…Not fall in love with him? That’s my question. You all know how much I love listening to Terry Gross’ Fresh Air. She annoys some, perhaps, but she is, hands down, my favorite interviewer. She talks to Lee Daniels about Precious – and the stuff he talks about is interesting. I was more interested, though, in his back story, how he came to be who he is – what it was like growing up gay with a cop father who beat him regularly – and how he believes that abuse has been handed down through generations among African Americans going all the way back to slavery. I know this is controversial; Lee Daniels said it, I didn’t. Anyway, not to glom on to that one thing – he also adopted his brother’s twins when they were babies and their parents were nowhere to be seen. It’s interesting how they went about casting Precious as well – process of elimination until the best one was left standing. It’s a good interview all around. Check it out.
I’m also starting to feel some excitement about the possibility of a gay black director being nominated for an Academy Award. That would rock my world. Speaking of Precious, Kim Voynar writes up a good piece on this film.
35 Responses for "How Do You Listen to a Lee Daniels Interview and …"
I’m from the old school, and I wish gay people wouldn’t wear their preference on their sleeve and go around “I’m gay I’m gay”….as if heterosexuals go around “I’m hetero”….it’s like Adam Lambert coming out and stating he was gay …. Maybe this is the new tactic by PR people, not to hide it but be proud of it.
Tyler Perry hasn’t declared his gayness (and we know he is) and that’s just fine with me.
It’s different with people of color (i.e. Asians, Hispanics, African Americans)…we can’t hide our color, it’s there …. but it’s funny that Daniels is more prone to announcing his gayness than his blackness.
Am I reading this wrongly?
Sally, perhaps he’s more assertive about his sexuality than his race because there are currently no laws on the books saying that Asians, Hispanics or African Americans can’t be married.
Just because a person can hide who they are, doesn’t mean they should have to.
Why shouldn’t anyone be allowed to let people know who they are? It’s a vital part of their identity, and I surely don’t want to be mistaken as being straight. If you don’t want to see it, that’s your own problem. I don’t think Lee Daniels flaunts it much at all, it’s just an integral part of his identity and brings it up when necessary.
Adam Lambert for a while didn’t even mention his sexuality, but everyone kept asking about it. So he told them. And now he’s being accused for “wearing it on his sleeve” or whatever just because he said he’s gay?
Sally, silly, silly Sally – all you have to do is turn on your television, or , heaven forbid, walk out the door and see heterosexuality proclaimed from the mountain tops. Perhaps you don’t notice it because you’re immersed in it, because it is all and everything that you know? No one should have to suppress who they are. So, before I stomp this soapbox into the ground, and make this post something it’s not meant to be – I’ll say this. Take the lessons of Precious and apply it to anyone who has suffered at the hands of others. Monsters come in many guises.
Preference? really Sally, really? People should be proud of who they are. Being gay is part of his identity as is being black. He doesn’t choose to be gay he is gay. There is no preference at all associated with his sexuality.
“…but it’s funny that Daniels is more prone to announcing his gayness than his blackness.”
We agree a lot more often than we disagree, Sally, but do you really think it’s funny that there’s more reason to be clear about sexuality than about race? Personally I think it would seem much funnier if Daniels thought he needed to announce his “blackness” at all. We can sort of see that. Other aspects of person’s life — while I wouldn’t use the word “hidden” — are less obvious.
“Maybe this is the new tactic by PR people, not to hide it but be proud of it.”
Speaking of things that are funny. Funny, I don’t need PR people to let me know it’s ok to be proud to be gay, or get permission to mention it. Or, er, feel like I need to “hide it” to protect other people’s sensitive feelings. It’s not like Chlamydia or spinach in my teeth or something.
“It’s not like Chlamydia or spinach in my teeth or something”
I love it! Thank you Ryan. I absolutely love this site!
I’m not a flag bearing gay man (well not at all times) but the first chance I have I divulge I’m gay. It’s one of the most important parts of who I am as much as anything else.
I hope Lee Daniels get nominated, wins and delivers an acceptance speech as touching as Dustin Lance Black did last year. We can only hope.
The more visibility the more everyone will see that we are here and we are everywhere and we must have the same rights as everyone else.
In the words of Harvey Milk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvfexvihri8
Sally do you have any idea how hard it is to be a gay person of color? Nobody likes talking about this, but it’s hard for gay kids in the black community to find many people to look up to, someone that makes them know they don’t have to hide. Lee Daniels is just as much gay as he is black and if he wants to shout he’s gay from a mountaintop then that’s his business and his right.
Oh and Sally, Lee Daniels doesn’t proclaim he’s gay, particularly, in the interview – it only comes at the end – and it is just another dimension to who he is. The interview is not about him being gay – it’s about his life more than anything else and it’s really interesting. I don’t really get where you’re coming from.
Start getting excited about the possibility of a gay black director WINNING.
