Home » Articles » Film » Films Reviews »  Outrage
Wednesday, May 6,2009

Outrage

Kirby Dick’s doc about closeted gay republicans is too knee-jerk for genuine discourse

By Armond White
. . . . . . .

Outrage
Directed by Kirby Dick
At Chelsea Clearview Cinemas
Runtime: 90 min.

An amazing Q&A session followed the Tribeca Film Festival premiere of Outrage, Kirby Dick’s documentary condemning closeted gay Republicans. Instead of the usual self-congratulatory asskissing in question form, the choir that Dick preaches to through his hot-topics docs nearly rebelled.There was genuine inquiry about Dick’s facile, scattershot methods. At a film festival! In gay Chelsea!

Designed to reveal “a brilliantly orchestrated conspiracy to keep gay politicians closeted”—yet never identifying the conspirators—Outrage continues Blue State/Red State antagonism. By Republican-bashing on big topics like gay marriage and AIDS-funding, Dick avoids exploring ideas. Outrage diminishes crucial, non-partisan gay-identity issues of fear, guilt and self-acceptance.The premiere audience’s questions sliced through Dick’s ineptitude better than any narrative summary I could give.

Here’s a rundown: One viewer wanted to know: “Why no mention of Obama and Biden’s tentative stances on gay marriage?” (Dick’s answer: “They’re not closeted men.” Yet neither is Dick’s easy target, George W. Bush.) Citing Dick’s emphasis on the arrest of Sen. Larry Craig, a viewer asked why Dick ignored the fact that Craig’s entrapment was the real crime—a topic that might have explored sex rights issues. Another wondered why Dick emphasized Republican Sen. Mark Foley’s congressional page scandal without including the similar yet honorable example of Democrat Gary Studds’ 1983 congressional page scandal—which led to Studds’ censure but eventual re-election. One questioner distrusted Outrage’s outing of TV newsreader Shepard Smith but not Anderson Cooper. Responding that his real target was Fox Cable News not CNN, Dick revealed his insipid media favoritism.

Most importantly, a viewer wondered, “Was there no middle ground,” Dick could find between the political closet and political forthrightness? Dick fudged an answer because the middle ground would require opening his mind, a humanizing approach. Clearly, Outrage did nothing to strengthen the audience’s sympathetic understanding of the fear that prevents personal gay acceptance—especially among politicians. Repeatedly using the term “the closet” mystifies, without explaining, its psychological and social basis.

Dick knows that bashing, ridicule and snark get knee-jerk laughs and satisfaction. His lazy advocacy-filmmaking never constructs an argument but throws in at-hand grievances (as if gay rights, HIV/Aids funding, hate crime, domestic partnership and gays in the military were all the same concern). Dick uses anime to show gay Republican voting records on gay-related issues—a trivializing “entertainment” device conveniently dropped when Dick placates Gov. Jim McGreevy’s coming-out.This prejudiced filmmaking influences ideological separatism, encouraging the idea of elite gay privilege—as when D.C. Councilman David Catania bitches about Larry Craig’s supportive wife: “Is she insane!” It’s a sexist diss Dick never allows for David Nathan, the dead man mourned/rumored as Mayor Ed Koch’s lover.

Dick’s trite documentary style makes life and politics worse; that’s what the Tribeca Festival questioners intuited. A sequence condemning Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter Mary for creating Coors beer’s gay marketing but not being a gay activist confuses issues and then stumbles into the quagmire of the Coors’ ads: Dick accepts their egregious male-centered/body-fascist sexism. (Here’s where I need to admit the comedy of critiquing a silly gay doc by a director named Dick—or else go rigid with hypocritical pomposity.)

Dick is a wannabe Michael Moore. His filmmaking is no more serious than the spiteful gossipy clown Perez Hilton. Outrage heroicizes gay political bloggers like Mike Rogers, Bob Norman and Kevin Naff, who opines, “Everyone loves a good outing.”This insensitivity was apparent when Dick defended overlooking his obvious subject, closeted celebrities. “They don’t rise to the same level of hypocrisy,” he told a Chelsea inquisitor.

Although Dick’s 2007 This Film is Rated X is one of the poorest docs I’ve ever seen, I imagine he’s the right man for Hollywood hypocrisy.Yet he easily forgets the political significance of celebrity: how closeted gay performers’ music and film choices frequently reinforce hetero norms. Kirby Dick’s docs reinforce ignorance.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Posted at 05/18/2009 
 
This review is pompous psychobabble garbage. Hey Armond, if I were you, I'd seriously think about a new career. You definitely aren't skilled at this one.

 

Posted at 05/06/2009 
 
Actually never mind my previous comment about the reviewers opinion on gay rights - I have no idea what his stance is really. The review is much too bizarre and random...that last paragraph is ridiculous though - as is the sentence which says "His filmmaking is no more serious than the spiteful gossipy clown Perez Hilton." - Eh...riiiiiight.

 

Posted at 05/06/2009 
 
This reviewer is INSANE! I'm just after seeing that he gave Star Trek a bizarre review (I just saw it, it's brilliant and his review is BALONEY) and now this review is utterly sickening. The man spits out the words with such disdain it's all too obvious where he stands on gay rights. This is an ugly, incoherent, rambling review that absolutely contradicts everything I've heard - especially what I heard about the Q&A session with Kirby Dick. Furthermore, the review blatantly shows that he completely misses the point of the film. Unbelievably bad criticism - I'm just looking at some of this guy's other reviews and holy crap, this man should be fired.

 

Posted at 05/06/2009 
 
ws
This Film is Rated X was indeed one of the worst documentaries I've ever seen; illogical, boring and ham-handed; there's a jump cut to the Columbine shootings that is right out of a 1950's Juvenile Delinquent scare film.

 

Posted at 05/06/2009 
ws
or..."This Film is not Yet Rated", whatever it was called...it sucked.

 

Posted at 05/06/2009 
 
To anyone who reads this comment: Do not return to this website to view this imbecile's reviews. We should stop feeding into his plan of writing ludicrous b.s. to ensure that people will consistently (though angrily) read his columns and he will keep his job. He's like a Omarosa will a keyboard, simply stirring the pot and saying wild sh't so that people will continue to come back and see what horsesh't he's peddling this week. It should end today. The fact that he gave The Wrestler a bad review should be the first clue that this guy doesn't like movies in general and is miserable with his current assignment. If all you see is crap, day in and day out, why not move on to a happier profession. The reason is because he's a miserable turd as well, having missed out on one or two of Daddy's hugs. Enjoy being alone and pissed, A$$hole!

 

Posted at 05/08/2009 
Wow so you have made it your passion to have this man fired and you call him pathetic...hmm. Anyway, I do not think he said any "wild shit" in this review and actually it was well written and gave me a more even idea of how the film is constructed. So far too many reviewers have taken the easy argument and praised this film solely on the point this doc is trying to make without taking into context the contradictory method the filmmaker used to get there.

 

 
 


  • Sat
    21
  • Sun
    22
  • Mon
    23
  • Tue
    24
  • Wed
    25
  • Thu
    26
  • Fri
    27

Search in Events

Sign up for the NYPress
e-newsletter for weekly updates
and exciting event info:





Join us on Facebook Follow Us
on Twitter








 User Profile (click to open)



New_York_300_60.gif

 
 
Close
Close