Replies: 65 Unseemly Comments
In this day and age of political correctness, why are gays exempt? With all the progress made (the Supreme Court ruling, the Toronto marriage laws, etc.) why must we put up with something like "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy", a highly publicized series on Bravo which I caught the first ten minutes of last night before turning it off in utter disgust. To begin with, the term Queer is as offensive to gays as the N word is to Africian Americans and yet it is part of the title. Secondly, although this is supposed to be a reality show, one of the "Fab 5" is an actor who recently starred in "Zanna Don't" off-Broadway which makes me wonder if they are all actors performing a bad script. The object of the show is that 5 gay men do a makeover on an alleged straight man who needs gay help to discover his own fabulousness. In the partial episode I watched, the "straight" guy was an artist named Butch who seemed to really enjoy all the verbal abuse he was receiving. I don't enjoy seeing gay stereotypes out of the 50s and 60s and I can't imagine any gays who do either. What's worse, Bravo has another show coming up which is a gay version of "The Bachelor" with a gay guy trying to pick the perfect mate out of a group of other guys, some allegedly straight. If Fox cancels a Charlie Chan festival because of complaints from Asians and "Amos and Andy" cannot be shown because of African American protests, why can't gays try to get this junk off the air?
Sorry - I had to vent and this is the perfect place. Totally changing the subject, did anyone see the NYTimes today where one of their critics reviewed THE PRODUCERS in Los Angeles and on Broadway with the current cast and came to the conclusion that without Nathan Lane the show is not nearly as good? His major objection to Jason Alexander (LA) and Lewis J. Stadlen (Broadway replacement) is that they aren't Nathan Lane. What a dumb article. And obviously he doesn't know that when the marquee, the ads and the Playbill® say Nathan Lane you still are just as likely to see someone else in the role since he is known for missing performances on a regular basis.
And now for my question to other DR readers (which has nothing to do with either of my rants): When you get a DVD with a lot of extras and commentary tracks, do you watch the movie first or the extras first and do you watch the movie with or without the commentary tracks first?
Posted by William E. Lurie @ 07/16/2003 08:41 AM PST
Well, I saw a LOT of the promos for QEye, and even the last few minutes of it last night. I am not sure what I think about it, except that it is television of a sort - on Cable. And Oscar Wilde himself did write that the only worse thing that being talked about was NOT being talked about. I might watch it over the weekend, but until then, I am neutral.
When I buy a DVD, if I have already seen the movie, I watch all the extras and then watch the movie with a commentary. If for some reason I have NOT seen the movie - like 8 WOMEN or CONTEMPT, I watch the movie first, then check out the extras. The only exception is that I usually ALWAYS watch the coming attraction trailer! Usually after I watch a movie for the first time, then watch the extras, then I watch the movie again!
I order THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES yesterday and volumes 7 & 8 of the I LOVE LUCY first season!
Posted by Jrand52 @ 07/16/2003 09:17 AM PST
The Courts Photos are great! I checked them out yesterday. Joanie Sommers! Wooohoooooooo! June Wilkinson W OO H OO!
Sending MORE good vibes to DR Susan for her musical read-thru tonight. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Jrand52 @ 07/16/2003 09:22 AM PST
BK--totally agree with you about the sartorial habits of the under-30 crowd. Girls in low-rider jeans with their visible thongs and guys looking like complete thugs...how can I belong to this generation? I'm not a prude either, but I happen to believe that less is more, that to be sexy something should be left to the imagination. These anorexic girls go out of their way to emulate pop tarts like Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera, and the sad thing is a lot of guys (most of whom are trying to be Eminem) actually find them attractive.
Sorry--had to rant. I'll get off the soapbox now.
With DVD's, I usually watch the movie first and then the special features. I don't like the commentary tracks all that much-they distract me from the movie.
I have a question for other DRs--what is the worst fashion faux pas you ever made?
Posted by Maya @ 07/16/2003 09:38 AM PST
I'm off to the coast again for the next several days.
Emily--in response to your late post yesterday, it was indeed JRB who posted on RATM, I can guarantee it. JRB and I know each other through email--I MD for JRB alum Brooks Ashmanskas when he's out in these parts. BK can vouch that an innocent post of mine regarding some charting of unpublished JRB tunes many a moon ago here created a bit of a brouhaha.
Posted by JMK @ 07/16/2003 09:43 AM PST
While I didn't watch the show Queer Eye For the Straight Guy, I was listening to it as my wife watched. I also caught the promo for the Gay Version of th Bachelor, which sounds just as disgusting as the heter versions.
