|
|
|
Archive: June, 2010
Welcome to Book Quarterly Trivia Week! From now till June 23, we'll be inundating you with opportunities to win free copies of books from our Summer BQ. For the first time in BQTW's history, we've got copies of every single book we've reviewed, previewed and shouted out (even in Icepack!). So keep an eye out at 9 a.m., noon and 3 p.m. every day for plenty of chances to win.
 |
| Insight, 244 pp., $50, May 25 |
It took 127 years, but the Phillies finally have an oversize photo book worthy of a coffee table. The Phillies: An Extraordinary Tradition covers pretty much everything in team history from their humble 1883 beginnings (won-lost record: 17-81) to the last two World Series seasons (Roy Halladay's perfect game and the on-field tasering will presumably have to wait for Volume 2). There's an excellent cross-section of player profiles, including fan favorites Maje McDonnell, Tony Taylor and John Kruk, plus Art Mahan of the 1940 team (he's the oldest-living Phillie) as well as first-person accounts from various team and clubhouse personnel. Cheryl Spielvogel, who's been a peanut vendor since 1976, speaks for all of us when she says, "(W)ithout baseball in your life — what do you do?"To win a copy of The Philadelphia Phillies: An Extraordinary Tradition, answer the following trivia question:
Christopher Guest, who wrote this book's foreword, plays Nigel Tufnel in the band Spinal Tap. What instrument does he play?
E-mail our resident baseball guru, Brian Howard, at brian.howard@citypaper.net for a chance to win, and be sure to put "Philadelphia Phillies" in the subject line. Keep an eye on Critical Mass this afternoon for a chance to win The Hundred Foot Journey. [UPDATE, 12:45 p.m.]: Congrats to Sid, who was the first (12:04!) to correctly identifiy Christopher Guest as Spinal Tap's guitarist.
Filed Under: Weekend Omnibus
 |
| From World's Largest |
Welcome to Book Quarterly Trivia Week! From now till June 23, we'll be inundating you with opportunities to win free copies of books from our Summer BQ. For the first time in BQTW's history, we've got copies of every single book we've reviewed, previewed and shouted out (even in Icepack!). So keep an eye out at 9 a.m., noon and 3 every day for plenty of chances to win.
 |
| Gallery, 242 pp., $25, June 1 |
Most Senior Correspondent Samantha Bee is the most recognizable squawking head of Jon Stewart's cabal of satirical Daily Show pundits. Knowing that comes in handy while reading I Know I Am, But What Are You?, Bee's literary debut. Handy because her candid collection of autobiographical essays from her admittedly bizarre upbringing and early adulthood is enhanced if you imagine them delivered with Bee's sprightly deadpan voice and rubber-faced comedic inflections. There's the story of her youthful infatuation with Jesus ("Man-wich"). Of being mistaken for her mother's partner ("May December Never Come"). Of a hot-but-dense roommate who believed gerbil is pronounced "gurr-bull." Of course, Bee disagrees. "Who in the world would want to hear this with my voice?" jokes the 40-year-old on the phone from her New York office. "I just recorded the audio book of this, which is just the weirdest thing. I would rather I had Patrick Stewart read my book. But he's expensive."To win a copy of I Know I Am, But What Are You?, answer the following trivia question:
What's the name of the Toronto sketch comedy troupe Bee co-founded and performed in before joining The Daily Show?
E-mail me at carolyn.huckabay@citypaper.net for a chance to win, and be sure to put "Samantha Bee" in the subject line. Keep an eye on Critical Mass today: We've got Brian Howard's Q&A with Samantha Bee this afternoon, plus giveaways of The Philadelphia Phillies: An Extraordinary Tradition and The Hundred Foot Journey. [UPDATE, 9:50 a.m.]: Congrats to Liza, who correctly identified Bee's comedy troupe as the Atomic Fireballs.
Filed Under: Printed Matter
- For those in need of a great summer read, there's a hefty portion of book reviews in Book Quarterly. From investigatory novels about space travel to mystery novels about stolen calamari, just about everything gets a hit.
- John Vettese discusses Dumhi and his new LP, The Jungle. But be prepared, in this jungle, the man with the beats, not the verse, is alpha male.
- There's no one way to define Nu Directions Chamber Brass, but Shaun Brady fleshes them out for you anyway.
- Rodney Anonymous goes to Nigeria, only to compare Tony Allen's solo album, Lagos No Shaking, with crack and Viagra good enough for the dead — needless to say, he likes it a lot.
- John Vettese certainly won't forget Kaitlin Mosley's new photography exhibition, which uses hazy photography to mimic the ephemerality of memory.
- There must be a glitch in the Matrix, because Toy Story 3 gives Sam Adams déjà vu.
- In this week's Flick Pick, Jean-Pierre Jeunet's new film, Micmacs, gets a solid B. "Its possible to be delighted by the movie and worn down by it at the same time," Sam Adams says.
- David Anthony Fox considers the "vibrantly engaged" cast of Fiddler on the Roof a miracle of miracles. Apparently, the matchmaker has made Walnut Street Theatre's match.
- Album reviews on Nina Nastasia, Crystal Castles and Dot Allison.
- Movie shorts on Air Doll, Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work and Winter's Bone.
- In honor of Book Quarterly, Biblioscope quick hits on Jennifer Egan's fourth novel, another Quirk reboot, Johnathan Alter's Obamanalysis and a book about what Kate Bingaman-Burt bought today.
- Patrick Rapa just can't get enough of the Pernice Brothers' track, "Bechamel," in One Track Mind.
- Arts picks on Samantha Bee's hilarious new memoir (and an upcoming reading of it) and the Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival's opening show, The Playboy of the Western World.
- A Music picks section with some girth. Oh, and Danzig too.
 |
| Doug Benson |
Funny interview, good questions from interviewer-im liking this Rose dude.
Haha Steve this was the perfect topic for you!
Welcome to Book Quarterly Trivia Week! From now till June 23, we'll be inundating you with opportunities to win free copies of books from our Summer BQ. For the first time in BQTW's history, we've got copies of every single book we've reviewed, previewed and shouted out (even in Icepack!). So keep an eye out at 9 a.m., noon and 3 every day for plenty of chances to win.
 |
| Quirk, 541 pp., $12.95, June 8 |
AK co-author Ben H. Winters most recently contributed what monsterpiece to Quirk Classics?
E-mail me at carolyn.huckabay@citypaper.net for a chance to win, and be sure to put "Android Karenina" in the subject line. Check back tomorrow: We'll be giving away copies of Samantha Bee's new memoir, a Phillies tribute book and a foodie novel called The Hundred Foot Journey. [UPDATE, 4:22 p.m.]: Congratulations, CritMass reader Mia D, for answering correctly: Winters most recently co-penned Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters.Welcome to Book Quarterly Trivia Week! From now till June 23, we'll be inundating you with opportunities to win free copies of books from our Summer BQ. For the first time in BQTW's history, we've got copies of every single book we've reviewed, previewed and shouted out (even in Icepack!). So keep an eye out at 9 a.m., noon and 3 p.m. every day for plenty of chances to win.
 |
| Knopf, 288 pp., $25.95, June 8 |
With Egan's considerable gifts for constructing interesting, quirky characters and her skill at capturing the feel of a given time and place, this could have been a tremendously satisfying read. Instead, the author gives in to the temptation to employ the gimmick of creating fragile links between the characters and moving them about in time and space — allowing a teenager to attend a concert in San Francisco and then, a few chapters later, to be on safari in Africa with his children and new, younger wife.To win a copy and see for yourself, answer the following trivia question:
In Goon Squad, what fictional record company did washed-up protagonist Bennie Salazar once found?
E-mail me at carolyn.huckabay@citypaper.net for a chance to win, and be sure to put "Goon Squad" in the subject line. Check back at 3 p.m. for a chance to win a copy of the monster mashup Android Karenina. [UPDATE, 3:26 p.m.]: Congratulations to CritMass reader Rob, who correctly answered that Salazar's record company is called Sow's Ear Records. |
| [source] |
| Anne d'Harnoncourt |
Welcome to Book Quarterly Trivia Week! From now till June 23, we'll be inundating you with opportunities to win free copies of books from our Summer BQ. For the first time in BQTW's history, we've got copies of every single book we've reviewed, previewed and shouted out (even in Icepack!). So keep an eye out at 9 a.m., noon and 3 every day for plenty of chances to win.
 |
| Knopf, 192 pp., $24.95, June 15 |
Imperial Bedrooms returns to Less Than Zero's Los Angeles, where protagonist Clay is now a reasonably successful Hollywood screenwriter. He's working on a movie, seeing old friends and he's got a new girl, but he keeps getting texts from a blocked number that tell him he's being watched. Like in Lunar Park, the basic question is: What exactly happens to the characters you create, decades after you create them? There's another question, too, though: What has happened to Ellis' writing in the 25 years since Less Than Zero? To some extent the style here consciously mirrors that of Zero, but now everything seems a little darker, like it's not as much fun as it used to be, and there's a new emotional intensity that Clay seemed too cool to reveal before.To win a copy (OK, and we'll throw in a copy of Less Than Zero, too, for good measure), answer the following trivia question:
Which two characters in Less Than Zero are married in Imperial Bedrooms?
