The short interview in question, as well as Cooke’s attempt to partially walk back his statement in which he appears to condemn revealing previously established characters to be gay can be found here, and are worth looking at, especially for David Uzumeri’s respone to Cooke.
Given the backwards-looking nature of much of Cooke’s work, I can’t say I find his objection to a lesbian Batwoman terribly surprising. Disappointing, but not surprising.
While some may be outraged by Cooke’s statement, for myself I’m not sure his statement deserves a response above the level of “heavy sighing.” His statements seem to fall along the same level of disagreement that Alex Ross had with making Obsidian gay. I don’t think either Cooke or Ross are homophobes, I just think they’re a bit too blinded by heterosexual privilege to realize how what they’re saying can sound homophobic.
I haven’t been terribly impressed with Bill Willingham’s run on Justice Society of America to date, mostly because I’ve found the Captain Nazi story uninteresting and interminable and the expansion of the cast into two titles frustrating. But issue 40, which came out last week, was actually surprisingly very good. Yeah, it wraps up the Nazi story with a bit of a deus ex machina and it’s very obviously only meant as a bridge to the cross-over with Justice League, but apart from that it was a good, character-focused look at Obsidian, an under-used character at the best of times, and an angst-free look at that.
There was, however, one note that didn’t quite ring true.
So maybe a conservative straight guy who occasionally writes for right-wing blogs isn’t the one who should be making jokes like that, is all I’m saying.
Still, the good thing about this is that this was what was passing for gay humor in 1972 in “liberal” Mad magazine.
Yeah, I’ll take the conservative who means well over the liberal bigot on this subject, any day.
Oh, come on, you didn’t think I’d let that pass without comment, did you?
It’s nice to see an acknowledgment that the Hercules of myth had an eye for the fellas as well as the ladies.
It’s especially nice to see it after the “eromenos” jokes in earlier issues.
A significant portion of an Uncanny X-Men storyline focused on Northstar’s crush on Iceman. After that, it’s hard to see how having sex with Hercules could be seen as an embarrassment.
Yes, it did occur to me that revealing this after killing off Hercules is convenient timing.
(No, I don’t really think Herc will stay dead long. Or that this will ever be addressed again.)
Justice League: Cry For Justice #1. Gay man killed to make a super-hero feel bad.
Justice League: Cry For Justice #3. Gay man killed, and skinned, to make us think that a super-villain, one who single-handedly took out the Justice League once for God’s sake, is scary and important.
These incidents probably wouldn’t stick in my craw except, well, twice in one series? And at a company where the only other gay male character of significance*, Obsidian, just got turned into an egg after several years of doing nothing much but hang out literally as a shadow in the background. And if killing the faggot wasn’t such an old and monumentally stupid cliche in genre fiction.
When Marvel, the company that gave us the historic “Hulk gets raped” comic and the “Lol, fag” version of Rawhide Kid, is doing a better job by their gay characters, something has gone wrong**.
*I don’t count Mikaal as a gay character, as “aliens who don’t perceive gender and sexuality as we do” was last excusable as a metaphor for homosexuality in The Left Hand of Darkness.
**Yes, Rucka’s Detective Comics run with Batwoman is brilliant and remarkable, and DC should be lauded for it. But if you think that the prurient interest many straight men have in lesbians didn’t play a role in getting it published you’re delusional.
It’s an interesting time to be a Torchwood fan. First of all, you have to be able to watch the show past that Cyberwoman episode. Which means you have to spend some time defending the show from the people who couldn’t watch past that episode. You also have to find some way to talk about how you’re glad that the show found a way to put a gay relationship in the foreground of a sci-fi action drama without sounding like an obsessive shipper who only watches the show as fodder for slash-fic stories.
Which all made the meltdown over the third series, broadcast over five nights as a mini-series, so interesting. Given it’s biggest audience and biggest venue yet, the show performed very well and attracted critical acclaim.
And fans raged.
