My Interview with Stephen Cone, Writer/Director of Henry Gamble’s Birthday Party

3 Responses to My Interview with Stephen Cone, Writer/Director of Henry Gamble’s Birthday Party

1. Stevie says:

   January 7, 2016 at 11:24 am

   Wonderful interview! Can’t wait to see the movie. How interesting that George Cukor is one of his top-three director favorites! The glamour and cleverness of the Cukor world somehow cuts through to impress the minds of children (especially gay children) who grow up in a sophistication-free zone. Quite fascinating. Sociologists who look to identify why there are such things as gay people – as if there needs to be a reason! – sometimes say our role is to “help” with the raising of society’s kids by sprinkling art and culture and fairy dust into the mix. If so, Cukor gets three snaps for creating that RKO-MGM / Art Deco / Adrian / erudite / fey / femalecentric / Manhattan / silver world so memorably that is still shines as the height of style for many of us. Go, George, go!

   xxx Stevie

   Reply
   • sheila says:

     January 7, 2016 at 12:05 pm

     Stevie – I think you will just love this movie.

     // sometimes say our role is to “help” with the raising of society’s kids by sprinkling art and culture and fairy dust into the mix. //

     hahaha Well, maybe there is something to that – at least on some level (especially in the dark eras where people had to stay in the closet). But how much of culture has been preserved by gay men? Who notice/recognize value and don’t let it die? Either through paying tribute in drag shows (the most obvious example) – but also in their sheer passion for whatever it is that they love. They are Cultural Gatekeepers. Or, at least that is ONE of the roles.

     I love your thoughts on Cukor!!!

     With all the glamour, and the clothes and the decor – those films shiver with … what … a kind of eccentric humanity that maybe even gently opened the crack for more eccentricity to come. Like Hepburn in Philadelphia Story – what a bizarre woman, right? But she’s the heroine. She’s not conventional at all. She’s androgynous and difficult. She’s a “goddess.” And men are fighting over her. Two huge movie stars are fighting over her. So maybe then – if Hepburn can be loved like this – there’s hope for the rest of us schlubs, straight and gay and everything in between? Could this be part of what’s going on with those Cukor ensemble films? I mean The Women!! What a bunch of maniacs! But so fabulous! A sane little domesticated person would be eaten alive by those dames.

     When Mitchell and I had our conversation about Joan Rivers right before she died – it’s on my site somewhere – he referenced Barbra Streisand’s answer to a question in an interview about why gay men loved her so much. She answered automatically: “Because I was different and I made it.”

     I am sure there are some things I am missing in this – and would love to hear more of your thoughts.

     xoxoxo

     Reply
     • Stevie says:

       January 7, 2016 at 2:34 pm

       I read a book once that was talking about the Rainbow Room and that it was the epitome of “all the dreams us glamour-starved queens were having in Pittsville, Pennsylvania and Cookville, Tennessee.” It’s the light at the end of the tunnel, isn’t it? “I’m gonna blow this rural dump and go to New York City and wear tuxedos instead of overalls, and my affected speaking voice will be thought of as upper clahss and I’ll hang with Joan Crawford …” It’s an inherent understanding that sissy-hood may be out of place in a corn field but right at home in a penthouse. Barbra says, “Don’t rain on my parade” and every gay man understands this as the manifesto of the displaced rising up to find their way. Judy says, “The road is tougher, it’s lonelier and rougher…” and we know it’s true, too true, for the sensitive at heart. Maya Angelou says “I know why the caged bird sings” and we say, I’m singing, sister! Marilyn says, “I put on an act and get men’s approval but it isn’t really who I am,” and every closeted gay man says, been there done that.

       I worship talent (Judy’s and Barbra’s and yours) because it’s the flowering of something magnificent. Does this stem from being gay > sensitive > outsider > survivor of a culture that tried to snuff out my own flowering? Yes, I think so.

       I love your comment of how gays are the keepers of the flame. Fran Liebowitz talks about the holocaust of AIDS in the 80’s and how there’s both the loss of brilliant talents and the loss of an audience with an enormously high level of connoisseurship. This is a huge role to play in the arts – to understand and appreciate what is being placed before the audience. It’s the completion of the loop. I may not be able to fully grasp how miraculous a particular violin concerto performance is, but I can revel in its beauty. And I damned well know Barbra is hitting it out the park when she sings “Oh my man I love him so.”

       Here’s another fun tidbit to throw at the question, why is a particular person a gay icon? When I was in the Seattle Men’s Chorus about 70% of us were baritones, and I realized with a jolt that the typical baritone range is exactly one octave below Judy’s (and Karen Carpenter’s and Ella Fitzgerald’s and Cher’s and Adele’s and Madonna’s and Mariah’s and Dionne’s) alto/mezzo range. In other words, we can sing along with Judy! There aren’t many sopranos who are also gay icons. Now let’s talk vibrato – Judy and Marilyn and Barbra all have exceedingly fast vibratos. I call it the queer frequency (QF for short). It’s like a dog whistle – we respond to it with our lizard brains. LOL

       xoxo

       Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.