Daily Archives: May 10, 2009


To whit –

“A more general application of the concepts regarding absence/presence in Lacanian psychoanalytic theory, this term refers to the way that which is absent in the denotative level of a sign structures its overall meaning.[1] Since every sign contains not merely affirmative connotative meaning (THIS is what this sign IS) but also negative connotative meaning (THIS is what this sign IS NOT), both constitute the ideological meaning of the sign. In classical Hollywood cinema, the woman as object of desire “makes sense” because she IS NOT the active subject. The simpering “fairy” “makes sense” because he IS NOT endowed with heterosexual signifiers. The male hero fulfilling the standard Oedipal trajectory “makes sense” because he IS NOT “queer,” female, of color, etc. Thus the structuring absence is a central part of any stereotype. Because structuring absence is part of the subtext, it operates as an invisible counterpart to the naturalizing process within cinema, and within ideological systems in general.”

Clearly we can see this at work in a great many reviews and articles about Kirby Dick’s Outrage. Like this one –

“Kirby Dick hasn’t shied from incendiary material in his long career as a documentary filmmaker. He’s portrayed a sex surrogate, a “supermasochist” performance artist and a complex French philosopher.
He challenged the fuzzy, hypocritical morality of the Motion Picture Association of America’s ratings board in This Film Is Not Yet Rated, and in 2004 he was nominated for an Oscar for Twist of Faith, a documentary about a man confronting the pain of his childhood sexual abuse by a Catholic priest.
In Outrage, which opened this weekend in the Bay Area, Dick exposes the covert lives of closeted gay politicians, many of whom vote against pro-gay legislation to deflect suspicion of their own sexual preference. He looks at former Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, who denies that he is gay despite being arrested on suspicion of lewd behavior in an airport bathroom and other allegations about his sexual conduct reported in the Idaho Statesman; and former U.S. Rep. Edward L. Schrock, R-Va., who retired in 2004 after he was outed by the Advocate.
He interviews former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey, who came out and resigned from office in 2004, and former U.S. Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., who came out in 1996, while still in office, and was re-elected five times.
Outrage doesn’t pull its punches. “There exists a brilliantly orchestrated conspiracy to keep gay and lesbian politicians as closeted as possible,” it states at the onset. “This film is about politicians who live in the closet, those who have escaped it and the people who work to end its tyranny.”

No, Outrage doesn’t pull its punches. But the article does in its failure to mention — this dude:


Charlie 2


And his relationship with THIS Dude — and other boytoys like him.

But this structuring absence pales in comparasion to that of THIS dude.

“An amazing Q&A session followed the Tribeca Film Festival premiere of Outrage, Kirby Dick’s documentary condemning closeted gay Republicans. Instead of the usual self-congratulatory asskissing in question form, the choir that Dick preaches to through his hot-topics docs nearly rebelled.There was genuine inquiry about Dick’s facile, scattershot methods. At a film festival! In gay Chelsea! “

Oh Prunella! Everyone knows the action’s moved to Hell’s Kitchen, dear. Chelsea is just so five minutes ago. Even for the straights you so long to impress.

“Designed to reveal “a brilliantly orchestrated conspiracy to keep gay politicians closeted”—yet never identifying the conspirators—”

Oh yes it does, asshole! The “Mainstream” media gets a thorough drubbing — and you know it.

Outrage continues Blue State/Red State antagonism. By Republican-bashing on big topics like gay marriage and AIDS-funding, Dick avoids exploring ideas. Outrage diminishes crucial, non-partisan gay-identity issues of fear, guilt and self-acceptance.”

IOW it doesn’t deign to kiss your closeted ass.

“The premiere audience’s questions sliced through Dick’s ineptitude better than any narrative summary I could give.
Here’s a rundown: One viewer wanted to know: “Why no mention of Obama and Biden’s tentative stances on gay marriage?” (Dick’s answer: “They’re not closeted men.” Yet neither is Dick’s easy target, George W. Bush.)”

The film isn’t about gay marriage — or George W. Bush.

“Citing Dick’s emphasis on the arrest of Sen. Larry Craig, a viewer asked why Dick ignored the fact that Craig’s entrapment was the real crime—a topic that might have explored sex rights issues.”

Oh Cry Me a River!

