Second Class Citizens

On Kickstarter, there is a new movie project called Second Class Citizens.  It is a movie about LGBT discrimination, and the filmmaker Ryan James Yezak has put together an absolutely remarkable trailer for his project.  It is a testament to both the power of  the trailer and the strength of the LGBT community and its allies that this movie will be funded.

Kickstarter projects are funded depending upon whether they can reach a set amount of money in a set amount of time from online donations.  It appears that Yezak put his Kickstarter project on a little over a week ago.  He gave himself about two months to raise $50,000.  With 49 days left, he has raised (as of this writing) $131,602 and has almost 3,200 donors.  With 49 days to go, he has raised over 250% of his original goal and still going strong.

The fact that he has raised so much speaks very much to the power of the project, but it also says a lot about the community.  I first noticed this project on the gay blogs.  Ellen DeGeneres also noticed it, and she promoted the movie on her television show.  That is why Yezak got so much support so quickly.  His movie speaks to the LGBT community and to the community’s millions upon millions of straight allies who see this as the great civil rights issue of this era.

The much money in that little time is a remarkable feat.  I have no connection to the movie, and I feel overwhelmed by the support.

Here is the trailer:

Critics And Criticism

In the mid-1990′s, my parents bought our family’s first Internet-ready computer.  It was a PC–I don’t remember what kind–and it came with two CD-ROMs: Encarta and Cinemania.  I spent hours using both discs.  In a pre-YouTube era, watching minute-long videos or listening to sound clips on CD-ROM seemed like the height of technology, even if the quality was not great.

Cinemania was so much more than a disk version of IMDB.  Movies had reviews from three different critics: Leonard Maltin, Roger Ebert, and Pauline Kael.  In the mid-1990′s, everyone knew Roger Ebert because of his television show with his fellow Chicagoan Gene Siskel.  Leonard Maltin I knew from his cameo in Gremlins 2.  Pauline Kael was a new to me.  At the time, I thought she was also the least of the three.  Cinemania only excerpted a paragraph from Kael’s reviews (unlike Ebert or Maltin, both of which were in full) and cited which of her books the review came from.  Her reviews made me angry, and I felt certain I would never read her books.

My next experience with Kael came from a joke on the short-lived cartoon series The Critic.  In retrospect it was rather mean joke at her expense (the sequence starts at about the 2:00 mark), but at the time I thought it was hilarious.  Still I had no idea who Kael was other than just another film critic.  It was not until after she died, and I read her obituary (there were many, and they all very long) that I got a sense of who she was and how important she was.  Eventually I did read one of her books, a compilation of her essays and reviews, and I developed an appreciation of her.  Certainly I had never read a film critic like her before.

This year, 10 years after her death, Kael is back in the public eye.  A new biography has sparked critical interest and reassessment.  Movie critics in particular are eager to talk about Kael and her legacy.  However, the larger cultural world too has taken notice.  While it is true that Kael wrote about the movies, to call Kael a movie critic is to miss the point.  She was a cultural critic, or perhaps more accurately, a cultural warrior.  I use the term “cultural warrior” however, not as we use it today, i.e. one involved in the American political struggle surrounding divisive social issues (same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.)  Rather Kael, pugnacious by nature, wrote about and fought for her vision of American culture via her movie reviews and other writings.  To say that her legacy towers above all other movie critics misses the point.  Her successors, whether acolyte (a Paulette), opponent, or neither, remained movie critics.  Kael was so much more; she was a public intellectual.

Outside of literary criticism I cannot think of another critic in any genre who transcended his or her realm to become a fixture in the public debate.*  In today’s world, the person who comes closest to Kael is Camille Paglia, which is a truly depressing thought.**  Like Kael, Paglia loves her trash culture and defends, although Paglia does not have the coherence to match Kael.  In contrast, a public intellectual like Susan Sontag, who was in some ways, a mirror opposite of Kael, tended to write about culture from a lofty intellectual perch.

In the annals of film criticism, Kael was a unique figure.  In many ways, she was more like the founder of a school of thought.  And like any other such founder, she gathered an inner circle of proteges around her.  In some ways, this was an act of generosity as she nurtured the careers of many young writers (among them her successor at The New Yorker David Denby.)  On the other hand, Kael’s relationship to her Paulettes were no different from (for example) Freud to his inner circle or Ayn Rand to hers.  Kael, like Freud and Rand, demanded an ideological loyalty and cast out those who questioned the basic tenets.  As a result, the Paulettes were always inferior to Kael.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Criticism is more than just critics.  That is fortunate because in the years since Kael’s death, the importance of the critic has waned to almost nothing.  Can you name a famous literary critic?  As for film, there are no critics who, like Kael did, champion young directors anymore.  Perhaps this is not an entirely bad development (it was a source of much criticism against Kael).  In large part this is because culture has changed.  It is fragmented and corporatized–even more so than before.  High culture has all but disappeared, and trash culture monopolizes.  Only the lowest common denominator is catered to.

The public intellectual has largely been replaced by the know-it-all television pundit.  One can fairly debate what a public intellectual is now.  They were those who debated ideas in public outside the realm of academia.  People read what they wrote, which is why magazines that allowed for such debate, such as The New Yorker or The Atlantic, were so valuable.  In the age of television, reading is simply not so important anymore, and reasoned debate does not make good television.  Screaming and shouting is the preferred method.  The more ridiculous the story, the better (which is how you get this gem). Television does not want its audience to think, and there is no long form debate.

The Internet has diluted the debate even further.  Any fool with a blog can be aspire to be the next great public intellectual or social critic.  All he needs is an opinion and basic literacy, but that does not make him the next Lionel Trilling.  I think therefore I blog; I blog therefore I publish; I publish therefore I matter.  The problem is that separating the wheat from the chaff is nigh impossible on the Internet (to those still reading this post, thanks for thinking I have something worthwhile to say, although I do consider myself one of the fools.)

