Nov 11th 2008 3:36AM Anyone check their payment history lately? They gave everyone- literally everyone- 3 days for this. 72 hours.
If your account wasn't canceled, you got 3 days.
Aug 21st 2007 2:53AM The first 20 comments kept me from reading the full 400+, as I'm sure there was much of the same. But a few things:
1) I don't think the author is making any claim to *not* being gay. Part of the idea.
2) To deny any homosexual undertones would be to deny your ability to perceive anything. Ryan Evans, played by Lucas Grabeel, exudes an undeniable aura of camp. If you claim you have straight friends like him, then someone is lying to you, either the other person or yourself.
3) I don't believe the author was in any way calling it a gay movie. In fact, he even calls the subject of his analysis the "gay subtext." And I really don't think that, even in the analysis of the subtext, the author intends to assume everyone who watches or enjoys the movie is gay.
4) A critic is supposed to criticize. Bottom line. Else they'd be called nice-ics and there'd be no point.
5) No one in the movie has to say "I'm gay, this is gay, we're all gay" (thank you, Team America) for it to seem to anyone that there are gay undertones and metaphors that could be applied. The same was said about the first few X-Men films, and I'd say that's pretty close to the mark. And it's not just this film or these views that this happens to. Various conservative religious groups touted March of the Penguins as the definitive proof of God's plan for all species. Nevermind that penguins will sometimes nest with others of the same sex (as is happening in the NYC Zoo) and only remain monogamous for a year.
6) There seem to be a surprising amount of teenage girls posting in anger and resentment about a gay-themed review of gay-themed overtones in a movie with gay-esque characters played by actors who may be gay themselves (I'm not saying they are...but just because they're straight on camera and to the public does not make it so) on this gay-oriented website. Why the shock? Return to your HSM themed MySpace page and don't seek these reviews on sites entitled QueerSighted.
All in all, yes, this review has a certain bias to it. But that's entirely the point, isn't it? Certain groups that focus on certain ideas do this with films all the time. Yes, the author notes that aspects of the film are "gay", but only by utilizing various iconography or stereotypes that have been used by the general American public to identify and demonize other aspects of gay culture. And, true to form, the gay community grasped these aspects and waved them like a proverbial [rainbow] flag. And, being territorial of the small bits afford them, a critic utilizing a review that revolves on Queer Theory (yes, it's even academic and one can receive a degree in it) will happily shed light these same aspects that were once used as weapons against a minority in order to identify their use in the mainstream. Is it understandable to find annoyance and, subsequently, derisiveness when these gay qualities are masked with Micky Mouse ears? Certainly. But if you're thinking that the writers themselves aren't aware of the undertones they're presenting, you're diluding yourself. The park has a "gay day", for crying out loud.
In short, we're here, we're queer, and for crying out loud, get used to it all ready. You can't pick and choose what parts of gay you like and don't like. Either accept this one person's opinion, or put down your Will and Grace, stop your Wicked CD, turn off Gray's Anatomy, and go shop at Wal-Mart. These are your first steps to ceasing your gay-influenced, highly hypocrical lifestyle.
Needless to say, I liked the article.