Here's what annoys me even more than these frivolous dumb shows (It's kind of a gay version of What Not To Wear and Trading Spaces rolled into one) is that Cable Television has now merely become part of the "vast wasteland". The whole point of having 200 channels was the detailed specialization for very specific audiences that these channels could have.
Yet in the quest for the young, hip, and the trendy (and I guess ratings...though it would seem to me that specialization would be the antithesis to ratings), all these channels have betrayed their original mandates and missions. BRAVO was originally supposed to be upscale Arts programming. I remember in its early years I saw things like Olivier's DANCE OF DEATH, UNCLE VANYA from the Chicester Festival, foreign films (commercial free too). It has now devolved into showing us Vegas show-girls trying to keep their contracts and things like Queer Eye. Arts & Entertainment Channel...now neither...used to show plays and ballet and opera...now its recycled stuff from PBS that was recycled from the BBC or, worse, old network shows. And The Learning Channel is crap like Junkyard Wars and watching couples get married, and they've taken Trading Spaces and watered it down into so many dreary off-shoots; what does this stuff have to do with learning? The Travel Channel used to have shows like The Great Country Inns and take us to London or Paris, now it's things like "The Top Ten Bikini Beaches" and Vegas, Vegas, Vegas all the time. The Style Network takes clips from entertainment tonight and E! and cobbles together cheapjack dreary shows about J Lo or Cameron Diaz, style stars! Zzzzzz! And has anyone lately seen an actual American Movie Classic on the American Movie Classics channel? Bring back Bob Dorian and Nick Clooney.
What's the point of calling yourself something if all you're going to do is go after the same boring twelve-to-twenty-five year old audience everyone else is going after.
As for the Charlie Chan fiasco at Fox, don't get me started. It's called "acting", people. Pretending to be something you're not. If we truly want colourblind casting, then the fine actor, Adrian Lester, black, can play a white king, Henry V, at the National Theatre in London. But Johnathan Pryce should be able to play an Eurasian in Miss Saigon...or Othello.
But most of what bothers me about this is people being utterly unable to look at something through the prism of historical perspective. Are we just going to eradicate our history, good, bad, or indifferent, because it doesn't fit someone's politically correct agenda? Like them or not, the Charlie Chans have their significant niche in cinematic history and should be available for viewing, despite their flaws or because the moral/social template as shifted over the years. A 2003 sensibility should not be imposed on a 1930's film.
Posted by Charles Pogue @ 07/16/2003 09:52 AM PST
WEL, I don't know any gay men who find the term "queer" offensive. In fact, just about all the gay men I know use the term in reference to themselves on a regular basis.
If gays are so opposed to the term, why would they chant "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" ??
Why would there be organizations called "Queer Nation"?
There was an interesting article in yesterday's Globe and Mail discussing both the shows you mention. Click my name to read it.
As for why gays don't try to get the show taken off the air, it is worth noting that many of the shows you seem to find objectionable - including "Queer Eye" are written, performed and/or produced by gay men.
Now, "figs" are a whole different story...
Posted by Dave @ 07/16/2003 10:02 AM PST
Charles - The sad thing is that American Movie Classics has doubled its audience since it trashed its format.
Dave - Maybe it's because of my age, but "queer" was always an offensive term when I was growing up. It may be like the "N" word... when an African American uses it it's okay, but it is not okay when a white uses it. There is a book out about this theory.
There are a few militant gays who seem to think that being gay is the most important thing in their life and they are the ones you referred to. The vast majority of gays feel that being gay is just a small part of their identity, one that doesn't need to be hidden, but doesn't need to be shoved in everyone's faces either. The point was always what a person does in privacy with a consenting adult is his own business. I was once told that I was "homosexual" not "gay" because I didn't live a complete gay "lifestyle" (whatever that consists of). It is the kind of in-your-face gays on "Queer Eye" that give a distorted picture of the majority of us and help to cause homophobia and gay bashing. The vast majority of gays are no different than straights except in their sexual activities, and if this could be conveyed to most straight people, there could be a lot more understanding in this world.
Posted by William E. Lurie @ 07/16/2003 10:21 AM PST
The amazing Elizabeth Welch has passed away in England at the age of 99. Click on my name for the Playbill article.
No questions for anyone at this time. Maybe later this evening.
Posted by Ben @ 07/16/2003 10:28 AM PST
Boy, I'm glad I don't have cable tv!
My question on Dear Reader Day:
Dave -- Did you learn the fire-eating without injury?
Posted by Laura @ 07/16/2003 10:31 AM PST
Many thanks to JRand, Laura, MusicGuy, MBarnum, TCB, Maya, Tom from Oz, Sandra, and other well-wishing H/Ks for their positive vibes re tonite's read through. I just received the book and have barely had time to read it through. It's a musical comedy and, although my role does have a song, I will not be called upon to sing it tonite. All in all, it should be great fun. Please keep those positive vibes coming! Thanks!