Ironically, the print media has made the Internet even worse.  Go to the website of any major newspaper and you will find it packed full of blogs.  Most of them, aspire to report rather than opine, although there are some that do not pretend to the print media’s nominal adherence to non-partisanship.***  Even worse than the online print news outlets are those online news sites that are only online.  I am thinking of Slate and Salon in particular, but there are many others.  The quality of Salon and Slate has been particularly damaged by giving their writers blogs.  Salon is the far more egregious of the two, but one expects that from a publication that gives platforms to hacks such as Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota (among others).  Salon has given up on the legitimacy in favor of preaching to its choir.†  Slate is headed in that direction.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~

A relative of mine wants to be a comedian.  I’ve never seen him perform, although in person he is quite trenchant and funny.  I fear however, that he has a view of comedians that is just unrealistic.  My relative’s hero is George Carlin, and in said relative’s mind, a great comedian should be like Carlin, social critics or speakers of truth to power.  In other words, a modern-day version of the fool from King Lear.

When Tracy Morgan made his now-infamous attempt at a comedy routine, and was thrown out in the cold by, among others, his boss Tina Fey, my relative was furious.  He thought that comedians should have the freedom to say whatever they want and the only thing they should be criticized for is not being funny (which by all accounts, save for one rapper, Morgan was not). My relative was especially angry at Tina Fey, and called her a hypocrite for speaking out against Morgan so forcefully.

The truth is that my relative is wrong, and not just in his deluded belief about the importance of comedians.  No one should be immune to criticism because of their occupation.  A comedian need not say the “right” (i.e. socially correct) things, but he should not be excused from potential backlash than a non-comedian for upsetting his audience.  Having the freedom to say whatever you want means have to accept that others have that same freedom.  Words have power, and those who take that power lightly do so to their own peril.

What my relative does not understand is that criticism is a two-way street.  Critics can (and do) become the criticized, and any public figure opens him or herself up to attack.  I have read many critics who complained about receiving hate mail after panning a blockbuster film.  Pauline Kael herself was always the focus of often vitriolic criticism (including her long-running feud with the film critic Andrew Sarris), and that was the way she liked it.  She dished it out, she took it, and she dished it out again.  That is why she alone among all film critics is still being discussed years after her death.

Footnotes:

* Both Frank Rich and Frank Bruni were critics at The New York Times (theater and food respectively), and not doubt both would claim they are now public intellectuals because they now engage in the larger sociopolitical debate.  I am not sure I would agree, that is besides the point.  Both left their positions as critics of culture to be social critics.

** Is there anyone, excluding politicians, who has a higher opinion of herself with less reason to than Camille Paglia?  Lazy thinking, a complete inability to self-reflect, and an iceberg-sized chip on the shoulder make for poor writing.  There is a reason why Molly Ivins’s brilliant take-down of Paglia has become legendary.  (This one is pretty good too.)

*** The illusion that the media should have no bias is not only misguided, it is pernicious.  When one side of the debate spouts off lies, then that just destroys the debate.  The media has the responsibility to report the truth not simply what both sides say and call it a day.

  Salon has basically given up on the idea of journalism.  There are no investigative pieces.  Even their book reviews come directly from the Barnes & Noble website, which makes Salon a shill.  Salon has also published an excerpt from the latest book by conservative gadfly and infamous homophobe Joseph Epstein, which proves that despite its claims to liberalism, the only orthodox views that Salon truly holds to are its staunch anti-Israel and its pro-Occupy Wall Street positions.

  It is very rare for a comedian to truly make a difference, and when they do it is usually because there is a court case involved (George Carlin, Lenny Bruce).  Otherwise, even the greatest and edgiest are no more than the boys (and girls, but mostly boys) in the back of the room who throw spit balls.  Most comedians cannot even rise up to that level, and mediocrity is rewarded, which is how Jerry Seinfeld and Jay Leno have become corporate empires unto themselves.

Free Publicity

Decent football movies are few and far between.  All the ones I have seen have been documentaries.  Through an acquaintance, I discovered a documentary that has not yet been made.  The film is called “DreamTown” and it is being made by a filmmaker named Betty Bastidas.  DreamTown is about the football played in the slums of Ecuador, and the men and boys who play it.

The project is on KickStarter.com.  If you have never been to the site, here is how it works.  The project creators ask for a certain amount of money in donations, and those who pledge only get charged if the project receives the projected amount.  Bastidas asked for $40,000, and it looks like she may have asked for too much.  With 3 days to go, at the time of this writing, the project has only received about $12,700 in donations.

Whether or not you donate is entirely up to you, but I do urge checking out the DreamTown website to see if this is a project worth supporting.  I think so.

Atlas Shrugged . . . And So Did I

I have complained that Hollywood has no original ideas.  But I never expected this, a movie (with more to come!) based on Atlas Shrugged.  That’s right, Ayn Rand’s zillion page, pseudo-philosophical, paean to complete and utter selfishness has been filmed for the cinema.  Atlas Shrugged is a funny kind of book–and by funny I mean completely horrid and devoid of any redeeming qualities.

It is allegedly one of the most influential books of all time, yet I doubt most of those people who cite it as an influence have actually read it.  Either that or they are caught in a perpetual adolescence and have no idea how the real world actually works (like Ron Paul and his followers.)  Even Alan Greenspan, a devoted acolyte of Rand, had to eat crow when the economy collapsed and admit that her ideas have no basis in reality.

