Documentary Summaries - Essay Example

Documentary Summaries The Homosexuals (1967) The Homosexuals is a CBS Reports’ documentary episode released in 1967.Spanning one hour, it features various topics as regards homosexuality and homosexuals, including interviews that feature legal experts, psychiatrists, gay men, cultural critics, and footage of a police sting operation on homosexuals in a gay bar. Lars Larson, a gay man, is the documentary’s first interviewee and speaks positively and in an undisguised manner about being a homosexual. The interview is followed by a CBS News poll that shows opinions from Americans that homosexuality harms America even more than prostitution or adultery. Another gay man is interviewed and he talks about coming out and being treated like a wounded animal, which differs from the opinion of the next interviewee, Warren Adkins, who claims his family treated him warmly. The documentary then talks about homosexuality’s legal aspects with North Carolina Judge James Craven, who notes that the US should decriminalize homosexuality like in England. Frank Kameny, the co-founder of the Washington D.C. Mattachine branch then makes an impassioned plea to allow security clearance for homosexuals. There is also a debate on homosexuality between Albert Goldman and Gore Vidal who argue for and against homosexuality respectively. The interviews end with a family man who claims he is gay and that the US was too narcissistic for two men to form a long-term relationship. The documentary ends with the filmmaker contending that the homosexual in America is anonymous, displaced, and an outsider. One of the most poignant moments in the documentary is the short interview involving the gay man, Warren Adkins, who contends that one’s sexual orientation is their innermost aspect and that, just as a heterosexual would not give their orientation up; a homosexual like himself would not either (Kraemer 1). He responds to a question on what causes him to be a homosexual by saying that he does not concern himself with it, putting his homosexuality in the same category as having blonde hair. He contends that he does not dwell on why he is gay, just as a person with blonde hair would not worry about the chromosomes or genes that caused them to have blonde hair. As a part of the broadcast documentary’s research, the TV station carried out a demographic survey, which found that at least 90% of people in the US considered homosexuality to be a sickness (Kraemer 1). Majority of them even favored legal punishment for acts of homosexuality carried out anywhere, including sex between two consenting adult males in private. One fascinating aspect of this segment is the manner in which it completely neglects to do a survey on lesbians as part of the society of homosexuals, while also portraying homosexual men as incapable of being monogamous long-term unions and as naturally promiscuous. Even as this point to the failures of civil rights and general trauma that these issues caused in the late 60s, it is interesting that the same debate rages on to date as the world argues on gay marriage and the right of gay men and lesbians to legalize their monogamous relationships in the long term. It leaves one wondering whether a documentary made on lesbians and gays today would sound as antiquated and foreign as this documentary fifty six years from today (Kraemer 1). While this documentary was made and released at a time when the United States had transgender people, bisexuals, gay men, and lesbians had come out, these people were fewer than they are today, as well as courageous (Kraemer 1). This documentary is particularly important when looking at the people, in this case men, who have fought for the equality of homosexuals in society. Because these people were courageous enough to be on a documentary, including Albert Goldman and Lars Larsson, they made things happen and were important in the progress made towards equality. This documentary, especially its uninspiring and biased ending that claims homosexuals are anonymous, displaced, and outsiders, should provide encouragement for today’s homosexuals that things have gotten better. The documentary was made in the late 60s and the views expressed in it show this, particularly the opinion poll that shows Americans viewing homosexuality as being worse than abortion and adultery. In addition, some of the views presented in the documentary by the psychiatrists and some critics would cause uproar in today’s society (Kraemer 1). This bias against homosexuality is probably the most negative thing about the documentary and the fact that it is clear today shows how far the fight for equality has come. Gay Power, Gay Politics (1980) Gay Power, Gay Politics is another CBS Reports documentary, although this one was released in 1980 with reporting from George Crile and anchorage by Harry Reasoner. Over pictures of the March on Washington in 1979, Reasoner opens by saying that the predictions for homosexual political power were coming true. He prepares the audience for the documentary that will show how San Francisco gays were using the political process to push their special interests. The report then goes further to focus on the sexual activity of gay men in Buena Vista Park, as well as interviews with various consultants who are claimed to be involved in sadomasochism. The documentary also reports that a tenth of all deaths that occur in the San Francisco area have to do with gay men involved in BDSM, while also claiming that some participate in sex that is so rough that they need gynecological tables and healthcare staff to sew them up after the act. The