Okay, I'm just going to crack this one open right now I suppose. I thought Looking for Langston was really well done, and I want to apologize to anyone if during the movie I snickered or laughed or anything, I promise it was just one of those "awkward-crowded-movie-room-nude-scene-moment-chuckles."
Anyways, the cinematography in the movie was probably my favorite part, the angles and items featured in the shots really helped define some of what the movie was trying to portray, and it was really well done near the climax of the movie when all of the other men were about to crash the party. I wish I was able to analyze artsy movies like this one further, but I thought it was great albeit a little hard to grasp at times.
It was a beautifully done movie, I thought, and made me want to delve further into the Harlem Renaissance. I've always found it odd that schools (or at least mine) do not go more in depth into this period of literature and history, let alone looking at sexuality defined. I also think that those awkward moments of nudity are only awkward because we aren't exactly taught how to deal with such images, nor how to analyze them.
The cinematography was wonderful, but it was the actual readings that were my favorite part. They had a wonderful way of emphasizing the rhythm and tones, which coupled with the jazz, made many of the scenes a sultry 'little black dress with a martini' material. By that, I mean, many of the scenes took sexuality away from a dirty, immoral, and awkward stance and gave a new identity to it. It created an elegance and sensuality that is not often seen in cinema, let alone cinema dealing with gay and lesbian imagery.
I also enjoyed its portrayal of secrecy, danger, and inner turmoil. For some reason, it always seems like the blues and jazz indicate some deep, internal dialogue characters have without letting you know a single thing they are thinking. True, there are cues that let you in on their secrets, and this film definitely wanted to compliment or bring to light those secrets, but... Well, there is always that but.
I suppose what really caught my attention in this film was the sounds that accompanied it, from the words spoken to the songs sung. Either way, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I loved the cinematography and the narration. The way the authors read their poems gave me goosebumps. And I do agree, it was very sensual and elegant which is hard to come across, especially nowadays since everything is so raunchy and over-sexualized. It was a little confusing and hard to follow at times, but overall I thought it was very well put together and it really caught my full attention!
Like everyone before me has noted, the cinematography was very well done. The play on photographs in the film with the actual shots, were wonderfully appealing to view, particularly if you enjoy photography and film. However, my favorite was the choice of music that they choose to play. I love the take on Jazz and Blues and how it was incorporated with Langston's own work. It made me think of how easy it would have been for Langston Hughes to transition into a music writer, since most musicians also tend to be very good at poetry. The play on the sounds, such as the birds chirping and the waves lapping, took to me to place of serenity. I feel as though, despite all that Langston Hughes endured when he was writing, that is how he felt, which made the film more personable.
I think my favorite part of the film however, was the actual reading of his works. I believe it was Bruce Nugent's or Essex Hemphill's (can't remember which one) reading that actually had me on the edge of my seat. At the end of the day though, it was an interesting film that I would not mind sharing with others.
I felt the film was extraordinary in how it commented on what was outwardly remembered about Langston Hughes, and what was purposefully hidden, during his life and after his death. And not only Hughes, but other poets as well. The film showed and represented in a very graphic and raw way how the homosexual culture was more forced into the dark than residing there by choice, as one could see by the openness at the speak-easy. I also love how this was shown through the poetry that progressed to be more and more blatant and less implicative about homosexuality as the movie went on.
Looking for Langston was a movie that certainly stuck with me even after I left the class. My thoughts ran rampant on it for quite some time. Throughout the movie, the narration stirred my thoughts as I contemplated all the possible meanings behind the words. Especially in some of the songs.The actual movie was mentally arousing in the sense that it made you reconsider what you thought to be true about the Harlem Renaissance. What I particularly appreciated about it was that it wasn't done in some over the top, "trying to prove a point by making this as gay as possible" way. It was true to form. That is what homosexuality looks like. It's not a big flaming party of rainbows and unicorns and it's nothing out of the norm from any heterosexual relationship. It's just people of the same gender sharing love and lust. And the movie portrayed that wonderfully.
