Skip to main content

Gay Pride and Prejudice


If ever there was a movie designed explicitly for Pride Month, it is Fire Island. There is nothing about this Hulu rom-com directed by Andrew Ahn that isn’t screamingly, intensely, proudly gay. And to behold that is something really invigorating, even for those of us not in the LGBTQ community; seeing such passion and uncompromising depth of gay culture on full display, and on a mainstream platform at that, is unavoidably charming in how it cuts to the spirit of Pride.
Of course it makes sense such a movie would take place over a week-long party. Fire Island is that thin strip off the southeastern coast of Long Island that is known in the summer as a vacation destination for gay men. In the movie, five friends, poorer than the usual types who flock there, come to the island with the goal of finding a sexual partner for Howie (Bowen Yang), the least sexually active one of them. Among the elites, Howie does hit it off with a guy, but one whose friend Will (Conrad Ricamora) dismisses him and his troupe out of hand -something that is overheard by Howie’s best friend and confidant Noah (Joel Kim Booster). We can guess where the drama of manners goes from there.
Howie is Jane, his love interest Charlie (Jake Scully) is Bingley, the three other friends stack up nicely to Mary, Kitty, and Lydia, Will is Mr. Darcy, and Noah is Elizabeth Bennet. This movie is Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, and it’s not subtle in pointing that out, to its’ slight detriment honestly. It begins with Noah directly quoting the iconic opening line and proceeding to narrate parts of the story from then on in voiceover that is probably the films’ most awkward and ill-fitting creative choice -purely designed to evoke the novel. It comes off as either condescending to the audience (assuming they won’t pick up on the narrative and character cues) or representative of a lack of confidence in the script’s ability to relate the text comprehensibly. Following in the footsteps of Emma Thompson, Booster wrote the screenplay himself and he shouldn’t have been so concerned; the story translates aptly and organically, Jane Austen being, like Shakespeare or Dickens, immortal and friendly to reinterpretation.
And it’s very fun to see the beats of this familiar story play out in a new context, with new dynamics but the same archetypes. It only fits that a modern Wickham would be a skeevy dude without much consideration for consent, or that Bingley would be a naive sentimentalist to an old boyfriend, or that Mary would be generally out of place at parties but determined to stick it out, or that Jane would be a hopeless romantic. Booster and Ahn understand the right ways to retool these characters, have fun with their personalities, and maintain the honest emotionality that keeps Pride and Prejudice so timeless. Class and social order are the critical themes and they have persisted through the centuries so as to always be relevant: class is still a big thing, even in the gay community. So I found myself all throughout exceptionally curious as to how the movie would spin its’ plot points. I wasn’t much dismayed.
There’s just a strong energy cascading all over, fueled by the enthusiasm of everyone involved -with the exception of maternal Margaret Cho, all openly gay men, using the structure of Austen to illustrate the diversity and nuances of their community. Some come to Fire Island merely looking for a good time, an excuse to engage in some shallow debauchery. Others are there due to social circumstance or obligation, and still others want a more meaningful hook-up. This may be one of the gayest movies I’ve ever seen, and not just because it features a high propensity of gay characters, but because it showcases so many different facets of gay society and identity: everyone from drag queens to flamboyant socialite types to unashamed transgressives to more down-to-earth introverts -all are represented here. And in allowing for assholes and villains and just toxic circumstances to exist within all this, it normalizes this world in subliminal ways -makes it easier to relate to a straight person without losing any of its’ queer dimension.
But of course it must be said Fire Island is not at all a movie made for the straights. It is, to pardon the pun, a queer eye through which everything is presented. There is a lot of blunt homoeroticism to the movie, many of the characters hanging around in speedos for much of the runtime in large gatherings, with the camera often honing in on and opaquely objectifying their bodies -much in the way we’re casually used to seeing with women. But there’s no political or gendered statement to it here, it’s simply a case of open joy in expression and sexuality.
It colours the romantic-comedy but doesn’t interfere with it as it plays out its’ own version of the formula. These movies are nothing without chemistry and while there unfortunately isn’t a whole lot showcased between the pairings (Noah and Will’s gradual romance isn’t given quite the fair shake, and feels obligatory by the end), it is there in terms of the larger ensemble, and especially in the friendship between Noah and Howie. It’s a rarely seen strong platonic bond between two gay men (gay Asian men at that) that feels genuinely heartfelt, owing probably to Booster and Yang’s real life friendship. And I have to say, Bowen Yang, who I’ve only heard of second-hand as one of the better of the new crop of SNL players, is really impressive in this as the humble, sincere one of the gang. Ricamora also plays really well the antisocial nature of his Darcy stand-in, exceedingly uncomfortable in this environment. He understands how to play the subtleties of this part, to give off that impression of aloof elitism in the form of a guy who just seems to be kind of a buzzkill until given the opportunity to let loose in a silly but charming way. And he gets in a couple good deadpan moments as well.
I wouldn’t say the rest of the movie is particularly as funny, which is a drag but that’s not quite the purpose that Fire Island serves. Just as its’ characters are doing, it’s meant to be a celebration of gay culture and gay love. How much it really succeeds at that I can’t speak to authentically, but it does feel like everyone involved is committed and having a good time sharing their world with us. And it really speaks to how dynamic Jane Austen is, for how specific her context was. The gays have now staked a claim to her as well and the union isn’t at all incompatible.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more