For those of you who have not read Atlas Shrugged, I will summarize it for you in three words: Greed is good.  There, I have now saved you the countless hours of frustration you would have otherwise had by slogging through the book.

The movie trailer looks equally as dull.  I can’t wait to see it flop, although I am sure the Rand-ites, Paul-ites, and other misguided Libertarian types will see it over and over again just to ensure that the market doesn’t really judge the film’s merits.

Wonder if they’ll keep the rape scene.  That’s the other thing about Ayn Rand novels you should know–the female protagonist is always raped by (at least) one of the book’s heroes.  And she likes it.

On Popular Culture and Mourning

I finally watched the last episode of “Beautiful People”–twice, in fact.  Knowing that I will never see another new episode of the show has left me far more depressed than it should; it is, after all, just a television show.  Yet, the end of the show still hurts because the fictionalized Simon Doonan, his family, and his best friend Kylie became a part of my life, even if only for the briefest periods of time.  The end of the show has had an effect of me that I can only describe as something akin to experiencing the death of a loved one–at least in sentiment if not in scope.  The story ended, and I am left with grief and a painful process of decathexis.  Were I mourning a person, this process would be considered natural.  That the mourning if for a television show makes the grief far less acceptable but nevertheless still understandable.

I do not remember mourning television series when I was young.  As a child I watched far too much television, particularly cartoons.  Every Saturday morning I would wake up early–something I could never do on school days–turn the channel to NBC, and plant myself in front of the television.  It never seemed to matter that after a certain point there were no new episodes; the old ones were good enough.  Cartoons, especially cartoons in the 1980′s, told self-contained stories in each episode: the never ending battle between good and evil.  No one grew up or moved on.  As a result, there was no chance to develop an attachment as one gets from watching characters grow and change over time, as though they were real.  Besides, cartoons in the 1980′s were mere vehicles to market toys.  I had the toys, and even when the cartoon ended, I could continue the story on my own the way I thought it should go.

I also was growing up, and what I loved in elementary school, I rejected in middle school.  In my early adolescence I found fantasy novels, which were far more satisfying than cartoons, but also more tragic.  They ended.  The first time I can remember experiencing an acute sense of mourning for a story was after I finished Lloyd Alexander’s Prydain Chronicles, a beautiful bildungsroman series steeped in Welsh mythological imagery.  Whenever I finished the series, I reread it from the beginning.  However, it was never the same as the first time.  Each subsequent read was only a revisit, never a re-experience.  I already knew the whole story; it had already ended.

****

The first person I saw die was my grandmother.

I was four years old the year my grandfather turned 60, and my grandmother organized a surprise party for him.  I can still remember the party, although not well.  There was a commotion behind me, and I turned around to see my grandmother lying dead on the dance floor.  Some older cousins rushed me out of the room, but I already saw everything.  My next memory of the night is a room, I suppose it was an ER waiting room, and learning that my grandmother had died.  I remember crying, not mine but my family’s.

I have no memory of my reaction to my grandmother’s death, although years later I found out that I had an emotional meltdown.  I locked myself in my room and refused to come out, desperately believing that one of my cartoon heroes could bring my grandmother back.  All that I can recall is a terrifying nightmare that I had shortly after my grandmother died.  Although I must have cried, I remember crying for my grandmother only once.  About three years after she died, I was talking about my her with a friend of my mother’s.  I started crying uncontrollably.  Immediately afterwards, I was deeply ashamed, all the more so when my mother saw.  That was the last time I cried because of a death.

I will never see my grandmother again.  All I have left are trinkets, old photographs, and hazy memories.

****

My grandmother was lucky in a way.  This is not a flippant statement; I say it knowing she never knew most of her grandchildren, and never say any of them grow up.  I alone among her grandchildren have memories of her, and mine are few.  It is a cruel fate.

But she was also lucky because she never was dying; she just died.  Instantly.  Although her survivors suffered and continue to suffer from the lingering effect, she had no pain.  Almost every other member of my grandmother’s family who died–her parents, her brother, and her husband–died after a prolonged period of painful and degenerative illness.  Her sister is now similarly suffering.

There is no such thing as a good death or bad death.  The death of a loved one is a crushing blow.  Survivors never heal;  they just make peace.  There are however, easy deaths and difficult ones.  My grandfather died after a long and painful battle with terminal cancer.  I last saw him the day before he died.  His mind was so addled by illness and morphine that he tried to harm himself.  Terminal cancer is a horrible way to die and horrible to witness. Although my grandfather spent more time with his family than my grandmother did, her death was luckier.  My grandfather’s suffering cast a heavy shadow over his final years.  Nevertheless, he too was luckier than some.  He died at home surrounded by the people who loved him.  Not many have that luxury.

****

I do not know how to mourn properly.  Probably no one else does either.  There is a cultural ideal of mourning–cry at the funeral, grieve for a few months, move on with life–but this is a fantasy perpetuated by media.  And the closer the loss, the harder it is to recover.  Some never do.  Yet society at large does not recognize that.  American culture in particular, despite its alleged emphasis on the uniqueness of the individual, does not recognize different methods of grief.  Instead only women may cry but men must not. We are told that if a loss takes too long to mourn then there is something wrong with the mourner, and it must be treated with medicine, with psychotherapy, or both.  We live by those words of Ecclesiastes: “To everything there is a season.”  Nothing, least of all death and mortality, can ever be contained in a solitary season.  The emotional life ebbs and flows without regard for societal propriety.

My own tears always come at inappropriate times.  I did not shed a tear when my grandfather, a man to whom I was extremely close, finally died.  I delivered his eulogy in a clear unshaken voice.  I gave the eulogy for my other grandmother a fear years later and never once cried after she died.  Yet my tears flow freely when I watch Pixar movies or hear a melancholy song sung by Karen Carpenter.  My emotional catharsis is a process that must be aided by external factors, otherwise I am physically incapable of expressing grief.

