AE: Me, too. He’s a great guy. But as we were leaving the theater he made a comment I agreed with along the lines of being disappointed that there was a fair amount of gay panic humor in the movie. I’m curious; did you see it that way? Did you have a reaction to that aspect?
NPH: I didn’t make any notice of it. I mean Harold & Kumar is a real frat boy kind of film. Harold and Kumar are two quote-unquote stereotypes that are behaving outside of their own box, but to put these two straight guys in these situations begged for them to be commenting on that level. I didn’t think it was really gay panic so much as if you throw two guys that are innocent in a cell in Guantanamo Bay, I think anyone’s initial concern will be – one of their initial concerns will be of a sexual nature, and so they play towards that. But I didn’t find it offensive. I thought it was funny.
Neil Patrick Harris, Kal Penn, and Jon Cho
AE: I have to say it made me uncomfortable watching the movie and seeing the idea of gay sex being used as a way to get these straight boys in the audience to squirm. It was something that they were afraid of and mocking. And it wasn’t so much the way Harold and Kumar were reacting to being thrown into a cell, but the way bad guys were so ready and willing to go down on the other guys and were getting off on it. At the screening I saw, we had all those gay panic jokes and then in that final scene where the two gay guys kissed, the whole audience just groaned and were grossed out. And it was hard not to feel like the movie wasn’t feeding and conditioning that kind of response.
NPH: Honestly, I’m not one to be able to speak to that. I mean I was asked to be a part of the film. I didn’t write it or produce it. So I can’t speak for Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg [who wrote and directed the movie], but I don’t think they were intentionally trying to show that terrorists are gay and like to go down on their superiors or anything like that. I think any two guys in a cell, that’s sort of the go-to joke. I don’t find it a homophobic joke at all, but you worry about who is going to be beating you up and sexually assaulting you in your jail cell. That seems like the understandable concern and then when you get Harold and Kumar, you know how they respond to pretty much anything and so that seems like a funny situation. I didn’t find it offensive. And I’m gay, so I apologize if you did.
AE: Is there going to be a third Harold and Kumar?
NPH: That’s what I hear, but I don’t know anything about its contents. [Laughing] I sure am hoping they don’t go to San Francisco Pride.
AE: You’ve obviously received a lot of acclaim for your musical talents. What is your dream stage or musical role?
NPH: Barnum.
Harris in Cabaret
AE: Why?
NPH: Oh, I just love the musical Barnum. I
think it’s great. I’ve always been a huge variety arts fan and I can
walk on a tightrope and swing on a trapeze and juggle. I’m hoping that no one comes up with that brilliant idea
before I’m 42. I think I’m still a little young for Barnum. Aren’t they
doing it on the West End? Didn’t I hear that they were doing Barnum? I
think I heard that John Barrowman was supposed to be doing Barnum.
AE: Oh, that would be great!
NPH: Michael, how dare you say that would be great!
AE: Um, I mean it would be great if he did it right now while you’re still too young! [Laughing] And then Neil Patrick Harris slammed down the phone ending the interview!
AE: Quickly moving on, those Old Spice ads kind of mark another breakthrough for out
gay men being visible. What did you think when they approached you and
what’s the reaction been?
NPH: I was very enthusiastic. I’m
always worried when I’m approached for something what their intention
is, if they want me to be the butt of a joke or me to be a part of the
joke. So that was my first concern. That was my first concern doing
Harold and Kumar as well. But after talking with them and seeing their
storyboards and stuff I think they just thought it was a clever idea.
They really wanted it in the vein of Bruce Campbell and, um – oh, for
Pete’s sake – Will Ferrell, who had done Old Spice commercials before.
So they really wanted that dry, sports newscaster sort of sarcastic
inflection, an overly serious, oblivious guy. I love that character so
I thought it was great and I thought they turned out really well.
AE: Let’s talk talk shows. You seem like a natural at it. Is that something we might see someday, you hosting a daytime or nighttime talk show? Does that interest you?
NPH: Yes, very much so. I would love to do hosting in some capacity soon. I’m having such fun on How I Met Your Mother that I would feel awkward declaring that I was ready to go do something else. Down the road I would love to. I’d love to be either a late night show host or perhaps an Ed Sullivan, represent a lot of variety.
AE: It seems like you’d be a total natural at it. You do such a great job on Regis & Kelly and I imagine that’s a large part of why you ended up doing the Creative Emmys.
