picture business. Their relationship had flaws and problems, as many relationships do. What I meant to hold up as exemplary (as in typical) was the situation in which they found themselves at that time, having to navigate social restrictions while maintaining a relationship without actively acknowledging it. Their relationship, as you mentioned, could be contentious and open-ended at times and interviewees commented on that in the documentary, many marveling how the movies actually got made under such circumstances. However their commitment to their relationship ebbed and flowed, their commitment to the work was passionate and I actually do think of them as "two refined gay gents", regardless of the unconventional nature and volatility of the relationship itself. I decided to post about it in this thread rather than under Documentaries because I thought it fit the subject of your thread.
The thread topic is ones who stayed under the radar. I don't think Merchant or Ivory stayed under the radar. Everyone knew they were gay. It's silly of them to say their families didn't know. No, it was probably more that their families were afraid to validate their homosexuality. The families were to some extent in denial that their sons were gay and in a homosexual relationship. It was easier to think 'they're close friends' or 'they are business partners who make movies together.'
I hope this doesn't sound like I am disparaging them too much. I do love many of the films they made. But I don't see them as a poster couple for same sex relationships. And in fact, this kind of illustrates to me that there are so few positive examples, that they become an example, when they are really not a positive example. |
|
|
|
Post by kims on Oct 25, 2024 18:18:52 GMT
Topbilled, I was a teen in the 60s, I tell you this because I want you to know I speak from Observation not Knowledge. I think you will find difficult to find a committed gay couple prior to maybe the 70s. Two men or two women living as married was too obvious for most of our country. The couple would be ostracized and in some places run out of town like two teachers in my high school days.
I'd like to expand this a bit to include authors. I'm reading the journals of Leo Lerman, writer for Vogue and other fashion mags in NYC. Why did Lerman and Capote, as 2 examples, live openly as gay without much backlash? NYC had regular raids on the gay nightclubs, possibly most famous Stonewall, yet society knew Lerman and Capote were gay, why didn't the police arrest them? One factor might be a hetero thought "it's okay as long as they don't flaunt it" but Truman was what some called flamboyant.
Back to directors, supposedly all Hollywood knew Cukor was gay. Did he get a "pass" because the studio protected him? Was Capote protected because of friends like the Paleys and Lerman because of his elite NYC connections?
This topic is making me wonder, when I was a teen and then in college, all girls who liked to play sports were assumed to be gay. Now in schools girls are encouraged to like sports. Do the masses still think professional female athletes are gay?
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Oct 26, 2024 0:26:45 GMT
This topic is making me wonder, when I was a teen and then in college, all girls who liked to play sports were assumed to be gay. Now in schools girls are encouraged to like sports. Do the masses still think professional female athletes are gay? The majority of WNBA players are gay. The good thing is that today they can be openly so. But now one of the questions is if the gay members are negative towards players that are not gay. E.g. Catlin Clark. Many wonder why prior WNBA gay superstars (e.g. Sue Bird and Candance Parker), didn't bring anything close to the same attention to the sport as Clark has. Was it because sport fans still had anti-gay tendencies? Sadly, Clark's socially defined "race" as also been said to be a possible another reason. I.e. The majority of Americans still tend to love white, heterosexual celebrities. Is that because most people tend to favor people that are like them? And if that is the case (I believe it is), is that wrong or just a natural human emotion\bias? As for Candance Parker: her first marriage was to a man, then she married a woman. Did she marry a man because anti-gay culture compelled her to reject her born-this-way-true-self? Or is this a good example of the POV I've now adopted: That the concept of a born-this-way-true-self is folly and that one should feel free to go in whatever direction they choose as it relates to a sexual partner. |
|
