readerforum

Boys cry foul

I was saddened to see that Susan Muska and Greta Olafsdottir felt the need to rip into Boys Don't Cry (calling it "extremely tasteless") when talking about their own documentary ["The Reel Nebraska," March 28]. Kim Peirce dedicated five years of her life to bringing this stow to the screen, and her uncompromising vision has done more to promote awareness of transgender issues and hate crimes than any film of the last decade. Muska and Olafsdottir claim that Peirce used Lana's name without her consent and projected her own image of Lana onto the character. Notwithstanding the fact that Lana agreed to be extensively interviewed by Peirce and signed not one but two releases (one in front of witnesses from the Nebraska Film Board), does their documentary not present a subjective, constructed image of Lana? Or did Muska and Olafsdottir let Lana supervise how her own interviews were edited into the documentary?

But most interesting of all is that Muska and Olafsdottir conveniently do not mention that their documentary was in fact optioned by Hollywood producer Don Murphy (Natural Born Killers, Permanent Midnight). Murphy was in the process of setting the film up at New Line when Fox Searchlight acquired Boys Don't Cry. This effectively scuttled Murphy's project. Murphy was furious and threatened repeatedly to sue [production company] Killer Films and Fox.

As for the portrayal of Lana, I think Boys Don't Cry speaks for itself. Against tremendous odds Peirce captured the emotional truth of Brandon's life while also making it accessible to a large audience. There is nothing tasteless here, except in how others feel they can claim "ownership" of Brandon's story.

Christine Vachon
Producer, Boys Don't Cry
New York, N.Y.

I was glad to see your article on the documentary The Brandon Teena Story included with the articles on Boys Don't Cry. The documentary was an excellent, moving film with a positive point of view. It made me feel terrible about the horror inflicted on Brandon Teena. Boys Don't Cry, however, lacked a moral point of view, so homophobes who believe that queers of all sorts should be killed can watch the movie and have their views affirmed. There is nothing in the movie to influence people who are intolerant of gender nonconformity. Perhaps that is why it is actually playing in the multiplexes of Middle America.

Harlan Levinson
West Hollywood, Calif.

Kimberly Peirce's "Brandon Goes to Hollywood" was wonderful [March 28]. Her description of what it is like to be queer and watch movies and identify with someone who is not like oneself resounded with me deeply. For this African-American woman, she put into words quite effectively what it is like for us to watch movies when the heroes and heroines are white. How difficult it is for us to be both Scarlett O'Hara and Prissy, the object of her scorn. This equation is even more complex when you add eroticism to the

Cleo Wilson, Chicago, Ill.

The whole enchilada?

I am in disbelief as I read the responses of gay activists to the progress made in Vermont for gay domestic partnerships ["For Better or for Worse," March 28]. Rather than celebrate the fact that we are on the verge of having our relationships legally recognized, our leaders are bemoaning the fact that we are not being given the whole enchilada. I am also African-American, and I can say that civil rights did not come all at once and it is still a work in progress. If one state passes domestic partnership, then maybe others will, and at some point gays in every state will have all of the rights of a marriage without the religious implications. Eventually we may break down that barrier as well, but I think that some progress is better than none. We should keep in mind that only since 1974 has homosexuality been removed from the list of psychological illnesses. From illness to state-recognized relationship is not so bad for 30 years.

Winsor Cooper III, Las Vegas, Ney.

Your article on the partnership bill in Vermont is irresponsible. It makes it look like no gay people support the act and that lawmakers are acting in such a way that no one is pleased. This is nonsense. Vermont is to be commended for its courageous action; its lawmakers would not have acted had they not had support in the political sphere. Your writer is clearly displeased that a full-fledged marriage act wasn't passed, and his bias shows. The Vermont bill is a major victory for gay people and should be presented as such; the lawmakers should be commended, not castigated. It is highly doubtful that the bill would pass if submitted to a referendum. The marriage issue shouldn't be the central gay issue in any case. It is generating tremendous opposition to all gay legislation nationally. To allow the activists who consider this the be-all and end-all of gay issues to have the full play of your pages is an error in judgment.

Carl Wright, Cookeville, Tenn.

McCain mutiny

Rich Tafel has fallen for John McCain the same way liberal gays and lesbians have always fallen for Bill Clinton and are now falling for Al Gore ["Sort of Friendly," March 28]. Clinton, Gore, and McCain will say anything to anybody if they think it will mean one more vote. Delivering on promises is optional. I support Bush because I am a fiscal conservative, I want to pay less in taxes, I want a strong military, and I want a president with a record of winning consensus from diverse groups. I support Bush because he will say he is uncomfortable with the "gay issue" instead of biting his lip and lying, "I feel your pain." The Bush campaign has many gays and lesbians, and sexuality is a nonissue. Bush wants the best people in his administration, and he has made it clear he has no interest in knowing about their personal lives. Finally, I support Bush because I would rather throw myself under a city bus than have four more years of photo ops, empty platitudes, and broken promises, which is exactly what we will get from Al Gore.