NPH: Yes! It’s a great gig and I wish that I had information like I’ve got some development deal in the works. I certainly don’t, but I’m trying to lay the groundwork as subtly or not so subtly as I can that that might be an option for something in the future for sure. Like Graham Norton – he has a great show.
AE: I love his show. He’s one of the funniest guys on the planet.
NPH: And so comfortable and casual. It makes you feel comfortable watching him. I also really want to produce a children's show, akin to Sesame Street, someday. I’m actually working kind of feverishly on that. Jim Henson is my idol and I love puppets and improv and education slash entertainment.
AE: At the TCA I got to visit the Henson studios and see all the old puppets and things.
NPH: I am jealous!
AE: Neil, I’m sure if you called up they’d be happy to accommodate you. Is David going to come to the Emmys with you this year?
NPH: Oh, yeah. He’ll be there. He’s looking forward to it.
David Burtka and Neil Patrick Harris
Photos courtesy of Getty Images and FilmMagic
AE: Well, thanks for your time and speaking with me.
NPH: I love your site. Keep up the great work.
You can watch Harris and Sarah Chalke present the Creative Emmys Saturday, September 20th on E! at 8 PM.
I'm constantly amused (and
I'm constantly amused (and disappointed) at how you purport to take the high road in regards to outing Anderson Cooper, yet you basically do it in every single interview in the manner in which you ask questions about him. If you're going to go on a campaign to out him, at least have the cajones to admit what you're doing.
Neil Patrick Harris, on the other hand, is fantastic.
AE: A much subtler Perez
Oh Prunella!
Everybody knows Anderson Cooper was as out as out can be before getting his big TV gigs. Then he suddenly developed a "priavte life" that was off limits. Of course this didn't stop him from writing a book detailing his brother's suicide -- which is the one thing I would have expected him NOT to want to talk about. And he would have perfectly justified in not doing so. But when it comes to his love life all he'll do is sit next to Kathy Griffin and giggle. I do wish he'd just get over himself.
Maurice Sendak had no end of very real reasons for staying in the closet so long. It was a very different time when he came of age. He could have lost his job. He could have been arrested Just for BEING gay. And he's a children's book artist on top of it. The greatest of them all. Can you hear the hysterical Fundie screaming?
Let's just hope we don't have to wait until Anderson Cooper is 80!
I'm not sure to which interviews you are referring. The folks
Well that's because they're not his type
Anderson Cooper and NPH
On the subject of Anderson Cooper
Just a thought:
Whether Anderson Cooper declares it publicly or not, it's obvious that many belieive he is gay. Some people will even go out of their way to beat you over the head with it - even if it doesn't matter to you. Isn't it enough to just "know" it? Does every gay person have to wear a big neon sign saying, "I'm GAY!!"?
I'm wondering if it isn't time for people like Perez Hilton and David Ehrenstein to let go of their out-dated sensibilities regarding 'visibility' and expand them to start looking at people like Anderson Cooper (I admit, I'm assuming that he is gay) as additional, more contemporary types of role models. People who don't neccesarily deny their sexuality, but feel no need wear it like a banner - after all, more people are realizing it's nobody's business and that it just shouldn't matter. I think most people agree that our younger, up-and-coming generation 'get' that.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THOSE WHO DO COME OUT NOW, OR HAVE COME OUT IN THE PAST HAVEN'T DONE A WORLD OF GOOD TO GET US TO THIS POINT! I'm just saying that (I think) there's room to be more inclusive, now. We've been limited to raising only those who out themselves as 'brave role models'. I think it's definately time to start including those who send the message, "It doesn't matter".
Isn't the ultimate goal non-chalant acceptance? GLBT's shouldn't have to proclaim their sexuality any more than straight people should have to sport a bumper sticker saying, "I have a penis!" or "I have a vagina!"
Again, I'm not saying that public figures who come out aren't wonderful. I'm only saying that I think that we're at a point where it would certainly be OK to also 'just be' and celebrate those who demonstrate that example, too. (Instead of forcibly trying to out them, criticize them and shame them.)
_________________________________________
-Sibelius
"It's curtains for you, Dr. Horrible. Lacy, wafting curtains..."
Now that's REALLY low
-- putting my name and that Lavangaria creature's in the same sentence !
And what's with the "out-dated sensibilities"bit? I'm not looking for "role models." (NPH is more than enough.) I just want a little honesty. There are so many elephants in the bedroom of America that a stampede is imminent. And I'm not just talking about matters Gay. When the truth is staring you in the face (and I'm looking at YOUR LensCrafters when you lie about the "Bridge to Nowhere," and the State Trooper, Sarah Palin) why is it "impolite" to mention it?
