Not Gay: Filmmakers Won’t Let A Single Man Come Out of the Closet


Many people noted that the first promotional one-sheet for Tom Ford's debut film A Single Man (inset), made no reference to the fact that the film is an adaptation of a book written by a gay man (Christopher Isherwood) about a day in the life of a gay man.

Single Wrote the Hollywood Reporter, last October: "Published in 1964, the novel centers on a gay man who, after the sudden
death of his partner, is determined to persist in his usual routine,
which is seen in the span of a single, ordinary day in Southern

And the second one-sheet (above), like the first, features Colin Firth and Julianne Moore, and no reference to the gay elements of the film (except for, perhaps, the fact that Firth seems lost in thought – perhaps thinking of something gay?). I've been told that Tom Ford personally had a hand in designing the one-sheet you see above.

The film's trailer had some of the gay elements removed for American audiences.

Ford told guests at a private viewing party Sunday night that the film's not a gay film:

“It’s extremely autobiographical. When you watch it, you are inside my head for an hour and a half. I’m fortunate enough to have experienced extreme materialism in my
life, but the point of the film is to remind us of the little things in
life — not some new shoes you bought or a new car. Life’s about living in the present. We live in an
artificial world. In the fashion business, you live in the future for
the next collection. But when I spend  time on my ranch in New
Mexico—with the sun above me and the rattlesnakes growing under the
bush—I appreciate the present. I wasn’t trying to make Terminator 12. But this is not a gay film. I
don’t even think about that. There are so many gay characters on TV
that it’s almost become a cliché.”

Ford Tom Ford began his recent interview with Kevin Sessums by saying, "I don’t think of myself as gay. That doesn’t mean that I’m not gay. I just don’t define myself by my sexuality."

So, honestly,  if in the film about the gay man we're inside the head of a gay filmmaker who doesn't think of himself as gay, the marketing for the film, which the 'gay-blind' filmmaker helped create, isn't going to be gay either.

Does that make sense? Yes. Is it right? Probably not. Are he and the film gay and has the studio gone out of its way to de-gay promotion for the film? Undoubtedly.

The critic David Ehrenstein wrote about the film in Towleroad's comments section: "I saw it last night and it's absolutely over whelming. I
haven't been as deeply affected by a gay film since Those Who Love Me
Can Take the Train
. Like I'm sure many others I thought Tom Ford was
nothing more than a Fashionista. But this is a real film by a real
filmmaker. He understands Isherwood's novel completely. (Don Bachardy
is listed as a creative consultant and he has a cameo turn as well.) Coming at this particular moment the film of A Single Man is a scream
of rage against our "inisvibiliy" insifar (sic) as the Heterosexual
Dictatorship is concerned. Colin Firth has a lock on an Oscar
nomination and perhaps the prize itself."

If the film is a scream of rage against our invisibility, why are the filmmakers and studio once again trying to make gays invisible?

New York magazine tried to clear the issue up with Harvey Weinstein at a screening last night:

Is it difficult to to market a movie about a gay romance?
No, Brokeback Mountain did pretty well. Midnight Cowboy did pretty well. If you know how to market, you can market. There's an audience for it.

The poster seemed to play down the gay part.
I'm good. You got enough. Thank you.

The film opens in limited release in December.


  1. Jonathan Wallach says

    If you read the entire interview you realize there’s nobody that has his head up his own ass as much as Tom Ford. Narcissistic, self-involved, neurotic, egomaniacal — it’s almost unbearable to read and to think anybody thinks about himself that much in one day.

    And despite his protestations to the contrary he is a gay man who made a gay movie who happens to be expressing waves of internalized homophobia every time he opens his mouth.

    He makes me retch.


  2. interested bystander says

    The quote from the Sessums interview: “I don’t think of myself as gay. That doesn’t mean that I’m not gay. I just don’t define myself by my sexuality.” really struck me.

    If you’re gay on our planet, but you don’t think of yourself as gay or define yourself by your sexuality, then aren’t you a Log Cabin Republican?

  3. interested bystander says

    The quote from the Sessums interview: “I don’t think of myself as gay. That doesn’t mean that I’m not gay. I just don’t define myself by my sexuality.” struck me.

    If you’re gay on our planet, but you don’t think of yourself as gay or define yourself by your sexuality then aren’t you a Log Cabin Republican?

