Showing posts with label Law and Order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law and Order. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Law and Order Gets One Right


I've already registered my dismay with what I felt was a really awful "gay" episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.

But, in the interest of fairness, I did enjoy an episode of the regular Law and Order program about a week or two later. This wasn't a '"gay" episode, per say, as it encompassed a number of different issues, but it certainly had plenty of gay material.

The story had to do with a gay man who is murdered, gay-bashed, by a homophobic young punk. This fellow is arrested, put on trial, and quickly convicted of the crime [a great scene has the prosecutor getting his mother to reveal her own homophobia on the witness stand]. But the members of an Innocence Project take up his cause, and claim that the jury didn't have all the facts: the gay man's lover -- actually his husband, as the two were married in Massachusetts -- was allegedly having an affair with another man at the time of his partner's death, and had even seen a divorce lawyer for advice.

How would I have felt if the gay guy were guilty of murdering his lover? Well, as long as it was made clear that it wasn't his sexual orientation that made him murderous I guess I would have been okay with it, as gay people -- like straights -- are imperfect human beings; the gay community, like any other community, has both good and bad members. Still, I won't deny that I'm glad it didn't work out that way.

From there the story took a dramatic shift into examining the possibility that some of the people who work on these Innocence Projects -- they work to overturn convictions of people they either think are innocent, didn't have a fair trial, or both -- are not only gullible on occasion but massively overzealous. The main witness at a hearing is a drug dealer who sold meth to the dead man and who now claims that the man's husband asked him to find a hit man. To say the drug dealer lacks credibility is an understatement, especially when it's revealed that a member of the Innocence Project sort of wined and dined -- and may have coached and even paid -- him.

Then there's another twist as the woman who heads the project reveals that D.A. Michael Cutter (Linus Roache), who prosecuted the gay basher and is fighting the motion for a retrial [and is also a former student of hers] never really got his B.A. due to a lack of credits [although he did graduate law school], calling his entire career into question. [What makes it worse is that she reveals this to defend a gay-basher who is not innocent.]

In a powerful scene, Cutter --- knowing he could be throwing his entire career away [and who is hetero]-- refuses to give too cushy a deal to the loathsome gay basher, so appalled is he at the thought of the man serving too short a sentence for such a heinous hate crime. It all ends on a very satisfactory note, although the repercussions for Cutter may not be known until upcoming episodes are aired.

The script, by Richard Sweren and Julie Martin, tackled a whole variety of issues, had the obligatory twists and turns [none of which were dumb and improbable as in that SVU episode], and was altogether excellent. The gay aspects were just one aspect of the story, and were handled quite well, presenting gay characters who weren't perfect but recognizably human [unlike Kathy Griffin's supposed "lesbian activist'].

Bravo!

Monday, January 18, 2010

More Closet Cases on Law and Order


I just posted last week about an episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. In that post I mentioned how irritating I found some of the various Law and Order shows on matters gay.

Last Friday we had another one of their married closet queen episodes, this time on the regular Law and Order program. It was written by Ed Zuckerman and Matthew McGough.

The plot had to do with a female talk show host who was married with children but who had had numerous affairs with other women. [I would say that she was bisexual, but when a married person only has affairs with members of their own sex, I would categorize them as married homosexuals.] One of the women who'd been with her was gathering material for an expose, and is found dead. Then another guy tries to blackmail the host and so on.

Right off the bat I recognize two things. The first is that Law and Order is a fast-paced mystery program which rarely stops to take the time to delve into subjects. Everything is subordinate to getting the story told, maintaining suspense, and providing plenty of plot twists.

The second is that I can hardly complain about all the closet queens who show up on the Law and Order programs when I've written about same -- as well as married homosexuals, family men who seek cock, and self-hating homos -- on this very blog more than once.

Still, I would love to see a Out and Proud gay person -- hopefully not the corpse they make their obligatory quip over -- on some episode of Law and Order, be it the regular show, SVU, or Criminal Intent -- if that's still on the air. Yes, script writers may think that closet cases who can be blackmailed and cheating wives going muff-diving make for better and more sensational stories, but surely they can find drama in the lives of Out and Proud gay people. [True, the Law and Order shows have had gay-sympathetic episodes, but they do seem to rely much too much on closeted and ashamed homosexual characters, making the shows often seem just a little dated. And even when they do feature out, proud people they seem a little weird and/or manic.]