"Isn't the ultimate goal non-chalant acceptance?"
No.
For the real ultimate goal please read The Invention of Heterosexuality by Jonathan Ned Katz.
And yes, this WILL be on the final!
I should know better...
...than to take your bait, but
The Invention of Heterosexuality is a critic of the judgements made on sexual behavior. Do you have a point in mentioning this book?
"There are so many elephants in the bedroom of America that a stampede is imminent."
Well... that is an awfully obtuse statement. Maybe you'd care to explain? You might begin by explaining where 'the bedroom of America' is. (I had heard there might be a slumber party, so I brought my 45s and a bottle of Boone's Farm...) Isn't it in Minnesota?
_________________________________________
-Sibelius
"It's curtains for you, Dr. Horrible. Lacy, wafting curtains..."
Obviously you need the phrase "elephant in a bedroom"
explained to you.
"The Invention of Heterosexuality is a critic of the judgements made on sexual behavior. Do you have a point in mentioning this book? "
Yes.
Hey, we'll pretend everybody is gay.
"expand them to start looking at people like Anderson Cooper (I admit, I'm assuming that he is gay) as additional, more contemporary types of role models. People who don't neccesarily deny their sexuality, but feel no need wear it like a banner - after all, more people are realizing it's nobody's business and that it just shouldn't matter. I think most people agree that our younger, up-and-coming generation 'get' that."
"People who don't neccesarily deny their sexuality"
Beg pardon?
When asked directly to discuss it and they refuse, that is denial. It is also no role model that I want for the gay guys younger than me and coming to terms with their sexuality. Message: This piece of information is so wrong, so socially damaging that I can't tell you about it. Stay in the closet if you want to succeed.
I'm just glad we have gay celebs willing to slam the closet door shut on asshats like Anderson and Jodie.
And JESUS CHRIST if you aren't just as bad as the straight men who made the decision about covering Matthew Mitcham. It's not about carrying a big neon sign that says "I'M GAY" It's not even about making a show stopping declaration of your homosexuality. It's not a matter of calling the person gay during an interview. It's matter of just answering questions...like any heterosexual does in an interview.
Interviewer: "So, you dating anybody right now?"
Gay Actor: "Nope, single. No boyfriend to speak of."
Interviewer: "I bet that's kind of a good thing if you want to take a role where you travel"
Gay Actor: "Yes. But it can get lonely."
Gasp! See? No big drama. No "I'M GAY!!" Simple answer.
You're right though...it is about non-chalant acceptance...of yourself.
You'll have to excuse me now, I'm going to go write a letter of appreciation to George Clooney for being such a great gay role model...HEY...he didn't deny it.
Not so.
"When asked directly to discuss it and they refuse, that is denial."
Not at all. If a person were asked directly and then lied or said something that was deliberately misleading, I could agree. Or if a gay man made a big show of projecting himself as heterosexual by PDAs with women, I might agree. Refusing to answer just means the person being interviewed finds the question intrusive and doesn't want to respond.
"It's matter of just answering questions...like any heterosexual does in an interview."
You make it seem as if heterosexuals always respond regarding personal aspects of their private lives. That's not true. Why shouldn't we be allowed the same options as heterosexuals.
"Message: This piece of information is so wrong, so socially damaging that I can't tell you about it."
That is true if someone is being instructed that it is wrong to come out or say you're gay. But that's not what I'm saying at all - not at all. What I am saying is that no person should be required to say they are gay.
Believe it or not, some people consider their sexuality to be an intimate part of themselves because of religious beliefs, just general shy personality - whatever. Because it can be an intimate subject, they should be allowed the option to keep what they hold as intimate to themselves. That DOES NOT IN ANY WAY equate to "wrong, so socially damaging that I can't tell you about it." To imply that it does is what's damaging.
Speaking for myself, my sexual preference is pretty low on the list of characteristics for how I want to be defined, moving through this world. That does not mean that I'm ashamed. NOT AT ALL. I put my sexual preference in the same category as my brown hair or my right-handedness. I'm not 'self-loathing' about any of those things, but I don't feel any need to march in a Brown Hair Parade, either. I'd feel badly about myself if my sexual preference was one of the only things about myself I could list in a 'Top Five' of what was good about me.
