Gay-themed films are pretty commonplace nowadays. Nearly every major city (metropolis, if you will) has a GLBT film festival, and pictures that would previously have been restricted to exactly these sort of venues have slowly found their way into mainstream cinemas. Some, like Brokeback Mountain and Milk, are Oscar-winning successes.

This certainly wasn’t always the case, though. Tackling such contentious topics was considered hopeless not too long ago, both financially and professionally.

So, given that storytelling of this nature has only recently gained widespread acceptance, how long do you suppose gay cinema has been around? Go on, guess. I’ll wait.

…

Got a decade in mind?

Well, if you guessed some time after the Stonewall riots in 1969—the birth of the modern gay rights movement—then you’re off.

Same if you guessed any time since World War II.

In fact, the earliest full-length, gay-accepting film with a strong message of equal rights was a picture from the silent era—A German one entitled Anders als die Andem (Different from the Others). It was released in 1919, not even a full year after the first World War.

The film revolves around a violinist who falls in love with a male student and whose relationship is made public by an extortionist. Eventually brought before courts, the violinist’s career is ruined and he is eventually driven to suicide.

The film’s modern understanding of sexual orientation is startling, given that it’s practically a century old, predating the experiences of nearly everyone alive today. Here are some memorable quotes from one character in particular; a doctor:

You must not condemn your son because he is a homosexual, he is not to blame for his orientation. It is not wrong, nor should it be a crime. Indeed, it is not even an illness, merely a variation, and one that is common to all of nature.

Love for one of the same sex is no less pure or noble than for one of the opposite. This orientation can be found in all levels of society, and among respected people. Those that say otherwise come only from ignorance and bigotry.

Due to censorship laws, the director was frustrated to learn his film was forbidden to be seen by anyone outside the medical and psychological community less than a year after its release. Most copies were destroyed thirteen years later, when the Nazis rose to power. All that remains today is just over 50 minutes of fragments, which is available for you to watch below.

And that’s some interesting stuff in gay history.

• Different From the Others [Google Video]

The Q! Film Festival, a GLBT festival showcasing being hosted in Jakarta, has been attacked by members of an extremist group calling themselves the Islamic Defender Front.

So far, several masked protesters have forced the cancellation of a handful of films, and have threatened to burn down venues unless the festival is shut down completely.

This is the ninth year that the Q! Film Festival has been held, but the first that generated any significant controversy. In a brave stand, the festival planners are undeterred, saying the entire point of the festival is to promote both religious and gender tolerance. “If there are parties who disagree with the ideas behind the festival,” organisers wrote in a public letter, “we urge them to state their opinions through a discussion forum or by holding a forum like a festival or something similar that allows for the exchange of ideas without fear or coercion.”

Very well put. After all, like I wrote on the Slap Facebook page, if burning down cinemas were an appropriate response to objectionable films, I don’t think the industry would exist post-Glitter.

• Gay film festival attacked by masked Islamic protesters [The Guardian]
• Statement Letter [Q! Film Festival]

Ottawa’s Inside Out Film festival had to make some urgent, last minute arrangements after the Canadian Border Services Agency seized three films scheduled to be presented. The seized films include Patrik 1.5 (Rated PG), Clapham Junction (Rated R), and I Can’t Think Straight (Rated PG-13).

All three films had already been shown in Canada. Patrik 1.5 debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2008 and I Can’t Think Straight was a mainstream theatrical release over the summer.

Canadian customs regularly seizes materials it suspects to be obscene, and often classifies gay films, books, and artwork as such. In 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the CBSA was unfairly targeting GLBT content and ordered it to stop its discriminatory policies.

The CBSA is still permitted to seize materials randomly, something that the film festival’s director, Jason St-Laurent, doubts is the case here: “It seems biased at some times, and at other rimes random, but to me, this time, it is not a random event.” Brice Dellsperger, a filmmaker featured at the festival agrees: “It happens all the time; it’s something that we constantly face.”