As for the praise, it was well deserved. “Children of Earth” was a fantastically plotted, amazingly acted television event. A frequent point of criticism for the series is that, while it aspires to mature story-telling and was presented as a more “adult” take on Doctor Who, producers and writers seemed to think that all you needed to make a sci-fi series mature was add in lots of swearing, violence and sex. It’s a partly valid complaint, and the unevenness of the first season is testament to that. But by the second series most of the tonal problems had worked themselves out and the show was able to balance a sophistication in story and character with a self-deprecating sense of humor. That frequently focused on sex. This third series continued that evolution even more, and it’s probably telling that shortening the series to one story told over multiple episodes allowed for a more carefully crafted and thoughtful approach to the series than the need to get out thirteen weeks worth of episodes out the door.
The regular cast do a remarkable job, with Gareth David-Lloyd in particular turning in a excellent performance, and Eve Myles stepping up and showing us a Gwen that wasn’t quite always there in previous seasons but comes to the fore remarkably as well. The supporting cast, particularly Peter Capaldi as ill-fated civil servant John Frobisher, do excellent jobs as well. It’s a terribly well-acted show, and writers Russell T. Davies, James Moran and John Fay should be congratulated for giving such meaty roles for strong actors. If there is a fault to be found with the show, it’s in the rather laggy pacing, particularly in “Day Five”, which frequently felt like a thirty-minute story padded out to sixty.
There are some nice nods to the wider universe the show appears in as well, with Gwen making a fairly convincing case as to why, in certain times of deep crisis, the Doctor doesn’t appear on Earth. It’s a telling indictment, since for those who have been watching the new series of Doctor Who, a significant part of the problem faced here can be traced back to the Doctor upsetting history by removing Harriet Jones from power. And, of course, even if it is slightly selfish praise, it is nice to see a big, mainstream, action sci-fi show headlined by an openly gay man that places one of its heroic leads in a same-sex relationship.
And now, for those of you wishing to avoid spoilers, don’t read past the uncomfortable looking gentleman… Read the rest of this entry »
Occasionally my desire to be vocal about what I feel are problematic depictions of gay men in the media comes into conflict with my…baser urges. And by that I mean, I’m sometimes tempted to overlook things I would normally tend to criticize if a television show or movie features a hot guy in a prominent role. It’s that conflict between being a good homosexual and speaking up about something that could potentially encourage homophobia or being a bad homosexual and just perving on the hot guy.
Television, lately, has been giving me many such opportunities. Some shows I can come to an internal accommodation with. My Name is Earl, for example, could be easily criticized for the use of the Kenny character, a hysterics prone, effeminate gay man. But other characters on the show treat Kenny with respect, every other character on the show is cartoonish in some way, and Kenny’s relationship with ex-cop Stuart is played very sweetly by both Gregg Binkley and Mike O’Malley, that I tend to forgive the queenier moments the writers give Kenny. (Hell, I think Kenny and Stuart are one of the very few gay couples on television that actually appear to have a sex life, so that’s worth a few points anyway.)
More recently, two new show launches have brought up this trend once again. Krod Mandoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire, for example, wants to be a broad farce, but is somewhat constrained by how naughty it can be by the standards people over at Comedy Central. A co-production with the BBC, it’s possible that the overall quality of the show might be improved by seeing it in the original, unedited form, but as it stands now it’s the sort of show that manages only one, maybe one-half of a good joke for every dozen groaners it throws out there. And most of those good jokes are, frankly, not so good, and are saved primarily through the delivery of the actors.
It’s the character of Bruce that I feel that I should be upset about, and to tell the truth, if the show were better, I probably would be. Marques Ray plays the character as chirpily upbeat, so it’s hard to actually dislike Bruce, but he’s also played as a sex-obsessed, shallow stereotype. The character’s introduction is even part of an extended “prison sex” joke, and the show’s promotional materials have referred to the character as a “queen.” But to complain about Bruce is to miss the larger picture, that no character on the show comes off in a particularly positive light and it’s a much deeper problem that, at the end of the day, the show simply isn’t very funny. To single out the character of Bruce for criticism feels like laughing at the guy who just fell and broke his arm.
