The Gay Movie Revolution

I think that gay movies are impacted by a few new variables these days.

The first is a lower tendency to go to the movies in general.  This has been an ongoing problem for Hollywood as much as for indies.  The rise of the home theatre and the growing prices of admission and snacks at the movie theatre has been driving down actual cinema audience sizes, even as it has driven up the demand for DVD's and now Blu-Ray.  More and more people are reserving actual theatre time for movies with visual effects that you simply must see on a screen more than ten feet wide.

In addition, gay movies are impacted by the decline of the urban gay.  Once upon a time, not so long ago, gay people clustered in gay ghettos in major cities.  These areas often had an art house theatre that played gay-specific films.

But as gays have been increasingly vanishing into the burbs treking all the way into the city to go see a gay movie (as my friends and I used to do) has become more and more of a bother.  As with all other movie content, we found ourselves weighing the merits of actually going to the movies in a theatre versus waiting for a DVD so that we could watch it at home over vastly superior snacks and beverages to what we would get at the theatre. 

Movie at the theatre = overpriced greasy popcorn and soda that is mostly ice, while seated on dirty seats

Movie at home theatre = pizza, fresh snacks and an assortment of malt beverages, beer and cocktails, while seated on plush, comfortable, clean furniture + the ability to replay shot of adorable actor's exquisite bare buttocks.

I'm all for the direct distribution model because unless a movie really has strong crossover appeal and is likely to drag people into the theatre then I think it's a lost cause.  Most of the old art houses are gone anyway.

all that interesting, or simply for the most part just cliches that only gay audiences will be interested in seeing? This is assuming that it even reaches people- will they want to see it. Will gay people want to see it. Or are we all kind of tired of the same stories repeating themselves. There was this great period when gay films were just starting to come out of the shadows in the late 80s and early 90s. That period was replaced by movies that covered and recovered and recovered the same themes, stories, ideas, etc. about being gay. I want my action hero who happens to be gay. I want my thriller with a lead who happens to be gay. Etc. You can have the best business model in the world and still not achieve bigger audiences. I think talking about distribution- something discussed at length at sites like indiewire, is important, but there is a larger discussion that needs to happen. What does it mean for a movie to be centered on being gay? To me, I think any movie, even an action movie, where the lead or major supporting is gay is per se centered on being gay. It's going to be the 800 lb elephant in the room. To me, being gay in a movie where it's not about being gay redefines and deconstructs the cliche in favor of something that will reach more audiences. It can make people think of gay in ways that they may not think of it. It can make them see sexuality differently. The way the stories are now told are - well- predictable. They are a certain ritualized process that we can all stamp as "gay". It's great branding, but again very much cliche.

When do we get to talk about actual quality?

Most movies are bad. Most gay movies are bad. Some gay movies are actually great, but I doubt that AfterElton readers have ever heard of Les Passagers, Edward II, The Last of England, Thundercrack, Silverlak Life: The View From Here, Under Heat, Lola + Billy the Kid, Son Frere, The Dying Gaul, Shortbus, L'Homme Blesse or Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train.

 

Whose fault is that?

As a film geek I found this article fascinating and timely.  The fact that it had a gay slant just made it all the more interesting and entertaining.

The future of film distribution is upon us.  I would say I watch 90% of my entertainment on my computer.  Whether it is movies on DVD or TV shows on studio websites, I do not go to the movies unless something is high in quality (Brokeback Mountain) or needing to be seen on the big screen (the Harry Potter films).

This digital revolution is very important to independent filmmakers and specifically gay filmmakers.  Just as multiplexes are on their way out, so are DVDs.  Soon everything will be viewable by downloading to your computer.  Hulu is actually the best model of the future of distribution.  I foresee all production companies soon having their own website where you can browse their catalog for films to watch on demand.  I think most companies will offer either a subscription or per-view pay system for watching their movies.  Alternatively, some films may be offered for free with commercial interruptions, as Hulu currently does with some of their big Hollywood films and smaller, indie fare.

This way, the only cost for gay filmmakers is the actual production of the film and the minimum cost of maintaing a website.  To me it is a very bright and beautiful future for indie filmmakers both gay and straight.