For instance, this episode dropped this woman -- this married lesbian -- into our laps, but there was no discussion of her sexuality, how she identified, why she got married in the first place -- only a quick scene when her husband seems to express some disgust with her actions, and when the wife worries about the marriage's future and custody issues. [I figure the show has had so many male closet cases that they figured it was time for a lesbian.] The program glossed over the fact that the wife seemed to be committing sexual harrassment over and over again, as most of her lovers were employees who seemed to get fired at the same time they got dumped. Most seemed to be women who then went on to boyfriends or husbands. But even their bisexuality goes completely unexplored -- it's just another "plot bite."

Of course this is yet another example of a show that simply uses homosexuality for added spice or confusion and to bring in another twist for the viewer's alleged pleasure. But it doesn't add to anyone's understanding.

It reminds me of The Young and the Restless, which has virtually de-gayed itself. As I mentioned on previous posts, Adam, who had sex with his gay lawyer Rafe to "control" him, claims to be totally straight and recently got married to a woman. Another character, who is planning to do an expose on Adam, talks to the hardly-seen Rafe, who is still appalled at Adam's actions. But can you imagine any gay guy who has been to bed with a certain man [not a quick drunken bj with the guy being passive, but actual sex in a bed] -- in this case, Adam -- not thinking that the sex partner has to be at least bisexual? Yet Rafe tells the man interviewing him that Adam is neither gay nor bi. Sure -- you go to bed and have sex with a guy and then when he tells you he's straight you actually believe him. Surrrre.

Over at The Young and the Restless they could argue that who would want such a borderline sociopathic character as Adam to be gay? But they should have considered all that before they came up with the whole homo-seduction scenario in the first place. Now the writers have created a ridiculous situation. Besides, having Adam turn out to be gay wouldn't have been so terrible had they not sent gay Philip packing and limited gay Rafe's appearances to the occasional walk-on, as they were positive characters.

True, most writers aren't gay activists, and while you're grateful they're including gay characters, you wish a.) that the gay characters had a little bit more to do with reality and that b.) they forgot all the conflicted, repressed closet cases and zeroed in on the Out and Proud for a change.

For instance, speaking of Law and Order possibilities: A straight relative is found dead at a gay wedding. A gay activist kills a gay basher and there's some debate as to whether it was self-defense or not. An out gay teacher is stalked by a homophobe and the suspects are numerous. The head of a gay rights organization is falsely accused of murdering an ex-gay minister and so on. Let's just see some characters who aren't ashamed and on the down low.

I mean, the woman on Law and Order was just the opposite of an Out and Proud lesbian. She was horrified of being exposed, as much for her sexual activities as for the fact that she was seen, rightly or wrongly, as a sexual harrasser or even a predator. She was, frankly, a rather loathsome person, enjoying her heterosexual privileges while indulging her private appetites without Standing Up and Being Counted, or doing anything for the gay cause. Even after news of her affairs gets out, she doesn't come out of the closet but simply tells her audience that "everyone knew she was kinky." Being gay is "kinky?" [Maybe the problem is with writers Zuckerman and McGough?]

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Of fruit flies and Law and Order


On the blog Buff's Tuff Talk I came across this article about how scientists were able to change the sexual orientation of fruit flies. The article wondered if ultimately people would be able to make a switch-over, and even switch back, if they wanted to, and how this knowledge would be used by a homophobic society (not for any good purpose, you can bet). Undoubtedly there will be a lot of talk about this fruit fly business as there was and continues to be about the "gay gene" and the possibility of one day determining your child's sexual orientation.

[NOTE: Buff is very admirably in favor of HIV and AIDS awareness in gay men, which I fully support. And may I say that Buff himself is also rather -- well, buff! Hot, in other words!]

Now on Wednesday night the "straight from the headlines" TV show Law and Order (back on the air after a fall hiatus) had yet another "gay" episode, and as usual I have to give it a mixed review. This doesn't deal with fruit fly research and the possibility of turning everyone straight, but rather with the aforementioned gay gene, and the ability to determine a "gay" marker in an unborn fetus -- meaning most parents might opt to abort a gay child.

