The Vintner's Luck: damn The Man
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
filamentmag: seems there's this novel, The Vintner's Luck, by Elizabeth Knox. It features, among other things, a gay male romance plot. The book did well, sold quite nicely, and not only had its film rights purchased, but the movie actually got made. All good news for Ms. Knox, you'd think.Instead, by her own admission, she cried for days after seeing the movie. Why? Because, among other things, they took the gay right out of the story. Excised. Removed without trace.
Now, look. As a sometime screenwriter and current photostory editor, I'm sympathetic to the problems of adaptation. Some things don't work visually the way they work on the page. Some stories work differently in two hours than in 700 pages. Some flights of fancy can't be properly realized in front of a camera. There are a million things that can go wrong with casting, funding, locations, logistics, props, costumes, actors... I understand there there are lots of reasons why one might have to make changes that would upset a purist.
This is none of them. This is someone (and I don't pretend to know just who) in the movie's chain of command making the decision to take out The Gay because they think audiences will be scared off. This is like when they took The Subterraneans, which centers on an interracial romance, and made the black girl into a French girl for the movie. This is like... hell, make your own list. They've been pulling this crap for decades. When does it stop being okay?
The name of the production company is Acajou Films. I'm told that New Zealand is often used as a test-screening site for films they're still tinkering with. It is possible that a less-butchered cut of this movie exists. It is possible that if a stink is raised, the gay romance plot might be cut back in. I, for one, would like to see that happen. We'll see how things go from here.
That intro's just a cheap excuse to post this video, which made me laugh and fixes one of the several problems I had with the novel.
The thing is, female desire used to be taken as read. Long ago, Greek legend told of Tiresias, who had been biologically both male and female (long story) being asked to settle a bet about which gender got more pleasure out of sex. Without hesitation, Tiresias asserted that women had 90% of the fun. Similar stories and assumptions appear throughout the ancient world, taking for granted the assumption that women, on average, are a lot hornier than men are. Ancient Greece, with its emphasis on the intellectual, tended to assume that it was because men were more rational and less carnal, but you have to expect that kind of thing from the likes of Aristotle.
Western cultural opinion on this subject changed, however. I don't want to get into trying to blame it on any particular source, but it came to be accepted as common knowledge that women were more spiritual and holy than men, meaning less horny. We see leftovers of this attitude today; make your own list of examples.
Soon, it was taken as read that a woman who did experience (or at least express) sexual desire was suffering from a disorder. One important 1775 study of the subject linked the problem to "secret pollutions", i.e. wanking, and (I swear I am not making this up) eating too much chocolate. I guess that'd go a ways toward explaining this advertisement. Women were diagnosed with, treated for, and often operated upon for "nymphomania", the dread condition that causes a woman to want sex. (Talk to your doctor; you may suffer from it yourself!)
Now, one does not want to draw an easy equivalency, but I for one can't help thinking of drapetomania, a disease discovered in the antebellum South which causes slaves to want to escape. It sounds like a tasteless joke now, but back then, it was the subject of serious research. In both cases, we've got The Man telling people how they're supposed to live, and then labeling any desire not to live that way as a mental illness.
This brings us back to the present, where too many women keep their private desires and fantasies secret, for fear of being thought strange or perverted or... well, find your own synonym for "crazy". The fear of not being understood, of being looked down upon for wanting what one has not been told to want, remains. "Normal" women don't get off on seeing two men together, so that has to be kept a secret. Thousands, millions of women love seeing two men together, and those are just the ones we can prove, but it's not "normal", so it has to be kept secret.
I don't have a simple solution for this problem. I suspect if there were a simple solution it would have been found by now. And hell, it's not likely that any solution would come from a straight guy like me. But I'd love to hear any of y'all's opinions on the subject.
( Cute boys and one cute girl )
( Vintage 1917 boys behind the cut )
(Okay, I think that almost everything calls for pictures of cute boys. It's my job.)
( Boys... men... never mind nomenclature, good eye candy behind the cut. )
If this was just one time, I'd figure okay, she lost interest in the pitch, it's not everyone's cup of tea. But over and over again, always with the same timing--man approaches, woman looks away--that's suggestive. There's no denying that in our society, women are... let's say "strongly encouraged" to modulate their desires to meet male approval. And that comes with a lot of mostly-unexamined assumptions about what will gain that approval.
What's really interesting is that these were the kind of hip, progressive folks you'd expect to see at something called the Erotic Arts Festival. They're in touch with their desires, they're sexually liberated, all that good jazz. This wasn't some troglodyte lurching up and snarling "Whatcha doing looking at these homo pictures, sweetcakes?" Heck, almost none of these guys so much as looked askance at our display. Nobody was trying to oppress or silence anyone here... and yet there it was anyway. Women's desires were quietly quashed by the women themselves. Heck, I'd bet most of them weren't even doing it consciously.
It can be frustrating how these unspoken codes embed themselves so deeply in our minds... has anyone else confronted this problem? It's subtle enough that one can't simply call it out, shouting "Hey, quit oppressing her!" at some perfectly nice fellow who didn't do anything, or "Stop collaborating in your own silencing!" at some very cool lady who seems to like our cute guys. I'd love to hear about other people's experiences with this phenomenon.
