"Now it can be told." Anyway, the time limit is up and the results are official and now i can tell people that i was a panelist this year for the New York Foundation for the Arts. I've been staring at the sheet of paper they gave me at the end of the meetings, the one where you make suggestions. It's the type of situation where either there are so many suggestions that what i'd be suggesting is a basic overhaul, or....

I'm sick! Seriously. First i had this wicked cold which seemed endless (how long has it been? an aeon?) and then yesterday i woke up and my right toe was swollen. Yes. Gout! Ugh! If it's not one thing, it's another. I haven't been out of here in days, and am going crazy. I wanted to catch some of the Klimov and Sheptiko films (i've seen "Come and See" and "The Ascent", so i've seen at least one a piece) and i hope i can see some of the new Italian movies... but i missed all the press screenings for the Human Rights Watch Film Festival at the Walter Reade Theater. And i didn't get to the new animation program at Film Forum. And i didn't get to any of the restored films at MoMA...

Larry and i have been watching some of the recent DVDs from TLA which were sent by Andrew Preis, their p.r. person. "Dorian Blues" and "FAQs" and "Summer Thunder". A few weeks ago, i watched "eXposed: The Making of a Legend" and "Sex/Life in L.A. 2: Cycles of Porn". It's so depressing. The reason is that even when some of these are fairly decent ("Dorian Blues" wasn't so bad), the plethora of gay movies now make a lot of these movies superfluous. And worse than that, when they're bad (and "Summer Thunder" certainly qualifies), it's almost an affront. It's the type of situation where, what audience where they aiming for, because this limply bedraggled mixture of failed camp and tired outrageousness and plain ugliness is insulting?

But "eXposed" and "Sex/Life in L.A. 2" beg the question: how is gay sex to be shown in a context of "seriousness"? By claiming to be documentaries, both works are able to show sex in a very "straightforward" way... the context seems to be one in which being gay is simply a given, and any ambivalence is unheard of... it's the situation where a few years ago, the gay porn industry was making its money by proclaiming that the biggest "stars" in the business were gay-for-pay (Ken Ryker, Jeff Stryker, Ryan Idol), and now the self-same industry is extolling men who are "proudly" gay (Dean Phoenix, Marcus Irons, Zak Spears). Is there a hypocrisy at work? I don't know.

David Noh sent another list of questions, to finish up his article on the changes in gay cinema. On the pqprofessionals listserve, they've been compiling lists of important gay films. It's depressing, and yesterday, Jenni Olson wrote in to ask if people would please remember how important some documentaries were (such as "Word is Out" or "Common Threads", et al) and also to remember some of the important lesbian films over the years. Because what's happening is that a lot of the gay men are listing all those goddamn "gay love stories" which climax in "Brokeback Mountain". And (of course) it's depressing, because it's as if the entire history of the movies never existed...

The other night, watched "Cheaper By the Dozen" and "Belles on Their Toes"... amazing to think that, at one time, one of the biggest movie stars in the US was Clifton Webb! First he became a star as the acerbic, razor-tongued know-it-all ("Laura", "The Razor's Edge", "Sitting Pretty"), and then he was cast in family films and romances ("Cheaper By the Dozen", "Three Coins in the Fountain", "The Remarkable Mr. Pennypacker") . He wasn't just popular (and he was), he was also highly thought of in the industry (three Academy Award nominations). There's a moment in "Cheaper By the Dozen" when his character dances with his daughter (played by Jeanne Crain) and Clifton Webb gets to show his prowess.

Even in the traditional history of the movies, there were always notable movies. "Maedchen in Uniform" was always cited as an important work, one of the most important European films of the 1930s. But now, people don't know that history, and those movies aren't seen by many people, and so it's only the recent past that seems to be remembered.

And how can you ignore someone like Clifton Webb? His career as a movie star was an anomaly. In the 1920s, he was noted as the finest dancer on Broadway (his renown far exceeded that of Fred Astaire; on Broadway, Astaire was considered merely an appendage to his sister, Adele; she was the one considered the great dancer, and he was merely her partner). But Webb never made any movies in the 1930s. By the time he did "Laura", he was a middle-aged man. He was a lifelong "bachelor" who lived with his mother! (And once "Laura" became a hit, and it was obvious that Clifton Webb was a star, there was no getting around the fact.)

But i'm feeling terrible! And tomorrow there are press screenings for the upcoming Antonioni retrospective! Agh! If i miss that....