E-mail me at carolyn.huckabay@citypaper.net for a chance to win, and be sure to put "Imperial Bedrooms" in the subject line. Ellis not your bag? Check back later today for giveaways of Jennifer Egan's A Visit from the Goon Squad and the monster mashup Android Karenina. [UPDATE, 10:37 a.m.]: Congratulations to CritMass reader Elliott, who was super-quick to answer correctly that Blair and Trent have gotten hitched in Ellis' sequel.QFest is a couple weeks away (July 8-19) yet and stirs are already being caused. Transsexual groups are unhappy with the film Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives, a satire of '70s exploitation about a group of transgendered performers who take revenge on a brutal man who has done them very wrong. The cast includes former South Philadelphian Willam Belli as one of the performers, excellently named Rachel Slurr. Belli was a local mainstay for awhile, appearing in Tony 'n' Tina's Wedding with CP saleswoman (and Waitstaff-er) Sara Carano. Trannies plays QFest July 10-11. Trannies premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in March and people weren't happy about it then either, saying that film trivialized violence against the trans-community. The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation released a statement, saying, "The film, its title and its marketing misrepresent the lives of transgender women and use grotesque, exploitative depictions of violence against transgender women." (h/t Arts Beat) The PlanetTrans blog has similarly voiced their disappointment with the Philly screening. They write (bolds theirs):
The Q Fest, Philadelphia representative answering my questions about the specifics for next stop for the movie "Ticked off Tra**ies with knives" said she had heard there was a outcry from transgender people but "the protesters should just get a sense of humor".The blog calls on readers to contact the Cinema Alliance, who puts on QFest, with their concerns. I asked QFest publicist Matthew Ray who was the "Philadelphia representative" but he didn't know, saying it definitely wasn't him and fest programmer Carol Coombes, who has provided a new voice with in the festival since coming on last year, is essentially too British to have responded to the statement in such a way.. You can read the QFest description of Ticked-off Trannies with Knives by TLA head/QFest Artistic Director Ray Murray after the jump... Related >> QFest comes out!: Will honor Kelly McGillis and add non-homo horror element
Controversial even before its World Premiere screening at the Tribeca Film Festival where GLAAD infamously damned it, TOTWK is actually hilariously harmless exploitative fun â think a transgendered Charles Bronson as Varla in Faster Pussycat Kill! Kill!. Fashioned in the style of the sleazy 1970s pulp films that populated Center City cinemas like the Milgram, Midtown and Goldman, this uproarious slasher/revenge romp features some seriously not-to-be-fucked with trannies, finger-snapping one-liners, vicious straight male villains, and enough beatings, stabbings and kung-fu style ass-kicking to satisfy the other Bronson. It all begins in a small Dallas nightclub where performers and friends, Mexican bombshell Emma Grashun (Erica Andrews), the fast-talking Rachel Slurr (Willam Belli), the naïve Bubbles Cliquot (Krystal Summers), 36DD Tipper Sommore (Jenna Skyy) and the plus-sized Pinky La'Trimm (Kelexis Davenport) hang out. But when a group date with an unsuspecting straight guy leads to one of the beauties being hospitalized, it takes the collective swagger and power of the others to exact trannie justice! And for the PCers out there, if you are still not convinced we should screen the film, just remember â it's a comedy and it's the pissed off trannies who have the knives this time and they could be coming after you! "Ticked-off Trannies" Should Get a GLAAD Award!" Michael Musto, Village Voice -- Raymond Murray
Congrats for showing this and not caving to pressure like LA's outfest, NY's Newfest and SF's framleline. You're not afraid of lame duck GLAAD and know that many trans folks (like me a post-op woman) have senses of humor.
Thank you for writing this article. Exploitation of others pain should never be used for profit. I
This reminds me of the Religious Right's campaigns against Robert Mapplethorpe. The fact that a particular movie rubs some people the wrong way doesn't make it "controversial." Different views should be heard and considered, but that's about it. Nobody, no "community" however its defined and especially no self-appointed activists should be able to censor aesthetic expression in any way, directly or via intimidation. If someone finds a particular production in bad taste or painful, then don't got see it and take an aspirin.
Both director and local cast members of this film will be in attendance at both screenings. I hope that all members of the LGBTQ community come out to view the movie, discussion issues, and hopefully have an insightful and thoughtful conversation.
As for the 'transgender community' not liking this movie, it all started w/ the infamous name of Kelli Busey. She has not seen the movie nor does she want to for her 'own personal reasons' in which have made her seem or should I say validates her delusions and deranged mind. She has declined to see this movie and will only see it under her terms - it didnt happen her way so she retaliates. She misguides everyone w/ her rants about the movie by making up her own storyline and occurrences in the movie. Ashley Love in NY's MAGNET group also jumped on the bandwagon. All I can say is DONT LIVE UNDER ANY CENSORSHIP LIKE GLAAD HAS TRIED IMPLEMENTING W/ THIS MOVIE BY HAVING IT REMOVED FROM FESTIVALS but RATHER HAVE A BACKBONE AND SEE IF FOR YOURSELF. Then and only then can you truly understand something well enough to hate it or like it.
"saying that film trivialized violence against the trans-community" Molly, thank you for writing this statement. It's one of the few pieces I've seen which actually listened to what trans women protesting the film are saying about it. (which, contrary to BC'79's misstatement of fact was not led or started by Kelli Busey or Ashley Love or "MAGNET"). Overwhelmingly, most of the trans women speaking out against the film have NOT called for it to be censored nor removed from any festival. We were calling for the Tribeca Festival to include an objective panel on the realities of anti-trans violence, trans-misogyny, rape against trans women and to give an accounting of how the film was programmed for their festival and whether any community concerns were ever taken into account. The festival never responded to our concerns or requests. GLAAD, a big Gay/Lesbian led mainstream organization is worth responding to... trans women's concerns are dismissed or absurdly compared to the "religious right". Real world violence against transwomen is not fodder for exploitation, entertainment, or to be framed with camp and humor. Compare how the deaths of trans women are portrayed in this film versus in something like the Laramie Project (also a highly fictionalized account of hate crime). It's no big mystery one is called a comedy and transploitation pic while the other is treated like a solemn, nearly quasi-religious event. The loss of some lives are not valued as much as others. If QFest was sincerely trying to represent LGBT communities, they would include an objective panel on real anti-trans violence with the showing of the film (and not yet anther glorified interview with Israel Luna). I think it's telling that not one review nor showing of the film I've seen has stimulated any further discussion or articles about the on-going epidemic of murders of trans women. Thank you again for writing the first objective piece about the protest I've read in some time.
Matthew, exactly what "insightful and thoughtful conversation" do you see happening from this film? The *most I have seen that could be seen as good for trans folks is a discussion around anti-trans violence... except it isn't called "anti-trans violence" nor are the realities of anti-trans violence actually mentioned. Rather it is couched as "gay bashing" completely erasing the reality that trans women are 12 times more likely than any segment of the population to be murdered - yeah murdered, that's not including assaults and rapes - that's murder. The rest of the discussions end up revolving around censorship and "artistic freedom". Totally ignoring that the initial group of trans women were calling for dialogue with Israel Luna and a Boycott of the film - it was GLAAD (a group with a VERY sketchy history about trans issues) who made this about removing the film. So what, honestly, is the point of a "discussion" that doesn't ever address the actual issues raised by the film, but only serves to make the film maker and stars into free speech martyrs?
Miss Laughriotgirl- As a woman who's transitioned (but still occasionally gets called out), I face POTENTIAL violence every day- by driving, by jaywalking, or simply by stepping outside my door. I face no violence by going to see this movie. I don't think any possible bashers will be there taking notes. The fact that you say we're 12 times more likely to get murdered is just that. a fact. This movie is not going to make people murder us. Did Traffic get condemned because it's about drug use and teens most likely to use? I don't get why you think this is such a travesty. Is anyone allowed to ever make a movie that won't have some personal connection to someone or something out there? When will it be OK with you to make a film about transpeople who might face violence? Israel Lunna has been quoted as saying "exposure leads to education." he's right Get a clue. Jan.
At several screenings, including 2 weeks ago in Fort Worth, trans activists (including kelli busey) were asked to join in on the panel, and declined. You can not blame the movie for not having a panel disscussion after/before the movie screening if the activists decline to be there. I do know that at all screenings Luna, the actors, actresses and anyone having a thing to do with the film do a Q and A and no questions are off limits. Very good disscussions have come from them, but the positives are ignored by the activists. "I think it's telling that not one review nor showing of the film I've seen has stimulated any further discussion or articles about the on-going epidemic of murders of trans women." Ive seen the film 3 times and many discussions that have delt with such topics. Which screening did you attend Gina? I find it odd that those topics didnt come up since at every disscussion panel and q and a I attended have dealt with it. The sad thing is, everytime a positive about either the film of what the film has done(causing talks about the issues) is ignored due to it showing a positive light to the film and not falling in line with the hate people who have not seen the film like to cast on it.
Jan, there was a point in my post that you missed. "exposure leads to education" - Trans porn is "exposure" Jerry Springer is "exposure" ... waiting on the "education" part.
Michael... did you actually read what I wrote? I said... (let's try this again) none of the reviews of the film--and I believe I've read all of them--have spurred discussion of the issues of anti-trans violence... I'm not talking about audience Q&A with Luna. I said we asked the Tribeca FF to have an objective panel about anti-trans violence... not about the movie. They ignored our requests. See, they and most of the people presenting this film want to view it as a piece of cheesy entertainment which entertains by providing shock value and violence as a commodity. Unfortunately, it's about issues which are current and real and crucial to the trans community. Would you tell people presenting The Laramie Project to make it more entertaining, campy and funny? It's like Jerry Lewis' making a film about the holocaust and then he couldn't understand why so many people were offended. As Harry Shearer said about Lewis' film: "if you flew down to Tijuana and suddenly saw a painting on black velvet of Auschwitz. You'd just think 'My God, wait a minute! It's not funny, and it's not good, and somebody's trying too hard in the wrong direction to convey this strongly-held feeling." Btw, there are lots of films throughout history which exploited issues, races, sexual orientations and people yet exposure to them spurred absolutely no discussion. Did Cruising help straight people understand the gay or leather communities? The concept that any exposure to a product (AKA 'piece of art') which portrays an exploitive/stereotypical portrayal of a community automatically leads to positive discussion is absurd and naive. The film festival in Fort Worth would not say who was going to be on the panel nor who would moderate it, and then they were surprised when a lot of trans people didn't want to participate. I have zero connection to Kelli Busey (nor is she even my Facebook friend) but considering that, prior to the festival, people on the film's Facebook page (and on in a Dallas Voice Blog thread) where ridiculing her in a highly personal way, comparing her to a male character in the film and making incredibly ugly comments, I'm not surprised she didn't want to participate. Nor is she any kind of official spokesperson... she's just one individual who has been protesting the film.
