sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (02/07/85)
Gee, I wonder why there have been no comments at all here subsequent
to the broadcast of "Consenting Adult". Was it really as good as I
have been hearing from assorted friends and media? Or maybe everyone
on the net who's seen it has simply been stupefied beyond comment.
I thought it was poor, dramatically and thematically, completely
compromised by the equivocating nature of network television. Most
fascinating and disturbing to me was how little TV has advanced in 13
years: it still can't get past the sanitized sanctimoniousness that we saw
in "That Certain Summer", which was retrograde even in its day.
It was wildly erratic in its handling of gay sexuality, from the nadir
of the kid's (whatshisname?) "first experience" cruising a guy in the
diner and then accepting a "ride home", a scene filmed in an almost
comically unsavory Rechyesque manner, to the apotheosis of a squeaky-clean
relationship between the kid and an equally blond, WASPy student with
straight, white teeth. Sex? They might as well be angels, so incorporeal
their relationship. This must be safe-sex in the 80's. I'm not looking
for extended petting scenes, of course, but it would be nice if TV could
show casual affection between two men without aiming for either of these
extremes.
What's more, everyone's reactions seemed slightly out of kilter, as if
we were looking at the 60's set in the eighties. "Mom, I'm a ho-mo-sex-u-al"
just doesn't seem to ring true these days. Also, while I can grant that
some gay teenagers are still isolated and alone, if this movie purports
to present what is reality for most gay young people (and let's face it:
TV movies aren't serious art, they are latter-day miracle plays), it would
have been much more realistic to show him investigating his local campus
rap group, maybe reading some local gay newspapers, to establish a better
self-definition before coming out to his parents.
Anyone else care to comment?
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbnccv.ARPArob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (02/09/85)
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
wrote:
> ... if this movie purports
> to present what is reality for most gay young people (and let's face it:
> TV movies aren't serious art, they are latter-day miracle plays), it would
> have been much more realistic to show him investigating his local campus
> rap group, maybe reading some local gay newspapers, to establish a better
> self-definition before coming out to his parents.
>
> Anyone else care to comment?
Yeah, you're right - it was not such a great movie, but with the exception
of that somewhat sleazy pick-up scene, I think it would have an overall
good effect (politically) on the tv audience.
I don't think this movie is about what it was like for the son,
but rather for the mom; it was almost all from her point of view.
Furthermore, I think one of the intents of those
who made the tv movie (not the book) was to present the issue of accepting
one's children, because after the movie on a local tv news broadcase in
San Francisco, there was a brief interview with Marlo Thomas who said that
(for her) the movie was not only about accepting homosexuality, but about
accepting one's children's choices in like.
What amazed me about the movie was the realistic portrayal about each family
member's reactions -- the differences between what happened in the movie
and what happened to me when I came out to my parents are a matter of
quantity, not of quality. My dad stayed home from work for a few days
and cried and whined around the house and argued with me. My mom was
much more communicative and wanting to find out more information. I had come
out to my sister months before and she had quickly accepted my sexuality.
Because of the somewhat universal reactions parents go through, I think
that the movie will have a beneficial effect on parents of young gays.
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!robag5@pucc-k (I'm so happy) (02/10/85)
<<quoted text in this item>> >It was wildly erratic in its handling of gay sexuality, from the nadir >of the kid's (whatshisname?) "first experience" cruising a guy in the >diner and then accepting a "ride home", a scene filmed in an almost >comically unsavory Rechyesque manner, to the apotheosis of a squeaky-clean >relationship between the kid and an equally blond, WASPy student with >straight, white teeth. I agree here ... Jeff (whatshisname!) went from "Am I?" to "I am" to married in what seemed like minutes ... I should be so fortunate! But then again, this film isn't about Jeff and his relationship; it's about how his family and friends deal with his homosexuality. BTW, the fact that Jeff and his SO are kinda WASPy seems to be a *positive* aspect of the film. People have these wonderful images of us as pink and purple swishes with broken pumps. Jeff and his lover kinda stepped on that image. > Sex? They might as well be angels, so incorporeal >their relationship. This must be safe-sex in the 80's. I'm not looking >for extended petting scenes, of course, but it would be nice if TV could >show casual affection between two men without aiming for either of these >extremes. What *exactly* are you looking for here? Considering that this *is* a touchy subject for many people, I wasn't expecting more than some hand-holding and the like ... >What's more, everyone's reactions seemed slightly out of kilter, as if >we were looking at the 60's set in the eighties. "Mom, I'm a ho-mo-sex-u-al" >just doesn't seem to ring true these days. Also, while I can grant that >some gay teenagers are still isolated and alone, if this movie purports >to present what is reality for most gay young people (and let's face it: >TV movies aren't serious art, they are latter-day miracle plays), it would >have been much more realistic to show him investigating his local campus >rap group, maybe reading some local gay newspapers, to establish a better >self-definition before coming out to his parents. You're forgetting here that he *thought* he wanted to change, which is why he told his mom. Remember that she arranged for a psycholo- gist on his behalf (indeed, that first scene with his mom and the psycho- logist was interesting; the doctor did present the facts behind "curing" homosexuality in a no-nonsense way). It's entirely possible that there was *no* local campus rap group (as there wasn't around here until recently), that there were no local gay papers (there are none here in West Loserville) and the like ... (Gee, maybe I *did* see him at a party last night! :->) I feel very strongly that, while many of Steve's criticisms of this movie were valid, he is looking at it from the wrong viewpoint. He seems to believe that this movie is meant for a audience composed of both gays and straights ... it seems to me that the movie was definitely meant for straights as a step toward better understanding of their gay peers. At least in this part of the world, the showing of the movie itself was a miracle; I expected some local redneck folk <specially bred and pedigreed at the Purdue Farms> would find their way to the local station management and have them replace that showing with something else ... -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services {ihnp4|decvax|icalqa|purdue|uiucdcs|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Hope is the thing with feathers."