TopBilled

Contemporary 'classics'

42 posts in this topic

And we will use the word 'classics' rather loosely here!

 

Some films that are currently available for streaming on Hulu:

 

LATTER DAYS (2003)

EIGHTEEN (2005)

BOY CULTURE (2006)

EAST SIDE STORY (2006)

COFFEE DATE (2006)

MAKE THE YULETIDE GAY (2009)

DAVID'S BIRTHDAY (2009)

IS IT JUST ME? (2010)

ROLE/PLAY (2010)

NORTH SEA TEXAS (2011)

LONGHORNS (2011)

ROMEOS (2011)

THE ONE (2011)

LOVE OR WHATEVER (2012)

THE 10 YEAR PLAN (2014)

 

If anyone has seen these, please feel free to comment...or add more titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pariah (2011) is streaming on Netflix still. 

Thanks hepclassic!

 

ROLE/PLAY is the one I watched recently about the two guys who start an affair in Palm Springs. It was far from perfect, but I enjoyed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A Death In Buenos Aires" I caught this on HBO Latino  it's a police drama in which a dectective seems to have a gay attraction for a rookie officer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A Death In Buenos Aires" I caught this on HBO Latino  it's a police drama in which a dectective seems to have a gay attraction for a rookie officer. 

Is it explicit...or more implied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it explicit...or more implied?

The two men do share a passionate kiss- but this is a modern noir - so don't expect a happy ending.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two men do share a passionate kiss- but this is a modern noir - so don't expect a happy ending.

Thanks for the heads up. Sounds like one that some people might enjoy checking out...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been wanting to continue the discussion of contemporary classics in this 'genre.' Since I've been neglecting that recently, here goes:

 

I think these films have a certain amount of titillation in them (which mainstream hetero films have too). There are x-number of butt shots (naked butt shots) and passionate make-out scenes that are usually forbidden on some level, in the context of what is right or wrong for the characters. In addition to the butt shots, in some films, there is a lot of full frontal nudity. 

 

Also, there seems to be a comic relief type who is usually misunderstood-- if not by himself and others, then certainly by society at large.

 

And there are stereotypes within the LGBT community that are perpetuated in some of these films, at least the ones I've seen lately. They are stereotypes about members within the community and members outside the community. 

 

Looking up some of the bios of the "stars" in a few of these films, I was surprised how many had worked in the gay porn industry (usually with another stage name). I think that's a whole other discussion. LOL

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been wanting to continue the discussion of contemporary classics in this 'genre.' Since I've been neglecting that recently, here goes:

 

I think these films have a certain amount of titillation in them (which mainstream hetero films have too). There are x-number of butt shots (naked butt shots) and passionate make-out scenes that are usually forbidden on some level, in the context of what is right or wrong for the characters. In addition to the butt shots, in some films, there is a lot of full frontal nudity. 

 

Also, there seems to be a comic relief type who is usually misunderstood-- if not by himself and others, then certainly by society at large.

 

And there are stereotypes within the LGBT community that are perpetuated in some of these films, at least the ones I've seen lately. They are stereotypes about members within the community and members outside the community. 

 

Looking up some of the bios of the "stars" in a few of these films, I was surprised how many had worked in the gay porn industry (usually with another stage name). I think that's a whole other discussion. LOL

I think it is important to stress that even if the film features a lead character that is LGBT, the point of reference is usually from the perspective of heterosexual male. By that I mean is that the character is often male themselves, or a male character has to encounter a LGBT character and that is the story and that is the conflict in which in a said period of time, there is a need for a resolve. 

 

Given the film industry is run by predominantly heterosexual males, mostly producing heterosexual stories for **** 18 year old heterosexual white males, I think we need to look at the industry as a whole and how films created, produced, and starring GLBT individuals get mass distributed to the mainstream, because outside of independent film festivals, where a Hollywood producer, if he (as it is still usually a "he") gets out and sees something that appeals to his production company and takes an interest in it, if that at all, do we get to see it at a chain movie theatre. Even films produced by Oprah Winfrey still need an interested white producer to get by towards mass distribution. The odds need to be increased industry wise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What mainstream movies are you referring to?  Gay characters are usually featured in supporting roles as in "The Devil Wears Prada".   Ten years after "Brokeback Mountain" (2005) has there been one major studio release with gay characters in the lead?   Even in indie films gay leading characters are rare- this year we have "Carol" directed by Todd Haynes who made  "Far From Heaven"  which did feature a major gay subplot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What mainstream movies are you referring to?  Gay characters are usually featured in supporting roles as in "The Devil Wears Prada".   Ten years after "Brokeback Mountain" (2005) has there been one major studio release with gay characters in the lead?   Even in indie films gay leading characters are rare- this year we have "Carol" directed by Todd Haynes who made  "Far From Heaven"  which did feature a major gay subplot

Are you asking me or hepclassic?