:-)
Posted by Susan @ 07/16/2003 10:41 AM PST
The whole thing with the word "queer" is that some gay people do use it precisely because in years past it was flung at homosexuals as an epithet. "We're Here, etc." evolved as an attempt to "take back the word," i.e., take the sting away from an epithet by using it in a way that denoted pride rather than shame.
RE: the Bravo shows "Queer Eye" and "Gay Bachelor," I heard about them and nothing I heard made me even remotely interested in watching. I find it hard to believe that gay people would actually want to watch these shows - more like giggly, angel-collecting, Wal-Mart-shopping housewives in Omaha who are dying to see how "those people really live." As if.
The thing that disturbs me about the way kids dress now (and I work on a college campus, so I see this everyday) is that the guys all want to look like criminals and the girls all want to look like whores. I could care less about the sartorial choices people make. But to me, this gangsta/ho thing is about way more than just the clothing. Sociologically speaking, I think this phenomenon is worth looking into.
Posted by Lulu @ 07/16/2003 10:53 AM PST
Lulu---
Re the gay Bravo shows - that's just my point. Those Wal-Mart shopping housewives in Omaha will look at the shows and think all gays are like the people represented on them. They are not. At least Showtime puts a disclaimer on QUEER AS FOLK stating that this is based on a group of friends and is not meant to represent the entire gay community. I did not see the end of the Bravo show, but I doubt if they had any such disclaimer.
Regarding the way the kids are dressing today, it's one thing to wear unusual clothes, hair styles/color and makeup. This is just a fad and clothes get worn out, hair grows out and makeup washes away. What scares me is the myriad of permanent things they are doing to themselves like tatoos and piercings. It's not so easy to get rid of these. I walked into a quickie-mart type store a couple of weeks ago and I felt like I was in a freakhouse. Every clerk (of both genders) was tatooed and most had piercings in places other than their ears. I can imagine the Senior Citizen Centers of 2063.
Posted by William E. Lurie @ 07/16/2003 11:22 AM PST
I like the words "queer" and
"gay". I use them quite often.
For example, I say, "My
goodness, I'm feeling a bit
queer today." Or, "Let us
dance with gay abandon."
When I got divorced I felt I was
a gay divorcee. When
something weird happens I
find it queer. Yes, I love those
words and I feel we should all
use them as much as
possible.
Maya, you are a breath of fresh
air, youth-wise.
Now, where in tarnation IS
everyone? Out being a
thorough pig? Feeling queer?
Feeling light and gay?
Posted by bk @ 07/16/2003 11:26 AM PST
I hear ya, WEL, but those people wouldn't "get it" if they had a Venn diagram in front of them (color-coded). And you know what? They really don't even want to get it. Leave them to their Fingerhut catalogs and thank God daily that you're not one of 'em. I predict the Bravo shows will be around for about as long as "Baby Bob."
Posted by Lulu @ 07/16/2003 11:36 AM PST
Why thank you, BK--you are just a summer zephyr yourself!! :)
Posted by Maya @ 07/16/2003 11:39 AM PST
All the young'uns here are uncommonly articulate and sophisticated. 'tis true.
Posted by Lulu @ 07/16/2003 11:40 AM PST
Well, here us young'uns have us some good role models, Lulu. ;)
Posted by Maya @ 07/16/2003 11:42 AM PST
Am I the only one who thinks that - maybe - the only ones who will gain a LOT of money from some upcoming legislation - will be those lawyers who will handle the gay divorces?
Posted by Jrand52 @ 07/16/2003 11:49 AM PST
I find it ridiculous when people suggest that every portrayal of an ethnic group is meant to represent the entirety of that group. I would like to give people more credit than that.
When I watch "The Sopranos", I am intelligent enough to know that it represents one segment of the Italian-American population, and not *all* Italians. Likewise, I know that the men depicted on "Queer Eye" represent one part of the gay experience.
Rather than suggesting that we rid the airwaves of this particular image of gay men, perhaps we should be fighting for a more varied depiction. The lifestyle depicted on such shows is as valid as those of other gay men. (Would any of us claim that we don't know men like these?) It is simply being given disproportionate representation in the popular culture.
The "housewives in Omaha" being described today (and my, aren't we being elitist and judgmental this afternoon?) are more likely to see their preconceived notions confirmed, than to glean some new perception of gay lifestyle, based on watching such programs.
