329: Peter Tatchell

Peter Tatchell has been doing things in the Uk for about the last four decades, and is famous/notorious as the nation’s leading gay rights campaigner. At times this has brought him great opprobrium, although as the principles of gay rights have been legally instituted, he no longer seems such a strident figure. Also his attempt to perform a citizen’s arrest on Robert Mugabe probably did a lot to endear him to many.

Tatchell first came to national attention when he stood as the Labour candidate in the 1983 Bermondsey byelection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermondsey_by-election,_1983 should probably give you all the context for what follows.
It was infighting in the Labour Party at the highest levels about the appropriateness of Tatchell’s selection which made for such good copy in the newspapers. And therefore made him and his homosexuality a matter of national discussion.

Here we have cartoons and gags about an out gay figure (although it was confused at the time by Tatchell’s attempts to “in” himself somewhat for electability). There were an awful lot of snide gags made about him at the time. But we shall discounting all the obvious homophobic abuse, (presumably thought to be killingly witty at the time by its perpetrators), and instead focus on how humorists and cartoonists portrayed Tatchell.

How is Tatchell as a gay man portrayed, and what use is made of his homosexuality as a club to beat the Labour party.


from “Private Eye”, 18 December 1981

On 7 November 1981, Bermondsey Labour Party selected Peter Tatchell. Labour Party leader Michael Foot declared "the individual concerned is not an endorsed member of the Labour Party and as far as I'm concerned never will be". Foot’s outburst was prompted by suspicions that Tatchell was of the hard Left, a part of the Trotskyist Militant Tendency, But then the Labour party’s objections all got confused in the public consciousness with revelations about Tatchell’s homosexuality.
So this column from Adrian Spart – an ad hoc adaptation of “Private Eye”’s usual left-wing activist Dave Spart. Spart’s typical contradictory and illogical ranting are employed to present a touchy homosexual who will take anything as opportunity for offense, rejoicing in his victimisation.

The controversy over Tatchell’s candidacy was largely played out in the press as a conflict between Michael Foot and Tatchell, so as to undermine Foot’s leadership
Such was the obvious conflict between the two that gags about gay coupledom were pretty much impossible.
This cartoon by MAC is the only I can find that makes an attempt. MAC presents Foot and Tactchell as a couple. Not only are they holding hands but the caption refers to Deidre and Ken from the soap opera “Coronation Street”, two characters then going through a tempestuous romantic reconciliation, a storyline making national headlines.


by MAC in “Daily Mail” 21 February 1983

The following three cartoons are all about the difficulties between Foot and Tachell. Whatever the point of each cartoon, the cartoonist employs certain elements from gay stereotypes to depict Peter Tatchell. Overly detailed eyebrows and eyes with large, pursed lips, and often stood in a fey stance. It contributes nothing to the gag but it lets you know that Tatchell is a gay man


by Keith Waite in “Daily Mirror”, 16 February 1983


by Nicholas Garland in “The Spectator”, 19 February 1983


by Michael Cummings in “The Sunday Express”, 20 February 1983


from “Private Eye” 25 February 1983
Another of the editorials by “Private Eye”’s fictional proprietor Lord Gnome is fairly accurate summation of the hypocritical conflation of politics with homophobia enjoyed by Tatchell’s opponents that marked the Bermondsey by-election.


Cover to “Private Eye” 25 February 1983
This however is just a cheap gibe. The tendency Foot referring to being The Militant Tendency. Hmmm, “Ducky”, is not advanced.


by Marc Boxer in “Private Eye” 25 February 1983
The embarrassed father's slightly posh son looks as though he’s an extra from “Brideshead Revisited” but as per usual, note the prominent almost rouged lips.


by Michael Heath in “The Spectator” 3 April 1983


from "Private Eye", 16 December 1983
And this refers to Tatchell’s book “The Battle for Bermondsey” at the end of 1983

