Praise the Gay: Christianity and its relationship with Gays on film

Christianity and sexuality aren’t always the best coupling in films. More often than not, Christians are painted as a one dimensional, homogeneous character. They are the bogeyman in which no sense can be argued and are stuck in their backward ways; using scripture to back up their bigotry.  For sure, some Christians can act like this and the teachings of some churches indulge prejudges against homosexuality but it isn’t fair to paint every Christian in this way.

This is a concept truly understood by the film maker Stephen Cone. The son of a Baptist minister, he has a strong understanding of how faith and people actually interact with each other, especially in young people as they discover themselves. This is the principle theme of two of his films, The Wise Kids (2011) and Henry Gamble’s Birthday Party (2015).

The Wise Kids deals almost exclusively with characters who are Christians. It focuses on the burgeoning sexuality of the main character, Tim. In an astute decision Tim doesn’t begin the story as a religious zealot who has to leave this behind to embrace his sexuality. He is never completely at a loss over his homosexuality and his faith is a constant within the film. Though one of his friends Laura is conflicted over this; she doesn’t scream and shout but rather their friendship quietly parts away. It is tragic in its quiet truth as Cone skilfully shows that the friction that it can cause without overdramatic fireworks.

In both films, Cone decides to remove the tired dramatic trope of the main character’s parent rejecting their child for their sexuality. It’s not that this doesn’t happen, parents can be incredibly destructive to their child’s mentality but more it’s a decision made often for easy drama that comes off insensitive and untrue to people who really have had their parents react dreadfully to them coming out.

One film which does capture this well is Prayers for Bobby (2009). Sigourney Weaver plays Mary, the mother of Bobby Griffith. It is based on a true story and the truth of the situation abounds in the film. Whilst Mary never fully disowns Bobby, she makes it clear that she doesn’t want to know him if he embraces his sexuality. This broken disengagement pains Bobby more than the dramatic equivalent in which all contact is broken by a completely evil parent precisely because the promise of reunion is there, if only he can change his lifestyle. This complex dichotomy of love and rejection is far more difficult to depict on camera than the easy binary of good and evil. Mary comes to understand that her treatment of Bobby was not okay, regardless of scripture. In the process she finds a Church which takes a liberal interpretation of the bible and is accepting of homosexuality however this only occurs after her son takes his own life.

Cone explores the relationship and interplay between the secular and religious communities in Henry Gamble’s Birthday Party.  Henry is, as the title suggests, is celebrating his birthday and the party acts as the setting for the film which plays out not unlike a theatre script. The writing is phenomenal and again paints religious people as the complex people that they are. For example, in one scene, Henry’s sister who goes to a private Christian college feels the need to defend how they teach biology whilst also adhering to the idea of creationism in part. She is able to embrace It is in this scene in particular that I was struck by his willingness to question the treatment of the Christians by the atheists; I sensed a subtle acknowledgement of the level of hostility which has been reached by the two communities and a questioning of where this unwillingness to communicate will go.

Then again, though he might question the treatment of Christians he is in no way an apologist for the faith. Both of his films quietly and sensitively critique the negativity that the passivity of Christian communities on sensitive social issues. For example, a character in Henry Gamble’s Birthday Party suffers a mental breakdown when he becomes locked in the bathroom. Though this sounds like a rather on the nose depiction of the damage caused by being trapped in the closet; it works extremely well. It is compounded by the fact that throughout the film he was marginalized through silence rather than distinct ostractisation thus suggesting that even if the prejudices aren’t articulated, they can still be dangerous.

The party allows for an exploration of different generations as well as different belief systems. This is dealt with deftly when one character is confronted on their implicit homophobia when they are in a mixed race relationship. She believes that sexuality is a choice in a way that race is not. It shows that tolerance within the younger generation of people with faith is growing. It’s a realistic picture articulating the path that faith is taking for most young people in which a personal relationship is embraced with God. It is more about a dialogue between the individual and Him rather than adhering to a set of instructions decreed by someone else.

