I hate the edit button, so I'll get this out as well.
To be fair; quantity of sex scenes isn't in itself a problem. If they're well filmed, or have some kind of artistic merit, then that's a different kettle of fish altogether.
Judging purely by what I've read in this thread, it sounds like it's well on the way to becoming a flaming turd of a movie. Uwe Boll standards.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
***
Wow, Zebonka, I've read a lot of strained, homophobic logic, but comparing homosexuality to taking a dump, that's probably a new one. Well done.
You stay classy, Perth.
***
People make movies about people's sex/love lives all the time. People enjoy them. It deepens their understanding of the artist.
Here's a question: Has there ever been a band--or any artist, for that matter--where the super-fans of an artist are less politically and socially progressive or accepting than the general public who enjoys that same artist? Are there, like, Tina Turner fans who complain about her movie biopic as being "too much of a beaten wife movie" or Ritche Valens fans who complain about him being portrayed as "too much of a Mexican"? I would think those fans--or at least some of them--might see those portrayals as deepening our understanding of their genius.
Maybe Queen fans are unsure of Freddie being a genius. Me? I don't have that problem. I would like the world to know about his life as well.
Wow, Zebonka, I've read a lot of strained, homophobic logic, but comparing homosexuality to taking a dump, that's probably a new one. Well done.
You stay classy, Perth.
***
People make movies about people's sex/love lives all the time. People enjoy them. It deepens their understanding of the artist.
Here's a question: Has there ever been a band--or any artist, for that matter--where the super-fans of an artist are less politically and socially progressive or accepting than the general public who enjoys that same artist? Are there, like, Tina Turner fans who complain about her movie biopic as being "too much of a beaten wife movie" or Ritche Valens fans who complain about him being portrayed as "too much of a Mexican"? I would think those fans--or at least some of them--might see those portrayals as deepening our understanding of their genius.
Maybe Queen fans are unsure of Freddie being a genius. Me? I don't have that problem. I would like the world to know about his life as well.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Under Pressure wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And that's the problem with the screenplay -- it's literally one gay sex scene after another, until he gets AIDS.
[/QUOTE]
Well... to be fair, isn't that what happened in real life?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Actually, one of the best movies about the Beatles (IMHO), Backbeat, focuses on John Lennon's purported bisexual relationship with Stu Sutcliffe in the early days in Germany. [/QUOTE]
I watched that film last night, good flick. There wasn't really anything bisexual going on there though. Astrid theorises that they 'love' each other, which Lennon incorrectly assumes to mean she thinks he's a 'queer'.
On that subject, I've no doubt Lennon was a bit bisexual. The movie did show him up to be very insecure, of course, but didn't go a lot further than that.
And that's the problem with the screenplay -- it's literally one gay sex scene after another, until he gets AIDS.
[/QUOTE]
Well... to be fair, isn't that what happened in real life?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Actually, one of the best movies about the Beatles (IMHO), Backbeat, focuses on John Lennon's purported bisexual relationship with Stu Sutcliffe in the early days in Germany. [/QUOTE]
I watched that film last night, good flick. There wasn't really anything bisexual going on there though. Astrid theorises that they 'love' each other, which Lennon incorrectly assumes to mean she thinks he's a 'queer'.
On that subject, I've no doubt Lennon was a bit bisexual. The movie did show him up to be very insecure, of course, but didn't go a lot further than that.
Why is it so easy to misunderstand each other?
I know Freddie was gay. I say: him being gay was determinative (is that a word?) for his character and personality. If he had not been gay he would not have been Freddie Mercury, he would not have written Bohemian Rhapsody. I want a movie which makes that connection. I want a movie that shows us Freddie the gay song writer and musician. I don't mind sex scenes - on the contrary, I want to bring the fact home that Freddie was a gay man. However, I would not want ONLY gay scenes because then I could just as well watch a movie about my gay neighbour. And although my neighbour is a nice guy, he is not biopic material only because he is gay.