Anyway, I’m mixed on Daniels: I think he’s a tremendously charming but mediocre director. He’s articulate and warm and born to be interviewed, and I always find myself listening and thinking “It’s too bad Shadowboxer was so bad.” And clumsy as his directorial instincts often are, he has a gift that more seasoned vets often don’t: he nourishes and *gets* actors. I also think he’s a natural salesman who sells his “honest, naive guy” persona hardest of all. I don’t buy any of his comments about how he won’t be pushing Precious for Oscar and isn’t even dreaming about awards. And I’m baffled by his rather presumptuous treatment of the films he produces as his films, completely, without question.
There is nothing to be proud of, unless spreading disease and instability counts
I understand where Sally is coming from, but I still think you read this the wrong way Sally.
As a gay man, I’m also not in favor of gay people that enjoy or go out of their way to say their sexual orientation, but in this case it was appropiate to mention it.
He discussed his abused childhood, growing up with a cop father, etc… And all this background helps him relate to the characters in the movie… so the conversation lead itself there. He didn’t brng it up intentionally.
This is a great interview. Can’t wait to see the movie.
“as if heterosexuals go around “I’m hetero”
Well Sally, you must tell people you are hetero, or else how would they know? Heterosexuals tell me they are straight all the time, endlessly. People generally define themselves by their sexuality. Billboards, movies, commercials, music videos, television, etc. incessantly promote heterosexuality. Constantly, straight people shout from the mountain tops about their heterosexual problems on Oprah, Dr Phil, and other talk shows. I guess you are a eunuch and blind, and perhaps a little on the dim side.
“There is nothing to be proud of, unless spreading disease and instability counts”
You are beyond retarded
“As a gay man, I’m also not in favor of gay people that enjoy or go out of their way to say their sexual orientation,”
And you should keep your self-loathing to your self.
#10 – I agree that he gets good performances from actors; and I agree he’s not an “exciting” director.
“There is nothing to be proud of, unless spreading disease and instability counts.”
If that’s how you really feel “Hades” then why creep around behind the bible-thumping decoy ID to say so? Doesn’t seem fair that Sasha and I are the only ones who know who you are.
Don’t you want to claim full credit for that comment under your regular nickname? Why hide? Aren’t gay-bashing straight guys supposed to be fearlessly smug about who they are ? Aren’t true-believers supposed to be noisy outspoken zealots? Either you’re ashamed of what you’ve written, or part of you is a hate-mongering coward.
I say “part of you” because in dozens of other of comments this year you come across as an intelligent and fairly well-mannered movielover. Otherwise you’d probably already be banned for the some of the other contemptible hate-speech remarks you’ve made under various cringing little aliases.
Lee Daniels is man enough to speak openly with the courage of his conviction. He’s proud of who he is and brave enough to let everybody know it. Why aren’t you?
[You don't have to reveal your usual nick. Please don't embarrass yourself and ruin your image around here. But isn't it interesting that you decided to hide who you are in a discussion about pride and self-esteem?]
Of course, most heterosexuals people announce to the world about their heterosexuality. It comes in various forms- bragging about the hot chick you are dating, your sweetheart’s photo in your cubicle, date night, celebrating some special anniversary every five minutes, how wonderful your spouse is, Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah’s couch etc… Point being, we constantly do things that make our sexual preference very clear to everyone. Yet, if a gay person talks about any of these things they are considered to be flaunting their sexuality. Double Standard!
I’m twenty-three, mixed with mostly black, and in the military, and I can promise that if I never told anyone, folks would drag the truth of my sexuality out of me. People are too curious. And life is difficult for me with accepting Christian and non-Christian friends and a non-approving pastor father who loves me but not my lifestyle. And I’m black so the brothers always have that “you told me but now we won’t discuss it ever again” mentality. Kind of sucks. So who gives a fuck if Lee Daniels wants to say he’s gay? Or if anyone wants to say they’re gay?
I’m gay. So what?
i say ban em. no intelligent commentary is worth that statement
So Mo’Nique and Lee Daniels suffered from violence in their houses… Gabourey is coming next?
#18 “Of course, most heterosexuals people announce to the world about their heterosexuality. It comes in various forms- … Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah’s couch”
Er, that would be trying too hard to prove that one is straight when everyone clearly sees one isn`t. Couch jumping is “I`m so not gay, like totally, why would you think I am and why would you think my religious organisation hished-hushed my affair with a male porn star and destroyed all evidence,like, why when I publicly declare that I love fembots like Katie, and, hey, I said fembot not manbot you punks?” bullshit right there that doesn`t help other gays because what kind of message this sends to everyone? That being hetero (in public eye at least) makes one a cut above everyone else? Bah.
Back on topic or sort of, Precious is heading to another stellar weekend at the boxoffice with the expansion to 175 cinemas that garnered it $2 mio Friday and a spot in Top 10. I wonder if other slow roll-out Oscar contenders like UITA, Invictus, LB can match or exceed Precious PTA.