And I would have to disagree that gay bashing is caused by men who are more flamboyant or "in your face". Gay bashing is more about the basher than the bashee. Your argument suggests that life would be better for homosexuals if they would all just live in secrecy, and I'm sure you don't mean that.
On a lighter note, I just received my copy of the new cast recording of NINE. I have only listened to a few tracks (and sampled a few others), but I am happy to say that based on what I have heard so far, it is a VAST improvement over the original cast recording. I'm looking forward to hearing it in its entirety tonight.
I also picked up the revival of FLOWER DRUM SONG, but that will need to wait until the weekend, I think.
I'll answer the question about fire-eating tomorrow. ;-)
Posted by Dave @ 07/16/2003 12:03 PM PST
I designed some great dresses for Phyllis Diller.
Posted by Omar of Omaha @ 07/16/2003 12:36 PM PST
Re the gay shows on Bravo: I taped Queer Eye last night and have only seen about 10 minutes of it so far. The word "queer" used to bother me greatly, but as I get older it no longer holds the negativity now that it did for me just a few short years ago. Partly it is because I have a st8 friend who uses the word quite frequently (not as a slam, however) and I have gotten used to hearing it. I have also realized, in my interviews with people who are in their 70s and 80s, that they have often used the word "queer" in reference to certain actors that they had worked with. But in every instance it was NOT meant in a negative way, it just happened to be the word that they used in there younger days...that is not to say that people weren't using that word negatively back in the old days, it is just that this these particular peoples word of choice to use for "gays." That said, I am looking forward to seeing all of Queer Eye and looking even more forward to seeing BOY MEETS BOY. I may, or may not, enjoy the shows, but I won't know until I watch them. I really do find some reality shows to be quite fascinating. I guess each person's own life experiences will decide for them whether a "stereotype" is offensive to them or not...and if that is the only type of gay, black, asian, etc. character that is portrayed then that would get very tiresome and, possibly to some, offensive. However, I strongly object to anyone clamping down on Fox's showing of the Chan movies or any other films or televison shows from the past that they find offensive. In fact I would be furious if FLOWER DRUM SONG (a movie I am waiting patiently for)were not released on DVD simply because someone thought it contained (to them) offensive Asian or Asian-American characters. Wow, how did I get so political all of a sudden!
Michael
Posted by MBarnum @ 07/16/2003 12:41 PM PST
I resent the implication that I am only being elitist and judgmental this afternoon.
I am nothing if not consistent.
Posted by Lulu @ 07/16/2003 12:41 PM PST
Bravo, Lulu!
That is the funniest thing that anyone has ever written on this board! Laughed right out loud, I did...
Just to continue the discussion, it's curious how some people find the term "queer" offensive, and prefer the term "gay". When I was growing up, the word "gay" was an all-purpose insult to anything one did not like. I still hear people say, "Oh, man, that is sooo gay!" The word "queer" never carried that kind of weight. Of course, if you really wanted to start a fight, you only had to call somebody the F-word. Strange how being labelled a cigarette could cause someone such distress...
Posted by Dave @ 07/16/2003 01:01 PM PST
Click on my name to read about Melanie Griffith's debut as Roxie Hart.
Posted by Lulu @ 07/16/2003 01:05 PM PST
Actually, if I were an Asian I would be more upset with the portrayal in the Broadway MILLIE [not the movie] than any Charlie Chan or any version of FLOWER DRUM SONG. It's very funny, but it's the kind of Asian stereotype that is rarely seen any more.
Posted by William E. Lurie @ 07/16/2003 01:46 PM PST
I watched both episodes of QUEER EYE last night and thoroughly enjoyed them. The five guys were witty, talented, and fun, and if people want to think all gay people are like the mixture of these five, that's OK by me. Yes, Carson (the fashion expert) was flamboyant, but there ARE gay men like that. But there was a balance as the other men ran the gamut of behavior, and all of it was done with a light touch and was thoroughly entertaining, at least to me.
The objections to the stereotypes in THE BOYS IN THE BAND have always been rather hollow to me. I've known men like every one of those guys. We do indeed come in all shapes, colors, and sizes.
And as Harvey Fierstein said in THE CELLULOID CLOSET, "I'm for visibility at any cost. I'd rather have negative than nothing." I really didn't find anything negative about the show.
Posted by Matt H. @ 07/16/2003 02:14 PM PST
Dear BK: You didn't mention in your post exactly what parts the people at the pinata party had had pierced. Thank-you for your discretion.
Dear WEL: Your objections to the use of the word "queer," and to the stereotypes these new shows perpetuate, are your own. My ever-lovin' der Brucer and I would much rather take the word queer as our own than let it remain the property of homophobes. The word needs liberating, and it is liberating to use it. I admit, I'd like to see more "bears" on television and elsewhere. I'd also like to see more Log Cabin gay Republicans portrayed in the media, since we aren't all accolytes of Barney Frank. But let's take things one step at a time. We're getting there, as the US and Canadian courts have recently shown.