I have absolutely no issues with people who show 'Gay Pride'. Or walk naked through the streets, or display rainbow bumper stickers, or give BJs on the dance floor, if they so choose... (Sometimes it grosses me out, but sometimes... it's kinda hot)
It does sadden me however to think anyone would imply that standing up for one's dignity by not responding to questions about their sexuality indicates 'self-loathing' or 'damage'. Just the opposite. It's a way of saying, "That's a question you wouldn't ask anybody else and I deserve the same respect."
I'm going to say this again, because I feel it's very important. THOSE WHO COME OUT ARE DOING A GREAT SERVICE BY DOING SO AND TRULY ARE BRAVE ROLE MODELS. Visibility is very important and has a specific place in letting the world see who we are and that we are everywhere.
BUT, so is sending the message, "I'm not going to give the time of day to that question because it just shouldn't matter." BOTH actions serve distinctive functions regarding progress in how the gay community is respected and both hold equal importance.
_________________________________________
-Sibelius
"It's curtains for you, Dr. Horrible. Lacy, wafting curtains..."
Your closet door is adorable
" Speaking for myself, my sexual preference is pretty low on the list of characteristics for how I want to be defined, moving through this world. That does not mean that I'm ashamed. NOT AT ALL. I put my sexual preference in the same category as my brown hair or my right-handedness. I'm not 'self-loathing' about any of those things, but I don't feel any need to march in a Brown Hair Parade, either. I'd feel badly about myself if my sexual preference was one of the only things about myself I could list in a 'Top Five' of what was good about me."
Ppl aren't passing laws to take away your rights as a brown-haired person. You're not being denied a marriage license to marry a person that is right-handed like yourself...that you can only marry a person who is left-handed or lucky enough to be ambidexterous.
And...there's a huge difference between accepting yourself and hiding your self...you're not dying your hair blonde...you're not forcing yourself into ex-right-handed camp to become left-handed.
I don't doubt for a minute that you rank your homosexuality low on your list of important characteristics. You hardly seem willing to embrace it at all. Your scorn for those who are out and proud is obvious...even going so far as to lump 'gay pride" in the same train of thought as those who "walk naked through the streets, or display rainbow bumper stickers, or give BJs on the dance floor, if they so choose..." Geeze...that gay community...we're so terrible...oversexed monsters. Your annoyance of ppl daring to ask a gay person about their personal life is easy to see....even thought straight people are asked about their love life all the time...that is when they aren't forcing it down the throats of anybody within ear shot.
You're a joy to read because it really makes me appreciate those who dare to show that aweful thing called "gay pride". I have a better appreciation for the men and women who don't flinch when asked "Who'd you go to dinner with last night?"
" Believe it or not, some people consider their sexuality to be an intimate part of themselves because of religious beliefs, just general shy personality - whatever. Because it can be an intimate subject, they should be allowed the option to keep what they hold as intimate to themselves. That DOES NOT IN ANY WAY equate to "wrong, so socially damaging that I can't tell you about it." To imply that it does is what's damaging."
Talking about what you like to do in bed is intimate. Talking in graphic detail about how much ass you scored is something that could be kept to yourself. Answering a question about who you're dating is a matter of honesty...and respect for the person you love. It's called "Pride"...well, at least when not dancing in the streets and sucking cock gay bar.
RE: 'Your closet door is adorable'
Calm down, David. The personal insults aren't really neccessary.
_________________________________________
-Sibelius
"It's curtains for you, Dr. Horrible. Lacy, wafting curtains..."
It's Matthew..
I always assume everyone is gay
What a great interview.
This is why I LOVE Neil Patrick Harris - He's so laid back and he doesn't take things so seriously. I completely agree with him about Harold and Kumar - I never got the impression that it was trying to be homophobic. I feel like a lot of the gay community walks into movies and shows , etc. expecting to be offended and looking for homophobia and anything that could be misconstrued as homophobia...and obviously, if you look that hard, you're going to view things that aren't supposed to be offensive as offensive.
I think we all need to be like Neil Patrick Harris. What would NPH do?
I love NPH. He's so real
I love NPH. He's so real and down to earth. He's got a maturity and sense about him that is very relatable, especially in how he has come to accept that he's ALWAYS going to be taken out of context by someone.
I totally got what he was saying about representing "normalcy." It's not a slam on anyone, at least I don't think that was what he intended. He was trying to say, "I'm here for the schlubs..." which is what I think most of us are, in one way or another, even if we are also drag queens, effeminate, masculine, whatever.
