07/27/2005
The Carefree 70's
Gay Sex in the 70's, a new documentary by Joseph Lovett, will hit theaters in New York, San Francisco, and L.A. in November, be released by Wolfe Video on DVD in 2006 and will air on the Sundance Channel in 2007. The film looks at the wild sexual freedom in the gay community between the Stonewall riots and the emergence of AIDS.
The film had its premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival. From Variety:
"More traditionally, behind nearly every bush on The Rambles in Central Park, men made love without fear of police or of gay-bashing civilians while dancehalls like the Loft, the Paradise Garage and Studio 54 encouraged gays to strut their stuff. Full-service bathhouses like the legendary St. Marks Baths furnished everything from steam rooms to high-class professional entertainment by fag hag extraordinaire Bette Midler, strewing poppers like flower petals in her wake.
But the true endemic Gotham community was Fire Island, recalled here with a reverence bordering on awe.
Paradoxically, all the interviewees, including filmmaker Lovett himself, speak of this era of mad promiscuity as a time of friendship and community. When AIDS enters the picture, Lovett's expert control of tone and structure really pays off.
On camera, Lovett muses about a party he went to where all the men he had ever lusted after were gathered in the same room. He was all ready to partake of his first orgy when his lover forced him to leave. He now realizes that he and his lover are probably the only ones of those partygoers still alive."
The fact that it's showing on the Sundance Channel is indicative of the problems I think LOGO may have in attracting viewers because of its policy to veer from controversial, sexual, or steamy entertainment. I won't harsh too much on LOGO now because they seem to be in a "soft launch" pattern at the moment. It does, surprise me, however, that one of the other new "gay channels" didn't pick this one up.
Posted 10:12 AM EST by Andy Towle in Film & TV | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Interesting post, Andy. But it seems like Logo isn't the only gay media outlet that has difficulty with sexual content. A look at most of the mainstream gay magazines out there reveals an oddly neutered landscape.
Posted by: Tom | Jul 27, 2005 11:37:18 AM
Sigh, I wish I had been born 20 years earlier. You all were having fun while I was learning how to walk...
Posted by: ryan | Jul 27, 2005 11:49:40 AM
The mainstream gay media apparently are waiting for sex after marriage. I hate to tell 'em but it's gonna a be long wait. They should start putting out now before they dry up and die.
Posted by: Doug | Jul 27, 2005 11:55:07 AM
I know, I know, I will be opening up a can of whoop-ass here, but I don't think "sexual freedom..." is all that and a bag of chips.
Sure, "freedom" itself is a no-brainer, but so is having morals, scruples, etc.
Promiscuity?
And no, I am no prude by any stretch of the imagination but reading quotes like "...strewing poppers...in her wake..." just doesn't seem like such a an asset on the balance sheet.
And no, part II, I am certainly cast no judgement on anyone, regardless of their beliefs.
Posted by: mark | Jul 27, 2005 12:01:54 PM
I don't romanticize the '70s for this sexual freedom either, Mark. I'll hear people of my generation talk about how they wish they'd been there "before AIDS" so they could have enjoyed the freedom of worry-free sex. They don't seem to realize that this is precisely the time that HIV was being unknowingly spread.
But I think gay media has thrown out the baby with the bath water by never giving us anything other than coy photos of the latest straight pin-up who has taken on a gay movie role.
Posted by: Tom | Jul 27, 2005 1:22:45 PM
I heard about this documentary and am really glad caught your attention. Hopefully it will open ideas on more documentaries on other decades in the gay scene.
How can we have that sense of that so much mention freedom back in these days of ours?
Posted by: fab | Jul 27, 2005 1:26:29 PM
Andy, it's entirely likely that LOGO didn't have the money to acquire this documentary (MTV is notoriously cheap). Besides, if you were the filmmaker, and you were offered more $$ by an established cable outlet, wouldn't you sell to that one, no matter what their "orientation," in hopes to reaching the widest possible audience?
Posted by: cafegogo | Jul 27, 2005 1:29:59 PM
I'm with Ryan, I do wish I'd been born a bit earlier instead of the circuit party era.