Michael - I'm not going to speak for Gina, but here is my take. I don't live in an area that has shown the film. I am however, very aware of all the media released about the film including videos of the Q&As and interviews with the cast and crew as well as both positive and negative reviews of the film. Not one single place I've see has any of these "discussions" been shown. Nobody is talking or writing about them. If you can link to any of the positive talks, I've been waiting to see them. Rather, we get treated over and over to Israel talking about the title and the film's representation of the trans characters - as if that is the sum total of the criticisms of the film. If the film is generating soooo much positive discussion about anti-trans violence, why is it not being reported by the film-maker? I'd rather hear about that then Israel say (one more time) "See the film first and then love it or hate it - I'm fine with that".
TriBeCa was working on having a panel discussion open to the public with myself, my lead actress Krystal Summers (who identifies as trans), GLAAD, Dustin Lance Black and a few others, but GLAAD was very slow and "on the fence" with confirming if they would join or not. TriBeCa asked me what I wanted to do since time was of the essence. I told them if the head of GLAAD, Jerrett, or a higher-up from GLADD wasn't going to be on the panel, that I didn't feel it necessary to have it (GLAAD, let's face it, was - at the time - the leading voice against our film). GLAAD, as far as I know, never called back in a reasonable time to set it up, so it didn't happen. israel luna
Speaking for myself, I would see the film if viewing it were offered to me, but I'm not paying for it or supporting LaLuna Productions or the people/festivals who've booked the film (despite trans community concerns). It's going to be shown in San Francisco in late July but to boycott means to not purchase a product. I'm not going to financially support this product before I can even have the option of criticizing what parts of it I have seen. And I agree, if the Q&As were so wonderful, informative and productive, I can't believe no one taped them instead of the repetitive unquestioned drivel I hear Luna repeat on his interviews or in his mindless man on the street interviews. Maybe if we actually heard what those discussions were bringing up I wouldn't have all the negative feelings I have about the film.
So Israel, what you seem to be saying is, you didn't care if trans women had issues with parts of the film we'd seen and its promotional materials, you only cared what GLAAD (who usually gives a damn about trans people and has a history of not criticizing transphobic projects put out by gay directors/producers) or Dustin Lance Black... (who has zero connection to trans people AFAIK) had to say? What is this, some vendetta/blood feud between you and Barrios? Why were our concerns in the middle of that and ignored? I'm also genuinely curious, Israel, why you thought you initially needed GLAAD's help at all with the film? If it's such an empowering statement about trans women fighting back, then why did you "need training" from an organization which has hardly any trans people even working there (and certainly no trans women) much less much of a background backing up trans people in "LGBT community disputes?"
There are Q and A's and questions can be answered. I am not going outside to a protest and dragging no one in to ask a question. If you want to see what is being talked about after the screenings I suggest go see it and find out and stop living in a world that if someone doesnt video/blog/transribe/open letter/beat to death or post something that it must not be real. A whole world is out there that does not get blogged about. If you are so interested in seeing it, kinda clear, go see it and not wait for a second hand account of how it went down. Yes Gina, I read and understand your posts. The same things over and over(TY for the old school crusing comments again). Contact Luna, ask to do an interview for your blog. Have you done that? Instead of asking why hasnt someone done this and that try doing something besides sitting at a keyboard complaining because no one is asking the questions you want to know answers to. Ask the questions. What Luna said is what luna said, you dont like your words twisted and spewed back at you in a differnt light, why do the same to him? Why did he need "trainning"? Because not everyone in the world will like everything, I assume. He took into considerastion others feelings unlike what you and the other boycott the film girls do. Pro film isnt "you need to understand me and I will not budge or listen to anything outside what I feel to be true", unlike the protesters. You want the G to keep more understanding of your feelings yet you still fail to acknowledge that we to have the same trials and tribulations the T do. The G and T are alot alike, but you would have to open your eyes to understand it. You assume alot about the G but get upset when assupmtions are made about the T? Keep it up, Phillys next? Congratulations Luna! You would see the film if someone contacted you, gave you a free ticket, then you would like to see the film? So, spend months promoting hate because you havnt been carried into a theater and provided a throne to watch movies you want to see, but dont want to pay to see? See, twisting words of others to support your own aggend is shallow and sad. Tammy nash posted an article in the new Dallas Voice. I am suprised it has not been liked to the Boycott page, OH, it sheds a poitive light on the film and once again kelli looks like the loon she is. Like the film, called a Lunatic, hate the film with no basis and be batshit crazy about it, no comment, because they are trans? The double standards.
"A whole world is out there that does not get blogged about." Obviously, this film isn't part of that world, now is it? Curious what is important enough to be covered and what isn't. "Contact Luna, ask to do an interview for your blog. Have you done that?" Michael, I don't know about Gina, but I have asked Israel, Willam, and (I believe) you to explain aspects of the film, the marketing, and some of the commentary resulting from the film. While I have received answers to some of my questions, and I'm very grateful for the time spent clarifying things, there are still outstanding issues I have with the film (issues that even trans women who LIKE the film feel are valid points) that have yet to be addressed. "Why did he need "trainning"?" - I believe this is in reference to Israel saying that GLAAD was initially helping him with marketing the film to its target audience. This is actually one of my outstanding questions. What was GLAAD's initial involvement? What assistance did they provide? What was the "target audience"? (among other related questions). At this point we are being told that education is happening. the thing is, that education isn't being brought outside of the venues. It isn't inspiring anyone who wouldn't normally talk about anti-trans violence to discuss it. The positive reviews of the film are full of their own "educational opportunities". Since they shed a positive light on the film, no comment - but things like running time, dialogue, wether the gals run in or out of heels on negative reviews gets promptly (and snarkily) corrected? Talk about double standards.
The coverage of the film has been by mostly movie reviewers. Who go into, watch and write about, watching a movie. Trans activists look at the film as a slap in the face for there being. So yes, to you being trans, you read a review alot differently then someone reading a movie review. Its not what is important enought to be written about, its what you deem to be important that the movie reviewer did deem important about a movie. Irsa funny, its serious, it has a grindhouse treatment visual,etc... You are wanting every review to be written by a trans woman about the daily struggles in trans life and to bash the entire film, how people die almost everyday because of trans violence, the actors, director and the shame them for even existing. Honestly, you and many others watched a trailor, read some reviews and started your own online revolution about something you know nothing about and until you see it can even begin to know or understand how far off base you are with your comments. This is about the 15th time I have read a post with you bring up "running in heels". What is your point about this? The corrections I have seen, are by people who have seen the film correcting the made up "facts" about the film to fit there agenda. Please explain why this is worked into every post on every website you get a link to? Every article, every FB post its the same questions cut and pasted, the same blank stares from the boycott side of the film. So many questions from people who have not seen or refuse to see unless they are begged to go, given a free tickets and treated like royalty. Trans women, activists, have seen the film and had a change of heart about it. They have said that the promo material do not prepair you for the entire film. That the movie is not offensive to them as they thought it would be walking into the theater. Address that. Education is not happening at the screenings. It is a veil to thinly cover up the protest to get more people to stand out there with them. Kelli did it at Q cinema and Ashley did it at Tribecca. Say its a candle vigil or education rally and people are more likely to come out then to just a protest. Whatever is going on now seems to be working. Sit at you pc waiting for people to blog about the real world and life out there. Thank you for your help into getting it into another festival. Luna, congratulations on Philly! Have fun in Hawaii!
Michael - the "running in heels" is about Willam stomping on every review that isn't 100% positive and correcting the most minute detail that the reviewer got wrong - such as Kate Bornstein in Out magazine making a off-hand comment about running in heels. On the other hand- many positive reviews of the film have used language and made assumptions about the characters that are either pretty offensive (ask Krystal about being called "Shemale" in one review proudly displayed on the FB page) or assuming that Bubbles tricked Boner initially. Anyone there to correct those reviews? Where is the education happening for those people? "Trans activists look at the film as a slap in the face for there being." - NO, I see this work as a film with lots flaws and problematic marketing. As a trans woman, I'm being sold the idea that this is empowering and good for me. Some of those problems I have seen from the trailer or read from reviews are deal breakers for me in movies about trans women if not handled well. ..."something you know nothing about and until you see it can even begin to know or understand how far off base you are with your comments." Please, the movie isn't some obscure occult text that must be seen before you can begin to fully understand the revealed mysteries. All my comments about the film are based on the marketing and what folks who have seen the movie are talking about. I've been in conversations with women who have seen the film multiple times who have put things in context for me and also understand why I still have problems with the film. "They have said that the promo material do not prepair you for the entire film. That the movie is not offensive to them as they thought it would be walking into the theater. Address that." Address what? That the marketing for the film is bad? OK yeah how's this, the marketing of the film if one of my biggest problems with it.
Hi y'all this is 'infamous' kelli here, lol that's a topper BC'79. When I was protesting HRC I earned monikers like Loose cannon, rabble raiser, rumour monger, but now, whew, infamous. That's quit a rant BC'79 since all transgender woman are asking for is a little respect. We are not drag queens as portrayed by the drag queens and transgender woman in TO$WK. We are not insecure over the top caricature parodies of femininity who would gladly sacrifice there dignity and safety for sexual confirmation, fame or wealth. Know we can confirm that statement. We are alive. Some of us, myself included, made some of the bad choices those actress and actors are making. Those of us who are alive learned from those mistakes. Some of us who care enough to educate others that this is not representative of the transgender community do so. Some of us who care will be at the Philly showing of this despicable movie and will call on those attending to realize this movie is harmful to transgender people. New LGBTQ Encyclopedia entry for TO$WK "TO$WK" A feeding frenzy for the misogynist in your family. A buffet stocked with sexually provocative violence targeting transwoman. We'll be there, educating and protesting.
ooooh! i was soooo good. I didn't post anything until my name was brought up. If a review is positive and but gets some shit wrong, I probably won't spend time asking them to correct it. But if a review is negative and gets even a minute detail about me or my friends wrong- well- Release the Kracken, bitches. like with Kate Bornstien- who had half a paragraph and tried to milk a joke about us running in heels when we don't- AND THERE'S EVEN A SHOT OF THE HEROINE OF FILM ,DEADLY SERIOUS AND SCARED TAKING HER SHOES OFF! to get a fact wrong is one thing, but to do it with no comic finesse only elevates the blah factor. that's it. So excited about coming home to Philly for the movie. someone bring me water ice and pretzels.