The subject is fascinating and scary. The teleplay (ironically but unfortunately titled Misbegotten), written by David Wilcox and Stephanie Sengupta, had to do with a bomb at a medical office which places a young women in a coma and endangers her unborn baby. There are the usual convoluted pathways, detours, and red herrings until we discover that the woman's brother-in-law, who turns out to be gay, planted the bomb. His target wasn't his sister-in-law (at first they thought he was simply trying to help his brother get rid of his wife) but a scientist who has developed the genetic marker for homosexuality. The gay guy is arrested but learns that his brother plans to have the fetus removed from his wife (ostensibly to increase her chances for survival) after learning it has the gay gene. The gay brother is appalled by this, but his brother basically says to him that he doesn't want his own son to have the miserable life his brother has had.

I kept waiting for the gay guy to talk about how most gay people's lives aren't "miserable" at all despite the discrimination, but he was basically a confused and fucked-up wimp. Which is one of the problems with the telecast. Even the militant members of my old group, New York's Gay Activists Alliance -- while we had plenty of zaps, protests, and "actions" -- never employed bombs against our numerous enemies. The gay man in Misbegotten isn't even an activist. He's out of the closet to some people, but keeps a "low profile." It seems strange that such a non-activist individual would suddenly resort to violence. There are, to be fair, hints that he's dealing with other issues in his life, but Law and Order moves too quickly to provide the incisive characterization that might have explained his psychology.

But what bothered me even more about the show was its somewhat old-fashioned (even as it exploited new-fangled science) attitude of "sympathy" as opposed to "equality." The viewers are meant to (perhaps) feel sorry for the gay guy (and by extension, homosexuals) but not to feel that their lives (or "life style") are equal to straights'. Despite his stupid actions, the gay defendant was not a representative of Gay Power nor did he seem to have much Gay Pride (which makes his actions even more inexplicable.) While its heart may -- or may not -- have been in the right place, Misbegotten came off not as a sharp, refreshing and enlightening examination of homophobia (although the word is invoked several times throughout the episode) but just something cobbled together -- all the right buzz words and so on -- to take advantage of that "ripped from the headlines" timeliness. It was certainly not as strong or powerful as it could have been -- although I wouldn't exactly call it homophobic -- maybe because the writers are presumably straight and don't have any true personal knowledge of the issues involved, something that no amount of writing skill can ever substitute for. I can't even be certain that the writers were "pro-gay," for that matter. It was as if they were trying to have their cake (evoke sympathy) while eating it too (making gays seem like pathetic losers).

In other words, like many "gay" episodes of Law and Order, it seemed more like something out of the 1970's or 80's than the 21st century, in spite of the "gay gene" trendiness. Too bad.
Writers, gay and straight alike, have to realize that our lives and the issues that affect us are much more -- to us -- than fodder for some "ripped from the headlines" television program.

UPDATE: The week after this episode Law and Order had another somewhat "gay" episode inspired by the Larry Craig men's room incident. When several male roommates are murdered -- one of whom is gay -- the investigation closes in on a closeted married man who was involved with the lawyer. But then it turns out that the lawyer wasn't the target and the investigation goes in an entirely different -- and less interesting -- direction. There were some real dumb moments in this script. A young woman who lives near the murdered roommates tells about how the gay guy "baked them a cake" to welcome them into the building. Why the hell did the writer have to have him baking a cake? Because the other guys dated women everyone assumes they're completely straight, even though the main suspect is a homosexual man with a wife! Then there's the ridiculous idea that this handsome, slick Out and Proud young lawyer would have an affair with a comparatively unattractive man who's not only middle-aged but in the closet and married. No, it's not impossible, but highly unlikely. Out and Proud guys rarely have an interest in becoming some closeted guy's "male mistress." After the married man is outed in a sort of men's room sting but is also cleared of murder charges, one of the detectives says (I paraphrase) "we played 'smear the queer' for nothing." It isn't seen as what might be a positive step in helping the guy accept his true sexuality. Dumb. Presumably a gay writer wouldn't have made such stupid mistakes.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Whores and Ministers on Law and Order