The film gave me a weird push and feeling, the same feeling you get when you've forgotten something but just can't remember what. though I'm not quite sure as to why I got that vibe. The cinematography and images were brilliant. The songs and narration were on point and gave the whole film life. The Film really says a lot without really saying much, A lot of the images and meanings coming from this time period make way for the curent images we see in society displaying homosexuality. From beginning, the film was so soft, beautiful and gentle with jazz and blues playing, getting to the end we got more of a rock-ish/reckless music vibe which just gives the thought of "change" whether that be physically or emotionally...
Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Everyone has been making more of the big picture type comments, so I thought I'd talk about some specific pieces that resonated with me, starting with an early quote in the movie - "Homosexuality was a sin against the race so it had to be kept a secret, even if it was a widely shared one." My first thought was back to an episode of the Office (I think it was when they were doing the fun run for rabies), and Jim hires a stripper dressed as a nurse to accept the charity donation. At some point, the stripper says to Michael, "Secrets, secrets, are no fun. Secrets, secrets, hurt someone." I'd like to pose the question, are people still hurt by the "homosexuality" secret if everyone on some level is still aware of it? I'm sure everyone would be quick to say yes and I'd agree, but where do you think the harm lies? I'd like to try to tie this into a scene in the movie if you'll continue to indulge me. It was the dramatization of the dream in Smoke, Lilies, and Jade when the narrator is walking through the field. If you remember, he starts out in this marshy swamp/field and just starts walking. Eventually, he starts seeing flags and follows them to none other than a naked Beauty just hanging out. They exchange looks until Beauty says "I'll wait" and disappears. The narrator looks around confused before walking off and following the flags back the way he came. To me, the field is a representation of the narrator's (and maybe society at large) idea of homosexual relationship. As he navigates the field (finding himself), he comes across flags. Staked flags in the ground give one the idea of conquered/explored territory (someone had to have been there to lay the flag); in this case I feel like to understand what territory he's explored one has to look forward to where he ended up - standing across from a nude Beauty. It may be kind of a stretch, but I think rather than be lead to a healthy relationship, he skips straight to one built on sex. As evidence, I say that's why Beauty told him "I'll wait"; I think he was waiting for the narrator to come looking for something more than just sex. Interestingly enough, later in the movie (I think it might have been just before the mob broke in), one of the characters ran through the club carrying one of those same flags and ran up the stairs into one of the rooms; I want to say the next scene was one of the ones where the two guys were laying in bed and there's a voice over of some selected readings. I could be wrong, but I feel like they got more personal as the movie progressed, and it left me with a sense of an evolving idea of homosexuality. Whereas the early representations of homosexuality in the movie where more of the physical nature (dancing, the intimate moment two guys had during the silent movie porno, etc.), I think by the end it was more about making a connection to someone on more than a physical level. I go through all this because I think this is where the harm lies. Yes, everyone thinks they're in on the "secret", but it's kind of like knowing the where without the when. Sure, everyone knows and whispers about the physical part of being homosexual, but there's more to a relationship than that. However, because its the only part of the "secret" that gets shared, I feel like the physical aspect is all young, homosexual men grow up expecting to find (as evidenced by the proliferation of seedy truck stop or gym locker room stories, not even mentioning that awkward section of craigslist). Hopefully at some point society will let the secret die and realize like Kelsea said, "it's just people of the same gender sharing love and lust".
