Florida Agenda

Daniel Radcliffe of “Harry Potter” fame has a few things to say about what he says is mean-spiritedness demonstrated by the GOP candidates for president towards LGBT persons.

In an interview with Attitude magazine, the star of the new horror-chiller “The Woman in Black” said that religion has its place in the church house, not the state house.

“I’m not religious, I’m an atheist, and a militant atheist when religion starts impacting on legislation. We need sex education in schools. Schools have to talk to kids from a young age about relationships, gay and straight,” offered Radcliffe.

Radcliffe, 22, said in the interview that he is “disgusted, amazed, stunned” by Republicans Rick Santorum and an early failed-favorite of the Tea Party set,

MicheleBachmann. Neither enjoys the vitriol, though, that the Hogwarts alum reserves for the governor of Texas.

“They disgusted me less than candidates like Rick Perry, who made that ridiculous advert wearing the ‘Brokeback’ jacket, and I think pretends to be homophobic just to win votes,”  Radcliffe said he thinks President Barack Obama is the best choice for those who support marriage equality for all Americans. “I’d rather have someone like him in the White House than the alternative,” he said.

“Don’t define yourself by your sexuality; don’t define as straight or gay. Define yourself as people and help another person if they’re in trouble. The ultimate reason gay marriage should be legalized everywhere is because, as a kid, you look to your mum and dad and they’re married, then you look at the gay couple who’ve been together for the same amount of time, but because they can’t get married their relationship doesn’t seem the same. Yes, gay marriage is about symbolically blessing a relationship, but the larger issue is about transmitting a fundamental message about equality. Gay people should have equality in law everywhere. If you grow up as a young gay man knowing you don’t have the same opportunities as everyone else, you’re going to feel victimized and massive prejudice towards you.”

Radcliffe says he had considered his own sexual identity and finds he possess a heterosexual identity. “I can quite happily say someone is handsome, good-looking, and I can see why someone would want to f**k them, but I’ve never felt that way about a man myself,” he told Attitude. “There is that moment in your late teens when you ask yourself the question, ‘Am I?’ but I wasn’t.”

That said, the magical movie star confessed, “This year I have a talent crush on Ryan Gosling. I think he’s fantastic and—ahem–you know he’d be nice afterwards. He seems smart. If I was gay, I would go for a smart man.”

By WARREN DAY

Just-released, “The Woman in Black” starring Daniel Radcliffe (none other than Harry Potter himself) is a throwback to an older form, a classic Victorian ghost story in the grand tradition, something that’s been missing from the screen for a long time. The Haunted House in cinema dates back at least to “The Old Dark House” from 1932, which was directed by the openly-gay James Whale, who also did the original “Frankenstein,” and what many consider to be the greatest horror film of all time, “The Bride of Frankenstein.”

In “Woman,” Radcliffe plays London lawyer Arthur Kipps. Kipps is on shaky terms with his strict employer because of his lackluster performance since the death of his wife in childbirth. Her passing left him with a son who’s now four years old (yes, Harry Potter has definitely grown-up).

Kipps is dispatched to the remote southeast coast of England to close out the accounts of a highly reclusive and recently deceased client. For years she lived alone in a decaying mansion called Eel Marsh House, located about 800 feet off the coast on a rise of land only reachable at low tides. The nearby village residents aren’t happy to welcome an outsider. It becomes apparent that they are harboring secrets about the old house, which is surrounded by marshes and tidal pools. Kipps hears strange noises and catches a fleeting glimpse of a woman in black amidst the family tombstones.

You can see why I called it a classic Victorian ghost story, even though the novel was written in 1983, and a stage version has continuously performed in London since 1989, making it the second longest running play in the West End (Agatha Christie’s “The Mousetrap” has been running since 1952).

The movie, as well as the novel and play, are old-fashioned, and I mean that as a compliment. It has what most horror films have been lacking for the last decade or more: it’s subtle and more suggestive than literal in its depictions of things that go bump in the night. In other words, it’s more of a chiller than a thriller, which may go against the A.D.D.-inspired grain of what audiences expect today.

As in all good ghost stories, the fascination is in the back story: why does the title’s eponymous and nameless woman haunt Eel Marsh House, and why does a child in the village die every time she’s seen?
Daniel Radcliffe handles himself well, but the director sometimes confuses being startled with being scared, and more of the back story from the novel would have–forgive the pun–fleshed out the ghosts. In the end, this film may not be as scary as a Kardashian family reunion, but thanks to the acting, production design, and photography, it is a lot more real. H

Send comments and questions to AgendaReviews@aol.com

Warren Day

WHY DO GAY MEN & LESBIANS LOVE SCARY MOVIES?