report also compares the city to the Weimar Republic, contending that the emergences of so many gay people who break societal values are a sign of American decadence. This documentary can best be described as a swinging a journalistic machete at the issue of homosexuality, particularly in view of the fact that it came some eighteen months after the Harvey Milk assassinations (Andriote 22). The documentary seems to depict homosexuals as sex crazed and may have been responsible for violence against lesbians and gays in San Francisco. In addition, it can also be viewed as one of the initial elements in mass media that acted to add energy to a newly emergent and powerful radical right that focused its energy on campaigns against gays and, to a lesser extent, lesbians. The hour-long documentary makes allegations about the emergence of a gay political wing in San Francisco, although the rest of it is focused on the more juicy and lascivious aspects of homosexuality (Andriote 23). This makes it seem as if the entire focus of the gay community and its rights movement has to do with sex. One segment has a close up that tracks drag queens approaching the Beaux Arts Ball. These shots are accompanied by a narration that compares the City of San Francisco to Berlin in the 30s and the decadence there. This must have caused wide outrage among citizens of San Francisco and other gay groups because of its exaggerated political concessions to homosexuals, while also making these concessions seem like they were threatening to the decency and morals of the society. In fact, it is hard, even for someone who is anti-gay, to justify the attention that the documentary gives to sadomasochism, as well as the manner in which the documentary treats the Halloween and Beaux Arts Ball shots (Andriote 23). It is also impossible not to notice that the soundtrack in the documentary has been used to bolster its conclusion, making it seem like homosexuality will lead to the end of mankind. The documentary was released at a time when the public’s interest in the civil rights movement for homosexuals was at a high and, therefore, it must have been intriguing to watch because of its title and potential subject matter. While the documentary begins with a balanced presentation, there was a noticeably drastic change in its tone with homosexuals being stereotyped negatively (Andriote 30). The documentary seems to have set out to pulverize, stereotype, slander, and smear homosexuals. In fact, it is difficult to see what the documentary’s motivation was. That it appeared on prime time TV is even more perplexing, particularly given that it is noticeably biased and non-factual. Most news and TV editors would have refused to show the documentary and it is not clear why CBS released the documentary. The documentary seems to have violated rules of structure, balance, and fairness with numerous biases and factual distortions that would make it look comical if the issues it was dealing with had nothing to do with human rights (Andriote 30). Apart from the opening sequence, it is difficult to find any positive aspect of this documentary. Because of this, CBS should have apologized to the gay and lesbian community of San Francisco. Word Is Out (1977) Word is Out, which stands in stark contrast to Gay Power, Gay Politics, was released in 1977 as a documentary film, and was directed by the Mariposa Film Group. It features interviews with twenty-six lesbians and gay men. These interviewees, who range from 18 years of age to 77, are very diverse and talk about what they have experienced because of their sexual orientation. Their interviewees vary in location, coming from Boston to New Mexico to San Francisco; in type from businessmen to housewives to students; and in ethnicity and race, ranging from black to Hispanic to Asian to Hispanic. Some of the more famous ones are filmmaker Nathaniel Dorsky, civil rights proponent Harry Hay, inventor John Burnside, Professor Sally Gearhart, and writer Elsa Gidlow. They talk about their experiences as gays and lesbians, the way they came out, their love lives, and their struggle against legal discrimination, stereotyping, and prejudice. This diverse range of interviewees makes for a moving and engaging oral history, especially since most deliver their stories with conviction and intelligence. From research, this documentary seems to be the first documentary that dealt with homosexuality made by homosexuals (Mohr 37). From the interviews, it is clear that times have changed and acceptance for homosexuals has improved compared to what the interviewees had to deal with in the 70s, 60s, 50s, and 40s. While gay-rights still have some way to go, the documentary is an early marker for how far the movement has come since then. For instance, there is a lesbian couple, who despite being model parents for their children from earlier unions, had their kids taken away due to their sexual orientation. The documentary has interesting interviews with people opening up about discovering their sexual orientation and how they were affected by the realization. Most of the stories deal with their emotions and hardships they faced after being sent to metal facilities, as well as the use of electroshock therapy to turn them to heterosexuals. There are funny stories about women who had to dress as men in order to be enlisted in the army. One interesting thing about the stories is that the interviewees are courageous enough to share them during this time, while most of their feelings on homosexual rights are relevant today (Mohr 38). The documentary is divided into three parts that focus on being closet gays and