08/17/2007
Hollywood Reporter: Merv Griffin Was Gay
The Hollywood Reporter has effectively blown the late Merv Griffin's closet door open for good, on the day he is laid to rest following a celeb-filled invitation-only funeral at Beverly Hills' Church of the Good Shepard:
Writes Ray Richmond for the industry bible: "Merv Griffin was gay. Why should that be so uncomfortable to read? Why is it so difficult to write? Why are we still so jittery even about raising the issue in purportedly liberal-minded Hollywood, in 2007? Griffin, who died of prostate cancer Sunday at 82, stayed in the closet throughout his life. Perhaps he figured it was preferable to remain the object of gossip rather than live openly as 'one of them.' But how tremendously sad it is that a man of Merv's renown, of his gregarious nature and social dexterity, would feel compelled to endure such a stealthy double life even as the gay community's clout, and its levels of acceptance and equality, rose steadily from the ashes of ignorance. What a powerful message Griffin might have sent had he squired his male companions around town rather than Eva Gabor, his longtime good friend and platonic public pal. Imagine the amount of good Merv could have done as a well-respected, hugely successful, beloved and uncloseted gay man in embodying a positive image."
Well, they said it.
Griffin never revealed man behind the curtain [hollywood reporter]
Saying What Merv Griffin Never Felt He Could [past deadline]
The Truth on Merv Griffin Bubbles Up [the gist]
Recently
TV Titan Merv Griffin Dies of Prostate Cancer at 82 [tr]
Posted 8:45 AM EST by Andy Towle in I'm Gay, Merv Griffin, News, Television | 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.
hey sam -- i know. thats what i said.
Posted by: dan | Aug 17, 2007 1:30:14 PM
Hey Dan -- that's not what you said.
Posted by: LUMOX | Aug 17, 2007 1:52:27 PM
A.J. is right...Merv was an extremely wealthy, extremely powerful man who was politically well-connected. Had he been out of the closet, he could have helped influence policy through his friendships with politicians (Merv was very good friends with Ronnie and Nancy as well as with George W. Bush...which shows his level of self-hatred, but I digress). Merv had the opportunity to improve the lives (or at least decrease the suffering) of millions of GLBT Americans. Instead, he punted. What a waste. What a coward.
Posted by: peterparker | Aug 17, 2007 1:53:16 PM
hey lumox -- no, that is what i said. the point being that life has changed favorably for a lot of people because society experienced an upheaval in attitudes towards establishment thinking. it had nothing to do with celebrities coming out or not coming out. i guess i just don't subscribe to the thinking that gays exist in a world of their own, somehow unconnected to the larger world, and that changes in societies attitudes towards gays is due only to the work of gay people. in my mind thats limited vacuum based thinking, and doesn't reflect reality. again, i'm not looking to celebrity culture for anything meaningful, and unfortunately anyone who does, will be sadly disappointed.
Posted by: dan | Aug 17, 2007 2:09:52 PM
I'm a lot less concerned that Merv the Perv lead his life in the closet and a lot more concerned that he actively fired workers around him that had the gall to live an openly gay life. Homophobia , esp at this time in our culture, is disgusting. Internalized homophobia directed at one of our own is unforgivable. Period.
Posted by: Snottyboy | Aug 17, 2007 2:17:00 PM
He didn't do this, he didn't do that. He should have done this, he should have done that. He should have said this, he should have said that. You should think this, you should think that.
All to make me feel better about myself.
Posted by: Princess Superstar | Aug 17, 2007 2:17:52 PM
Dan, as already noted, society doesn't just experience upheavals in attitudes. The upheavals you speak of come about from efforts of ALL kinds whether it be an "old fogie queen" or something that began in the 1960's. Maybe you're right that "nobody under the age of 50 cares if some old fogie queen comes out" but it's those that are over 50 (for the most part) that stand to learn something from Merv's passing.
Posted by: LUMOX | Aug 17, 2007 2:29:31 PM
sorry...make that Merv's passing and outing.
Posted by: LUMOX | Aug 17, 2007 2:31:48 PM
Oh, and Merv, honey, rest in peace. I'm glad your time here in Hell is over. My heart goes out to those who actually knew and will miss him.
Posted by: Princess Superstar | Aug 17, 2007 2:44:10 PM
lumox -- point well made...it wasn't my point that upheavals just happen, but that advances are due to the upheavals. you are absolutely right, these events are instigated by people, but not by identity. i'm not trying to be dismissive, so much as to say that the actions or lack thereof of these dying off old folks are not terribly relevant to today's society and thats something to be happy about. and yeah, i know i know, it was terrible awful bad back in the old days...but that was then, this is now, and thats good. cheers.