The Erotic Arts Festival was a delight. Portland is known for cool people, and they turned out in force for this one. You've gotta love a vendor room where you're next to a maker of vegan-friendly belts and floggers and across from both Fascinations and Camelia's Candles. We talked with tons of interesting people, including a couple potential models and some folks who might help with costuming. More importantly, though, we spoke with dozens or hundreds of women and men who wanted to know more about what we're doing and what we're about. It was a real joy to be able to connect to people one-on-one and share our passion for our work. We've gotten a good deal of response already, and we're pleased with how it went.
And just to keep us humble, we didn't sell a single one of the prints we had on the table.
This is us at our vendor table. On the right is Susan, our publisher, photographer, and my boss. On the left is either me or some kind of 1930s supervillain, it's hard to tell. Susan requests that I reassure you we were not as bored as we look in that shot.
We also (finally) updated our website, with some seriously bare-bones content including the hottest new web feature of 1995, a FAQ. We do now have nice email addresses for anyone who wants to submit fiction to us, model for us, or ask me why I decided "1930s supervillain" was a good look. We'll be adding an RSS feed for this LJ shortly, as this will remain the best source for up-to-the-minute updates.
Lastly and even more fun, we had a tremendously successful casting call for models, coming away with four widely-varied fellows, all different, all hot. The shoot was a pleasure from start to finish, finding out how different guys take direction, how they express themselves, and who the camera really loves. We're looking forward to featuring all four of these guys in our first issue, by which I mean we're sweating over costumes, props, locations, and so on. Watch for a few more teaser images coming soon, and hints from our story shoots!
Right now, they're having some trouble with distribution, and this would be a heck of a time for them to sell a few more issues. If you can, swing by their site and buy a copy. Those of us who want to see more quality hot men for women need to stick together.
That's a perfectly reasonable question. The answer is more pictures of cute guys. Again, these aren't the story shots we'll be running in the magazine, nor are they the cream of the crop from that particular shoot. The very best we're saving for later, but in the meantime I'd love to hear what people think of these:
( Donate today to help end shirtlessness! )
In other news, we have finally acquired decent studio space. After weeks of poking around the city, and after the owners of one excellent space backed out of a verbal agreement once they learned what kind of pictures we take, Syzygy's photography aspect has found a home. We'll be working out of Portland's Studio 20, a photography co-op with cool members and a great studio. Our first shoot in the new place is scheduled in a few days, and we've got some new models we're very excited about.
I wanted to get a couple shots of our erstwhile photographer and publisher Susan, but she stayed on the safe side of the camera all afternoon. She did, however, capture this image of me making my usual invaluable contribution to the photography process.
I'm told I snore.
What do you folks think of the first couple boys we've got to show off? Any requests for other stuff you'd like to see in advance of our official releases?
spankingfemme for a nice old-fashioned "post stuff about yourself" meme. So, at the risk of using a phrase that's gotten me into trouble a lot of times, what the hell. Prepare to learn eight things about me you may or may not have known.1. This is not my first, or even my only, Livejournal identity. I've been online since 1993, during which time I've gone by a number of names. Some were just me under a different name, some were alternate personas I constructed, though none of the latter were on Livejournal.
2. Brad Hanon is, in fact, a pen name I've adopted for professional reasons. I wasn't sure whether or not to do so, but pen names have an honorable history, and if one were to put Samuel Clemens' face on the twenty-dollar bill, (as one ought to) it would be legitimately labeled "Mark Twain". One could, as with Mr. Clemens, determine my legal name with a wee bit of digging, which is why I'm glad that the LJ community has such great respect for the rights of privacy and anonymity.
3. I will, when properly influenced, meaning drunk, attempt to sing selections from the works of Stephen Sondheim. These attempts generally founder on the fact that I really, really, really can't sing. Also Sondheim's best numbers require one to have a number of friends with perfect pitch and timing and a good deal of rehearsal.
4. I once drove across the country in one of those big old conversion vans with a bed in the back. My girlfriend at the time insisted that we stop in each state we passed through and have sex, in order to be able to check off more states from the list. If you were offended by noises coming from a large Ford van at a rest stop late in 1997, that may have been me. Sorry.
5. My favorite character from the original Star Trek is Sulu. Because Sulu is freakin' awesome.
6. One of my most treasured sentimental possessions is a rather large bust of Hermes, copied from this famous statue. My mother gave it to me when I was nine years old, and I've had it with me every place I've lived since then.
7. I do not smoke cigarettes, but I do smoke pipes. There's something about the ritual of packing, lighting, relighting, and tamping a pipe that I find very meditative and focusing. This does mean that when I'm working hard, the space for about twenty feet around me is unlivable.
8. I have a deep affection for the nation of Madagascar, its simple but tasty food, its language with half the letters unpronounced, and its unparalleled natural beauty. I'm especially fond of the fossa, my all-time favorite mammalian predator. Fossas are adorable and deadly. Pointless fossa videos!
