May 2006 Archives

Apparently, I started an unplanned tradition when I wrote my previous review of the movie, Dorian Blues a couple weeks ago. This past weekend, I decided to watch the 2005 movie, FAQs, and I find myself with the desire to similarly review it.

First of all, let me just say that producer Everett Lewis did an excellent job in this movie. It's a truly moving tale about a group of gay men (and one young lesbian, though she plays such a bit part, unfortunately) trying to not only survive in the face of the hate directed towards them, but to be themselves and thrive because of it. India -- a young man living on the streets of LA after his homophobic parents disowned him -- is rescued from a pair of gaybashers by an old drag queen, Destiny. Destiny gives India a home and begins to teach him to protect, love, and respect himself. Destiny, India, and Lester (a young lesbian Destiny similarly saved and "adopted" in years past) are soon joined by Spencer, who becomes India's main love interest in throughout the rest of the movie. The plot of the movie then revolves around the dual themes of "saving" India's would-be bashers (who turn out to be closeted queers themselves) and India trying to convince Spencer to give up on his plan to kill his parents, who had abused him until he ran away. These dual themes perfectly frame the central message of the film: Love conquers all if you just give it a chance. One of my favorite quotes from the movie was when India tells Spencer, "Our kisses are like bombs going off in the straight world."

Of course, the movie itself had plenty of "bombs." There are several highly erotic scenes in which various boys are shown caressing, kissing, and rubbing up against one another. And while no genital contact is shown (though there are a few scenes involving full frontal nudity in non-sexual settings), I imagine that this might be a bit "explosive" for some viewers. (Personally, as someone who often wryly jokes about "gratuitous straight sex scenes" in most movies, I found it a nice change.)

One of the problems that I had with this movie, however, was that it was too optimistic. There were several potentially dangerous scenes (some of which were created by an overly-optimistic India who tended to make unwise decisions) in which someone could have died, yet everyone made it through the movie virtually unscathed. The particular scene which bothered me was when Quentin -- one of the bashers from the start of the movie -- shows up at the boys' home with a gun after having gotten their address off his answering machine from a message India told Guy to leave. Considering that the movie had been building up a highly distrought Quentin -- who not only held a gun under his chin at one point, but also was shown firing said gun at a roadside sign fantasizing about killing his former friend "turned fag" -- it just seemed like a poor climax. It also sends the message that doing something stupid like giving your home address to a known basher -- even one you think is really gay and needs to be "saved from himself" -- is okay. It's not. It's dangerous, and it's stupid. So Lewis gets points taken off for being too optimistic and implicitly encouraging needless and foolish risk-taking.

In closing, I would like to say that I particularly liked the final scene. Without giving too much away, I will just say that I found it appropriately cyclical.

I posted this over at Writers on the Loose. I decided to cross-post it here to see what some of my friends think about my theories.

On a previous column, Zjabs left me the following comment:

Ingvi- Quite often you and I are on the same side of the issue. I find nothing in your column to disagree with. What I do find interesting is that your belief in the "wrong" thing (in the eyes of the Christians) is okay. No one has tried to convert you or tried to open your eyes to Christ, etc. But when I post a column about my lack of belief, I've been given the third degree. Which begs the question- have the people on this site mellowed, or is it more understandable to have one believe in something, even if it doesn't match our own beliefs, then to have someone proclaim they don't believe at all? Now there's a column idea for you!

I thought it would be appropriate to take a moment to respond to his question. However, before I can do that, I think it important to examine the full context of the situations he's referring to.

I think that first, it's important to keep in mind that Zjab's column about his lack of belief was in response to another column by Jen. In Jen's column, she specifically asked people why others weren't Christian. It only seems that Jen and others would respond to Zjab's own response with further dialogue. In contrast, my columns have been mostly independent -- or respond to other people's columns in an almost tangential way. So there's not quite the same flow of dialogue. In effect, I haven't left quite the same opening for such "conversion attempts" (though to be honest, I think that labeling the comments left for Zjabs as such might be a bit of a stretch). So in essence, we're probably comparing apples and oranges here.

However, if we step beyond these two scenarios involving Zjabs, myself, and the other members of WOTL, I am inclined to agree that the way many Christians approach people who don't believe in any religion often differs from the way they approach those who follow a different religion. In fact, while there are small groups and individuals within Christianity that are focused on "reaching out" to people of other religions (one example of this in regards to the Pagan religions is Exwitch Ministries), it seems to me that most Christians are focused on convincing the atheists and the agnostics that they should become Christian. And I think that there are a number of closely related reasons for this.

I think that the most central reason for this is that in our country's history, Christianity has had the luxury of being the only religion (or at least the only noticeable one) around. As such, Christians got used to thinking they're the "only game in town," the only religion, if you will. (And in fairness, I've run into several agnostics and atheists who seem to hold a similar view on some level.) Even the Jewish religion was seen as not being all that different, and trying to evangelize Jews just focused around convincing them that Jesus really was the Messiah. As such, Christian apologetics has only had to focus on convincing the unbeliever or skeptic of the validity of Christian doctrine. And to this day, the average Christian has access to plenty of material designed to woo the atheist, the agnostic, and any other kind of "unbeliever."