In her book On Death and Dying, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross described five stages of grief that terminally ill patients experience–stages which also apply to survivors.  On Death and Dying is a beautifully written book, far more beautiful than it should be.  When I was in graduate school, a favorite professor of mine read aloud to my class the last few pages of On Death and Dying–the book’s post-script, “the silence that goes beyond words.”  ”Watching a peaceful death of a human being reminds us of a falling star; one of a million lights in a vast sky that flares up for a brief moment only to disappear into the endless night forever.”  By the time my professor read those words, I was already fighting hard not to dissolve into tears.  After class I went to the local library to borrow a copy of the book.  When I again read those last few pages I cried, unable to stop.

My grandfather had died a year and half prior.

****

The first movie I ever cried at was the Bette Midler vehicle Beaches.  I was still young, maybe 11 or 12.  Beaches is a manipulative film, designed to make audiences cry.  My mother, who avoids all popular entertainment, watched the movie with tear-filled eyes.  I saw only the end of the movie, but it was enough to cause in me gulping sobs, much as I tried to hide it with nervous laughter.  For years after that, nothing moved me to tears.  I had the occasional tearful outburst, but it was always the result of impotent rage not sadness.

Early into the first semester of my senior year of college, my literature professor assigned Tevye the Dairyman, the short story collection by the Yiddish author Shalom Aleichem that became the basis of the inexplicably-beloved musical Fiddler on the Roof.  Each story is a monologue that Tevye shares with the author (“Mr. Shalom Aleichem”) about his life; usually these stories center around Tevye’s daughters.  Most of them are tragic, but Tevye’s sardonic humor changes potential bleakness into transcendence.

In the story “Hodel”, Tevye’s second eldest daughter’s fell in love with and married a Marxist who is subsequently sent to Siberia.  In the story, as in the musical, Hodel leaves her family–probably forever–to be with him.  In the musical, Hodel sings a dramatic song to her father expressing grief over leaving.  In the story she bades her father farewell, “Good-bye, Papa, only God knows when we’ll see each other again.”  And stoic Tevye, as he leaves behind his story, cries to his listener.  I cried too.  On a train.  In public.  Tevye reverts back to his dark and protective humor as the story ends, “Let us talk of more cheerful things: what’s the latest news about the cholera in Odessa?”  But since that time, I have not been able to refrain from tearing up at the little things–sad or sentimental.

Since Tevye I have read two other books that, upon finishing, I like crying: Don Quixote and Pedro and Me.  The latter book brought up emotion connected to my own sexuality and its meaning, to AIDS, and to remembering the death of someone I admired.  Don Quixote was something different.  Because I spent so long reading the book and put so much energy into it, when I finished I felt so empty.  The characters of Don Quixote’s world had for a time become a part of my inner life, and suddenly they vanished.  I felt empty because they were missing and would never return.

****

In college, when I was at my lowest, I listened to the soundtrack of Beautiful Thing over and over again.  Although I enjoy the music of Cass Elliot and The Mamas & The Papas, the real reason why I listened to the soundtrack repeatedly was because it was my way of recreating the movie.  Although the movie had a satisfying end, real life does not end with two young boys dancing to the strains of “Dream A Little Dream Of Me” in the middle of a council housing courtyard.  Listening to the soundtrack was a way of assuring myself that they would be okay, because in the real world Jamie and Ste would probably face a tremendous amount of pain and hurt.

Satisfying endings are rarer for television shows than movies or books.  In most cases shows are cancelled too soon and the series does not have time to properly wrap up.  In other cases, the show has been on for too long, and ending it is an act of mercy.  A series finale is a way of rewarding the audience with closure.  Loss and closure are fundamentally tied together.

When a relationship ends, it is not uncommon for one party, usually the wronged one, to want closure.  In this context closure really means the easing of pain rather than the resolving of unresolved issues.  Life is messy, and closure does not come easily regardless of the intended meaning; real people feel real emotions that are exceptionally complicated.  When two people have any kind of meaningful relationship–romantic, familial, etc.–they internalize aspects of one another.  Those internalized aspects grow and change as the relationship does.  When the relationship ends the internalized aspects fade away and leave behind a gap.  Closure is a futile attempt to fill the gap  or at least ease the pain that its opening causes.  That is why true closure is very rare; it is an attempt to speed up a process that inherently resolves only through time.  Death is particularly closure-proof.  Even if we say everything that we possibly would want to say to our loved ones, even if we resolve all unresolved issues, closure is impossible.  Closure is an artificial process to hasten healing.  Death leaves behind an emptiness that only time heals, and never entirely.

Scripted entertainment, unlike life, provides an opportunity for meaningful closure because it is the ultimate artificiality.  Writers play God; they control the outcomes and can end the story as they choose.  This resolution may not necessarily be happy, but it should be satisfying.  An absence of closure betrays the audience.  Television, unlike books or movies, do not necessarily provide closure because the writers do not control the endings.  The success of a series is subject to the whims of audiences and networks.  Sometimes writers do try to control the ending even when the series is not continued; the end of the season is written so be a potential end to the series, a tactic used for years by Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Television shows are unique among media–unlike books, they are visual thereby leaving nothing to the imagination.  Unlike other visual media (movies, plays, operas, etc.), television shows are not self-contained; they can span weeks, months, years, even decades–longer than most relationships.  The inevitable familiarity allows we the viewers to know the characters almost as well as we know our loved ones.  When a show goes on for a long time, we prepare ourselves for the eventual loss, just as we prepare for the loss of a loved one with a terminal illness.  When a show is cancelled prematurely, it is as shocking as a sudden death.