“Another wondered why Dick emphasized Republican Sen. Mark Foley’s congressional page scandal without including the similar yet honorable example of Democrat Gary Studds’ 1983 congressional page scandal—which led to Studds’ censure but eventual re-election. One questioner distrusted Outrage’s outing of TV newsreader Shepard Smith but not Anderson Cooper. Responding that his real target was Fox Cable News not CNN, Dick revealed his insipid media favoritism.”

And you reveal your Republican Concern Troll cred.

Gary Studds didn’t vote against gay issues (which weren’t around in his time as they were with Foley) and Shepherd Smith works for the “Newschannel” of the Republican Party.

Yes we’d all love Anderson Cooper to come out


If only for Kathy Griffin’s sake. But that doesn’t really interest you so stop pretending that it does.

“Most importantly, a viewer wondered, “Was there no middle ground,” Dick could find between the political closet and political forthrightness?”



“Dick fudged an answer because the middle ground would require opening his mind, a humanizing approach.”

( Evelyn Varden voice) Now you’re not gonna get a smidgen of my fudge! ( /Evelyn Varden voice ) You know nothing about humanizing anything or anyone.

“Clearly, Outrage did nothing to strengthen the audience’s sympathetic understanding of the fear that prevents personal gay acceptance—especially among politicians. Repeatedly using the term “the closet” mystifies, without explaining, its psychological and social basis.”

So true. Nothing is more important than testy, pampered New York closet queens.

“Dick knows that bashing, ridicule and snark get knee-jerk laughs and satisfaction. His lazy advocacy-filmmaking never constructs an argument but throws in at-hand grievances (as if gay rights, HIV/Aids funding, hate crime, domestic partnership and gays in the military were all the same concern). Dick uses anime to show gay Republican voting records on gay-related issues—a trivializing “entertainment” device conveniently dropped when Dick placates Gov. Jim McGreevy’s coming-out.This prejudiced filmmaking influences ideological separatism, encouraging the idea of elite gay privilege—as when D.C. Councilman David Catania bitches about Larry Craig’s supportive wife: “Is she insane!” It’s a sexist diss Dick never allows for David Nathan, the dead man mourned/rumored as Mayor Ed Koch’s lover. “

Not “rumoured” you asshole — FACT!

Love your coming to the defense of poor Dina McGreevey. If Kirby really wanted to go after the bitch he could have done so easily as there’s ample material — and eyewitness accounts — of the fact that she not only knew what her now-ex-hubster was up to but participated as well.

The trouble was he wasn’t about to let her get her mitts on that smokin’ hot Israeli.

“Dick’s trite documentary style makes life and politics worse; that’s what the Tribeca Festival questioners intuited. A sequence condemning Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter Mary for creating Coors beer’s gay marketing but not being a gay activist confuses issues and then stumbles into the quagmire of the Coors’ ads: Dick accepts their egregious male-centered/body-fascist sexism. (Here’s where I need to admit the comedy of critiquing a silly gay doc by a director named Dick—or else go rigid with hypocritical pomposity.) “

Oh this is rich! The relentless anti-gay jihaad undertakne by the Coors family (well documented in the gay press for eons) is as nothing compared to the company’s “egregious male-centered/body-fascist sexism.”

Tough day at the gym dear?

“Dick is a wannabe Michael Moore. His filmmaking is no more serious than the spiteful gossipy clown Perez Hilton. Outrage heroicizes gay political bloggers like Mike Rogers, Bob Norman and Kevin Naff, who opines, “Everyone loves a good outing.”This insensitivity was apparent when Dick defended overlooking his obvious subject, closeted celebrities. “They don’t rise to the same level of hypocrisy,” he told a Chelsea inquisitor.”

We’re waiting for you rip-the-lid-off expose of Kevin Spacey, darling. By your lights that would be of utmost import.

“Although Dick’s 2007 This Film is Rated X is one of the poorest docs I’ve ever seen, I imagine he’s the right man for Hollywood hypocrisy.Yet he easily forgets the political significance of celebrity: how closeted gay performers’ music and film choices frequently reinforce hetero norms. Kirby Dick’s docs reinforce ignorance.”

The film is entitled This Film is Not Yet Rated, moron! But why should you care? Just so long as you can play HEAD NIGGER IN CHARGE.

You’re too short for that gesture.

Sing us out, Joe.