I also love that he didn't back down from the very un-subtle drilling about how he, as a gay man, SHOULD be offended by things like gay panic and frat boy humor. He just shrugged and basically said "I get it, and it doesn't bother me." That's refreshing. While I tend to agree with Michael, and feel uncomfortable in movies that force the audience to groan in disgust, I also don't like anyone suggesting that I SHOULD feel a certain way because I'm gay. Reactions are subjective to everyone's life experiences, there's no "right" or "wrong" reaction.
One thing I'd like to see change with these interviews, though, is editing out some of the folksy personalization. An example would be "I went to the movies with Dan Savage..." (who had nothing to do with the article, and it came across as chit-chatty name dropping.) Another recent article had Michael askign Brian Batt about being in a longterm relationship and, in response, gushing about his OWN long-term relationship. I dunno, I can see those things coming out in an interview, but I don't necessarily think it adds anything to the actual text aside from a slight misdirection from the subject back to the interviewer, which is distracting. It's probably just me, though, so my two cents.
I agree
"One thing I'd like to see change with these interviews, though, is editing out some of the folksy personalization."
I love it in their vlogs (and I especially love how they begin and end each with a kiss) - it's nice to hear more about them as real people.
But in an interview, it seems out of place. (Sorry, guys!) I get that same feeling of distraction and re-focus that zanefan does.
_________________________________________
-Sibelius
"It's curtains for you, Dr. Horrible. Lacy, wafting curtains..."
Nice. NPH classy as always
Anyone Can Whistle
David,
I love the music for Anyone Can Whistle, too. I used pieces from the show when I was directing a gay men's chorus in New Mexico.
I also love both the original cast recording with Lee Remick, Angela Landsbury, etc. as well as the concert version from a few years back with Bernadette Peters and Madeline Kahn.
My question to you is, do you know the book at all? Is the book the reason why the show doesn't work?
Because the music is some of the best that Sondheim has written.
Anyone Can Whistle
While I, too, love the score of Anyone Can Whistle, I'm sorry to say but the book (by Arthur Laurents) is truly annoying. It's really smug and never really comes to much in the way of a dramatic arch. A friend of mine said, after we saw it, that he thought Laurents must have written the book while getting treatments from Dr. Feelgood because the whole thing feels like the kind of humor you think is really funny when you're high.
I think, even Sondheim said he always thought that the show was just too clever for its own good (my words, of course, Sondheim was much more eloquent.
Anyshow Can Fizzle
I was actually IN the first (and only?) West Coast production of Anyone Can Whistle. The music is beautiful, and the book is a nightmare. I have been told it was meant to be metaphorically satirizing the LBJ administration...I'm a fan of metaphor and all, but...huh? The book strives for a "lunatics are running the asylum" theme, but you end up feeling like lunatics are writing the book.
My favorite line in the show (which will probably give you an idea of its limited appeal): When the mayoress is told that there is a new fund-raising scheme, she asks, "What is it? Another Peer Gynt festival?" (Kinda makes you laugh and cry at the same time, don't it?)
The blog loves Sondheim. But the blog knew "what's hard is easy" well before Anyone Can Whistle.
I agree that the book is problematic
Problematic books and a breezy tone
There have been at least 2 West Coast productions
Love and Sondheim
This was the production out of UCLA in 1977, I believe. I don't recall any two people falling in love in that cast. I'm pretty sure I didn't. But I fell in love pretty easily in 1977, so don't go by me.
The blog is a fool for love.
No, this one was definitely later 80s
It was done at a dance studio/theater on 3rd street or Beverly. So I know of 3 Los Angeles productions now.
The two guys who fell in love met in the 80s production--it must have been about 1986 and they're still together.
Harold & Kumar
Are you referring to the prison scene as an example of "gay panic"?
I'd call that "rape panic", not "gay panic". I'm fairly gay, and I think I'd have the same reaction as Harold and Kumar at being forced to have sex with some guard at Guantanamo Bay.
I can be kind of dense about these things, but, off the top of my head, I can't remember anything particularly homophobic in either movie.
Besides, Kumar's gotta be gay. Surely, he'll come out in the third or fourth film. ;)
theAngryPuppy.com
Gay Panic
Therefore it isn't a question of 'would you have reacted that way?' but a question of was the justification for the panic necessary for the plot or only put in place in order to produce the panic? For instance a prison scene could be played out where dead rats and ground glass are put in the food as a way of revenge and the protagonists panic and have to find a way not to eat or they will be grossed out or die. Call it poison panic. I still don't get why it's funny..