The problem with us Queen fans is that we all have created a picture of Freddie in our minds. We know all his songs, saw the documentaries, read the books, the interviews, anything. Probably we have the biggest problem to keep an open mind for a movie in which we may be shown a picture that is different from our own idea about who Freddie was.
I know Freddie was gay. I say: him being gay was determinative (is that a word?) for his character and personality. If he had not been gay he would not have been Freddie Mercury, he would not have written Bohemian Rhapsody. I want a movie which makes that connection. I want a movie that shows us Freddie the gay song writer and musician. I don't mind sex scenes - on the contrary, I want to bring the fact home that Freddie was a gay man. However, I would not want ONLY gay scenes because then I could just as well watch a movie about my gay neighbour. And although my neighbour is a nice guy, he is not biopic material only because he is gay.
The problem with us Queen fans is that we all have created a picture of Freddie in our minds. We know all his songs, saw the documentaries, read the books, the interviews, anything. Probably we have the biggest problem to keep an open mind for a movie in which we may be shown a picture that is different from our own idea about who Freddie was.
Well I agree with that.
I think it's OK to show that Freddie was gay (or a bisexual prefering men, depending on the terminology) since it's a very important part of his personality, but I personally don't want it to turn into a gay porn movie.
Freddie was a typical "sex & drugs & rock'n'roll " rocker, at least his public side, so of course you have to show these parts
I think it's OK to show that Freddie was gay (or a bisexual prefering men, depending on the terminology) since it's a very important part of his personality, but I personally don't want it to turn into a gay porn movie.
Freddie was a typical "sex & drugs & rock'n'roll " rocker, at least his public side, so of course you have to show these parts
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Wow, Zebonka, I've read a lot of strained, homophobic logic, but comparing homosexuality to taking a dump, that's probably a new one. Well done.
You stay classy, Perth.
[/QUOTE]
You go right ahead and founder in that puddle of illogic there, dude.
Sex and taking a dump. What have they got in common?
We don't usually do it in public.
Jesus. It's not a moral statement.
You've got delusions that you're on some kind of high-ground here, that you've 'seen the light' and are in some kind of position to inform people about the gay experience.
Sing to someone else, brother, I know enough gay people that I hardly feel the need to have it all spelled out to me (in amateur fashion) by you.
You're imagining that people are sitting here, freaked out by gay behaviour in film, or something.
Well I cannot speak for the others in the thread, but me!? Jesus Christ!!! I only grew up watching Rocky Horror fucking Picture Show!
I think you've really got the wrong end of the wrong stick. I don't see gay sex as anything different to normal sex. I don't see friendship and love and all of that having anything to do with gender.
Not that I want you to stop jumping to conclusions here, because it's awfully amusing!
But your little tirades in this thread ought to be aimed at 12 year olds in Texas, or something. People with little/no awareness on the topic.
Stay crazy, Albany!
Wow, Zebonka, I've read a lot of strained, homophobic logic, but comparing homosexuality to taking a dump, that's probably a new one. Well done.
You stay classy, Perth.
[/QUOTE]
You go right ahead and founder in that puddle of illogic there, dude.
Sex and taking a dump. What have they got in common?
We don't usually do it in public.
Jesus. It's not a moral statement.
You've got delusions that you're on some kind of high-ground here, that you've 'seen the light' and are in some kind of position to inform people about the gay experience.
Sing to someone else, brother, I know enough gay people that I hardly feel the need to have it all spelled out to me (in amateur fashion) by you.
You're imagining that people are sitting here, freaked out by gay behaviour in film, or something.
Well I cannot speak for the others in the thread, but me!? Jesus Christ!!! I only grew up watching Rocky Horror fucking Picture Show!
I think you've really got the wrong end of the wrong stick. I don't see gay sex as anything different to normal sex. I don't see friendship and love and all of that having anything to do with gender.