“Precious” is not in the horizon here in my country, don’t even know if had a distributir yet, but I like “Shadowboxer” a lot, and I know a lot of people who hate it; don’t understand why.
I have a question that maybe silly, and the answer must alreay beeen published in the american press a gazillion of times, but here is it: Mo’Nique plays a character name “Precious” in “Shadowboxer”, a original script. What’s the relation to “Precious”? Did Lee Daniels already had the project to adapt the book by Shappire while working in “Shadowboxer”? Just a coincidence?
Um… So… You want him to win an Oscar because he’s a gay black man?
Thought the film was good, but not worthy of a best director nomination.
“Um… So… You want him to win an Oscar because he’s a gay black man?”
I missed the part where I said I wanted to win for that reason. You need to have enough knowledge of how the Oscar race works to make a comment here, just FYI. If you don’t have a working knowledge of their history you can’t know my intentions nor anyone else’s. I don’t have time to school you so I suggest you do some research and then come back and we can talk about it.
OOO… Touchy.
I do know, very well, how the Oscar race works. (You’d be surprised!) I was just curious why that nomination (because he’s gay and black – which I certainly have no problems with) would “rock your world.”
You didn’t say nomination, you said win. And if you are aware of Oscar history you don’t need to even ask the question.
Dang it Ryan, you beat me to the Hades response! Not that it wasn’t baiting, certainly not! That aside – touche’ Ryan, touche’ (and thank you).
I wish we could get past the “personal story” aspect of the nominees, and honor the person/film based on how great the movie was. I know that is probably too much to ask, but it would be nice.
What this conversation is building to is that let’s say for argument sake that Precious wins a substantial amount of big Oscars this season. You know that the detractors of the film will say that “They honored this film because the director is a homosexual minority or since they messed up big time with The Color Purple, they had to honor the film.” I hope this doesn’t happen, because the film is quite good on its own merits.
I just don’t like it when people want a film to win based on what the director’s background is. It’s terribly superficial. The best example I can think of, and I hate to bring it up; but some of those who voted for our current President just because of his ethnicity and age. That’s not the right way to vote. I’d much rather it be based on the art form, but art is so subjective anyways I guess in retrospect I am asking for too much.
Sam, I don’t think, in a million years, Precious’ director would win because he was gay. Considering that no openly gay director, nor actor, has ever won an Oscar. Plenty of straight ones have won, closeted ones but no openly gay director nor actor. The only way Daniels would win would be in spite of his sexuality. Nevermind that he’s gay for a moment and consider whether anyone would be talking about him for a director nominee: of course they would. It just so happens that he’s also gay (only one or two directors I can think of have even been nominated and they were both white) and black (99% of the directing nominees are white, straight and male. There, I had to go into the history anyway.
“Considering that no openly gay director, nor actor, has ever won an Oscar.”
Not to be contrary, but Cukor and Schlesinger? If we mean “not openly” saying “I’m gay!” on the cover of US magazine, ok. But I don’t think their sexuality was any mystery to anybody in the Academy or Hollywood at large. My guess is that F.W. Murnau wasn’t too discrete either.
Cukor being know throughout his career as “Woman’s director” was almost a code word.
btw: American Film Institute Life Achievement Awards committee are a buncha cunts for never honoring Cukor, Chaplin, and Kazan because of personal controversies, but I think that only serves to demonstrate that most everybody knew Cukor was gay. I knew he was gay long before I read it for sure. When I was about 12.
Humm,Tony Richardson and John Schelsinger, Oscar winners directors, were gay, were not?
I don’t know that they were “out” though, as in discussing being gay in a magazine or in a TV interview; it simply wasn’t talked about at all. I guess I’d have to go back and read the interviews around Midnight Cowboy for sure. I was specific about being “out” because that makes all the difference, I think. The whole thing is Hollywood is to hide your sexuality. Or was perhaps. Things are very different today than they used to be.
That’s why I say, being out on TV in 2009 is possibly not a fair standard that we can apply to being out among colleagues and the industry in general in decades long ago. I guess for me I respect that they didn’t pretend to be straight by getting married or ‘dating’ starlets.
True, I don’t know of any pre-Stonewall interviews where Schlesinger talks about his sexuality either, but those questions were not even asked then. Not so much because the subjects would not have been willing to “admit” it. But probably because editors thought nobody wanted to hear about such stuff.
The year after Midnight Cowboy (which tiptoed around the gay thing rather tamely), John Schlesinger chose Sunday Bloody Sunday as his Oscar-followup. The story of a tangled bi-sexual threesome with Peter Finch as a gay doctor bedding a hunky young male artist. That’s not a theme other directors were ready to tackle, gay or straight, so I see his films as his “announcement.” I think his associates (and savvy moviegoers) back then would have needed to be pretty obtuse not to see that.
He grates on my nerves a little bit, not that much in this interview but I saw him at a Q&A and he just came across as insincere. Gabourey Sadibe, by contrast, was totally adorable and charming.
Leave a reply