Really? Willam is a comedian. And he knows that the little things get to you. So by your still in another blog bringing it up, shows that what he did worked for him. If a reviewer didn't like the film, he said, well....uummmmmm......It was a blue dress. Showing what little the article mattered to him. But I look forward to seeing what other blogs you can copy and paste the good ole running in heels bit in. "Bubbles tricking Boner" That was an assumption that was made on the boycott page I believe I read and it was clarified by someone who had seen the film. Just like everything you protestors who hate the film you have not seen do, make up your own plots and points to twist into your Why does the LGB hate the T so much agenda. Sad thing is, the negative is so heavy on your mind you cant even think or give a benefit o the doubt to someone because you are so ready in attack mode that your questions have been answered over and over and over again. must have been missed over all the cutting and pasting of what you think are facts of the film that were just made up in your own head. Every time that bridge is in progress of being rebuilt there is an activist standing there with a match to burn it down. The positive reviews didn't know/see an issue with using the words shemale. You can not expect someone who does not live in the culture to be an expert in it. And I am sure you sent him a message and addressed him publicly(did you ask him to wear a red S on his shirt?) And, not all communication is done to try and impress an entire world of eyes reading a blog, I guess as long as we CC you on all of our private conversations you can feel better being in the know. The people of the film are not the ones wanting the "education" to the masses(kelli and Ashley started that front of hate to gain more people in attendance. Did you read Lavernes statement on why she showed up?) . Read old posts again, weeding out the copy and pasted heels, cruising etc posts and there is a lot that moderators deleted, Ashley deleted etc. And there are a lot of people who tried to offer FACTS on topics but when the result of that is to be tag teamed by the trans self appointed elite of a boycott blog, all you got was ripped apart and made to feel like your voice didn't matter because it was not yours speaking. OH, copy and paste you don't understand because you are not. Classic. Did you get the email of conversations between Ashley Love and Krystal Summers? I think the best parts were Ashley saying that she thought Krystal was beautiful, her acting was amazing and she is very proud of her. That parts fo the film were hard to watch but people needed to see that trans people hurt when hit, and That she enjoyed the film and its message, BUT because of her high profile status in trans activism, she had to protest the film, but she did enjoy it. If you have a chance to read it you should. It makes reading her comments and trying to take her, and for that matter any trans activist serious very hard and laughable. (Paging Kelli Bussey.) But I am sure you have read it, because after all, every private conversation had to go threw your desk first right Ms All Knowing? Maybe the people who sent it around did bad marketing if it didn't make it to your in box. Once again. Its a movie. Deal breaker for you, great, don't see it. But why harp and feed into it for so long if you don't support it? "Please, the movie isn't some obscure occult text that must be seen before you can begin to fully understand the revealed mysteries." Apparently it is because with all the people talking about it, you would be hard pressed to find a person who has seen it. Pathetic play on words, but yes, you do need to see the film to understand it. So much, plot lines, characters not even shown in the trailer. You could watch an hour of the film and not even know it was the TOTWK that you were watching. Lets say Roger Ebert were to day, Today I am reviewing Avatar. I have not seen the film, but I have watched the trailer and talked to someone who saw it, so I am going to now be the authority on this film for the next 6 months even thought I have no plans to see it(unless someone begs me to see it, gives me a free ticket and has virgins fan me while feeding me grapes during the film). Would you value his review? But people said it was a good movie, OH, MUST be the marketing departments fault. LOL. Dealing with the "online activists" is sometimes more funny and entertaining then watching the film. Marketing? That's it.....LOL. Your issues with the movie is that the trailer didn't give enough of the film away? I am fine with people not liking the film because they feel offended by the content. I have heard of movies that I do not care to see, guess what, I don't see them, and my life goes on! The marketing of the film, from Sold Out screenings in Dallas, Fort Worth, New York, Seattle and soon Philly, I think that marketing for the film has been done well. Well, Luna didn't have to do much marketing after the first trailer, the boycotters did the rest of the promotion for the film. A question I do have. There are two face book pages. A fan site and a boycott site. Why do the boycotters feel the need to post there hate on the fan site and not on the boycott page? Once a week ill check the boycott site and noting about the film, maybe an article about someone who was killed, or an attack of hookers but nothing about the film. Then over to the fan site where the protestors choose to post and comment all there hate, a bad review etc....But if a fan of the film were to post the positive articles those were deleted and people were attacked for not following the pages mission statement. Can you explain please. Well, see, I try and talk for Willam and he beats me to the punch as I type. There ya go. LRG. Not everything in life is meant to be taken at face value and so serious. Some people are funny, some are sad and some people are happy and sad and funny ALL in the same day! Just like movies!
1) Willam addressed my issue with who and what gets corrected perfectly. I use Kate's review as an example of minute details that get corrected in critical reviews, while other (I'd argue) larger issues in positive reviews don't get corrected. - For people trying to convince us the film is "educating people" you aren't doing much follow up. I honestly get why Willam isn't, and I'd say it's not his place as an actor to do so. 2) "Bubbles tricks Boner" - I bring that up because PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN THE FILM ARE IMPLYING THAT in reviews. I'm actually trying to do you guys a solid and point it out because I HAVE been told otherwise. 3) "The positive reviews didn't know/see an issue with using the words shemale. You can not expect someone who does not live in the culture to be an expert in it. And I am sure you sent him a message and addressed him publicly(did you ask him to wear a red S on his shirt?)" - Obviously, and based on his FB page, his pals/readers thought it was just a neutral term of trans woman, just like ... dum dum dum "Tranny". I did contact him - by email and didn't really make a big deal out of it. I saw a post of Israel's FB page and some of the gals were really upset with that review. I shot the author a couple messages and he apologized (but didn't change the article's wording). Then I let the gals know it was cool and the guy posted an apology. No fan fair no expectations for anything - I've done that a few times with particularly problematic reviews of the movie - every single case the author acts like I'm dropping some new information on them. So, your "You don't see what we do behind the scenes" falls a little flat, either that or the reviewers are staggeringly misinformed. 4) I am not in regular communication with Ashley Love or Kelly Beusey nor do I moderate the FB page. I have not read Ashley's letter (this is the first I've heard about it). I'm not either of their mother, I call them out and ask them to clarify their positions in public and private as I do with anyone. 5) I'm not reviewing the film, I'm pointing out how parts of the marketing and aspects of the film seem to feed into the underlying justifications for anti-trans violence and general oppression. For example: While the audience may be rooting for Bubbles and want her to win, is it because Boner's violence against her so extreme that nobody should have to go through that (with the implication that a lesser degree of violence would be understandable) or is it clicking that trans women live in fear of something as simple as meeting a potential date? There Michael, that should be a new one for you rather than point out 'It takes balls" from the poster + the conversation about "Ava in Eden" and at least one dick joke = trans women aren't REALLY women. (The linchpin behind almost all anti-trans sentiment and justification for all anti-trans violence). But I've asked that before and gotten "It's just a mooovieee" in reply. 6)"Marketing? That's it.....LOL. Your issues with the movie is that the trailer didn't give enough of the film away?" - not at all. I have issues with the poster, some issues with the title (discussed to death and kinda addressed by Israel - but well enough to tell me he's trying), and issues with the initial trailer (fixed) and the way some folks are handling the criticism of the film - Israel and Tony have been really good, some others pretty much every time a bridge gets built they are there with a match to burn it down. (That, baby is marketing - the trailer is not the sum total of a film's marketing).
Cripple fight!
"For example: While the audience may be rooting for Bubbles and want her to win, is it because Boner's violence against her so extreme that nobody should have to go through that (with the implication that a lesser degree of violence would be understandable) or is it clicking that trans women live in fear of something as simple as meeting a potential date? " I believe that this happens in the movie to a trans women, but it can be a blank person/gender/orientation etc. You still would feel for the person. Any person being attacked like that(in a movie or in real life, in the movie it happens to be a trans women) with violence should not happen. Lesser degree or higher degree. It happens to gay men all the time aswell. Matthew Sheppard met 2 guys in a bar and went home with them to meet his end. Its not just a trans issue. A stripper is hired for a frat party and ends up raped(true storey). In the case of the movie, it is a trans issue. Are you serious in your above quote? It has nothing to do with being extreme for you wanting her to win in the end. Violence is violence. It has to do with her being a human who was hurt and in the end(unlike alot that are attacked LGBandT) seeks and gets revenge(something many victums wish for but never see until this film). I am missing your "implication" all around. Seems you are reading so much into everything about this film and comments and reviews about it that the main objective has been lost or I am just missing it.
Well Michael what is the main objective? Because I'm being told vastly different things. As far as the implication that a lesser degree of violence would be acceptable, have you actually read the comments on news article when a trans woman is murdered? If you have, you should understand what I'm talking about. I can also forward you an email discussion between myself and a "Positive Reviewer" who assumed that Bubbles tricked Boner at some point in the past and went on to say: "If I took a woman home and she turned out to be a man, sure I may be angry and a little violent, but the level of violence against the character was so over the top you can't help but find yourself rooting for her." So, again is the audience rooting for the characters because the attacks are so extreme, or are the viewers understanding that trans women face violence at an alarming rate? For the record, I'm not going down a rabbit hole with you about how all violence is bad and all populations face potential violence every day. It's a tactic used to make populations who face elevated rates of violence to keep quiet for fear of minimizing violence perpetrated against others.
