panbutnotpeter:

“The culture at that time was trying to deny that homosexuality even existed, and here they had well known Hollywood players involved in it, so they didn’t want to see what was there. […] What is extraordinary about [Rope] is its treatment of homosexuality. I mean today it still is one of the most sophisticated movies ever made on that subject; probably treats them more as people than anybody else has. Hitchcock certainly knew that, and it certainly attracted him. And what he liked was not that they were homosexual, but that they were homosexual murderers. If they were just murderers he wouldn’t have been interested, if they were just homosexual he wouldn’t have been interested. You had to have another little twist to it…”

— as told by Arthur Laurents, the screenwriter of Rope, a 1948 film directed by Alfred Hitchcock, adapted from a 1929 play based on a real murder case. Arthur Laurents, both of the actors portraying the couple (John Dall and Farley Granger), and the composer of the featured piano score were all known to be gay in real life (though it’s said that Granger resented the gay label, and he officially came out as bisexual towards the end of his life). The character played by Jimmy Stewart in Rope was also gay, but the final version of the script was so subtle due to censorship that Laurents was unsure if Stewart ever realized he was playing a gay character.

Just watched this again last night, it’s fantastic!

(via lancasterdodd)

Source: panbutnotpeter

vicemag: This Gay Indie Sex Movie Isn’t Really Porn, Even Though It Kind of Is The Supreme Court has never explicitly defined what constitutes pornography. Instead, they go with the old, “we know it when we see it” doctrine (and considering Clarence Thomas is still on the bench, I have a feeling the Court has seen plenty of it). Yes, there are many shades of grey (50 to be exact) between what constitutes a work of art about love and sex and what is just straight up spank material. A photographer once told me the difference between erotica and porn is “better lighting.” That seems to be the stance that San Francisco director Travis Matthews took when making his gay indie sex drama I Want Your Love. The movie depicts the gay post-graduate creative class in San Francisco complete with light sweaters, thrift stores, regrettable tattoos, facial hair, piercing, yearning to be a performance artist, and lots of angsty discussions about their relationships. Oh, and there are boners, too. And buttfucking. And cumshots. And a beej or two. And all the penises are real, and going into real assholes and mouths. This is getting Matthews a whole lot of attention. Not only is it selling out screenings at gay film festivals (including two at Lincoln Center this weekend) but he caught the attention of celebrity dilettante James Franco, and just wrapped filming a real-gay-sex movie project with him. Here’s why Matthews thinks his movie isn’t porn. VICE: How would you classify this movie?Travis: If I were to just toss it into a genre? I think of it as an indie art film with gay sex in it. I don’t classify it as a porn. Why not?To me pornography is something you watch with the sole purpose of jerking off to. When we were filming it, it wasn’t to film sex scenes for people to jerk off to, but to film sex scenes that aren’t documented in film and to use sex to bring out story and character elements. Surely there are shots of explicit things going on that may or may not be sexy, but I was more interested in showing the sloppiness, the funniness, the painful moments. My intention was not to make it hot for hot’s sake. What if guys do want to jerk off while watching?Great. I’m not policing anyone’s experience about how they engage with it. I think it’s exciting that people have different experiences with it. Some people will think the guys are hot because they have natural bodies, and to some people that’s a buzz kill. Even if someone calls it pornography, I’m not interested in arguing if they interpret it as pornography. I can tell you my intention, but it’s a losing battle to get defensive about. CONTINUE
Pop-upView Separately

vicemag:

This Gay Indie Sex Movie Isn’t Really Porn, Even Though It Kind of Is

The Supreme Court has never explicitly defined what constitutes pornography. Instead, they go with the old, “we know it when we see it” doctrine (and considering Clarence Thomas is still on the bench, I have a feeling the Court has seen plenty of it). Yes, there are many shades of grey (50 to be exact) between what constitutes a work of art about love and sex and what is just straight up spank material. A photographer once told me the difference between erotica and porn is “better lighting.”

That seems to be the stance that San Francisco director Travis Matthews took when making his gay indie sex drama I Want Your Love. The movie depicts the gay post-graduate creative class in San Francisco complete with light sweaters, thrift stores, regrettable tattoos, facial hair, piercing, yearning to be a performance artist, and lots of angsty discussions about their relationships. Oh, and there are boners, too. And buttfucking. And cumshots. And a beej or two. And all the penises are real, and going into real assholes and mouths.

This is getting Matthews a whole lot of attention. Not only is it selling out screenings at gay film festivals (including two at Lincoln Center this weekend) but he caught the attention of celebrity dilettante James Franco, and just wrapped filming a real-gay-sex movie project with him.

Here’s why Matthews thinks his movie isn’t porn.

VICE: How would you classify this movie?
Travis: If I were to just toss it into a genre? I think of it as an indie art film with gay sex in it. I don’t classify it as a porn.

Why not?
To me pornography is something you watch with the sole purpose of jerking off to. When we were filming it, it wasn’t to film sex scenes for people to jerk off to, but to film sex scenes that aren’t documented in film and to use sex to bring out story and character elements. Surely there are shots of explicit things going on that may or may not be sexy, but I was more interested in showing the sloppiness, the funniness, the painful moments. My intention was not to make it hot for hot’s sake.

What if guys do want to jerk off while watching?
Great. I’m not policing anyone’s experience about how they engage with it. I think it’s exciting that people have different experiences with it. Some people will think the guys are hot because they have natural bodies, and to some people that’s a buzz kill. Even if someone calls it pornography, I’m not interested in arguing if they interpret it as pornography. I can tell you my intention, but it’s a losing battle to get defensive about.

homoinmotion:

Wild Tigers I Have Known
Director: Cam Archer
Stars: Malcolm Stumpf (Logan), Patrick White (Rodeo), Max Paradise (Joey)
USA | 2006 | 98 min

Junior high in a time of rotary phones. Cougars have been spotted in the area. Logan is 13, the odd kid, with an active imagination and few friends. His young, single mother seems stressed. Latency is giving way to puberty, and Logan, who keeps a tube of lipstick in his dresser, may be gay or, more mysterious, transgender. He stares at himself in the mirror. He becomes friends with Rodeo, older and more mature, good-looking, with girlfriends. They take walks. Logan calls Rodeo and pretends to be a girl. Will he disclose himself to Rodeo? The kids at school talk. The school wants to promote kindness and tolerance. There are stories of child suicide. How do we find our way?

(via filmqueers)

Source: homoinmotion