Vigilant

I went to the hate crimes vigil at Trafalgar Square last night. It was a wonderful evening - the night was mild, the crowd swelled to a couple of thousand and the atmosphere was friendly, open and generous. I wasn't sure what to expect - it was really my first event of this type, despite being involved in community work for over three years. The mood wasn't angry, it didn't feel like a community under threat. It felt like a community taking a stand and I was proud of that.

I often hear older gay people ask about my generation and younger 'where is the passion?'. Well it's difficult to get passionate without a focus. Anger is an emotion which needs a point, otherwise it becomes a shrill and frustrating emotion. You need something to harness the short burst of energy it gives before it snuffs out. It can be difficult for young gay people to find that channel when many of the major national, legislative fights have already been fought. At one point last night, one of the speakers talked about young gay people only caring about bars and clubs and I rolled my eyes so far that they almost disappeared round my skull. It is the oldest, most frustrating and silliest complaint that every older generation levels against the younger - that it is more frivolous, more flippant and more superficial and everything would have been so much better if they were back in charge.

The thing is, where does a young gay person, who is just coming out, who sees bars and clubs as their opportunity to meet other men and women like them, go to find out about their history? The generation of the 70s and 80s has failed to preserve their heritage. It is a trifle unfair to blame younger people for not knowing their history when it is not taught in school (gay rights are barely mentioned as a civil rights issue, especially in comparison to ethnic minorities and women's struggles). There is an amazing story about the development of the gay rights movement, its struggles for legalisation, acceptance and then the dark years of the AIDS crisis. But we don't have a gay museum or cultural centre where this can be taught. A Gay History project is only just getting going and they have a monstrous task playing catch-up and preserving stories before generations die out. A generation was already almost lost due to that shitty little virus.

I am no absolving my generation of guilt. We can be frivolous, silly and flippant and particularly cruel to older members of our community. We do need direction and we are not necessarily going to respond to people acting like we are lost causes to begin with.

The most sobering thing about the attacks which have taken place over the last few weeks is the role of teenagers in each of them. I believe that each successive generation is more accepting then the last. But it is all to easy to forget that most kids grow up in households where there is at least casual levels of homophobia and often that rises to a toxic stew of prejudice and hatred. This doesn't take into account the other elements of their lives which can lead to social dysfunction. It is a horrid mix and the best indication that the focus has to be put into schools. Unfortunately a generation of work was silenced by Section 28 and now we are playing catch-up.

I just finished re-reading Randy Shilts' wonderful biography of Harvey Milk. Milk often spoke of the importance of coming out - the best way to break down the barriers to acceptance and understanding is for a straight person to realise that a friend or loved one is gay. It is the entirely sensible belief behind the Same Sex Holding Hands day which took place today. I think a lot of straight people go through life believing that gay people are a rarity. But we are not. There are millions of us, from all walks of life. Only by overcoming our own fears and struggles can we force others to do the same.

I am ambivalent about hate crimes laws. I understand the reason for their existence, but I still there is something to be said for the law being blind to our differences. But in light of the protections offered to other minorities I think it only right that gay people are included. However, they punish an event that has already taken place, and the existence of those laws are unlikely to curb a violent attack motivated by a dizzying array of personality maladjustments. The work has to go in at the other end, to shaping hearts and minds and not changing them.
Rant Over

Parnassus

Terry Gilliam is one of those artists who people generally haven’t heard of, but who has had a profound impact on pop culture. From his work with Monty Python, through to the hugely influential Brazil, Time Bandits, The Fisher King and 12 Monkeys, he has been a real inspiration for a whole raft of other visual artists.

But something seemed to go wrong with Gilliam in the last 10 to 15 years. His struggles to set projects up, their well-publicised problems and the failure of films such as The Brother’s Grimm and Tideland seemed to sap his creative juices. I was shocked at how ugly, shoddy and uninvolving The Brothers Grimm turned out to be – a film which I was sure should have been a home run for him.

On paper, The Imginarium of Dr Parnassus should be similarly ripe for Gilliam’s particular talents. An immortal man, who posses a mirror which leads people into their imaginations, makes a deal with the Devil to save his daughter from Hell. Heath Ledger plays the handsome, charming stranger who offers to help Parnassus, but who is hiding himself from his own past. The MacGuffin is a magic mirror where people enter visual representations of their imaginations and are given a choice between Parnassus and The Devil.