My thoughts on the movie are what I saw not what I sat back and rewrote in my mind could have, should of or might of happened. What I got from watching the film, Boner took home someone he knew was trans, freaked out because that is not what he "normally" does, raped her and aftwerwards got pissed off about it and then there goes the film. If he was so pissed at the time they first met, why would he of not tried to kill her then? But that is what makes it such a thought provoking moive, everyone will get from it or add to it something different. People, humans face vilence everyday. I have not seen a pie chart of trans versus gay people attacked or killed. It just seems that whatever letter you identify with, yours is the most harmed by others, the most repressed, the most tourtured and can not even imagine that others go threw the smae thing. I am not downplaying that trans women and men are not victums of crimes for who they are, I am simply saying that they are not the only ones. But like every topic seems to go, this one has to strayed way off of the topic at hand, the film. We can agree to disagree. You want everyone who leaves the film to sign a statement saying I understand trans women deal with this every day. No one is saying they do not. Whatever level of violence HUMANS face is not exceptable. Gay, straight, trans etc. A hate crime is a hate crime. A gay man being beated to death is no more important that a trans woman being beaten to death. But from your comments, it does not feel that you feel the same way. Tactics? So you are saying that Gay men do not face "evelvated rates of violence"? I have read alot more national news reporting Trans violence then gay violence(outside of gay publications). You are to wraped up in wanting people to know that trans people are victems of violence that you cant even see that others are in pain aswell. Pity.
Michael, I'm ignoring your last paragraph for the reason I stated above. Are we discussing your perceptions of the film? Because I thought we got on this by talking about how the super educational Q&A after the screenings totally educated the viewers about anti-trans violence. You know those super educational "important conversations" that for some reason didn't get mentioned anywhere except right here in this thread - not in the reviews (and a good movie review places a film within the larger social context, so discussing the super educational discussions would seem worth mentioning at least once), not the FB page, not the youtube videos. We do get treated to listening about the heat and how surprised Israel was with the boycott - lots and lots over and over (like a verbal copy and paste). We were also talking about how that super education that may or may not be happening is translating into some pretty busted reviews. Aside from talking about the look and feel of the film, it's pacing and technical merits, how the movie made the reviewer feel - after all that, how are the reviewers talking about the trans characters? How are they referring to them? How are they talking about the situations that propel the plot? When a reviewer says generally good things about the film, but calls the characters "shemale" do you think that's a problem? If so, who should correct that? If a reviewer calls the characters "Drag Queens" (something the protesters have been loudly vilified for doing) what then? Is calling the characters transvestites perfectly fine? If not who takes point on that? So far it looks like you all are leaving this up to those annoying "trans activists" to clean up the messes. Up to now I've been largely quiet about the reviews from NY and Texas not commenting on the FB page pointing out the problems and not talking to the authors. I've communicated with a couple of the more problematic reviews in private and made my case, did my educating and moved on. If I had it out for the film to the degree you have been projecting on me, things would have gone down much differently and much more publicly. (You will note, I even now I'm not naming names because because the conversations were private and the authors apologized in public or changed the wording)
It is easier to give a sorry excuse for a reason to not face/acknowledge the truth, I understand, the truth and facts even out the playing field for "trans women are at a higher risk then the rest of the world" theory. Its not easy to except that we are all hated at about the same rate, but we are. Its life. Like the film, not everyone will like you/me. Oh well. Your pleading the 5th is noted... No, I did not say "super educational q and a's" I said that if you had questions after seeing the film they did q and a's and answered every question that was asked. You keep asking where did someone post transcripts of these sessions and repeatedly ask why they don't happen and I pointed out that they did. Life goes on outside of blogs. And I would address the reviewers to why they didn't feel the need to write about the afterpartys and goings on after a film screening in there review of a film. There review, there discression? If you make it to Philly or San Fran and its coming back to Dallas now you should attend to ask your questions so you can blog them. If you want some quotes(since we know how much you like things to be documented on line!) check out the Dallas Voice article with boycotters, supporters and boycotters who saw the film then became supporters speak there minds. Those people who are trans and saw the film are on face book, send them your questions and see how the movie made them feel. Talk to Kelli and Ashley they are the ones holding the "super educational" attacks on patrons and sidewalk chalk drawing... I mean education rally's outside the screenings. The only thing I "leave up to trans activists" is the further promotion for the film. They are doing a job money could not buy. And no one has a chance to bring it to a reviewers attention about there choice of wording because it seems that within seconds on a review being posted it is already posted on the boycott page, posted on house blend, Ashley has made 20 posts within 5 minutes calling it misogynistic and the person who has wrote it has been verbally attacked online before anyone can bring it to there attention respectfully. Someone writes a review and uses a word(for all we know) they believe to be non offensive and to you it may be. He might of asked around and that trans person said it was an ok term(we don't know) you can not expect every person to know what is globally excepted terms and what is taboo. To everyone it will be different. Fagot is not offensive unless it is directed to me. Ticked off fagots with knives, I would see it. Others would be outraged. Not everyone is going to be happy with everything in life. But when voicing your opinion, please make sure you are letting people know you are speaking for yourself and do it in a way you want to be treated. You can not(like Kelli) attack someone and be outraged when they don't smile back and say thank you. That is all I ask. Besides seeing the film will clear up allot of the misinformed questions. Tact gets a lot more done then attack. And you may not name names here, but your already did on posts on the boycott page. Your private conversations were already gloated about online, not in private. I have read from the beginning the reviews, comments and concers from all sides and I am just tired of people getting verbally attacked for saying what they feel. The trans activists are able to say whatever, make up whatever "facts" they need to try and discredit the world and take the top spot of the worlds most hated, ill treated group in the world. A title, you would think no one would want but held with such high reguard in the trans community amongst activists. And it is unfortunate that the likes of Ashley Love and Kelli Bussey have put the activists that have good intentions in a terrable light. And it has gotten to a point that with there attacks on the LGB that a chuckle and whatever is what the rest get. Before you try and "super educate" the rest of the world you might want to send a private super educational message to some select trans activists and educate them on public interaction, treating humans as such and most of all use tact. Have fun with your SUPER Educational private chats! Good luck with Philly, San Fran and Dallas reviewers!
"It is easier to give a sorry excuse for a reason to not face/acknowledge the truth, I understand, the truth and facts even out the playing field for "trans women are at a higher risk then the rest of the world" theory." - umm no, do some research and look at the statistics. If you were looking for "truth and facts" you'd have presented them - you are trying to bait me into comparing violence against gay men and violence against trans women a discussion where you have made it obvious your intention is make it seem that by drawing attention to the level of violence against trans women, I'm somehow dismissing violence against cis gay men. NOT PLAYING YOUR GAME. Actually Michael, you said "Ive seen the film 3 times and many discussions that have delt with such topics (anti-trans violence)." in response to Gina a few posts back when she was wondering if the "important conversations" this film is supposed to be sparking actually addressed the realities of anti-trans violence. Also, I'm not asking for transcripts. I wondering why such "important conversations" aren't important enough to make it out the door of the venues. Pretty simple question really. "And I would address the reviewers to why they didn't feel the need to write about the afterpartys and goings on after a film screening in there review of a film." - actually, some of them have. I do fail to see the connection to anything I wrote. Except more reviewers wrote about attending festival parties than wrote about any discussion of anti-trans violence or a realistic discussion about any trans-related issue (the latter would be zero BTW). "Those people who are trans and saw the film are on face book, send them your questions and see how the movie made them feel." - Done and done - To a person, they understand my concerns and why I have them, how I reached my conclusions, and while they have a slightly different take, see how the things I've pointed out are a problem. "And no one has a chance to bring it to a reviewers attention about there choice of wording because it seems that within seconds on a review being posted it is already posted on the boycott page, posted on house blend, Ashley has made 20 posts within 5 minutes calling it misogynistic and the person who has wrote it has been verbally attacked online before anyone can bring it to there attention respectfully." First, Pam's House Blend hasn't had anything about the movie since March 31 - well before there were reviews for the film out. The reviews are generally NOT posted on the Boycott page, and even the ones that are discussed are likely not seen by the reviewers. Since I use the TOTWK FB page to check out the reviews, I'd say you all have the jump on reading them well before I could have a chance to think about responding to them.. so don' give me anything about you all not having time - that's a plain untruth and flimsy excuse. Plenty of reviews with some pretty busted content is currently out there and no one I know has contacted them, and no changes made or acknowledgment of the problematic content. Willam explained why he wouldn't comment on an otherwise positive review, none of the other gals comment, Krystal stopped reading after a reviewer called her a "shemale" and it doesn't appear that the cis guys attached to the film really get what could stand correcting. Michael, I asked you some pretty specific questions. You gave me vague excuses why someone would get terms wrong, I do media activism... I GET the why's (or the justifications). You aren't telling me who you think should tackle the educational moments. What about the stuff that's worng about the plot in the reviews? Let a reviewer say Bubbles tricked Boner? That get a pass? Honestly Michael, you seem to scan for keywords, create a position and an argument FOR ME, assign that position TO ME and then address stuff I never said or believe - we call that a Strawman, it's sloppy and very poor debate. "Have fun with your SUPER Educational private chats!" - Well I've gotten 2 for 2 positive results from my private chats. While you guys seem to not even think it's particularly important. "And you may not name names here, but your already did on posts on the boycott page. Your private conversations were already gloated about online, not in private. " THIS is a complete misrepresentation. Stuff was posted in public. I went to the author and had a chat, an apology was made in public. The people complaining weren't friends with the person, and I was not friends with the one who was most upset. I posted a brief "I talked to the guy and he apologizes" along with a link so they could see. The end. Trust me, I could have played that very differently to make a different point. Instead I did what I thought was important and let the folks who were bothered know in the easiest way I had. No gloating here. The second, I doubt you even know about.