Elsewhere, in the Long Beach Press Telegram, the lovely Tami Tappan Damiano has received a very nice review for her appearance as Polly in Crazy for You, at Musical Theatre West (Carpenter Performing Arts Center, Long Beach). Good for her!
Posted by S. Woody "Yes, I'm Queer! You Got a Problem?"" White @ 07/16/2003 02:47 PM PST
Doesn't anyone else find it
QUEER that there are so few
posts today? Doesn't anyone
else find it QUEER that there
are so many errant and truant
posters? Now, how can we be
GAY and CAREFREE with this
number of posts? We can't
and we shan't. Let us have a
rally and a volley or, at the very
least, a volley and a rally. If we
have a rally we can tally the
posts - if we have a volley we
can say by golly what a nice
number of posts. If we don't
have a rally it won't be up my
alley and if we don't have a
volley it will be folly.
On that note (G#) I leave you to
your own devices - let's get
some postin' goin', shall we?
Posted by bk @ 07/16/2003 03:47 PM PST
BK... you just want posts to keep yourself occupied at work!
(I should know - it certainly helps me through a boring day)
Posted by Emily @ 07/16/2003 03:50 PM PST
BTW:
My initial reactions to the songs on "The Inaudible JRB" are summed up by the notice that JRB really should get away from depressing musicals and turn his attention to happier stuff.
He has some downright UPBEAT songs on this cd and one even has a William Finn feeling to it. It's absolutely great!
Leave the stories about divorce and lynchings to someone else and make a JRB happy show :)
Posted by Emily @ 07/16/2003 03:55 PM PST
No matter what you do on the stage
Keep it light
Keep it bright
Keep it gay!
Posted by Roger De Bris @ 07/16/2003 04:00 PM PST
Glitter and be gay!
Posted by Cunegonde @ 07/16/2003 04:05 PM PST
Sometimes I think I've found my hero, but it's a queer romance.
Posted by A Taxi Dancer @ 07/16/2003 04:06 PM PST
Question of the day answer....I too, look at the movie first, if it's new to me, or I look at the extras first, if I already know the movie.
DR WEL....I think the whole "word", "name", "label" problem with grammar very much has to do with a person's age, and environment of growing up. I'm old enough (understatement) to very much remember the hateful use of the word Queer by mean-spirited and insecure people. But we have a fair number of current young friends who are in the 19 to 24 range (we are now the adopted surrogate parents!) and I have become very used to the casual and, to them, comfortable use of the word Queer.
Dear esteemed, carefree & gay BK, --- I hope that you have no Queer after effects from your grande lonche !!
God bless Roger De Bris
Posted by MusicGuy @ 07/16/2003 04:18 PM PST
I had a chicken salad
sandwich for my grande
lonche.
Yes, I like new posts to read,
Emily - and I always like an
Emily Post.
I always have a moment or two
to check in and read these
here posts and when there are
lulls I become livid - I rail at the
moon even though the sun is
out. I say, "Old Devil Moon, you
bitch-goddess, where in
tarnation IS everyone. But, the
moon is a harsh mistress and
doesn't answer me. Yes,
Virginia, the moon is a harsh
mistress and likes to dress in
leather and rubber and parade
around with a riding crop.
What the HELL am I talking
about?
Posted by bk @ 07/16/2003 04:30 PM PST
You've had gay love before,
Come what may love, before!
Posted by Liesel Brandel @ 07/16/2003 04:49 PM PST
Well today is reality show night! American Juniors, Big Brother, and Cupid! ;)
For anyone who likes Big Brother (or who is slightly amused by what happens in the house), check out:
w w w .canoe.ca/JamBigBrother4/home.html (no spaces) - click on "chat page here" and take a look at "today's transcript". It's a fun read of the goings on.
Btw, I just got the cd of Amour, and I am totally addicted to it.
I have not heard a score that i've loved so instantly. I keep playing it over and over (and i just got it today!).
Jennifer
Posted by Jennifer @ 07/16/2003 04:53 PM PST
What to post? Tend to agree with DR MusicGuy re labels etc. the derogatory use of "gay" to mean "uncool" was back in vogue (hopefully not a Madonna reference) during my last few years of teaching.
I always loved the song by The Springfields "Island Of Dreams" - it has the line "I wander the streets and the gay crowded places".
Posted by Tom from Oz @ 07/16/2003 05:17 PM PST
Today in my Communications class, we spent the whole time visiting and getting to know each other. Given today's topic, I'm a little afraid to introduce the new classmate I met.