I hate to be the party pooper, but I don't see the huge appeal of this movie. Sure, it was shot well and was extremely captivating, but I feel that it caught most of our attention solely because of its pornographic and overdramatic nature. Now, maybe this is more of an internal problem for me, but I can't help but feel a bit off when a movie shows something so perturbing and then is endlessly praised because of that. It's definitely not a film that would be respected if screened for straight audiences, and in a way I am glad it has not been because it seems to reinforce the over-sexualized gay stereotypes that many gays don't want to be known for. I know Olivia has similar feelings about conservatism though and she thoroughly enjoyed the film. I thought of the way that this movie would imprint on me if it were heterosexual themed and I am pretty sure I would be just as revolted, if not more so. Although as many others have stated, this does bring up an entirely new dimension to the Harlem Renaissance that most of us had previously been unaware of. So I am glad that we watched it. I definitely take things at face value more than I should and may have misjudged the film, though I just cannot help but to dislike the nature of this movie for playing so heavily on the fact that sex sells. Because sex certainly does and it certainly did, judging by the above responses. I can only imagine the public response to this film, had it actually been released in the time period that it is set, rather than 1989.
For your reference (from isaacjulien.com), Looking for Langston has been awarded the following honors: - Winner, Gay Teddy Bear Award, International Film Festival (Berlin 1989) - Special Mention, Don Quixote Award, International Film Festival (Barcelona 1989) - Winner, Axel Award, Gay and Lesbian Film Festival (Copenhagen 1989) - Winner, Jury Prize, 9th Festival Cinema and Homosexualities (Brussels, Belgium 1989) - Co-Winner, Best Short Film, 2ème Festival Images Caraibes (Martinique 1990) - Winner, Best Film, Docu-Drama category Prized Pieces Competition, National Black Programming Consortium (Columbus, Ohio, 1990)
To be honest, this movie was very...interesting, to say the least. Although I was not entirely sure what the premise was, I did understand bits and pieces. On the flip side, this movie was masterfully edited and directed. I mean, the camera angles, close-ups, dream sequences, it all added a sort of fantasy-like feel to it--like we were all dreaming with Langston. Overall, it did make me wonder how much I didn't know about the Harlem Renaissance and to what degree I was interested in learning more about it on my own. So, all in all, a rather stimulating film.
Although the movie had a lot of nudity and sex scenes that may have made individuals uneasy, I really appreciated that the sole focus behind these scenes was not to glorify fornication but rather to portray the attraction and admiration of the male body. In the scene where a man is standing directly in front of another man in a mirror-like fashion, the narrator describes the structure of the male body beautifully. In my opinion it is easy to convey the idea of lust but the way this movie was filmed really drew the line between simple admiration and beauty of the male body and an expected version of a trashy glorification of gay sex.
Again, I thought the film's cinematography was brilliant when pair with the narration of the poems. The sudden scene changes were a bit confusing for me though. I feel disappointed that I didn't get much of a response out of this film as everybody else did. I felt that it did a great job portraying the nude scenes as more sensual and about beauty, rather than it being like a clip from some pornographic movie. Other than that, I felt rather lost in the movie. Poetry is not my strong point and has always been difficult for me to comprehend, so maybe if I better understood the poems I could have better appreciated the film more. Overall though, I thought the film was very well done and interesting to watch.
Honestly, this film was so dominated by male homoeroticism that it robbed me of any semblance of maturity. I was shocked and embarrassed, not in the proper state of mind to appreciate its art. There were moments, of course, when poignancy shone past the male genitalia, and I do understand the importance and relevance of the film, but my discussion topics are limited to distracted accounts of male homosexuality that I don't fully understand. I would like to see the film again and try to better grasp its themes.
I guess I feel pretty similar to several other people who've posted - I found the cinematography appealing, but, to be honest, was pretty lost as to any sense of meaning. It may just be that I don't have much context or knowledge about the Harlem Renaissance or about Langston Hughes in particular, but as the film continued I realized with increasing concern that I really had no idea what was going on.
I didn't really feel that the film was overly sexualized, however. It was sensual and certainly representative of a particular male aesthetic, but at no point did I feel it was pornographic or inappropriate. I think that most audiences, perhaps even within the homosexual community, find the nudity uncomfortable only because such blatant displays of male-on-male sexuality are still considered taboo or deviant.
