Law and Order: SVU with Special Guest Kathy Griffin as lesbian

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by Write14u

Oh god... let's give the dude his money back (and all 10 minutes it took to flip through this). If you aren't interested...find another thread. It's not rocket science.

O look, it's the cops.

Rocket science, yuk yuk.

[Write14u]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

O look, it's the cops.

Rocket science, yuk yuk.

Nahh, the cops are the subject we're discussing. You know, the one that bores you but makes you want to comment on it anyway. Thanks for your two cents. It added much.

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by Write14u

Nahh, the cops are the subject we're discussing. You know, the one that bores you but makes you want to comment on it anyway. Thanks for your two cents. It added much.

Who said anything about being bored?

My question was entirely legitimate. I wanted to know what made this a compelling topic. Nothing was revealed.

The end.

[Write14u]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

Who said anything about being bored?

My question was entirely legitimate. I wanted to know what made this a compelling topic. Nothing was revealed.

The end.

Well, I'm not sure what would make it compelling for you.
However, as someone who has watched SVU quite a bit, it is. For me, it's compelling to see whether they bring the character out of the closet or even if she gets beyond what comes across as homophobia at the end of that clip. Having watched the show, I'd say that's not how her character has come across in the past, so it was surprising.
That makes it compelling for me, at least.
As for you, well, that's up to you.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

I read this whole thread hoping to find out what might be at all compelling in this as a topic.

Maybe we could just talk some more about Meredith Baxter Birney.

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

Who said anything about being bored?

My question was entirely legitimate. I wanted to know what made this a compelling topic. Nothing was revealed.

The end.

Media representations of Lesbians and Gays are of great interest to Lesbians and Gays. So much so that many of us even fund a lobbying group to combat defamatory portrayals of Lesbians and Gays. (GLAAD- Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). Historically, media representations of Lesbians and Gays have had a huge impact on the opinions of the majority culture. As minorities, our depiction in mainstream media is of great interest and concern to us. Hence the interest in discussing the upcoming airing of a Lesbian theme on a popular mainstream TV show. Lesbians are also interested in celebrities and public figures who come out of the closet, such as Ms. Baxter-Birney.
I highly recommend you look into why Lesbian and Gay people are so keenly interested in media depictions of us. It's quite interesting, actually.
The GLAAD website would be a good place to start.

[PapaC]

oh whatever, whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV... yes, so oppressive... like the rednecks on South Park clammering.. "they took our jobs!"

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls"]YouTube- south park-they took our jobs!!![/ame]

Sometimes some of us really just wanna see two hot chicks make out on tv regardless of whether they're out in RT or not.

but I suppose I'm having a very non-feminist moment for saying that. :P

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by PapaC

oh whatever, whining

Sometimes some of us really just wanna see two hot chicks make out on tv regardless of whether they're out in RT or not.
:P

Well here ya go enjoy
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tHppucxMrM"]YouTube- Lady Kisses: That's Gay[/ame]

[Martina]

Originally Posted by PapaC

oh whatever, whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV... yes, so oppressive... like the rednecks on South Park clammering.. "they took our jobs!"

YouTube- south park-they took our jobs!!!

Sometimes some of us really just wanna see two hot chicks make out on tv regardless of whether they're out in RT or not.

but I suppose I'm having a very non-feminist moment for saying that. :P

No, just a rude one. Is this the red zone?

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

Media representations of Lesbians and Gays are of great interest to Lesbians and Gays. So much so that many of us even fund a lobbying group to combat defamatory portrayals of Lesbians and Gays. (GLAAD- Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). Historically, media representations of Lesbians and Gays have had a huge impact on the opinions of the majority culture. As minorities, our depiction in mainstream media is of great interest and concern to us. Hence the interest in discussing the upcoming airing of a Lesbian theme on a popular mainstream TV show. Lesbians are also interested in celebrities and public figures who come out of the closet, such as Ms. Baxter-Birney.
I highly recommend you look into why Lesbian and Gay people are so keenly interested in media depictions of us. It's quite interesting, actually.
The GLAAD website would be a good place to start.

Well, sure, that would be a great argument if that were actually the conversation being had here, but it's not. Actually, this post - in response to mine - is the first that has directly addressed the issue of media representation and cultural perception. Perhaps I missed a post along the way that also does so, please direct me to it if I'm mistaken.

Conversation about "what team" an actor is playing for, or, as Papa Chris said, "whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV" lacks as informed dialogue on media representation of lgbt "minority" culture. If we're worried about how the mainstream views lgbt individuals, then what is the relevance of the actor's sexuality? It's acting. The concern would be for plot line and script writing.

[Sybelle]

Cool thread. [insert IMHO here]

Tom Hanks was amazing in Philadelphia. I haven't seen Milk, so no rating Sean Penn's performance. What they both have in common though for studio producers is bankable star quality. Studios want to put names that can sell a movie, into their productions. They like to break even and make a few bucks (bucks - translated to mean millions and millions).