By coincidence, another show that debuted the same night as Krod Mandoon is the cop-drama Southland. At first glance, it’s your typical cop ensemble, and it owes much to Homicide, including a distracting and intrusive over-use of musical cues. But it’s a very well-acted cop ensemble show, and Michael Cudlitz’s Officer John Cooper is particularly note-worthy because with this character we’re actually seeing something quite revolutionary for American television: a gay character who gets to be the hard-nosed cynic, and a bit of a macho bad-ass. It’s not clear, after two episodes, how much of Cooper’s personal life is know to the other officers, and the revelation of the character’s sexuality, a last-minute pan-out in the premiere episode to show him in a gay bar, was shot in such a way as to suggest that his sexuality is meant to be a secret or somehow “shocking” to the audience, but it’s strongly refreshing to have a gay character who doesn’t fall into any of the usual paradigms for gay characters on television. He’s not the butt of an easy joke and he’s not there to be a sexless neuter solving all the straight people’s problems for them.
Lest you think there’s not a “Bad Homosexual” angle here, because when word got out that Cudlitz was playing a gay character, there were multiple reactions in the gay-blog world along the lines of “why couldn’t the hot one be gay?” Which floored me, for two reasons. First of all, for gay men to be judging the merit of a gay character based purely on the character’s attractiveness pretty much confirms some of the worst stereotypes of the superficiality of gay men. And secondly, and most importantly, Cudlitz is most definitely the “hot one.” His partner on the show is cute enough, but he’s a child, while Cudlitz is both ruggedly handsome and mature.
Oh, who am I kidding…if Krod Mandoon keeps giving us shirtless Sean Maguire, I’ll keep watching…
Renaissance man and gay porn icon Jack Wrangler died today of complications from lung disease. He was truly amongst the greats, bringing a sense of humor, masculinity and versatility to his erotic roles, in addition to his talents as an actor and director. Those wishing to learn more about his fascinating history should seek out the documentary Wrangler: Anatomy of an Icon
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the evolution of gay jokes in sex comedies, teen comedies, and related genres of late. It’s come to mind because I’m frequently finding myself perplexed by which films get a pass from gay critics, and which ones get criticized.
Take, for example, Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay. It’s not quite as good as the original film, and that’s being kind to a fault, but it was certainly a…continuation of the kinds of humor and situation that the first film dealt with. Fairly early on in the film, there is a sequence in which Harold and Kumar narrowly escaped being raped by the prison guards at Guantanamo Bay. And, as you would expect, the point of the scene is to fear the 18-25 male target demographic with revulsion at the thought of a straight man being forced to perform oral sex on another man. Now, personally, I think that it’s a sign of deep sickness in our society that we make jokes about rape being “okay” because it’s happening in prison. But the way the scene is played in the film is slightly more nuanced than the usual “guys get raped in prison” gag. The guards, of course, are laughably homophobic. Yet they’re the ones seeking sex with other men.
This is offensive humor, but to complain about this particular joke, and gloss over the numerous jokes about race, religion and Appalachia is to miss the larger point, which is that the film is one of those all too rare “equal opportunity” offenders when it comes to offensive humor. In fact, if one takes the approach that the prison rape jokes are really centered around the irony of the abusive, homophobic guards secretly craving sex with men, rather than the usual “its funny because they’re faggots” than it becomes notable that gay people are not singled out for ridicule. And yet, this is the film that I saw bloggers, apparently in all seriousness, implying that Neil Patrick Harris owed the world some justification for appearing in.
