Connect with us

Movies

Rupert Everett reminds us homophobia persists in Hollywood

New memoir arrives as two virtual LGBTQ film fests debut

Published

on

Rupert Everett, gay news, Washington Blade
Rupert Everett tells the story of his derailed comeback vehicle ‘The Happy Prince’ in a new memoir. (Photo courtesy of 20th Century Fox)

HOLLYWOOD – October, as you might already know, is the month when at least two major LGBTQ+ film/media festivals – QueerX in Los Angeles and NewFest in New York – normally take place, and although COVID has presented challenges for these kinds of events, both are rising to the challenge, following the example set earlier this year by others and making most of their scheduled content available virtually.

It’s also LGBT History Month, and in light of this year’s unique position in the middle of a world-changing crisis, it seems appropriate to observe that within this practical adaptation lies the seed of a future in which queer content is more accessible than ever. For the first time, fans of LGBTQ film and television can participate in these kinds of festivals regardless of where they are, and in a post-COVID world it’s highly likely that’s an innovation that will stick, which could be good news for queer visibility, offering potentially millions of people access to content that was once denied them by geography and economics. Looking back at how far we’ve already come in that struggle, such a thing can only be viewed as remarkable.

And yet, in looking back, we might also want to take note of what we’ve learned about the real enemy of visibility – the homophobia that has long existed in the entertainment industry itself, and the insidious way it works behind the scenes, thriving in the shadows even as the content we see becomes ever more inclusive.

Conveniently enough, we can find a stark reminder in the story of out actor Rupert Everett – a poster boy for the way gay performers are sidelined by the mainstream industry – who is dropping a new memoir (his third) this month.

Like many British thespians, Everett had begun his career onstage, rising to prominence as a gay public school student in the Julian Mitchell play “Another Country.” When the play was adapted for the big screen, Everett reprised his role and became a rising star – but while playing a gay character might have been “brave” in Hollywood, actually being gay was quite another thing, and when the actor officially came out in 1989, the offers stopped coming.

It was a reversal of fortune that prompted him, 20 years later, to comment in an interview with The Guardian, “It’s not that advisable to be honest. It’s not very easy. And, honestly, I would not advise any actor necessarily, if he was really thinking of his career, to come out.”

Thanks in part to those remarks, the handsome actor can hardly be called a beloved figure within the LGBTQ+ community – but his experience has relevance here, nonetheless.

Despite his continuing presence on stage and screen in the UK, and a brief career resurgence that came in the ‘90s from a pair of GBF roles opposite Madonna (“The Next Best Thing”) and Julia Roberts (“My Best Friend’s Wedding’), the kind of superstardom for which he once seemed destined has been beyond his grasp ever since coming out; with that in mind, though it might not have been in step with the message we wanted to hear, his cynical advice for young gay actors to stay in the closet cannot be said to have been unwise.

At least, that was the case when he made those comments, a little over a decade ago – but is it still true now? Another recent celebrity disclosure seems to offer a disappointingly affirmative answer to that question.

In an interview last week, actor Charlie Carver disclosed a shocking story about a gay colleague who took extreme measures to warn him about revealing his sexuality publicly. Carver, who first garnered attention for his television roles in “Desperate Housewives” and “Teen Wolf,” has been open about his sexuality since 2016, but he told Variety that an unnamed industry associate – someone with whom he has worked before, but not onscreen – had made comments to him at the 2015 Emmy Awards about his “effeminate” acting, and that he “needed to ‘get it under control’ around people in the business.”

Carver says he later approached this gay former co-worker at the valet station outside, asking him for clarification about what he meant; in response, he claims, the unnamed man slapped him across the face.

“It wasn’t playful but intentional, pointed and meant to be instructive. A slap,” says the now-32-year-old actor. “I told him that if he ever touched me again, I would name him.”

The experience led to an epiphany for Carver (“That was the moment when I said to myself, ‘I can’t do this. I cannot police myself in that way,” he told Variety), and he came out publicly via his Instagram account a few weeks later. At the moment, it would seem he has no reason to regret that choice; he’s currently in the spotlight for roles in two high-profile Netflix offerings, “Ratched” and “The Boys in the Band,” and he’s slated to appear opposite Robert Pattinson in next year’s “The Batman.”