I talked for quite a long time with the teacher who can no longer teach because of a domestic violence charge and told her some of the things from Career Exploration that she missed after dropping the class. She was really sorry that she missed the "psychotic parrot" conversation.
Posted by Sandra @ 07/16/2003 05:56 PM PST
As for DVD habits, I'm another
who always watches the
movie first if I'm not all that
familiar with it. If it's a movie I
do know, I still often watch it
first, but will occasionally dive
right in to the special features.
Sandra - I think we're all sorry
to have missed the psychotic
parrot conversation.
Seeing the final dress
rehearsal of my summer stock
company's Annie Get Your
Gun tonight. Promises to be a
pretty good show. It's a show
that I had somehow never
seen until the understudy
dress rehearsal last night.
Not one that will join my list of
favorites by any means, but
definitely a good amount of fun
with a good cast (which we
have, except our Sitting Bull).
Posted by Jed @ 07/16/2003 06:08 PM PST
The moon is a harsh dominatrix.
Posted by Larry Wachowski @ 07/16/2003 06:30 PM PST
DR Sandra -- We not only want the psychotic parrot story, but given the gay, carefree abandon of today's wonderfully silly posts, you simply must tell all about the new student you met during "conversation time", sometimes and in other circles known as social intercourse! We have to know if this involved K.D. Lang CDs and flannel, or old Judy Garland recordings and a gym membership.
Dear BK -- you could have had your grande lonche over here in Casa Grande, con un grande bebida !! Ole. I may have to go play an Ethel Smith record ..
For God's sake, it was 117 again here today... I don't have to make sense !!!
Posted by MusicGuy @ 07/16/2003 06:32 PM PST
DVD-wise and ways:
IF I'm reviewing the dvd for the website or the magazine AND it's a film I've seen before, I usually jot down my little notes about the film itself and its synopsis, or, what the film means to me.
When reviewing a known source, I will usually jump to the Special Features immediately - - with a commentary track running, one can still see the film.
Notebook in hand, I jot down the little things which make the special features truly special, or truly NOT.
Personal Viewing Habits - even if it is a film that I'm familiar with, I'll jump to the TRAILER, if it's there, then watch the movie with my mind only on entertainment. THEN, I'll peruse the remainder of the disc's contents.
As for QUEER lingo, I'm with the beautiful dance hall hostess, that lady teacher down at The Palace Ballroom.
Posted by td @ 07/16/2003 07:09 PM PST
Well, I'm back from the 'reading' and what an interesting time it was. A new little musical with some sweet little songs. The author/composer narrated the reading, read the main male role, sang all the songs, and read all the minor roles that weren't covered by other actors. Not having had the benefit of even one read-through together, it was a bit disorganized. But, nevertheless, it was a lot of fun. And for whatever reason I cannot imagine, they had six (count them, six) video cameras filming it. Go figure.
Thanks for all the positive vibes, DRs near and far, and far and near. It sure helped knowing you were out there (in the cyber audience) rooting for me. Thanks!
Posted by Susan @ 07/16/2003 07:33 PM PST
Glad the reading went well, Susan! Was it your first musical?
Posted by Maya @ 07/16/2003 08:04 PM PST
Listen up, all you East Coast H/K: DRs Kerry and MusicGuy are coming to NY to celebrate their Anniversary and we're planning a surprise party for them on Sunday evening, August 3rd at Joe Allen's. Shhhhhh! Don't tell them! But please let me know if you can join us at the celebration.
Posted by Susan @ 07/16/2003 08:11 PM PST
Uh, Susan......
Posted by Laura @ 07/16/2003 08:12 PM PST
What? . . . Did I ruin the surprise by posting about it here? OOPS!
Posted by Susan @ 07/16/2003 08:12 PM PST
I must seek out AMOUR now. I knew it was coming out; I let the release date slip up on me! Thanks for the heads up!
Posted by Matt H. @ 07/16/2003 08:20 PM PST
Jed---
Which version of ANNIE GET YOUR GUN are they doinmg... the one from the 40s, the one from the 60s revisal or the recent one?
Posted by William E Lurie @ 07/16/2003 08:27 PM PST
Thanks, Maya. Yes, my first musical theater. Although, since I didn't get to sing in the reading, I don't think it counts. LOL
Of course, I sang in the movie, The Five Pennies, but that was a million moons ago.
Posted by Susan @ 07/16/2003 08:30 PM PST
Problems solved. There is now a link on the album page..
AND A BRAND NEW ENTRY of JULIANA'S JOURNAL!!!