Posted by: dan | Aug 17, 2007 2:45:37 PM
Dan, ever hear of the Stonewall Riots? Your views on social change in America are astoundingly simplistic. Change like that doesn't just happen. People marched, protested, got bashed and arrested for your right to be lazy fairy about Gay rights. For the lvoe of God, pick up a history book and read it.
I have to stop reading the comments section of this site!
Posted by: sugarrhill | Aug 17, 2007 2:54:42 PM
hi sugarhill -- i think you've misunderstood. i'm actually pretty well versed in history, but history is contextual as well as specific. everything i'm talking about, i'm talking about in context of an overarching societal shift, that was of course driven by individual action, however the stonewall riots are not single handedly responsible for anything, but are a part of the "upheaval" i've been talking about. the riots and the actions that proceeded them and followed them were important, just as the peace movement, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement were important, and all worked together to advance human rights...that said, what i'm trying to say is that the coming out or lack thereof of someone like merv griffin, is no longer something worth noting in terms of contemporary society...as for the snark...well, you know...you don't know me or anything about me, so i'll just leave that alone.
Posted by: dan | Aug 17, 2007 3:08:46 PM
being unforthright about who you are implies you are hiding something and therefore you are ashamed or embarrassed about that something you are hiding or unwilling to come forth about. stop dressing this argument in the wardrobe of "privacy." are straights "private" about who they kiss in public or choose to hold hands with walking down the street? this has nothing to do with privacy. it has everything to do with being who you truly are. how convenient that we as gays can be gay one day but then appear to be straight the next depending on the context of the situation. it's not as if we have any conclusive physical markers identifying us as such. homophobia begins in your own backyard. get out a rake and clean it up. remember ACT-UP's "silence = death?" when you are silent about being gay (i.e., an essential part of who you are), you are complicit in how the status quo treats our community. merv griffin may have been a lot of things... wealthy, talented, charming, dynamic but he did not live a full life... and yes, everyday he lived a small act of cowardice.
Posted by: sean | Aug 17, 2007 3:16:26 PM
Would it have been better had Merv come out? Yes. He had influence. He had clout. He could have made a difference!
...But he didn't. And now that he's dead, calling him gruesome names like "slime" or "coward" on an internet blog will do nothing but make yourselves look bad. It changes nothing. He didn't come out, but millions of people have instead. Every day more and more gays are making a difference and all we can do is concentrate on the ones who don't scream two simple words into the ears of the nearest reporter.
For every minute we condemn assumed closeted celebrities, what could we--who actually ARE out--be doing with ourselves instead that actually puts some truth behind our words? Is this the new gay activism for the new century? Throwing names at dead closet cases for not coming out? Who shall we slander next, Abe Lincoln? Surely he had more power than even Merv...
The causes of the gay community will be advanced by the little things each and every one of us does. You think Mr. Fundie out there cares if Lance Bass or Doogie Howser says they're gay? Or Merv, for that matter. These inaccessible celebrities who exist in a near parallel universe from Main Street, USA?
We could atleast keep from verbally clawing at people no longer even on this Earth to defend themselves. That's plain low.
Posted by: Derrick | Aug 17, 2007 4:06:15 PM
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but like it or hate it, it would seem that the Hollywood Reporter has censored it. Ray Richmond's Merv column appears to have been pulled down from both his PastDeadline blog AND the HR site. Despicable.
Posted by: Gene | Aug 17, 2007 4:29:01 PM
Anyone doubting that not Bush, not Dobson, not Fred Phelps, not Ann Coulter, not Bill O'Reilly, not fill-in-the-blank is our worst enemy but many of "our own" are our worst enemy need only read this and the earlier string about Griffin. A plague on your houses!
Posted by: Leland Frances | Aug 17, 2007 4:55:53 PM
FYI: the Hollywood Reporter has pulled the article from their website
Posted by: Rob | Aug 17, 2007 5:23:10 PM
actually it seems that the story is still up on the hollywood reporter website... maybe it got taken down and now put back up ?
Posted by: A.J. | Aug 17, 2007 5:38:02 PM
it saddens me to read comments here sometimes. so many guys who still think being a gay man is some kind of shameful 'private matter'.. and the young guys who have only a sketchy grasp of the history of struggle for basic human dignity of their own kind. as members of a 'community', we have failed each other in so many ways.