This is also explored in a cheesy though thoughtful film, Pass the Light (2015) which weirdly parallels the recent Presidential election except that in this film, the extremist running for congress loses. Essentially a high school student, Steve Bellafiore, decides to run against a congressional candidate, Franklin Baumann. He does this because he is a strong Christian who does not agree with the divisive message being spread by Baumann – supposedly in the name of the Lord. The film criticises the message of hate carried by many on the extreme right, especially in relation to sexual morality. It suggests that people with a genuine faith are being misled into a misunderstanding which will benefit the pursuits of the powerful.

The exploration of Christianity and how it deals with social issues is not something new to film. However, being portrayed as three dimensional people with complex emotions and understandings of their relation to faith is new. For too long, they have fallen into two categories, either they are entirely pious and the film holds their simple morality up on high or they are treated as simple minded sheep spouting beliefs they neither understand or agree with. This recent movement in the last decade to have films which critique faith and its social beliefs without villainising it is refreshing.

Trump is President

Democracy. 

I imagine my relationship with that concept  is a lot like someone going through a really rough patch with their childhood sweetheart. They met in primary school, across a loud and hectic classroom. In that moment, they were destined to be together forever. They go through everything together; get married, buy a house, have a couple of kids. Everything is great. Then the roof falls in. 

For the second time in a year, I feel cheated. The EU referendum shocked and saddened me. It felt like we were throwing our hands up in the air and saying that the problems of the world were too large and too scary and that we wanted out. We were shutting up shop and didn't care all that much about what happened to anyone else.

Leaving the Glasgow count, the writing was already on the wall and my heart genuinely felt like it was breaking. I am unashamedly a Europhile, I think that we gained a lot from being in the EU. But on two counts, I found some relief. Firstly, Scotland had decided to stay in. 

Secondly, this was a referendum on the EU. It is too simplistic and completely unfair on those that voted out to call them bigots. People had genuine concerns about the decisions their country could make and thought that more sovereignty could help them. I accepted that democracy will sometimes result in a very decision you don't like. 

You can't throw the dummy out the pram when it doesn't go your way. You accept that the majority were convinced by the other side. 

I was ready to make it work with democracy, I'd been taking him for granted. I didn't realise how much hard work he'd been putting in. He had other responsibilities and they felt he'd been ignoring them for me and my pals. I got that. We'd agreed to both try harder.

Then last night happened and I just don't know. I still believe in democracy. The people went out and they voted and a decision was made. Though importantly in this case the majority of voters cast their ballot for Hillary. That doesn't matter though. America has its very own special flavour of democracy which means that the candidate most people wanted might not always become President. The last time that happened Bush bet out Gore for the Oval Office and we all know how well that went.

But even that doesn't matter. Lots of democracies have systems that aren't exactly proportional and we respect them. The point is that in the system chosen, a candidate was chosen in a free and fair election.

I still believe in the result of the election but it is hard. It's harder than the EU referendum because though I completely disagree, I can see the merits for leaving. They don't seem alien to me. 

Cards on the table. The very notion of a Trump Presidency is alien to me. I accept that he won and that he now becomes the commander in chief of America but I don't understand it.

And it's because, if you were on the Trump train, I think you have to accept him whole. You voted for a man that is literally on tape talking about grabbing the genitalia of women. For a man that is accused by many of sexual assault. Innocent until proven guilty, absolutely but it's still frightening. Of course, voting or supporting the policies of Trump does not make you a sexist. It does though, at the very least mean that you're apathetic to that; thinking it's just not as important.  

A long time ago, in a fantasy world, a very wise man told a young guy that with great power comes great responsibility. For too long, we've talked about the power of voting without the responsibility. 

A vote for Trump was also a vote for his vice president, Governor Pence. Pence, in 2000, publicly came out in favour of gay conversion therapy. He thinks that resources and public money should be used to help change the sexual orientation of people. In the debates, Trump was highly critical of abortion and signaled support for overturning Roe vs. Wade. If you support these then good for you, you’ve voted for a candidate that will put them into practice. 

However, if you don’t then it’s not as easy to simply say well I voted for him because he’s going to get manufacturing back and so I don’t have anything to do with what happens to social issues. It doesn’t work like that. If you voted for Trump – no matter your logic for doing it – you’ve given a mandate to a man that holds views that will push the rights of minorities and women back. Remember that time Trump said a judge had a conflict of interest because of his Mexican heritage.

