Perhaps the film should be 60 seconds long. I bet I have met a number of people who were gay that I didn't realize were. But then there is the other category of gay people that use that gay voice. So, some gay people sound gay and some don't.
Ricky Gervais had a hilarious scene about the 'gay voice'. -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVkgXX_YTiY
I can guarantee that you've met a whole lot of people who are gay without you realizing it. That goes for just about everyone else, too, considering some liberal estimates put the LGBT community at 10 percent of the population. More conservative estimates are around 5 percent, or 1 in 20 people.
Five percent of the population is pretty significant when you're considering how many people that you know or meet in life are gay, regardless of perception. And that's not even considering a higher estimate, based on the idea that people are under-identifying themselves as gay in polls because of the stigma, or one of many other reasons.
Whats this films point? That some gay'suse the gay voice & some don't?
The movie was kind of a jumbled mix of conflicting points. For example, the writer shows us that many gay guys go for guys with a masculine voice and he wanted to change his to attract more dates. They showed us several clips of porn and noted that most of it featured guys with manly voices because that's what viewers want to see. But then, the conclusion to the movie was that it is okay to sound effeminate.
He noted that it was easy to change your accent, whether it is the "gay sound" or the Bostonian accent, just by getting a voice coach and practicing, practicing, practicing. But, he decided that it just wasn't right, despite interviews with famous people who changed their lives for the better by changing their accents.
In the end, this movie is about failure. This guy wanted to make a positive change in his life and when he was on the verge of making that goal, he chickened out and gave up.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
bing-57,
In the end, this movie is about failure. This guy wanted to make a positive change in his life and when he was on the verge of making that goal, he chickened out and gave up.I certainly agree with your impression that this movie showed the protagonist/director failing in finding out if/why he sounds gay? But did he really fail in making a positive change in his life at the end? I don't think so - on the contrary, I think he learned to accept himself better. And he got a movie out of it he could sell.
> But did he really fail in making a positive change in his life at the end? I don't think so - on the contrary, I think he learned to accept himself better. And he got a movie out of it he could sell.
You are correct in that there were some positives that came out of this experiment, but it was not what he wanted or expected.
> What I mean is: While watching the movie, I wasn't really sure if he's sincere the whole time, especially nearing the end;
Good point. I did feel that there was something a little bit off, like he was just slowly marching towards the conclusion that he felt would play better with a gay audience. He knew he wanted to end up at, "It's okay to sound gay."
I mean, think of the alternative. Did he sit down and intend for the movie to be a guide on how to change your voice and attract tons of men and live happily ever after? That wouldn't go over well with any audience.
I think what happened is that he DID intend it to be a movie like that, but when he talked to his friends and his friends didn't really understand or endorse what he was doing, he knew that he had to change the premise of the movie.
But, when he interviewed people who did think that it was possible to change and met people who've done it successfully, he was conflicted.
And, in the end, he made a movie where the facts presented just didn't add up to the emotional conclusion that he made.
Plus, I think, he went back and refilmed scenes after he decided to change the conclusion. Too many scenes seemed rehearsed. Or, maybe he's just not a very good director.
Still, it was a good attempt for a first-time movie maker.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
bing-57,
> But did he really fail in making a positive change in his life at the end? I don't think so - on the contrary, I think he learned to accept himself better. And he got a movie out of it he could sell.See, the bolded part, that's what I'm still asking myself: What was it that the director really wanted to achieve with this movie in the first place? Was the motivation or goal of him (= the director) by playing himself as his own protagonist really to change his voice because of a breakup, and because he thought he couldn't find dates, and all those other reasons he mentions during the movie? Were these reasons truthful to his own agenda as a director, or is he just playing along the narrative of his own protagonist that's not particularly himself?
You are correct in that there were some positives that came out of this experiment, but it was not what he wanted or expected.
> What I mean is: While watching the movie, I wasn't really sure if he's sincere the whole time, especially nearing the end;Yes, the bolded part is exactly what I think, too. My question is: Did he eventually wanted to end up there before he began filming? Or, if not, when did he decide to end up there? When he talked to all these experts and found out that "sounding gay" is just a stereotype? It's weird - I can't make up my mind about it yet.
Good point. I did feel that there was something a little bit off, like he was just slowly marching towards the conclusion that he felt would play better with a gay audience. He knew he wanted to end up at, "It's okay to sound gay."
I mean, think of the alternative. Did he sit down and intend for the movie to be a guide on how to change your voice and attract tons of men and live happily ever after? That wouldn't go over well with any audience.No, it wouldn't. But I think the speach therapists would like to watch it for professional reasons.
I think what happened is that he DID intend it to be a movie like that, but when he talked to his friends and his friends didn't really understand or endorse what he was doing, he knew that he had to change the premise of the movie.Ah, okay, that's something I have to think about longer - that might be working. Thanks for that explanation.
But, when he interviewed people who did think that it was possible to change and met people who've done it successfully, he was conflicted.
And, in the end, he made a movie where the facts presented just didn't add up to the emotional conclusion that he made.