Well, that settles it. Slap Upside The Head: The Movie will be distributed digitally!

• PG-rated gay film seized en route to Ottawa film fest [Xtra]
• Ottawa gay festival films held up by customs [CBC News]

I’m exceptionally pleased to present today’s Guest Slap. The author, Dr. Flamingo Jones, is a world-renowned archaeologist and researcher at the University of Oxbridgeshire. While I know little about his reclusive past and current whereabouts, he has kindly agreed to share with us, occasionally, his knowledge, discoveries, and insights.

Good day to you, ladies, gentlemen, and those who do not wish to confine yourselves to such limiting terminology. Normally I, Dr. Flamingo Jones, intrepid explorer and researcher extraordinaire, use this space to answer one of the numerous intriguing questions that I have come across in my work as the Department Head of Queer Archaeology at the University of Oxbridgeshire. This time, however, I am going to doll out one of these “metaphorical slaps” for which this electronic compendium is so highly acclaimed for. In particular, a Slap shall be delivered to Mr. Frank Miller, Zack Snyder, Gerard Butler and everyone else who worked with the script of the film 300.

300 recounts the Battle of Thermopylae, where a small army of 300 Spartans and 4000 other Greek allies attempted to defend their homeland against the Persian army (estimated between 200,000 and 2.5 million soldiers) during the 480BC invasion of the independent Greek city-states.

Most anyone who has seen the film generally agrees on one point: It is extraordinarily gay. 300′s somewhat pronounced homo-eroticism, depicting muscular, manly warriors wearing the classical era’s male equivalent of bikinis, made it an enjoyable viewing experience for me and every other gay man (closeted or otherwise). However, there was one remark made in the movie that just boiled my blood, and probably that of every other gay historian. Specifically, King Leonidas of the Spartans announces that it would be cowardly to surrender because the Athenians have decided to fight, and they are a nation of “philosophers and boy-lovers.”

Now, perhaps we could ignore that many of western civilization’s roots come from Athenian “philosophers and boy-lovers” such as Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.  Perhaps we could also ignore that these “philosophers and boy-lovers” succeeded where the Spartans failed by proving their military superiority in that same war, as their navy of approximately 300 ships defeated the massive Persian fleet of 800 ships during the Battle of Salamis. We may even ignore Hollywood’s recurring anti-gay themes. There is, however, an unignorable inaccuracy with King Leonidas’ comment. Bluntly, the Spartans were some of the biggest queers in history.

The Spartans were gay—and fabulously so—to the extent that they were one of the few ancient societies that actually had institutions of mandatory homosexuality embedded within their culture. All Spartan males were taken from their families as children, to be trained as warriors though endless tests of self-reliance and endurance that Plato himself described as harsh and violent. Then at the age of 20, they joined military organizations called syssitia (those sissies), in which they lived their entire lives surrounded by men in which all were equal regardless of birth, wealth, or age. Homosexuality would have been the only option for the men, as they were not allowed to have wives, or even to leave their syssitia on their own.

An interesting aspect of Spartan homosexuality involved the traditions surrounding their weddings: They were finally allowed to take wives once they turned 30. The ceremony were like a reverse drag show, with the bride starting off the ceremony wearing a man’s clothing, changing into a woman’s clothing, signifying the husband’s transition from having sex with men to sex with his wife.

Makes you think of the Spartans in a whole new light doesn’t it? Perhaps they should name a condom line after them too.

Breakfast With Scot, an unbelievably sweet comedy about a closeted gay couple who unexpectedly finds themselves raising a bubbly 11-year old boy, is under attack once again by anti-gay lobbyists.

Previously, the Canadian Family Action Coalition led a boycott of the NHL over the film, which licensed the Toronto Maple Leafs logo. The boycott wasn’t very successful. (Go Habs!)

