Queer Beacon

Funny Games - Trailer

"Funny" games:

The trailer appropriately preceded Cronenberg's gory Eastern Promises (the review for that is coming soon).

Death at a Funeral (2007) - Shipwreck 3

In Death at a Funeral, Matthew MacFadyen's dad dies and his funeral is a complete disaster.  We see all sorts of uncomfortable situations -- all (poorly) tied up by a single bottle of Valium (actually filled with some sort of acid).

The movie relies way too much on the workings of the powered-up-Valium pills, which keep crossing the paths of many of the invitees and supporting the mayhem.

The first victim of the crazy Valium pill is Alan Tudyk, who then goes on to spend most of the movie high and naked.

In addition to the Valium plot, the story pretty much revolves around Peter Dinklage's character and his affair with the dead guy (we learn that from the trailer).  With the Shipwreck rating, you can tell I did not like the way in which the gayety was handled. 

To the movie's credit, I couldn't tell any homophobic slurs, but still, I couldn't help but come out of the movie with the impression we were made fun of in a bad way.  My hubby seems to agree with my take on the movie, but a great friend (gay, also Brazilian, hot and sort of single) who saw the movie with me thoroughly enjoyed it -- I think he was not at all bothered by the portrayal of the gays.  I don't know, maybe just the bitter old queens are bothered by this one...

I will talk about the gay content in Death at a Funeral after the jump (I will reveal a lot, be warned).

Obama and Clinton on UAFA - Having It Both Ways With The Gays

Immigration Equality and Citizen Crain, two blogs I like, are having a discussion on the lack of support for the Uniting American Families Act (the bill that would allow gays to sponsor their partners for immigration purposes in the US) from the two frontrunners in the Democratic presidential nomination: Obama and Clinton.  As I see it, the discussion would be more interesting if the issue were harder, but the issue is not hard at all.

Here's the deal: Obama and Clinton say they are withholding support for UAFA because of a concern for immigration fraud.  Obama's camp claims that:

"He [Obama] wants to make sure that immigration is possible for a partner in committed relationships, but he also wants to make sure there is a good mechanism for determining who qualifies for that status. He would like to see the Act [UAFA] get more specific with regards to defining ‘financial interdependence’ and the documentation required as proof in order to establish relationships — which could very well happen once the bill reaches the Senate floor."

As I see it, it is easy to side with Immigration Equality on this matter.  They put it nicely:

"For our part, this is nothing new from the Obama camp and a continued attempt to have it both ways. The fraud protections in the UAFA are exactly the same as they are for married (opposite-sex) couples. I perhaps haven’t pushed this point hard enough in previous exchanges, but the fraud protections in the UAFA are not the problem. The problem is that politicians do not understand LGBT relationships and do not consider them bona fide. Whether it is because a marriage certificate cannot be issued, or some deeper discomfort with LGBT marriages we do not know, but to deny LGBT couples a marriage certificate and then say that because there is no marriage certificate you must be subjected to more intense scrutiny is discriminatory, and wrong. Let’s not forget that Obama does not support gay marriage while at the same time claims civil unions extend exactly the same rights as does a marriage certificate.

The fraud protections in the UAFA are no more loose or no more strict that current fraud provisions for opposite-sex couples. It is unfortunate that Sen. Obama, the child of a binational couple whose marriage was once as frowned upon as LGBT relationships does not see this double standard for what it is. We are continuing to work with the Obama camp to bring them onto the UAFA but we will not let them off the hook so easily."

What do you think?

Fur (2006) - LightShed 8

This one is pretty creepy, but in a nice way. 

Fur's main character is called Diane Arbus (played by Nicole Kidman) -- the movie goes out of its way to make sure we know the story is not about real-life photographer artist Diane Arbus. 

In the movie, Kidman is fascinated with people who are usually thought of as freaks.  She is not fascinated as one would be in a circus, she really feels alive around different people. She befriends a few trannies and gays.  That was super nice.

The movie gets creepy as she falls for a uberhairy Robert Downey Jr. and cheats on her perfectly hot husband (played by Ty Burrell).

The movie is well put together, the acting is decent, but if you actually see this one, you should see it because of its kitsch value (in any case, don't expect much).  The flick is out on DVD.