The Point of the Prison Scene
The point of the prison scene, IMHO, was not to show that it's funny to panic at the thought of being forced to perform oral sex on a big prison guard, but rather to indicate that the people who support Guantanamo Bay detentions think in Newspeak, using the prison guard as a proxy for the current administration.
If you watch the scene it's pretty clear. Yes, they're not happy about what Big Bob is about to have them do, but the humor is in his illogical response and in how he delivers an obvious paradox with a straight face and turns it around on the protagonists - a form of swiftboating, you might say. Like many a presidential press conference we've all seen where "up" becomes "down" with a wink and a nod.
---
Kumar: Big Bob, I gotta ask you a question before this all goes down. All the guards in Guantanamo are gay?
Big Bob: F*ck no! Ain't nothing gay about getting your d*ck sucked. You're the ones that's gay for sucking MY d*ck. In fact, creeps me out just being around you f*gs.
---
I think getting caught up in searching for homophobia can keep you from seeing the actual intended political satire of the scene. I don't see any homophobia in having clear antagonists spouting off homophobia in order to show that they are antagonists. It's like having the bad guy be a filthy racist so that it's clear to us he's the bad guy.
And whether or not it's funny is beside the point of whether or not it's homophobic.
Of course, I see homophobia sometimes where others don't, so these things clearly aren't black and white.
theAngryPuppy.com
Point taken, thanks
But more importantly... NPH... on a unicorn!
I think we can all agree on that. :D
Sorry for the rant. I just really like these movies. And possibly I have a crush on Neil Patrick Harris. And John Cho. And Kal Penn.
theAngryPuppy.com
I have to disagree for a couple of different reasons.
First off, I think you're assuming a level of critical thinking that I certainly didn't see in the folks I saw the movie with. Sorry to be so gloomy, but I suspect that the political satire of that scene was lost on 90% of the teens and twentysomethings I saw the movie with. And I'd say my belief is borne out by the fact that so many folks in the audience reacted with such disdain when the gay characters kissed. Folks who appreciated the political satire probably wouldn't gag when two men kiss.
Second, that prison scene wasn't just Harold and Kumar reacting to the idea of being raped. Obviously, anyone would react that way (though I find it fascinating that male rape is something that so many moviemakers find funny). The other part of that scene was that after Harold & Kumar left, the two terrorists left behind so enthusiastically went down on the guards again generating big laughs and a disgusted reaction by Harold and Kumar. Or perhaps they were horrified that such a beautiful act was being performed by the bad guys instead of the gay guys.
And the movie also included other moments of gay panic, the use of the word queer and fag in situations that certainly left me feeling the butt of the joke rather than part of it. But as Lee rightly points out, we all see these things differently.
Yes Yes! Right on the Ball.
Exactly what I was thinking, political satire?!?! I mean thats just not the audience Harold and Kumar was levied at. Even if that was the intent(which I highly doubt.), it was an utter failure in execution.
Agree to disagree?
Hey, Trevorfrost. :)
You're right. Their intent was explicitly not to make satire. Jon Hurwitz (one of the writers/directors) said in an interview with Cinematical.com:
"We wound up using a lot of satire and social commentary to make the scenes funny, but we didn't sit down with the intent of making a statement. No one cares less about politics than us."
I think it's a great satire (and quite funny) whether they meant it to be or not. I realize, though, that most people think otherwise (like, it seems, the majority here).
One example of the other side is of the coin is film critic Alonso Duralde (who used to be the Arts/Entertainment editor at The Advocate, for what it's worth):
"... while the comedy is as low-brow and outrageous as ever, this new movie actually scores more points off the nation’s paranoid and repressive post-9/11 mindset than all of Hollywood’s hand-wringing war-on-terror dramas put together."
Different strokes for different folks! :D
theAngryPuppy.com
Michael
I`m really impressed that you are not afraid to "go there"and asked those tough questions.+1 for AE!
Neil Patrick Harris is charming as always.And I`m considering start watching HIMYM again,just for him!(As long as they don`t misstep on gay material this season.)
If Neil is reading this,Hi!From Aussie With Love!;-)
Okay, I'll lay my head on the block
1. "Normal" is still a loaded word, especially in the context of the LGBT community. If you don't understand that you've missed the whole point of celebrating diversity within a community. The antithesis of "Normal" is "abnormal." Whether you mean to or not, when you use the word "Normal" to describe your gay self you are by default implying that the rest of the gay community is abnormal as perceived by the bigoted population.
