TV

Don’t Quote Me: Striking for the Truth

“I’ve seen stupid strikes, I’ve seen less stupid strikes … This is a stupid strike. It’s a waste of their time. [The studios] have nothing to give. They don’t know what to give.” – Former Walt Disney CEO Michael Eisner, commenting on the WGA strike

“Stupid is as stupid does.” – Forrest Gump

Beware the stupid.

The Writers’ Guild of America strike is now in its eighth week, and we have witnessed the power of collective action – the ability of one group to impair an entire industry in the interest of fair treatment in the digital age. And fair treatment is something we at AfterEllen.com care a lot about.

As television viewers prepare for the coming onslaught of reality and game shows that will replace the scripted programs affected by the strike – including Fox’s inane contribution The Moment of Truth in which contestants are “strapped to a lie detector” and “forced to reveal their most intimate secrets for cash” – some of us are reminded of exactly how much quality matters, and of a writer’s role in creating high-caliber content.

Whether or not the core value of a hit show or movie lies in the quality of its script as opposed to its interpretation (the direction, cast, cinematography, etc.) is open to endless argument. The value of something – anything – is almost always subjective. This is especially true when it comes to attaching worth to an art form such as screenwriting. But the fact remains, as the Writers Guild has made clear in its star-studded “Speechless” video campaign, that writers aren’t merely major players in the TV/film game; they are intrinsic to it because they bring the balls. In the case of Forrest Gump, for example, there would not be a hit movie without Eric Roth’s brilliant screenplay, and, more to the point, there would not be a screenplay without Winston Groom’s creation of the unforgettable Forrest in his book of the same name.

Winston who? Exactly.

Despite the factthat a writer’s role in any scripted production is obvious, writers in general are a notoriously underrecognized group. Authors whose stories are optioned for film are often overshadowed by the bigger names in front of – and behind – the lens. And in an industry where success is measured more by the visual end product than by that product’s textual beginnings, writers frequently fall victim to an out of sight, out of mind mentality and are consequently undervalued.

When asked by The New York Times eight months ago about the then-looming contract dispute, WGA West president Patric Verrone addressed the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers’ low opinion of writers: “I think if they could do this business without us, they would, and so making our task as mechanical and simple and low-paying and unartistic as possible.”

While a writer’s inconspicuousness has little, if anything, to do with the reluctance of the AMPTP to give Guild members a fair share of the profits derived from the use of their material in electronic media, the strike brings to light the correlation between low visibility and low opinion, and demonstrates what’s possible when an underrecognized group acts in solidarity. Since moving images are the gifts that keep on giving, and because the internet and digital technology make Santa and his bag of DVDs look like Willy Loman clinging to his dreams, it’s more important than ever that writers be treated fairly as the value of new media is assessed and the residuals doled out. And it’s for that reason I support the Guild.

But it’s in the interest of conspicuousness – visibility and truth in storytelling – that I write this column and ask the studios and writers themselves to recognize that fair treatment be afforded to not only the people behind the scenes, but also to the characters they all help bring to life, specifically queer characters.

By striking, the Guild’s message is clear: We won’t let you exploit us! And for some of us, that message is also very familiar. Frustrated gay and lesbian writers, filmmakers and moviegoers have been loudly opposing the exploitation of queers on TV and in film for years. But, while our demands for better treatment haven’t been ignored (there weren’t very many exploited lesbians on TV or in film last year), there’s room for improvement, especially on scripted network TV. There’s also room to evaluate the pros and cons of how we’re represented on unscripted shows.

As Malinda Lo pointed out in her 2007 Year in Review: Television, lesbian and bisexual women are well represented in unscripted shows. But being well represented in the reality genre isn’t, in my view, necessarily something to cheer about. Let’s not forget that self-absorbed, wealthy housewives, spoiled 20-somethings and catty designers are also well represented.

But, whether you love or hate reality programming, you don’t have writers to thank or blame for it. That said, it’s my hope that the current strike not only results in an equitable end for all involved, but also reminds Guild members that taking a more genuine approach to queer character development is no more difficult than taking an honest approach to the development of any character, underexposed or not.