Not that I want you to stop jumping to conclusions here, because it's awfully amusing!
But your little tirades in this thread ought to be aimed at 12 year olds in Texas, or something. People with little/no awareness on the topic.
Stay crazy, Albany!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I know, there's gonna be someone saying "geez, if he were straight, I'd say the same thing."
Bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
Hahaha. This bit is priceless.
I'll use Errol Flynn as an example again, because he had a problem keeping his little dragon locked up. Just like our man Freddie.
Have you ever read the David Niven book, "Bring on the Empty Horses" ?
My absolute favourite chapter in that book is the one on Errol Flynn. It paints one hell of a vivid picture of the guy. It's very colourful, and very human.
And while the amount of sex he got up to is alluded to here and there, it's not really thrown in your face as such; only one bit could remotely qualify as a 'sex scene', and if it were in a movie - you probably wouldn't see much because the focus is on the prank being pulled at the time.
Errol Flynn having lots of straight sex is no doubt an important part of his life, if you were to make a movie about him.
Right there, is a bit of writing where they manage to deal with that facet of him as well as being intelligent enough to do it in the right proportion, and deal with other (equally interesting) character traits.
It is *no fucking difference* whether he was gay, straight, bi or a necrophiliac, though to be reasonable that part of his life must be dealt with on screen if you're to represent him as he was (or 'seemed' to be, to most of us).
The only gripe I could possibly have is that they spend too much time on something we already know. That's bad filmmaking, and I've studied film enough in my short life to know about that!
One last example; the original Star Wars film. They have to illustrate a Rebellion against a big, nasty Empire.
Best way to do it? Tiny ship running from big ship. Can it get any more eloquent than that?
I'd like any film dealing with my favourite singer to be clever enough that it doesn't have to repeat itself with shit I already know.
I know, there's gonna be someone saying "geez, if he were straight, I'd say the same thing."
Bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
Hahaha. This bit is priceless.
I'll use Errol Flynn as an example again, because he had a problem keeping his little dragon locked up. Just like our man Freddie.
Have you ever read the David Niven book, "Bring on the Empty Horses" ?
My absolute favourite chapter in that book is the one on Errol Flynn. It paints one hell of a vivid picture of the guy. It's very colourful, and very human.
And while the amount of sex he got up to is alluded to here and there, it's not really thrown in your face as such; only one bit could remotely qualify as a 'sex scene', and if it were in a movie - you probably wouldn't see much because the focus is on the prank being pulled at the time.
Errol Flynn having lots of straight sex is no doubt an important part of his life, if you were to make a movie about him.
Right there, is a bit of writing where they manage to deal with that facet of him as well as being intelligent enough to do it in the right proportion, and deal with other (equally interesting) character traits.
It is *no fucking difference* whether he was gay, straight, bi or a necrophiliac, though to be reasonable that part of his life must be dealt with on screen if you're to represent him as he was (or 'seemed' to be, to most of us).
The only gripe I could possibly have is that they spend too much time on something we already know. That's bad filmmaking, and I've studied film enough in my short life to know about that!
One last example; the original Star Wars film. They have to illustrate a Rebellion against a big, nasty Empire.
Best way to do it? Tiny ship running from big ship. Can it get any more eloquent than that?
I'd like any film dealing with my favourite singer to be clever enough that it doesn't have to repeat itself with shit I already know.
Are you THAT Zebonka who used to post on originaltrilogy.com ?
I have problems. I'm a person. A real person. And, this problem aside, I'm also a musician, which makes me a disturbing and boring human being: because the dedicated musician is the new "black" of the world. I bet gay people aren't treated as garbage in the U.S - in Brazil certainly don't - as musicians are.
So, I'm the new black. It makes me a difficult person.
I want coherence.
Daniel Naster spent days arguing that Queen's, not Freddie's, greatest mistake was not coming out as gay. He said so quite emphatically.
