Change Your Image
mimi_murlough
Reviews
The Sex Education Show (2008)
Good for some people, but narrow minded enough to be useless for a good portion of its intended audience
First the good part: The Sex Education Show is not only entertaining, but frank and enlightening as well. For someone who is well out of school and still a virgin, I can safely say that it competes well with the school education on the subject as well as giving plenty of new information even if you're used to talk about more than the basics. Anna and her interviewees is possibly the best part, as they complete the bare facts with an open atmosphere and offers a chance to correct the twisted image that most people have of sex. This is really worth a watch for anyone, regardless of age or experience.
That said, the show becomes more conservative the more you look at it. While this may be a step up from the run of the mill sex education, it still follows the same pattern. I haven't watched all seasons, but the treatment of gay/bi sexuality so far is incredibly disappointing. There is a clear tendency to either ignore that it exists or when dealing with it at all, Anna is clearly talking to a presumed straight audience about gay/bi people – they don't exist in this immediate reality, in other words. Why is this important? Because this is 12% of our youths who don't learn how to practice safe sex! Especially for women, there is virtually no advice on the matter even when turning to the LGBT community (which we shouldn't have to). This earnest attempt at preventing STIs is therefore in this case practically useless. A major cause to this may be the gross simplification of sex as penetration, which will limit the viewer's perception of sex to perhaps not recognizing safer alternatives as fulfilling. It also contributes to excluding gay/bi viewers from the show, which becomes disturbingly clear when you've watched episode upon episode with extensive info on penetrative sex, only to have lesbian sex summed up as "oral sex, mutual masturbation and use of toys" in a throwaway Q&A.
The goal of making teenagers use their sexuality sensibly is probably further undermined by what I in a bad mood could call naiveté. For example, there's a hint of moral panic that surfaces from time to time and undermines the communication with the viewer. The aim seems to be abstinence for the kids, and porn is treated with outrage but there's never an explanation for it – the viewer is supposed to accept those views without understanding why. What's even worse a problem is the parent's role as the primary teacher for these things ("Ask a parent to be with you while looking at our site"). This is basically making the kids' education dependent on an open minded parent, which far from everyone has. If anything, the fail to pass compulsory sex education shows that dependency on goodwill is working more against than for the show's goal.
So will is it worth watching, then? My answer would be yes, it's worth a shot if only to build confidence in your own sexual life even if you're not straight (to a limited extent). Three things are worth bearing in mind, though. One, your sexuality is something that concerns you, an only you know when you are ready to know or do something, not your parents. Two, promiscuity and porn are not things to be seen in black and white. The show is bad at explaining it, so you'll have to look up the harmful and the good parts on your own, from balanced sources (that is, not Playboy). And finally, while Anna may be talking as if the whole audience is nothing but straight kids, you know better. Gay/bi viewers, this isn't meant for us, which for a show focused on sexuality is baffling, not natural. Straight viewers, you have to think for yourselves and realize that despite the show's instances of "spot the gay" and only intentionally showing LGBT people when their sexuality is the subject, the reality is that they aren't a different species from somewhere else. They grow into being who they are in your immediate reality as your classmates, siblings or neighbors, and it's pure chance that this isn't you watching a sex education meant for everyone and feeling like an extraterrestrial.
I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry (2007)
Insulting to everyone who's not a white male, but to to the gay community most of all.
I went into the movie with very low expectations, having read about how awful it was with regards to gay stereotypes. But what I didn't expect was for everyone who isn't a white straight male to be stereotyped. There were only two men who weren't white in the entire movie; one was an Asian caricature to a degree that I thought was extinct since the fifties, and the other one is the only black guy on the force – so of course he also doubles as the huge scary (crazy) guy. He's notable becomes a double offense when he, form the moment that he comes out of the closet, turns into a mincing sissy. This is supposed to be comedic, because can you imagine a big black guy who isn't scary? Or a black guy who I gay? What a hoot! The movie also suffers from rampant misogyny, depicting every single woman as a first class idiot who's naturally all over Chuck.
Mind you that this trait has nothing to do with Chuck being handsome, charming or anything else. In fact, his way of seduction is to mock and insult his target, then expecting them to obey his every command (which they incredibly do). He's not just this way to women either, in fact he constantly makes homophobic comments and treats his so called best friend like dirt, including turning his plea for help down without as much as a thought and having sex with his maid in his bed, while Larry's still in it and mere minutes after Larry clearly described how hard it was for him to let anyone sleep on his wife's side. Then there's the treatment of the issue at hand, of course. Apart from the raging stereotypes, it's as if the writers have no idea how homophobia works. The supposedly progressive lawyer asks the "couple" who is the chick – a question that is one of the parade signs of ignorance on homosexuality. Then she asks him out on a "girl day", basically trying to turn him into the gay pet cliché. The main characters themselves also continue to look slightly panicked in the presence of gay men, even as they go through a supposed character development.