  4. Chris says

    A couple of things:

    – I agree that he must have some internalized homophobia (he grew up in suburban Texas), but I wonder if he’s trying to say he’s not defined by his being gay. He wants to be a fashion designer or film director who happens to be gay, who made a movie about a gay man– not a gay director who made a gay movie. There’s a big difference. If Martin Scorsese were making a movie with an Italian protagonist, and he said, “It’s not an ‘Italian’ film,” would people get up in arms about it? No.

    – I’m not at all surprised they’ve de-gayed the movie in the previews, since they completely misrepresent most movies to fit into a handful of archetypes (romantic comedy, dude comedy, action film, etc). I mean, have you seen the preview for American Beauty? It’s basically a different movie. It’s extremely stupid, but I don’t think this is about Hollywood’s homophobia, but rather about their continual appeal to the lowest common denominator to achieve the greatest possible audience.

  5. Zach says

    “No, Brokeback Mountain did pretty well. Midnight Cowboy did pretty well. If you know how to market, you can market. There’s an audience for it.”

    Brokeback Mountain was subject to the same criticism in its day; the trailer de-emphasised the homosexual romance by focusing on the relationship between the women and the men, though the poster at least implied something. But there were plenty of criticisms from Middle America in the beginning, of people who wandered into the movie thinking it was some sort of conventional Western and were appalled to discover two men in love.

  6. Rann says

    I totally agree with the comments above by Chris about the film, etc. But as far as Tom Ford’s comments they remind me of so many celebrities that want to down play the whole gay part of their lives in public. To me it is a dangerous thing to say I don’t think of myself as gay but yes I am a gay man. Can you hear Harvey Milk or someone truly proud of their whole being saying that? I cannot. I am a gay man. It does not define my whole being but I have no problem thinking of myself as a gay man and knowing I am one. You can do both!! My life is not totally about that but I will never foeget it or choose to not offer opinions if someone asks me about gay issues. I will never say I don’t think of myself as a gay man. It seems to imply a negative that I do not see and Tom Ford seems to feel. I am not surprised at the studio but I am surprised at him…but I don’t know him either.

  7. Rowan says

    I agree with your post 100% Chris.

    The most rational one.

    There isn’t one Hollyweird trailer or poster that has not COMPLETELY misrepresented a good and complex movie.

    That’s life. That’s people. And that’s Hollyweird.

  8. johnny says

    @Chris: Spot on.

    It always seems more than pushy to me when gay men jump all over someone for being a man first and gay second. Since when did our sexuality HAVE to define us? Do filmmakers who are straight push the hetero aspect of their lives to the forefront? Many of us want acceptance but at the same time we seem to want to stand out and label ourselves GAY with a big pink neon sign so the world knows we’re totally different and need recognition for it.

    You can’t have it both ways in reality, but I’m sure many here will see things differently.

    As an artist, I get a constant raft of crap from people about not doing more gay art with gay themes. I do those kind of pieces when they occur naturally, but I don’t want to be known as “that gay artist”. I want to be known as “that great artist”. If people have a problem with that, oh well. I’m out, I just don’t need to be out loud like it’s the biggest part of my life. It’s not, art is.

  9. galore says

    Stupid marketing “move”. Maybe he gains a metrosexual viewer, but he lost me and my husband. I’m not interested in seeing a movie made by a stereotypical filthy rich log cabin republican.

  10. Jonathan says

    I never said the film represented internalized homophobia, just that he espresses it with everything he says. He didn’t write the film so he was kind of trapped into the Isherwood story.

    Saying he just happens to be gay and he made a movie about a gay man rather than a gay director who happened to make a gay movie is a distinction without a difference.

    And what I object to most about him is how he can go on about himself ad nauseum. Listening to him pat himself on the back because he wants his partner of 20 years to be happy (can you believe I think about somebody other than myself?) is like ready a parody of an interview.

    And I love the way he judges men who’ve had facelifts but filler and botox is fine (because he does it). His forehead looks like a mirror. I admit it, the film is probably brilliant but the man just makes me sick.

  11. says

    So A Single Man is “extremely autobiographical” – about Tom Ford? That would likely have come as a surprise to Christopher Isherwood.

    The film may well be a work of genius. I adore the leads, and the book is a very Serious Big Work.

    That doesn’t mean that the director isn’t a bit of an idiot. Honey, you’re a dressmaker, you’ve just made a movie from about the gayest novel ever written – and you sleep with men. You’re gay.

  12. Houndentenor says

    Who cares? The film itself wasn’t de-gayed. They used to do that consistently (remember Fried Green Tomatoes?). What are we complaining about? That the studio wants people to see it outside a dozen art houses in major cities?

