Liberace "Behind the Candelabra"

[x-man]

I very well remember Liberace.  Remember, I'm older than you guys.

I know he was very flamboyant and animated.  At the time it turned me off, but I have lightened up a lot since getting older, and now think he had the right to be as nellie and campy as he wanted to be.  I'm not criticizing Liberace at all.  Go girl!  Take it as far as you want to!

I am criticizing Douglas for his portrayal of the man.  (Peter Garber did a much better job in the other Liberace movie.)  And my pet hate is Matt Dillon.  When I first saw him in a film, I thought "nice eye-candy."  Then he had to ruin it by talking.  Wooden, uninteresting, boring--that boy-next-door look will take you only so far----definitely not into Liberace's mansion.

[Shakesthecoffecan]

Well, you know it is a movie, and they are actors. They did the best they could probably. I am amazed that the movie would ever be made, or more to the point I have lived to see the day it would be made.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I very well remember Liberace.  Remember, I'm older than you guys.

I know he was very flamboyant and animated.  At the time it turned me off, but I have lightened up a lot since getting older, and now think he had the right to be as nellie and campy as he wanted to be.  I'm not criticizing Liberace at all.  Go girl!  Take it as far as you want to!

And yet you have a problem that a movie portrayed him as exactly that?

I finally saw Behind the Candelabra a few nights ago.  I was not confused in the least--I was appalled.  As a gay man I was greatly offended that this cartoonish effort was made in the first place, and then was celebrated as being of any worth at all.

Any gay man seeing this film without warning would be repelled.

Really, don't you think you ought to speak for yourself? You have every right to be appalled and disgusted by it, but you aren't "any gay man," you're one gay man.

At its heart it was the story of a crazy, stereotypically gay, older sugar daddy (virtually a drag queen in pants), and his  twinkie boyfriend who was out for everything he could get out of the old man.

Well, yeah. ... 

Douglas and Dillon could not possibly have been a worse case of casting.

It wasn't Matt Dillon, it was Matt Damon.

I am criticizing Douglas for his portrayal of the man.  (Peter Garber did a much better job in the other Liberace movie.)

If you're referring to Liberace: Behind the Music (1988), that was Victor Garber (who is gay, btw, and quite a good actor in whatever role he takes on).

Scott Thompson was the only one alive to write the book--and profit from the movie royalties.  That he was shamelessly using Liberace all along, and was a totally self-seeking bastard seems to have gotten lost along the way.  Liberace sure had bad taste in men.  He is the one to pity, not the sleazy hangers-on who took advantage of him.

Scott Thorson. ...

And why do some of you straight people insist on calling the younger partners in gay relationships "boys?"

Maybe because some of us gay men do.

[Jeff Wrangler]

My friend Offline Chuck loved the show and as an accomplished pianist, loved Liberace. Apparently he was really talented as a pianist. I barely remember him myself but enough to know that the costumes, candelabra and mannerisms were really there.

I've offered (threatened?  ) to buy OCD a candelabra for that baby grand of his. ...

[southendmd]

I didn't care much for the film, mostly because I thought the title should have used the single "candelabrum".  

I don't get upset at the subject matter:  an aging celebrity and his loneliness, self deception; hooking up with young men and using each other.  How many older straight celebrities hook up with lots of young women?

Surely, by his older years, he was a nelly caricature.  It's hard to imagine how incredibly popular he was decades earlier.  I was reminded of this old clip from the TV show "What's My Line" where Liberace was the mystery celebrity guest.  Listen to the audience's reaction when he just walks on stage.  And the first panelist's question/assumption that he must be an incredibly hot starlet to get that kind of response from the audience!

[youtube=425,350]http://youtu.be/bfHvAe3N9x8[/youtube]

[Jeff Wrangler]

It's hard to imagine how incredibly popular he was decades earlier.

The man certainly was a talented showman, you have to give him that. I have vague memories of his TV show from when I was a child.

[x-man]

And yet you have a problem that a movie portrayed him as exactly that?