My little brother is gay and a corporate bean counter. He often says that he's "normal", or he's looking for someone who is "normal", when he talks about his gay self. It is done to differentiate the larger gay community even though he has people, like me, who aren't "normal." His idea that he is normal belies a kind of shame and internalized homophobia.
If you want to project the idea that "I'm here for the schlubs..." there are hundreds of words and phrases that come to mind. For one: "I'm here for the schlubs..." says it clearly without inferring a specialness. "I'm a Typical Guy" is often followed with a qualifier like: "I spend most nights at home with the honey watching "T.V." "Common middle american life style." "ordinary" "routine" "traditional" "average home life" "My life stye is typical of a lot of people I know." These are just a few ways to describe a "conventional" life style. I have no doubt now that NPH believes he is "Normal."
2. I still have a hard time finding the humor in rape. I know, I know that gay rape in prison is a huge joke, that joke is ubiquitous in the U S. but that doesn't make it right. 30 years ago the ubiquitous joke on the street was (the worst kept secret) pederastic priests. We're not seeing that joke played out with paniced children on the big screen for a very good reason. It's tacky and it's wrong. And some day "Rape as Punishment" will be looked at as cruel and inhumane, because it is. I wouldn't be too damn proud to portray it in a movie for laughs. And maybe I am abnormal but, I wouldn't be too damn proud to be part of a project that uses gay panic as a way to get a cheep laugh and reinforce prejudice, even if the characters being portrayed are 'just like that.' I'm a gay man and I find it offensive. But life would be easier if I were "normal" and found it hysterical.
3. Some of the comments users leave at AfterElton are harsh criticisms. I think that shocks quite a few people who come here. AfterElton is unique as one of the few sites of this muster to allow a diversity of opinion. It's a commodity made even rarer in the GLBT community.
"Normal"
While I agree that "normal" is a loaded term, It's certainly been used against me, I think that once again we have to consider the context and not get outraged at NHP for the use of a word that is actually a good adjective.
When I say someone is "normal" I tend to mean that they are not overly masculine, muscle bound, or (since I live in Los Angeles) show biz, or really excessive in any identifiable way. I don't use normal that often--I'll usually say someone is "just a guy" or "a person" but people would take offense at that as well. I'm sure some people would take offense at the use of the words "ordinary" or "schlub".
I think we really need to consider context before we fly off the handle--because there really are things that are worth flying off the handle about--including prison rape.
That Pesky Prison Rape Scene
On point 1, I agree completely. I don't think you can get away with using the word "normal" that way. As an aside, I lived overseas for a while, and the word for "straight" in the local language was a cognate of the English "normal". It was very grating to hear a gay person described as "not normal" in casual conversation. All they meant was "not straight" but, wow, it sounded bad. (The fact that one of the socially acceptable words for gay is a cognate of "pederast" is a whole other issue).
On point 2, though, I'd direct you to my response above again. My take was that the creators of the series intended the scene to be funny not because of the tired old prison sex jokes, but because it shows how ridiculously stupid Big Bob (the guard) is. Maybe I'm too pollyanna-ish, but I saw that as a jab at the Bush administration by proxy, not a jab at gay people or rape victims. Harold and Kumar movies have a lot of toilet humor, but they also deal with issues of racism, prejudice and political doublespeak in a way that's accessible to the 18-34-year-old market.
Again, though, this kind of stuff is never black and white. One person's political satire is another person's offensive trash.
theAngryPuppy.com
More on "Normal"
When NPH speaks of 'normalcy', I have always believed that he was referring to homosexuals (inclusive of all gays and lesbians) as being 'no different than anyone else' and that he's certainly not trying to differentiate between 'normal' homosexuals or 'abnormal' homosexuals. I find his refernces to 'normalcy' to be incredibly refreshing and healthy.
I think if you read what he's said here (and in other articles), with that connotation in mind, it makes complete sense and certainly fits the description he gives of his 'normal' life.
Speaking for myself, NPH makes me proud. Finally - a gay icon that (at least to my interpretation of his comments) feels like I do. That being gay or straight is just as normal as having blue eyes or brown eyes. I'm just your average, every-day, normal homosexual.
_________________________________________
-Sibelius
"It's curtains for you, Dr. Horrible. Lacy, wafting curtains..."
