Ask the Flying Monkey (August 19, 2008)

Sorry, my post got lost.  Don't feel like re-typing.  Sometimes I hate this tool, especially when I have to switch input formats.

The one movie on that list that I've never followed the "party line" (for lack of a better term) is Basic Instinct, which ranked #89 my all-time movie list (just below Brokeback Mountain). To me, Catherine's bisexuality is just part of what the movie is saying, how female sexuality is so frightening and threatening to (str8) men; Joe Esterhaz's script is silly soft-core porn, but director Paul Verhoeven turns it into a riveting examination of men's fears and how authority is always just this side of fascism (themes that run throughout his films, from The 4th Man to Starship Troopers to Black Book). Plus, Sharon Stone gives an iconic performance that's simply unforgettable.

Not to open this debate again, but I responded the same to Brian on QAF: I found him to be such a repulsive and unlikable character (I couldn't understand why ANYBODY would be his friend, let alone find him attractive, and Whats-his-name is such a horrible actor) that I didn't bother to watch it after the first season; I, too, have been told that the show "humanized" his character, but I still have less than zero desire to see it thanks to that unhappy initial viewing.

I hated Brian but I actually adored Stuart Alan Jones in the UK version. The UK version was so much better.

There is no way any masculine-leaning gay guy changes his hair style as frequently as Luke Snyder on As The World Turns. :P

BIG Guillermo Diaz fan here!!I believe he is the one that leaded me to this site.Was looking for his information since he appeared on weeds and his interview with AE back in 2005 poped up :)

I started watching QAF through youtube. I watched clips and episodes out of order. Later seasons were more available thus they were probably more popular. I found that the show did "humanize" the characters more. Seasons 3-5 were far more enjoyable than seasons 1-2. I can't stand most of season 1. I am glad the US version had a chance to reach a more tolerable medium whereas the UK version left much to be desired.

I want to say thank you for answering my question. And that I understand that Masculine gay man is not a common thing to see. I love my friends that are loud and proud. They are my heroes because they live so freely but I'm quiet and not so loud but very proud. I just hate when people say this to me, "if you're gay why do act like a guy." I don't act like a man I' am a man.

The key thing about the "Brian" character ("Stuart" on the BBC series) is that he's by far not the only representation of a gay man on the show and his actions are often tailored to be morally ambiguous. Other characters play against him, openly argue with him or represent different sides of gay life (particularly on the U.S. show).

But it's important to remember that the name of the show (in both the British and U.S. version) was "Queer As Folk" (i.e., "Queer As F*ck") and one of the things to the show's credit is it went against the grain of moral sainthood for its main characters that was (and is) a problem in more recent gay characters on television. If you look at other shows of the time, like, say, NYPD Blue's saintly John (who annoyed the be-jaysus out of me as he almost always fulfilled the role either of babysitter or comic relief whenever the show gave him any significant time at all), "Queer As Folk" was a deliberate middle-finger to that kind of hetero-focused "please, please understand us" portrayal.

QAF's characters are sometimes likeable and sometimes total a**holes. That goes for pretty much all of them, on both series. Believe me, that's a big step forward from either the suicides/villains/jokes we'd had in most mainstream movies and the emerging saintly-but-nearly-invisible token characters we had started to see more and more of in both films and television. Brian (and really just about everyone else on both the British and U.S. shows) wasn't anything like a role model, and that was actually crucial to the design of the show. He was an arrogant slut with strange flashes of heart. Not anywhere near the same ballpark as shadowy serial killers or token, halo-wearing, hetero's best friend cyphers.

I've got a BFA in graphic design (one of several degrees, actually), which includes interdisciplinary work in photography. I'm not sure that gives me the right to trash AE's web site design or to trash your self-portrait. But I guess given what this web site likely pays, it might make perfect sense.

"I wonder if the same people who protest these films also protested Queer as Folk, which to me, not only showed the lead adult having sex with a minor, but also showed him to be rampantly promiscuous without any feelings for his partners."