How he fares after that is something to keep an eye on. Up until now, his exposure has largely taken place in front of a queer or queer-friendly audience, but the newest film iteration of an iconic superhero will unquestionably draw a much wider crowd; if they don’t respond well, it’s not far-fetched to imagine that Hollywood might blame Carver’s out status, at least partly, for that failure.

Even if the movie is a hit, it’s no guarantee he can overcome what has historically been a persistent and deeply ingrained stigma to achieve future success in the mainstream industry. Everett can attest to that.

In a preview excerpt from his upcoming book, the British actor dishes sardonically about the frustrations of his years-long effort to get a screenplay he wrote (“The Happy Prince,” about queer literary icon Oscar Wilde) made in Hollywood. Among the insights he reveals is the fact that things went sour when he declined producer Scott Rudin’s suggestion that the straight Philip Seymour Hoffman should play Wilde instead of Everett himself.

“And here is where I made my greatest mistake,” Everett writes. “I should have said yes.”

Rudin initially relented, but eventually pulled out of the project after a long list of directors also declined. Everett, once a Hollywood golden boy, was now officially persona non grata.

“The Happy Prince” was eventually produced, but not without Herculean effort from Everett and a lot of help from his friends. Well-received but sparsely released, it’s now available, like so many other LGBTQ stories, on streaming platforms across the globe. A happy ending, perhaps, but not quite the comeback success it was intended to be.

None of this takes away from the triumph of living in a world where an entire multi-million dollar industry exists around the production and distribution of queer content.

Yet as we celebrate that victory, we cannot ignore the warning embedded in the stories of these two out actors, a generation apart. The entertainment industry may be willing to present a friendly mask to LGBTQ+ audiences, as long as it brings a profit – but we must always be aware that, lurking behind it, is the familiar face of homophobia.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Movies

SAG Award slate points to a not-very-queer Oscar night

‘Power of the Dog’ snubbed in Best Cast category

Published

on

Can Lady Gaga turn a SAG nomination into Oscar gold? (Photo courtesy of United Artists Releasing)

It’s mid-January, and pandemic or not, Hollywood’s “awards season” has kicked off in earnest.

The announcement last week of nominations for the 28th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards means that it’s now time for armchair pundits, bookmakers, and film journalists to start compiling their predictions for the Oscars, which everyone knows are the main event when it comes to Hollywood awards.

This should be a good-natured exercise in fun, driven by a love for the movies and a genuine appreciation of the artistry of the people who make them – but at a time when the film industry is under deep scrutiny for diversity and inclusion, things can get complicated. 

Since they are decided by members of a union that also makes up a substantial portion of the Academy’s voting body, the SAG Awards are considered a reliable bellwether for the Oscars race, though with fewer categories than the Academy, not to mention the complex interplay of personal loyalties and working relationships that undoubtedly influence their choices, they still leave room for a lot of speculation. Still, their record for aligning with the Academy’s eventual choices makes it worth factoring them in as we attempt to assess the chances for our favorite contenders to earn Oscar gold.

For Blade readers, of course, the key question is likely to be about which of the year’s LGBTQ movies are going to snag wins. Unfortunately, the answer to that question might be pretty bleak.

Of the 22 titles nominated within the SAG Awards’ six film categories, only one – “The Power of the Dog” – could be said to have any significant queer content. Others, like “West Side Story”, “tick, tick… BOOM!”, “The Eyes of Tammy Faye”, “Being the Ricardos”, or “House of Gucci”, have either LGBTQ-relevant elements in their narratives or obvious LGBTQ appeal in their subject matter, and some have both. But there is no “Moonlight” or “Call Me By Your Name” on which to hang the hope of a definitively queer winner in any category.

