Back when I was in film school (where is irrelevant), I was given a task to write a script for the possibility of filming it for a future class. So I did and the script was entitled, "Man-Hater" which then got changed to "21st Century Straight Man". The script was focused on a young, confused man who is battling his own self-identity as a repressed homosexual while he happens to be homophobic. My goal was simple: express my detest for homophobia in America and I wrote it as a homophobic person would view the gay community lifestyle. Did I write a good script that expressed my view like I wished it to be? Long answer: After my professor reviewed it, his only comment on it was, "Find some humanity." Short answer: No. It was a terrible script. I'll be the first to admit it. I enjoyed writing it of course, but ultimately it was something I wrote for class. I had very little intentions on making it into a short film. As the class ventured forth and students had to read and critique it, the script got mixed reviews. Some students had no problem with it (they probably didn't read but two pages of it and went on playing Call of Duty or something) and the others...well, there is one in particular that I want to share to you.
"Shock value or pushing buttons is fine when there's a purpose. A theme, a social or political statement, anything. The only thing this script clearly conveys is hostility, homophobia, and ignorance (which, if that's what you're going for, it's there). It sets up causation so that all it really says is that gay people gave gay kids that are all kinds of screwed up.
There are three depictions of gay men in this script and none of them are good: (1) two perverts having sex in public, a couple that live together with traditional masculine-feminine (assertive-passive) roles to the point of cross-dressing as if that's the norm for gay couples or the only way they can be a real couple, and (3) a violently repressed gay protagonist that lashes out by fag bashing. As for depictions of gay relationships, again you have the pervs in the bathroom, and secondly you have the weird "trying to be normal genders" couple that had sex so loud their son could hear it and he turned out to be gay himself, naturally. None of these are what I would call accurate or remotely civil depictions of gay people. They're hostile, negative stereotypes, and not even interesting or imaginative ones at that.
I don't know any gay couples that live together in a situation similar to the one in the script. It's a weird sort of stereotype going on there, I guess what people in the 1950s would have imagined same sex couples would live like? Honestly I'm familiar with a lot of misconceptions about the gay community, but that one's sort of new and out there. Secondly, there's a lot of literature on same-sex parenting in the social sciences wherein the general consensus is that same sex couples have emotionally and mentally stable children at least to the same degree as straight couples do. (Some even conclude that by correlation they more often produce mentally stable, tolerant, and successful members of society. Which that's going to be skewed by socioeconomic factors and is besides the point that neither same-sex or opposite sex parents are inferior or superior to the other. The important thing is that gay couples at least raise normal, well-adjusted children as much as opposite sex couples.)
Furthermore, the vast majority of people raised by same-sex couples are NOT gay themselves. The same proportion of these people are gay as are people in the general public. Having gay parents doesn't make you gay anymore than having straight parents makes you straight. Not only do all these weird and hostile depictions in this script raise questions about what you're trying to convey to your audience, or how you're trying to effect them when they watch it, but it also makes the story totally unbelievable and just sound ignorant. It just comes across as ignorant gay-bashing, or at least gay-ridiculing.
This draft is a little less hostile since dad isn't "enjoying his sausage a little too much" and the one guy who gets fag-bashed (which is a serious social problem that some in your audience might identify with personally) doesn't crouch "like a little girl in the corner" anymore. But it's still pretty hateful. If your point is about a repressed individual, you should really drop the dads. It's not ironic, it's predictable, and absurd causation. The only message or theme that I can interpret from this script is "Gay people raise gay kids that are repressed and screwed up." And apparently all gay people are perverts that do stuff like have sex in public stalls or have sex too loud and warp their children or cross-dress in their long term relationships to have some semblance of what a normal relationship should be. It's all really just quite juvenile and presents a really bizarre and mean-spirited depiction of homosexuals.
If you are in fact trying to make an anti-gay script, it's honestly too stereotype-ridden and misinformed to really be taken seriously or achieve that either."
There are three depictions of gay men in this script and none of them are good: (1) two perverts having sex in public, a couple that live together with traditional masculine-feminine (assertive-passive) roles to the point of cross-dressing as if that's the norm for gay couples or the only way they can be a real couple, and (3) a violently repressed gay protagonist that lashes out by fag bashing. As for depictions of gay relationships, again you have the pervs in the bathroom, and secondly you have the weird "trying to be normal genders" couple that had sex so loud their son could hear it and he turned out to be gay himself, naturally. None of these are what I would call accurate or remotely civil depictions of gay people. They're hostile, negative stereotypes, and not even interesting or imaginative ones at that.
I don't know any gay couples that live together in a situation similar to the one in the script. It's a weird sort of stereotype going on there, I guess what people in the 1950s would have imagined same sex couples would live like? Honestly I'm familiar with a lot of misconceptions about the gay community, but that one's sort of new and out there. Secondly, there's a lot of literature on same-sex parenting in the social sciences wherein the general consensus is that same sex couples have emotionally and mentally stable children at least to the same degree as straight couples do. (Some even conclude that by correlation they more often produce mentally stable, tolerant, and successful members of society. Which that's going to be skewed by socioeconomic factors and is besides the point that neither same-sex or opposite sex parents are inferior or superior to the other. The important thing is that gay couples at least raise normal, well-adjusted children as much as opposite sex couples.)
Furthermore, the vast majority of people raised by same-sex couples are NOT gay themselves. The same proportion of these people are gay as are people in the general public. Having gay parents doesn't make you gay anymore than having straight parents makes you straight. Not only do all these weird and hostile depictions in this script raise questions about what you're trying to convey to your audience, or how you're trying to effect them when they watch it, but it also makes the story totally unbelievable and just sound ignorant. It just comes across as ignorant gay-bashing, or at least gay-ridiculing.
This draft is a little less hostile since dad isn't "enjoying his sausage a little too much" and the one guy who gets fag-bashed (which is a serious social problem that some in your audience might identify with personally) doesn't crouch "like a little girl in the corner" anymore. But it's still pretty hateful. If your point is about a repressed individual, you should really drop the dads. It's not ironic, it's predictable, and absurd causation. The only message or theme that I can interpret from this script is "Gay people raise gay kids that are repressed and screwed up." And apparently all gay people are perverts that do stuff like have sex in public stalls or have sex too loud and warp their children or cross-dress in their long term relationships to have some semblance of what a normal relationship should be. It's all really just quite juvenile and presents a really bizarre and mean-spirited depiction of homosexuals.
If you are in fact trying to make an anti-gay script, it's honestly too stereotype-ridden and misinformed to really be taken seriously or achieve that either."
- Peer Review by student
My expression of anti-homophobia was lost in translation to this student and I’m one hundred percent A-okay with this! Every draft afterwards was more hostile and unsentimental to the reader and with every word I typed I couldn’t stop laughing. These student’s words became fuel for the fire.Now, I hope this doesn’t make me look like an asshole. By all means, I want people to like and appreciate my work. But, if there is one rule I have learned from film school is this: Fuck the audience. No matter what you write or how you portray it, people will always have their own interpretation of your work and there’s nothing you can do about it, so why bother catering to the audience when the only person you need to satisfy is yourself? It is your work. Your expression. Your creation. I guarantee it, if you film filth, there will be an audience willing to watch it. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself why is there followings for Harmony Korine, John Waters, David Lynch, Lars von Trier or Pier Paolo Pasolini? And don’t take it personal when I say, “fuck the audience.” I don’t know you so how can I hate you? All I mean by F.T.A. is that why let others define you by telling you what they want to see? Isn’t art supposed to be self-expression?