As a story, Imaginarium is simply terrible. Individual scenes work fine, but there is absolutely no sense of a wider narrative arc, which becomes increasingly apparent as the story lurches towards its chaotic, shambolic conclusion. The set-up seems simple – Parnassus and the Devil in a race to capture five souls, with the soul of Parnassus’ daughter as the ultimate prize. But Gilliam never gets a firm grip on the rules of what the mirror is, how it is used and what happens to those who enter. The rules which are set-up are flouted as the script requires and the character of the Devil (nicely played by Tom Waits) merely exists to extend the tired storyline past the point where this audience member cared.

I am a big believer in rules for fantasy films. If you are going to break with ‘reality’ on film (even if that reality itself is a construction) then I think you owe it to your audience to play fair with. This becomes particularly important in Imaginarium where so much of the plot hinges on those very rules as the basis of a bet between two characters. The script doesn’t seem to play fair and never establishes what precisely happens in the mirror. Establishing some mystery is vital to suspending disbelief (I don’t want to see the mechanics of how it actually works) but neither do I want a situation whereby the powers of the mirror are changed to suit the short-term goals of the plot. That is simply lazy writing.

As for the visuals… there is a clear disconnect here between the real world and the imaginary world of the mirror. The real world stuff, surprisingly, is the one that is the most consistently impressive. Gilliam seems inspired by the tactile nature of the London setting, of the grimy Victoriana of the sets and costumes and the contrasts between the DIY theatricality of Parnassus’ show and the modern, gleaming London that surrounds it. The problems start in the imaginary world of the mirror. A reviewer whose name I wish I could remember, said that the mirror scenes looked like screen savers from Windows and I can’t do better then that description. They are flat, cartoonish and, well… unimaginative.

Heath Ledger is the marquee reason for seeing Parnassus but I don’t believe it is a fitting final role for the actor. It’s clear that his character, Tony, is deceitful to come degree and that he has a massive secret. What never becomes clear is who exactly Tony is and what his culpability is in the situation he finds himself. Gilliam himself feels unsure and as the film careens towards its climax, this ambivalence destroys the story as it descends into a series of manic, shouty scenes, backed by unconvincing CGI. The conceit of three actors playing three different faces of Tony in the mirror works well, but it robs Heath of the ability to build a complete performance. I would be fascinated to see if the strength of his work could have overcome the flashy annoyances surrounding the finale.

I also think the film’s attempt to deal with Ledger’s death through the invocation of Princess Di and James Dean were a bit nauseating (as I have found much of Gilliam’s shilling for the movie). There is something a little creepy and fetishistic about the dialogue given to Johnny Depp where he talks about the death of celebrities making them forever young. The death of those people is first and foremost a personal tragedy to their families and I think it cold comfort to Ledger’s friends, family and fans to think that his face will adorn the walls of student’s bedsits for the next fifty years.

The best reason to see the film is to see the lovely work of Lily Cole (as Parnassus’ daughter) and Andrew Garfield (as her love-struck would-be suitor). Both navigate a believable emotional range and give the film whatever real spark of life it has. I know Garfield from his astonishing performance in the Channel 4 show Boy A, but Cole is a novice actress but makes a great debut.

A Strange Moment

It has been a strange couple of weeks in Gay World.

In America, you have had the President of the United States address a dinner of the largest gay rights group in the country on the eve of a march in support of Marriage Equality in Washington DC which drew about 100,000 people. The speech, wherein he reaffirmed his commitment to all of the main legislative priorities of gay organisations, was given during a period when Obama has been criticised heavily for making little or no head way on some of the promises he made during the election. Hate crimes laws finally passed both House and Senate this week which is fantastic, but the main hurdles (such as ending the federal marriage equality ban and allowing gays to openly serve in the military) are still to come.

At the same time, gays and their supporters are in vicious fights in both Maine and Washington state to ensure gay couples are given full partnership benefits. The Maine fight is particularly important because it is a case of a largely religious drive to deny full civil marriage rights which were given to gays by the elected state legislature. A big complaint about the California decision last year was that it was somehow 'forced' on the state by judges in the Supreme Court. This isn't the case here. It exposes the bigotry of those who seek to keep gay people as second class citizens for liars and religious nuts that they are. And yet Obama has said that he does not support full marriage equality and believes in the bullshit compromise of civil partnerships, a stance which has been repeatedly used against marriage equality forces in California and Maine. Gay people's frustrations with him are well founded but the vehemence of their reaction seems out of proportion.