Now, he writes: "Freddie loved men. Men men men.
It's what he was. He didn't need to say he was gay. He personified gayness."
Oh!
Really?
He didn't need? So, if he didn't need to, and people knew he was gay, and he personified gayness, what's the point of...coming out as gay? If you personify gayness? You have already come out as gay!
No, but that's not the problem.
Amadeus was a good movie. It showed all trials of Mozart's life; Bird was a good movie, it showed all trials of Charlie Parker's life; both movies have one thing in common: they are a witness to the musical genius of both artists.
Why? Because artists' lives are a matter of curiosity, for sure, but they are hardly useful when it comes to explain their work. And why? Because, as a human being, he's just a guy/woman, with his/her personality; as a musician, he's universal: the art form is universal and transcends the artists' own personality.
Bob Dylan life was boring. Ok. The chronicles are boring. So boring that, when Scorcese wanted to make a DOCUMENTARY about the guy, he was caught by the...music: it's all music, all around, little about Dylan's life.
Now, let's talk GAY.
Cole Porter was gay. He liked men men men men. There's an excellent movie about him: it shows that he was gay. But it is primarily a WITNESS TO HIS MUSICAL GENIUS.
His songs are universal. They transcend his personality. And, if you fail to show that, you're just showing...the life of a ordinary human being.
There were a lot of gays like Freddie. What makes Freddie different is the music, is not the "gay" part: it's what makes him universal, what makes his music appeal to all kinds of people.
There were tons of gay artists. There are.
Because there's a misconception in the whole debate: that an artist life explains his work. It's trash. This argument doesn't stand any criticism. One can grasp Mozart's genius, or Cole Porter's, without knowing A THING about their lives: their work transcend their lives.
"Oh, but I wanted to make the connection between gay and Bohemian Rhapsody".
Sorry, you'll fail. Philosophers have tried that thousands of times: linking artists' life to their works. It's hard. It's sometimes impossible. Musical genius is pretty much a mistery, is not something you can easily rationalize in terms of biographical events and experiences.
So, we know there must be a connection in some point, but the result, which is the music, transcends the connection which takes place in the artist's life.
I love We Are The Champions. I'm not gay. Millions of people do, and relate that to all kinds of things, because the art form is univeral.
So, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO (like in Bohemian - no counterpoint there lol).
If you tell me that gayness was his music, Daniel, sorry, It's beyond my ability of having a debate.
It's saying that the particular is the universal. I find it nonsensical.
There's no such thing as:
"Gay -> Bohemian Rhapsody". There's a missing element in between both factors of this equation: what we call an ART FORM. And it makes things far more complicated. The connection, as it is, is so loose that it hardly has any intellectual value or emotional value.
Johnny Depp is cute. I'd love to see the guy naked. I have no problem with gay scenes. In fact, I expect them: it's about time for people to realize that there's such a thing as a gay sexuality.
That being said, it's perfec
So, I'm the new black. It makes me a difficult person.
I want coherence.
Daniel Naster spent days arguing that Queen's, not Freddie's, greatest mistake was not coming out as gay. He said so quite emphatically.
Now, he writes: "Freddie loved men. Men men men.
It's what he was. He didn't need to say he was gay. He personified gayness."
Oh!
Really?
He didn't need? So, if he didn't need to, and people knew he was gay, and he personified gayness, what's the point of...coming out as gay? If you personify gayness? You have already come out as gay!
No, but that's not the problem.
Amadeus was a good movie. It showed all trials of Mozart's life; Bird was a good movie, it showed all trials of Charlie Parker's life; both movies have one thing in common: they are a witness to the musical genius of both artists.
Why? Because artists' lives are a matter of curiosity, for sure, but they are hardly useful when it comes to explain their work. And why? Because, as a human being, he's just a guy/woman, with his/her personality; as a musician, he's universal: the art form is universal and transcends the artists' own personality.