    I think I get what Ford is saying. I’m gay. But I’m more than that. If this is viewed as a gay film it will get shown in 12 theaters and go to DVD. I think they believe they have a more significant film than that, culturally speaking and it’s a smart business move to market it to the straight audience and not just to gay people.

    I’m more disgusted at a part of the gay community that is never happy with what anyone says or does. It was good for us that so many straight people saw Brokeback. If only we could have gotten more of them to see Big Eden or Shelter. If putting a woman on the poster helps with that, where’s the harm?

  13. Andy F says

    This is absurd. Is the gay-but-not-Gay director who made the gay-but-not-Gay film hoping that everyone will pick up on the gay-but-not-Gay subtext of the protagonist’s story? Are filmgoers supposed to view this film so that afterwards they pick up on the irony of the film’s marketing? Is that where the message lies? Cause if so, I’ll just save my money and agree that yes, sometimes people internalize their homophobia so much that it makes them waste their days in dreamland and avoid their true selves. It appears that is what Mr. Ford is doing. I don’t care how he wants to identify himself personally, but you can’t say that your gay-but-not-Gay film is autobiographical if the major point of the film is in dealing (or not dealing) with your sexual identity? It feels like he’s playing out the plot of this film for a modern audience in the very interviews he gives to promote it.

    And I disagree with Ford saying that there are so many gay characters on TV that it has become a cliche. Of course, it depends where you’re looking. Network shows have only given us a handful GLBT characters, and half are thanks to Ugly Betty (kudos for T and GL of color). But, if there is a clichéd gay character Mr. Ford is referring to, I’m assuming he means out and proud (and white?) gay men as comedic foil. Yes, that may be cliché. But if you’re widening your scope to include any TV programming on any network, and include Logo and GLBT people on reality TV shows, I think you find characters that aren’t always peeled from a mold. If there are any cliché hollywood films dealing with repressed sexuality from 50 years ago, I would say that “A Single Man” seems to be following in the same vein (or in Mr. Ford’s case vain… okay sorry for that but I couldn’t resist) as “Far From Heaven” and “Brokeback Mountain,” so I can’t really get on the bandwagon that he’s breaking into uncharted territory here, except for maybe making the gayest film that has its own identity crisis.

    I don’t want to completely diss him, but its maddening when someone of his success level still can’t seem to be comfortable with the very identity that has given him the perspective that led to his success. Internalized homophobia is something every gay person has to deal with. Every one. And maybe Ford and the Weinsteins are hoping there are enough affluent gay-but-not-Gay people who will fork out $10 to see this film and have some sort of psycho-sexual-gratification. But if it really is not a “Gay Film” and not from a “Gay Director” maybe the “Gay Blogs” shouldn’t give it any more free promotion to get “Gay Dollars.”

  14. Landon Bryce says

    Tom Ford and Adam Lambert remind me of Roy Cohn from ANGELS IN AMERICA:

    “Roy Cohn is not a homosexual. Roy Cohn is a heterosexual man, Henry, who fucks around with guys.”

    Tom needs to watch it: gays aren’t flocking to works with gay themes that are being marketed in ways that are insulting to us. David Ehrenstein was enthusiastic about TAKING WOODSTOCK, too, and I don’t know anyone who saw it.

  15. Rann says

    Johnny, to answer some of what you said, here is how I feel about it. To be able to think of yourself as a gay man, unlike Tom, does not mean you are letting it define who you are. It just means you are okay with reality. But as far as peole pressing you as an artist who happens to be gay to do more gay art, that is none of their business. You get to choose what art you do! But then I go back to your other point where I have to disagree. You say “Many of us want acceptance but at the same time we seem to want to stand out and label ourselves GAY with a big pink neon sign so the world knows we’re totally different and need recognition for it. You can’t have it both ways in reality, but I’m sure many here will see things differently.” First of all I have no problem with pink neon signs even though I have none. But if someone wants one or to wear a gay t-shirt more power to them. Second, why can you not have acceptance or actually equal rights plus stand out some? What is wrong with that? I am really tired of people saying because a person is a bit different and stands out that he or she is labeling themselves and therefore will not get equal rights! I am not saying you are arguing that but I have heard it a lot lately and it is disgusting. We are automatically different because of who we are. We do not have to stress that every day but by God be proud of who you are and willing to speak up for yourself and your community. Let me ask you this Johnny, if someone asks you about gay rights issues, do you feel comfortable answering with your opinion? You seem like you would but people like Adam Lambert will not but he will have mock fellatio on stage in prime time in front of millions.