Yawn...Your right, we are all wrong, you didnt see the film and know everything about it, its intentions, what people think/know, how they feel before they saw it, after they saw it, the directors reasoning for making the film, you are great and powerful, the wizard of OZ has nothing on you. You hurt the most, are attacked the most are the less media represented, the evil stepchild to the gay media maffia, the overlooked, the unpriviledged, the only ones sterotyped, offended, people with feelings and no one else will ever compair because everyone else has it so good. Is that the acknowledment you seek from us? There you go, sleep better tonight, you happy? you win? Whatever it takes. Feel at ease for a moment atleast. Do you have a minute where this film doesnt take over your day? So many other issues that have no questions in the LGBT community. Texas is trying to re-ban oral sex and sodomy and make it a felony to not only get married but for someone to officiate the ceremony. Just an example. So many bigger fish to fry then why is no one transcribing the q and a sessions after a movie screening. Nothing needs to be corrected by the film because they have you and the other online activists doing everything for them. Just like right now, Luna is in Hawaii getting a tan while people like you are promoting the film for him. His only commenting every so often is working because it is still going strong and he doesnt need to life a finger. Thanks again for all that you do. Keep the movie in the spotlight and we might have to wait years until it is released on dvd with the high demand for festivals and screening! Ill be sure to bring a pad and pencil next screening I attend to write down all the stuff people talk about after the film for ya! My gift to you! Sleep tight!
Paragraph #1 = the strawman I was talking about. I never said or implied any of the above. I guess if you can't answer specific points, make stuff up and answer those. It's a good strategy. Then draw attention to other issues and make it seem like people can't focus on multiple things at once. Even better strategy... "Nothing needs to be corrected by the film because they have you and the other online activists doing everything for them. " - except I'm not. Aside from the two specific situations I mentioned, I'm not aware of anyone contacting other reviewers. So, you all may want to rethink (or actually think about) that tactic instead of making up excuses for the film reviewers.
lol. No strategy, that is you(Laughriotgirl) reading way to much into everything once again. If its not there make it up! "I never said or implied any of the above." Not everything is about/to you, but yes, you have implyed several of those topics the rest by others. But in the end, I DONT CARE. Me and my cis gendered white male of privledge self will be perfect in the world because I am happy being me! lol. Have fun beating the dead horse. I will be the man over here chewing the straw. lol. The excuses and finger pointing were funny at one point but now you sound sad and pathetic. Hope you find whatever you are looking for from all of this!
Wow - reading this took a while. I'm just a straight guy who thought the title of the movie was funny, so I'm a little lost on what most of this is about. I will say one thing: laughriotgirl - you are making lots of sense and presenting your points really clearly. You seem like you are keeping your cool and presenting things pretty fairly. Michael - you seem like you don't really understand half of what your being told and just going off at whatever. There are a bunch of direct questions you avoided, while your opponent answered all or most of your points. As an old debate club member, I agree Michael seems to be throwing out the Strawman fallacy
Quinn. This has been going on for over a year. Most of it is not even close to being covered in this thread. I understand everything that is going on. The questions that have been asked have been answered so many times it is getting tired of answering them. What questions were not answered to you? Ill do my best to try and answer them for you. "Strawman", if you say so...The truth of the matter is if there is an answer that shows the movie to not be the evil flick set to destroy the rep of the trans community it is dusted off as not important and overlooked. The other truths are people who have not seen the film choose to define what the film is and shows with no knowledge of it besides what others choose to say. But please, if you have any questions, I will do my best to try and answer it from my perspective. I do not ever say that my thougths are a representation of the entire gay community because everyone looks at the topic differently. To be honest, alot of what they write is so cut and paste for almost a year that I am sure I skimmed over something due to reading it all before over and over in many different threads that I missed these questions I apparently avoided? Please ask away.
Hey Michael, I have little idea what's going on here and what you might have answered before, but I think something from one laugh's last posts looks important and not answered clearly. If a review posts something that offends or mis-represents the group represented in the movie, is it the film maker's job to fix it, or "educate" as I guess people are saying. Or should it be somebody not connected to the project? Or should it even be pointed out? I also think laugh could stand to be more concise in their arguments (not sure what pronoun to use - are they a transvestite or a real girl?). They are all over the place and I think in trying to back up their points they use to many examples and it's distracting and confusing. Thanks for reading
My issue with the question is "offends or mis-represents the group represented". The grey area is, the movie is not offensive to all trans identifying people. At all 3 screenings I have been to there is a huge mix of people there. Some thought it was cheesy, some thought it was to bloody, some liked the campy factor some cried(first time I saw it I teared up at the serious part of the film, which it does have) and some were so offended they wont see it. The last screening I went to, a woman stood up at the Q and A after and said,(not quoting because I dont remember exactly what she said) At first I was offended that someone would make a film like this. I saw the trailor and was outraged. Friends talked me into seeing the film and I sit here now applauding you for this film. I am no longer a protestor of the film I am a supporter. I have heard things along those lines many many times. How can you judge somthing without seeing it for yourself? If someone writes a bad review of a resturaunt does that mean you should never go and see for yourself? My biggest issue with the protestors, I feel that if you see the film and are offended by it then by all means speak YOUR mind. But please do not say you are speaking for your entire group whichever it may be that you belong to. If you are offended by the word Tranny used by anyone. Some trans people think the word should be used by only other trans people. And some think of it as a word and unless used in a demeaning way(with hate) then it is no big deal. So, when a reviewer who may be straight uses a word like Tranny in a review, and someone sends his a message, comments on the review etc saying Tranny is an offensive word to the trans community, did you mean to be using hate words in your review? Well, it needs to be clarified. It is offensive to YOU, not the trans community. Speak for yourself. I am in no way speaking for Luna, or the actors in the film, I speak for me. In the beginning of the protests, the word in the title was all the rage. The biggest slap in the face to date to the trans community. Every comment on every blog was about how dare he use a perjorative in a movie title. He addressed the issue, and changed the lettering to not show the entire word. It was rallyed for and when recieved, it was brushed off and nothing, "crumbs" I believe Ashley love used and Regina labled "FAIL". But, it is what you asked for?Then it is onto something else. So yes, Luna has addressed the issue of the word, to him it is not offensive, to the trans actresses in the film it was not offensive, to others it is. Will everyone ever been totally satisfied with anything in life? "Education". My issue with this new term is...At first it was a protest that got some backlash and people didnt not want to attend protests for a film. The "education" came in as a way to present it to people to attend. The big issue was a high profile trans actress showed up to Tribecca Protest because it was presented as a Educational Rally for trans rights and a candle light vigel. After it was posted online and hyped up that she was there she felt the need to go on record and state why she was there and it was not the reasons said. Its a cussion for a protest. Switch the book cover but the storey is still the same. I witnessed first hand the "Education rally" which got a church to pass out flyers for there church but when talked to they knew nothing about the film and why it was offensive to anyone, they were there to honor the people who have been killed and to promote there church. That was day one, day two after they saw the "education" in the form of yelling, attacking and trying to intimidate people they did not show back up. I think that education about every LGBT issue is key, but when you have people who are in it for different motives it does not work. "Should it be pointed out?" If you feel a need for it by all means. Just do not speak for your "people" when you are not the majority and only representing a small part of the trans umbrella. Because there are trans people who live stealth in society, blend in and there are others that perform(drag) but live there lives as women. The tree has many branches and when you have 1 branch feel the need to speak for me to the masses is that not doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing, not thinking about your feelings and not offending you? I have trans friends who are offended that other trans women feel the need to speak to them. Who is right? Who is wrong? Is it even a case of right and wrong? Another issue I have is just what you said, the arguments change day to day. The title was an issue, it got changed, blown off and onto soemthign else. When asked what will make you happy in all of this? No answer was given in an open forum. Not one answer. The only thing that has been said in a positive light by anyone not trans is a thank you to someone who said "you have it bad and I feel sorry for you". That is what you want to be known for, having a rough life? In there "examples" they also in turn neglect that gay men have the same issues, we are alot alike. Have you been fired from a job because of who you are? Beaten because of who you are? Could go on for days. But when you mention it, "strawman, not gonna bait me into that" is all that can be said. You want people to except you for you but can you not return the favor? Atleast acknowledge that we are alike in many ways trans and gay men. We should be together in the fight not at ends. But terms like "gay male maffia" dont make gay publications want to take you seriously? Get out of town. You can not verbally bash me, group me together as a simple uneducated community with no grasp or ability to understand what someone else goes threw in life, judge me by use of a word and get mad at me because I didnt say thank you for treating me with the hate you accuse others of treating you with.
Here is a link to a video with both sides talking about how they feel about the film. You should check it out. Keep in mind the first group have seen the film, the last interviews have not seen the film. http://www.dallasvoice.com/instant-tea/page/5/
Sorry, I guess the link changed. Here is the direct link from youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db4qiLhnAWU&feature=player_embedded
Michael - Gina asked you earlier if you had read what she wrote, and laughriotgirl seemed to have the same complaint. I have to point out that what I asked and what you answered are different things - did you read what I wrote? This is in fact setting up a strawman argument. I don't know any of this history here, I'm not involved on any side in this. I asked direct and specific questions about the movie reviews and reviewers. That's it. My question was clearly narrowly focused on film reviews misrepresenting the population depicted in the film - NOT the film's representation. I'm assuming the inclusive "you" in your long post isn't directed at me, since I don't have a dog in this little fight. lets do a hypothetical example. based on what I gather to be at issue (and a little reading between the lines - so if I'm off base I apologize). Pretend I see the movie and write the following review: "This was a great film, a little slow in spots. You could tell it was low budget, but the director did great things with the limited funds he had available. In general I liked it and would take friends to see it again. It's the story of a bunch of shemales who get revenge on a man who, after being tricked by one transvestites, beats her up and kills a some of her friends. The "girls", who look stunning, get revenge and you really feel good when they do it." Now, I'm assuming from laughriot's posts that the second paragraph would have some problems. The question is: Who should point out the problems to the author and educate the author in a better way to cover the subject? The Director or other members of the film? Trans Activists? Or is it not that big of a deal?