I support democracy. That means supporting the decision of the democratic vote. And we all have to do that. But we also have to accept responsibility for our decisions. 

Those People

‘Those People’ is a recent addition to Netflix. Every time I signed in, it was assigned prime of place in my recommended slot. Hardly surprising since I have watched just about every romantic film with gay characters that Netflix has to offer. I eventually took the plunge earlier this week and boy, am I glad that I did.

Joey Kuhn, the writer and director behind ‘Those People’ has a talent for dialogue. His use of prose is beautiful and by using well educated millennials in the mould of characters from ‘Girls’, he’s able to achieve a level of realism. I don’t doubt at all that these characters would quote Joubert at each other.

Unlike Marnie and Hannah though, Kuhn never really allows his kids to come over as spoilt or entitled. Yes, they are rich and were afforded comfortable lifestyles but they’re all very aware of this. The closest this film gets to seeing this group as the other is in their names – Sebastian, Ursula, Wyatt– and the title of the film. It is the press that are after Sebastian – whose father is now in jail for pulling off some Bernie Madoff like scam – that are shown to be evil. Ursula is working two jobs as she attempts to break into her dream profession, her boyfriend is a bar tender. This is hardly a living the dream lifestyle.

This isn’t to the film’s discredit; it’s actually to its success. These characters are inhibited to a large extend because they are constantly second guessing how the world sees themselves. London is the exception to the group in that she wasn’t born into money and has worked her way up. She distances herself from Sebastian because she fears retaliation for being seen as part of an entitled, corrupt part of society. It’s not unfounded, she loses a job because the company is worried about the way it’ll play. It captures beautifully the current climate in which we’re all too willing to let our preconceptions meet social media and doom people to the box we’ve assigned them.

Kuhn’s discussion about wealth and entitlement is a secondary point. This film is primarily a coming of age story. It’s not about Charlie being gay, this is just a fact. Probably because these characters aren't in their final year of school; they're just finishing or have just finished university. It's only now that they're out of these bubbles that they're beginning to find themselves. Charlie's main dilemma is that he loves his best friend Sebastian and is unable to move on. This is made clear before the love interest is even introduced. Kuhn is a skilled writer, though he seems unable to leave subtly developed plot points, returning to them later and so we have two separate warnings about Charlie moving in with Sebastian. Of course, these fall on death ears. Sebastian needs help and Charlie will be there in an instant.

Enter Tim. Tim is the antithesis to Sebastian, he’s more reserved and mature. He’s an accomplished pianist and yet likes to play show tunes in dive bars. He’s also meant to be a lot older than the group but this was lost on me. Then again, I frequently date men twice my age so maybe I’m not the best judge of that. Tim and Charlie bond but from the beginning it’s clear that they’re not going to be together. It lessens the tension sometimes but that isn’t always a bad a thing; this film is about Charlie moving on and Tim is the catalyst for this; he’s not the resolution.

Things come to a head when Tim tells Charlie that we ‘all have a Sebastian’ and he needs to grow up and get over that. Not quite in those words but hell he’s totally right and all I can say is preach, Tim, preach. Charlie is an excellent protagonist because he’s so relatable but it does make him very frustrating at points. He’s so infatuated with Sebastian that he can’t see it’s hurting other people and even when he does; he releases himself from that guilt by pointing to the inherent selflessness in his actions to help a friend that is hurting.

This leads to my favourite scene of the entire film. It has all the elements of a delicious scene and are executed to perfection. We have our protagonist spiralling into a humiliating reveal of their feelings, a difficult to watch confrontation with reality and a cameo by Max Jenkins to ground it in hilarity. Charlie confronts Sebastian and though Sebastian obviously has been stringing Charlie along, it’s because he’s afraid of losing Charlie. It would be sweet if it didn’t scream of a horrifically bad case of co-dependency.

Sebastian could have turned out to be the monster that the press so desperately wants him to be. For sure, he’s quite a selfish person. But at his heart, he’s a very lonely guy that is inherently good. He was born into a legacy that he desperately wants no part in. Relationships between father and sons are explored in this film quite a bit but we only ever see Sebastian’s Dad. It’s not that he’s evil but he is distant from his son and evidently only wants to use him to continue a criminal enterprise whilst he’s in prison. It’s not too difficult to see where Sebastian has developed that ability to manipulate and why he would feel the need to manipulate those closest to him to stay with him. Sebastian believes he’s a bad person and that he’s soiled goods. It’s a credit to Kuhn that he is able to create such a sympathetic, rounded character under the guise of an entitled, spoilt rich kid.