As bad as this, or even worse, is that this movie about homosexuality is completely devoid of homosexuality. Really, there is no same sex love or attraction going on here at all except in the last five minutes or so. And then it's only a quick wedding between the two most prominent gay characters (as in the only gay characters with more than one line), who never even been shown on screen together before that. Even a fake kiss between the leads is avoided at all costs and treated like something absolutely horrific! Not to mention the often cited assurances of their heterosexuality in the form of an avalanche of female conquests and a dearly beloved wife respectively. Adding insult to injury, all the homophobia that we get to experience is directed against two straight men that are rather homophobic themselves – it's all just an act, so if they do feel hurt it's not on a personal level.
With the contradictions I've mentioned earlier, it seems like the purpose for this movie isn't to deal with homophobia, but to make straight men the heroes of gay people á la every mighty whitey story in history. Think about it; they never actually did anything to gain their heroic status. They were exposed as a fraud and then loads of people wanted them freed because
I don't know. I really don't. They have done nothing for their community aside from punching an anti gay activist in the face. If this is really enough to gain iconic status in spite of everything else, I can't see it as anything short of degrading the community to make Chuck (Larry is nothing but a sidekick, really) look like a hero with minimal effort. This is a minority that has claimed enormous improvements in their treatment these past fifteen years, who turn major cities into sanctuaries for diversity for a week of the year, and that at least in the US has rioted multiple times when the authorities went a step too far against them. But in this movie they don't dare lift a finger unless a straight man or woman takes the first step. And just like that, there goes the last drop of credibility that this train wreck of a movie might have had.
This is where some might wave my concerns off as sensitive and say that this isn't relevant to comedy. But fact is that timing, acting, or even Larry's rather sweet character can't save this movie after all the misogyny, homophobia, racism and what not that it's built upon. If you're not a white and mildly homophobic male, chances are that the continuous insults will ruin the fun.
Queer as Folk (2000)
Addictive the first time 'round, frustrating the next.
Well, first of all I'd like to give the show credit as one of the best cures for homophobia. While some may find that constant (and graphic) sex scenes offensive or uncalled for, I found after marathoning the series last summer that two men getting it on wasn't a big deal anymore (well, aside from being hot). It's a huge step towards normalizing same sex relationship to show gay sex and affection, and don't let anyone convince you otherwise. The fact that the five year run managed to graze a huge selection of gay subjects made sure that I was hooked from beginning to end and loving it most of the time.
Now, note that I said that it is themes that are the big selling points here. It is obvious that this is more of a soap opera than a proper drama, and so the characters and interactions between them made the show nigh unwatchable at times.
The characters in general seem so be more shaped to fit the plot than the other way around. Brian takes the role of the typical wish fulfillment hero. Aside from one or two grand gestured each season, this man is directly or indirectly hostile to everyone all the time, including his lover, but everyone love him anyway. Justin fills the role of a romantic youth, being only 17 and just coming out when meeting Brian for the first time. I suppose the two are supposed to be the star crossed lovers and we are supposed to root for them, but the fact is that Justin lives with him on his conditions. Then we have Michael, Brian's best friend who is really more of a fan. He joins Justin in serving as foil of innocence to Brian, which sadly means that he's the most childish character on the show and is parented by just about everyone else until he gets an unusually grounded boyfriend to be a full time filler of that role. These are thankfully the worst cases. The characters who more independent from this core dynamic and thus less obviously there to support it do a bit better, although some of them may seem a bit cardboard-ish at times and they all suffer from a serious lack of communication or intelligence when the plot calls for it. There is also a serious tone that is hard to take if you've gone directly to this series from the British original – the subjects are so fundamental and the problems so grave, and even the glimpses of joy are contaminated with whatever is going on. We never recover from one drama before being thrown into a new one, and that makes the show hard to watch sometimes.