In the Best Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture race – which is essentially the SAG Awards’ equivalent of Best Picture – the biggest surprise is the omission of “Power of the Dog.” Filmmaker Jane Campion’s dark and subtle western about the toxic relationship between a domineering older rancher and his effeminate new nephew has been a fixture in the top categories at awards ceremonies so far, but despite earning nods in other categories, it was shut out of the competition for this one. That leaves little in the way of LGBTQ inclusion among the five nominees (“Belfast”, “CODA”, “Don’t Look Up”, “House of Gucci”, “King Richard”), but it doesn’t keep “Power” from being a front-runner at the Oscars, where the Best Picture category can include up to 10 contenders. Even if all five of the SAG choices make it into the Academy’s race, Campion’s movie is almost certainly going to be there, too. The same can probably be said of “West Side Story”, another presumptive front-runner, but given its track record of wins so far, “Power” still stands as our favorite to take the honor on Oscar night.

For Best Performance by a Female Actor in a Motion Picture, the lineup includes several films of LGBTQ interest. “The Eyes of Tammy Faye,” which earned a nod for star Jessica Chastain, is a biopic that takes time to address its real-life protagonist’s surprising legacy as a queer ally; “Being the Ricardos,” though it contains no directly LGBTQ material, has the obvious appeal of focusing on Lucille Ball, a show biz icon beloved for decades by the gay community, who is portrayed with delicacy and respect by nominee Nicole Kidman; Jennifer Hudson’s star turn as Aretha Franklin – another legendary diva with queer appeal – snagged her a nomination for “Respect”; and finally, Ridley Scott’s “House of Gucci” grabbed another nod here for Lady Gaga, the only out member of the LGBTQ community in the running. It would be great to see Mother Monster take home this prize, but she’s got stiff competition; based on honors given out so far, she stands as a frontrunner, but with Hudson and Kidman in the mix, not to mention awards darling Olivia Colman (nominated for “The Lost Daughter”), it feels like anybody’s race. Win or lose at the SAGs, Gaga still has a strong chance of being included in Oscar’s Best Actress category – as does out actress Kristin Stewart, whose performance as Lady Diana in “Spencer” puts her solidly on the Oscar shortlist, despite being snubbed here.

Best Performance by a Male Actor in a Motion Picture might also be wide open. A few weeks ago, Benedict Cumberbatch would likely be the clear favorite to win for his towering performance as the closeted rancher in “Power of the Dog”, but after fellow nominee Will Smith’s win at the Golden Globes for “King Richard” his chances seem less sure. It’s a category that includes two Black actors – Smith and Denzel Washington (“The Tragedy of Macbeth”) – and on a slate that is otherwise dominated by white nominees it’s one of the few opportunities for the SAGs to diversify its winners’ circle. It’s also worth mentioning that Andrew Garfield, nominated for “tick, tick… BOOM!”, won the Globes prize for Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical, which combined with widespread acclaim for his performance makes him a strong contender to pull off an upset from either of the two frontrunners – a scenario likely to be repeated at the Academy Awards. In any case, Washington and Javier Bardem (nominated for playing Desi Arnaz in “Being the Ricardos”) are probably the dark horses here.

In the supporting categories, things look even less promising for LGBTQ inclusion. Nominated for “West Side Story” is Ariana DeBose, who is the clear favorite to win as Female Actor, though Kirsten Dunst’s quietly devastating performance in “Power of the Dog” has been accumulating considerable buzz, too. Both will likely be included at the Oscars as well. On the Male Actor side, the most clearly queer-friendly choice is Kodi Smit-McPhee, also for “Power of the Dog”; it’s a wild card category, skewed by the presence of big names (Ben Affleck and Bradley Cooper, nominated for “The Tender Bar” and “Licorice Pizza”, respectively) who might gain votes on the basis of star status alone, but Smit-McPhee has made a consistently strong showing throughout the awards race so far – and frankly, deserves to win just for his ability to hold his own opposite the charismatic Cumberbatch. He’s our favorite in the category not just here, but also on Oscar night.

The SAG Awards, of course, also present awards for television. Those don’t have much bearing on the Oscars, but it’s worth mentioning that the nominees there include LGBTQ-relevant favorites like “The Handmaid’s Tale”, “Succession”, “Hacks”, “The White Lotus”, and “Halston.” We’ll take a closer look at those when the Screen Actors Guild makes their presentation, which will air live on TNT and TBS, on Sunday, Feb. 27.