Thanks for the video Michael, I took a look at it and the movie trailer. So, are all of them transgenders or are some of them real women?
Strawman again? I think I did address your question. The first paragraph. It many not of been answered because there is not right answer. Not everyone feels that it would need to be corrected. The trans community that feels the movie is "misrepresenting" is small. Also, it should be noted that the charectors in the film and the people who are offended by the film do not identify the same. The film roles are entertainers in gay clubs. Krystal Summers, the lead, lives her life as a woman. Every minute of every day. At night, she works in a gay bar on a drag show. Does that make her less transgendered? If you were to call Krystal a drag queen she would not be offended. So if someone were to call Krystal a drag queen, how can someone who is trans but not a showgirl get offended by the term when they are not a drag queen? The real life trans women feel( from what ive read) that drag queens cheepen there worth and show them in a dim light "charectures of real wome" is the term used. To me, it is not an acurate representation of said activist because they are not representing you and your lifestyle, but they are representing a true lifestyle under the trans umbrella. There are many divisions under the word trans. It comes down to lifestyles. Are they both transgendered, yes, but they live different lives with different cultures. The simple answer, who should point out offensive words? A person that is offended and feels the need to let the author know. Simply. I read Ginas comments and LRG's. In general I have skimmed over alot of the cut and paste stuff. And yes, I read your comments in full. The second paragraph is wrong with facts from the film, but you have not seen it so that is besides the point. I personally wouldnt use the terms shemale or transvestites to describe the people in the film, but in life, people refur to themselves as such. My trans friends dont use them, but some do and as Winter said in the video, she uses the word tranny, but in mixed company if someone said that the word offended them she wouldnt use it infront of them. Ive heard the same thing with the word fag. One gay man doesnt like the word, says something its not used again and we move on from there. But From the title you could get transgendered, transvestite, transsexual etc. That I would not take offense since the title is an abreviation (fag is to fagot). Is it ok for straight people to say "that is so gay" to something that they think is bad? One can assume that they use it because it is the worst thing they could think of. Some dont even realize what they are saying because its a trend phrase (hot tranny mess?) Ive heard random people (straight) at work say that is gay, and I have asked them what is gay about it? And they dont have an answer, trendy phrase, no ill will in using it. I am not offended by it. I can not answer the question for the entire community. I can only answer it from my opinion. My opinion is the reviewer in question is straight and did an honest review of the film and I would assume that since the heat from the word tranny is in debate he went for another term to not be offensive and to LRG he was still offensive. All anyone can do is let them know what the word means to them and that they were offended, maybe offur a suggestion of words that should/are ok to use(and not offend someone else in the process of that). Saying "Shemale is offensive to trans women" is not accurate to anyone but the person making the staement. Being 100% effective in not offending someone is not going to happen. With the review inquestion, 1 person voiced there opinion about it beig offensive and he changed it. If he were writing it to be offensive I think he would of kept it the same. That review was over a month ago, so now I am forgetful on how or why this is coming back up still? They are a mix of 3 trans women(live there lives as women) and 2 drag queens(live as men but are performers as women).(main actors in the film). But all 5 work in gay bars and perform on drag shows to make a living. Did that answer anything to you or am I strawmanning again?
Funny that the clearest reply is given to some straight guy. So Michael, you are indeed leaving correcting the film reviewers' use of incorrect plot points to trans women not connected to the film. (Bubbles tricking Boner) that end up doing real harm to trans women who are attacked. before you mention it *I HAVE HEARD THAT THIS IS NOT PART OF THE PLOT* - but it's been mentioned in reviews and by one reviewer to me. You are leaving the education of better language to discuss trans women up to trans women not connected to the film. Since we already established that the trans women in the film either aren't reading reviews or only feel compelled to correct some reviews and the cis guys who wrote/produced/directed the fim are fat to busy playing "free speech martyrs". Umm.. thanks I guess. A point of correction Michael, the "shemale" post has never been corrected. The author apologized for offending people, but the article has not been changed. I can throw a link up if you like on one of the FB pages. Speaking of "shemale" that's about as universally disliked a term in the trans community as you are likely to find. For every trans woman I know who doesn't mind it, there are 20 who hate it with a passion. That's including gals who work in the sex industry and advertise themselves with the word - they tend to use it at work and never ever outside of that context. It has a history that has direct link to making living as a trans woman more difficult - Google Janice Raymond and her book "the Transsexual Empire" and read how she (a lesbian) was involved in getting insurance and medicare/aid to stop covering transition. It was later picked up in the porn industry and has pretty much remained there. @Quinn - A couple points. Trans women are "Real Women" - I'm not a fake, false, counterfeit woman. Trans is an adjective like tall or white to describe women. If you need to note a difference between trans and non-trans women "cis" is a good neutral term that doesn't position one type of woman as more "real" or "better" or "natural" than another.
Para 1. The clearest reply was given to someone who treats others like human beings and can ask honest questions without having an agenda in there back pocket. Para 2. I would prefur to leave the correcting of the film to people who have seen it and not the ones who assume from reading blogs that they know what is in the film. Another plot line that seems to get alot or heat is the revenge. They do not seek revenge. There attackers come to there house to kill them and they instead of being a victum attack there attackers. Would you go to a book club meeting and talk for hours about a book you have not read? Para 3. The women in the film did read reviews, comment of them and discuss the issues until the activists(ashley, regina and kelli mostly) attacked them and they stopped reading them. Krystal Summers told me that they made her feel worthless as a human being because of the things they said about her. Why would you read something like that about yourself and want to hold any discussion with people who will say that about you and they dont even know you? I have had conversations with them and that is just some what they said. Dealing with the activists who want to be treated with respect but cant respect them in return is a waste of there time. Para 4. The correction. I should of known you have the link saved, keep it for your records, I do not use the word but I was not offended. And just to clarify, the review I am talking about is from the Horror Society review and Bianca Lynne, when asked by Regina how the talks were going said "It's going well. He's pretty receptive to what I'm saying. Like I didn't ask him to change the quoted sentence, but he did change it after clarifying what he intended..." Which article were you talking about? Para 5. Shemales from the only place I have ever seen it used was in porn. Outside of that I have not read it or heard it used as a term. Either way, 20 hate it, some love it, please dont speak for all, speak for yourself. Para 6. LRG, "real women" is also a debatable term. I know many a trans woman who will say they are a woman but not use the word "real". What people who use the word mean is biological. Not my mind was female but my body was different or a "birth diffect". He ment nothing negative about it. A trans woman last week said to someone "Her purse is as real as I am a woman. It looks like a Chanel on the outside but look at the inner linning." She was post op. Is biological a better word for you then real? I was on the phone with a trans friend as I read this. I asked her to explain what CIS means to her. I was just told that is "A made up word from a crossdresser in Holland who made up the word because he wanted a word to call people who live there lives in the gender they were born in, its a slang term". "Transgendered women use it today to not have to use the words real or actual when talking about other people because in doing so calls them out for not being born female, its a crutch for trans women who live in denial and can not except that they are not real, they changed there gender, period.". So, she would like to know, is she "less of a transgendered woman because she is comfortable in the gender she changed to and can admit it with her head held high?" Numbered, them to make sure I didnt overlook something for you. For quick reffrencing incase it comes up later and you need the documentation. And if I "strawmand" again, oh well. I am kinda getting tired of this. Can we find a new topic to talk about instead of beating this dead horse? lol.
#2 - Done and done - I won't be holding my breath on anything happening though. #3 Really, comment on the actual reviews, or the FB pages? Honest question because I can't recall reading any comments on film reviews. #4 No, I poured through the TOTWK FB page to make sure what I said was correct. It's called research. It's the Chelsea Now article from May 11. I didn't ask The Horror Society to change it and I think we had a really nice discussion about his review. The part of his review in question was sentence structure. I assumed he didn't mean the way his sentence read, so I asked about it. After I pointed it out he added a few word to clarify his intent. I responded to Regina in public to make sure she and other gals knew he understood what I was saying and willingly changed it as soon as he caught his wording. #6 RE: your trans friend and cis: "A made up word from a crossdresser in Holland who made up the word because he wanted a word to call people who live there lives in the gender they were born in, its a slang term". - False - it was coined by a trans man in the 90's and is not made up. It is latin and means :"on the same side of" as opposed to trans which means "to cross to the other side". It has been used for years in Chemestry and geography opposite "trans" well before use by trans people to balance language dynamics with non-trans people. "Transgendered women use it today to not have to use the words real or actual when talking about other people because in doing so calls them out for not being born female, its a crutch for trans women who live in denial and can not except that they are not real, they changed there gender, period." Well, she is welcome to feel that way about herself. I'd ask her what the opposite of "real" is though and how that applies to her. "Cis" is like "straight" to gay people - it provides a neutral word that doesn't position one as "normal" and the other as abnormal or disordered. "less of a transgendered woman because she is comfortable in the gender she changed to and can admit it with her head held high?" Nope, just not a very well informed transgendered woman who makes things up without doing a tiny amount of research. The implication that someone who uses the word "cis" wouldn't be "comfortable in the gender she changed to and can admit it with her head held high" - Given that I'm 100% out as trans even though it would be far easier for me to be stealth I'll just say she's wrong on that account as well. I also gave Quinn a term to use that is way less likely to offend trans people in a way that I hope wasn't implicating he was some sort of jerk, since I doubt he is and just was at a loss for a better word to use.