If you are willing to accept the soap opera style, a more serious problem will probably be the poor representation that the show offers when it comes to ethnic diversity and women. After all, the exploring the world form a gay perspective is the major draw of the show, and it's only a pity that it had to fall into the white sexy male hegemony. Looking back, I can only remember one black character on the show, and as for lesbian relationships, we only had the one – and they were incredibly dull. The show doesn't pretend to be diverse, in fact the spectrum of gay lives only consists of the wild life and the domestic one, and the latter gets a lot of flak. But with such a big ensemble of archetypes, one has to wonder why there couldn't be given space for a bear, butch transsexual, or anything else in the main cast, or at least why other lifestyles than Brian's could be shown more tolerance? I suppose I'm a bit biased, since I came into the show seeing it as an adaption of the original Queer as folk. But if I try to be helpful I'll tell you that there are different uses for the two versions. If you want better characters in the main cast (Michael/Vince is one of the best portrayals of a nerd in mainstream media), a more realistic setting and writing that doesn't take itself too seriously or a central love story that is a bit less cringe worthy, see the British version. If you want better acting, more muscular men and a thorough exploration of what gay life and politics could be in gay America or if you are or the more romantic persuasion, this is what you are looking for. Watching as a member of the community, there's not much to choose from, so it's definitely worth a try, or watching as a semi-guilty pleasure.
Philadelphia (1993)
Leaves you asking for more, but not necessarily in a good way
First of all, I get why this movie was so praised and so famous, I really do. The subject was perfect for its time, the actors brilliant, and the message delivered sensitively. The writers carefully picked apart most of the prejudices that people still have towards homosexuals and AIDS victims in an entertaining way, they showed us what homophobia really is, and gave us characters that you feel deeply for. That said, there is no denying that Philadelphia is severely limited. Facts stands that this was made for the heterosexual public to deal with an urgent subject in 1993, and that is glaringly obvious, even though it was probably just what the doctor ordered.
17 years after this was a burning question, and for someone who isn't a member of the straight target audience, that means that the central plot became much too simplistic for my tastes, and what did get me hooked on the movie was the promising conflicts that were, quite sadly, barely hinted at. Take Andy's and Miguel's relationship for example. They give more affection to friends and family than each other, yet nobody seems to acknowledge it. Then we have Miguel's obsession with nursing Andy clashing with Andy's denial and Andy throwing a huge party when Miguel asks for more of his time. On top of that we have the exposed infidelity, which combined with Miguel's near serenity right before and after Andy's death makes me wonder whether their relationship really survived that crisis, or whether it was the guilt of leaving a fatally ill man that kept them together. In other words, while the very overt kind of discrimination against homosexuals that is shown here is becoming something that we can relate to less and less, relationships in crisis and the impact that a fatal disease have on the people around its victim is something that most of us are going to live through.
On the other hand, some of these hinted conflicts may very well just be a clear demonstration of how neglected Andy's personal life was. While it is apparent that the writers tried to create an impression of who he was outside of his career with the huge family and many friends, there are simply too many of them; the screen time is just not enough for us to get to know all of his siblings, nephews, in laws and friends. The result is that they become a faceless mass of spectators, and we end up learning nothing at all about Andy. And if you look at what I've written about his relationship to Miguel, the one that has received some care at least, you can see that it's badly inconsistent. How can the man who bosses his boyfriend's doctors around and get a minor breakdown over a missed treatment possibly have become the man who is passively listening to a doctor while looking no more than concerned, and then lets his lover die while barely blinking, all within a week? It seems that his actions are more based on what makes Andy look good than what fits his character, and as I've noted, that only make their relationship come across as suspicious. Andy's own personality leaves a lot of questions too, and with some unfortunate implications in their wake. Just how did a man raised in what seems to be a fairly traditional family, graduated from an old, prestigious university and working for a conservative law firm get so comfortable with having his stereotypical gay friends come over on a sick day á la the stereotypical "framily"? How did he fit so well in with the rest of the community that he could throw a huge drag/masquerade party complete with a barbershop choir and a band? This seems to be two parts of his life that are different as night and day, and much like Miguel's behavior, we are never given an explanation of how he manages to tie them together. Once again the information we get about Andy only makes it seem like he has every personality and none at the same time.
To sum up, this film could be seen as having two aspects of a story of good quality. The first would be what it was praised for in 1993, for picking apart a problem of society that was acute then and bringing it to attention. The second would be what could have made Philadelphia interesting for future generations and what could have spoken to the people that it was supposed to portray. But the scales tipped heavily in favor of the former aspect, making the film fade into obscurity when the novelty wore off, and leaves me wishing for a remake that would take pity on the potential wasted in this movie.