Meanwhile, it’s time to start working on those Oscar predictions. Ready, set… GO!

Continue Reading

Movies

With masterful remake, Spielberg tells a whole new ‘Story’

A skillfully constructed work of art that engages emotions at every level

Published

on

The Jets and The Sharks face off in ‘West Side Story.’ (Photo courtesy 20th Century Fox)

If you had reservations about the news that Steven Spielberg was remaking “West Side Story,” you aren’t alone. After all, with Hollywood’s track record for producing abysmal remakes of classic movies, it’s probably wise to be skeptical when a new one comes along.

That said, you can now rest assured that your skepticism is unfounded.

From its very first shot, in which Spielberg pays unabashed homage to the opening moments of “Citizen Kane” while establishing almost everything we need to know about the setting of the story we are about to see, “West Side Story” immediately dissipates any concern about the master director’s ability to deliver the blend of theatrical and cinematic artistry it deserves. With unparalleled fluency in the visual language of storytelling, he pulls us briskly into the conflict between the Jets and the Sharks – two teen street gangs, white and Puerto Rican, respectively, at war over territory in a Manhattan slum – and sets the stage for a retelling of Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” in which a family feud is exchanged for racism as the basis for a tale of young love thwarted by ancient hate.

For those unfamiliar, the plot centers on the romance of Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) – which is a problem because Tony is best friend to Riff (Mike Faist), leader of the Jets, and Maria is the sister of Bernardo (David Alvarez), leader of the Sharks. Despite the concerns of those around them – including Bernardo’s shrewd and strong-willed girlfriend, Anita (Ariana DeBose) – the couple’s forbidden love endures even as the rival gangs plan to wipe each other out once and for all, setting into motion a tragic chain of events that will shatter the entire community.

Spielberg’s reverent remounting of the classic musical drama – conceived for Broadway in 1957 and first translated to film in an Oscar-winning classic directed by Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise – achieves what doubters assumed would be impossible: a new rendering that succeeds in bringing a deeper, more contemporary sensibility to the material while leaving it essentially unchanged. A substantial amount of the credit for this goes to Pulitzer-winner Tony Kushner, whose literate and pitch-perfect adaptation of Arthur Laurents’ stage script fills in some of the story’s blank spots and expands its scope to illuminate the complicated economic and social issues that lie at its core.

Characters are fleshed out with more detailed back stories that bestow them with greater dimension and humanity; Tony, for instance, is on parole after a stint in prison for nearly killing a rival gang member in a fight, and we find out that Riff’s dad was as much of a hoodlum as he is. Additionally, the minor role of “Anybodys,” a female Jet originally depicted as a “tomboy” who is ridiculed and excluded by her gang mates for being a girl, is here given an embellished presence, which, aided by a powerful performance from Iris Menas, leaves little doubt she is struggling with gender identity at a time when there were no words for such things.

In a similar expansion, we find out that the neighborhood is set to be demolished ahead of the construction of Lincoln Center and the high-dollar housing that surrounds it, definitively planting the film in the same period as the original work while bringing forward the impact of urban upheaval and gentrification on the low-income and marginalized communities they continually displace.

With flourishes like these, Kushner’s screenplay brings “West Side Story” into the present day without removing it from the world that gave birth to it, emphasizing the connections and parallels between the two eras and reminding us just how relevant this American classic continues to be.

Similarly, the supremely talented cast is instrumental in reframing the story for a more evolved age – and not just because all the Latino roles are played by Latino performers this time around. Each of the young stars gives a heartbreakingly authentic performance, with DeBose’s Anita a particular standout who commands the screen in every scene she’s in (as she should!), and Zegler, a screen newcomer, providing a Maria who is as bold and self-possessed as she is luminous and delicate. But perhaps the film’s most magnificent performance comes from Rita Moreno, the original movie’s Anita, who here takes on the rewritten (and re-gendered) role of a neighborhood shopkeeper who serves as Tony’s surrogate parent; she imbues the character with a combination of warmth and hard-won wisdom, and her presence brings an element of having come full circle, a touch of nostalgia that links the film to its heritage and lingers with us long after the credits roll.