This film had a very deliberate message to the audience (still working out exactly what that is, to be honest),aside from the fact that it was paying tribute. As far as the sexual element, I was definitely thrown off when the film began to get more graphic in nature, simply because I wasn't expecting it. Once I had settled into the idea, I was comfortable. In terms of it perpetuating gay stereotypes, I have no qualms with that. I mean, yes, the film was FULL of ideas and actions that are extremely stereotypical and offensive, but as far as I've seen in the gay community, many of them are true. That is not to say that ALL gay men act that way, but I know that there is certainly a community that exists whose members use their sexuality in such ways. Am I offended? A little. Would I be MUCH more uncomfortable if I was in a room of straight people? Hell yes. But, I wasn't, so I was able to take it at face-value: it showed a darker side of sexuality that would most likely bring many people to shame and that others would use as ammunition to pass judgement. The movie was a good thing, though. That subculture DID exist (and still does), so why should the film makers tiptoe around the facts of what they're trying to portray? If you're gonna get wet, you might as well go swimming, right? I say, to hell with working around people's squeamishness, the only way to express the full truth is to leave nothing out.
The movie "Looking for Langston" was a refreshing experience in that I got to see the state of mind of a gay person at a very intimate level. The song that the narrator sang during the movie kind of got stuck in my head as it beautifully summed up the whole point of the movie. Like a line of lyric, "Whatever happened to a dream deferred?" can not be more of a perfect example of how Langston yearns to accept what he is and live as he wants. Like in a dream, Langston stands eye to eye with a naked man and the naked man says, "I'll wait". I was thinking that man could have easily been a kind of male partner Langston desires; a masculine and beautiful man. Also, I think when the man says" I'll wait" signifies that Langston can not be in love with him unless he accepts who he is and forget what other people think of him...
Okay, I'm just going to crack this one open right now I suppose. I thought Looking for Langston was really well done, and I want to apologize to anyone if during the movie I snickered or laughed or anything, I promise it was just one of those "awkward-crowded-movie-room-nude-scene-moment-chuckles."
ReplyDeleteAnyways, the cinematography in the movie was probably my favorite part, the angles and items featured in the shots really helped define some of what the movie was trying to portray, and it was really well done near the climax of the movie when all of the other men were about to crash the party. I wish I was able to analyze artsy movies like this one further, but I thought it was great albeit a little hard to grasp at times.
It was a beautifully done movie, I thought, and made me want to delve further into the Harlem Renaissance. I've always found it odd that schools (or at least mine) do not go more in depth into this period of literature and history, let alone looking at sexuality defined. I also think that those awkward moments of nudity are only awkward because we aren't exactly taught how to deal with such images, nor how to analyze them.
ReplyDeleteThe cinematography was wonderful, but it was the actual readings that were my favorite part. They had a wonderful way of emphasizing the rhythm and tones, which coupled with the jazz, made many of the scenes a sultry 'little black dress with a martini' material. By that, I mean, many of the scenes took sexuality away from a dirty, immoral, and awkward stance and gave a new identity to it. It created an elegance and sensuality that is not often seen in cinema, let alone cinema dealing with gay and lesbian imagery.
I also enjoyed its portrayal of secrecy, danger, and inner turmoil. For some reason, it always seems like the blues and jazz indicate some deep, internal dialogue characters have without letting you know a single thing they are thinking. True, there are cues that let you in on their secrets, and this film definitely wanted to compliment or bring to light those secrets, but... Well, there is always that but.
I suppose what really caught my attention in this film was the sounds that accompanied it, from the words spoken to the songs sung. Either way, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I loved the cinematography and the narration. The way the authors read their poems gave me goosebumps. And I do agree, it was very sensual and elegant which is hard to come across, especially nowadays since everything is so raunchy and over-sexualized. It was a little confusing and hard to follow at times, but overall I thought it was very well put together and it really caught my full attention!