Along similar lines is the film Sex Drive. It’s actually a fairly superior example of the “teen sex comedy” genre, with a bit of a bildungsroman lurking beneath the surface (and it doesn’t hurt in the slightest that in, oh, say five to ten years, lead actor Josh Zuckerman is probably going to be making all those “handsomest men alive” lists). The plot is typical: nerdy teen is on a quest to lose his virginity, chaos ensues, social order is restored when he realizes that love is more important than sex. What elevates the film is that, unlike most examples of the genre, its actually funny, with some good performances and the right air of plausible absurdity. But it has two gay jokes that stick out and seem to have aroused the ire of many gay critics. The first, is a man who attempts to solicit Ian, the character played by Zuckerman, in a men’s room. As much as I personally try to remind people, when the topic of men’s room sex comes up, that the kind of men who most frequently engage in it tend to think of themselves as straight, as far as the general public is concerned it’s still a “gay” thing. To the film’s credit, the scene in question is not played as Ian being preyed upon, but rather as Ian being naive and accidentally sending out the wrong signals, but overall, yeah, let’s call that a point against the film.
Interestingly, to me anyway, was that the character that really seemed to bother people was Ian’s older brother, Rex, played by James Marsden. Rex is a sadistic bully and virtually every line out of the character’s mouth is a homophobic taunt of his younger brother. Incessantly. To the point where other characters begin to comment on Rex’s seeming obsession with gay sex. And the pay-off, of course, for all of this is that Rex is revealed to be gay at the end of the film. His homophobic insults were a cover. What critics who objected to Rex seemed to miss is that at no point in the film is Rex a sympathetic character. Even after coming out he’s somewhat of a bully. To object to Rex is to object to homophobic characters as much as homophobic jokes. It’s dangerously close to arguing for no gay jokes whatsoever in popular films, even as a sign that the character making the joke is to be viewed with disdain.
The flip side of these types of characters and jokes has been the slightly older aimed films like I Love You, Man. While being, in general, a very good film, it was highly praised by many gay critics and bloggers, and the film itself seems to pride itself in its lack of offensive jokes simply for the sake of having offensive jokes. But it is also the recent film that I had the most problems with when it came to the portrayal of gay men and the use of gay-aimed humor. First, there is the Thomas Lennon character, Doug, who goes on an ill-fated “man date” with Paul Rudd’s Peter, who has managed to reach his mid-thirties with no male friends. When Doug is introduced, he’s played as a regular guy, not totally dissimilar to Peter. He even checks out their waitress at dinner. At the end of the dinner, however, he kisses Peter, and we find that Doug is gay. The kiss itself is drawn out to mine humor from the (supposed) uncomfortableness the audience will have with watching two men kiss. Later, Peter goes home to his fiance and tells her what happened. He then brushes his teeth, multiple times, and jokes about cleaning his mouth with detergent. The set-up for those jokes is that Doug is a smoker, but the notion of Peter going to such extremes because he kisses a man is not going to escape the audience. That ambiguity is compounded later in the film when Doug reappears, and he has gone from a regular guy to an over-emotional, prissy queen. It’s as if the film-makers, having now identified the character as gay, felt the need to resort to a tired, effeminate stereotype to prolong the joke.
More bothersome and problematic for me, however, was the role of Peter’s brother, Robbie, played by Andy Samberg. Robbie, the clearly preferred son by their father, is a macho, guy’s guy kind of fellow, who happens to be gay. The film takes great pains, in fact, to make sure that we understand that Robbie is a really cool, macho, masculine guy. It’s almost an over-reaction, a deliberate attempt to forestall criticism about the portrayal by making him the most stereotypically straight-acting character of either gender in the entire film. What makes me uncomfortable about the character is Robbie’s assertion that he’s only sexually attracted to straight men. The makers of the film are presenting a gay male character as a lech who pervs on straight men, and presenting it as a positive portrayal of a gay man. It’s one of the oldest and most tired of all anti-gay stereotypes, the gay man who sexually obsesses over straight men, and I’m frankly astonished that in 2009 it can appear in a film without attracting more conversation.
