Jump to content

drak's sekrits

A blog by Drak in Member

  • entries
    43
  • comments
    105
  • views
    16,560

Vicious

Drak

Entry posted by Drak

1,011 views

I object to the gay critics of Vicious, the Brit sitcom starring Ian McKellan and Derek Jacobi.

 

The oh-so-vicious critics declare in reviews printed in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph that this is an old-fashioned show, a throwback to the worst shows of the 1970s, and that the characters are ugly and mean, and that they are gay stereotypes from the bad old days, and finally, the Coup de grâce, they don't Represent. That's right, McKellan and Jacobi do not serve as flattering ambassadors from the gay community to the straight. In short, they make us gays look bad.

 

I object! I call Lie upon the critics! Firstly on the grounds that Ian McKellan is one of the greatest living actors and that anything he does has got to be dope. It has just got to be. He earned the gay sainthood as wonderful Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, that sweet dear man who has championed gay rights at every turn since he came out. His creds as an out gay man are impeccable, and the notion the show is homophobic in any way is preposterous on the face of it. If you like Ian McKellan and think he's dope then you will like the show, Period, end of discussion. If on the other hand you suffer from a chronic case of Lookism and see just two old queens and yearn for eye candy then okay, pass, like the jaded critics aforementioned, who apparently aren't very accepting of the elderly. If I need eye candy, I've got pr0n. When I watch a comedy, I just want laughs. If the vehicle of those laughs has gray hair, so what?

 

Second, the show is funny, yes Sirs, it is, if one only suspends, just for thirty minutes, the compulsion to evaluate every gay as an ambassador to the str8 community and insist they must Represent a cookie-cutter, politically correct, squeaky-clean version of the Gay Man to the rest of the world. Well look, chaps, this a comedy, all right? I allow a bit of literary license to the writers. There are plenty of shows about str8 people that depict them in less than admirable terms. Why should gays be saints all the time? It is not necessary. Not today. Not with so many other shows around.

 

These stuffy critics that demand every comedy be just like the latest favorite are killing television with their compulsion to conformity. I say Viva la Difference! Give me more Vicious!

  • Like 3

8 Comments

Recommended Comments

MikeL

I have not seen Vicious, of course, being an isolated American.  I certainly do know who McKellan and Jacobi are.  I can't imagine them being poor ambassadors for the gay community.

 

The big danger in political correctness is that it could kill the gay movement before acceptance is more widespread.  The PC Nazis need to be drowned out by a chorus of affirmation for all things gay.  Infighting over rules dictated by a few is a damning distraction.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Oh, I'm trying to ensure that I understand this new definition of "dope" to which you have exposed me.  It's not stupid or illicit drugs.  It's something good, right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Kitt

Personally, if the critics dislike something that's pretty much the best endorsement for it IMO. If they hate a movie I find I usually enjoy it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
paya

I agree! Vicious is great for a quick laugh and Frances de la Tour and "Ramsay Bolton" are just as awesome as the two main queens in it! 

 

BTW there are two more grey haired "Gay" ambassadors - Martin Sheen and Sam Waterston kiss and hug a lot in the Netflix's Grace and Frankie! Wholeheartedly recommended! ;-)

Link to comment
Drew Espinosa

The criticism reminds of that placed on Downton Abbey concerning the portrayal of Thomas. Usually along the lines of "The shows Homophobic" or "How dare they portray a gay man as a villain!"

 

Look, I get it, early shows and cinema had that gay character be the villain and die in the end, so I understand. But I say: "put a sock in it!"

 

To the point about both shows: I want there to be a time and point when people just don't give a damn about a character's sexuality or whether they are the hero or villain!

 

Sorry for the rant, but I have strong views on this.

Link to comment
Drak

I have not seen Vicious, of course, being an isolated American.  I certainly do know who McKellan and Jacobi are.  I can't imagine them being poor ambassadors for the gay community.

 

The big danger in political correctness is that it could kill the gay movement before acceptance is more widespread.  The PC Nazis need to be drowned out by a chorus of affirmation for all things gay.  Infighting over rules dictated by a few is a damning distraction.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Oh, I'm trying to ensure that I understand this new definition of "dope" to which you have exposed me.  It's not stupid or illicit drugs.  It's something good, right?

 

I probably shouldn't use the word "dope," but yes, it was reinterpreted by rap artists to mean satisfactory, acceptable. I started using the word once I became aware that so many rap artists have a favorable opinion of cannabis. The original meaning of the word "dope" meant, specifically, cannabis. I am for the legalization of cannabis and find that it is a useful food and medicine.

Link to comment
Drak

Personally, if the critics dislike something that's pretty much the best endorsement for it IMO. If they hate a movie I find I usually enjoy it!

 

And, strangely, I tend to dislike a lot of critically acclaimed movies, usually the "chick flicks," but maybe because they tend to be so heterosexual, and I've become jaded from watching so many heterosexual-themed television shows.

Link to comment
Drak

The criticism reminds of that placed on Downton Abbey concerning the portrayal of Thomas. Usually along the lines of "The shows Homophobic" or "How dare they portray a gay man as a villain!"

 

Look, I get it, early shows and cinema had that gay character be the villain and die in the end, so I understand. But I say: "put a sock in it!"

 

To the point about both shows: I want there to be a time and point when people just don't give a damn about a character's sexuality or whether they are the hero or villain!

 

Sorry for the rant, but I have strong views on this.

 

I do like how Downton Abbey humanized Thomas and made the audience understand better what made him tick. There was a reason for his villainy and it had to do with his alienation.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Our Privacy Policy can be found here: Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..