‘Julie Newmar’: Disguised Gay-Bashing or Artful Story? : Thanks for Nothing, This Writer Says

The depiction of male homosexuality by avowed heterosexuals seems to be in vogue: two members of Red Hot Chili Peppers smooching on the cover of Guitar magazine in addition to that trio of rogue actors--dressed like women, oh my!--in “To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar.” As an avowed gay man, I say, “Thanks but no thanks.”

If one looks beyond the titillating tattoos and tassels, the message here is one of insidious homophobia, promoted to excess by the breathless media, eager to wink and snicker at homosexuality.

Profound meaning is infused in the old Hollywood adage, “you don’t have to be one to play one.”

A provocative cover photo of band members Flea and Dave Navarro--lips touching, oh my!--has caused retailers to reject the October issue of Guitar (“Peppers’ Peck Stirs Bushel of Controversy,” Sept. 7). While editor H. P. Newquist admits wanting to “raise some eyebrows,” he expresses surprise--presumably, because the puckering boys in the band are known to be straight--that “people would refuse to sell the magazine on the basis of it being homoerotic. . . .”

Flea, according to The Times, says the cover captures “a couple of good heterosexual friends joking around with their affection for one another.” By underlining his hetero stance, the assumption is that it might not be OK if the two men were gay. Is “joking around” anything like “making fun of?”

Would Newquist consider putting a couple of known homosexuals kissing on the cover of Guitar? Or is it only permissible to portray men kissing in the media if the men are heterosexual? Is Newquist trying to capture a gay readership? Or just being trendy? It’s the double message that disturbs me.

In choosing actors for the gender-switching roles in “To Wong Foo,” certainly their sexual preference had as much to do with casting as their ability to walk in high heels. This is the height of Hollywood hypocrisy; trying to look hip while actually courting ambivalence toward homosexuality. Casting three proven-to-be-straight men in the movie (Wesley Snipes, Patrick Swayze, John Leguizamo) guarantees there will be no real controversy; this isn’t about celebrating gay men who dress up (which is precisely what the filmmakers would like us to believe), it’s about exploiting gay men to make money--as safely and antiseptically as possible.

According to Times critic Kenneth Turan, the screenwriters “don’t seem to know any way to emphasize the humanity of their characters except by swaddling them in mushy cliches.”

When the actors are encouraged to strut their heterosexuality on talk shows, and proclaim their proclivities in print, the message--I’m not really one of them--is inherently homophobic.

The three hetero “leading ladies” joined a giddy Oprah Winfrey, absolutely agog that these butch numbers could pull off a drag turn. Comforting her nationwide audience, there were innumerable references to their heterosexuality; no, folks, they aren’t really that way, she let us know ad nauseam. John is macho! Patrick has a wife! Wesley is an action-adventure movie hero!

(Someone should alert Oprah to the number of gay actors who have convincingly played heteros. I bet she’d just shriek!)

It’s impossible to interpret Snipes’ turn on the “Today” show, flitting and flirting with Bryant Gumbel, as anything other than ridiculing.

One wonders how Snipes and Gumbel would respond to a white actor, pulling out all the stereotypes, pretending to be an African American.

Call me old-fashioned, but I’d like to see the media reflect some gay men who really are that way.

Michael Kearns is an openly gay, publicly HIV-positive actor-writer.