Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (190971)	12/29/2006 11:02:25 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793914

Excellent movie that never really caught on. Just watched it. LIBERTAS has a very interesting review of another I just saw. "De-Lovely" Reality Versus De-Lovely LIBERTAS — Dirty Harry @ 8:43 am As a Cole Porter fan I was eager to see Irwin Winkler’s De-Lovely when it came out on DVD a couple years ago. A bio-pic of the 20th century’s Beethoven — who worked with everyone from Fred Astaire to Irving Berlin and scored much of the soundtrack for the golden age of Hollywood and Broadway — seemed like a can’t miss. But it did. The film not only misfired, but its depiction of Porter shattered my hero-worship of this incredible talent. However, having recently finished William McBrien’s meticulous biography of Porter I found that Winkler’s portrayal of Porter was grossly unfair and near-malicious. To be sure I watched the film again, found my memory correct, and am left to wonder why Winkler chose to portray Porter in such a negative way and why the activist wing of the gay community stood for it. Cole Porter was gay. He was also married to Linda, a lovely socialite eight years his senior for 35 years. She wasn’t just a beard though. They were devoted to each other and had a marriage of understanding: She tolerated his gay affairs as long as they were kept private to avoid her any embarrassment. Winkler’s portrayal of Porter would have you believe he loved only Linda but caroused indiscriminately for same sex partners. Porter’s shown throughout the film Lindsay Lohan-ing through life picking up men in sex bars, restrooms, and pool parties. He’s a man unable to control his sexual appetite even at the expense of his wife. In reality, like most young men, gay or not, Porter was certainly not opposed to one night stands, but throughout his life he would also have two (maybe three) monogomous years-long relationships with men. Men he truly loved. Whereas the film portrays him as no better than an animal prowling for sex, in reality much of his life was spent searching for the one true love he felt would complete him. The real Porter sought happiness. Winkler’s Porter sought gratification. Films are about choices, and Winkler’s decision to focus on the worst aspect of Porter’s homosexual behavior is a curious one and boils down to the difference between accepting individuals and accepting an individual’s behavior. Something you don’t see very often in films are gay men and women in monogomous relationships. They’re usually the free-spirited best friend cruising for love and gossiping on about the cute guy they just met. It’s one thing — and an honorable thing — for Hollywood to ask us to accept gay people as individual human beings. It’s another to ask us to accept behavior we don’t find attractive even in heterosexuals. But Winkler, an old liberal lion in Hollywood, presents Porter and the worst apects of the gay lifestyle in such a way that we’re made to feel bigoted if we tsk tsk it. After all, this is who Porter was. If we’re going to accept him we must accept who he was as well. And isn’t it interesting that this man we find charming, kind, and talented behaved like this? But that wasn’t who Porter was. He was not a man who defined himself by his sexuality, he was a man who definded himself by his music. So, why not present the real Porter? If Winkler had portrayed Porter’s true male loves as a single character present throughout most of Porter’s life that would’ve been closer to the truth than what we’re led to believe. It’s as though Winkler worried that showing Porter in monogomous and loving relationships was somehow a cop-out to the real agenda. Another choice Winkler made that struck me as especially interesting was to show Porter’s gay friend Monty Woolley jump off a horse drawn carriage in Central Park and announce he was going to look for “a little fun” in the bushes. I don’t know if that really happened or not, but it’s a curious thing to choose to tell us about a man who was a legend on Broadway in his day. Surely there are more defining moments and insights into Monty Woolley than a moment of piggish behavior. Or, is the filmmaker’s agenda to make us feel wrong for calling it piggish? Is the agenda to redefine normal and dumb down deviancy by exploiting our desire not to think ourselves intolerant or prejudiced or heaven forbid, homophobic? Is the message that we must accept gay people only on the worst terms, or not at all? That if we don’t accept the behavior we are not accepting the man because this is who the man was? How else to explain portraying your protagonist in such a way — and such a dishonest way? How else to explain presenting only the worst side of him as though those are the only terms we can accept him on. Finally, in the film it’s his wife who’s portrayed as Porter’s muse. In reality, his muse was usually the men he loved or his desire to find love. There was a sincerity to Porter’s sexuality Winkler chose to ignore. A sincerity I found symnpathetic and a little heartbreaking. The real Cole Porter was certainly imperfect but he was also likable, charming, generous, and interesting. Winkler’s Cole Porter was disgusting, and not becuase he was gay. I’m glad I learned the truth. It gave me my Cole Porter back. And it was a bonus to learn Porter was an Eisenhower Republican as well.