Gay men and lesbians seem to have a higher degree of fascination with horror movies than their straight counterparts.  If you doubt this, then just ask any studio marketing executive. What is less clear is “why?”

Some people suggest it’s our identity with those who’ve been labeled by society as outsiders and “not normal,” and certainly vampires, werewolves, and ghouls have had that experience. Others say it’s the genre’s sense of style and flamboyance, with its emphasis on mood and atmosphere, where the décor is part and parcel of the drama.

Or maybe it’s because from the beginning they’ve contained a noticeable gay sensibility in both the front and back of the camera, the one genre in the art form’s early years where you might spot a gay character, such as Doctor Pretorius in 1935’s “Bride of Frankenstein,” or Countess Zaleska in 1936’s “Dracula’s Daughter.” Remember: those performances occurred during the height of the studios’ Production Code era, when any depiction of homosexuality was strictly forbidden. Yet somehow they could blend the characters into these films, where almost no one depicted was “normal.”

What’s clear is that in recent years horror movies have been rather, well, horrible. Mainly, they’ve solidified themselves into two rigid categories: the “faux documentary,” to which the “The Blair Witch Project” gave birth, only to continue with such films as “Paranormal Activity (I and II);” and the much more prolific sub-genre of “splatter films” where the goal is to shock (or sicken) you more than scare you, and where the blood and guts flow like beer at a Super Bowl party. These films include “The Ring,” “Hostel,” “Saw,” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street,” and like the villains they depict, these films continue to xeroxing themselves into endless replicas. We’re even on the verge of a “Friday the 13th, Part 13”.

Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, and then BOO!

A Film Review by Warren Day

Photo: Harry Potter fans, young and old, will all be sorry to see the series end.

By any standard, it’s one of the biggest phenomena in publishing and movie  history. Over 450 million books have been sold, with the last four consecutively setting records as the fastest-selling books in history. It’s also the most successful movie franchise ever (six of the 20 biggest grossing films), taking in more money for the first seven films than James Bond has earned in 22. And what other movie series has an entire theme park devoted to it?

Now, the eighth and last Harry Potter movie has come out (“Deathly Hallows Part II”), breaking national and world records and bringing the story to its final conclusion. But why should this be of any particular interest to the GLBT community? The truth is that Harry Potter has always held a major fascination for gays, so the better question might be, why?

In essence, many gays have seen a  correlation in what they had to face growing up and what Harry experienced. The family that’s raising him do not accept who he is, and pressure him  to act more like a “normal” boy. He has feelings and thoughts that make no
sense until he realizes that he was born that way. He’s drawn to and makes his closest friends with those who share his orientation. He has to be careful in letting others know about his true nature and often has to pretend he’s like the big majority of young people. Because his family rejects him, he’s had to build a family unit of his own with friends and mentors. I could keep going, but with that brief list maybe it’s no wonder gays have been drawn to Harry Potter.

And since gays are human beings, too (Yes, Michelle Bachmann’s husband, that is true!), we also identify with the usual growing pains – the anxiety in going to a new school, being bullied by kids with a cruel streak, forming a meaningful relationship with a teacher, the first awakenings of sexual attraction, et cetera, et cetera, until we reach what’s dubiously called ‘maturity’.

So gays have many reasons and many connection points to care about the Harry Potter saga, but does the last film live up to its hype? Is it not only worth watching, but also worth getting excited about?

The answer will depend greatly on how involved you’ve been with the story and characters, because to only see the last film would be like wandering into “Citizen Kane” for the final ten minutes and wondering, “What’s all this fuss about a sleigh?” On the other extreme, if you’ve been a 24/7 Potterhead, you may feel let down that the movie doesn’t live up to the one you’ve had in your head.
For those in-between, “Deathly Hallows Part II” will deliver a kind of catharsis, where you see seven-year
storylines reach a conclusion, and witness some surprising (and heart-rendering) developments with characters we’ve come to know so well, the kind of satisfaction you have at the end of a long novel or mini-series, but which you don’t get from a single film.

What’s truly unique about these eight movies is that we’ve seen these fictional characters (and real actors) grow up in actual time, going  from 11 to 21, and that adds a rare  resonance to our viewing. Daniel Radcliffe has developed into an excellent and versatile actor, something the producers had no guarantee of in 2000 when he was cast. Emma Watson has physically changed the most, growing into a beautiful and confident woman. Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley is the weak link in both his acting and in how he was scripted. He was better in the first two films than he’s been in the latter ones, where he often looked like someone who had no idea why he was there.