  16. Jonathan says


    “So A Single Man is “extremely autobiographical” – about Tom Ford? That would likely have come as a surprise to Christopher Isherwood.”

    Exactly. He has narcissistic personality disorder and, especially if you’ve known people in your own life with this problem, reading his interviews makes you cringe.

    That being said, I will see the movie as it sounds magnificent and everybody who has seen it has nothing but great things to say. I’ll just try to put him out of my mind when I do.

  17. Rann says

    Wonder what the director’s comments will be like on the DVD? Good god I will not listen to them if I ever have the DVD. He will be explaining in every scene how it is not gay.
    Or as someone on this site recently said “post-gay” which according to him is a good thing.

  18. Gregoire says

    At least visually, Julienne Moore sells the style and aesthetic of the film more than Colin. I can’t defend the trailers, but as for the posters, that bouffant and jewelry gives wonderful context. These aren’t the first posters in history that misrepresent the film they’re advertising.

  19. says

    Um, you’re either gay or you’re not. I never got this “I’m not a gay writer/artist/filmmaker” bs. It’s basically code for “I want a wider audience” and guess what? That sort of talk backfires.

    I very much own my sexual identity in relation to my art, but I think the difference is that even though my work contains queer characters in it, the themes I work with are universal. I think any good artist who is not a straight male WASP can communicate universal truths to a mixed audience without having to sell out their identity. Unfortunately this is a distinction Hollywood cannot make or sell to Middle America. Why can’t this film be marketed as a film about grief (a universal subject) featuring gay characters? It’s sad that audiences cannot latch on to the former without getting hung up on the latter. But I suppose growing up as a minority where I rarely saw myself represented in film, TV, music, etc. that I learned how to identify with material in different ways. I don’t think the majority of movie audiences in this country have the same skillset.

  20. Stewart says

    There are plenty of us for whom our sexuality is not the biggest descriptor. I’m a colleague, a son, a brother, a neighbour, a church goer amongst other things – and guess what? My interactions don’t signify anything about my sexuality because it is irrelevant to most of my social and work life. If we only seek to define ourselves in one way then we negate true equality and diversity. So let Tom define his own life and don’t take offence to those of us who fail to see why we should live in a ghetto.

  21. says

    Stewart, I guess I just don’t see how one can prioritize the different aspects of one’s identity. I believe all the pieces make up the whole . . . and they don’t exist in isolation. I’m a whole bunch of things too but I could never truthfully say my gayness has not impacted my artistic identity or my cultural identity or my socioeconomic identity or my friendships or work life and vice versa. I don’t think I could say my sexuality is irrelevant to all the other aspects of my life . . . obviously I have made a lot of choices that are informed by my sexuality–for example, I wouldn’t have a day job at a place that was staffed by homophobes; I have chosen to live in a city that is very accepting of gay people; I choose friends that are cool with homosexuality, etc. etc. etc.

  22. Stewart says

    Alex I think that you make Tom’s point – he simply does not prioritize his sexuality. I think there is also the perspective of age. I’m 47 and at this age I can honestly say I make very few choices based on my being gay. That was very different when I was younger when I would think twice about going to anything other then a gay bar, having a wide circle of mainly gay friends and living in a City of course. Now I am in a small village in England where I live with my civil partner. The choice to live this life may be a little easier here because the legal and civil base lines for equality around sexual orientation are further advanced then the U.S (where we previously lived for 10 years). Plus the Brits generally have little interest in what goes on in your bedroom!

  23. Jack M says

    Let’s see, a man who is gay but doesn’t want to identify as gay makes a movie about a gay man based on a book by a gay man that the movie studios don’t want to identify as a gay movie. Isherwood must be rolling over in his grave. Tom Ford does indeed have his head wedged in where the sun doesn’t shine.

  24. says

    If Ford wants people to see the film he might be better off emphasizing the gayness and de-emphasizing that it’s “extremely autobiographical” since most everyone seems to think he’s a narcissistic douche.

    We’re all defined by our sexuality (which isn’t just about the bedroom) since it’s a primary aspect of our lives and rules who we romantically love–doesn’t get much more important than that. And it’s impossible to separate one’s artistic sensibility from one’s sexuality (and where one grew up, and one’s family etc).