However, now that Christians are finding themselves once again living in a pluralistic society, they are discovering that they are not as prepared to respond to someone who doesn't just disbelieve, but actually believes something else. The same arguments that woo an atheist or agnostic are not as effective -- assuming they're effective at all -- on a Hindu, a Buddhist, or a Pagan. And I think that because of this, a lot of Christians choose to focus on evangelizing those they already have the "tools" to evangelize.

As an aside, I will note that many who do try and convert people who follow a different religion tend to try to do so in a sort of "two-phase" process. In this process, they start by trying to demonstrate why the individual's religion is wrong, doesn't make sense, or is otherwise inferior. Once this first "phase" is done, they then resort to the same material they would use to evangelize someone who was an agnostic. To be honest, I haven't found this approach all that impressive, and I suspect it's only effective with "tentative believers" in other religions, anyway.

Another result of this history of Christianity being "the only game in town" for so long is that a natural friction or rivalry between the Christians and the atheists and agnostics has developed over time. I have watched several discussions between these two groups, and it has been the rare case where the discussion didn't devolve into both sides trying to prove themselves to be right and other to be wrong. It also seems to me that far too many people on "both sides of the fence" prefer this conflict, and take efforts to keep the trend alive. The end result is that both Christians and atheists and agnostics seem to be conditioned to expect this rivalry to pop up, prepare for it, and as a result, generate a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. In the rare cases where the old rivalry doesn't rear its ugly head, I've noted that it's usually due to the fact that key people on both sides of the discussion make concerted efforts to avoid it.

And finally, I do think that Zjabs is right in that people find any belief to be more comprehensible than a complete lack of beliefs. Christians may disagree with my polytheistic and magical views, but at least they can intellectually understand it. Trying to understand how someone can not believe in anything. To be perfectly honest, I have a bit of trouble in grasping that, myself. I can certainly understand not believing in any specific religion because of the lack of a compelling (to them, at least) reason to believe in them. I can even understand someone not believing in God or not being skeptical about the nature of such a God if God exists. But I do have trouble grasping the more hardcore atheists who are absolutely convinced there is no God.

Imagine being a young boy, sitting with your fellow Boy Scouts at Scout camp, listening to one of your leaders talk about how diverse your troop has become in terms of religious background. He's praising this religious diversity as a good thing. So when asked, you reveal your own religious background, only to be told two days later that you're "too different" and the leadership would like you to leave the troop. How long do you suppose it'll be before you ever trust an adult that tells you they value "diversity" again?

Sadly, this scenarios actually happened to young Cody and Justin Buchheim in Anacoco. While most of the boys were showing their "diversity" by the fact that they attended a Baptist church, a Methodist church, or a Catholic church, Cody spoke up and indicated that he and his brother did not attend a Christian church at all, but were Wiccan. Unfortunately, the sponsors of their troop felt that being Wiccan was "too far outside the box" to make good Boy Scout material.

Now, I first have to wonder, if "diversity" means "everyone just goes to a different church, but are still essentially Christian," can it really be called diversity? Truth be told, the actual doctrinal differences between many Christian denominations are so subtle and complex, that many of the members of those denominations would have trouble clearly explaining those differences.

So when two boys hear these proclamations of diversity being good without being able to realize just how superficial this "diversity" being praised really is, they find themselves in a trap. A trap that they were practically pulled into. After all, Cody only volunteered information about his religious background when the Scout leader explicitly asked him what church he attended. It seems to me that Scout leaders need to be more prepared for the answers they get when asking a question. They also need to be prepared not to punish boys for the answers they give.

Then you have the leader who told the boys' father that the boys would not have been asked to leave if Cody had just lied when answering the question. Now, bear in mind that the first word in the Boy Scout Law (the bit about doing one's duty to one's country and God is actually part of the Boy Scout Oath, not the Law) after "A scout is..." happens to be "trustworthy." Furthermore the first statement on the BSA website when explaining what it means to be trustworthy reads, "a Scout tells the truth." So you have a Scout leader who basically says that the boys should have avoided getting kicked out by breaking the law they promised to obey when they took the Scout Oath (second line of the oath). What exactly is the BSA teaching their boys these days, anyway?

I think what I found really telling was the region's executive regional director's comments on the situation. He laid it all at the feet of the local troop and their sponsor, claiming that it's the local troop's sponsor's call on who they accept as members. Does that mean that I can sponsor a Boy Scout troop (oh wait, that whole homosexuality thing would get in the way) and exclude all Christian boys from the troop? I'm willing to bet good money that the regional and national directors would be real quick to step in.

Fortunately, the sponsor's own district church committe -- within the United Methodist Church -- took the bull by the horns, and told the local church/sponsor "you can't do that."

In the end, the boys were invited to come back, only to leave the troop of their own volition (and I can't say as I blame them). Their mother is currently filing to start a local chapter of Spiral Scouts.