ReplyDeleteLike everyone before me has noted, the cinematography was very well done. The play on photographs in the film with the actual shots, were wonderfully appealing to view, particularly if you enjoy photography and film. However, my favorite was the choice of music that they choose to play. I love the take on Jazz and Blues and how it was incorporated with Langston's own work. It made me think of how easy it would have been for Langston Hughes to transition into a music writer, since most musicians also tend to be very good at poetry. The play on the sounds, such as the birds chirping and the waves lapping, took to me to place of serenity. I feel as though, despite all that Langston Hughes endured when he was writing, that is how he felt, which made the film more personable.
ReplyDeleteI think my favorite part of the film however, was the actual reading of his works. I believe it was Bruce Nugent's or Essex Hemphill's (can't remember which one) reading that actually had me on the edge of my seat. At the end of the day though, it was an interesting film that I would not mind sharing with others.
I felt the film was extraordinary in how it commented on what was outwardly remembered about Langston Hughes, and what was purposefully hidden, during his life and after his death. And not only Hughes, but other poets as well. The film showed and represented in a very graphic and raw way how the homosexual culture was more forced into the dark than residing there by choice, as one could see by the openness at the speak-easy. I also love how this was shown through the poetry that progressed to be more and more blatant and less implicative about homosexuality as the movie went on.
ReplyDeleteLooking for Langston was a movie that certainly stuck with me even after I left the class. My thoughts ran rampant on it for quite some time. Throughout the movie, the narration stirred my thoughts as I contemplated all the possible meanings behind the words. Especially in some of the songs.The actual movie was mentally arousing in the sense that it made you reconsider what you thought to be true about the Harlem Renaissance. What I particularly appreciated about it was that it wasn't done in some over the top, "trying to prove a point by making this as gay as possible" way. It was true to form. That is what homosexuality looks like. It's not a big flaming party of rainbows and unicorns and it's nothing out of the norm from any heterosexual relationship. It's just people of the same gender sharing love and lust. And the movie portrayed that wonderfully.
ReplyDeleteThe film gave me a weird push and feeling, the same feeling you get when you've forgotten something but just can't remember what. though I'm not quite sure as to why I got that vibe. The cinematography and images were brilliant. The songs and narration were on point and gave the whole film life. The Film really says a lot without really saying much, A lot of the images and meanings coming from this time period make way for the curent images we see in society displaying homosexuality. From beginning, the film was so soft, beautiful and gentle with jazz and blues playing, getting to the end we got more of a rock-ish/reckless music vibe which just gives the thought of "change" whether that be physically or emotionally...
ReplyDeleteDon't Ask, Don't Tell:
ReplyDeleteEveryone has been making more of the big picture type comments, so I thought I'd talk about some specific pieces that resonated with me, starting with an early quote in the movie - "Homosexuality was a sin against the race so it had to be kept a secret, even if it was a widely shared one."
My first thought was back to an episode of the Office (I think it was when they were doing the fun run for rabies), and Jim hires a stripper dressed as a nurse to accept the charity donation. At some point, the stripper says to Michael, "Secrets, secrets, are no fun. Secrets, secrets, hurt someone." I'd like to pose the question, are people still hurt by the "homosexuality" secret if everyone on some level is still aware of it? I'm sure everyone would be quick to say yes and I'd agree, but where do you think the harm lies?
