I don’t remember exactly how I came across it, but a while ago I stumbled upon an online list that an organization called the Publishing Triangle had made of the “100 Best Lesbian and Gay Novels of all time." Since I was a literature major, and reading is still pretty much like breathing for me, it was an interesting list. There were the overtly gay-themed novels you might expect — E. M. Forster’s Maurice, for example, and Radclyffe Hall’s The Well of Loneliness — as well as books that I recognized as subtextually gay, even if it’s not quite made explicit: D. H. Lawrence’s Women in Love (which, somewhat counter-intuitively, is really about men in love with each other), and Henry James’s The Bostonians. One selection, at No. 43, came as a pretty big surprise, though: Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women.

I thought about this. Little Women? Really? I mean, yes, Jo March was a tomboy; yes, she had a propensity for dressing up in men’s clothes and swaggering about; yes, the handsome, wealthy, intelligent, kind boy next door was in love with her, and she just wanted to be friends. But it still seemed like a pretty big, and presumptuous, leap to me, to claim it as a lesbian novel. … continue reading

This week saw the release of the Bob Dylan biopic I'm Not There at the Venice Film Festival. For months now, it's received media attention and a healthy dose of skepticism (even around here). You may remember why — it's the one where Cate Blanchett morphs from this:

to this:

Blanchett's among several actors playing Dylan, but so far, her portayal is generating the most buzz (and Oscar speculation). Director Todd Haynes explains his unconventional casting as a "radical device" to emphasize "how extraordinary and eccentric" Dylan appeared to his contemporaries. (Personally, I don't find it that much of a stretch — I saw Dylan a few years back, and I am telling you, anyone could have been up on that stage under that enormous cowboy hat, mumbling the words to his songs.) … continue reading

Had she lived, the late, great Katharine Hepburn would celebrate her 100th birthday on Saturday. Kate is one of my all-time favorite actresses (she is in a death match for my heart with that other Hepburn, Audrey). Growing up, as I began to wean myself on a smorgasbord of cinematic history, I found my palate attracted to actresses with an independent streak (think Garbo over Harlow). And they didn’t come more fantastically independent than Kate.

She embodied almost every quality I hold dear: intelligence, wit, strength, boldness, tenacity, sass, class, quirkiness and a propensity for wearing pants. For a woman who started her film career only a dozen years after women received the right to vote, she was the picture of progressiveness. Her love of trousers and her distaste for artifice made her an anomaly among the sleek screen beauties of the time. … continue reading

Cable channel Turner Classic Movies has announced that in honor of Gay Pride in June, it's going to air a month-long series of films exploring "the varied concepts, stereotypes and imagery of gays & lesbians as represented in classic Hollywood cinema." Hosted by film historian Richard Barrios (Screened Out: Playing Gay in Hollywood from Edison to Stonewall), the series — which will air every Monday and Wednesday night in June at 8 p.m. ET — will also have guest commentary from "several prominent figures [who] will provide their thoughts and remarks, including Michael Musto, Tab Hunter, Ron Nyswaner, Charles Busch and Alan Cumming."

My first thought upon hearing this: Cool! Strong women in menswear!

My second thought: Hey, none of those people in that press release are women. Some of the films the series will air include The Broadway Melody (1929), The Maltese Falcon (1941), The Picture of Dorian Grey (1945) and Designing Woman (1957). These are undoubtedly classics, but where are the ladies? … continue reading