real cowboys don't kiss
June 8, 2004

Really?

Ang must know some pretty unusual sheep, then.

It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. Peculiar thing is that in the original novella, there is in fact one and only one explicit (and quite short) sex scene in the actual text -- although there are references to other times, and if you're going to film this, in opening it up, you'll need to make those references less understated. That said, the one explicit scene is done in such a way in the story that it could easily be handled without dickzapoppin' everywhere, and all but one of the times referred to occurs in a cluster after that one. The way the story is written, at that point, the idea is that they're using sex for intimacy because they don't quite know what else to do, that Real Cowboys Don't Kiss -- they can shag their brains out here, there, and everywhere, but kissing would be affectionate, it wouldn't be just sex, and it would mean that they would have to admit to themselves what they're doing. The story is all about the fact that in that time and place, being who they were, they couldn't allow themselves to do that.

All that said, the one scene does need to be, in some way, present. After all, that's how everything starts; they like each other as coworkers and maybe friends, then they have sex, and then they fall in love, even though they don't want to recognize it. Since the sex is the trigger for everything that follows, there needs to be something.

There is one, and only one, somewhat sexual scene later in the novella (although, again, there are references to the two of them taking fishing trips together and talking about what they've done, what they want from life and each other), and in that, the point isn't the sex at all; the point is acknowledging what's going on as best they can. In that one, the sex all takes place off screen, as it were; we see what is very likely the first kiss they have allowed themselves.

You wonder if maybe the people complaining that Ang is de-gaying it maybe haven't read the original story, either (and Ang isn't helping his own cause with cracks like that "sheep" one) . The romance is intense; the sex is intense, but it's not all-present. There's not necessarily a lot to pull out, if he's shooting the story more or less as written. That said, heaven only knows what they've put into the script itself. According to an article at Salon, the draft of the first sex scene is as follows:

There are a few things that may be driving this peculiar reception that the movie -- not yet released and only barely started shooting -- is receiving.

From the gay side, there's the fact that Hollywood has a notorious reputation for sanitizing gay sex and emasculating gay males on screen. The American public has long been uncomfortable with the concept of men kissing or having sex with each other in the movies. Killing each other: A-OK! Kissing each other: EWWW! Because, you see, we're so desperately mature as a society.... Anyway. Given that cable television has pushed the line much further out than it used to be, expectations are high, and Ang saying that he might de-emphasize the sexual content, what little there is, gives cause for concern.

Catty comments aside, "the American public" constitutes another problem for the film. The producers look at Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger, normally top draws, in any film, and they see Big Bucks. The reality, however, is that this film is not a Big Bucks movie. If it's well made, it might be a good Oscar Season movie -- one that will make more money once nominations and maybe awards are announced, but not a lot beforehand. And if they release it earlier in the year, it won't even do that; it'll just be a good small movie. (One hopes that it's good. Certainly small, in any event.)

Finally, of course, there's the iconic image of the cowboy. For all that the story takes place in the 1960s and forward, it's still a cowboy love story. It's not that there aren't cowboy love stories, even involving two men -- take, for example, the Lone Ranger, or any story where the hero has a constant sidekick. I'm certainly not saying that the Lone Ranger and Tonto were going at it in the sagebrush ... but neither am I saying that they weren't. What I am saying is that in your typical cowboy/friends/sidekick story, you can take it as read that the men feel a deep affection for each other, a nearly romantic sort of attachment, and that attachment is never ever ever ever EVER expressed in any real way whatsoever, because Real Men Don't Admit Emotion. Other than that, the only cowboy love stories out there seem to have a man giving up the range for The Love of A Good Woman, or else they're between a man and his horse. (... Geez, not THAT way! EW! Get your minds out of the gutter!) An explicit affair between two cowboys plays with that iconic image in ways that the American public may not be at all comfortable with acknowledging.

Of course, the iconic image has relatively little to do with what actual cowboys may well have been like. Think about it in purely human terms: out there in all that range with lots of guys and no women whatsoever, who else were they going to attach to? Sure, when they got to a town, they'd have a high old time with wine, women and song, but then they'd have to go back out on the range, and they'd have nothing left but each other. It was difficult to find women who'd be willing to put up with a husband that was gone a lot more than he was home, and those that were out there were probably taken up very quickly, leaving far more men than women available. The American west also very quickly developed a reputation for being a place where people were mostly left alone and nobody inquired too much into what you were doing or who you were doing it with; complementing that, being a cowboy attracted the sort of men who wanted to be outdoors, who wanted to be either alone or around other men, and who didn't know what else to do with those feelings. But I digress.

In any event, Ang Lee did well enough with his first gay-oriented feature, The Wedding Banquet. Granted, that was a romantic comedy and not a drama, but still ... if the man can just stop talking about those damn sheep, maybe it would be worth our while to wait and see what he comes up with.

philadelphia freedom?
June 3, 2004

For some reason, and I really don't know why, this ad campaign makes me think of the Village People song, "In the Navy" -- the part where they sing, "We want you! We want you! We want you as a new recruit!" It's not anywhere near that strident or in-your-face aggressive ... but somehow, I just keep thinking of that.

So far, there's been relatively little stir from the usual conservative suspects. Once they actually see the ad, however, they're quite likely to hit the roof. I mean, the very idea that there were gay people in colonial America! That our forefathers would have invited them to Philadelphia! Fa! Such a concept would give them the vapors!

The entire Greater Philadelphia Tourism & Marketing Corp. campaign, which seems to have started in print late last year, is an interesting (and so far, solitary) departure from the normal chamber of commerce type ads. You'd think that San Francisco or Key West or Palm Springs or even (perhaps especially) New York or some town/city somewhere would have run those sorts of ads by now, but it turns out that while all of those cities have similarly toned ad campaigns (do a search for those towns in the Commercial Closet's search box, and remember to click on submit instead of hitting Enter/Return), they've all been for print; Philadelphia is the first city to try it on television. Odd, considering that Philadelphia's gay community isn't particularly well known outside the city. Or perhaps not odd, for that very reason.

My, my, my, how we are grown as a desirable market. First Orbitz and their Thunderbirds ads during Queer Eye, and now the city of brotherly love itself. Whoever will come up with another ad aimed at us next?

but he's ... THE LIBRARIAN!
June 2, 2004

Any resemblance to aspects of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is, no doubt, entirely unintentional. Entirely. Really. It is. Honestly.

Somehow, I just think the title of this movie is going to be changed. I'm not sure to what -- "Adventure Librarian!" although it would convey more or less the right spirit, wouldn't work either. Unfortunately, the word "librarian" doesn't conjure up madcap adventures, heroic deeds, or the buckling of the swash, now does it?

I am, of course, going to have to watch this when it appears out of professional solidarity. I wonder if Nielsen rates by profession. ("Nonlibrarian viewers 18-49, a 5 share; Librarians 18-49, a 100 share! Every single member of the group was watching! Woo-hoo!")

Of course, it will give some poor, impressionable youths entirely wrong ideas of our profession. They will be fated to be disappointed that librarians are only infrequently called upon to retrieve lost items in quite that particular way. And the New York Public Library may have to deal with people skulking in the corners, trying to find that particular corner of their special collections department where the ark of the covenant is hidden.

I would also be willing to bet that quite a few of the articles about this show have been written by people of a certain age, people in their mid-to-late 30s or maybe a bit older. The way the articles are written invokes a certain Bloom County strip about Binkley's anxiety closet. Unfortunately, the strip itself isn't available online, so this description will have to do.

Really, can't you just imagine Noah Wyle and his battleax, striding manfully through the halls of New York Public, dripping blood....

seriously cancelled
June 1, 2004

Well, well, well. And the show was already shot and everything.

One wonders if they decided to pull it because the exceedingly low ratings it would get -- purely because it's a summer show, although the content might also have kept people away; after all, nobody watched their last gay-deceiver oriented project ... which I can't even remember the name of, that thing where the woman had to figure out which of her suitors was gay. On the other hand, they may have decided that the public hassle they would endure -- and GLAAD was highly unlikely to recommend this series, after all, and fairly likely to rip it up one side and down the other -- was not worth the low ratings.

Of course, you have to feel -- a bit -- for the guys who were in the show. After all, they did the work, went out, lied to their families and friends, received coaching from all the right people in the Gay Way of Life, and it was all for nothing at all. Except, one assumes, for a certain amount of remuneration.

If only there were some way to make "The Swan" go away...

Recent posts