Writers Shouldn't Be Afraid To Be Vicious

I ponder how it is possible that nobody who is gay can be evil.

I caught Tom Hardy's new movie Legend the other day and have to say he was quite magnificent as both Kray twins. He played twins but, with the assistance of the make-up people and some superb acting, he managed to be two very different characters. He played the slightly prettier, slightly less crazy Reggie and the schizophrenic and openly gay Ronnie. At the end of the movie, I joked with my friend that I should go on Twitter and feign outrage with tweets like "I can't believe they may the gay one crazy". We both laughed but it got me to thinking about the character of Ronnie Kray. The movie takes liberties with his sexuality (he was bisexual) but it was interesting to see a gay character in a different mould - a tough no nonsense gangster. It got me thinking how, in an increasingly politically correct world, writers may be afraid to paint gay (or other minorities) as the bad guy or girl. That, for me, is not living in the real world.

Politically correct logic: Hitler was evil, Hitler was straight (as far as I know), so all straight people must be evil. Very logical. Gay people and minorities are just the same as everybody else: some of them just aren't nice people.

An example of a show doing something different (and right in my opinion) is Vicious. It tells the story of ageing partners Freddie and Stuart, two men who have lived together in their flat for 48 years. Freddie was a budding actor and Stuart worked in a bar when they first met, but their careers are pretty much over and their lives now consist of entertaining (and usually insulting) their frequent guests and hurling caustic insults at each other. The series does show that deep down they care about each other and their friends (mostly) but I enjoy their "vicious" jabs as the show isn't afraid to show gay people (or any of the characters) in a poor light.

I encourage writers of all kinds to create realistic characters. People have flaws. Minorities are people. Do the math. I think it adds up this time.

I Think I Remember The Film

I ponder the film adaptation of Breakfast on Tiffany's and discovering the novella after the film spoiling various plot points along the way.

 A couple of months ago, I borrowed The Audrey Hepburn Collection from my eldest sister. I had spotted the iconic image of Hepburn in that black dress from Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961) on her shelf and it occurred to me that I hadn't seen any of her movies (that I could recall at least). I chose that movie to start off with, fighting my original excessive compulsive urge to watch them in chronological order. Also, I remembered the 1995 song by Deep Blue Something (the lyrics of which were actually inspired by Roman Holiday (1953)). The film came with high expectations but managed to grab my attention at first with it gradually completely sucking me in. Hepburn was excellent with her character being both likeable and somewhat despicable in equal amounts. I felt quite aghast when she briefly abandons her unnamed feline companion towards the end. Her co-star George Peppard was just there really. This was the first thing I'd seen him in outside The A-Team (The 1983 - 1987) and The Blue Max (1966) (which I watched due my family being involved in the production). This performance did nothing to encourage me to check out anything further from him.
  After watching the movie, I did a little Wikipedia check to find the background behind the movie. (I never use Wikipedia as a source but rather as a source for a source). It was then that I discovered the author of the original novella was Truman Capote. His name had come into my consciousness through the marketing for the movie Capote (2005) where it was logged for future reference in my authors to read pile only to be recalled at this date and encouraging me to try the novella. A brief aside that is of importance: I had also received the advice from a writer friend that if someone is to write they should read a variety of genres. I do plan on writing at some point (outside of emptying my grey matter on to this blog and my various comic book endeavours) so I took the step out of my sci-fi filled comfort zone. Anyway, the novella grabbed me like only one book before it (Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep (1968) by Philip K. Dick for the record) and I devoured it quite quickly (with a nice cup of tea to be Irish about it) and I plan on finishing the rest of the collection before attempting Answered Prayers (1986).
  In comparing the two, the film keeps the spine of the story while removing the tart language, the failed pregnancy and tacking on a Hollywood happy ending (she keeps the cat and the man). The novella has the unnamed cat finding a new home and, presumably, a name (which I found far sweeter somehow) and Miss Golightly escaping New York and travelling the world which I felt was more in line with her character. I understand the removal of the language and the loss of the baby as they would undoubtedly prove risqué for a film produced in the early 1960s. The Hollywood ending I'm not so sure about as there some classics that manage to live without one (Casablanca (1942) springs to mind instantly). That's not to say there aren't things added to the film that don't appeal to me. Moon River (1961), which unbeknownst to me previously was written for Hepburn to sing in the movie, adds a beautiful soundtrack and says a little bit more about the Golightly character. I think it also put the film on the path to being so iconic (The song deservedly won both an Academy Award and a couple of Grammys).
   In my opinion, both are classics and stand a little bit apart but I think the film kept a lot of the novella and gave us a timeless classic so I forgive the changes.