After this scene, Charlie distances himself from Sebastian and rekindles his romance with Tim. The latter of whom then gets a job offer in San Francisco and wants Charlie to join him. This is the only part of the film that I think doesn’t quite land well. It’s pretty clear that realistically, Charlie hasn’t known him long enough to commit to this and he’s still in School in New York. I get why it’s necessary as a plot device but it does stick out as one.

Having said that, I took that development to be Kuhn taking the easy route out by removing Tim and letting Sebastian take the space. The film doesn’t disappoint in giving such a generic ending. It was always about Charlie and it lets him secure his own independence. Overall, this film was a terrific effort and really enjoyable to watch. Given this was his first feature length piece, I can’t wait to see if he brings out more work as he obviously has the ability for writing believable, relatable characters.

Tickled

‘Tickled’ is a very strange film. David Farrier is a journalist that comes across a video about ‘competitive tickling.’ That is a video of athletic men tickling another young athletic man. You’ve probably never heard of that sport and Farrier hadn’t either so he decides to reach out to the company.
 

Jane O’Brien, the company owner, does not take well to the idea of a documentary, taking special exception to the fact Farrier is gay. Not only does she throw multiple slurs at him but also threatens legal action if he continues to investigate the company. Of course, as a journalist this makes him only more interested and so begins a fascinating exploration of the ‘competitive tickling’ world. He decides to create this film with the help of his friend and colleague, Dylan Reeve.

From the moment the film begins, it is obvious that ‘competitive tickling’ is a front for a fetish around tickling. I’m not going to lie, I find that a bit strange. I mean these people are clothed so it’s not even really porn and yet is obviously sexually stimulating to some. At the end of the day though, you do you. If you get your kicks out of being tickled or tickling or even watching it and everyone is consenting, then what’s the problem?

And the film makers agree; during the course of the film they explore those that actively and openly engage in tickling in a sexual way. It's evident that they have no issue with the tickling fetish, believing that it demonstrates the beauty of a democracy and sexually enlightened society. Then again I can't help but feel that Farrier is giving conditional acceptance throughout as I detect a sense that he's still looking down on them for doing this. It’s a subplot of the film but it’s a very interesting one to me. Even though we happily throw up our hands and say ‘you do you’ to what extent do we actually believe that? 

As I say though, that’s only a subplot. The main plot is the fact that Jane O’Brien is trickling young men into participating in this fetish without their knowledge and using the competitive tickling as a cover story. This is absolutely not okay and as the film continues, we discover that the company specifically targets impoverished areas, offering money to young men in financially difficult circumstances. It’s easy to see why these men might buy into any narrative presented if, at the end of the day they received one thousand dollars.

The problem isn’t the fetish, it’s the exploitation of these people. The fact these guys were paid doesn’t invalidate the fact that by denying them the true facts, their agency was removed from them and therefore they weren’t able to make their own decisions. Not only that but in many cases these men were told that the videos would be kept private and then were put on youtube and could be accessed for free. You can imagine the devastation that could cause, especially when these guys are coming from very conservative backgrounds.

As the film continues, you’ll be stunned by the extensive web of lies that the company has spun to continue making these videos. The main thing that I take away from this film is that all this would be unnecessary if ‘Jane O’Brien’ was not so ashamed about the fetish. As already mentioned, Farrier visits a man who has set up a company which specialises in this fetish and does incredibly well. People participate voluntarily, engaging in activities which they know will be watched for sexual pleasure but have decided that they’re willing to do it. It seems to prove that it’s completely unnecessary for all the lies and deceit. In this light, the shadowy figure of Jane O’Brien which once seemed menacing is really a pathetic character almost deserving of pity had it not hurt so many people.

‘Tickled’ is an excellently put together documentary that is incredibly thought provoking and it’s a shame that it has had such a small release. However, it’s out on DVD at the end of November and I’d definitely recommend getting it.