Retro Review: To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything Julie Newmar

In retrospect, it is obvious that the 1990's were a weird and transitional time to be gay.  Back then, a lot of us thought that we were living in a progressive socially cutting-edge era, certainly compared to how it had been in the prior decades for gay rights and visibility.  Very few of us imagined how far we would come in two decades.  For example, I don't think any of us expected there to be legal gay marriage in all fifty states in our lifetimes.

Naturally, the gay movie landscape has changed with the cultural landscape and while there were a number of big gay Hollywood movies in the 1990's some of them are really only interesting as cultural artifacts of a bygone time.  The 1995 comedy To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything Julie Newmar straddles being entertaining on its own and being a weird relic of 1990's attitudes about gay life.  Not only is it a gay movie starring ostensibly heterosexual actors but a movie about drag queens, a subculture within the gay community that a lot of gay men are not even familiar with. Certainly, it is a movie that would not be made the same way today.

It's actually puzzling that the movie was even made at all.  Certainly it was a response to the success of the earlier Australian movie The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert  to which Wong Foo  is often unfavorably compared.  (One way Wong Foo is superior to Priscilla  is in it's appealingly diverse cast, whereas Priscilla is jarringly and aggressively racist).

It is as though a Hollywood producer decided that they wanted to jump on some non-existent drag queen movie bandwagon but also went to great pains to keep the movie light and accessible to general audiences.  Whereas Priscilla also features a heterosexual cast, the movie still feels very courageous and authentic in its story and the way it treats its characters.  In comparison, To Wong Foo maintains a sitcom feel throughout much of the movie but often awkwardly and abruptly switches to a dark or "serious" tone, like a Very Special Episode.

Also, with the exception of the opening sequence, we don't ever see any of these drag queens out of drag.  They are on a cross country car trip and they are in drag the whole time.  This movie should be rated D for Day Drag.  In that way, To Wong Foo seems to confuse being a drag queen with being transgendered (despite expositional dialogue to the contrary) or it is too scared and or lazy to deal with the fact that the movie is about three gay men on a cross country road trip.

There is also some weird gender politics going on with the Patrick Swayze character.  Well into the movie he is accused of being a drag queen because he "couldn't cut it as a man," and we see by his reaction to this statement that he believes that it is true.  This, combined with the fact that the three characters are always in drag sends a confusing message about drag queens and gay men.  For most drag queens, being in drag is a job (and a physically exhausting and uncomfortable one) and as soon as they can, they get out of drag.  Most don't do drag because of gender issues but because drag is their chosen method of performance and artistic expression.

I harp on the fact that the actors are all outsiders to the community that they are portraying on screen because of the way that the movie briefly features and sidelines actual notable drag performers such as Lady Bunny and Candace Kane in its opening sequence at the ceremony for the Drag Queen of the Year (Ugh) pageant.  Even RuPaul, who brought drag into the mainstream for the first time in the '90's is given a small speaking part.  This is a shame for a number of reasons, not the least of which is if not for RuPaul's popularity at the time, Hollywood would not have even dared to make this movie. So, I can't help but think that there is a little bit of a diss in the way that the movie treats actual drag performers.  Especially since RuPaul is genuinely funny and could have easily nailed either Swayze's or Snipes' role.

If they made the movie today, of course, it would be a very different story.  Not only are filmmakers a little more savvy about how they portray minority communities but America has been exposed to a lot more drag, again thanks to RuPaul and his hit competition show RuPaul's Drag Race which has been running for seven seasons and seems to get more popular every year.  Not only has the show exposed us to what it is that drag queens actually do and how much work goes into their artform but we have seen a huge variety of drag styles, approaches, and performers.  If they were making a movie like this today, the main casting problem would be choosing three performers from all of the talented candidates.

To Wong Foo, imperfect as it is, was an important stepping stone in both gay movies and movies about drag,   Despite the movie's flawed portrayal of drag and drag queens there is a lot of fun to be had with the transformations of the three actors and transformation is part of what makes drag such a compelling and fun art form.  Wesley Snipes, in particular, seems to be having a ball and really commits to his character in a fun and surprising way.  John Leguizamo was no stranger to drag having turned in some memorable and fearless performances of female and trans characters in his early one-man shows and his character in the movie feels like an extension of those characters. And that's a really good thing.  These performances and some good one-liners really help to salvage the movie from the weak script and generic direction.

Patrick Garone
Follow Me On Twitter

Queer-A-Normal Activity: James Bond Edition

November, 1994:  I'm watching  Interview with the Vampire, probably for the third time.  If you've never seen it,  the movie is an adaptation of the novel by Anne Rice featuring vampires that are sensitive, tortured, and sexually ambiguous.  It stars Tom Cruise as the dashing vampire Lestat and Brad Pitt as his companion, Louis, who spends the movie being unhappy and looking like Linda Hamilton.  Toward the end of the movie, Brad Pitt has a scene with Antonio Banderas, who's character Armand has been pursuing him as his companion for the entire third act.  Louis finds out that Armand has was behind his "daughter" Claudia's murder and bids him farewell in a sexually charged scene in which he almost kisses him a couple of times.

Now, the 1994 audience is audibly uncomfortable with this scene.  I remember a woman even yelled out, "No!  Don't kiss him!"

Cut to 2012 and I am sitting in the theater watching Skyfall, Daniel Craig's third outing as the flamboyantly heterosexual superspy, James Bond.  In the first scene featuring the movie's villain, Silva, Bond is tied to a chair and interrogated.  Silva is played by Spanish actor Javier Bardem who has a gift for playing characters who are scary and bizarre, like his unforgettable hitman in No Country for Old Men. 

Toward the end of this interrogation Silva begins prodding and caressing bond and the two engage in some decidedly homosexual Bond innuendo.  Silva continues hitting on him, telling him, "There's a first time for everything," to which Bond replies. "What makes you think it's my first time?"

I'm not really interested in reading into that too much.  It's pretty clear that Silva is toying with him and trying to use homosexuality as a pressure point against Bond.  It's a tactic which fails, but is fun to watch.

I was more interested in the audience at this point.  I was watching the movie in a theater in the south suburbs of Chicago and I was waiting for groaning and catcalls but the audience actually seemed really entertained and engaged by the cat-and-mouse game.  There was a lot of appropriate and non-nervous laughter.

Now if James Bond can resist being homophobic while tied to a chair and caressed by a psychotic Walter Mercado look-a-like, then it shouldn't too hard for the average straight guy in an office setting.