^ I don't remember any of brian's partners having any ''feelings'' back for him....except Justin. (who IMO, was the annoying one on the show)

I think Brian usually made it clear he simply wanted to f.uck and then that would be it. Besides Justin, they all seemed to accept that about Brian

 ...but someone can correct me on this if i have missed something or whatever.

afhickman

"It takes a village (to make Village People)"

But I just got off the plane, and I need a rest. Instead, I find myself rolling my eyes in disbelief. I don't know why I should have to keep noting this, particularly on this site, but everyone is entitled to his or her own taste in matters of film and TV. The obvious thing to add about your comparison of QAF to dreck like Silence of the Lambs & Co. is that we have all known a Brian, a Mike, an Emmet, a Ted, and a Justin, but we have none of us, I hope and pray, known a Buffalo Bill. Such creatures rarely exist outside of Hollywood, yet they are typical of the kind of representation we get on film. I don't object to anyone's disliking QAF, but I have never felt the need to apologize for finding it one of the least offensive portrayals of gays ever committed to celluloid. Geez, the fact that I am using italics to make my point means I must really need a nap.  Ciao.

In my highly scientific yet unpublished research (read: talking to gays) on the subject of "Queer as Folk," one thing was shared by everyone except myself: they love the show. Such high praise forced me to rewatch the show to see if I was missing something. The answer? Nope. In my humble, shy, and couch-potatoed opinion, this is probably one of the most awfully written, poorly acted, vain, unnecessary, uninteresting, terrible shows ever made. Whether you considered it soap opera fluff or social commentary on the gay man is irrelevant to me...it was simply offensive to people who like good television.

Listen, I wish there were more "leading man" type gay characters -- and, with the new trend to beards in younger men, more bears and cubs! And fuzzy swimmers! Mmmmmm, otters..... but I digress....Seriously, do you think that an out gay effeminate man does not "love to be a man?"

If you somehow think they are less strong than 'masculine men', try walking down a city street in drag and see what kind of cojones it takes!Drag queens are the bravest of all gays (as the Monkey notes, far braver than "passing" for a straight man!) and with the Stonewall riots they BUILT gay rights.

Finally, the other part of the answer is that having a sexy guy as a gay character reminds straight people of gay SEX -- which is what repulses them about us.

 Campy flaming sidekicks are funny -- and usually neuter, so they don't make straight people think of GAY SEX. So that's a big reason why there are more of that type of character.  Remember Melrose Place, which had a nice straight looking gay man?  But while all the other straight characters were boffing each others' brains out, he never had even a date, because that would make people think of GAY SEX!  That's the other stereotype character, I call him "lonely faggot".

For my money, Brian is the most complex gay male I've ever seen on TV. He's that rarity: a gay man as a masculine alpha male. He was successful at his job; looked like a hunk that everyone wanted, and loved sex and made no apologies for being gay. He could be a real a#$hole at times, and he was psychologically damaged by his dad, but under the tough exterior was a sensitive man who was afraid to reveal himself to others. As ''Queer as Folk'' progressed, it stripped away his layers, and those of his friends, each of whom proved to be much more than a gay stereotype. Gale Harold, who played Brian, and the rest of the cast and the creators never got the kudos or Emmys they deserved, but it'll always be one of my faves.

In terms established by the Heterosexual Dictatorship (term copyright, Christopher Isherwood) "Matt" on Melrose Place couldn't "have" sex because he WAS sex. This naturally devolves out of straights' obsession with anal intercourse -- which they think we do 24/7. Queer As Folk was important in showing a lot of gay men having sex within the context of a wide varierty of different activities and rather complex relationships. The fact that "Brian Kinney" wasn't a saint was a relief of sorts. Besides there were other charaters on the show who WERE saints -- particularly "Emmett." "Leading Men" types are BORING. Robert Redford (who just turned 72) discovered that early on. That was the only role he could play so he pretty much gave up acting to become a director -- not to mention "Sundance." Dirk Bogarde was a "Leading Man" for a great many years. "I was the Loretta Young of England" he famously quipped (easily one of the greatest camp asides of all time) Then he kicked over the traces with Victim -- and the rest is gay movie history.

