Lee we now our gay apparel....
Oct. 19th, 2013 08:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
captainsblogWe just watched the Liberace biopic titled Behind the Candleabra, the Michael Douglas/Matt Damon story from earlier this year which told the Liberace palimony story from the 1970s-1980s. Sadly, you won't be seeing it on any Oscar ballots after January 1st, even though it had a complete A-list cast- including turns from Scott Bakula, Rob Lowe and Debbie Reynolds who neither of us even recognised- an A-list director, and incredible production values.
Why, you ask? IMDB answers:
In a January 2013 interview with the New York Post, director Steven Soderbergh said that this movie was originally planned for a theatrical release but was ultimately produced by and aired on HBO instead because the story was "too gay" for Hollywood movie studios: "Nobody would make it, We went to everybody in town. They all said it was too gay. And this is after Brokeback Mountain, by the way, which is not as funny as this movie. I was stunned. It made no sense to any of us."
You wouldn't expect that. After all, Faux News and the rest of Teh Right considers Hollywood to be the moral equivalent of Sodom and Gomorrah, indoctrinating our children with OMGay lifestyles being not only okay but preferable! Except, when it comes to a gaycentric film actually being filmed (and with little if any actual Icky Gay Sex Stuff that I could see, anyway), these sodomic studios all gave the story the proverbial pass....
leaving it to HBO Films to pick it up, screen it, and make us aware of it- even though Oscar will necessarily be passing on it because it wasn't theatrically shown in 2013 before it was debuted on premium cable.
Moralities aside, it's an incredible film. The scene toward the end with Damon and his drug dealer is as captivating a piece of cinema as anything we've seen in years. Both principal performances are flawless, and the supporters, from Dan Aykroyd to Paul Reiser, all shine.
If House of Cards can be considered for an Emmy despite never being broadcast, it is despicable that this film cannot be considered for an Oscar solely because it debuted somewhere other than a Los Angeles County movie theater before December 31st.
Why, you ask? IMDB answers:
In a January 2013 interview with the New York Post, director Steven Soderbergh said that this movie was originally planned for a theatrical release but was ultimately produced by and aired on HBO instead because the story was "too gay" for Hollywood movie studios: "Nobody would make it, We went to everybody in town. They all said it was too gay. And this is after Brokeback Mountain, by the way, which is not as funny as this movie. I was stunned. It made no sense to any of us."
You wouldn't expect that. After all, Faux News and the rest of Teh Right considers Hollywood to be the moral equivalent of Sodom and Gomorrah, indoctrinating our children with OMGay lifestyles being not only okay but preferable! Except, when it comes to a gaycentric film actually being filmed (and with little if any actual Icky Gay Sex Stuff that I could see, anyway), these sodomic studios all gave the story the proverbial pass....
leaving it to HBO Films to pick it up, screen it, and make us aware of it- even though Oscar will necessarily be passing on it because it wasn't theatrically shown in 2013 before it was debuted on premium cable.
Moralities aside, it's an incredible film. The scene toward the end with Damon and his drug dealer is as captivating a piece of cinema as anything we've seen in years. Both principal performances are flawless, and the supporters, from Dan Aykroyd to Paul Reiser, all shine.
If House of Cards can be considered for an Emmy despite never being broadcast, it is despicable that this film cannot be considered for an Oscar solely because it debuted somewhere other than a Los Angeles County movie theater before December 31st.