attempts to reconcile with their sexual orientations, coming out, and present and future concerns respectively (Mohr 39). This allows the documentary to get as much information as possible about homosexuality, which makes for an extensive look at the life of a homosexual. This, however, could be one of the documentary’s weak points since it is an ambitious attempt to cover too much in one documentary. The documentary is also a period piece that shows the culture of the 70s with handlebar mustaches, wide lapels, pot plants, and overstuffed furniture (Mohr 39). This makes it a representative artifact of the 70s and homosexuality at the time, especially in terms of individuals like Bob and his partner Harry Hay, as well as the gay liberation history. This documentary is important in understanding the struggle for gay rights and their personal dignity (Mohr 41). The interviewees are admirable because of their courage at a point in time when it was unfashionable and dangerous to come out, especially given that homosexuality was a crime in various jurisdictions. There is no sense of chronology in the film and, in fact, there is no point of view, which the filmmakers sough to present. Unlike similar narrated documentaries, Word is Out vividly paints the picture of a seminal time via disparate stories of homosexuals that lived through it. Considering that it came out before the AIDS epidemic was identified, it is a poignant reminder of what the homosexual community was like before they were firmly in the national psyche. In addition, compared to The Homosexuals and Gay Power, Gay Politics, it gives a more balanced view of homosexuality and the lives of homosexuals. This is probably due to the fact that it is made by gays and lesbians, while also mainly interviewing gays and lesbians, which reduces the chance of bias (Mohr 41). Unlike Before Stonewall, which will be discussed later, this documentary points what is a poignant picture of a seminal moment in the struggle for gay rights by telling the story of people who lived through the struggle before Harvey Milk became famous and pushed America to consider the rights of gays and lesbians. Before Stonewall (1985) Before Stonewall is a documentary film released in 1985 about the gay and lesbian community as it was before the Stonewall riots in 1969. It covers the evolution of the LGBT culture in America from the 20s to the late 60s when the riots occurred. Using archival footage, the documentary film features the underground lesbian and gay community in the 30s and 20s, the emergence of gays in the military service and in employment in the 40s during the Second World War, and their persecution by as perverts and subversives by Senator McCarthy at the state department. It also deals with the emergence of political organizations at the grassroots for lesbians and gays in the 50s and the civil rights movement. Lesbians and gays who were involved in the lead-up to the Stonewall riots provide the documentary’s commentary. This is an excellent documentary for people doing research into American gay history. One of the things that make this documentary invaluable is the fact that it recreates the period in time when the events were not recorded due to pervasiveness of being a closet gay person, as well as the dangers that came with being brave enough to come out as a gay person or a lesbian (Weiss & Greta 16). The recreation was done using latter-day interviews, film clips, and photography with this recreation setting this documentary apart from Gay Power, Gay Politics, The Homosexuals and Word is Out. As pointed out by one lesbian pioneer, being found to be a lesbian was enough for one to be committed to mental institutions involuntarily when she was young. It is for this reason that there was so little documentary material, particularly before the 50s, which explains the recreation of scenes (Weiss & Greta 16). This documentary film’s cornerstone has to be the handful of interviews that were carried out with several elderly gays and lesbians in the years before the 1969 Stonewall riots. These gays and lesbians conduct their interviews in a courageous, dignified, and honest manner when telling their story about how they fared in the military service, in their homes, in society, and working in government offices (Weiss & Greta 17). This was during the times that America was going through the radical 60s, the baby boom era, the Second World War, the Great Depression, and the 20 when America was economically successful. What they give the documentary is fascinating and brilliant, as well as critically important if one is to understand the history and heritage of the gay and lesbian community today in the United States. It also offers fascinating insights by using expanded interviews of Allen Ginsberg, a famous poet, reading his earlier works, which reveal the manner in which gays were treated then (Weiss & Greta 18). For most Americans, it would seem that the gay rights and liberation movement began with the Stonewall riots after a group of lesbians and gays decided that enough was enough (Weiss & Greta 20). However, this documentary documents the beginnings of the struggle way before the Stonewall riots. Before Stonewall tries to collapse over four decades of lesbian and gay history into one and a half hours using interviews of people giving their history and experiences. While this documentary’s historical depth may be lacking, its real significance is the comprehension of just how far the gay rights movement has come. As we enter the final stretch of the gay rights movement with full integration into society now almost a reality, understanding