Is there a "gay" movie genre?

Is it really that easy to pick top gay movies? Is it not like trying to pick a favorite child? As a gay man, it is difficult, especially since, until recently, there have been very few truly “gay” movies. There have been gay characters slipped into mainstream films, but “gay” movies still have this mystique that they are meant to be watched a quarter at a time.

What is a “gay” movie? Is it a comedy of errors wherein all the characters are drag queens screaming their way across the screen? Is it the proverbial AIDS movie? Is it a genuine effort empathetic to gay life and the trials and tribulations of people seeking understanding while sinking deeper into society’s distrust? Or perhaps is it a movie all gays rush to see? Are the movies studios touting as “gay” ones rampant with prejudicial propaganda or overt grandstanding of gay rights where a premise of telling the truth actually yields throwing homosexuality into the audience’s face with little or no subtext and reason? Maybe the answer is simply that there is no one genre uniquely labeling “gay cinema” and, for all intents and purposes, the need for such an appellation being a moot subject. Perhaps movies should be movies plain and simple.

Gay themed films perpetuate the stereotypes from which we as a group try to emerge. Frequently teetering on soft porn, many of the “gay” movies distributed today further tunnel the vision of society as “straight” being the norm leaving our minority to be viewed as over-sexed, often perverted deviants. If I am too bold in my assumption, that vision is far from being true, as most of us probably know very few people who exhibit the typical “gay boy” or “lesbian girl” portrayed in “gay genre” films. Perhaps one should make a movie about people and their lives, the facts of particular characters being gay more adjectival nuances clarifying the role rather than the full premise to the movie. First and foremost, people are people and the stories their lives tell are what we as the public need to capture. Thankfully, there have been ballsy producers and directors willing to take a gamble and deliver extraordinary movies in which being gay was not the main topic but a trait that made the characters more developed and believable…more charismatic as real people. Of course there are enjoyable “gay” flicks, but the best transcend above such a theme.

My most favorite “gay movie"? "Torch Song Trilogy” by the inimitable Harvey Fierstein. Adapted from Fierstein’s Broadway role of the same title, this is a series of vignettes individual in importance but intertwined masterfully to tell the story of a man’s life and how the one love we seek to find may actually never exist in one human being. “Albert” (also familiarly known to his friends as “Virginia Ham”) is Fierstein’s main character, the role capturing on the surface and a stereotypical gay man; the effeminate cross-dresser whose lifestyle is shunned by his domineering mother (Anne Bancroft). Add in dashes of dialogue bitchy in comical wit and strong supporting characters, the story evolves as a tale needing to be told, but one top which the main character forever fears no one will listen. In “Torch” (as I will refer) the story is love…the story is finding who we are as a person…and the story is how we as people can mix all the trouble and happiness of life in to a situation we can live with and within which find our own solidarity, how from the valleys we find out who we are and once on the peak we find out who we can be (to quote the great words from Mary J. Blige’s Grammy acceptance speech…go girl!). Show me a straight person who ain’t moved by the film and I’ll show you’s a person who ain’t gonna find good in anything! Harvey is amazing and a credit to all of humanity, and the work he does becomes indelible to all of society. He tells a story about life to which both “gay” and “straight” can assimilate. I love you Fierstein!

Another movie termed “gay”? Hmmmm…might one agree that “Philadelphia” is a “gay” movie? It deals with a topic unfortunately shared by millions of people who are as far from being homosexual as one can get, those being the unfortunate many afflicted with the disease of AIDS. But in this superb film, the fact of the main character being gay is hidden beneath the true grit of the story. It wasn’t a film set out to condemn gay people, in fact it came through as a story condemning mainstream society for their prejudicial views upon a person suffering from a disease few understand. When the “gay” stereotypes were depicted or discussed, (flash backs to the main character soliciting sex in a pornographic theatre or scenes where fleshy middle-aged men volley dull locker room “gay” jokes) those scenes did nothing to perpetuate “gay” intolerance. In fact. he truth is that such typical prejudicial practices emerged as society’s Achilles heel; the arrows they shot to bring down the main character in turn became their own demise. “Gay” was matter-of-fact for the character; the power being the plight he…a family-loving, highly intellectual and revered man and friend…was forced to endure as a “human”.