I believe the shortened window between theatrical releases and DVD releases only serves to hurt films in general and gay films specifically. Look at "Shelter" - a well-made film that is garnering praise from critics and moviegoers alike. It has done moderately well in its theatrical run, but think how much more money it could have made if gay moviegoers weren't already ordering it on DVD or planning to watch it on here! this month. Knowing that a film is coming out on DVD so soon after its theatrical run (or during its run) clearly reduces its chances for box office success. "Shelter" could have made so much more money at the box office and reached far more people if it wasn't already on sale on DVD - if it had played in theaters for two months, it would have made more money but DVD sales wouldn't have been negatively affected. Look at the per-screen average for "A Four Letter Word" which isn't yet available for DVD pre-order - it is significantly higher than the "Shelter" per-screen average because moviegoers know that it can only be seen in theaters.

There's a demand and a craving for gay movies out there, and if more quality gay films were released in theaters and allowed to have a natural box office run, moviegoers would respond.

. . .but to paraphrase the tagline of Field of Dreams:  if you tell it, they will come.

People love stories, and no one does it better than those who work in the medium of film.

Thing is, the independants have done the 'gay coming out story' to a fare-thee-well, and most everyone else seems to want to treat the subject matter as if it were one of those old 1970's ABC "Movie of the Week".

Perhaps when the writers, or the directors or the producers get smart and cease the subject matter of being gay as the engine that drives the movie and presenting stories universal for all to enjoy will we see more successful gay-charactered films.

. . .or as a straight buddy confided:  Brokeback Mountain was a success not because it was about two gay cowboys, but was a study of an individual presented with the opportunity for love and happiness, and he pushed it away with both hands.

Tom

 

Been there, done that, bought the soundtrack!

Curt was a friend (major world-weary sigh )

As for the others on my list I was hoping to get some space somewhere to writes about L'Homme Blesse when Freidkin's Leather Sex Made Me a Serial Killer (aka. Cruising ) had its DVD comeback.

As if! 

Unlike a smarmy breeder tourist like Friedkin, Patrice Chereau (an actual real live gay man!) hung in the West Village extensively in the 70's and appropriated its dark delights into his film set in rural France.  he especially enjoyed the action on the piers -- as did playwright Bernard-Marie Koltes whose West Pier Chereau staged to great acclaim and whose In the Solitude of the Cotton Fields is the best two-hander about a pick-up since Albee's The Zoo Story.

Alas Koltes died of AIDS.

A lot of the simultaneous release talk in this very good post touches on a lot of the same topics (from a queer perspective) that www.techdirt.com has talked about in a broader sense, on how it can grow an audience, reach specific audiences, etc. Techdirt has focused on it from an "infinite goods" vs. "scarce goods" perspective, and the infinite market. I'd be interested to see how their writers viewed some of the conclusion drawn by the gay filmmakers here, and how they see the Hollywood distribution model evolving.

 

Personally, I only go out to the theater every couple years. It does help that I have an elaborate home theater system at home, an addiction to Amazon, and a subscription to Blockbuster. But still, having the choice and comforts at home make the new models of simultaneous release on multiple formats attractive to me. Now if I could just get here! at home. Comcast just can't get it to my area of Miami yet...

I have to say I'm not terribly rah-rah about this new development myself. Sure, the gay networks and gay distributers interviewed are going to look upon the shift favorably, as it represents a business opportunity for them. But big-picture, it means that gays have been shouldered away from the adults' table and are setting up their own TV trays in the corner. The problem with these new distribution models is that they are almost completely ghettoized to a purely gay audience - two weeks in a gay neighborhood in 4 cities with major gay populations, an ad in a bar weekly, and then distribution on a gay network and release through a gay DVD company.

Part of the thrill of the cinema is the ability to share the experience with others, and these niche distribution models contradict that.

I have little interest in watching a movie that I won't be able to discuss with anyone after, and I live in a world where many of my friends and my family are straight. My mother went to see BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN in the theatre. Everyone was talking about it. It was an opportunity for real dialogue about gay men and gay life, and it brought us to the table in a way that no other film has. Will KISS THE BRIDE do the same thing? Will SHELTER? It should, as it's a good movie, but unfortunately no straight person will ever hear about it, much less see it, given the way that it's being distributed. It's great that the movie will be seen by gay people, yes. But gay people have been pretty good at hunting and gathering for centuries, and would have found the movie regardless.

As the article points out, distribution has gotten harder for independent films, period - not just gay films. And while it's nice that gay distributors have stepped in to get gay films out there, I can't wonder if it's not siphoning off projects that have wider appeal and cutting off opportunities for a broader dialogue. To me it's disappointing to see quality movies like SHELTER screening for the choir and only the choir.