It wasn't Brian's promiscuity that pissed me off; heck, I'm the biggest promoter of enjoying sex, so I didn't have a problem with the show portraying random sexual encounters. What bothered me was how mean and nasty Brian was to his so-called friends; yes, I've heard that Brian was messed up emotionally by his father, but his friends REALLY had to be messed up by their parents to actually WANT to be friends with an asshole like Brian who would constantly belittle them. As a result of this, I couldn't believe the construct of the show, even as a soap opera, where the "villains", your Alexis Carringtons or Angela Channings or J.R. Ewings, at least were charmingly vile. But, then, it probably wasn't just the bad writing, but also the bad acting--Gale Harold makes Joan Collins seem like a classically trained Shakespearean tragedienne by comparison.

Good afternoon everyone: Well, the Flying Monkey said my letter would cause controversy and it has. It's also caused an excellent debate and discussion as well. I guess I don't follow into the "party line" as someone wonderfully mentioned. :-) I'd like to expound on my initial letter and add a few more thoughts: Brent (The Flying Monkey) stated that until Philadelphia there were no expressions of gay male love in movies. Least we forget 1982's Making Love, which showed Michael Ontkean and Harry Hamlin(or their body double's)passionate with each other. That was pretty bold for that time. Whether people thought the entire film was good or not is a different story all together. There were other films as well such as The Boys in the Band and Personal Best which broke ground as well for showing same-sex friendships/relationships. I realize that some people think of Philadelphia as Jonathan Demme's "penance" or apology for having directed The Silence of the Lambs. To me he had nothing to be sorry about. He made a fantastic scary film that still is powerful today when viewing and deserving of all the Oscars it won. If anybody should be apologizing, shouldn't it be Queer Nation for vandalizing/breaking studio equipment while Basic Instinct was being made? That's still a crime to do isn't it? As far as the QAF analogy: maybe we all know someone like Brian Kinney and the other characters, but does that mean we would associate with them or have them as friends? To me the only character I liked in the few episodes I watched was Michelle Clunie's character of Melanie. She had the guts to call Brian out for what he really was: an a**hole. I heard Dan Lipman and Ron Cowen say on Larry King one time when discussing the Brian/Justin relationship and the fact that Justin was only 16, was that it happens in real life. Ok, but does that mean its right and should be shown on TV? I think we can all agree if this was a straight guy and a 16 year old girl, this guy would be sent to jail. I would rather be friends with chatacters like "Saint" John Irvin from NYPD Blue and even Jack MacFarland from Will & Grace. Maybe they were better written shows, or that Sean Hayes and Bill Brochtrup are better actors, but these characters are likeable and you would want to be friends with them (even though Jack is a little outrageous, to say the least). I believe that the overwhelming majority of people in the world whether gay, lesbian, straight, bi-sexual or transgendered know that we're not skinning other people to make a homemade suit, stabbing people with icepick's, slashing people in elevators or luring them out of a bar to kill them. And if some people do believe that, then they are obviously not playing with a full deck to begin with. Thanks for your time. Regards, Keith

but became a big fan in its later years. Their last two seasons were actually quite good, serious TV. The characters grew up and became serious.

As far as QAF goes, I like Brian because he is such a jerk at times. He's not a good role model, his behavior is most often reprehensible. But that's part of what makes him a good character. I'm a writer, and one thing you learn is that 'perfect' characters are bad characters.By perfect I mean, characters who have no flaws, or are just too good. Such characters aren't very interesting, and they aren't really a creative accomplishment.