The same can be said of the much-revered score by Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim (RIP, genius), which is here preserved and performed almost completely intact. Some of the songs are reordered within the story, and some of the singing is done by different characters than the ones we’re used to, but arranger David Newman and conductor Gustavo Dudamel succeed in delivering a rousing and passionate rendering of the show’s classic music – bolstered by the outstanding vocals of its cast, none of whom required the kind of dubbing that was standard practice when “West Side Story” graced the screen the first time around.

As for Spielberg, it’s hard to imagine another director who could pull this off. He pulls from his vast sea of cinematic influences to create a larger-than-life, skillfully constructed work of visual art that handles the spectacular and the intimate with equal deftness and engages our emotions at every level. He frequently references the classic films he loves, weaving nods to them into a tapestry that acknowledges his debt to the great filmmakers who came before him yet firmly asserts his own mastery of the medium. He even asserts his self-assuredness by invoking fond memories of the classic 1961 version, from the subtle but unmistakable emulation of its color palette and lighting choices in key scenes to the more obvious echoes of Jerome Robbins’ original choreography in the dancing – brilliantly restaged by Spielberg and choreographer Justin Peck in a style that emulates the athletic movement of the original’s dance sequences while leaping to heights of its own.

Yet despite all this deference to the past, Spielberg’s rendition of “West Side Story” excels and excites because it feels so firmly rooted in the here and now. His intention is to learn from the past, not dwell in it, and he challenges us at every turn to see the story with a contemporary – and sometimes uncomfortable – perspective. Most provocative, perhaps, is his choice not to use subtitles when characters are speaking Spanish; with that one, simple touch, he aims straight at the heart of the divisive turmoil in our culture today, thereby using a 64-year-old musical written by three gay men as it was always meant to be used – as a powerful condemnation of bigotry and hatred in a world that has seen enough killing.

Spielberg’s vision honors, even celebrates the beloved original film, yet simultaneously reiterates it into something thrillingly new. Even the most rigid purist can’t ask for a more faithful adaptation than that.

Continue Reading

Movies

Toxic masculinity gets its comeuppance in ‘Power of the Dog’

Cumberbatch, Dunst shine in unforgettable anti-Western

Published

on

Kodi Smit-McPhee goes for a ride with Benedict Cumberbatch in ‘The Power of the Dog.’ (Photo courtesy Netflix)

Say what you will about the Western being a tired genre, but when it comes to tracing shifts in the American cultural identity over long stretches of time, there’s still nothing quite like it.

Take, for example, “The Power of the Dog,” the newest effort from acclaimed New Zealand filmmaker Jane Campion, now playing in theaters (and on Netflix) and topping the best-of-the-year lists of critics across the U.S. Set against the expanse of the American frontier of a century ago, it leans into time-worn tropes that have become wrapped up in our nation’s self-image, much the same as the great classic Westerns have done since the first flickering images of cowboys began to appear on screens in the very dawn of cinema history.

Some of these tropes, of course, have come to be seen as toxic. The way that Western movies have perpetuated racism by equating “Cowboys vs. Indians” to “Good vs. Evil” is perhaps the most clear-cut example; almost as obviously “problematic” is a presentation of manhood in which physical prowess is held up as the ideal, while emotional sensitivity or intellectualism are devalued as tell-tale signs of weakness. With 2022 right around the corner, outmoded and tone-deaf assumptions such as these make it easy to understand why many people think of the Western as an out-of-touch and irrelevant form of cinematic expression that deserves to be retired, once and for all.

Yet as Campion’s visually eloquent, quietly subversive adaptation of Thomas Savage’s 1968 novel reminds us, Westerns have a way of reflecting our changing attitudes. Just as “The Searchers” or “Little Big Man” challenged our stereotyped ideas about indigenous people, “The Power of the Dog” forces us to confront our acceptance of the rough-and-rugged cowboy as a paragon of masculinity and suggests he might have just been an overbearing bully, all along.