An actor's "bankable" name depends on you and I, as consumers. But we are a small drop in the bucket when it comes down to getting people to shell out money at the box office. Demographics come into play. Studios also often screen a movie with several test audiences to see if it has that right combination of actors/storyline. If it doesn't they take it back to the drawing board and tweak it.

All of those creative juices are also watched by groups like GLAAD and other groups. Lots of tweaking goes on, more than likely.

That reminds me, there were a number of various groups that came out against Avatar. It was an equal opportunity offending film, apparently. But in spite of that, it had bankable people involved with the production.

There is more to it than blatantly discriminating. Studios will continue to make movies, that make them money. [/imho]

[Queerasfck]

Various gossip websites online and Griffin herself tweeted that the her scene with Hargitay has been cut from the episode.........

[Sybelle]

[insert IMHO here]

We are fortunate though, that movies today are made without the guidance of the "Motion Picture Production Code" that used to regulate the industry from 1930 to 1968. The code came about in response to the horrific scandals of that time period. It was decided that Hollywood aka "Sin City" needed cleaning up. Lawd sakes, the field day evengelicals would have if they got their hands onto Hollywood today!

Mr. Will H. Hays, a prominent Republican was at the helm of setting the law in that day. And given how diligent he and other Republicans of that era were diligent in their duties, I still am at a loss to understand why there are gay Republicans. But that's another discussion thread.[/end IMHO]

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

Well, sure, that would be a great argument if that were actually the conversation being had here, but it's not. Actually, this post - in response to mine - is the first that has directly addressed the issue of media representation and cultural perception. Perhaps I missed a post along the way that also does so, please direct me to it if I'm mistaken.

Conversation about "what team" an actor is playing for, or, as Papa Chris said, "whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV" lacks as informed dialogue on media representation of lgbt "minority" culture. If we're worried about how the mainstream views lgbt individuals, then what is the relevance of the actor's sexuality? It's acting. The concern would be for plot line and script writing.

That's weird- a conversation on media representation and cultural perception of lesbians is exactly what I've seen taking place in this thread. So yes, you are mistaken. I'm not going to "direct you" because I'm not going to waste my time breaking it down for someone whose apparent agenda is instructing lesbians and women on how they should frame conversations on their issues to more properly engage his interest.
If the subject is not interesting to you then don't read it. Insulting the intelligence of everyone who posted in the thread may not be the best tactic for getting what it is that you seek.

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

That's weird- a conversation on media representation and cultural perception of lesbians is exactly what I've seen taking place in this thread. So yes, you are mistaken. I'm not going to "direct you" because I'm not going to waste my time breaking it down for someone whose apparent agenda is instructing lesbians and women on how they should frame conversations on their issues to more properly engage his interest.
If the subject is not interesting to you then don't read it. Insulting the intelligence of everyone who posted in the thread may not be the best tactic for getting what it is that you seek.

To state my "agenda" as you did was a huge leap of illogic wrought of assumption. "Instructing lesbians and women on how they should frame conversations on their issues?"

You completely dismiss that there are trans/queer/and male members of the site posting in this thread, yet you state that I was only addressing the lesbians and women. Interesting, though false.

A conversation on media representation of lgbt individuals and community could be quite compelling, speculation about whether Mariska Hargitay is gay or not, how many gays will jump for joy should she reveal herself to be, is not. And frankly, I found the whole conversation about lesbians who are former strippers sort of gross. (Which is more about the way it was presented than the topic itself.)

Yes, I think it's safe to say you entirely misread my "agenda."

If you really want to discuss what the conversation here has been, the fact is lately it's been more focused on the imbalance of power in Hollywood (in terms of revenue & status) than on "media representation." Otherwise, I'm done discussing your offense at my post and would much prefer to discuss that while Ellen's tv sitcom tanked after she came out, she now has a very widely viewed talk show and was selected to host the immensely popular American Idol.

Tiny in-road for gays and lesbians or mainstream culture tossing us a bone?

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

Well, sure, that would be a great argument if that were actually the conversation being had here, but it's not. Actually, this post - in response to mine - is the first that has directly addressed the issue of media representation and cultural perception. Perhaps I missed a post along the way that also does so, please direct me to it if I'm mistaken.

Conversation about "what team" an actor is playing for, or, as Papa Chris said, "whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV" lacks as informed dialogue on media representation of lgbt "minority" culture. If we're worried about how the mainstream views lgbt individuals, then what is the relevance of the actor's sexuality? It's acting. The concern would be for plot line and script writing.

I'll engage you because I have a few minutes to waste.