Posted by Craig @ 07/16/2003 08:47 PM PST
Good evening.
Sorry for being errant and truant all day, but I was a "good boy" this morning and ran my two miles (kind of tough today - ?), then had a matinee and an evening show (both went well).
As for "Queer Eye..." - I watched both shows, and liked what I saw. For me, the "enjoyment" came from all the product placement opportunities. I just have to wonder if the show's producers approached the various businesses and/or vice versa. *I also found it amusing that there was even a credit for the "luxury apartment" rental company they use for the second half critiqueing.
One thing I did admire about the show was how comfortable the "straight guys" were with having five gay men basically take over their life for a day. Even to the point of helping them get dressed - taking off their shirts, checking their flys on their jeans, etc. The interaction between the gay men and straight men was refreshing to see, and, hopefully, that will serve as an "example" to the "housewives in Omaha". *Of course, I'm sure that not that many people would object to being given a new wardrobe (and they weren't shopping at cheap places), a new look, and having their living quarters redesigned, refurbished and re-furnished free of charge! *Now, I would understand those who would pass on the foie gras mousse.
*I just want to know how many people they have in their "background" staff. The transformation of the first apartment was MAJOR - would have taken Trading Spaces at least three days to do that one!
As for the word "queer" itself... I used to be uncomfortable with it, but have learned to accept it. As with any word, it's all in the intent and delivery.
DR Susan - As for the "you know what" for "you know who" at "you know where" on "you know when"... Hmmm... I may actually be able to make it that night... My show closes the night before, and a nice trip up to "you know where" may be a nice way to wrap things up.
As for DVD special features - I'm not really into them. I think I've maybe only checked out two or three of the special features on the DVDs I own. Oh, I guess I should qualify this by saying that I'm not into the commentary tracks that much. Sometimes the bells and whistles are fun, but even then, I bought the DVD to watch the movie not to find out what the director was thinking when he filmed the scene. *However, I do enjoy checking out the foreign language options every now and then. Kind of fun to hear the dub voices.
Now as for those DVDs with "multiple angle" options, that's a different story! ;-)
Posted by Jose C. Simbulan @ 07/16/2003 08:49 PM PST
OH, and one more thing about "The Queer Eye..." I did notice that even the "pretty bois" on the show were not "perfect". The grooming expert had/has "bad" teeth, the cooking guy didn't have perfect skin, and the fashion guy was not the most "photogenic" person in the world. And not all them had "club perfect bodies" either. It was a good cross section of gay society - and society in general.
And after chatting with some friends, we also came to the realization that there are some "queer guys" who could use some "help" too. ;-)
Posted by Jose C. Simbulan @ 07/16/2003 08:58 PM PST
Just to chime in on the "Q-word" issue . . .
In my current job (looking for a job), I happen to have run across a number of internet want ads which specified that the applicant ought to be "queer-friendly"!
I'm debating whether to include "queer-friendly" on my resume, under "Special Skills." Whaddaya think?
Posted by Sigerson Holmes @ 07/16/2003 09:00 PM PST
Dear DR Sigerson: My ever-lovin' der Brucer has a pertinent question: Exactly how is this going to be addressed in the interview?
Posted by S. Woody White @ 07/16/2003 09:21 PM PST
To DR Sigerson --
Thank you!! I have to tell you that after a day of sweltering 117 degree heat, too many errands, some unexpected things with some family members, and a lot of stress and worry....you actually made me laugh out loud with the thought of some corporate head-honcho thinking that he can dictate that someone be "queer-friendly." The whole image was of a Paul Ford type actor as the boss, and maybe Richard Deacon as the prospective employee!!
It was just the laugh I needed!
Posted by MusicGuy @ 07/16/2003 09:49 PM PST
DRs – Please forgive me for being E & T (and T & A) today, but I had to leave work this morning and return home to bed due to severe back pain. Now, last year, I broke my back and was off work for four months recovering from the two surgeries required to repair my back. Today was the first time in a year that I have suffered such pain. So, I went back home at about ten thirty and have been out like a trout ever since. I had to get up and get a little something in my stomach before I swallow any more pain medication.