Normal Gays
Just to clarify: I'm was referring to this discussion of the word "normal", not NPH's use of it. I don't know the context of his saying it at all beyond what I read up above.
From interviews I've read, I can't imagine he meant to say "normal gays like me as opposed to abnormal gays who like leather [or whatever]", but then again, I wouldn't really care if he did.
In any event, I'd like to think I'm more of an abnormal homosexual. Do we have a role model in the media? :D
theAngryPuppy.com
Sorry, Lee!
Didn't mean to make it seem as if I was responding to you, personally!
(I just hit 'reply' to an earlier post and ended up being your bottom...)
_________________________________________
-Sibelius
"It's curtains for you, Dr. Horrible. Lacy, wafting curtains..."
I totally agree that
I totally agree that "normal" CAN be a loaded word when used in discussion about the LGBT community.
I just don't think the way Neil used it was loaded, and therefore I don't think he deserves to be taken to task on it.
There's thinking about what you are saying before you say it, and hyper-analyzing your words for political correctness. Most people don't do that. Should they? That's debatable.
I think of myself as a normal guy, and have described myself that way many, many times. That doesn't in any way mean I'm saying everyone who's unlike me is, by definition, ABnormal.
I guess what I'm saying is, when you describe yourself as something, it's not exactly a given that you are therefore criticizing others who aren't like you. You can choose to read that into a statement if you wish, but you can also choose not to.
I chose not to, and Neil has said he didn't mean it that way. Good enough for me.
Words mean what we want them to mean?
I have studied the English language, word usage and sentence structure as well as propaganda and advertising techniques. While I don't claim to be an expert, I am just trying to explain where I am coming from. We can argue connotation of a word just as various dictionaries might offer different definitions. However certain words carry specific connotations. Adjectives, by their nature, are comparative and lose meaning without the ability to differentiate. As such they are like a tarot card with a reverse reading that may be readily available. I argue that these words bring along with them the comparison of their ready Antonyms. For normal that is "abnormal or unnatural."
I can see misusing a word, or making a poor word choice and taking that back. I do it myself. But I don't buy the Humpty Dumpty argument. "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'"
And some would find "queer" offensive.
I love queer--I was a member of Queer Nation back in the 90s and have great affection for the word, but I know a lot of people who had a strong reaction against it.
I had a friend who was a gender f*ck queen named Abby Normal--so I have a bit of affection for that term as well.
Since NPH admitted to
Since NPH admitted to reading this site, I just wanted to say I think he is a great role model for those of us who are younger queer men, and despite the baggage of the world "normal" (I would say he fits into the heteronormative paradigm for homosexuals that least offends the puritanical attitudes towards sex that most Americans have or were instilled with at some point) his presence in mainstream society is working towards the benefit of the good. So, basically, NPH kicks ass. Keep up the ass-kickery, please.
Oh and another great interview from Michael. It's men like you that are making the world a better place one piece of work at a time. So, thank you, to both of you.
NPH IF YOU READ THIS...
... you are a class act and a great guy. And I want to point out my favorite role, you in Starship Troopers as Dick Cheney. Thanks for the great interview
Plus, your hubby is a keeper.
This interview was wonderful in both ends -- challenging questions, thoughtful answers. Between AfterElton and Towleroad, gay cultural theory and news never had it so good........
Cheers AE and NPH!
Cheers
Regarding role models
I'd never suggest straight youth turn to hollywood for role models, so I'd certainly never tell gay youth to look to hollywood for role models. It's hollywood, people. There are almost as many self-loathing, self-obsessed, and/or closeted gay people in hollywood as there are in politics - almost.
On a side note, if Anderson Cooper gets fired from CNN, do you think he'd devote more time to having a boyfriend? :P
Also, what I took away from this interview is that I'm never going to watch Harold & Kumar do anything.
Neil Patrick harris seems
Neil Patrick harris seems to me to be a really nice, genuine and intellegent guy. And he's a very good and versitile actor as well! I think this was a great interview, it flowed very nicely, gave good information, and was quite entertaining! Good job and thank you to Michael and Neil!
On a realted note, I have to say I've always found Neil handsome, and often cute (and cute is very important to me), but I never really thought of him as 'hot'. But when AE posted those pics of the 'Out' issue, and then I saw it on the stand, I had to buy it. Those pics of Neil are just H-O-T, hot! My eyes have been opened! Neil is the total package I think! David is very lucky! (Although he's really cute too!) Anyway, my point...if I have one I guess...is Yum! Just yum! 8)