Superbad elicits some Supergaybaiting from Richard Corliss

You sure have a double standard when it comes to the use of the word "faggot."

I know there is such a thing as context, but considering this guy's track record of using gays as objects of ridicule, I don't think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

If only you would unleash the vitriol you have for Isaiah Washington on this guy & others of his ilk.

I absolutely have different standards for evaluating works of fiction and real events. (I guess I would hope that we all do...?) Depicting an unpleasant act or using an unpleasant word in a narrative does not equal endorsing it. If that were the case, Steven Spielberg would be a war-mongering anti-Semite and Ang Lee would be an advocate of unhappy marriages and gay-bashing. I never claimed that the characters using the word were any less guilty of offense than Isaiah Washington was, and to my knowledge the word has never even been used in one of Apatow's films in reference to a gay person (like it was in Washington's case), which highlights my real complaint with the films: that there are no gay characters to speak of.

Again, as I have said many times, it is a terrible word and I personally don't like it popping up anywhere. But I also see this as a complex issue that deserves further discussion, particularly in the case of these movies. 

First things first: This wasn't a review. It was a think piece. Corliss wrote about a theme he has witnessed in several films, and it made for some thought-provoking reading for me. I don't necessarily agree with his argument, and I'm much more of an Apatow fan than he is, but I didn't find anything "jawdroppingly boneheaded" about it. Corliss is doing the same thing that gay film fans have done for years -- examining the gay subtext of a film. In this case, Corliss is wondering why humor of this sort is so popular right now: "in calling the films closet-gay, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. It just strikes me as a dominant trend in the year's comedies (and action films, like 300 and Spider-Man 3)." That comes from the paragraph you think he inserted later, though there's certainly no evidence of that. Jumping to an unsupportable conclusion like that makes your argument more specious than it already is.

Speaking of bromances. Corliss would probably think J. D. and Turk were gay lovers and while it's part of the injoke of Scrubs and sometimes both are uncomfortable when people say that, gay people are never the joke and based on what you said about "Superbad" I'd think that's the same. Straight men can have affection for each other and love each other without wanting to get into each other's pants. Is the real issue that Corlisses of the world feel that love always equals sex? If that's the case, I wouldn't want to be his sister!

"If that were the case, Steven Spielberg would be a war-mongering anti-Semite and Ang Lee would be an advocate of unhappy marriages and gay-bashing."

Yes, but to expand on your thought about the lack of gay visibility in Apatow's work (and Rogan's work, if we're talking about Superbad), and what it means, Spielberg certainly features quite a few Jewish characters in his work, and Ang Lee's films have offered several well-rounded gay characters.  Our perspective on Spielberg and Ang Lee might be a bit different, wouldn't it, if, for example, either of them made several movies in a row where characters tossed out anti-semitic or anti-gay slurs, but neither Spielberg or Lee ever bothered to actually feature any specifically Jewish or gay characters in their films or, at the very least, any specific dialogue that contrasted those slurs or specifically took them to task?  Fiction is different than non-fiction, sure, but if you have an intent in your fiction to counter bigoted rhetoric, but the vast majority of your audience is simply laughing every time one of your characters calls somebody a bigoted name, then-- even if you privately have the best intentions in the whole world--  I'd say you're doing an incredibly bad job conveying the idea you're trying to suggest.  Wouldn't that failure be what we might simply call bad fiction (or maybe Superbad fiction?)  I've seen a lot of suggestions that Rogan's and Apatow's work might be gay-friendly, including in the review of "Superbad" on this site, but I think it's crucial to keep it in perspective.

You can read my broader argument over at the "Superbad" review comments section, but, in short, I'm trying to offer the idea that mere suggested or potential gay "subtext" doesn't balance out the regular use of very specific anti-gay and homophobic slurs or humor.  With filmmakers and writers like Apatow and Rogan, why is it always the anti-gay rhetoric that's specific, when (if it's even really there at all) we're supposed to have to dig under the surface to find what may be the potential pro-gay "subtext" or idea?

It's 2007, for cryin' out loud, and we're not living in the times of Douglas Sirk. Enough with the "subtext" all the time.  If Rogan and Apatow (or any other writers or filmmakers) legitimately want to be seen as gay-friendly or deal with gay issues, then they need to stop being such wimps. Are these writers and filmmakers too cowardly to bring an actual gay character into the mix or have their main characters say the word "gay" in a way that doesn't seem to most viewers as just jokey or a slur?   These are supposed to be mainstream comedies, and I don't want a scene where you have to have a doctoral degree to parse whether the straight male characters are just being "comfortable" with their sexuality or whether they're genuinely calling each other "gay" as a demeaning insult.  I can guarantee you most audiences out there certainly aren't putting that kind of thought into it.  

I'm tired of certain straight filmmakers being so lazy, yet still getting praise as being "gay friendly."  It's gay audiences who are often, apparently, supposed to be doing all the exercise on this.  While we're combing each scene  looking for scraps of "sub-text," the audience is simply laughing every time someone gets called "gay" or a "f*gg*t."  If these filmmakers were making "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," Spencer Tracy would have tossed out a lot of n-word jokes, Sidney Poitier would have never have actually shown up, and the director still would have been lavished with praise from certain circles for being so progressive.  It's the twenty-first century.  If these guys really want praise as being gay-friendly, then how 'bout they drop the pandering with "gay" insults meant to get big guffaws from the audience and the easy way out with buried "subtext" and actually grow a spine?