The Law and Order shows have recently aired two episodes about anti-gay ministers involved with male prostitutes practically back to back. The latest on Special Victims Unit featured Timothy Daly as a minister arrested for the murder of a male hustler who was apparently blackmailing him. (Can't we get past this tiresome blackmail theme in “gay” episodes on crime shows?) I liked the scene when Olivia said that the minister kept having children (ten of them) because he just couldn't accept that he was gay and had a desperate need to hide it through his many offspring (which I believe does happen in real life). This made the excellent and true point that a man can be married with kids and still be homosexual. Unfortunately this was undercut when it turned out it was actually one of Daly's sons who was having the affair with the hustler (and the actual murderer was someone else entirely) and Daly was supposedly straight. The once anti-gay minister was almost turned into a sympathetic hero, lying to cops to protect his son (whom he inexplicably thought murdered his lover) and becoming sympathetic to him in a matter of mere months, even preaching tolerance – as if that would ever happen so quickly. The show was decidedly well-intentioned, but in its attempts to be full of twists and turns, while this generated suspense, became a bit too muddled to be memorable. Frankly, it would have been more powerful and honest – and more fun – if the Daly character had been boffing the hustler or some other guy as well.

It reminds me of something I heard on the radio once. About a woman in Italy who had ten children with her husband of many years but was filing for divorce because he was gay. The announcer told the story as if it were all a big joke; it was hilarious, he thought, how could a man who fathered ten children possibly be homosexual? But if a gay man can have two or three children (or even just one) – and we know this has happened over and over again – there's absolutely no reason why he can't have ten or even more. Hell, I've met grandfathers who have many children, many grand-kids, and are still gay. At least when they're carrying on in the gay bars or online. Of course, very few men, gay or straight, want to have ten children!

So this episode of Law and Order SVU could have made that point – and tried to, I guess – but went in another direction altogether. Too bad. Still, it was quite absorbing, and I basically think the show, while imperfect, is one of the best on television.

Tuesday, March 6, 2007

Law and Order and Brothers and Sisters -- No Balls!


While you can't expect every TV show that deals with gay subject matter to have a gay activist – or even a gay – sensibility, sometimes you have to wonder where the tele-writers are coming from. I think that Law and Order: Special Victims Unit is one of the best shows on television, but I was very surprised by a recent episode in which there was a sub-plot in which two men haul guys into a van and rape and abuse them. Some of the victims are gay and some are straight. One straight-identified guy, who is about to get married, won't testify because he can't stand the thought of his bride-to-be knowing what happened. He is particularly horrified because he was aroused while he was being penetrated. Now these detectives are supposed to be sensitive and understanding but instead of assuring him that even if he were gay it wouldn't be the end of the world, all they do is try to persuade him that he's still straight. But what if the guy has gay leanings that remain unexplored and because of this his marriage will be a disaster? The possibility is never even suggested. Neither Stabler nor Benson suggest that there would be nothing wrong with this guy if he were gay.

On an episode of the regular Law and Order, the storyline dealt with a hypocritical married minister who claimed he could cure homosexuality yet was running around having sex with guys. What bothered me about this episode was that the detectives kept asking if this one or that one was cured without putting “cured” in figurative quotes, as if they really thought homosexuality was some sort of disease that could be banished like polio. This may not have been the tele-writer's intention, but it made it seem like a throwback to the 1970's.

But the Law and Order shows have always been inconsistent when it came to gay-themed episodes, probably depending on the sensibility of the writer [regardless of their orientation]. Law and Order has even had a few old-fashioned episodes in which the motive of the killer was to simply prevent somebody from revealing he or she was gay. Definitely very 70's.

Now on Brothers and Sisters we have the storyline involving the gay brother Kevin and his hunky closeted soap actor boyfriend. [Does anyone really see these two as a realistic couple?] In a recent development, a web site keeps threatening to out the soap actor. Kevin, who is certainly a far cry from a proud gay activist, is willing to keep dating this rather dumb, closeted schmuck [who apparently has a pattern of using women as beards and dumping boyfriends and girlfriends alike] simply because he's hot [okay, he wouldn't be the first man or women to stay with someone because of presumably great sex]. But Kevin's actions are deplorable: Contacting the owner of the web site [it has not yet been revealed if he's gay or straight], he threatens a law suit even though he knows the insinuations are perfectly true. Does he try to convince his boyfriend that a life of shivering in the closet isn't worth what may never even become a hugely successful career in the first place? Does he agonize over the fact that as a couple he and the soap hunk can never be out and proud? No, he just acts like an asshole lawyer. Yuchh. It's nice to have a gay character on the show, but he's a complete jerk. Let's hope he develops some gay balls in the future.