Its easy to write a character everyone likes because he or she is a good person, selfless, generous, all around good. But it's great when a writer or in the case of television actor/creator/writers can make a character who is not perfect, or even likable as a person, a character that is engaging and love able as a character. A character you love watching or reading about. That's a good character, that and layers which make a character more than what he seems on the surface. So Brian is an interesting character, he's not meant to be a representation of the gay community, he's a character in a story. His function is to be interesting in that story, flawed is much more interesting than "good".

Also as far as good television. Soap operas aren't good television, bad acting, bad writing, cheesy and over the top, but they can be entertaining. It seems like a lot of Showtime and HBO dramas are a lot like soap operas but with better acting and sex scenes because they can get away with showing gratuitous sex scenes. (Like how Rome would cut to random orgies for no reason)

. . . portrayed Miles Drentell in thirtysomething (and won an Emmy for it, I might add) have I simultaneously loved and hated a television character like Gale Harold's Brian Kinney in Queer As Folk.

Yes he was a jerk, and yes he was a good-looking horndog, but you knew where you stood with him and he told you the unvarnished truth, even when you didn't want it or when it was the wrong time to hear it.

And he certainly had no illusions to love and life.

Like him or hate him, Brian Kinney always knew 'what time it was' and when it was time to leave the party.

That's why I have more respect for him as a television character more than I have respect for Will & Grace's Will Truman and Jack McFarland.

I'm not a dude so as a dyke I know there is a whole other level of understanding and identification that I couldn't possible have with the character of Brian But the gay men who've been in my life since I was a teen (I'm 40 now) have definitely run the gamut from super fabulously queenie to straight up butcho macho and all have helped to make the person that I am and it would be amazing to have more leading man type gay male characters on screen (other than the straight boy who's just come out type).

All in all, I found the character of Brian to be so moving and wonderfully complicated and incredibly positive in the ways that matter most to me in terms of his being gay (though there many more things about him that are stereotypically male if not stereotypically gay). Coming from a very working class upbringing maybe I have a different perspective on some of what makes up Brian's character because I didn't come from a family/community where folks were all gushy with the love and always said things in calm tones and never yelled. But unlike Brian, I wasn't emotionally and physically abused. I always knew I was loved by the way folks took care of me (even if they didn't say it every day or ever in some cases, I knew). No, an abusive childhood doesn't excuse adult behavior but it can help to explain some of it.

While Brian obviously managed to overcome quite a bit and achieve a lot in his life, you can't take the upbringing out of the man (or woman). It's always going to be there. Folks either live in opposition to it or live with it but it's always there one way or the other. I think that's what I like about this character.

Everyone else spent a lot of time talking about loving somebody and other than Emmett , they made a piss poor job of showing it most of the time. Their love seem to be contingent on folks doing exactly as they saw best. I constantly see folks saying Brian was evil and mean and treated his friends like shit and yet, having just this summer watched every episode now twice (yes lord help me, all 5 season) for the first time, I the characterizations of Brian are at best simplistic and at worst, inaccurate. Brian was a damaged man and a hot head and desperately afraid of needing people or being seen as pitiful or vulnerable. Just like a lot of real human being, just like a lot of the other characters on the show.

But I also think he was a beautifully complex character from both a sexuality and class perspective and his capacity for love was huge and obvious, just not verbal. I see moments of him being mean as fuck, being too hard on someone, or not giving out his doses of truth with a spoon full of sugar (but the others definitely GAVE AS GOOD AS THEY GOT FROM HIM).

I saw a character who was incredibly GENEROUS, loyal and protective of his friends (who could all be mean, selfish, arrogant, self righteous, judgmental fuckups except maybe Emmett and yes including sainted Lindsey). Yet, Brian spent most of his time with his friends and not because he didn't have a choice. Because they were the people he cared most about. He made a family the way a lot of gay people who aren't accepted by their biologicals have to do and no one can piss each off more than family (chosen or otherwise) As a gay character, he was unprecedented. He did not fit easily into a stereotype of the gay tv/movie character and his unapologetic expression of sexual desire was extreme but a lot healthier than the hundreds of neutered gay characters of the past (and some present). I have to say I found most gay characters on network tv offensive in almost every way but I was never offended by any of the characters on QAF. Frustrated but never offended.