Plus, I think, he went back and refilmed scenes after he decided to change the conclusion. Too many scenes seemed rehearsed. Or, maybe he's just not a very good director.Really, you think he refilmed scenes? Which one's - can you remember a scene from the top of your head? The only scenes that I thought were very unconvincing were the one's with his long-time female friend from school who said that she knew exactly when his voice changed in the past when he went to college or university. There was this scene were she was coming towards him on some steps and I thought to myself: "That's rehearsed, take 27!" But otherwise, I wasn't suspicious of rehearsed scenes. On the other hand: As I wrote in my post before, I think that the editing of the expert voices was a big mistake, because it was destroying his narrative.
Still, it was a good attempt for a first-time movie maker.Oh yes, of course. I really liked watching the movie and many of the details and persons portrayed are interesting and fun. I just can't quite grasp how serious the director was about the topic and his point of doing the movie. I think I just really have to find more from him about his motivation/intent to find an answer ...
> I think I really have to search for some interviews with David Thorpe to find out what he really wanted say ...
I'm not so sure you'd get the straight answer. If he changed his mind several times during filming, as I suspect he did, he'll probably just tell you that he had one vision the whole time. No one really wants to sound wishy-washy.
> My question is: Did he eventually wanted to end up there before he began filming? Or, if not, when did he decide to end up there? When he talked to all these experts and found out that "sounding gay" is just a stereotype? It's weird - I can't make up my mind about it yet.
Okay, I might be just full of hooey, but here's what I imagined happened.
He took a film-making class in school and moved to Hollywood to become a filmmaker. He needed a subject for a new film. One day, after his latest break-up, he was sitting around with friends lamenting on why guys keep breaking up with him and the conversation wandered into the "do I sound too gay" area. He decided that maybe he'd try an experiment to see if he could choose to sound masculine. And someone said, "Well, you are looking for a subject for your film, why not film yourself changing your voice?" So, he did.
And so, he started by going to a speech therapist and getting some voice lessons. With practice, he found that the change was pretty easy. But, that would make for a rather short movie. So, he expanded it by asking people on the street and his friends what they thought about "the gay voice" and most people disagreed with his choice to change and even whether it was possible. He began to doubt the premise of the movie and wondered whether his change was not real.
He then went to find people that had tried to change and found several that had changed for the better and now had successful careers.
So, he's left with a lot of footage of PC people telling him not to change who he is and also footage of people who changed and liked it. What to do now?
> Really, you think he refilmed scenes? Which one's - can you remember a scene from the top of your head?
I thought a lot of the scenes of him talking to his friends looked rehearsed or, at least, coached. I suspect that he told them what kind of comments he was looking for and then turned on the camera.
> On the other hand: As I wrote in my post before, I think that the editing of the expert voices was a big mistake, because it was destroying his narrative.
Unfortunately, the subject of the movie really wasn't deep enough to warrant a full 90-minute movie. I mean, the premise seems simple; I can practice and get rid of my gay accent, but I shouldn't try to change and should just be happy with the way I am. At best that's a 25-minute short film. But, he had all this film, so he used it all.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
bing-57,
I'm not so sure you'd get the straight answer. If he changed his mind several times during filming, as I suspect he did, he'll probably just tell you that he had one vision the whole time. No one really wants to sound wishy-washy.Yeah, that's probably true, no straight answer from him (no pun intended). Although, as I wrote in my other posts, I'm not so sure about the bold part and it's kind of bothering me to find out about his intention. Maybe it's a dead end, maybe not - I just don't have enough time to search for interviews at the moment ...
Okay, I might be just full of hooey, but here's what I imagined happened.Oh, I love your long description of what might have happened and how this movie came to life! I actually can imagine some of these things did actually happen exactly as you wrote, but still: I honestly give the director a bit more credit and doubt that he was this shallow the whole time - or even from the beginning? Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but sometimes it seemed to me he knew exactly what he wanted and he played with the expectations of me as a viewer. His problem is that his narration was too sloppy - and that's why he failed. Or, like you wrote:
So, he's left with a lot of footage of PC people telling him not to change who he is and also footage of people who changed and liked it. What to do now?Yes, that's exactly my impression - a lot of footage, how to put it together to make a good story? And then - big maybe! - he invented the narrative of him being the protagonist of his own story that doesn't quite work within the documentary?
> Really, you think he refilmed scenes? Which one's - can you remember a scene from the top of your head?Ah, really? I thought some of those scenes were really authentic. Especially this guy that was cooking at the beginning, the spouse of the one with this weird mustache? He was actually really direct and hard on the director for thinking that the "gay voice" matters to him and told him it's all about his insecurities and he's just in a bad place. And this other guy, the artist who was completely confused about the question and why someone should bother about his own voice.
I thought a lot of the scenes of him talking to his friends looked rehearsed or, at least, coached. I suspect that he told them what kind of comments he was looking for and then turned on the camera.
> On the other hand: As I wrote in my post before, I think that the editing of the expert voices was a big mistake, because it was destroying his narrative.To be honest, I didn't mind - it was interesting, and except for the confusion about his true point of the film I thought it was charming in the details. I even missed some points, for example, how the gay voice sounds in other languages, or how straight guys with a gay voice can learn to speak straight?
Unfortunately, the subject of the movie really wasn't deep enough to warrant a full 90-minute movie.