the struggle’s roots is important (Weiss & Greta 21). These roots, which are grounded in the documentary should aid homosexuals and instill in them a sense of pride in where the struggle is headed and where it has come from. This pride should also instill strength of character and will by knowing that people braved the hostility of the 20s by wearing matching handkerchiefs and red ties to show their sexual orientation, as well as to drag queens who decided that they would not take anymore. These people in the documentary are the source of empowerment for a lot of gays and lesbians. Overall, the documentary admirably illustrates how gay and lesbian culture has risen in the US, showing political and social issues that were most important in the struggle. Maybe the documentary’s main weakness has to do with its attempt to cover too much ground in only ninety minutes, which renders some of the discussed themes half-cooked (Weiss & Greta 22). However, as a historical look into gay and lesbian culture prior to stonewall, it is successful. The Times of Harvey Milk (1984) Released as a documentary film in 1984, The Times of Harvey Milk documents Harvey Milk’s political career as the first openly gay supervisor in San Francisco. It documents his emergence from an activist to a gay and lesbian achievement symbol, through to his 1978 city hall assassination, the trial of Dan White, and the aftermath. Produced following his death, the documentary uses exclusive footage, original interviews, archival footage, and news reports so that Harvey is posthumously credited as the documentary’s lead. The documentary also includes George Moscone, who was the mayor of San Francisco and was killed together with Harvey and present American Senator and successor to Moscone as mayor at the time Dianne Feinstein. It opens with Senator Feinstein in tears giving an announcement that Dan White had assassinated Harvey and Moscone to the news media. The documentary also includes a future California State Assembly member, Tom Ammiano. The documentary also involves interviews with his most important allies and friends. There is a lot of coverage of his assassin, Dan White and the trial that saw him serve only five years for a double murder. Back in the 70s, Prop 6 was a law that sought to mandate firing of lesbian and gay teachers and those who supported them, which was successfully opposed by Harvey Milk and is one of the documentary’s highlight moments (Shilts 57). From the film, it is clear that Harvey’s ability to link what lesbians and gays went through and other struggles in the US made him famous. By mining archives for interviews and news footage that seek to shed more light on the intriguing Harvey Milk, the documentary does not leave any stones unturned, while it does not overwhelm the audience with a lot of information. It seems to unfold liker a real-life drama with suspense building up to the fateful assassination through audio and visuals. While this documentary may have ended up like majority of other documentaries that seek to recreate history by being dry and over-informative, the audience gets to know Harvey and the city of San Francisco during the era of constant change and revolution (Shilts 58). There are, however, a few weak points in the film, such as the fact that it shows Harvey as being imprecise when he was a young man, which contrasts greatly with his tangible nature as an adult (Shilts 59). While there is some information about him prior to his move out to San Francisco, it is not enough to form an opinion of who he was prior to the move. In addition, his assassin, Dan White, seems too mysterious a figure and the audience does not discover much about him or his ultimate motives. The documentary gives a feel that Dan White is a complicated and tortured man and does not give the audience anymore (Shilts 59). Considering his fateful role in the story, he does not come off as the villain that he should. The documentary can help Americans, talk about Harvey’s legacy and what it means to them; in addition to, also helping in the study of the gay-rights movement, stereotypes, and the role played by Harvey in the movement (Shilts 61). The documentary is a flawless look into the 20th century’s iconic civil rights movement. It shows Harvey Milk’s achievements and his inspiration of a great movement. With the use of archival footage and interviews, the documentary is a necessary view for its historic value with regards to its fight for equality and rights for gays and everyone in general. While the documentary is sad due to the assassination of Harvey, it also shows how courageous and determined Harvey was in the midst of a hostile society, which should be an inspiration for all people to fight for what is right. One cannot help but enjoy the documentary as Harvey Milk puts everything else back to pursue acceptance for gay people (Shilts 62). It is a brilliant documentary, which has staying power and will be as powerful fifty years from today. Works Cited Andriote, John-Manuel. 1980 Television Episodes: Gay Power, Gay Politics. Memphis: General Books, 2010. Print. Kraemer, Thomas. 'CBS Reports: The Homosexuals' 1967 . 14 February 2010. Web. 27 September 2013 . Mohr, Richard D. Gays/justice: A Study of Ethics, Society, and Law. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Print. Shilts, Randy. The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life & Times of Harvey Milk. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2008. Print. Weiss, Andrea. & Greta, Schiller. Before Stonewall: The Making of a Gay and Lesbian Community. Tallahassee, Fla: Naiad Press, 1988. Print. Read More