    I do get the part about wanting to be an artist first rather than a GAY (or fill in the other minority) artist, since majority artists don’t have to contend with labels and having their works shuffled to some minority shelf in the corner. But I’m not sure which viewers they think they’ll reach by de-gaying the promos? The straight teen boys who always flock to Colin Firth/Julianne Moore dramas (that’s already totally gay!)?

    Ultimately, the promo campaign doesn’t really matter. If the film is good and stays true to Isherwood’s novel, then they can pimp it out however they like as far as I’m concerned.

  25. Rann says

    Alex, your post above makes so much sense!! Thanks for phrasing it so well. I hope people on here will now understand we are not trying to only label ourselves gay above everything but that it is foolish to try to marginalize that or worry about being labeled gay.(by ourselves or others)
    If you do not want to think of your self as a gay man but you are, that is a bad sign of your self worth in my opinion.

  26. Daniel says

    I really see no issue with a poster that has the movie’s two principal actors, because they’re the ones who are most likely to get butts into movie theaters. Just because the main character is gay does not mean he needs to be with another guy on the poster.

    Furthermore, this movie is more about loss and moving on after someone you love dies, not about any gay rights issues, so his late partner doesn’t need to be there, especially since in the movie, he’s, you know, dead.

  27. Anonymous says

    well, he is not define by the word “gay”
    i get is very important to define yourself, but you are don’t gain anything by saying you are gay, i have not received my toaster and i have not receive my card,
    i’m glad he can talk about his boyfriend and be succesful.

    we can get caught up in words and never achieve anything.

  28. styleboy says

    Daniel, thank you! The two stars of the movie are in the poster. Big deal. Why would you not have Ms. Moore in your poster if she is the best-known person in the cast?

  29. Michael Strangeways says

    1)Tom Ford is a bit of an ass but I’m not sure why he is being slammed for disliking the label “gay” when he is an out man who has had a same-sex partner for many, many years. Labels are stupid and if your sexuality is your primary identity then you would have to be a pretty shallow person.
    2)Harvey Weinstein is also a bit of a ass/ogre but he HAS championed queer film and filmmakers for many, many decades. Film is an art and film is a business. Wanting to broaden the appeal of a film is good business sense. If a film gets labeled as strictly a gay boutique film it will have a very tiny audience that will even scare off many queer friendly straights. The more people that see this film, the better.
    3)It’s highly probable that the studio is contractually obligated to put Julianne Moore on the poster. Size and placement of credits and promotional images is standard in all “star” contracts. Also, the photo is fabulous…Julianne looks great!

  30. Rann says

    This is not really about the poster guys. I have no problem with that. It is the comments Tom Ford and others have made recently that bother me. The poster is fine and I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what’s on it. Julianne Moore always looks great and she does on that too!

  31. MCnNYC says

    Calling GLAAD….paging GLAAD….

    Whats that? They are giving the GLAAD award to A SINGLE MAN no less….how much you want to bet.

    Cause it just lost the OSCAR

  32. Gregg says

    When prominent celebrities (Tom Ford) reject the “label” gay even as the word “gay” is part of the political dialogue (“gay marriage” is still used frequently as a political phrase even as forward thinkers try to insist on the more accurate phrase “marriage equality”) then those celebrities are making a powerful political statement. Namely, that being perceived as gay is a detriment.

    There is no question that the film is being portrayed as more heterosexual to appeal to a broader audience. There are pros and cons in both directions with a campaign like this. But it cannot be dismissed as existing in some artistic void where gayness does not matter.

    Female painters who first broke the all-male barriers into the serious art world would look somewhat ridiculous if they said, “I don’t think of myself as a woman.”

    Ford’s self-loathing is only made more obvious by his denials.

  33. jessejames says

    Regarding the poster — it’s all about selling tickets. It’s all about the money.

    Regarding Tom Ford — it’s more than about being gay, it’s about making money.

    I guess I won’t complain if I get to see an Isherwood story on film.

  34. ty says

    Something tells me that if Tom Ford was straight, he would be an Oreck salesman in Albuquerque.
    Don’t downplay being gay, Tom! Be proud to be among the genetically gifted!

  35. MackMichael says

    I am a former nationally ranked athlete, a suma cum laude graduate with three degrees, I’m a published writer, I’m a commercial/residential designer, I’m a husband, I’m a son, I’m a brother; BUT, until the day that my gay brothers and sisters gain full equality, I am a Gay man first. Why? Because we need to tell our stories. We need to tell our families, our coworkers, our fellow parishioners at church, our neighbors, etc. We need to tell them who we are, about our lives, our struggles, whom we are in love with, to whom we are partnered or married; me must tell our stories until people know us better, until people no more of us, until people realize that we are just as diverse as general society itself.