Posted by: bmw | Jul 27, 2005 2:02:51 PM
Andy. Andy. Andy. I'd expect more of you than so many of your contributors who obviously live in a Lavender Bubble, impervious and indifferent to the escalation of assaults on our civil liberties, most interested in the latest download from the Titanic band. Lovett's naive detailed film orgy couldn't come at a worse time, and I guarantee you outrageous stills from it will start showing up in mass mailings from the Falwellians, following in the tradition of their using pix they've personally taken at Pride events to raise money, complete with teaser notations outside the envelope like "Don't Open This If You're Easily Offended." And some of the megachurch auditoriums that were last used to exhibit Mel Gibson's "The Passion" will show bootleg copies of "Gay Sex in the 70s." Who's to say they won't anonymously leave countless copies on people's doorsteps during some important election week as, in fact, they have done in the past in California of video they had taken at San Francisco's Pride parade. The current "Advocate" has an article about a study they did on antigay Websites and how much they use real and fictional accounts of gay sex to keep their herds agitated and their coffers full. "On (Concerned Women for America's) site keyword searches for 'homosexual' and 'gay' garner thousands of hits, while the more explicit 'sodomy' yields hundreds of results." Phrases from this film's press kit could just as easily come from a Jerry Falwell sermon: "sexual excess unparalleled since ancient Rome." To which one of the Bubbleheads will no doubt post, "They're going to do it anyway so...."
Just because there's a gang of arsonists in your neighborhood doesn't mean you give them cans of gasoline and matches. And what is this adolescent crap about being disappointed LOGO et al. aren't showing "sexual, or steamy entertainment"? You're defining us entirely by what we do with our dicks just like the Right Wing does. Do CBS, NBC, ABC have an obligation to show programs with "location-shot porn" of straight sex, just because it exists, just because some viewers would like it? You migrated from your New York gay ghetto to an LA gay ghetto and back again. Complete circle. Posts like this indicate that, intellectually, perspectively, it's just been a circle jerk.
Posted by: Leland | Jul 27, 2005 2:10:03 PM
I saw the movie in the SF queer film festival. All I'll say is that perhaps others didn't pick up on the film for a reason. The majority of the audience who I saw it with just didn't think it was all that good of a movie.
Posted by: Matt | Jul 27, 2005 2:15:10 PM
Leland, I really doubt that a single documentary about a time period 20 years ago is going to up the right wing's arsenal any more than will a visit to the M4M section of Craigslist.
When outrageous stills from this film start showing up in their mailings, please send them to me.
"And what is this adolescent crap about being disappointed LOGO et al. aren't showing "sexual, or steamy entertainment"? You're defining us entirely by what we do with our dicks just like the Right Wing does."
If you'll read my post I don't believe I expressed any "disappointment" with LOGO's policy, but simply speculated about the channel's ability to draw viewers.
I do have my own set of beliefs, but in this case I don't believe I glorified or condemned the subject matter of this film, I was simply the messenger. So please spare me the offensive personal insults.
Posted by: andy | Jul 27, 2005 2:34:12 PM
Leland-
You have hit the nail on the head. The assault on our civil liberties and the hate mongering by Concerned Women... and FRC.org is at a fever pitch. Now they will have even more fodder to turn up the heat and raise more money. I never thought I'd see this kind of situation in my lifetme. It is truly frightening and I hope some of these men wishing they were born 20 years earlier get that their future is at stake and are moved to action so that we can be around 20 years from now.
Posted by: Scott | Jul 27, 2005 2:44:15 PM
As much as I like the idea of LOGO and really want it to succeed, so far the channel has been pretty boring.
And what's the deal with their music video shows, 10 SPOT and HEARSAY? When I emailed LOGO to ask why they aren't on yet they replied the shows would appear "later this summer." What's the problem? Can't they walk across the hall to MTV and get some videos?
Posted by: Alan | Jul 27, 2005 2:50:17 PM
Isn't one of our most basic human rights the right to do with our bodies exactly as we see fit ? Isn't another the right to make or watch any kind of art, movie or documentary we see fit ? If we stop expressing ourselves because the words and images will be used against us we're doomed. Any depiction of our lives no matter how cleaned up will be too much for people who in the long run want us dead.
Being 40 years old I came of age just as AIDS hit and so my entire sexual life has been lived in it's shadow and I am still loosing friends. One just last night. To quote Miss Taylor " Face it mother. I was the slut of all time." It wasn't how much sex we had that let me live and my friends die but the kind of sex we had.
I do agree with Leland about LOGO. They have to be as mainstream ( and FCC compliant ) as any other cable network which means they will also be as banal as another cable network. That 's TV kids. But if as Leland puts it " there's a gang of arsonists in your neighborhood " you may want to confront them and take away their matches and cigarette lighters. They probably won't give them up without a fight. So it all comes down to who fights longest, hardest and smartest.