I'd like to try to tie this into a scene in the movie if you'll continue to indulge me. It was the dramatization of the dream in Smoke, Lilies, and Jade when the narrator is walking through the field. If you remember, he starts out in this marshy swamp/field and just starts walking. Eventually, he starts seeing flags and follows them to none other than a naked Beauty just hanging out. They exchange looks until Beauty says "I'll wait" and disappears. The narrator looks around confused before walking off and following the flags back the way he came. To me, the field is a representation of the narrator's (and maybe society at large) idea of homosexual relationship. As he navigates the field (finding himself), he comes across flags. Staked flags in the ground give one the idea of conquered/explored territory (someone had to have been there to lay the flag); in this case I feel like to understand what territory he's explored one has to look forward to where he ended up - standing across from a nude Beauty. It may be kind of a stretch, but I think rather than be lead to a healthy relationship, he skips straight to one built on sex. As evidence, I say that's why Beauty told him "I'll wait"; I think he was waiting for the narrator to come looking for something more than just sex. Interestingly enough, later in the movie (I think it might have been just before the mob broke in), one of the characters ran through the club carrying one of those same flags and ran up the stairs into one of the rooms; I want to say the next scene was one of the ones where the two guys were laying in bed and there's a voice over of some selected readings. I could be wrong, but I feel like they got more personal as the movie progressed, and it left me with a sense of an evolving idea of homosexuality. Whereas the early representations of homosexuality in the movie where more of the physical nature (dancing, the intimate moment two guys had during the silent movie porno, etc.), I think by the end it was more about making a connection to someone on more than a physical level.
I go through all this because I think this is where the harm lies. Yes, everyone thinks they're in on the "secret", but it's kind of like knowing the where without the when. Sure, everyone knows and whispers about the physical part of being homosexual, but there's more to a relationship than that. However, because its the only part of the "secret" that gets shared, I feel like the physical aspect is all young, homosexual men grow up expecting to find (as evidenced by the proliferation of seedy truck stop or gym locker room stories, not even mentioning that awkward section of craigslist). Hopefully at some point society will let the secret die and realize like Kelsea said, "it's just people of the same gender sharing love and lust".
I hate to be the party pooper, but I don't see the huge appeal of this movie. Sure, it was shot well and was extremely captivating, but I feel that it caught most of our attention solely because of its pornographic and overdramatic nature. Now, maybe this is more of an internal problem for me, but I can't help but feel a bit off when a movie shows something so perturbing and then is endlessly praised because of that. It's definitely not a film that would be respected if screened for straight audiences, and in a way I am glad it has not been because it seems to reinforce the over-sexualized gay stereotypes that many gays don't want to be known for. I know Olivia has similar feelings about conservatism though and she thoroughly enjoyed the film.
ReplyDeleteI thought of the way that this movie would imprint on me if it were heterosexual themed and I am pretty sure I would be just as revolted, if not more so. Although as many others have stated, this does bring up an entirely new dimension to the Harlem Renaissance that most of us had previously been unaware of. So I am glad that we watched it. I definitely take things at face value more than I should and may have misjudged the film, though I just cannot help but to dislike the nature of this movie for playing so heavily on the fact that sex sells. Because sex certainly does and it certainly did, judging by the above responses. I can only imagine the public response to this film, had it actually been released in the time period that it is set, rather than 1989.
