Sections

I know why the caged bird sings

Granted, movies and art in general are not required to have a social conscience. "The Bird Cage" certainly doesn't. While director Nichols and screenwriter Elaine May argue that the film isn't meant to be taken seriously outside of its entertainment purpose, one can't help but acknowledge the fact that as goofy and lighthearted as the filmmakers claim the film to be, it is still essentially just another Hollywood exercise in "let's laugh at and trivialize gay people."

and closed door gay Hollywood from film's inception to its present.
Historically, any person who is -- gasp! -- (whisper) -- NOT HETEROSEXUAL -- has been ridiculed. From the strange, creeping, criminal deviant (of '40s and '50s crime movies) to the child-molesting older uncle or friend of the family, to the tough, butch, lesbian, either behind bars or on the police force (a favorite of early '80s sitcoms) to the passive-aggressive, tight-jeaned, sex-obsessed guy who hits on all the poor straight men who just want to be left alone, nobody since the Native American has been so insultingly represented.

"The Bird Cage," although considerably more mildly, continues this cycle. But it's the mild, comparatively subtle jibes of "Bird Cage" that makes it all the more dangerous.

High-quality, low-budget, non-Hollywood films such as "Go Fish," "Parting Glances," "Grief," "Longtime Companion," and anything made by underrated indie maverick Gregg Araki ("The Doom Generation") have addressed homosexual relationships with the same attentiveness and respect that big-budget, Hollywood studio films routinely impart upon heterosexual ones.

Yet, the same cannot be said of those Hollywood studio films. The possible exception is perhaps last year's "Jeffrey." Although made by a large studio, the film was still low-budget and got a limited release.

Yes, I've seen "Philadelphia."

Can you name any others? Please don't say "Tootsie" or "Victor Victoria." Please don't mention "To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar." Other than the fun, Australian-born "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert," the drag queen and the transsexual have had it just about the worst.

But let's talk about "Philadelphia." In its examination of the life of a corporate businessman named Andy (Tom Hanks), fired from his job because of his battle with AIDS, the film examined the seeds of prejudice in the corporate sector. But that was the focus, prejudice, not the HIV virus or AIDS itself, not its consequences for gay and straight people alike, but the wrongs of on-the-job discrimination. An important topic, but not the same.

Like "The Bird Cage," "Philadelphia" didn't shy away from a happy, stable couple who happen to be gay. Like "The Bird Cage," "Philadelphia" completely denied the physicality of its characters' relationship. It's not that these couples should be shown engaged in graphic sex. But the fact is, if "Philadelphia" were about a straight couple, where the man had gotten HIV through a blood transfusion instead of through sex, you better believe that in their time of pain and loss, the filmmakers would have allowed them to kiss. Armand and Albert discuss their relationship but never touch.

Instead, Lane as Albert, (who performs a drag act in Armand's club) preens, careens, wails, titters and plays up every gay stereotype that Hollywood has ever purported.

Wow. How progressive. How realistic.

Much like the apt title of the film, Hollywood seems to be quite content to put people who are gay in a cage, to keep them at that distance, so that they can be looked at and examined, laughed at and applauded, provided that they keep singing.