While not a well-known film and totally on the other end of the gamut to “Torch Song Trilogy” and “Philadelphia”, “Unconditional Love” is another movie in which supporting characters are “gay”. Rupert Everett (incredible) and Kathy Bates star in the film in which the strength of a gay love partnership helps a straight couple learn the true meaning of love …to love the person…to love without condition. Comical to a point, the plot involves a Tom-Jones-Engelbert-Humperdink-Elvis-Presley genre singer, adored by women the world over, is killed by a wayward serial killer. Bates (a typical devoted wife) is subjected to divorce when her husband, Dan Akroyd, feels the need to emerge from a conservative mold to find some element of danger to give his life meaning. Wanting desperately to attend an exclusive taping of the main character’s singing appearance, she misses out on winning a ticket to the event. Luck prevails and a customer service agent mails her one extra ticket, but when she gets to the studio she learns of the singer’s murder. Intent herself on facing danger to prove her worth to her husband, Bates travels to England to attend the singer’s funeral where she meets his “valet” (Everett) who reveals he had actually been the singer’s life partner for ten years. Together they embark on proving Everett’s rights to the estate as promised by the singer. Farcical, to an acceptable level, the overlying story deals with finding oneself amidst the turmoil of life and society. There are moments that deal with certain “gay” stereotypes: cross-dressing, philandering…”perversions of the worst kind” to quote a line from the movie. However, the end of the film triumphs at finding out that we are individuals…again “gay” being matter-of-fact.

Yet another “gay” film? I’m finding there are so many now that I have time to sit and think. Well…I guess I should go for it despite the subject having been beaten into the ground by media and critics alike. “Brokeback Mountain” is the “gay” movie du jour. As a gay man, I found this film to be as far from a “gay” movie as William Hung is to being a serious artist. Infamy brought them both falsely to the limelight, but with “Brokeback Mountain” there is an indisputable value that would have garnered it the same success had it been promoted simply as an example of superb cinematography and direction…not to mention amazing storyline where love is found in the most remote regions of plausibility. Plain and simple, had the movie been made where a cowboy meets ranch owner’s daughter, the underlying story of love would have still been remarkably told and adapted to screen. Being that the characters were both men…cowboys at that…gave the film the initial notoriety it had to suffer. Exceptional storyline and unparalleled direction aside, the media’s bastardization of the fact that two men fell in love brought people to the theater, and to Ang Lee’s success, both gay and straight were touched by the human sentiments prevailing throughout the film. Those in areas where the film was black-listed suffered at having been excluded. I, myself, felt my rights were removed when only two theaters in the area showed the film. Well thanks to the theater guilds that acclaimed the film for its true worth, many more people were ale to see the movie and make their own assessment. Thankfully the theaters banning the product lost out on positive revenue.

So there’s a few movies termed “gay” that I find to be remarkable feats of film making and story telling. There are numerous other films of this ilk, but without going into six, seven, eight…twenty others, the fact remains that those best films canopied under the “gay” moniker are truly superb cinematic productions about people. Terming things “gay” or “lesbian” keeps us, a minority already, trapped in the backrooms and dark clubs hidden in the decaying parts of the big cities. We are people…black or white…gay or straight. Let films speak for themselves and keep “gay” or “lesbian” out of the picture. Let the characters be who they are and the messages in the films will become more powerful; hopefully, our own lives will continue to give more meaning to all of society. Don’t label a film “gay” or “lesbian” and hinder it being viewed for the work of art it is intended to be. Enjoy the films for what they are…works of art fashioned from painstaking hours of thought, each testaments to unique talents from directing, to editing, costuming and acting. If the story tells a tale of men loving men or women loving women, a gay man fighting for his own rights or a lesbian mother trying to raise a child on her own, look deeper to the plot and realize each character is a person. Who they love is not as important as the depth of the love they offer, and what they fight for is not as powerful as the heights of what they achieve in the end. If we stop labeling our efforts, not the least ourselves, maybe the rest of the world will stop labeling us.