 

In terms of what I'm discussing in this thread, I'm looking more at indie films that have gay leading characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah there is a better chance of finding gay lead in an indepedent feature than in mainstream Hollywood production.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"La Mujer de mi Hermano" ( My Brother's Wife) (2005) very slick love triangle drama in which a beautiful young woman seeks sexual pleasure from her husband's wilder younger brother.  The husband might have a gay secret- but this is a Mexican made film so that angle is handled so discreetly that it's barely there-in other words there is plenty of straight sex but the gay action is left strictly to the imagination. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What mainstream movies are you referring to?  Gay characters are usually featured in supporting roles as in "The Devil Wears Prada".   Ten years after "Brokeback Mountain" (2005) has there been one major studio release with gay characters in the lead?   Even in indie films gay leading characters are rare- this year we have "Carol" directed by Todd Haynes who made  "Far From Heaven"  which did feature a major gay subplot

Yes, there are gay leading characters, but the actors portraying these characters are as heterosexual as Charlton Heston at an NRA rally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are gay leading characters, but the actors portraying these characters are as heterosexual as Charlton Heston at an NRA rally.

This is something that always indicates to me how political Hollywood casting can be...and that there is a weird double standard going on. They seem unwilling to allow an openly gay person as an openly gay lead character on screen (in a mainstream movie or TV series). They need a straight actor to do that, as if a weird surrogate to champion the cause. Then we have all these closeted actors playing stereotypical hetero characters-- what, to prove they could be straight, or that they are good actors (fooling nobody)? 

 

I find a lot of it to be quite immature and proof that because of financial concerns (how will it play in the midwest?), they want to make sure homosexuals are still shown indirectly and as, potentially, not really gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something that always indicates to me how political Hollywood casting can be...and that there is a weird double standard going on. They seem unwilling to allow an openly gay person as an openly gay lead character on screen (in a mainstream movie or TV series). They need a straight actor to do that, as if a weird surrogate to champion the cause. Then we have all these closeted actors playing stereotypical hetero characters-- what, to prove they could be straight, or that they are good actors (fooling nobody)? 

 

I find a lot of it to be quite immature and proof that because of financial concerns (how will it play in the midwest?), they want to make sure homosexuals are still shown indirectly and as, potentially, not really gay.

 

Interesting theory.   I wonder if any Hollywood producers have openly discussed this.      The T.V. show Modern Family has two leading gay characters,  and one of the actors is gay while the other isn't.     Since neither of these actors were cast due to name recognition (unlike Ed o'neill) I'm sure there were gay actors that could have played both parts.     I assume the producers would say they cast the actors they felt were best for the role,  regardless of their sexuality.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting theory.   I wonder if any Hollywood producers have openly discussed this.      The T.V. show Modern Family has two leading gay characters,  and one of the actors is gay while the other isn't.     Since neither of these actors were cast due to name recognition (unlike Ed o'neill) I'm sure there were gay actors that could have played both parts.     I assume the producers would say they cast the actors they felt were best for the role,  regardless of their sexuality.       

I wouldn't buy it if they said that. Too many other things happening in the industry related to this issue. We have ones still deeply in the closet. And tied to those dramas is all the self-loathing going on in Hollywood, that even out gays and lesbians feel. This is going on in all segments of society. We see it here on these message boards with some posters who don't even realize the anger they are projecting. 