What’s truly enjoyable is to see a Who’s Who of British acting royalty in showy roles that were probably more amusing (and more lucrative) than their usual acting assignments. Some of them have been given rewarding moments for their last appearance at Hogwarts (i.e., Maggie Smith, Julie Walters, Alan Rickman).

“Deathly Hallows Part II” has received overwhelmingly positive reviews, but I found it a little disappointing. Some of the scenes worked much better on the page than they did on the screen (Were they too faithful to the book?), others seem too rushed or condensed, and there are several that are downright confusing, even for those of us who’ve seen all the movies and read most of the books. It’s the one Harry Potter film that should’ve been longer.

What is certain is that it isn’t worth the extra money and inconvenience to see in 3D. The glasses make a dark film even darker, like you’re seeing it through a tinted car window.

So, after 19 hours and 58 minutes, after 11 years in the making, the Harry Potter films come to an end, and the fact that millions will genuinely care is proof that at least movie magic is real, and can cast a spell on people of all ages and orientations.

In this week’s issue of Style & Entertainment we talk truth with award winning journalist LZ Granderson in Profile, ease the burden of back pain in Fitness, set sail on luxury yacht charters in Travel and Jam it up at Café Jamm in Dining.

Warren Day reflects on the final Harry Potter movie and why the LGBT community should care in Film and takes on a review of ‘Stuff’ in Theatre.

As the summer is here in force we tackle cool clothing and explore the luxe life of linen in Style, get an inside tip on the development of the beach properties in Fort Lauderdale in The Scoop and let our hearts grieve in Home.

Don’t worry we also have your favorites, Recipe, Out in Florida and our State-wide Bar Guide.

Enjoy! H – AV

Click on Image to View Fullscale

After a bleak first six months, the best films of the year began trickling down in July. With Thanksgiving just around the corner, the award-hopefuls are undeniably coming out in style with red carpet dreams and golden statues in their sights.

There’s already a growing consensus that the 10 Oscar nominees for Best Picture will include: “Toy Story 3,” “Inception,” “The Kids Are All Right,” “The Social Network,” “127 Hours,” “The King’s Speech,” “Black Swan,” “The Fighter,” “How Do You Know,” and “True Grit” (Dec. 22 ), the Coen Brothers’ highly-anticipated rebooting of the 1969 John Wayne film. And, there’s always the one or two surprises who make the final cut, although it’s widely predicted the final winner will be either “The Social Network” or “The King’s Speech.”

James Franco has been causing gay men to swoon for a few years now, but in his new film “127 Hours,” he’s supposedly causing people to faint and throw-up. This reaction is because it tells the true story of Aron Ralston, who amputated his own arm with a pocketknife when he was caught between a boulder and a rock wall. His performance is considered one of the two sure bets for a Best Actor nomination. The other is Colin Firth as Queen Elizabeth II’s stammering father in “The King’s Speech.” Last year Firth was nominated for “A Single Man,” w here

he played a gay professor grieving for his dead partner. The best gay film of the year (and one of the best ever), “The Kids Are All Right” starring Annette Bening and Julianne Moore, was released Nov. 16 on DVD and Blu-ray. This comedy/drama should be seen by gays and straights, men and women. Along with Natalie Portman for “Black Swan,” Bening is considered a lock to be nominated for Best Actress. If she wins, it would be the first time an actress has received an Oscar Award for playing a lesbian.

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I” (Nov. 19) won’t get a Best Picture nomination, but it offers a deep and dark tale that puts all the pieces into play for the big finale next July. Part I will also be one of the top three box office hits this year since it’s the next to last film in the most successful franchise in movie history. We’ve literally seen these kids grow up, for these eight movies over 10 years constitute the longest, continuous story ever put on the silver screen. They also have a big gay following because of their strong emphasis on what it’s like to grow up knowing you’re not like other kids. Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry Potter, has been active in The Trevor Project, an organization that helps gay teens who are contemplating suicide. Part II will be shown in 3D.

Other upcoming films of interest to the LGBT community are: “Burlesque,” starring Cher, Christina Aguilera and Stanley Tucci (who plays Cher’s gay pal, as if she needed another one); “The Tourist,” with gay favorites Angelina Jolie and Johnny Deep in hot water in Venice; and “I Love You Phillip Morris,” where married policeman Jim Carey falls madly in love with Ewan McGregor and is determined to break him out of prison.