I have just returned from watching this movie and have very confused feelings.Well, at least you can take comfort in the fact that there are plenty of movies out there depicting the seedy life of heterosexuals as well.
It was hardly discussed in the movie thread. Apparently it was only on TV in the USA because it was considered "too gay" As someone said on IMDB "This is after Brokeback??"
My 60 + movie group goes to a movie on the 2nd Sunday of the month. I am glad I did not see it with them. However the audience was similar - Elderly ladies and one or 2 older men like me (except they were accompanied by ladies and I was alone).
I never liked Liberace much, thankfully my music tastes are better and he made me squirm as he was so much a queen.
Towards the end of the movie I was loathing him completely and although I felt a bit sorry for him dying of AIDS (I did not know that before) I still think he was completely repugnant and not a person I would like my friends to see as typically gay.
My sister told me today that her best friend wanted to see the movie but it has apparently finished screening in Australia. Thank God. Her friend is 79. like my sister but, unlike my sister who has watched her young brother deal with being gay, is completely homophobic and I watch what I say in her presence.
This movie would hardly improve her views.
While my life has been no stranger to back room bars I was a little embarrassed at them being depicted in front of that audience. However in his late 50's Liberace picked up a (16 - 18 it seems to vary) boy, Scott, from a broken home, lavishes him with gifts and sex and even arranges for him to have a completely unnecessary facelift then throws him over when a younger trick meets his eye. And apparently there were several such victims, only Scott has written about it.
Much is made of the fact that Scott is now a drug addict and has been in jail. Can anyone be surprised?
Both Matt Damon and Michael Douglas give good performances so that made seeing the movie worthwhile, although I could have wished the face surgery was not depicted in such detail. However I felt sick that straight people my age should be viewing such a seedy side of gay life.
Well, at least you can take comfort in the fact that there are plenty of movies out there depicting the seedy life of heterosexuals as well.Yes but unfortunately people do not always see that. My sister's girlfriend is so bitter about gay men because her other best friend was married to a gay man. The eventual happened and they divorced leaving her to bring up a daughter in poverty while he was a successful medical practitioner. Of course this all happened long ago as they are all now in their late 70's and was before the laws were changed which would now make him pay support.
I have just returned from watching this movie and have very confused feelings.
It was hardly discussed in the movie thread. Apparently it was only on TV in the USA because it was considered "too gay" As someone said on IMDB "This is after Brokeback??"
My 60 + movie group goes to a movie on the 2nd Sunday of the month. I am glad I did not see it with them. However the audience was similar - Elderly ladies and one or 2 older men like me (except they were accompanied by ladies and I was alone).
I never liked Liberace much, thankfully my music tastes are better and he made me squirm as he was so much a queen.
Towards the end of the movie I was loathing him completely and although I felt a bit sorry for him dying of AIDS (I did not know that before) I still think he was completely repugnant and not a person I would like my friends to see as typically gay.
My sister told me today that her best friend wanted to see the movie but it has apparently finished screening in Australia. Thank God. Her friend is 79. like my sister but, unlike my sister who has watched her young brother deal with being gay, is completely homophobic and I watch what I say in her presence.
This movie would hardly improve her views.
While my life has been no stranger to back room bars I was a little embarrassed at them being depicted in front of that audience. However in his late 50's Liberace picked up a (16 - 18 it seems to vary) boy, Scott, from a broken home, lavishes him with gifts and sex and even arranges for him to have a completely unnecessary facelift then throws him over when a younger trick meets his eye. And apparently there were several such victims, only Scott has written about it.
Much is made of the fact that Scott is now a drug addict and has been in jail. Can anyone be surprised?
Both Matt Damon and Michael Douglas give good performances so that made seeing the movie worthwhile, although I could have wished the face surgery was not depicted in such detail. However I felt sick that straight people my age should be viewing such a seedy side of gay life.
I think I can answer one of your questions thou...why Scott is the only one, who have written about it, according to Scott, he is the only one alive. He says, he knows about 4 boys who died from AIDS after having relationship with Liberace. (one of the boys who died, is portraited in the movie, as Liberace new love interest.)Thanks, that explains a lot. I tend to forget now, after over 20 years, that so many died at that time. It was such a horrible time that one tends to suppress the memories.