Bob Dylan life was boring. Ok. The chronicles are boring. So boring that, when Scorcese wanted to make a DOCUMENTARY about the guy, he was caught by the...music: it's all music, all around, little about Dylan's life.
Now, let's talk GAY.
Cole Porter was gay. He liked men men men men. There's an excellent movie about him: it shows that he was gay. But it is primarily a WITNESS TO HIS MUSICAL GENIUS.
His songs are universal. They transcend his personality. And, if you fail to show that, you're just showing...the life of a ordinary human being.
There were a lot of gays like Freddie. What makes Freddie different is the music, is not the "gay" part: it's what makes him universal, what makes his music appeal to all kinds of people.
There were tons of gay artists. There are.
Because there's a misconception in the whole debate: that an artist life explains his work. It's trash. This argument doesn't stand any criticism. One can grasp Mozart's genius, or Cole Porter's, without knowing A THING about their lives: their work transcend their lives.
"Oh, but I wanted to make the connection between gay and Bohemian Rhapsody".
Sorry, you'll fail. Philosophers have tried that thousands of times: linking artists' life to their works. It's hard. It's sometimes impossible. Musical genius is pretty much a mistery, is not something you can easily rationalize in terms of biographical events and experiences.
So, we know there must be a connection in some point, but the result, which is the music, transcends the connection which takes place in the artist's life.
I love We Are The Champions. I'm not gay. Millions of people do, and relate that to all kinds of things, because the art form is univeral.
So, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO (like in Bohemian - no counterpoint there lol).
If you tell me that gayness was his music, Daniel, sorry, It's beyond my ability of having a debate.
It's saying that the particular is the universal. I find it nonsensical.
There's no such thing as:
"Gay -> Bohemian Rhapsody". There's a missing element in between both factors of this equation: what we call an ART FORM. And it makes things far more complicated. The connection, as it is, is so loose that it hardly has any intellectual value or emotional value.
Johnny Depp is cute. I'd love to see the guy naked. I have no problem with gay scenes. In fact, I expect them: it's about time for people to realize that there's such a thing as a gay sexuality.
That being said, it's perfec
Hey Zebonka, I'm not your shrink. I'm just pointing out that you equated pooping with gay sex. You'll have to seek out professional help to figure out the rest. You know, the AIDS jokes and all that.
You stay classy, spoiled college kid in Australia who watched Rocky Horror to invoke street cred.
You stay classy, spoiled college kid in Australia who watched Rocky Horror to invoke street cred.
Yara, what you're describing is the intentional fallacy and the biographical fallacy. That a person's life can explain a particular work.
But a person's life, or telling someone's life as a story, might help us understand the work, the artist, or even both. There's a valid debate on both sides.
If you factor in the life of Freddie as a gay man, however, that's when the wackos come out. AIDS jokes. Fisting jokes. Do lifelong James Brown fans make black jokes on JamesBrownzone.com (made up name)?
You've been fairly clear that *anyone's* life or biography would not be relevant to you in understanding anyone's work or artistry. That's one view, and it does works up to a point. As does the other view, which states that to understand the artist, to understand the life and background of a person, will help us understand the work.
But again, if someone factors in the issues we're debating here--i.e., the gay factor--you've got fans--arguably the most devoted--who are pointedly against hearing about the love life of the artist they love.
I find it quite bizarre, really, and the fact that some are either vociferously against a gay portrayal of any kind even moreso.
I am not, in real life, Mr. Soapbox Politically Correct. I am not an activist. So it surprises me that I am reacting this way. Up to a point. When you have complete idiots making AIDS jokes and gay cracks, there's a certain line that has to be drawn.
But a person's life, or telling someone's life as a story, might help us understand the work, the artist, or even both. There's a valid debate on both sides.
If you factor in the life of Freddie as a gay man, however, that's when the wackos come out. AIDS jokes. Fisting jokes. Do lifelong James Brown fans make black jokes on JamesBrownzone.com (made up name)?