Anyway, regarding the unofficial topic of the day: I am not a member of Queer Nation, nor am I a member of the Log Cabin Republicans. I don’t believe that my sexuality requires me to be a hairdresser or an interior decorator, and the fact that my jeans are skin-tight should not be seen as a fashion statement. I don’t like the terms queer, fag, homo, sissy, fairy, etc. because those words were chosen by others to label me. I use the word gay, because it was a term that I chose for myself, in spite of the outrage of others. I will describe myself as a gay man, but when someone says, “Why do gays do such and such?” they are not talking about me. I am an individual. I am intelligent, well read, talented, at times charming, witty, hard-working self-assured, sincere, loving, and as good a friend as you are likely to find. I am not, however, a stereotype. I am my own person, as are most of the people that I call my friends, regardless of their personal sexual identity. IMHO, “Queer as Folk” runs their disclaimer each week, not because of great enlightenment in the minds of folks at Showtime, but rather in hopes of diffusing criticism from all sides. I don’t watch most reality television, but I may watch the two new shows on Bravo. I will try to support those shows because I would hate to have those increasingly famous housewives from Omaha (or wherever) think that all gay people resemble those characters on “Will & Grace” or the cartoonist guy on “Caroline in the City” who magically became heterosexual when his character became popular.
And now having rambled on, I am taking my drugs and going to bed.
Posted by TCB @ 07/16/2003 10:56 PM PST
I watched both episodes of "Queer Eye" last night. Both were entertaining, humorous, and the "stars" of the show have great personalities that could go a long way toward debunking a lot of silly ideas heterosexuals have about homosexuals.
Some of the hysteria that accompanies any show in which gay men aren't shown as behaving like Joe Q. Public -- usually when the gay men are acted by so-called "straight" actors -- comes from within the community.
These are "real" gay men, not actors acting. They are being themselves. That offends a lot of people, including gay men. Yet, these guys are the ones who are out there in the professional world doing the buying, the decorating, the hair, etc. They're being themselves, instead of hiding in the closets "some" gay men would put them into because they don't want that "image" to be perpetuated as "the norm" which it actuallyt is, rather than the exception.
As for "Queer" in the title, I haven't read any rants about a much-acclaimed, much-beloved show called "Queer As Folk"!
Each one of the "guys" on the show is a genuine individual...each one being himself. If they behave that way in real life, why shouldn't they be allowed to be themselves on a TV show?
Posted by Ron Pulliam @ 07/16/2003 10:57 PM PST
WEL - While not 100% certain
about this, I do believe it's the
most recent version of AGYG
that they're doing.
Posted by Jed @ 07/16/2003 11:04 PM PST
Totally changing the subject:
Sprint Airlines is advertising coast to coast flights, roundtrip, from $208.00. One of those coast to coast flights is from Los Angeles to Detroit. Now who is going to break it to those dear folks in Detroit, that they are not living on the coast?
Posted by TCB @ 07/16/2003 11:08 PM PST
Detroit is on the North coast. It is next to water, after all...
Posted by Dave @ 07/17/2003 06:59 AM PST
We have company!
Posted by Carmen Ghia @ 07/17/2003 07:03 AM PST
I know that this is late, (and I will
probably repost it tomorrow) and that
I have been E&T, but I must say
something.
WEL, your comments about Queer
Eye... (henceforth QE) hurt and
offended me more than anything that
I have read in a while, outside of the
Wall St. Journal editorial page
(which I read precisely for the
purpose of being offended.) Your
attack on the word "queer" as being
blanket offensive to ALL gay people
of ALL ages is extraordinarily
presumptuous. As has been
mentioned, many people use it with
pride. With some, it has become an
all-purpose word for "not straight",
simpler than "LGBT". There was a
time when "black" was considered a
much more offensive word than
"negro", yet most people reading
things from that time flinch when
they see the latter word used.
Language Changes. Get used to it.
The portion of so-called "militant
gays" who "shove their sexuality in
people's faces" is no greater than
the proportion of straight people who
do exactly the same thing. Everyone
has different ways of expressing
their sexuality and identity. I have as
much right to be sometimes
confrontational (though not as much
as when I was first out of the closet)
as you do to promote the myth that
gay and straight people are
"essentially the same, except for
their private lives." (or whatever you
said.) Being gay is different from
being straight, and there are many
reasons that it helps to lead to a
different psychological makeup.
There is no reason that every
minority or group, or any such group,
needs a disclaimer stating that not
everyone is like what is shown on
TV. I don't know too many white,
straight people who are like the cast
of Friends.
Some people are made
uncomfortable by flamboyantly,
feminine gay men. That is their right.
I don't much like standing close to
frat boys of the most boorish variety.
But that is a far cry from blaming
THEM for homophobia! Are they
responsible for homophobia in the
same way that scantily dressed
woomen have got a rape coming?
Or that the "uppity negroes", who
were to impatient about equal rights
were deserving of being beaten by
the police? It's called blaming the
victim, Bill (and anyone else), and it
isn't okay.
And yes, I know that I am only 17,
and that this was a rather hysterical
rant, but please do read it. I think I
have something to say.
Posted by Hapgood @ 07/17/2003 07:53 AM PST