For your reference (from isaacjulien.com), Looking for Langston has been awarded the following honors:
ReplyDelete- Winner, Gay Teddy Bear Award, International Film Festival (Berlin 1989)
- Special Mention, Don Quixote Award, International Film Festival (Barcelona 1989)
- Winner, Axel Award, Gay and Lesbian Film Festival (Copenhagen 1989)
- Winner, Jury Prize, 9th Festival Cinema and Homosexualities (Brussels, Belgium 1989)
- Co-Winner, Best Short Film, 2ème Festival Images Caraibes (Martinique 1990)
- Winner, Best Film, Docu-Drama category Prized Pieces Competition, National Black Programming Consortium (Columbus, Ohio, 1990)
To be honest, this movie was very...interesting, to say the least. Although I was not entirely sure what the premise was, I did understand bits and pieces. On the flip side, this movie was masterfully edited and directed. I mean, the camera angles, close-ups, dream sequences, it all added a sort of fantasy-like feel to it--like we were all dreaming with Langston. Overall, it did make me wonder how much I didn't know about the Harlem Renaissance and to what degree I was interested in learning more about it on my own. So, all in all, a rather stimulating film.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the movie had a lot of nudity and sex scenes that may have made individuals uneasy, I really appreciated that the sole focus behind these scenes was not to glorify fornication but rather to portray the attraction and admiration of the male body. In the scene where a man is standing directly in front of another man in a mirror-like fashion, the narrator describes the structure of the male body beautifully. In my opinion it is easy to convey the idea of lust but the way this movie was filmed really drew the line between simple admiration and beauty of the male body and an expected version of a trashy glorification of gay sex.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I thought the film's cinematography was brilliant when pair with the narration of the poems. The sudden scene changes were a bit confusing for me though. I feel disappointed that I didn't get much of a response out of this film as everybody else did. I felt that it did a great job portraying the nude scenes as more sensual and about beauty, rather than it being like a clip from some pornographic movie. Other than that, I felt rather lost in the movie. Poetry is not my strong point and has always been difficult for me to comprehend, so maybe if I better understood the poems I could have better appreciated the film more. Overall though, I thought the film was very well done and interesting to watch.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, this film was so dominated by male homoeroticism that it robbed me of any semblance of maturity. I was shocked and embarrassed, not in the proper state of mind to appreciate its art. There were moments, of course, when poignancy shone past the male genitalia, and I do understand the importance and relevance of the film, but my discussion topics are limited to distracted accounts of male homosexuality that I don't fully understand. I would like to see the film again and try to better grasp its themes.
ReplyDeleteI guess I feel pretty similar to several other people who've posted - I found the cinematography appealing, but, to be honest, was pretty lost as to any sense of meaning. It may just be that I don't have much context or knowledge about the Harlem Renaissance or about Langston Hughes in particular, but as the film continued I realized with increasing concern that I really had no idea what was going on.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really feel that the film was overly sexualized, however. It was sensual and certainly representative of a particular male aesthetic, but at no point did I feel it was pornographic or inappropriate. I think that most audiences, perhaps even within the homosexual community, find the nudity uncomfortable only because such blatant displays of male-on-male sexuality are still considered taboo or deviant.
This film had a very deliberate message to the audience (still working out exactly what that is, to be honest),aside from the fact that it was paying tribute. As far as the sexual element, I was definitely thrown off when the film began to get more graphic in nature, simply because I wasn't expecting it. Once I had settled into the idea, I was comfortable. In terms of it perpetuating gay stereotypes, I have no qualms with that. I mean, yes, the film was FULL of ideas and actions that are extremely stereotypical and offensive, but as far as I've seen in the gay community, many of them are true. That is not to say that ALL gay men act that way, but I know that there is certainly a community that exists whose members use their sexuality in such ways. Am I offended? A little. Would I be MUCH more uncomfortable if I was in a room of straight people? Hell yes. But, I wasn't, so I was able to take it at face-value: it showed a darker side of sexuality that would most likely bring many people to shame and that others would use as ammunition to pass judgement. The movie was a good thing, though. That subculture DID exist (and still does), so why should the film makers tiptoe around the facts of what they're trying to portray? If you're gonna get wet, you might as well go swimming, right? I say, to hell with working around people's squeamishness, the only way to express the full truth is to leave nothing out.
ReplyDeleteThe movie "Looking for Langston" was a refreshing experience in that I got to see the state of mind of a gay person at a very intimate level. The song that the narrator sang during the movie kind of got stuck in my head as it beautifully summed up the whole point of the movie. Like a line of lyric, "Whatever happened to a dream deferred?" can not be more of a perfect example of how Langston yearns to accept what he is and live as he wants. Like in a dream, Langston stands eye to eye with a naked man and the naked man says, "I'll wait". I was thinking that man could have easily been a kind of male partner Langston desires; a masculine and beautiful man. Also, I think when the man says" I'll wait" signifies that Langston can not be in love with him unless he accepts who he is and forget what other people think of him...
ReplyDelete