Brian was a lothario (with a lesson to learn)but not unethical. All those partners were hookups, not lovers. He only had one lover, Justin. He didn't owe anything to anyone except Justin and not even him until later on in the first season when their relationship became a relationship.

As for the other "friends" whom he supposedly treated like "shit",

TED

Ted was pissy, judgmental, hypocritical, nasty, selfish and mean (though he grew a lot) and had almost as much sex as Brian (by the end of the series) but you never see the same kind of analysis about his character and its relevance for how people view gay men. Was all the sex Ted had less relevant because he wasn't supposed to be read as a "sex symbol"? He was also closeted (until he got fired) and politically conservative (until he decided to make making porn his life). Despite how many times he fucked up (either due to bad judgment or carelessness) Brian saved him. Got him a job not once but twice. Kept him out of jail for hiring the under aged assistant, etc..

MICHAEL

The Michael thing just made no sense to me. Michael was a grown man who behaved like a child 90 % of the time and was a coward, jealous and envious and pissy and mean and allowed folks to blame HIS never-ending-crush on Brian on Brian. Pitiful. It seemed to me that the only thing Michael had going for him was that he was a constant in Brian's life. Growing up the way he did, it made sense that the continuity of his friendship with Michael would be paramount for him.

JUSTIN

From the second he told Justin (gently and with great care) that he could not, would not be his lover in the first season he took care of him in all the ways that matter. He didn't have to ever talk to him again. He could have ignored Justin until he gave up. Justin was not a child. He was halfway to 18 and had actually turned 18 the time the prom came. 18 is grown. Period. Brian protected Justin from his father (despite being assaulted by Justin's dad two times [one of which could have killed him]) and rescued him from new york and treated him with love and respect and called him on his shit when he fucked up. He was the only person who treated Justin like a young man instead of child.

Brian never lied to Justin (not about their relationship, he did lie about being sick later on and he was mean then [but he did think he might be dying...]) and he was incredibly generous and sweet to him in every single season despite REPEATED mistakes made by Justin. I thought Brian genuinely fell in love with Justin took him to his prom, guarded him every night for 6 months in the hospital and rehabilitated him in his own home through every outburst and fit and tantrum (brain trauma induced and otherwise) that Justin threw. He paid for him to go to school and bought him the computer to draw with after he was bashed.

He allowed Justin to make a choice about where he wanted to be (which is both loving and respectful) and took him back after he'd cheated on him and humiliated him in public and defended him to Michael (during and after the cheating). I hardly think the few times he yelled at him discount all of what he did for him and gave to him and a

What exactly is love suppose to look like for gay men? Should they be depicted as going through the same struggles (good, bad, etc) as men in general when it comes to relationships? That's part of what I feel their story is about. I suspect if Justin and Brian had been the same age (Brian younger or Justin older) no one would ever have questioned whether or not they loved each other (or more specifically, whether or not Brian loved Justin). That just seems ageist, and unrealistic since so many gays and lesbians have inter-generational relationships (and here I'm talking adults of course). 17 is the age of consent. Justin was never jail bait.

LINDSEY

Brian fathered Lindsey's child and agreed to care for Lindsey and the kid and Lindsey forever (um how many checks did he write her, seriously?) He was always there to listen to her silver-spooned behind whine and whine about how hard it was to be her and he let her call him every name in the book every time she got a bee in her bonnet about something. He also gave up his parental rights so that Lindsey and her meaner-than-any-human-should-ever-be Chihuahua of a girlfriend could have equal rights over the kid. He then signed a Million dollar life insurance policy and ARRANGED FOR THEIR ENTIRE WEDDING INCLUDING REPLACING THE LOST RINGS! And why, because her cheating lover Melanie who had only ever spewed venom at him came a crying.