Really, don't you think you ought to speak for yourself? You have every right to be appalled and disgusted by it, but you aren't "any gay man," you're one gay man.

Well, yeah. ... 

It wasn't Matt Dillon, it was Matt Damon.

If you're referring to Liberace: Behind the Music (1988), that was Victor Garber (who is gay, btw, and quite a good actor in whatever role he takes on).

Scott Thorson. ...

Maybe because some of us gay men do.

Hey JW, lighten up.  I was reacting to a film I didn't like.  I got some facts wrong--I get that.  I should have checked  them out before I wrote.  I didn't realize it was that serious.
You say I was reacting to Liberace's being "flamboyant and animated" (I read this as nellie and campy.)  I was not, as I explained.  It was the way Douglas did it that offended me.  I thought I made that clear. 
Damon/Dillon--he's still an uninteresting, wooden actor and a very conventional person who is totally unbelievable as the twinkie boyfriend.
You are right that I should not presume to speak for other gay men.  I DID check with other gay male friends of mine, and their reactions to the film were much like mine.
As far as calling young men "boys," I am old enough to be in a better position than most to call younger men "boys."  But I will not do so because it is discounting and demeaning.  Consider how women react to being called "girls" by men: they freak.  And I think you missed my point about it summoning up paedophilia.  Notice in general straight rhetoric (newspapers and conversation) about men+ young men, the latter will very often be described as "young boys" when they are 18 or 19.  If that is a "young boy" then what is a 9-year-old--an infant?  There is only one place this misuse of language comes from: the intent to say that such relationships are improper and perverted.  This is homophobia in my book, however disguised.
OK, JW, you have had your run at me for past problems.  I have been waiting for this.  I have no animosity towards you, and never did.  Now, let's put it to bed and start over.  Chill out; I have.

[Front-Ranger]

What about giving Liberace credit for his talent and skill as a pianist? At least at the beginning, that was the source of his popularity, IMHO. That was back in the days when people listened to piano on the radio or went to concerts. Our friend Offline Chuck treasures the piano rolls of his that he has collected (for player piano).

[brianr]

In some gay subsets and without being too explicit the term 'boy' is used more for role rather than age. I have  been called 'boy' in the last year or so even though I will be 70 next week.
The movie is historical and this must temper my complete disgust with Liberace, his being in the closet and suing anyone who even hinted he was gay and his treatment of the 'young men' he picked up. It just shows how far gay rights and pride have progressed in my lifetime.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Hey JW, lighten up.  I was reacting to a film I didn't like.  I got some facts wrong--I get that.  I should have checked  them out before I wrote.  I didn't realize it was that serious.
You say I was reacting to Liberace's being "flamboyant and animated" (I read this as nellie and campy.)  I was not, as I explained.  It was the way Douglas did it that offended me.  I thought I made that clear. 
Damon/Dillon--he's still an uninteresting, wooden actor and a very conventional person who is totally unbelievable as the twinkie boyfriend.
You are right that I should not presume to speak for other gay men.  I DID check with other gay male friends of mine, and their reactions to the film were much like mine.
As far as calling young men "boys," I am old enough to be in a better position than most to call younger men "boys."  But I will not do so because it is discounting and demeaning.  Consider how women react to being called "girls" by men: they freak.  And I think you missed my point about it summoning up paedophilia.  Notice in general straight rhetoric (newspapers and conversation) about men+ young men, the latter will very often be described as "young boys" when they are 18 or 19.  If that is a "young boy" then what is a 9-year-old--an infant?  There is only one place this misuse of language comes from: the intent to say that such relationships are improper and perverted.  This is homophobia in my book, however disguised.
OK, JW, you have had your run at me for past problems.  I have been waiting for this.  I have no animosity towards you, and never did.  Now, let's put it to bed and start over.  Chill out; I have.

  

And I didn't miss your point about pedophilia. I just happen to think you're wrong about it, but I have no interest in arguing about it.