What makes all of these films and characters worth discussing to me is that, with the exception of Neil Patrick Harris in the Harold and Kumar films, none of these films feature openly gay actors, or to the best of my knowledge, are made by openly gay writers or directors. While I’m not suggesting that only gay men should be allowed to make gay jokes, it does tend to beg the question for me: are these straight men laughing with gay men at homophobia and gay caricatures, or are they simply exploiting their audience’s homophobia to dress up a “it’s funny because he’s a faggot” joke in slightly more politically correct clothes. A good example of this “are they or aren’t they” problem occurred recently on Saturday Night Live, again with Andy Samberg:
The satire in that skit works beautifully, because the films being parodied are, by any possible standard, homoerotic to the point of satire being nearly redundant. However, the skit does dance around the issue of whether or not we’re supposed to laugh because the films in question contain unacknowledged homoerotic undertones, or are we supposed to laugh because Samberg and Seth Rogen are two guys who look like they’re about to kiss. That area of ambiguity seems to be the zone in which most contemporary comedies are addressing gay issues.
Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That
A pivotal moment in the “Watchmen” plot has Nite Owl and Rorschach hacking into Ozymandias’ computer. Keep a close eye on his desktop, and you’ll see an ominously titled file folder. “Adrian’s sorta like very asexual, but he’s possibly a homosexual,” grinned Matthew Goode, referring to a long-held suspicion among “Watchmen” fans. “There’s a very small thing in his file window, and it just says, ‘Boys.’ Which is very funny, and that’s the kind of detail that Zack works with.”
In a particularly stunning display of how the vast majority of comic book nerds, no matter how patiently you explain it to them, actively refuse to get it, at the now no longer worth reading (now that all the good writers have left for Robot 6), Blog@Newsarama, writer J. Caleb Mozzocco engaged in a rather sad bit of gay-baiting in aid of a joke that, frankly, wasn’t the slightest bit funny in the first place.
The real fun starts when readers point out what an incredibly stupid, not to mention potentially offensive move Caleb’s little joke was, prompting increasingly hysterical and defensive reactions from both Caleb and fellow Blog@ writer Troy Brownfield. For Christ’s sake, they even pull out a sad variation of the “I can’t be homophobic, I have gay friends” defense.
It was the most pathetisad spectacle of the week. At least until the New York Comic-Con started.
I thought the dumbest thing I’d ever heard of was the latest revival of the New Mutants comic, the fourth for those of you keeping count. It’s always sort of sad to see Marvel wallowing in shitty 80s nostalgia like this. It’s so contrary to the image they like to present of themselves as a corporation that it almost feels like a betrayal of their core principles. I mean, DC has been publishing Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman comics for 70-plus years; I expect them to look to their past for inspiration from time to time (though, honestly guys, bringing Barry Allen back? There’s a limit, you know?). Marvel is supposed to be the hipper, younger, forward-looking company.
I suppose this is just them finally admitting that their core audience is man-children unwilling to let go of their childhoods.
Of course, the absolute stupidest thing I’ve heard so far (non-politically) this week was the annoucement of the Dark Wolverine series. I’ll let you all take a laugh break now.
…
Got it out of your system? Good.
I mean, really? Dark Wolverine? That’s what you think the comic industry needs? A “darker, grittier, edgier” version of Wolver-frickin-ine? And then, to top it all off, the series stars, not Logan, but Poochie Daken, Wolverine Jr.? If X-23 was created to make a certain segment of fandom feel better about their masturbatory fantasies, what audience is Daken created to satisfy? Fangirls who didn’t have quite enough people to pair Logan up with in their slash stories?
“We’re going to do Marvel Slumber Party,” Quesada joked in response to a question about the pattern of crossovers. He said “giving the characters a rest,” as the fan had suggested, would mean “a bunch of books where nothing happens.”
