The Three Faces of Edna
Movie Dearest continues the weeklong countdown to the new movie musical Hairspray, opening nationwide this Friday.
When I first saw John Waters' original Hairspray in 1988, I fell in love with it. The film’s energy and sassiness drew me in, but it was the universal theme that "what you look like on the outside cannot keep you from making a difference in this world" is what struck a chord within me and stayed with me through its subsequent adaptations.
I am, of course, not alone in my affection for the material. Audiences, regardless of age, gender, race or sexuality, embraced the original movie and stage versions, making them a cult classic and mainstream sensation, respectively. So the unexpected call for the gay community to boycott the new Hairspray by Washington Blade editor Kevin Naff due to John Travolta's involvement in Scientology caught me off guard (as it also did Travolta, Waters and Adam Shankman, the remake's director).
Mr. Naff's ascertains that Travolta should not have been cast in the role of Edna Turnblad because of its gay icon status (Edna was previously portrayed onscreen by Divine and onstage by Harvey Fierstein, who are the real gay icons in this scenario). This goes beyond the questions many of us had regarding the casting in the first place: mainly, could Travolta even pull it off? Instead, Naff's rather glib article (which is not even all that original; who hasn't complained about remakes?) focuses on Travolta's personal life as a Scientologist and that controversial religion's reported stance on homosexuality.
Before I go on, I will say that I am not going to get into the whole debate on what Scientology is or is not. Religion? Cult? So not going there. Which leads me to my point: should our entertainment choices be dictated by what we know (or, let's be realistic, think we know) about the people who create the movies, TV shows, books, music, et al we watch, read, listen to and, ideally, enjoy?
Does this mean that we should not watch, say, John Wayne's or Barbra Streisand's movies because of their strong political beliefs? How about if I don't like a filmmaker's religious heritage, race or sexual orientation? As you can see, if you start pruning it all down, weeding out this one or that one because of this incident or that scandal, all you end up with is a blank screen.
Naturally, we all have been influenced in our opinions concerning this actor or that director by what we have heard about them, and that (along with a healthy dose of our own morality) certainly informs what choices we make in what we watch, buy, et cetera. And that is how it should be. We all have our own personal standards and, more importantly, we all have our own sense of what we do or do not want to see.
With almost twenty-years invested in the property, I want to see the new Hairspray, and I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say, because of one person's involvement in the project. Nor should I be shamed for doing so, and neither should you.
Links via WashBlade.com, Hollywood.com and NYDailyNews.com.
10 comments:
Bravo! Well said.
I agree too. If you want to look at each film that's come out lately, I'm sure we can all pick holes in them.
This film is EXACTLY what it's all about! It is about prejudice! Everyone knows that gay people and black people have as many rights as straight and/or white people, but people who are overweight? They have NO rights. Just because someone looks like they are carrying a few extra pounds doesn't make it right for someone to be judgemental about why they are overweight.... years ago, people believed that being gay was an illness (no doubt some bigots still do!)
I'm sure I could come up with a reason for boycotting every single film that has come out (what about if I was a vegan... does that mean that I should boycott any films that involve people that eat animal products?
Come on people, grow up!
It is beyond me why the gay community is so obsessed with alternative lifestyles representation in movies and TV. GLADD is one of the worst minority support groups ever conceived. I mean they should be more concerned with the advancement and acceptance of gay culture into society but instead they seem to always be bickering about how many gay characters are portrayed on screen or who portrays them. Another thing that really irritates me is the GLADD awards, I mean doesn't it make more sense to nominate someone who IS gay like Bryan Singer, instead of nominating someone who ISN'T gay but simply made a movie with homosexual elements like Ang Lee. The Gay community is, in my opinion, the most poorly represented of any minority group fighting against oppression. Their concerns always seem more focused on the superficial (Like a scientologist in drag?) rather than the moral (Gay Marriage anyone?). It's just so bothersome reading news post after news post about stuff like this. John Travolta has done nothing but represent this roll with respect and dignity, or at least as much as someone could and also for heavens sake it's just a guy portraying a woman...the gay connection is a bit of a stretch don't you think?
My stance on this situation is that if John Waters didn't object to the casting of John Travolta, then no one else should have anything to say. The makers of this movie have been extremely respectful in the sense that they cut out two characters (Divine's second character of the head of the show and Sonny Bono's character of Amber's father) because those actors have passed away. If people want to see this movie, they are free to see it and calling for a "boycott" is just stirring stuff up. John Travolta is scientologist and whatever their "beliefs," that doesn't mean that Travolta is narrow-minded or intolerant. In my opinion, judging Travolta based on his religion is the same as assuming that he judges people based on their sexuality.
The author of the other article you linked to just seemed to be an angry, angry little guy.
Although Scientology certainly appears to have beliefs that I find strange, I certainly don't want other people's opinions of the religion to be based on my misinformation.
I'm Mormon-raised, and there are hundreds of people who have no real knowledge of my religion, but think they do. As such, you cannot argue a piece of art, such as a film, song or painting, based on the performer's religious background. It's a ridiculous concept, and it seems to me that that angry little man was just hopping on the anti-scientology bandwagon. It's so easy, and stylish to hate and dispise; it's much harder to just live and let live.
Not saying I agree with this stance, but wasn't the point of the boycott that, no matter how good a guy Travolta is, he's required to donate a portion of his salary to Scientology, an organization that (purportedly) supports homophobia? I thought the money was the issue.
A boycott would only give this movie unneeded publicity. I am quite convinced that "Basic Instinct" would have justly flopped had it not been for the well-documented outrage of the gay community.
>he's required to donate a portion of his salary to Scientology, an organization that (purportedly) supports homophobia? I thought the money was the issue<
This was part of Naff's arguement, but I don't buy it. Travolta was paid whether or not anyone saw the movie, so a boycott wouldn't have effected any money supposedly going to Scientology. The only way this would have been a factor is if Travolta's deal included a percentage of the profits, which I doubt for this level of production.
Great points. If this person were to have suggested that the original Hairspray be boycotted because of John Waters' sexual orientation (or anyone else for that matter, since I'm sure those people exist) I would have laughed as well.
I wasn't sure about seeing the movie because I liked the first so much. I hadn't watched the stageplay and didn't know what they were doing differently. I went because my 6 1/2 year old daughter is a huge fan of the first movie and was insisting on seeing this one.
I'm glad that I did. I don't consider it a remake even though it has the same characters. Personally I feel as if they are two separate movies which can each stand on their own. And I must say that my reaction to the movie (I absolutely adored it) was refreshing to me, since I'm normally that fan girl who abhors anything getting "remade."
People take the concept of boycotting too far. It was supposed to be meant for when a company or product let you down and you didn't want other people to have to suffer through what you had. (Say food poisoning or a company refusing to assist you with a legitimate return.) Now people think it's license to complain about an INFERRED threat. Ugh. The collective American heads are going far too high up their overstuffed asses in this Republican era.
Long story short, I enjoyed your point of view as much as I enjoyed the movie.
~ Zara Brumana
(AwesomeZara of joblo.com's The Bottom Shelf)
>Personally I feel as if they are two separate movies which can each stand on their own<
I totally agree with you on this, and one can even add the stage musical to that statement. They are three individual tellings of the same story that are unique and enjoyable in their own ways.
Post a Comment