 

But because Hollywood is predominately left-progressive (my phrase), they want stories to reflect gay orientation. Some sitcoms are so cliched at this point they have an obligatory gay character (usually in support to a hunky straight lead). And despite the example you cite which is not the norm, mostly they are afraid to alienate the folks in Peoria too much. So they have to bring straight but gay-friendly performers into a lot of these roles. When you think about it, very little progress has been made on this front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A producer wants to cast the best actor for the role - so in the case of "Modern Family" one half the gay couple is played by straight actor- would having a gay actor in the lead make it better?  The problem that unlike race - gays are sometimes not clearly visible- and in Hollywood- gay actors with romantic lead potential still hide for the sake of their career. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A producer wants to cast the best actor for the role - so in the case of "Modern Family" one half the gay couple is played by straight actor- would having a gay actor in the lead make it better?  The problem that unlike race - gays are sometimes not clearly visible- and in Hollywood- gay actors with romantic lead potential still hide for the sake of their career. 

Right. There was a recent article, I forget which publication, where Matt Damon was interviewed. He criticized Rupert Everett and others for coming out of the closet, because he said they sabotaged their careers and can no longer get hired to be the romantic leads in pictures with heterosexual love stories. Maybe Damon is partially right, but I do not think the answer to shove these guys back in the closet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if Ruppert Everet would have had a huge career if he had stayed in the closet.  Matt Borner came out as gay- and his career seems to doing fine- he was in the Magic Mike movies, American Horror story and The Normal Heart.  He is also attached to Montgomery Cliff biopic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if Ruppert Everet would have had a huge career if he had stayed in the closet.  Matt Borner came out as gay- and his career seems to doing fine- he was in the Magic Mike movies, American Horror story and The Normal Heart.  He is also attached to Montgomery Cliff biopic.

You're correct about Bomer, and Damon did not mention him. In fact, Damon took a lot of flack from the gay media because of his comments (most thought he was being insensitive). I think Damon's perspective was that it limits you in terms of casting, which may or may not be true...and also he said that if you don't really know someone's sexual orientation, it adds a bit of mystery and that would (at least in theory) make them able to play roles across a spectrum of sexual types. Personally, I think Everett aged out of the rom-coms he had been doing, and Bomer will also age out of the roles he is currently doing. That's another issue altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a question to ask is- why is having a "different" quality on your person, like orientation and race, a dissonance from playing a role authentically? Meaning, the often-used argument when a heterosexual actor plays a homosexual character is that "the actor chosen was the one best fit for the role." In the classic movie era, Lena Horne and Jeanne Crain both went for the role of Pinky in Pinky, and due to the racist Hays Code standard, Crain got the role, and the studio logic was "actor best fit." 
 

"Actor best fit" is like "all lives matter"- it means white, and in the context of this conversation, heterosexual. A heterosexual is "best fit" to play a homosexual character, thus providing a "challenge" to play. A white actor is "best fit" to play a biracial character, like Jeanne Crain for Pinky, or the film Nicole Kidman made immediately after The Hours where she played a biracial woman, because it is a "challenge" to play. 

 

Not saying that there isn't a challenge, but I would think in a Method-acting immersed Hollywood, there would be more of a respect for authenticity. Shame the dollar trumps technique. We don't know if Lena Horne would have been a great Pinky, we only know she could have if the times were friendlier. With the supposed changes of the film industry since then, and Hollywood telling the public "they don't do that anymore," but practices suggest otherwise, we have heterosexuals still playing homosexuals, white people playing people of color, and heterosexuals playing transgender women (in the case of The Danish Girl and The Dallas Buyers Club). If Hollywood respects authenticity by means of the Method, the actors of color and the transgender actors would be best fit to play roles that call for that. Instead, Hollywood whitewashes and excludes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actors no matter how skillfull can not pull off every role for example I never believe Al Pacino as a Cuban in "Scarface" and now they are threatning a remake with Leonardo DiCaprio - seriously they can't find ONE latino actor to play that role.  But of course acting is about pretending- Matt Damon who is straight- has played gay several times and pulled it off specially in "Behind the Candelabra"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're correct about Bomer, and Damon did not mention him. In fact, Damon took a lot of flack from the gay media because of his comments (most thought he was being insensitive). I think Damon's perspective was that it limits you in terms of casting, which may or may not be true...and also he said that if you don't really know someone's sexual orientation, it adds a bit of mystery and that would (at least in theory) make them able to play roles across a spectrum of sexual types. Personally, I think Everett aged out of the rom-coms he had been doing, and Bomer will also age out of the roles he is currently doing. That's another issue altogether.

I agree with Damon and in the case of Bomer who has the classic leading man looks I wonder if anyone will cast him in as straight romantic lead.  Everett has become quite bitter in recent years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us