It is odd to talk about the relationship to, and even love for, television characters; after all the feelings one has toward television characters cannot compare to the love between two living beings.  Yet the relationship to a fictional character is not a completely one-sided either.  The character may not love us back, but their lives do inspire emotions in us, often by reaching out to feelings that are inside of us.  Is it possible to remain neutral and uncaring when we are touched so deeply?  After all, the vast majority of people who “know” us cannot make us feel.

The Internet and the DVD changed the way audiences experience television, and the feelings of love and loss are more immediate.  Normally, we fall in and out of love with television characters over the course of weeks.  Exposure was limited to the caprices of a television schedule.  It is that time on screen (not the spaces in between episodes) that let shows woo their audiences.  Post-Internet, post-DVD, we no longer have to abide by the weekly schedule; we can watch it all at once.  There is less of a chance to forget characters or lose interest when the next episode is so immediate.

When a beloved series has only a limited run, the ardor never has a chance to cool down (as with long-running series); the loss feels all the more acute.  No show epitomizes viewer love and loss better than Arrested Development.  While it was in danger of cancellation, its fans fought hard to save it and were ultimately unsuccessful.  The show had a second life on DVD, a much better format given the pace, humor, and complexity of the story.  The DVD brought new viewers to the show but too late.  The grief over the end of the show produced a sort of denial and the promise of a movie that may or may not happen.

Freaks and Geeks was another show that found a second life on DVD.  Like with Arrested Development, Freaks and Geeks got a new life on DVD, and the format rewards the viewer with a beautifully told storyline, not subject to the whims of scheduling or commercials.   The series did not last a full season, but it is still one of the finest dramas that network television has ever aired.  Every single actor in that show is great; even secondary characters are fully realized and integrated.  After watching the entire show, my significant other said to me how sad he was it was that it ended because it felt like he lost his friends.  It was a sentiment that I completely shared.  I feel that way even more so about Beautiful People.

****

With the exception of the British Queer as Folk, I have never encountered a show that speaks to gay men as intimately as Beautiful People.  There are no concessions to straight audiences the way that American shows routinely make for series that are nominally focused on gay characters.  Without intending to, I invested myself in the show even though I knew that there were only 12 episodes.  Nevertheless, knowing that Beautiful People has ended is extremely painful and depressing.  I mourn the loss.

The irony about Beautiful People is that closure was built into the show’s structure.  Each episode is framed by the adult Simon Doonan telling a story from his youth.  The first season is about how Simon comes to terms with his difference from other boys.  The second season is about how he comes to terms with his sexuality.  However, because the adult Simon narrates the show, the audience knows that young Simon turns out okay.

At the end of the final episode, young Simon almost gets his first kiss, and his family accepts his sexual orientation.  But Beautiful People makes its only misstep at the end.  When the memory ends, the adult Simon tells his mother that he is getting married to the boy he had a crush on in school.  It is a tacked on ending to wrap everything up.  ”Look,” the show is saying, “Simon is happy and getting married.  Everything is okay.  See, it all works out in the end.”

But it doesn’t.  There is too much of a story left to tell, and even with an ending that attempts to make everything right, the emptiness does not get filled.  There is no closure.  Watching the show from beginning to end another time will not help.  It is akin to looking at old pictures of ourselves.  The pictures remind us of our memories, but they are frozen in time.  We can not revisit the past to make new memories.

Closure in anything, even television, is a rare gift.  When there is a loss, no matter the significance, we lose a part of ourselves: the part of ourselves that we invested in the object.  I miss Lindsay Weir and Michael Bluth, but the loss of Simon Doonan and Kylie Parkinson is particularly intense.  Because of the sexual orientation connection, I feel like I lost something extremely intimate–the gay best friends I never had growing up.  The part of myself that was Beautiful People will dwindle and fade–and it will do so painfully.  All I have left are memories and YouTube clips: the Internet version of old pictures.

Music I listened to: Boyzone “Better”; Christina Aguilera “Beautiful”; ABBA “Like an Angel Passing Through My Room”; Katia Guerreiro “Ser Tudo Ou Nada”; Patricia Kaas “Falling in Love Again”; Chiara “Angel”; The Low Anthem “Charlie Darwin”; Eva Cassidy “Imagine”; Melissa Manchester “Don’t Cry Out Loud”.

1950: The Game Of Their Lives And The More Interesting Story

Two weeks ago I watched “The Game of Their Lives” (distributed on DVD as “The Miracle Match”, but I will go by the original title) about the United States Football Team’s shock victory over England at the 1950 World Cup in Brazil.  As a fan of the World Football Phone-In, it was great to see Tim Vickery on screen (and I guess also Sean Wheelock, although his role was kind of unnecessary.)  The movie is mediocre, and got quite a bit wrong–particularly the insulting “noble savage” image of Joe Gaetjens, the Haitian national who scored the winning goal (Voodoo?  Really?).  Because this is Hollywood, the English had to be made into villains.  The character assassination of poor Stan Mortensen (portrayed by Gavin Rossdale) would be laughable if it were not outright slanderous.

The United States team’s upset of England in 1950 was epic.  As I mentioned in a previous post, even when I knew nothing about the beautiful game, I knew about this victory.  However, the match was no Miracle on Ice.  For one thing, the Americans lost their other two group matches and finished at the bottom of the group.  For another, despite its magnitude, the upset did nothing in the long term for football in America.  The United States would not return to the World Cup for 40 years.