In fact, I think it’s not only harder to be disingenuous, it’s also less rewarding – not only for those responsible for the misrepresentation, who as a result often earn bad reviews as opposed to Emmys or Oscars, but also for audiences, queer and straight alike.

We all know that Hollywood is no stranger to honest storytelling – we see great examples of truth in film and on television year after year. So it’s at the very least unfair, and at most demoralizing that some studios and writers continue to be rather stingy in doling out honesty when it comes to stories involving queers.

It was out of the need to see ourselves depicted fairly and on a regular basis that lesbians created shows such as The L Word and Exes & Ohs. And it’s out of necessity that we ask Guild writers step up to the plate and take cues from what we’ve created – not use our creations as excuses to isolate us further.

In other words, just because we queers have our own shows and our own networks, it doesn’t mean we don’t want or need to be included in yours.

As AfterEllen.com staff writers made clear in their own “Speechless” PSAs last month, it’s past time for realistic depictions of queers across the board. Hollywood has milked the lesbian vampire, the lesbian as murderess, the pregnant lesbian, the straight-in-the-end lesbian, the flamboyant gay sidekick, the handsome gay best friend and the gay predator to death.

While there are some scripted programs not called The L Word (and not on Logo or here!), such as The N’s South of Nowhere, that make obvious efforts to portray us accurately, some, like FX’s Nip/Tuck, verge on exploitation. Others, such as AMC’s Mad Men, simply tease the lesbian issue for no obvious reason. Seeing ourselves unerrepresented or misrepresented over and over again by teams of people who should embrace the challenge to creatively and fairly express authenticity, rather than cower from it or simply re-create what’s come before, is both irksome and infuriating – like being stuck in remake hell.

Enough already! We know what you did last summer, Hollywood; it’s unfortunately the same thing you’ll do to us this summer and, unless more writers help us convince the studios that our stories need to be told accurately, the summer after that.

With the clout of the Guild behind us, perhaps studios would move toward changing their defeatist attitudes. The low number of scripted LGBT characters on network TV and in film does more than just suggest that most studios are willing to sacrifice both their art and our truth in favor of the bottom line. It confirms that when it comes to investing in queer content, studios expect failure as a matter of course.

Apparently taking cues from the segment of society that views queers as morally bankrupt or simply comic relief, some studios still pigeonhole our characters – effectively turning them into caricatures – or back off from gay story lines completely because they believe viewers can only handle so much “gayness.” And because few viewers equal low ratings, and low ratings equal low revenues, they claim it’s not worth the financial risk. But I don’t buy it.

I know, I know, business is business. But when the business is art, isn’t risk-taking not just part of the job, but also the source of the potential glory? Isn’t the gamble that’s innate in the art of filmmaking one reason why studio heads and scriptwriters aren’t, I don’t know, plumbers?

What some studios and writers are either forgetting or ignoring is – to quote a line from another memorable film – “If you build it, he will come.”

Showtime’s The L Word, HBO’s hit Six Feet Under and films such as Boys Don’t Cry and Brokeback Mountain prove that it’s possible to make high-quality and profitable queer and queer-inclusive art despite the homophobia that exists among audiences and within the industry. And Boys Don’t Cry illustrates that it can even be done with a budget of around $2 million.

There’s a potentially lucrative forest through the trees when authenticity and quality are demanded by both writers and studios, rather than comprised. But until all parties involved realize that the distribution of truth in filmmaking should not be based on the inability of a narrow-minded audience to swallow the truth, and that the half-truths and stereotypes that they’re peddling are likely directly related to their low profits, another Forrest will come to mind, one whose insight – “stupid is as stupid does” – will continue to apply.

Kim Ficera is the author of Sex, Lies and Stereotypes: An Unconventional Life Uncensored. Email her at [email protected].

Lesbian Apparel and Accessories Gay All Day sweatshirt -- AE exclusive

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Back to top button