So, let's take 'Milk' as an example. How much money did that movie make? A ton, right? And how much money did, let's say, Sean Penn make from that movie? A ton, right (comparatively speaking)? And how much of that money was made OFF of the queer community/queer history/etc? All of it, right? That was a movie about queer rights, based on queer history, etc. And how much of that money went back into to the queer community? To my knowledge NONE of it went back into the queer community.

So here's where (part of) the privilege comes into effect. Straight people USE the queer community to make a shit ton of money while giving NONE of it back to the queer community. That's exploitation, for one. But it's also the way dominant culture works to oppress the oppressed group and keep them down. TAKE from the oppressed group, without utilizing the oppressed group's skills/without giving back to the oppressed group/etc.

Now, by using straight actors to 'play gay', what does that say to mainstream (homophobic) America? If I go to my neighbor (who's straight), and I say 'act gay'. What's the first thing my straight neighbor is probably going to do? He's probably going to lisp, show me the limp wrist, flutter around, etc. He's going to 'act' based on stereotypes...which perpetuates stereotypes.

And now a question for you. If you see nothing wrong with straights playing gay (while gays are kept out of the career field), can you please break down the difference between white actors doing blackface or men playing drag roles, because women weren't allowed to be actors? Can you tell me the difference?


Thanks,
Dylan...keeping it brief, because there's a helluva lot more to break down in straights 'playing gay'.

[NJFemmie]

I loved this

I don't think it could have been done any better, by anyone else.

[SassyLeo]

Originally Posted by Dylan

I'll engage you because I have a few minutes to waste.

So, let's take 'Milk' as an example. How much money did that movie make? A ton, right? And how much money did, let's say, Sean Penn make from that movie? A ton, right (comparatively speaking)? And how much of that money was made OFF of the queer community/queer history/etc? All of it, right? That was a movie about queer rights, based on queer history, etc. And how much of that money went back into to the queer community? To my knowledge NONE of it went back into the queer community.

So here's where (part of) the privilege comes into effect. Straight people USE the queer community to make a shit ton of money while giving NONE of it back to the queer community. That's exploitation, for one. But it's also the way dominant culture works to oppress the oppressed group and keep them down. TAKE from the oppressed group, without utilizing the oppressed group's skills/without giving back to the oppressed group/etc.

*snip*

First-
I attended the premier showing of Milk here in Portland. Gus Van Sant lives here and donates a TON of money to our community as well as other non-profits. He hosted the event along with Josh Brolin. All of the proceeds from our premier were donated to Outside In, which, among other programs has several LGBTQ programs including a TRANS health clinic.
Sean Penn donated one of the suits he wore in the movie to charity which was auctioned off to support 2 non-profits, one being the Hetrick-Martin Institute, home of the Harvey Milk High School in New York City. He also is a huge supporter of the No on Prop 8 initiatives. Gus Van Sant also donated to the No on Prop 8 campaign.

Sure, it is not millions…well, actually I don't know for sure. I'm not privvy to private donations made to orgs. I sorta see your point, however...

Second-
A well-known straight actor portrayed a super Queer one. And who knows maybe a Queer actor could have played the part just as well. I’m of course, supporting that. OF COURSE!

In this case, I think because a well know actor (regardless of gay or not) acted the part and WELL, tons of awareness was raised about Queers!

Levi’s (you know, the jeans?) launched a huge campaign with, again the Hetrick-Martin Insitute, to raise funds to provide financial stability for the Harvey Milk School. I think it was like $500,000…? Because of the movie!

I’m not saying, let’s bust out some gold medals for Sean Penn or Gus Van Sant based on the info I just pointed out, but NONE is a big statement to make.

[Selenay]

Originally Posted by Dylan

So, let's take 'Milk' as an example. How much money did that movie make? A ton, right? And how much money did, let's say, Sean Penn make from that movie? A ton, right (comparatively speaking)? And how much of that money was made OFF of the queer community/queer history/etc? All of it, right? That was a movie about queer rights, based on queer history, etc. And how much of that money went back into to the queer community? To my knowledge NONE of it went back into the queer community.

To say that "none" of it went back is a false statement.

Sean Penn openly lobbied for legislation to honor Harvey Milk, long after Oscar season was over. Would he have done this, had he not been involved? Hard to say.

Milk's screenwriter was honored at a charity ball in June, with all of the proceeds going to Lifeworks, an organization that offers mentoring opportunities for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth.

The clothing worn by Penn during Milk, also was auctioned off with some of the proceeds going to the Hetrick-Martin Institute, home of the Harvey Milk High School.


How much of the proceeds from heterosexual films in which roles are played by gay actors go to queer communities? Just a thought.

[NJFemmie]

My own two cents...

Doesn't bother me at all when a straight actor plays a homosexual. Doesn't bother me when a homosexual actor plays a straight role. It's called ACTING. Whoever does it best gets the part. Yay for them.

Did this show air yet?