You've been fairly clear that *anyone's* life or biography would not be relevant to you in understanding anyone's work or artistry. That's one view, and it does works up to a point. As does the other view, which states that to understand the artist, to understand the life and background of a person, will help us understand the work.
But again, if someone factors in the issues we're debating here--i.e., the gay factor--you've got fans--arguably the most devoted--who are pointedly against hearing about the love life of the artist they love.
I find it quite bizarre, really, and the fact that some are either vociferously against a gay portrayal of any kind even moreso.
I am not, in real life, Mr. Soapbox Politically Correct. I am not an activist. So it surprises me that I am reacting this way. Up to a point. When you have complete idiots making AIDS jokes and gay cracks, there's a certain line that has to be drawn.
We've moved from poopy humor to necrophilia on the Zebonka front. Stay classy.
"I'd like any film dealing with my favourite singer to be clever enough that it doesn't have to repeat itself with shit I already know."
--Well, Zebonka, if you are half the fan you probably are, you probably know everything there is to know. So what would you do with the movie?
We're talking about *how* a movie about Freddie would be made, and what in the story would be told. I'd guess all of us in this thread know down the finest minutia about his life. What we're debating here is what would be excluded and included.
So if you want to learn something new about Freddie from the movie, I suggest you hit the FAQ boards and buy a few books, maybe a Wiki page or three.
That's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is what is going to be included or excluded. And Mr. Z, you seem to want something a little less sex, a little more music.
Do you think that the world needs to hear the songs more again? Another version of We Are The Champions with Johnny Depp on lead vocals? Maybe. But I think if we want a story about Freddie to be told, we need to hear about his life.
And guess what? It's gonna be a whole lotta gay love, son. A whole lotta gay love. And it ain't gonna be like the drawn curtain Rocky Horror variety, either. We're talkin' piston shots. Gay love scenes.
"I'd like any film dealing with my favourite singer to be clever enough that it doesn't have to repeat itself with shit I already know."
--Well, Zebonka, if you are half the fan you probably are, you probably know everything there is to know. So what would you do with the movie?
We're talking about *how* a movie about Freddie would be made, and what in the story would be told. I'd guess all of us in this thread know down the finest minutia about his life. What we're debating here is what would be excluded and included.
So if you want to learn something new about Freddie from the movie, I suggest you hit the FAQ boards and buy a few books, maybe a Wiki page or three.
That's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is what is going to be included or excluded. And Mr. Z, you seem to want something a little less sex, a little more music.
Do you think that the world needs to hear the songs more again? Another version of We Are The Champions with Johnny Depp on lead vocals? Maybe. But I think if we want a story about Freddie to be told, we need to hear about his life.
And guess what? It's gonna be a whole lotta gay love, son. A whole lotta gay love. And it ain't gonna be like the drawn curtain Rocky Horror variety, either. We're talkin' piston shots. Gay love scenes.
Yara, is it to "promote a cause" to tell the story of a gay man's life?
Why is it a "cause" now? Why isn't it simply a "story"?
That's quite a leap in logic.
Why is it a "cause" now? Why isn't it simply a "story"?
That's quite a leap in logic.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]pittrek wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Are you THAT Zebonka who used to post on originaltrilogy.com ?[/QUOTE]
Yeah...
What of it?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You stay classy, spoiled college kid in Australia who watched Rocky Horror to invoke street cred.[/QUOTE]
... haha. Since when as having a healthy respect for how the 'other half' live ever been a bid for street cred?
Wouldn't that be like watching Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and then calling myself a soul brother?
It was just a good movie... It had good tunes and gave me a bit of awareness with regards to sexuality.
All of that before I learned how to drive!
'spoiled college kid'. *ahem*. Not even sure what to do with that one. It's not even accurate, for one thing. I hope you're researching your memoirs better than this!