The United States actually had performed well at the World Cup before 1950.  The Americans placed third at the first World Cup in 1930.  Granted there were at least five or six Brits on the 1930 squad (mostly expatriate Scots.)  And also granted almost all of Europe’s strongest teams did not participate.  That should not however, take away from the fact that the United States was at one time, very much a participant in the world’s game.  Despite what The Game of Their Lives would have its audience believe, the 1950 United States squad was not some makeshift team of players with no international experience (or knowledge of the World Cup) called up a week before the tournament started.  In 1950, just as today, national squads have to qualify for the World Cup.  Some of the players had represented the United States at the 1948 Olympics.  This is not to say that the Americans were of the same caliber as the rest of the world.  It just means that the movie tried too hard to make the 1950 team like the 1980 Olympic Hockey Team by underplaying the Americans’ experience.

As I mentioned above, the movie turned Stan Mortensen into a pantomime villain.  In the movie Mortensen toasts to the American squad after playing them (and beating them) while on an exhibition tour in the United States with a team of players not good enough to make the England squad.  Mortensen’s “toast” was a barely disguised put down of Americans for being too stupid to appreciate the subtleties of football and cricket.  This scene is meant to rouse the patriotic fervor in the (American) audience and to reward with the satisfaction of Mortensen’s and England’s inevitable fall.  Here is the biggest problem with Mortensen’s toast: it never happened and it never would.  First, it never happened because Mortensen was not in the United States for that exhibition tour.  Second, Mortensen, who was born into a working-class family in a town near Newcastle upon Tyne, would never have given that speech even if he had the opportunity.

The movie beats its audience over the head with the fact that Stan Mortensen was the greatest player of the century if not all time.  This was simply not true.  Mortensen was undoubtedly a great English player.  He is to date the only player ever to score a hat trick in an FA Cup final (when his Blackpool team beat Bolton Wanderers in 1953.)  However, the movie conflated Mortensen with Sir Stanley Matthews, who was one of the greatest early players of the game.  It was Matthews who went on tour with that England B Team that beat the United States (although Matthews did not play that day.)

Stanley Matthews is a towering figure in English football.  Although he won exactly one major prize (the 1953 FA Cup), he is one of England’s greatest players.  So great and so beloved was Matthews that the 1953 FA Cup final is called “The Matthews Final” despite the fact that Mortensen scored that hat trick, and they both played for Blackpool.  Matthews was also known as one of the true gentlemen of the game.

So why did the movie basically ignore almost all existence of Sir Stanley Matthews?  Probably the main reason is that he did not play in the England/US match.  The movie makes exactly one mention of Matthews–the Americans find out that he is not playing because he is still in Rio de Janeiro (i.e. the match was not important enough to make the trip out to Belo Horizonte.)  Matthews actually was in Belo Horizonte for the match; he did not play for tactical reasons–a managerial mistake in hindsight.  Because the movie needed to play up the greatness of the English, the filmmakers could simply not acknowledge that England’s greatest player sat out.

The movie also overdid the whole “England are the greatest team in the world” bit (something the British press continues to do before every World Cup.)  Certainly England were among the bookmakers’ favorites.  The Brazilian crowd also feared England, and rooted for the Americans in the hopes that England would not advance.  But the truth is by 1950, the rest of the world had long since passed England (the only reason England did not realize it was because they always readymade excuses for losses–usually the weather.)  The loss to the Americans was humiliating, but did not change England’s view of itself.  England lost to Spain in the next match, thus ensuring they did not qualify for the next round.

The real dismantling of England’s inflated self-image came when Hungary’s Golden Team mauled the Three Lions at Wembly three years later.  With that loss, and the even more humiliating 7-1 loss to the Hungarians in Budapest in 1954, even the English had to admit they were bested.  They could not blame the heat for their shortcomings anymore (although it does continue to a popular myth to this day to explain why England underperform.)

The Americans and the English remember the 1950 World Cup for their encounter.  The rest of the world however, remembers 1950 for a far more dramatic and interesting match–the Maracanazo, the final contested by Brazil and Uruguay.  All Brazil needed to do to win the tournament was draw Uruguay (technically it was not the final because it was a round-robin match, but it was the de facto final as well as the last match of the tournament.)  Brazil expected to win.  The home crowd and the media expected the team to win.  The match was held in the Maracanã, the giant football stadium in Rio de Janeiro built specifically for the World Cup.  The mayor of Rio de Janeiro, before the match began, exalted the Brazilian team, calling them the victors.  The Uruguayans were so nervous that allegedly one team member wet himself during the pre-match lineup.

In the real biggest upset of 1950, Uruguay won the match 2-1.  The loss devastated the host nation.

The Maracanazo (“Maracanã blow”) was a national tragedy that haunted Brazil’s collective psyche.  The  Maracanã held somewhere around 200,000 people, maybe more, and some fans committed suicide following the loss.  The Brazilian writer Nelson Rodrigues made the following (overwrought) comparison: “Everywhere has its irremediable national catastrophe, something like a Hiroshima. Our catastrophe, our Hiroshima, was the defeat by Uruguay in 1950.”  Ironically, the second place finish in 1950 was Brazil’s best World Cup result to that date.

The loss deeply affected the Brazilians; to an extent they are still haunted by the Maracanazo.  God help the 2014 team if they do not win the World Cup, which will be held in Brazil.  The Maracanazo is still considered to be the saddest day in the country’s history (in that sense Brazil is fortunate; it never had a destructive war on home soil.)  Following the loss, the Brazilian people looked inward and tried to figure out why their national team could not beat Uruguay–the idea that Uruguay was better or played more effectively never seemed to come up.  They conveniently forgot that their team had won the South American Championships the year before and beat Uruguay 5-1.