This time, though, Charles McVety, a spokesperson for the group, is seeking government intervention. He singled out the family comedy as being one that would have all its tax credits revoked by the government if Bill C-10, which is currently in front of the senate, were to pass into law. The bill seeks to deny tax credits to films after they’ve been produced if the content is found to be “objectionable.”

McVety—who previously claimed responsibility for Bill C-10, but has since backpeddled—summarized Breakfast With Scot as a film about “an 11-year-old boy who is being raised by a homosexual Toronto Maple Leaf to be a homosexual.”

Ignoring, for a moment, that the notion that someone can be raised to be homosexual is rejected completely by the psychological, medical, and academic community, I’m amazed by this misclassification. Either McVety has never seen the film, or he is lying about what he saw.

I had the privilege to see Breakfast with Scot last autumn in attendance with the director, producers, and its young star. It was a sweet, family comedy about a closeted hockey star and his lawyer husband who like to keep their lives discreet. They suddenly find themselves caring for a tragically orphaned 11-year-old, who enjoys cooking, dressing up in feather boas, singing Christmas carols in summer, and drawing exactly the sort of attention that his new guardians like to avoid. I won’t ruin the story, but to describe the film as anything but a gentle holiday comedy with strong, moral themes is dishonest.

Still, McVety has targeted and seeks to punish this film because the guardian characters are gay—a point central to the film’s comedic premise. “We are objecting to films that proselytize young people into homosexuality,” he told reporters. Laurie Lynd, the filmmaker, was stunned, adding that if the movie’s tax credits were revoked, it “could have killed the film completely.”

McVety has said multiple times that Bill C-10 is about ending the funding of pornography with tax dollars. That’s not what he’s demonstrating, especially since policies are already in place to prevent that. Instead, this bill is about revoking tax credits (not even funding) from any films that disagree with McVety’s ideology—and after they’ve been made, to boot. With this broad definition of what constitutes an objectionable film, and with an after-the-fact process, Bill C-10 will force filmmakers to reconsider producing anything with content as edgy as, well, a gay couple.

Sigh. Maybe I’ll just produce Slap Upside The Head: The Animated Film stateside.

• Activist decries tax break for gay comedy [Toronto Star]
• Rightwing activist decries tax credits for gay film [Xtra]
• Film tax credit proposal falls short, evangelist says [Globe and Mail]

Charles McVety, president of Canada’s largest anti-gay lobby group, has claimed responsibility for a bill in the Senate that would deny income tax credits to filmmakers who make “inappropriate” films. Once this bill becomes law, the Justice and Heritage departments will vet films for offensive content and withdraw tax credits, even a film has already been completed.

So, what’s the definition of “inappropriate” in this context? The Globe and Mail revealed McVety’s vision in an interview:

Mr. McVety said films promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence should not receive tax dollars, and backbench Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers support his campaign.

If McVety’s vision is realised, filmmakers will be pressured to remove any gay content in a film, or face the revocation of their tax credits.

Filmmakers are furious. David Cronenberg, an Oscar-nominated, Canadian director said that this bill amounts to censorship, comparing it to “something they do in Beijing.” The Canadian Family Action Coalition’s press release, however, scoffed at such claims:

Accusations that this [bill] is about censorship are ludicrous. There is no law that says [opponents] cannot produce whatever perverted movie they want to.

Of course, “perverted” films are already restricted by section 163 of the Canadian Criminal Code, and television and film regulations already exist that prevent pornographic and obscene films from receiving tax money. This bill is, instead, about punishing filmmakers based on ideological content.

Surprisingly, this amendment seems to have made it to the Senate without many MPs knowledge. Bill Siksay, an NDP MP, said it was a “significant shock and surprise” to learn that he had voted for the amendment, which was buried deep within a 600-page bill.

(Hat tip to Canadian Cynic)

• Evangelist takes credit for film crackdown [Globe and Mail]
• Taxpayers being abused by film funding: lobbyist [CBC News]
• Artists call Tory plan to vet films ‘censorship’ [CBC News]