The cowboy in this case is Phil Burbank (Benedict Cumberbatch), who along with his brother George (Jesse Plemons) owns a lucrative cattle ranch in 1925 Montana. He’s the embodiment of the “alpha” mentality, presiding over his life and business with absolute authority; when George marries a widow (Kirsten Dunst) and brings her home – along with her son Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee), a young man with aspirations of becoming a surgeon – he browbeats the newcomers to his household and treats them with open contempt. He takes particular delight in tormenting Peter, whose slight build and effeminate manner make him an easy target for ridicule, but an awkward encounter in the woods sparks a change of heart; he decides to take his new nephew under his wing, hoping to turn him into a “real man” and perhaps reconnect with a tender side of his own nature he has long kept buried.

A reading of that brief synopsis is enough to make it clear that Campion’s movie plays on other tropes besides those found in Westerns. Traditional queer narratives in American culture inevitably lead us to expect an “unexpected” romance between these two initially antagonistic men, and a subsequent blossoming that will allow the hardened rancher to undergo a heartwarming transformation not unlike that of the Grinch.

But “Power of the Dog” is not that kind of queer narrative, just as it’s not the kind of Western where gunslingers resolve their conflicts with a climactic showdown on a dusty street. It leaves little doubt that romance – or some stunted, self-loathing version of it, at least – is on Phil’s mind once he hits upon the possibility of it; but it’s also keenly aware that men like Phil, who hide their own presumed desires under a mask of reflexive intolerance and are only willing to explore their secret side if they can maintain plausible deniability, are a big part of the reason why gay men – or anybody else who has been repeatedly lumped together in the category of “other” and turned into social outcasts or worse – have been subjected to so much bigotry and abuse for so very long.

To be sure, he’s a product of his time and place – but where a film from a different era might have given him the benefit of the doubt and helped him to find the redemption we’ve been conditioned to think he deserves, this one is not ready to let him get off scot-free. It doesn’t matter if he’s queer – he’s also a narcissistic tyrant who maintains his own assumed superiority by terrorizing and belittling those around him (his nickname for his brother is “Fatso,” which tells you all you need to know) to keep them submissive and docile. The days when such individuals got a pass for their bad behavior feel very much like a thing of the past in a world still reeling from the influence of Trumpism and other such movements, and Campion’s movie works its leisurely way to a conclusion that seems designed to make an example of its charismatic but unsavory central figure. Compassion is afforded, but it’s the kind of compassion that might be expressed by putting a wounded animal out of its misery.

Campion’s writing and direction of this deceptively pastoral period drama is as flawless as might be expected from a filmmaker of her caliber; she blends the awe-inspiring landscape (stunningly photographed by Ari Wegner, with New Zealand’s breathtaking natural beauty doubling for the Wyoming badlands) with the quietly jarring strains of Jonny Greenwood’s superb score to reinforce the roiling tensions below the placid surface of the story, and shrewdly trusts our own preconceptions to keep us from seeing the obvious indications of an ending that is being set up for us right in plain sight.

The cast, too, is uniformly outstanding. Cumberbatch turns in a powerhouse performance that’s as boldly unsympathetic as it is unforgettable, carrying himself with a ramrod-straight bearing that is just affected enough to suggest he’s not all that he seems but defies you to call him out on it; deservedly, he’s high on the list of likely Best Actor contenders for the next Oscars. Also award-worthy are Plemons, whose quiet underplaying of the good-hearted George helps him steal almost every scene he’s in, and Smit-McPhee, whose Peter exudes a refreshingly contemporary understanding and wisdom while retaining just enough enigma to keep us guessing about his motives. Rounding out the main ensemble, Dunst earns both our sympathy and respect in a role that might easily have been overshadowed in the hands of a lesser actress.

“Power of the Dog” is unquestionably a great film, assembled by a proven master at the peak of her powers and augmented by impressive performances – but does that mean the Western still has something to offer in a world more “woke” than it was in the heyday of the genre? For all its artistry, it tells a subtle story – and a bleak one, at that, albeit one that leaves us with a somewhat conflicted sense of satisfaction. It’s likely to leave some viewers cold – especially fans of a genre known for action, adventure, and the reinforcement of traditional values. In this way, perhaps it’s better characterized as an “anti-Western.”

Whatever label you decide put on it, it deserves your attention.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @LosAngelesBlade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular