I watched Another Gay Movie again yesterday. I wanted to take a moment to applaud the filmmakers for making it, and so on and so on.
I also watched American Pie yesterday. AGM mimics some of the scenes in that movie almost word for word. It truly was American Pie for the Gays.
It got me thinking though (doesn't everything these days?). As an adult Gay man, I am subjected to straight imagery all the time. The Bebe signs on the bus stops, the girl in the bikini selling coffee in Washington on the news, couples who are straight and all kissey-face in public,
Through all of that I'm expected to go and enjoy the movie anyway, and I usually do on some level. But when the movie is all Gay, straight folk often don't understand why they should see it or even know about it.
I recall the movie Maurice back a few years ago. It was the Gay Victorian movie from Merchant Ivory based on the novel published after E.M. Forster's death. It was one of three that they put out in quick succession: A Room with a View (straight); Maurice (Gay); and Howards End (straight).
I have a copy of Maurice and was watching it with a straight roommate who 20 minutes in asked why she had to watch this film. Up until that point she had always insisted that victorian period pieces were her favorite films (she probably still does). But Maurice was not even palatable to her. Even though it was very Victorian and extremely well made, had zero sex in it, and only a couple of full-on man on man kisses (but still had plenty of boy/girl smooches).
Both of the movies I watched yesterday had lots of kissing, lots of teen angst, lots of double entendre's and lots of boys wanting to lose their virginity on prom night. One was deemed socially the norm, the other was a fringe film that I couldn't even talk at least two of my Gay friends into going to see at the one theater in a 150 mile radius where it showed two years ago.
Yes, it's a double standard. But then everything related to anything sexual always is.
One Comment
Interesting at how incredibly sexist the double standard is, too. In many ways, we are *still* in the Victorian age. Think about it… the Victorian age was not only about architecture, literature, the Industrial Revolution, etc., but also about a very strict code of conduct – centered on defined roles for men and women.
Men were at the top of that pecking order – straight, white men, that is. Everything seemed to revolve around them. Even today, the "straight" imagery you mentioned (the babe signs at the bus stop, the bikini-clad coffer seller) is for the straight, white man. However, when there is a male object (think of the tube-sock-stuffed Bekham Calvin Klein ad) – it's automatically gay. How come it's not for straight women?
Easy answer: women aren't supposed to have those kinds of feelings – which comes right out of the Victorian code of conduct. And if you're gay? Well, remember that the Supreme Court only recently struck down the last of the sodomy laws (Texas, I think).
I think the Victorian era is cracking and crumbling, and lots of progress has been made. But we are still in it. I wonder what the next era will be called?