It's sort of fun though, watching you shoot yourself in the foot here. "Oh, crap", goes your internal monologue. "Since I can't categorically refute what he's saying, I'll have to mention he's from Australia again!".
I find latent bigotry like that incredibly amusing in this - a thread about a gay singer!
PS. As for the AIDS jokes... you give them more attention than they even deserve, and I think that's part of the reason I kept coming up with more of them.
Is a man dying in bed from AIDS funny? No.
Is an allegedly grown man getting his feathers ruffled at AIDS puns on an internet forum funny?
From where I'm sitting; extremely funny.
I found it not only amusing, but hard to believe. So I kept going, just to see how long it'd take you to get past a bunch of gags you're (supposedly) too mature to pay attention to.
And finally; I had a short version of this post, but then Yara entered the thread and I felt like trying to up the anté.
Yeah...
What of it?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You stay classy, spoiled college kid in Australia who watched Rocky Horror to invoke street cred.[/QUOTE]
... haha. Since when as having a healthy respect for how the 'other half' live ever been a bid for street cred?
Wouldn't that be like watching Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and then calling myself a soul brother?
It was just a good movie... It had good tunes and gave me a bit of awareness with regards to sexuality.
All of that before I learned how to drive!
'spoiled college kid'. *ahem*. Not even sure what to do with that one. It's not even accurate, for one thing. I hope you're researching your memoirs better than this!
It's sort of fun though, watching you shoot yourself in the foot here. "Oh, crap", goes your internal monologue. "Since I can't categorically refute what he's saying, I'll have to mention he's from Australia again!".
I find latent bigotry like that incredibly amusing in this - a thread about a gay singer!
PS. As for the AIDS jokes... you give them more attention than they even deserve, and I think that's part of the reason I kept coming up with more of them.
Is a man dying in bed from AIDS funny? No.
Is an allegedly grown man getting his feathers ruffled at AIDS puns on an internet forum funny?
From where I'm sitting; extremely funny.
I found it not only amusing, but hard to believe. So I kept going, just to see how long it'd take you to get past a bunch of gags you're (supposedly) too mature to pay attention to.
And finally; I had a short version of this post, but then Yara entered the thread and I felt like trying to up the anté.
And Yara, art isn't "rationalized" in terms of biography and experiences. Sometimes it's explained.
It's interesting, because what we're talking about, if we take out the homophobia that I think is quite rampant on these boards, are really two sides of the debate.
One is to exclude the artist from the art.
The other is to appreciate the art based on the artist.
Some people do take one side or another. In literature, for example, there are the New Critics who do "close readings" of poems. The professors all gathered around in the BBC BoRhap documentary, for example, were doing a bit of New Criticism explication.
Then there's the complete historical reading of an artist. There are people who talk about Freddie and Queen in terms of Camp, for example. Camp is a big part of what is called Queer Studies, which is a part of academia. There's been a few articles about Freddie Mercury that look at his work with this idea of camp in mind. That's a version of "reading into" Freddie Mercury.
Is that promoting a "cause"? No. It's a way of reading the world and telling our own stories to ourselves.
It's interesting, because what we're talking about, if we take out the homophobia that I think is quite rampant on these boards, are really two sides of the debate.
One is to exclude the artist from the art.
The other is to appreciate the art based on the artist.
Some people do take one side or another. In literature, for example, there are the New Critics who do "close readings" of poems. The professors all gathered around in the BBC BoRhap documentary, for example, were doing a bit of New Criticism explication.
Then there's the complete historical reading of an artist. There are people who talk about Freddie and Queen in terms of Camp, for example. Camp is a big part of what is called Queer Studies, which is a part of academia. There's been a few articles about Freddie Mercury that look at his work with this idea of camp in mind. That's a version of "reading into" Freddie Mercury.
Is that promoting a "cause"? No. It's a way of reading the world and telling our own stories to ourselves.