They (the actors)have made comments, I dont recall if they were on the actual review or there facebook pages. But Krystal, Willam, Jenna and Erica have all made comments about the film and responded to reviews. Erica does sometimes daily video blogs and has addressed the issues aswell. The review I was talking about was stated above and If you are Bianca Lynne I cut and pasted the comment I was talking about. I dont know if I read the Chelsea Now review. There were alot all around the same time so they kinda run together. As far as cis gender. I asked my friend where she got her info and she sent me a link that says... "The word cisgender has been used on the internet since at least 1994, when it appeared in the alt.transgendered usenet group in a post by Dana Leland Defosse. Defosse does not define the term and seems to assume that readers are already familiar with it. It may also have been independently coined a year later: according to Donna Lynn Matthews, the charter maintainer of the alt.support.crossdressing usenet group, the word was coined in 1995 by Carl Buijs, a transsexual man from the Netherlands. In April 1996, Buijs said in a usenet posting, "As for the origin, I just made it up. I just kept running into the problem of what to call non-trans people in various discussions, and one day it just hit me: non-trans equals cis. Therefore, cisgendered." "Gender roles, unlike natural human genders, are socially constructed. They may reflect natural gender aspirations of the members of that gender identity, or they may be politicised and manipulated, which then result in the oppression of people." "Cultures and societies are dynamic and ever-changing, but there has been extensive debate as to how, and how fast, they may change. Such debates are especially contentious when they involve the gender/sex system, as people have widely differing views about how much gender depends on biological sex." She says that not everything needs to have a certain defines opposite. "I dont have real breasts, I dont have a real vagina". We had not really had a conversation about this indepth like we did tonight. To me she looks at it as she was not born woman, but today she feels like the person she needed to be and that is a woman. Her name, her body is something she created to be happy. She is not shy about saying she is a trans woman. She also said "People want to live in a world that is black and white but not everyones black and white will be the same. And everyones own personal journey and self discovery about who they are is different. Josey(a friend of ours) was a gay male who did drag until he was 28. And on a monday said I want breasts, on friday, got them. Today(5 years alter) has fully transitioned. "We all said she was going about it way to fast but in the end it is her life she was living and to be honest she didnt know she wanted that life until she got implants. She wanted them to further her drag career but in the end she found herself. Not everyones tranistion storey is black and white and who in the hell is going to label her or me or anyone that there is only one way to identify, live your life? When you decide to transition you do not get a rule book and guidlines to follow". In that respect, gay men have alot of the same challenges in coming out. But this has gotten longer then I thought it would be and way off track from where it started. She also said that she does not like the term cisgendered because she feels it feels like a slang word that trans women use towards the people who are happy in the gender they were born in. She likes gender normative(never heard that one until tonight). It sounds more clinical and less offesive.
Did anyone see the 'jays hand us our asses yesterday? 5 to 1. sh*t. I was just reminded of losing battles so i figured i'd say something.
LOL@Willam. I know, but we can always try to have our own opinion.
Michael - I know that the cast was/is heavily involved in discussions on the FB page, I'm not aware of much outside of that after the premiere. I also think there are valid reasons why a cast member wouldn't be active on reviews, especially positive ones. I don't want this line of questioning to be interpreted as calling out the cast, particularly the trans cast. I think that Israel etc. are the ones who should be taking point on this. I am, indeed, Bianca Lynne. I think discussion the prefix "cis" is a bit off topic, and probably not very interesting to most people who may be reading this. I want to point out a couple things from your quote: "Carl Buijs, a transsexual man from the Netherlands" - This is not a Male cross dresser, as you friend told you, Mr. Buijs is a trans man. The rest pretty much backs up my my statement that cis is a neutral term for non-trans people that doesn't dismiss the realities of our identities and lives that way most other terms do. "She says that not everything needs to have a certain defines opposite." - well, in this case, "real" does in fact have have defined opposites. I fully support your friend in how ever she defines herself - If trans = not real, good for her. I'll not join that party, as my identity is as real and valid as a cis persons without qualifications. "She also said that she does not like the term cisgendered because she feels it feels like a slang word that trans women use towards the people who are happy in the gender they were born in. She likes gender normative(never heard that one until tonight). It sounds more clinical and less offesive." I usually hear people complain that "cis-" is to academic or clinical *shrug* because it's from science (oh the horror I'm sure). "Gender Normative" is a little bit of a problem, since I am quite normative in my gender. My best friend is a very butch lesbian - she is far less normative in her gender than I am. It also tends to box gender identity into some rather superficial personality traits, interests, and physical presentations - rather than a fundamental understanding of who one is. While I welcome discussion of "Cis" and how language affects politics and interpersonal dynamics, I don't think this is a good place to have that discussion.
"While I welcome discussion of "Cis" and how language affects politics and interpersonal dynamics, I don't think this is a good place to have that discussion." WOW. Agreed.
Thanks Michael and laughriotgirl your replies were very informative. I know a new and better term to use now, thanks for "cis"! I'm also sorry for using "real" after a little thought, I can see exactly why it would offend someone. I mean, I'd never refer to my sexuality (hetero) as "normal" when talking about gay rights.
That i spart of the issues with the film. Not everyone is seeing eye to eye becaue not everyone see the issues as offensive. I have a much bigger issue with the word NORMAL. If we were all the same the world would be a boring place....
I agree, what is the point of a discussion if it is only going to make the "film maker and stars into free speech martyrs." However, a more productive discussion, with the filmmaker, and several local trans activists is taking place after the screening on Saturday, and we fully intend to talk about the violence against trans women. Please consider coming out to join in this discussion! Joe
It's always insightful and incite-full to discuss which stereotypes of trans woman certain gay men find worthy of promoting Matty. I guess TLA has wrapped up the DVD distribution rights on this cinematic turd?
William: We here in Philly are overjoyed to have a faux trans woman return. Perhaps you can spend the time learning something about those you make a living portraying so poorly? Or is the market only open to the trans equivalent of Stage Irish and Blackface? I suppose we'll still have to help you when you decide to transition and learn the limitations of your "artistic" endeavors.
I'm looking forward to starring in your new comedy about aids victims. I don't know why some people have issues with the title; "Furious Fudgepackers". I mean - I was speaking to a gay guy on the phone yesterday and he used it. So - it's OK, right?
This film, written and directed by transpeople, informed me of their lives and community in much the same way as that stellar films by gay men; "Irreversible Errors", "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" and "Eddie Murphy's Raw" did for their community. I was somewhat surprised that QFest chose to exclude these important films from their program. A decision I can only attribute to the lack of any transpeople on their board and selection committee - who I am sure; would be happy to be responsible for picking next years selection of films on gay men. Nothing but love for all of God's children, Mel Gibson
Not nearly so amusing as the mental deficits of the audience.
hey kath- go fuck yourself...no really. go fuck yourself. i hear you have to dialate to keep a new vagina up to working snuff. i'm looking out for you. I'm quite happy as a guy and do not want to transition. I dress in drag the same way that RuPaul, Charles Busch and Chad Michaels do- FOR ENTERTAINMENT. i don't have some fake name. i do me. i'm sorry you think my endeavors aren't "artistic." WILLAM p.s. go fuck yourself.
Thanks Will, but I tend not to date the intellectually...unendowed. Ah - you find it insulting to be associated with transwomen & find their bodies appropriate subjects of humor. Who could of guessed someone with such an attitude would be involved in a project that will make violence against us more likely? "i'm looking out for you." That's so sweet. I don't know why everyone else says you're a dickhead.
"I dress in drag the same way that RuPaul, Charles Busch and Chad Michaels do- FOR ENTERTAINMENT." Indeed. Just like Ray Bourbon, Coccinelle, April Ashley and Candis Cayne. Of course - someone who chooses to dress in drag as their ideal occupation has no unacknowledged motivation for that choice. Just like homophobic guys who sleep with guys aren't really gay. They just sleep with men. The unacknowledged part is what's operative here, Bill. Most guys don't think - hey - why don't I go into making a living in the wide open field of dressing like a woman. The thought really wouldn't occur to them as a vocational choice. Some things are overdetermined, as they say. People find such choices appealing for a reason. That doesn't mean they're going to transition; but saying it has nothing to do with personal trans affinities is like Rev. Haggard saying he's not gay. And just like homophobic guys who sleep with men but aren't gay themselves - a certain unacknowledged (there's that word again)negative opinion colors their depictions of those aspects of themselves they see in others. Whether on or off screen. It illuminates why Haggard and his ilk think what they say about gay men is of value and right. And why other see certain depictions of transpeople as having entertainment value with no real world consequences. We'll still be here to help if and when.
My thing is why do people exploit shemales and transgenders I dated shemales their beautiful women the know how to love a man better than a women their emotional level and the bond between a man and a shemale is different and stronger in many ways I hate it when the word transgender or shemale is linked to porn
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Topics:
- Activism
- Arts
- Arts Events
- Books
- Dance
- First Person Fest
- Last Chance
- Museum
- On the Fringe
- Philly Artists
- The Curator
- Theater
- Visual Art
- Arts News
- Artist Profile
- Arts Preview
- Street Art
- Been There, Done That
- Big Ups
- Comedy
- LOL With It
- Stand-up
- Critical Mass
- DVD
- Events
- Friday Fill-in
- Ice Cubes
- In Memoriam
- Interview
- Just Do It
- Just Opened
- Kaleidoscopic
- LGBTQ
- Art Phag
- Mailbag
- Movies
- Film Fest
- Movie Review
- On set
- Scenester
- screening
- trailer!
- Music
- 10 Track Mind
- Album
- Album Review
- Concert Review
- DJs
- Local Support
- Now Hear This
- One Track Mind
- Philly Bands
- Show
- Somebody Else Was There
- Song
- The Showdown
- concert photos
- jazz
- DJ Nights Blogged
- Night Watch
- Now See This
- Poetic License
- Printed Matter
- Radio
- Shopping
- Coveted
- Fashion
- What We Heart
- TV
- 24
- Idol Hands
- Mad Men
- ProjRun
- True Blood
- Useless Lost Recaps
- Couch Potato
- Shore Trash
- Turned ONN
- TopMod
- Video Games
- Free Online Game
- PSP
- PlayStation 2
- The 1-Upper
- Wii
- Web Junk
- CAGE MATCH
- Free Online Toy
- Weekend Omnibus
- Win