I really can - it's visibility, and part of the can-hate-the-gays, but can't-hate-the-gays-next-door discussion. And I won't dispute good it does - discussion Brokeback with my mom was interesting, once it finally played in the small WV town I grew up in (I think I'd seen it on DVD at that point).

Do I see it as a big-table, tv-tray issue? I'm not sure - it's the discussion of whether there are second-class tables, or simply more and varied tables. It's not a zero-sum game. Economics seldom are.

My thoughts were largely on the economics of distribution - more methods of less-expensive distribution mean more movies. Some get press and get picked up, some don't. Some make more money because they appear on a cable channel - I now own copies of the Chad Allen, Donald Strachey movies, and several of the books because of AfterElton, but would they have been made at all if here! didn't have a subscriber base paying for it? Sadly, Ialso own boxed sets of "the Lair" and "Dante's Cove" - basically softcore porn. But that gave here! some money to make another Strachey.

As to the point of whether movies are a social experience - that's covered in some detail on Techdirt - it should be a social experience. Movie theaters should make it a better experience, period. But I've got talking teenagers, cell phones ringing, $10 popcorn (that's had all the butter and salt removed these days), uncomfortable chairs (I'm at home in a powered leather theater recliner typing this right now). I can have people over to a peaceful environment, with good food, big sound, comfy chairs, and still have a social environment. Theater business is shrinking, largely because the actual experience of going to the theater is declining. So I want a choice of experience, and my theater is a better one. Should I have to wait 6 months for a theater run because of it?

This is a hotly debated issue. I can't claim to have 1% of the answers. But I did find it interesting when my tech reading intersected my gay reading. I'm going to dig through the Techdirt archives and provide some more specific links.

As promised, some Techdirt digests on the failure of the old, traditional model of theater-going. Each hits from a different angle, and none address directly the serving of niche markets. The one does address a point from this article on the Soderbergh film experiement, and why it failed. Just some supplemental reading.

 

Social Experience:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071210/003937.shtml

Competing with Home theaters
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080323/235714627.shtml

Putting a Movie on TV before Theatrical Release
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080325/182829649.shtml

Competitors for Hollywood and alternate release structures
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071118/114900.shtml

Video-On-Demand at DVD release time
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080204/225052175.shtml

Queer cinema has basically become irrelevant.  Is there any point to any of the queer movies beig made?  Sure, Shelter might be technically well made, but is it relevant?  Sure, Shelter might be well marketed, but is it relevant?  Every queer movie seems the same, except this one stars a blonde and that one stars a brown haired guy.  Once queer films that feel like they had to be made are being made again, then I might watch one.  Where is the altman of the queer scene?  The scorcese?  Gus Van Sant is really the only queer filmmaker who can take chances and have the industry and audiences take notice.

All this talk about distribution models is just analysis paralysis.  What really matters is that the movies are just crap.

For this isn't going to be a film about one man alone but an entire community at a pivotal moment in its history that -- while quite recent -- is fast being forgotten.

Gay movies are by no menas all the same. The trouble is the ones getting the lion's share of attention center on that most earth-shattering of decisions: "Blonde or Brunette?"

 

Or to put it another way "Ginger or Mary Ann?"

That's not what important films like Son Frere, The Dying Gaul or the almost completely forgotten Under Heat are about.

hia, I'm just interested in what exactly stops the films from going to the theatres? do the theatres simply say no? even for say a one day viewing (thats adervtised in the local gay press or apporiate)? because with shelter I have been reading everywhere that people wanted to see it but couldnt because it wasnt been shown in their area. I like the idea of downloads (instant access) but at the same time I also like going to the cinema to watch a good film. I'm in the UK, and I didnt hear that they were even thinking of trying to bring it over here, but I can't see why they shouldnt try, people would watch it. I think (obviously need the funds) that with tv adverts it could at least do modestly in the cinema, people here are not that bad, and thats the surest way of getting gay people's interests who dont read 'gay press'. I honestly don't think they would lose money trying that. but of course I'm not in the buisness so what do I know.

There's no way that one theater can afford to find a film screen it for a night or two and make a profit just like that.

I still remember seeing a first run of Sandra Bernard's "Without You I'm Nothing" at the late lamented Rialto theatre in Montreal.  For once, the usually straight college audience was for the first time MAJORITY gay (and majority stoned) and laughed and hooted and APPLAUDED during the movie.  What a liberating experience!  ANd what a shame the art house rep theatregoing communal experience is dying...