    We began to come out, but we only shared just so much of ourselves. We must face our fears and wear whom we are on our shirt sleeves, just as those who took the first step out of their closets did. It is up to us now to take the second, and truly be out in the open.

    I’m sorry Tom, Adam, Jodi, I beg to differ. Perhaps your bank accounts, your legal resources, and all the other resources available to you provide you with a feeling of security, but many (if not most) gay folks just don’t share the same feeling of security as do you. Some of us are locked out of our partner’s hospital rooms, some of us don’t have the legal right to make funeral arrangements for our dead loved ones, some of us will lose our homes when our partners die and we are unable to afford the reaccessed tax bill and the estate taxes; and some of us are just kids at home, minorities in our own families, scared to tell anyone who we are, desperate to have someone to look to, someone other than some celebrity who is petrified to come out, who wishes to distance himself from his sexual orientation, and for those of us at this stage in our lives, being different, being gay is just about all we think about…sometimes our classmates won’t allow us to forget.

    Maybe your pay a hundred grand one day soon to have a baby with a model who will carry it for you, Tom, but for me and for many of my friends (straight and gay…those who canvas neighborhoods in our time off to talk to folks about our issues), all those gay kids out there are our own children, and we want to leave a better world for them to live in.

    Being gay is not all I am, but it is a damned important part of who I am, and until I see a day that we live in a country that is truly equal or until the day I die, it may very well be the most important part of who I am.

  36. Mark says

    “I don’t think of myself as gay. That doesn’t mean that I’m not gay. I just don’t define myself by my sexuality.” — Tom Ford

    I agree with that statement but I still think he’s an ass. He is so affected, and his persona so calculated, that he seems to be performance art himself.

  37. TANK says

    Genetically gifted? C’mon, David Ehrenstein is gay. So much for that hypothesis.

    But yes, if Tom Ford were straight, he’d be a menial worker who no one would ever have heard of except his little family…and that has nothing to do with his genetics.

  38. TANK says

    And his cologne…another nail in the coffin. But, he saved gucci for whatever reason that wasn’t good taste. Colin Firth used to be hot (e.g., mr. darcy in pride and prejudice). He’s now ugly, elderly, and blech at 49. God, men should disappear at 35-40.

  39. Landon Bryce says


    Part of my point is that you often like movies that other gay people find boring or homophobic. The more significant part is that gay people are no longer going to see something just because there are gay people in it, especially if they see the filmmakers as hostile to gay issues at large. Demitri Martin’s homophobia did keep gay people away from TAKING WOODSTOCK. Gay people avoided BRUNO like everyone else. Ford’s comments are going to keep some gay people away from A SINGLE MAN.

  40. says

    out of the several hundred radio,tv,newspapers & other media interviews i recently did for Ang Lee’s TAKING WOODSTOCK, my discussing that I, the GAY MAN who saved Woodstock, only made it to about a dozen. Only two, one from Texas another from Alabama, were openly hostile and nasty homopobic reporters.

    The movie is based on my book: Taking Woodstock. The specific details of my involvement with STONEWALL and my being a Gay man – has been deleted by at least 50% of the 4.5million blogs about me and the movie. Those bothering to read the book in addition to seeing the movie, did present (mostly) fair and non-homophobic reviews.

    I am happy to say my publisher, Rudy Shur of Square One Press, (straight) has been courageous in putting a Gay hero onto the international radar/gaydar.

    I am so indebted to Ang Lee, James Schamus and Focus Features, for their artistic integrity, in making a movie about a Gay Hero – who for a change, is not a killer psychopath and suicidal – as they did in Brokeback Mountain.

    Thanks to Ang Lee, my book is now in 14 countries. Thanks to Ang Lee’s beleif in this Gay Man’s true memoir, my new book: Palm Trees On The Hudson – the true story of The Mob, Judy Garland & Interior Decorating – (spring 2010) follows the growing up and coming out of a Gay man in the very repressive 1950’s & 1960’s.

    And because of Taking Woodstock, I will be creating the world’s first 3 days of peace and music GLBT festival in 2010 in Key West, Florida.

    90% of the world an USA included, are still miles from giving fair and equal treatment to the GLBT community. Together, we are making major changes.

Leave A Reply