Either he’s being disingenuous and deliberately misrepresenting the people who think there are too many event books coming out from Marvel too close together, or he genuinely thinks that not having a book tie-in to some larger story means “nothing happens.” I’m not sure which position should insult Marvel fans more.
Of course, the real tragedy of all this is, that while discussing how face-palmingly stupid all the above is with friends, I was suddenly struck with a really good idea for a Marvel book. Too bad I’d never actually get into a pitch meeting with the company.
Use promo code "POMOBARNEY" for a discount on one year hosting plans.
Comment Policy
Abusive, harassing or grossly off-topic comments will be deleted.
Comments automatically close after 60 days.
Any comment containing a variation of "you forgot" or "uhm, actually" will be deleted and your ISP will go to the comment black-list.
Posting comments at this site is a privilege, not a right. Stay cool, classy and polite and you are more than welcome to participate in the discussion.
, for example, could be easily criticized for the use of the Kenny character, a hysterics prone, effeminate gay man. But other characters on the show treat Kenny with respect, every other character on the show is cartoonish in some way, and Kenny’s relationship with ex-cop Stuart is played very sweetly by both Gregg Binkley and Mike O’Malley, that I tend to forgive the queenier moments the writers give Kenny. (Hell, I think Kenny and Stuart are one of the very few gay couples on television that actually appear to have a sex life, so that’s worth a few points anyway.)
, including a distracting and intrusive over-use of musical cues. But it’s a very well-acted cop ensemble show, and Michael Cudlitz’s Officer John Cooper is particularly note-worthy because with this character we’re actually seeing something quite revolutionary for American television: a gay character who gets to be the hard-nosed cynic, and a bit of a macho bad-ass. It’s not clear, after two episodes, how much of Cooper’s personal life is know to the other officers, and the revelation of the character’s sexuality, a last-minute pan-out in the premiere episode to show him in a gay bar, was shot in such a way as to suggest that his sexuality is meant to be a secret or somehow “shocking” to the audience, but it’s strongly refreshing to have a gay character who doesn’t fall into any of the usual paradigms for gay characters on television. He’s not the butt of an easy joke and he’s not there to be a sexless neuter solving all the straight people’s problems for them.
. It’s not quite as good as the original film, and that’s being kind to a fault, but it was certainly a…continuation of the kinds of humor and situation that the first film dealt with. Fairly early on in the film, there is a sequence in which Harold and Kumar narrowly escaped being raped by the prison guards at Guantanamo Bay. And, as you would expect, the point of the scene is to fear the 18-25 male target demographic with revulsion at the thought of a straight man being forced to perform oral sex on another man. Now, personally, I think that it’s a sign of deep sickness in our society that we make jokes about rape being “okay” because it’s happening in prison. But the way the scene is played in the film is slightly more nuanced than the usual “guys get raped in prison” gag. The guards, of course, are laughably homophobic. Yet they’re the ones seeking sex with other men.
. It’s actually a fairly superior example of the “teen sex comedy” genre, with a bit of a bildungsroman lurking beneath the surface (and it doesn’t hurt in the slightest that in, oh, say five to ten years, lead actor Josh Zuckerman is probably going to be making all those “handsomest men alive” lists). The plot is typical: nerdy teen is on a quest to lose his virginity, chaos ensues, social order is restored when he realizes that love is more important than sex. What elevates the film is that, unlike most examples of the genre, its actually funny, with some good performances and the right air of plausible absurdity. But it has two gay jokes that stick out and seem to have aroused the ire of many gay critics. The first, is a man who attempts to solicit Ian, the character played by Zuckerman, in a men’s room. As much as I personally try to remind people, when the topic of men’s room sex comes up, that the kind of men who most frequently engage in it tend to think of themselves as straight, as far as the general public is concerned it’s still a “gay” thing. To the film’s credit, the scene in question is not played as Ian being preyed upon, but rather as Ian being naive and accidentally sending out the wrong signals, but overall, yeah, let’s call that a point against the film.
Entries (RSS)