Notes from a festival programmer: Filmmakers, please stop being so cavalier about using the words "homo" and "fag":
I can AND will defend a director and writer’s use of any word. Language is as much an artistic tool as the camera itself.
What is not always defensible is the why a word was used. Which can be easy to parse at times and at others can be muddy and convoluted. And sometimes there is no why. Again, it comes down to choice.
Spike on the other hand, never really acknowledged that Tarantino’s worlds are specific and were never meant to speak to or replicate the African-American experience. At least not the African American experience that existed outside of a certain genre of films. A genre that, while reflected the themes and issues of African-Americans, never claimed or aimed to be realistic. Tarantino has repeatedly noted that some of his movies are meant to exist as a heightened reality in an alternate universe he’s called the “Realer Than Real World Universe”. Others exist in the “Movie Movie Universe” and these moves are much more like comic books and films.
...
We receive films that have women calling each other “bitches” and “ho’s”, black men and women calling each other “nigga” and LGBT characters calling each other “fags” or “dykes”. Over the years we have programmed some of those films with no reservations and with no concerns.
But, the number of film submissions over the years that have had straight characters casually calling each other “fag” and “homo” has been troubling. Yes, it’s true that people straight and gay call each other “fag” or “homo”. However, just because one replicates an event, big or small, in a film, in a book, or on stage, doesn’t mean that replication has verisimilitude. It doesn’t mean that replication gets deeper to the ideas, themes and undercurrents that those events represent and what led to those moments to begin with.
Single Ladies, multiple viewing options:
Finally, karma's a bitch, and the cinetrix is rooting for the earth-obliterating asteroid in this fight:
After four and a half months of this, Carney got in touch with me to propose a deal, saying, “I sincerely wish you well and I am sorry this issue has come between us.” “I am willing,” he writes, to “ship everything back for a modest consideration, simply to cover my costs and the time and trouble of having stored the material for the past seven-and-a-half years.” In return for my own films, I was to pay him $27,000! Some may call this extortion, I call it merely outrageous. Just to put it in perspective, that would equal 3 years of the monies I get from Social Security. To continue the suit to trial would have cost me about the same amount, in addition to the thousands I had already spent. I couldn’t afford to continue.