Gay men are all over television and movies these days. But Hollywood still seems most comfortable keeping us in the "best friend" or "helper" role. Writer/performer Mike Albo looks to figure out why.
During the last several years of explosive cultural democratization, when Americans of all colors and genders were getting their long-overdue moment to tell their stories, portrayals of gay men seemed to be stuck in a holding pattern that has been around since Stanford Blatch on "Sex and the City."
We have our Andy and Anderson and Jesse and Neil Patrick. And now, we even have a Prince Charming. But something is strikingly still the same: gay men are rarely central. Instead they are there to help.
It’s hard not to conclude that gay men aren’t carrying shows in leading roles because, frankly, they aren’t ratings-getters. The bottom line seems to be that ordinary Americans can’t “identify” with us unless we are helping someone sjujz their bedroom. As long as we aren’t being too over-sharing about our weird, messy, sexual gay lives, then it’s OK for us to be around. The fate of "Looking" seems like evidence is a case in point. Sure, the show had its flaws, but so does "Girls" and so does "Divorce."" Looking" was emotional and sexual, a bumpy ride that looked at the messiness, mistakes, and false starts in gay male culture. But despite the show’s promise, it wasn’t given a chance, neither by HBO nor its audiences.Read on HERE.
.JPEG)
3 comments:
"Looking" was an excellent show and I really miss those guys.
That is true to an extent. But it's better than being completely shut out.
"The fate of "Looking" seems like evidence is a case and point.
What is a "case and point" :) Spell check is not enough.
Post a Comment