Homosexuality has been at the forefront of newspapers, websites and the political spectrum for several years now. However, it is only NOW that it seems to be gaining some sort of momentum —whether it’s family-related, political or social.

These are the structures that were explored in each film that premiered at “Reel Dialogue.” Each film attempts to establish the real definition and impact of homosexuality.

The first of the three documentaries was “No More Lies” by IMA student Sam Feder. Done as an interview, it depicts the irony and complexities involved with being homosexuality and how the world perceives the LGBT community, specifically the “transman.”

Old-school beliefs of heterosexuality have been used as the backdrop to this argument, seeing it as the best method of examining that which is not meant to be. However, it seems that study-after-study and research-after-research, the only determinant is the “Adam and Eve” factor. There exists no other difference.

David Pavlosky’s “Don’t Bring Scottie” illustrates how old school mentalities plus religion have kept people ignorant of the LGBT community. David’s family comes from a strong religious background and although they are a close family they have excluded David’s boyfriend Scottie from the family as if he were non-existent.

His eldest brother Jeff was his biggest challenge. He appeared obnoxious and ignorant and would repeatedly state “I don’t condone homosexuality but I won’t pass judgment,” only to contradict himself later, “you represent gray and I want the world to be black and white.”

David struggled to include Scottie in his family functions, however it wasn’t until his father had two heart attacks and open heart surgery that his family welcomed Scottie into their lives.

“Out at Work” by Tami Gold and Kelly Anderson goes inside the lives of three individuals (Cheryl, Ron and Nat) that face discrimination at the workplace.

Cheryl was fired by Cracker Barrel for not displaying “normal heterosexual values.” Although Cracker Barrel was legally allowed to fire homosexuals, the media exposure of Cheryl’s case allowed her to move on, get a new job and have children with her partner.

Ron was harassed by his co-workers for being gay despite his hard-working demeanor.

As an employee of the New York Public Library Nat did not get harassed in fact everyone loved him. Instead he was fighting to receive medical benefit for his ailing partner.

Each character fought against discrimination. What was most influential was the huge support system that followed each individual.

Arguments range from the religious angle, to the for the betterment of our children, yet these are barely supported with sufficient, strong facts or stats. Just recently, the New York Times published an article entitled, “What’s Good for the Kids” that explores several decades of research conducted on same-sex partnership and parenting. While there were some interesting points, the long-term effects in children of same-sex couples were zero, null and nada. In other words, that these kids grow up to become regular citizens of society; rebutting the fearful thinking that homosexuals are the bedrock for the continuance of more wild, crazy behavior.

Seems like a fair enough win for same-sex marriage advocates and the LGBT community. But there are some that believe that there is much more to be done.

Yet, as these films demonstrate, grassroots efforts—whether with a camera, paintbrush or blog—don’t fall short of reaffirming the rights, acceptance and support that belong to all.

Related Articles & Content:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08fob-wwln-t.html

BLOG ENTRY #2: “What I See"

In Edward L. Cahn’s Incident in an Alley (1962), the plot is based on the accidental murder of a teenage delinquent. The culprit, Officer Joddy, was an on duty cop investigating an assault on a female passerby. In doing so he comes across some rascals that attempt to flee and escape into a dark alley. Unable to see clearly and flustered by the whole situation, Officer Joddy shoots the boy in his back rather then in his leg. The rest of the film focuses on Officer Joddy’s inability to move on.

The first scene in the film takes place in an alley. There is minimal lighting and heavy shadowing. The lighting slashes in and out throughout the scene, being that it is a chase scene, however it makes the camera seem unbalanced and out of focus. The succeeding scenes were the complete opposite, camera movements were steady and balanced.

In the courtroom scene there was bright lighting, the camera angle was normal and the focus was centered. I believe the cinematographers intentions were to keep the audience awake through the court case which was long and pointless. They mainly used normal and wide angle lens. Everything in the shot was in focus. There was the occasional pan view of the jury which appeared to be done by tripod and fluid head. This allowed for the juries expressions to be seen one by one.

All the way through the film the focus remains centered and the camera angle normal and balanced. They incorporated gradual zoom outs which completed so smoothly had to be done with a dolly. The majority of the shots were medium shots done with a normal lens and close ups done with telephoto lens. Each close up of the witnesses faded into the next, giving the effect that the case lasted a long time. In the end of the film the angles changed for a brief scene. When officer Joddy goes back to the alley they used high camera angles, similar to a bird’s eye view.

I got the impression that the film crew only had 3 cameras because the camera angles virtually remained the same throughout the films entirety. One camera provided and overall view of the entire set while the other two provided medium shots. Also, there were roughly 4 sets in the while film which did not provide much of a variety. These sets were the police precinct, the alley, Officer Joddy’s house and the court room. I am not sure if the directors intended the film to have a limited focal point; it is possible they had a low budget which restricted them. However, for someone that has a short attention span, it became tiresome watching the same plain scenes for over an hour.