Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Is this good? Is this silly?
your alter ego?
are still not realsitically portrayed across the media.
we have a hugely straight centric way of seeing things in this country and the world as a whole and we should try as best we can for equality.
the idea of specifically gay prizes may seem a little tacky or gimicky but i'll leave the better alternative up to you.
also: the collective noun for lions is a 'pride' (get it?), and lots of animals display homosexual tendencies.
Gays getting on over us 'straights' again, eh? Jesus. This is a award serving a niche area of cinema - one that deals with gay and lesbian issues. Brokeback probably would qualify, yes. Would you be so outraged about an award for manga films? Or for independent films?
so stop trying to pretend that all is rosy.
Why do you even care? How is this going to put you out in any way?
you are an absolute prime idiot
it's a film award which will be part of the main awards. It will presumably recognise works and performances which are unlikely to get much attention otherwise.
It's celebrating a particular area of film, which necessarily excludes other areas of film.
and the laws that discriminate against them (remember, we're talking worldwide here, not just in the UK)? Ignoring all this in any story involving gay or lesbian people would be very unrealistic.
gays are so fucking gay they can barely hold the camera up because they are too busy flopping their wrists around and bumming
A film centred around gay issues could well win the main prize at a film festival but it is typical with such awards that films with a more mainstream appeal (ie less politicised or less enveloped in a certain culture or sub-culture) will win. It is not necessarily the quality of a film per se but its appeal which is more important as it is often a commercial decision. I think horror films and animations should be able to win mainstream awards but they generally don't. This is little to do with "quality" but to do with breadth of appeal and the conservative tastes of reviewers and critics.
Additionally there are very few positive representations of gay people in cinema and TV so this might encourage some recognition and change in this regard. I happen to think this is important. You seem to think it's a level playing field. It isn't.
"i think that compared to the amount of gays i know, i see a relative amount of gays on television"
do you know a lot of gays or not a lot of gays? I'm not sure what you are saying.
still receive a lot of discrimination and there is still a lot of stigma around being a gay. I agree that for younger people and particularly in large cities, it is increasingly acceptable to be a gay but I think you may have a warped view of mainstream acceptance.
though I wouldn't say it is totally geographical. Urban areas are more prone to being socially and politically liberal.
is in italy. where the culture is hugely masculine-centred. not that england isn't, just less so.
though no doubt there'll be plenty of homophobes queueing up to denounce it as 'discriminating against straights'.
it moves fast in the world of satire
'people not making your sexual orientation a joke and oppressing you prize', which lasts forever.
that somewhere in between the homophobic rant there is a glimmer of a point, in that creating separate categories/awards etc doesn't really help the situation, and does create a very real segregation.
'pansy ass faggots' lol
it's just an awards ceremony for a niche area of cinema, rewarding those that work within that niche. As I said above, there's no reason for this to be treated other than any other niche of cinema, except for the fact that this is likely to become politicised because of the controversy that still surrounds homosexuality.
but i just don't think it should really be a niche in the first place.
I also haven't actually read the news article yet. I'll do that now so i know what i'm talking about...
Hahahaha. Hahahahaha. Hahaha. Ha.
This award isn't praising a particular group of people, it's praising films dealing with gay and lesbian issues - which could be made by straight people. Hence it isn't 'segregation'.
if the groups concerned showed enough interest. I just doubt that they would as most of the areas you mention are either quite well covered already, or too niche to not be included in existing minority cinema awards.
Brokeback Mountain is the only breakthrough film I can think of that deals with gay issues.
lots of people wouldnt see it because it was 'about gays and gay sex, and thats disgusting'
I have, lots, in Canal Street in Manchester, and I've never been abused for being 'straight', which I assume is where you're going with this.
what do i win? WHAT DO I WIN????????
the entirety of Will and Grace on DVD.
there are plenty of stoners get beaten to death for looking a bit like they like a bit of the old weed
it's simply an area that for various reasons - one of which is undoubtably because there are less gay and lesbian people than straight - is not well covered by the mainstream media, and therefore an awards ceremony has been established to meet the demands of the gay and lesbian cinema community who seek recognition for their work.
I'll craftily insert a bumming scene on the boat just to be eligible for this award. You've got to cover all bases.
on the 30th anniversary DVD?
Sean, if you're reading this, a redesigned site where you can add "ignore" tags to other users would be a godsend.
nah, thought not.
with you taken out.
bit as 12 inches for some reason.
not having one will just about guarantee mainstream acceptance?
this means films that would have got mainstream recognition(like brokeback mountain did or mysterious skin)will just get shunned into this category thus segregating them even more?
Its a bit silly, but then i couldnt really care less, what constitutes a gay film? it says having a gay character?! bit of a rubbish idea.
I think it sends the wrong message.
Films with gay themes and gay characters are getting exposure anyway, and to single them out risks both ghettoising them and provoking a backlash. It seems incredibly patronising, to be honest.
The ultimate aim should be that sexuality is not an issue. That we shouldn't need 'gay films' - that films can have homosexual people in without us having to bat an eyelid, and that homosexual relationships can feature without us considering it as anything other than 'a relationship'.
I don't see how this would get us any closer to that goal.
the whole 'pansy ass faggots' thing was a mistake.
Gay people can't be blamed as a whole for segregating themselves, though many undoubtedly do, under the misconception that it's a productive or ultimately empowering move.
and encouraging more films to feature gay and lesbian issues? To show studios that films touching on these issues have mainstream recognition and should be supported? I'd hardly say that there are many films with gay lead characters - normally the gay character is reduced to being the kooky friend of a female lead at best.
I think maybe we've reached a point where we can leapfrog over this 'gay and lesbian issues' phase, and try and just let the representation of gay people in films occur without engineering it. With the level of tolerance and acceptance in other fields, I can only see this happening anyway.
The representation of gay people in films doesn't seem to have advanced at all to me, so as far as I'm concerned any boost to films with a gay lead or gay theme is a positive thing - I don't think intolerance of homosexuality is likely to disappear anytime soon, and without that happening I don't see how gay characters will come to be accepted in the mainstream.
if everyone was optimistic, it would probably make good things happen, too.
I don't see some kind of prejudice-free wonderland just around the corner, but neither can I possibly imagine, in a world of single sex partnerships and the abolition of clause 28 etc., that there is going to be some way in which the erosion of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is suddently going to reverse.
The only way forward seems to be the right one.
In the US, you've got Bush campaigning to make the definition of marriage as being solely between a man and a woman constitutional.
but I don't see him succeeding, or even if he did, it wouldn't be permanent.
tim is wrong!
i am the judge.
and thank you for that invaluable contribution.