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 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.
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.
Douglas and Dillon could not possibly have been a worse case of casting.
I am criticizing Douglas for his portrayal of the man. (Peter Garber did a much better job in the other Liberace movie.)
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.
And why do some of you straight people insist on calling the younger partners in gay relationships "boys?"
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.
It's hard to imagine how incredibly popular he was decades earlier.
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.
8) ::)
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.
And BRIAN, what do you mean by disgust at Liberace's "treatment of the 'young men' he picked up?" What did he do? I thought he gave them a lot of money and lots of gifts. They certainly knew what they were doing, and they knew why Liberace picked them up. If they want to sell their ass, why blame him? He was a rather pathetic figure; they were not. If you are going to despise anybody it should be them for being such whores.
I was under the impression that brian was disgusted by Liberace's spreading AIDs to the young men, which, back in those days, was fatal.FR, are you sure you have your timeline straight? Someone else will know this better than I, but I thought Liberace's relationship with Thorson and the young men who preceded him were before we knew how HIV was spread. And, I thought, Liberace did not spread HIV to Scott Thorson. Did Liberace spread HIV to anyone? Is this a fact or a supposition? Also, it might be wise when discussing the matter to distinguish between AIDS and HIV. Then, perhaps, it wasn't as important to distinguish between the two as it is today.
Liberace was indeed a top-notch pianist, and a masterful showman. Those are wonderful achievements. He was also a flawed man.
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.In some ways this conversation is focusing on the relationship between Liberace and the young men with whom he was involved. Others want to trash Liberace entirely, and not look too closely at the young men, seeing them as victims, talking of their "ill-treatment" and expressing "disgust" at Liberace What I am about to say is going to outrage some of you, but such situations are not always so obvious. I am speaking of personal experience; I cannot prove that my experience extends to others, but I suspect that it sometimes does.
I am certainly not saying that my case is typical.
Which is kind of to say, He was human, don't you think? We might not all be gifted musicians and showmen/women, but most of us, or at least most of us here, anyway, I would imagine, have our own personal triumphs and achievements, as well as our own personal flaws.
Right. The difference is that most of us will never have our achievements or our flaws exposed to the entire world for review. Because we have a chronicle of Liberace's flaws and accomplishments, easily-accessible lessons can be drawn from them.
Maybe so, but I'm sure your experience is also far from unique.
Another posting hinted that Liberace's interest in younger man was a "flaw."
In most states, sex between a 14 year old and an adult is a felony. Don't matter who initiates it.
Brad
I don't understand your point.
In 1952, if the cops caught a 30-year-old man fucking a 14-year-old boy, do you seriously think I would have been charged, no matter what the man said? No way. I could have pleaded with them that he was telling the truth, and it wouldn't have made any difference. That was kind of my point.
I believe I get the point. He wasn't suggesting you would have been charged instead of the adult. Of course the adult would be charged with a felony, regardless of whether he initiated the encounter or whether the 14-year-old initiated it. If one partner is under age, no matter who initiated the encounter, or whether or not it was consensual, it's statutory rape committed by the participant who is of legal age on the participant who is not.
Correct. And legally speaking, there is not such thing as consent for a minor in these situations.
But I wonder whether, in 1952, X-man wouldn't also have been sent away somewhere as a delinquent of some sort? Or maybe to some nice Catholic Church facility to "cure" him?
I really want to make it clear to everyone that in my last postings here I was NOT telling my "coming out" story.
I was interested in raising amongst fellow gay men the question of love and sex when we were adolescents, and when older, confronting noticeably younger men.
Perhaps an interesting topic for some, but it's way off topic in this thread. I would suggest you start a new topic and see if there are any takers.
Brad
I sense antagonism in your posting.......We live here, and will not be bullied into leaving.
Bradnblue has been around these forums longer than me. For some reason he left and rejoined.
Thanks x-man. I was just trying to show that many of our experiences, even growing up in a similar period, are very different.
Bradnblue has been around these forums longer than me. For some reason he left and rejoined.
Thanks x-man. I was just trying to show that many of our experiences, even growing up in a similar period, are very different.
Bradnblue has been around these forums longer than me. For some reason he left and rejoined.