Meme rules:
1. Post these rules.
2. Each tagged person must post 8 things about themselves on their journal.
3. At the end, you have to choose and tag 8 people and post their icons on the same journal.
4. Go to their pages and send a message saying you tagged them.
5. No tag-backs.
I'm cheerfully ignoring rule four and part of three. Instead I'll just tag
aris_tgd, liviapenn, theotherjay, and scrollwyrm for now.Right now, we're coming off a couple months of being stalled; this economy's a fun place to be starting a new business, I have to say. When can we officially start calling it a depression, again?
We're back on track and rolling along now, though, with all the stories for the first issue locked in. The last addition, a lovely tale of legal signatures by
amazoniowan, was slowed down a lot by technical problems and contract negotiations. I learned two things from this: First, that Microsoft software really is more trouble than it's worth, and second, that amazoniowan contains 100% of the recommended daily intake of patience and professionalism. (I don't know whether she contains any artificial colors or preservatives--that's none of my business.)Design for the pre-magazine version of the website is coming along, after clearing up some of the relevant legal issues with our awesome lawyer. We're hoping to persuade him to let us put a couple pictures of him on the site; if we succeed, you'll understand why. The first version of the site will have basic information about who we are and what we're up to, with plenty of images of gorgeous men to keep it from being too dull. If there's anything anyone would especially like to see on the preliminary site, we're very much open to suggestions.
The current logistical slowdown is the acquisition of studio space for our preliminary shooting. We're still on a shoestring, so we don't want to spend too much or sign a lease just yet, but we do want a nice place where we can get a good crop of images. We're poking through various places in the Portland area, and narrowing it down nicely.
In short, thus far it's a hell of a slog, and we're having a hell of a good time at it.
I did promise a followup post regarding the female gaze, but it's going to be brief and unillustrated. After screwing up the etiquette on fan art last time and taking the relevant amount of heat for it, I didn't want to step on any more toes, and some artists were understandably reluctant to have their work featured. Images of many types are available all over the internet, and I assume most people reading this post have seen their fair share.
My biggest mistake in communication in my previous post was oversimplifying the dichotomy between the male and female gazes. I gave the impression that I was claiming the distinction looked like this:
When it actually looks a lot more like this:
There's plenty of range and variation within the female gaze, just as not all male-gaze images are the same. There's also plenty of overlap and gray area in the middle, images that don't fall easily into either template. Personal taste also, of course, varies widely. That's always been my observation, and I did my own point a real disservice by oversimplifying it last time.
That said, when one looks at enough images of men, certain trends make themselves apparent. There are legitimate exceptions to every one of the following observations, but if one will forgive the analogy, just because Portland had some dry days in February doesn't mean it's inaccurate to call it a rainy city.
Male-gaze images of men do focus more on the penis--even when it's not visible, it tends to be a major part of the composition. Female-gaze images, even those that show penises, tend to focus much more on the man as a person than on the dick itself. Also, one doesn't usually see penises of the extraordinary dimensions that male-gaze images often favor.
Indeed, images of sexy guys created by and for men often have a hyper-masculine quality, with bulging muscles, granite jawlines, and genitals the size of field artillery. Female-gaze images tend to be more realistic, or idealized in other ways.
In images by and for women, one sees more focus on faces and hands, and the body language of the subjects is different. A common complaint about male-gaze images of women is that they're very artificial, posed and powdered and airbrushed, wearing things nobody ever actually wears and contorted into awfully unlikely poses. This carries over to images of men, with the subjects posed for deliberate presentation, seemingly aware that they're being looked at, often looking right out at the viewer. Female-gaze images are generally more concerned with capturing a more candid appearance, men who aren't presenting themselves for viewing.
Indeed, the most common and pervasive aspect of female-gaze images, insofar as I've seen, is vulnerability. Male-gaze images of men tend to present the man as he wants to be seen, wearing the aspect and armor of his masculinity. Female-gaze images are more about showing the man as he is beneath that armor, capturing a revealing or human moment. For example, if you see an attractive image of a man asleep, odds are good it was created by a woman. Even when the man is presented as very dominant or controlling, it's more often control over someone or something within the context of the image, not over the viewer or his own presentation. The effect is subtle, and again, not universal, but it's a distinct trend.
These observations, I should make clear, are by no means intended to be prescriptive. There's no one way anybody "should" construct, look at, or enjoy images. Certainly not one based on one's gender. Rather, these observations are meant to be descriptive, based on years of looking at different images and trying to pin down those subtle but observable patterns one sees. One of the exciting things about this project has been working with various women on erotic male stories and images, learning about their own experiences with this dichotomy, sharing ideas, and adding to my own understanding.
Speaking (as usual) just for myself, once I noticed these tendencies and patterns I've attempted to describe, it helped me understand the male-gaze issue as not just the overwhelming presentation of one viewpoint, but the implicit denial of another. The male gaze is, as has been well-documented, all over television, movies, animation, comic books, and darn near every advertisement ever made. The female gaze is, to put it mildly, less well-served. One of the reasons I'm involved in Syzygy is to help make some small change in that imbalance. I think every human being deserves their fair share of eye candy.