That was all just in the first season! And I think it is all of this and more that makes him a layred character.

I won't even go into what he did for the community center and the hospice and THE CITY OF FAUX PITTSBURGH (despite his contempt for groups and community stuff).

He's the only character whom everyone seemed to have no problems talking crap about until they needed something from him (and sometimes they talked crap with their hand out) and none of them except Deb (and later Justin) seemed to care of have any insight into why he was the way he was. As his friend, shouldn't they have understood (if not enabled) his attitude.

I thought this was particularly informative because as a community we often put down folks who have money or make lots of money until we need that money to help the community.

Every character on the show, ultimately, was flawed and layered and complicated (expect maybe Michael who just seemed to be flawed, going from being selfishly bitchy to bitchily selfish )

As a gay person I was so happy to see a show where the characters were unequivocally sexual but also had a million other things going on dealing with money and health and politics, etc.

The sex was like background music for me. Sometimes it was beautiful and meaningful, sometimes it was hot and sexy and dirty, sometimes I didn't even notice it. But I was always glad it was there, unabashedly so.

Again, I do get that I'm not in the position to have to feel like folks are going to make assumptions about me as a gay man because of characters from QAF (cuz I'm not a guy) but I felt like there was a broad enough range of men on the show to represent the diversity that is maleness (in this case, gay maleness).

A final thought, the two men Michael dated were both very manly leading men types that you don't often see portrayed on network tv but still different in their machismo even than Brian.

Ahhh, taste the masculine rainbow.

I'm sorry but did I miss something? (in Reference to The Silence of the Lamb)

 

When Dr. Lecter is discussing Buffalo Bill's personality with Starling... doesn't he tell her that Buffalo Bill isn't gay but believes himself to be gay, and begins to fulfill what he believes that entitles? Doesn't that say something about what the writer was thinking? That trying to be something that you are not creates a disasterous physical manifestion? Maybe I'm completely wrong, and have jumbled the entire movie in my head.... which, I highly doubt considering the myriad of Silence of the Lamb viewing nights, I have in my life.

"Spill me out into the world, again, like water in a brimming bowl. I'll flood out and sink into the ground, again. Rooting out like wire, I will grow here, standing straight always knowing, 'I will never feel that way again' and from my stance I will move the earth."

I do not know anything about the American version of QAF- but I am a huge fan of the Russell T Davies series.

Stuart is clever, sexy and manipulative and consistently uses these traits to maintain a level of control over the people close to him. He is not a nice guy, in any respect. But he is sharp and he does know the control he holds over everyone. And he even sometimes uses it for good. These are the only traits he can understand within himself; throughout the run he proves he is loving and thoughtful. He's not great at it but he is.

Stuart is a very flawed character, and like I said I can make no comment on the American series. But I find these flaws and his ability to use them to help the people around him make him more human, not less.

He does not sleep around because he was hurt by his parents (they don't know he is gay til series 2), he does it because he can, and he wants everything he can get. This does not mean he does not have depth. There are genuinely touching moments in QAF UK which show a different side of Stuart; but you have to understand the shallow side of him to understand the rest.

I love 'Queer As Folk' (which was originally going to be called 'Queer as F**k') and that's why I cannot watch the US version. Stuart getting together with Nathan? Makes no sense to me...

...but I could swear Stephen Baldwin used to be EXTREMELY gay-friendly. Even after a religeous conversion, it seems odd he could do such a complete turnaround. And a bit depressing. So nobody mentioned Bobby Gant on QAF? I thought he was the hottest guy on the show, and probably the most well-adjusted character, if only by default. Is it wrong that I think he seems sexy toting a gun in that picture Brent put up? (I had the same reaction to Chad Allen brandishing one)