The Maracanazo was proof, or so the Brazilians claimed, that they an inferior race because of their multi-racial makeup.*  Racism became the subtext of the loss.  Three players were blamed above all others: the defender Juvenal, the left-half Bigode, and more than anyone else, the goalkeeper Moacyr Barbosa.  All three were black.  The cruelty that was displayed toward Barbosa is, I believe, unparalleled in football. Barbosa was turned in a national scapegoat, a Dostoyevskyan punishment; he became an outcast and a pariah, not just from football, but from society.  Twenty years after the match, a woman in a shop spotted Barbosa and told her son (in front of the former goalkeeper) that Barbosa was “the man that made all of Brazil cry.”  Even as late as 1993, he was not let near the national team’s training camp because he was thought of as a jinx–Barbosa had not been forgiven even after Brazil won three World Cup titles (and was en route to a fourth).

Race is a complicated subject in football, especially in Brazil.  Because of 1950, general consensus held that blacks were not able to be goalkeepers (Dida was the first truly great black Brazilian goalkeeper to appear on the international scene after 1950.)  Black sports players in Brazil had, to that point, had a far easier path than in most other countries.  When football began in Brazil it was all white.  Slowly mixed-race players began to trickle through, although they were looked down upon.  The first great Brazilian footballer of note of any color, Arthur Friedenreich, was the son of a German businessman and a black washerwoman (herself a daughter of freed slaves, slavery having been abolished in the Kingdom of Brazil in 1888.)  Friedenreich used brillantine to flatten his hair.  Another mixed-race player who played for the club Fluminense whitened his face with rice powder (rice powder is still associated with Fluminense to this day.)  The Portuguese club Vasco da Gama was the first to open up its doors to black and mulatto players without reservation.  Following Vasco’s success in the early 1920′s the other clubs were forced to open up their doors too.  Once the doors were opened, black and mulatto players became integral to Brazilian club sides and the national team.  (For American audiences, this is well before Jackie Robinson.)

Following the 1950 World Cup, it was deemed that the national kit (white with blue trim) was not patriotic enough.  A contest was held for new designs.  The winner was a young man named Aldyr Garcia Schlee, who ironically preferred Uruguay over Brazil.  Nevertheless, the kit he designed (yellow jersey with green trim, blue shorts with white stripes, white socks) is the iconic uniform that Brazil still wear today.**

Despite the change in kit, Brazil actually had a worse showing at the 1954 World Cup.  They lost to Hungary’s Golden Team (4-2) in a match so ugly and violent it is known as “The Battle of Berne.”  Not until 1958 in Sweden did Brazil finally won their first World Cup.***  Brazil introduced the world to Jogo Bonito and to the nation’s two greatest players: Pelé, and Garrincha.  Pelé, who witnessed his father crying after the Maracanazo, swore that one day he would win the World Cup.  The 1958 side is possibly the greatest national side ever assembled, maybe greater than even the 1970 side.  The Brazilians question of race in sport receded–Pelé was black and Garrincha was of indigenous descent.  With mixed raced teams, Brazil became the world’s preeminent footballing nation, and to date has won more World Cups than any other country.

Please think of this should you ever watch The Game of Their Lives.  You are getting the American (and English) story, but missing out on the more interesting one.

Footnotes:

* The scapegoating of Barbosa, Juvenal, and Bigode, and the blame shifted to black players in general, was completely unwarranted.  Uruguay won international championships as far back as 1916 with squads that featured black players, including the great José Leandro Andrade.

** If you are interested in the Maracanazo and all the fallout in Brazil, and it is indeed a fascinating subject, read Alex Bellos’s book Futebol: The Brazilian Way of Life.  A whole chapter is devoted to that one final.  The book is brilliant.

*** Ironically, Brazil did not wear their famous kit in the 1958 final.  They played Sweden (the home team), and the Swedes wore their national colors: yellow and blue.  The world did not really see Brazil play in their full technicolor brilliance until the 1970 World Cup.

Beautiful People and Beautiful Thing

This past week a good friend of mine introduced me to the BBC show called Beautiful People.  Beautiful people is a two season long British sitcom (very loosely) inspired by the memoirs of Simon Doonan, the creative director of the upscale department store Barneys.  The show is a riot, and it wears its campiness (and gayness) on its sleeve, like a rainbow sticker.  It also has a lot of heart.  I have now seen all of Season 1.  Because I promised my friend I would not watch Season 2 without him, watching the rest will have to wait.

About three episodes in, I realized that I recognized one of the actresses; it was Tameka Empson from Beautiful Thing.  Empson played Leah, the tough, Mama Cass-loving, teenage burnout.  It took another episode for me to realize that the show’s writer Jonathan Harvey also wrote Beautiful Thing–both the movie and the original stage play.

If there are any LGBT teenagers out there reading this blog post, please know that the rest of this post is directed with you in mind.

Beautiful Thing is perhaps the most important movie I ever saw.  My first experience with it was reading a review of the movie in the New York Times back in 1996 when it was first shown in American theaters.  I remember that I badly wanted to see it, but was afraid to because of the implications; it would be admitting that I was indeed gay, something I was not ready to do.

By the time I was a sophomore in college, I had come out.  My life was not particularly happy, and it would be years before I started to feel better about myself.  Nevertheless, Beautiful Thing helped me tremendously.  There was a bodega on the same block as my dorm that rented out movies, and they carried Beautiful Thing.  I rented it and watched it eight times in the next five days.  It became my lifeline.  The subtitle of the movie is “An Urban Fairytale,” and (despite the unsubtle pun) that’s exactly what it is.  I felt like Jamie and Ste (and by my extension me) were going to live happily ever after, and that is what made the movie so meaningful.  The movie also introduced me to the music of Cass Elliot, a talent who died far too early.  I am unable to separate my feelings about her voice from my feelings about the movie, and I still cannot listen to “Make Your Own Kind of Music” without weeping a little bit.  Beautiful Thing was the only thing that lifted my depression.  Needless to say, I bought the movie.