The BSA needs to take notice. This constant practice of narrowly defining what kind of boy makes a "proper Scout" is only hurting them. They lost support over the homosexuality debacle, and they'll most likely continue to lose support as they allow "local sponsors" to define what religious practices are acceptable for Scouts. And it's making more people turn to other options, like the Spiral Scouts.

It appears that setting things straight with my domain name registration went smoother than I expected. Within 24 hours of demonstrating I'm who I say I am, my registrar cleared everything up so I could renew my domain.

The other good news is that this time, my renewal is for two years. Which means I don't have to worry about this until 2008.

My domain registration expires on Wednesday. I'm working on renewing it, but I've hit a bit of a speed bump. I'm not sure everything will be resolved by then, so this blog (and the whole NorthernGrove.com domain) may disappear for a while. I apologize for this inconvenience, and promise to get things back up and running as soon as possible. If you wish to keep following any thoughts I may have during this downtime, I recommend that you check out my Blogger.com blog.

I just finished watching Dorian Blues. It's a curious movie that I had never heard of until I ran across it in Blockbuster's tonight. I have to say that I'm glad I rented it, as it was well worth watching.

The movie centers on Dorian, a young man who discovers he's gay and attempts to deal with his self-discovery in light of his less than supportive family. The movie takes us through his senior year at college, his conversations with his therapist, his first sexual experience, his coming out experience, his first relationship in college, the eventual breakup, and the resulting depression. All through these experiences, Dorian consistently demonstrates himself an intelligent and wonderful man, held down by past hurts and his unwillingness to let them go.

Most of Dorian's problems stem from his relationship with his father, an overly demanding man whose general displeasure with his older son only became more intense when Dorian came out to him. This situation was further exacerbated by a mother who would do anything to avoid a confrontation and a younger brother, Nick, who loved Dorian but was constantly held up by their father as the "perfect" son, who Dorian should strive to be more like. This of course, created a strain in the two brothers' relationship, though the two tried their best to support each other in their own way. This emotional baggage weight down Dorian in every aspect of his life, causing him to be bitter and edgy. This cost him more than one friend and even the perfect relationship.

In the end, Dorian and Nick -- who had been visiting his older brother at NYU -- end up making the trip back home to attend their father's funeral. Their father had died of a heart attack due to stress -- most likely due to the fact that Nick had been cut from Syracuse University's football team earlier that week and had therefore lost his scholarship.

The bes scene of the movie was the conversation between Dorian and his mother outside the church just before his father's funeral. In it, his mother confronts her son about the fact that he had become mean and disapproving lik his father. She tells him, "I want you to be a good man, despite the fact that your father was never good to you...and your mother never stood up to him and made him stop."

I cannot express how appropriate this theme is. Far too often, coming to term with one's sexual orientation is the easy part. The hard part is learning to let go of all of those past hurts and fears, as well as the defense mechanisms and bitterness that we tend to build up in the process. Learning to let go of these things so that they don't continue to affect our current lives is a painful and difficult process. Watching this movie enabled me to revisit this lesson, identify with Dorian's character, and experience this letting go process one more time.

And I have to admit that scene where Dorian is franticly brushing his teeth was well worth a laugh.

Saturday, I decided to go to the Seneca Park Zoo after doing a bit of shopping for things needed at the POC. It's something I've been talking about doing "when it got warmer," so I decided it was time to quit talking and just do it. I have to admit that i would've preferred to have gone whe there was someone to go with. But reason convinced me that waiting for an undetermined period of time -- after all, I'm not sure when anyone would be available to go -- was not the route to go. So I grabbed my wallet and ran off. And overall, I had a pretty good time.

I think one of my favorite parts was the polar bear exhibit. This is mainly because one of the polar bears decided to sun himself right out in the middle of the exhibit, giving everyone the perfect view of him. What a beautiful creature! I had to chuckle at the little boy beside me who asked his parents if the polar bear could come over by the fence we were standing at. The little tyke wasn't old enough to understand that if the polar bear could do that, he'd probably be snack (or the appetizer for me, the main course). Of course, as tempted a I was, I didn't try to explain this to the youngster. I figured I didn't need his parents getting mad at me for traumatizing their child.

I also enjoyed watching the sea lions. I don't think I've ever seen sea lions swimming so close. They have the exhibit set up so that you can go into this viewing area that is under the level of the water, wich is quite nice. What really surprised me is when the sea lion came swimming right towards me. If the glass wall hadn't been there, I swear he would've crashed right into me. Of course, that would've also meant I would've been underwater and having trouble not breathing, but that's besides the point. But I think the thing that really amazed me about this was that this entire time, the darn sea lion was upside down! He was swimming on his back. I never knew they did that. It was fascinating to watch.

Of course, like a dummy, I forgot to grab my camera. So I don't have any incredible pictures. This is a shame, since the darn thing was actually in my car the whole time. I'll have to go back again some day soon and remember my camera this time.