Love it or hate it, the culture war in the United States has been raging at a fever pitch for a decade (or more), in the media, on the political stage and certainly in the back-rooms of policy making. Kirby Dick’s latest documentary lobs a shrapnel grenade right into the centre of things with the question: “Why are many gay politicians, who choose to ‘live in the closet’ (presumably out of concern for losing their public office – but it is likely not that simple) some of the toughest anti-gay policy makers?” Of course to ask this question, Dick and company are essentially outing several governors, senators and mayors on screen which will lead, more likely than not, to a slander law-suit or three. The film on the surface is destined to be written off by hard-core Republicans (who will, I’m guessing, not bother seeing the film before writing it off) as a scarlet-letter gossip piece. Which it kind-of sort-of is. Except that, in its sensational way, it is asking the right questions. So thus it also tangentially asks if the ends justify the means for these sort of situations where “people who are not subject to the law will of course make harsh law.” Which in itself is a highly symbolic threat to the practice of democracy as kings and kingmakers sidestep their own nature in a ‘thou dost protest too much’ sort of way to deal with their own psychological hang-ups, either in their political arenas, their attempt to hang on to their own wealth and influence, or simply the upbringing of many of these folks in a time when homosexuality was treated like a brain-disorder. Perhaps Dick’s film is a demonstration of capitalism (and ‘me-ism’) at its finest: When a member of a certain group sells out that group for personal and selfish gain. Many may see the worst politicians as ‘self-promoting assholes,’ but here we have several gents willing to have a moral compromise against their own identity. One apt comment is the comparison to the job of the politician and the dance of staying in the closet. Both require crafty language, spin, and a delicate balancing of a great number of needs and obligations.
Outrage is extraordinarily made in the sense that it builds a narrative with its segments and examples, and its naming of names. From the history of homosexual culture (or rather the cultures reaction to homosexuality) in the United States to media double standards on hetero affairs vs. homosexual affairs in American celebrities and politicians (and implicit in this is the biases of several cable news networks), to gay issues (from Aids to joint tax filing), to even the own gossipy nature of the films existence: “Everyone loves a good outing.” And the collection of commentators from radio personalities, to bloggers to several politicians who have been outed in the past, or have outed themselves. Perhaps the most interesting personal aspect of the film is time spent on the women who marry the men and are either aware or not fully aware of their husbands sexual orientation and are, in some way, a front for garnering more votes. And the anti-gay hatred often pushed (through the voting record, and through stump speeches) is a hotter button for many gay folks than simply a hetero politician doing the same thing. It is clear that several of the ‘outraged’ folks have a special place in hell for those who not only deny their nature and set the movement for equality back, but are actively pushing back out of fear for themselves and their rung on the ladder. ‘Traitor’ is probably the strongest word for this.
Whatever the side of the cultural divide your sensibilities may rest, there is an interesting human question being posed here. One that has been mulled over in many different context with no solution other than to keep fighting the fight. And Kirby Dick’s film may be written of as a Michael Moore style screed by those in opposition to it, but the target is not one person, but rather a way of thinking. A way of thinking that should be changed (hopefully) as the next generation or two moves on from the fear and ignorance of the 20th century into new fears and ignorance of the 21st century. One last thing I’d be remiss in skipping, the text and titles design of the film is so bloody handsome and elegant that politics aside, I’d expect several documentary or fictional filmmakers to be borrowing it in productions to come.
I enjoyed this doc, and along with Sick and This Film is Not Rated, I find Kirby Dick a reliable filmmaker who at the very least knows how to craft even predominately talking head documentaries into something captivating. Though the film is preaching to the choir, it was damn fascinating to watch.
My only concern is how much of what is said is hearsay and how much is fact… I wonder if there were any slander cases brought against Kirby, that would probably determine it. The film seems low on concrete facts and high on suspicion.
Surprised there was no Mark Foley.
I’m not sure how slander works in the United States against such public figures as politicians. Maybe Kirby Dick is protected because of that? I’ll be following the reception of this film, as it just opened in limited release in the United States this weekend (on 5 screens in big cities, and was mostly ignored by audiences according to Box Office Mojo)
This film looks despicable.
The way to advocate for gay rights is to make a strong moral argument based on the principals of Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Not to give a platform to opportunistic slime and school yard gossip mongering.
Does Kirby Dick personally vouche for all of these people? Does he vouche for any of them? Aren’t most of them prostitutes? How is this different than that human detritus who claimed Obama gave him a blow job and then they smoked while reading the Koran?
I hate the MPAA. and I found This Film Is Not Yet Rated to be pretty thin and poorly made. Some funny ideas, but that’s it.
The trailer is a bit misleading, and it clearly selling the film on its more salacious elements. For the most part things are fairly level headed, and the film asks a number of very interesting questions in the right sort of way.
I highly recommend “PRIVATE PRACTICES: THE STORY OF A SEX SURROGATE” to take the bad taste of THIS FILMS HAS NOT BEEN RATED out of your mouth, it is a very sensitive and honest film on a subject that could have been trashy in the extreme. (Our Review: http://www.rowthree.com/2009/01/27/dvd-review-private-practices/ )
Let’s be clear, this film is not remotely balanced. This is as aggressive as This Film Has Not Been Rated. There are cases that are exposed and so they look at them and put them in context, but there are cases which might have two or three sources, but yeah, who are these sources exactly, the gay community, and is it beyond them, even three different people to want to slander a Republican congressman who is stomping on their civil rights? Kirby doesn’t satisfyingly put the spotlight of doubt on these sources, but then how could you make this film saying these things without being libelous, I have to think they are credible sources.
Like RNC Chair Mehlman is “outted” in the doc based on what exactly , this rumor that everyone on Capitol Hill knows he is gay, and Bill Maher said it on Larry King. Like really? Thats it.
The best bits were looking at the wives of the outted politicians and looking at Cheney’s daughter which to this day blows my mind. If there is a single gay person to rag on for having every opportunity to change the policies in their favor during the Bush Administration it was her, and she said NOTHING.
But isn’t it immoral to run a bunch of nasty unsubstantiated rumors from unscrupulous types? Maybe it’s just the trailer but most of those talking heads seemed to be prostitutes.
Yea, the trailer missells the movie a lot. Mostly it is ‘uncensored’ talking heads asking fundamentally interesting questions. Yes, some of this can be construed as slander, but mainly they stick to the ‘record’ in the documentary.
I do agree with their ethical justifications for outing these people, that it is not McCarthyism, but there needs to be absolute proof. Their argument in the film is the people being outed are staunchly against gay rights, and psychologically staunchly against them because of their closeted behavior, and it is right for them to be exposed because the context of their political decisions can then be seen and judged. Yes, you are destroying that person’s life by exposing the lie, but then they took a public office voluntarily where the politics of their private life come into direct contact with their policymaking.