Posted by: Digger | Jul 27, 2005 3:51:41 PM
How's this, Leland? I wish I had lived in the hedonist 70's AND that there was no AIDS. Wishful thinking, yes, but think about it: if someone wants to live with their dick, why should I (or you) stop them (as long as they're being safe and consensual)? Because it might "offend" the mainstream or become fodder for the right wing? Pul-lease. ANYTHING we do can become fodder for the right wing.
Your High Church of Righteousness finger-wagging is questionable, and, at times, most reminds of the rants of bitter old men who are angry that all the young'uns are out there having all the "inappropriate" fun. They are, Leland, they are.
Posted by: cafegogo | Jul 27, 2005 3:55:30 PM
Conservatives don't need "Gay Sex in the '70s" to maintain their fever pitch of hate and intolerance. Read "The Maypole of Merrymount" and you'll see that conservatives have always been busybodies and killjoys.
Whenever anyone says something like, "You're defining us entirely by what we do with our dicks just like the Right Wing does," I tend to tune them out. It's an absurdly reductive statement. When we talk about gay dance music are we defining ourselves entirely by what we do with our ears and our feet? And is that a problem if we are in that instance?
Posted by: Tom | Jul 27, 2005 5:01:18 PM
I really love the 70s, i guess everyone does on some level. Although i always say that i wish i could have been a 20 something during that era, i dont think i would have made it out alive...what was there to really stop the wild sex parties...man on man...
ill look forward to seeing what i missed.
Posted by: Sam | Jul 27, 2005 7:32:11 PM
As for that bullshit about giving the right wing more arsenal, I really don't think this is going to do anything. Like a previous poster said, just go to craiglist or manhunt.com. Hell, I've even had guys messaging to hook up with me on Myspace!
I'm going to live my life the way I want it. No offense to the rest of my activist brothers and sisters but that's the way it's gonna be for this queer here.
I bet it was a fun time but I've done the whole "fuck every good looking guy you can get you hands on and party" thing.
Eventually it got old and got empty and the lust for relationship set in as well as the morbid thoughts that come around to a thoughtful person while living a promiscuous life.
Eh, call me a loser but I'd pick gay marriage to gay "fucking and party all the time."
Posted by: Damon | Jul 27, 2005 9:24:54 PM
Yeah, Leland's argument falls apart when one realizes that even gay's wanting marriage, that most bourgeois of institutions, outrages the right wing. Those right wing asshats just can't make up their minds; if we try to "settle down" and provide for one another by getting the 1,100 or so laws that heteros take for granted, we're destroyers of marriage; if we reject all that middle-class white picket fence stuff, we're animals that should be put down. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke; they're cultural dinosaurs and they'll be consigned to the dustbin of history soon enough.
Ah, the 70's. I was sexually active in the late 70's and it *was* an amazing time. It's hard to imagine now--maybe it isn't, I guess, in Dubya's America--but just being able to dance with another man without the fear of getting arrested (something that was very common as recently as the late 60's/early 70's here in Los Angeles) was mind boggling. The downside, apart from AIDS, was the rampant drug use but I'd argue that it was no worse than the straight club scene; um, people of all orientations did a LOT of drugs in the 70's (I smoked a ton of pot and loved psychedelics; still do love 'em both, but only rarely).
The best sex I've ever had was when I was with my two longtime partners. BUT....I also had some *transcendant* experiences with men who's names I didn't care about knowing. It's not an either/or situation; if one can find a relationship, that's great; but doing a daisy chain with 20 other guys can be too. All in moderation, eh?
I'm curious to see the documentary when it comes to Los Angeles.
Posted by: Jim | Jul 28, 2005 12:27:57 AM
Yep, opened a can of whoop-ass...sorry!
Have to say, I'm pretty much in agreement with all your comments (notwithstanding the LOGO parts, never heard of it here).
I was (am?) a product of the 70's, proud to be a part of it. A young newbie coming out. With no clue to the gay scene and wide eye wonderment of openness - amazing! Even got to experience those 'Studio 54' days (yep, I got in - and to the VIP rooms - complete wow!).
I was both caught up in the 'scene' and leary of it at the same time (aka, a chickenshit).
The people that I met, slept with, didn't sleep with, snorted with, hated, loved, passed away or remain good friends fortunately made me the average guy I am today.
But, I guess the image I've got in my head from the reviews of the movie, just didn't seem like the 70's that should be focused on. Good or bad.
I'll shut up now.
Posted by: Mark | Jul 28, 2005 2:32:28 AM