Then on this side of the Atlantic, we have had the publication of that hateful Jan Moir article on Stephen Gately's death in the Daily Dickhead, followed by the release of a video showing a 60 year old gay man being kicked to death in Trafalgar Sq. The murderers are only being charged with second degree manslaughter. Yet the Moir article touched a spectacular nerve and led to 25,000 complaints to the Press Complaints Commission.

I am trying to think about what all these events mean. On the one hand, you have gay issues being addressed in public in a way which I think inevitably helps break down social homophobia. It is easy for people to make the connection between Moir's poisonous dog whistles about gay relationships and the tragedy of Ian Baynham's death. Stephen Gately's husband being given a central space at his funeral and the clear support given to him by Gately's friends and family probably did more to shift Irish people's attitudes then something like Brokeback Mountain did. The best way to change people's attitude's to homosexuality is for people to actually know somebody gay. People felt they knew Gately - as a member of a successful Irish boyband, its almost like Irish people had a share in his success. His death was tragic, but the backlash against those looking to dance on his grave has been hugely gratifying.

Something has also become really clear to me. Civil partnerships should go. Whatever the Labour calculation was when they were brought in a few years ago it is no longer acceptable to have an equal-but-separate law for gay relationships (yes I know straights can also get civil partnerships, but they have the option. Gay people don't). Our lives, our loves are just as fulfilling and worthy of respect in the eyes of the state as heterosexuals and the time really has come for the Government to recognise this.

With a Conservative government likely coming to power in the next 6 - 8 months, that next step is unlikely. But it is the right thing to do.

On a personal level, I feel that something imperceptible has shifted within my own family. I was touched by those who wanted to speak to me about Gately's death. They seemed to want to reassure me through speaking about Gately that they hoped I could both find a partner and that whoever he is, he would be welcome into the family fold.

For me, that was progress

Pop Culture Nag

Have you ever felt nagged?

I mean we all get nagged by our friends, family and partners. Most of it is well meaning, and most of the time we all deal with it in good natured ways.

But last week I had the weird sensation of being nagged by a big, glossy Hollywood film. I went to see Julie and Julia at the cinema this week and had the slightly uncomfortable experience of being given a lecture on not doing enough with my life and simultaneously having my complete wish fulfilment fantasy played on screen.

It wasn't the Julia Child part of the movie that spoke to me. It was the far more conventional and ever so slightly boring section with Amy Adams as Julie, the low-achieving wannabe writer stuck in a largely unfulfilling office job who finally knuckles down and writes a bestseller. With a really hot husband.

Its silly I know, but I felt like this section of the movie was like a little a voice whispering softly into my ear "You see, you could do this too! You can write! You just need a GIMMICK!!!!".

I know in the rational part of my brain that Julie Powell's story had been fully Hollywood-ised. I mean, I could never be as adorable as Amy Adams - my emotional meltdowns aren't met with fun music montages and charming blog posts. They are met with drinking too much at weekends and weeping on friend's shoulders.

And yet... in the immortal words of Gypsy, if I could get a gimmick, I could be a star...

Knuckling down seems to be the theme which connects the stories of Powell and Child. Both of them were talented women (one more so than the other it must be said) who found themselves at a loose end and determined to try and make something of their lives. Though the film reaches for greater connection between the two, I actually think that is enough to justify the story structure. I liked that Nora Ephron had crafted a peon to hard work and sticktoitiveness that emphasised the work part of it.

The Julia Child section is everything you could want from the film. It is lively, funny, romantic and sexy. Only Meryl Streep could get away with a performance as theatrical as this one is and make it work on an emotional level. She and Stanley Tucci do a marvellous little duet together as a loving husand and wife. This is the second film I have seen recently that celebrates its central couple as a loving, nurturing partnership (after Away We Go) and i is wonderful to see. In most romantic comedies, you its difficult to believe why such dysfunctional people would ever agree to spend their lives together (Couples Retreat looks like a terrible version of this).

Amy Adams does her best with the Julie Powell section but it just doesn't come close to the joi de vivre of the Child sections.

This is definitely Ephron's best film since Sleepless in Seattle. It's sweet,m funny and romantic and only intermittently annoying. And it gave me a cheap wish fulfillment fantasy of a low-level bureaucrat making good.

What more could you ask for on a Wednesday night?