Since that time, life has gotten better, at least for the most part.  I am no longer scared or confused about sexuality.  I do not need Beautiful Thing anymore; the last time I watched it (about six years ago) I fell asleep.  I had just begun my current relationship, and I was in a much better place.

My relationship with Beautiful Thing was like a supportive teenage romance (if such a thing exists); it was very passionate for a while, but an end was inevitable.  At the split there were no  hard feelings, just fond memories.  Nevertheless, there is going back; the void that it once filled closed for good.

I have yet to see a gay-themed romance that is anywhere near as good as Beautiful Thing.  Only Pedro Almodóvar’s ”All About My Mother” (a movie of gay-sentiment if not theme) and Queer as Folk (the British original, not the horrible American remake) have affected me in the same way.

And now there is a fourth: Beautiful People.  Once again, and without me realizing it, Jonathan Harvey has come through for me.  He created a world that, despite the pain and conflicts, is also a warm and loving place.  And ridiculously funny too.  Watching the show was like being introduced to a new friend.

Most television shows out there that have prominent gay characters are made for straight people to watch.  Will and Grace is the absolute nadir of this genre; I could not stomach that show.  I have the same ill will toward Glee (and with the American version of Queer as Folk.)  All three of those shows sacrificed story and character for a politically correct message: gays are people too.  Beautiful People is the show Glee wishes it could be.  The superiority of British gay-themed shows may be a cultural thing; British sitcoms are generally able to be riskier than American ones (Absolutely Fabulous comes to mind.)  Also because there are not as many episodes to make, each episode of a (good) British show can be crafted with more care.

So dear gay teenager who is hurting, consider this my advice to you.  Rent Beautiful Thing, All About My Mother, and, if you can get it, the British Queer as Folk (for the love of God, skip the American version.)  Find Beautiful People on YouTube (don’t watch it on Logo).  Watch them all twice.  Three times, if you need to.

And to Jonathan Harvey, should you ever come across this post. Thank you. For everything.

Music I listened to while writing this post: Patricia Kaas “Faites Entrer Les Clowns”; John Denver “Life is a Sad Song”; Cass Elliot “Make You Own Kind of Music”; Cass Elliot “Welcome to the World”; The Mamas & the Papas “Go Where You Wanna Go”; Cass Elliot “California Earthquake”; The Mamas & the Papas “Dedicated To The One I Love”; Cass Elliot “It’s Getting Better”; The Mamas & the Papas “Monday, Monday”; The Mamas & the Papas “Move in a Little Closer, Baby”; The Mamas & the Papas “Words of Love”; The Mamas & the Papas “California Dreamin’”;The Mamas & the Papas “Look Through My Window”; Dusty Springfield “Of All The Things”; Cass Elliot “One Way Ticket”; The Mamas & the Papas “Creeque Alley”;

So Bad But So Good

Burlesque, the new Cher/Christina Aguilera movie came out this week.  I am almost certain that I am not going to see it.  The reviews are split between okay, bad, and so bad that it is good.  In Salon one writer talks about why Burlesque is will not be a camp classic  (Spoiler: It’s bad but not bad enough, and the new generation of gay men doesn’t appreciate trashy diva movies the way previous generations do.  Damn kids!)

No description of divine trash is complete without referencing Susan Sontag’s famous and brilliant break-out essay “Notes On ‘Camp’”.  There, it has been referenced.  Sontag also describes the connection between camp and gay culture.  (I would love to describe my own take on camp and gay culture although it is not germane to this post, and I am trying to cut down on long drawn-out essays.  So another time.)

The quintessential so-bad-it’s-good movie is Showgirls, which nearly (and unfairly) killed poor Elizabeth Berkley’s career–if an actress can get work after Saved By The Bell, then awesomely awful movies should only make her stronger.  Showgirls is atrocious if you love movies; it is legendary if you love camp.  Joe Eszterhas, who wrote the screenplay also wrote Basic Instinct.  Basic Instinct is a far worse movie on every level, yet, for all the controversy that surrounded it, it created a star, at least temporarily, in Sharon Stone.  Yet, while Basic Instinct did not get the critical panning, it does not inspire the same kind of latter adoration as Showgirls.  Basic Instinct also lacks a gay following (probably because the lesbians in the movie are crazed serial killers.)

What I want to know is what defines a campy movie.  What criteria make a Douglas Sirk melodrama a classic, but calls a movie like Mommie Dearest, with the same kind of complete over-the-top emoting, a camp classic?  Why are Fred and Ginger movies with incoherent and ridiculous plots not camp even though they are a lot of fun to watch?  Why is All About My Mother, one of the finest movies ever made and one of my all-time favorites, considered a “legitimate” movie that wins awards when the film (and director) is steeped in gay culture and camp.  All About My Mother owes its existence to All About Eve, another one of the greatest films of all time and one with a huge gay following (It should be a law that every young gay boy be able to recite Margo Channing’s famous line “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night!” on demand.)   And that isn’t even the most over-the-top of Bette Davis’s great movies–we exclude her bad ones; they’re not camp, just bad.  Davis’s campiest movie is Whatever Happened to Baby Jane (“But y’are, Blanche!  Y’are in that chair!”), a movie in which Davis and Joan Crawford, two of Hollywood’s most legendary divas, try not to let their hatred for one another outshine the hatred their characters feel for one another (not always successfully).

So why are All About Eve and All About My Mother classics but Showgirls, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, and Mommie Dearest camp classics?  What is the difference between a great movie and great awful movie?  Is there one?  I feel like there is, but I am not yet able to define it.

Maybe I need to reread my Sontag.