Also, re: Susan Sarandon's self-confessed "snobbery" that her movie Bernard & Doris didn't hit theatres first.  I think the studios should recognize that snobbery extends to audiences too, and ADDRESS it in the marketing (i.e. say "HBO EXCLUSIVE - PREMIERE ON DVD").  Because I saw a few copies of it at the Blockbuster just last week, all unrented, and I thought what must be the typical response, "Oh, it can;t be good, I never heard of it in theatres.  Must've been DUMPED direct to DVD." I don't think I'm alone -- I'll check that movie out now, but the studios need to MARKET THE GAY-THEMED DVDs better too!

I think a big problem for "gay" film is that too many still want their narrow, ghettoized outlooks reflected on the screen.  That Psionycx would seriously argue that Brokeback Mountain -- a movie that touched a broader and deeper chord among GAY MEN than ANY OTHER MOVIE IN HISTORY, as reflected in the prolonged on-line discussions it stimulated -- was NOT a gay movie, but a "chick flick", illustrates this.  I know this attitude is shared by many urban gay men, who simply have no conception whatsoever of social reality outside their gilded world. 

Consequently, we get crappy movie after crappy movie about the stereotyped midtown life.  "Shelter" and a few other good films are fortunately breaking this mould, and reflect the social diversification of what is understood to be "gay life" in America.  But it is a slow process, and so the hoped-for change in the content of gay-themed film will necessarily be slow, too, because what gets green-lighted in Hollywood is always far behind.

 But as long as junk like "Ethan Green" continue to be made, and its maker seriously consulted about why there aren't enough "good" gay films, then we have a long way to go, indeed.

A lot of great posts and cases being made before me... here's my two cents or so. 

As for the decline of the Art House experience, I suspect it has to do with the commercialization of the trend over the past decade or so.  Art Houses and their ilk have developed into boutique experiences with the overpriced snacks, usually cleaner theaters, and now... overpriced ALCOHOL!  Sometimes, you can even buy dinner!  As with everything else, the underground art house trend was appropriated by and became de rigeur for the metrosexual crowd.  It became commercialized, slick and POPULAR.  Do "art" films and, to an extent, "gay" films need to go back underground?

As for distribution, anyone who keeps an eye to box office grosses should pay close attention to the number of screens many of these "top-grossing" blockbusters premiere on.  Very often, they are on 3 times the number of screens as films that appear lower on the list.  Recall that when Brokeback opened, it was in the top 15 (I believe), but it was the highest (or among the top 3) grossing per screen.  The number #1 movie may have had more seats, but Brokeback had more asses in their seats.

Hollywood distributors are often more concerned these days with saturating a market to recoup or to turn a profit in two weeks rather than allowing for word-of-mouth to sell a film with slower roll-outs and sustained runs.  How often do we really see films in first-run movie houses for two months solid?  It is by far the exception more than the rule, due to the insane front-loading of this mindless blockbuster popcorn crap.

And yes, I fully understand that more often than not, word-of-mouth will not sell a film because a lot of what Hollywood is giving us is a big steaming bowl of crap.  That's why they have conditioned audiences to HAVE TO BE THERE to see it before anyone else.  (Frankly, the more commercials I see--yes, Valkyrie, I'm looking at you--the less inclined I am to see the movie)

Finally, regarding gay audiences and gay-themed films.  I am firmly in the camp of seeing good and important stories told differently.  I prefer to be moved by a film.  But I do enjoy a big bowlful of Hollywood's steaming cinematic crap from time to time.  Give me mindless comedies, slasher flicks, popcorn flicks, the occasional chick flick alongside my History Boys or Crouching Tiger or LOTR.

Gay audiences (despite the seriousness of efforts media and gay trendy things to pigeon-hole us) are not alike, we are not drones.  Really.  We are as diverse as the hetero audience, just on a much smaller scale.  What gay filmmakers often give us (IMHO) is a big bowlful of FABulously steaming gay cinematic crap. 

No "gay" movie will please all gay audiences.  But we need GOOD gay filmmakers.  We need IMPORTANT and UNIQUE gay films.  We also need fluffy, moronic, and improbable gay comedies.  Most importantly, we need to be the audience that turns some crap film into the next cult hit. 

We need films about us that have cross-over appeal if the aim is both art and a profit.

Ought gay films go back "underground" for the purposes of minimizing costs?  Can we get more art in our films and less crap... please???  What gay filmmakers, distributors and theaters need to do is to get out ahead of the curve with viral marketing and minimizing all costs of getting films made and shown.  But ultimately, we need to be ahead of the curve with the creation of art and films, not just movies.