Posted by: el polacko | Aug 17, 2007 5:45:09 PM
actually it seems that the story is still up on the hollywood reporter website... maybe it got taken down and now put back up ?"
Bingo! Apparently they also threatened to fire the writer, who is straight. Michelangelo Signorile got wind of them scrubbing the site, and had his radio show listeners calling the Hollywood Reporter, and they caved pretty fast and put it back up. I'd imagine the writer's job is safe now as well, knowing the gay activist community would go batshit if they tried to mess with him.
Posted by: Johnny | Aug 17, 2007 6:00:05 PM
Some people just aren't motivated or built to be an activist. Just because you think he was rich and would have a lot of influence doesn't mean that he had to choose to come out and help the world.
Taking your own beliefs and forcing them onto someone does no good. He did what he wanted and he was comfortable with his situation (if he wasn't he would have changed it).
He never spoke out against gay people. I never heard a bad word about gays and lesbians come out of his mouth. He wasn't hiding his sexuality behind homophobia. Those are the people that we should be after.
Posted by: Ray | Aug 17, 2007 7:55:23 PM
Some people just aren't motivated or built to be an activist. Just because you think he was rich and would have a lot of influence doesn't mean that he had to choose to come out and help the world.
Taking your own beliefs and forcing them onto someone does no good. He did what he wanted and he was comfortable with his situation (if he wasn't he would have changed it).
He never spoke out against gay people. I never heard a bad word about gays and lesbians come out of his mouth. He wasn't hiding his sexuality behind homophobia. Those are the people that we should be after.
Posted by: Ray | Aug 17, 2007 7:56:44 PM
So I was just reading the comments over at Ray Richmond's blog where this story is. Some f***head named "JD" just put up this insane post in the comment thread:
"There IS something wrong with being gay and everyone knows this to some extent. That really is the elephant in the room."
Oh. My. God. He did NOT just say that, did he? I invite you all to go to Ray's site and give this little effer on the comment board a piece of your mind:
http://www.pastdeadline.com/2007/08/griffin-never-r.html
Posted by: Jensen | Aug 18, 2007 12:21:01 AM
HI: The solution is a groupsex party. Nobody says that one has to have only one partner.
kaiyo
Posted by: kaiyo | Aug 18, 2007 12:46:36 PM
See, hear's the thing. I know that Merv Griffin was an old man, so I can understand his not coming out when it was career suicide to do so, back in the day. But later in life, Griffin was so well-connected with people in power and so well-heeled that no one could hurt him, really, in a pecuniary sense.
He was so tight with the Reagan's that When Nancy and Ronnie left the White House and retired to California, Griffin co-hosted (with Barron Hilton) a $25,000-a-table homecoming gala for them. In a statement after his death, Nancy said that Griffin had been a close friend of theirs for over fifty years.
Would it have killed him, then, while AIDS (remember when it was called GRIDS?) was killing thousands of gay men, to publicly call on his old pal to pay attention, to get the government involved? (Reagan's heartlessness in this regard is well known.) I wonder how much further along science would be in finding a cure or a vaccine if the right-wing Reagan administration hadn't considered this an outre` disease, hitting a disposable element of society -- a disease of "the other"?
In 2003, Griffin went on MSNBC to lambaste CBS for planning to air the less than flattering biopic of the Reagan's, calling the network cowardly. (The network ultimately showed it on Showtime.) What was cowardly, was Griffin's silence during Reagan's relentless attacks on his gay brethren. No one is saying that he should have dressed up in drag and paraded on the street. By simply acknowledging his homosexuality, he could have done a world of good for gay Americans without personally suffering much (if at all) in the process. Older and middle-age Americans who DO know who he was and who vote in much higher numbers than the young demographic that Dan, above, is so fond of, might have been influenced, if even in a small way, to change their point of view regarding gays and gay rights, if someone as apparently mainstream as Griffin would have stepped out of the closet.
Instead, he continued to pal around with the Reagan's well past the time when there was a paradigm shift in the thinking of Americans vis-a-vis homosexuality. How sad for him and so sad for the people who were hurt by the apathy, neglect, and antagonism of Merv, Ronnie, and their cronies.
Like his ol' pal, Griffin was an extremely successful man. A good man? Hardly.
Posted by: nic | Aug 18, 2007 2:56:03 PM