So as you can see, in most of the above, outright homophobic jokes are usually outside the discourse of political comedy, but even caricaturists find it tempting to include some allusion or other to Tatchell’s homosexuality no matter how irrelevant. Although this si somewhat understandable since homosexuality was then unknown in public politics.
It would be profitable to compare this approach to Peter Mandelson’s treatment by the press. Coded phrases, double entendres, fussy descriptions of his clothes and manner, and allusions to Larry Grayson and “Are You being served” are all employed by cartoonists, impressionists and humorous political journalists. Mandelson’s homosexuality makes for a vulnerable point. Is it expressly homophobic? Well, the fact that Mandelson’s outing was handled so badly made him seem embarrassed and so a characteristic for mockery like boggle-eyes, corpulence, speech impediments or any other mockable trait.

328: You Can't Lick Dick 3

by Edward Sorel
cover to “Screw”, 10 December 1973


A small selection of scandalous sexual gags at Richard Nixon’s expense. Another example I’ve posted earlier of Nixon indulging in Caligulan-style homosexual orgies is this comic in “National Lampoon” February 1974
Unlike that cartoon by Sean Kelly and Tony Hendra, these three examples all turn on Nixon’s friendship with Bebe Rebozo. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKrebozo.htm is probably a decent overview of Rebozo’s character and the history of his friendship with Nixon.
Nixon and Rebozo were incredibly close friends, almost devoted to each other since the early 50s. This was a relationship all the more striking since the awkward Nixon had few others friends. Their friendship may have been made more public than is common as a means of countering the impression Nixon usually gave of possessing all the human affect of a cheap lawn ornament. But it also had the side-effect of making people ponder as to the true nature of their companionship. Even members of Nixon’s administration are on record declaring their suspicions. (Not that any gay historians would be minded to claim Nixon, or Edward Heath for that matter, for our team as a matter of pride.) So these gags play off existing qualms that people had about Nixon and Rebozo together.

Of course these jokes are primarily intended as cheap shots. And deliberately so. The editors of “National Lampoon”, Edward Sorel and Paul Krassner are not really the type to thing that homosexuality is actually dishonourable. Each has differing attitudes of relaxation and liberal acceptance given their generation, but they are all prepared to play off the assumption that for the general public homosexuality at the very least has a strong stigma.
It is those unenlightened attitudes that Nixon repeatedly made his political base.
We’ve seen Nixon express his distaste for homosexuals in his incisive review of a 1971 episode of “All in the Family”
So it’s not big, it’s not clever, but making gay allegations against Nixon is just the sort of base attack that would really rile him. No need to be political, no need for ornate caricature, just paint him as a queer. Nixon was such an uptight and unsexual person, it was the perfect comic contrast to show him relishing some passionate gay sex.

The first example, the letter in “National Lampoon” predates Watergate, so it’s just a general humorous jab, some common abuse of the man. Playing off his strenuous image of probity even it is undermined as he gets some executive head.

The second from Paul Krassner, is just one small part of a larger assault on Nixon’s character, morals, and general fitness for office and general existence as a human being. Gay rumours are raised, in the vicinity of other longstanding rumours about Hoover and Clyde Tolson, only to be scotched. And how are the rumours disproved? By visiting whores. Classssy.

The third example above, the illustration by Sorel, obviously builds on contemporary interest in the Watergate Tapes. A cover for “Screw” magazine means the opportunity for Sorel to be as scandalous as possible. It also has Nixon as the one being buggered, which probably has a touch of further denigration about it.
The last five pages of Robert Coover’s 1977 novel “A Public Burning” has Richard Nixon sodomised by the figure of Uncle Sam, an equally vicious and low conman representing the true base nature of America. It’s quite a graphic passage, and in its “Deliverance”-style rape there’s more than a slight element of Coover exacting some unspeakable vengeance on his imaginary Nixon, since what could be a worse indignity. However, after this gross buggery, in the last couple of paragraphs, homosexual affection comes into it as this venal Uncle Sam and Nixon realise their love for each other.

327: You Can't Lick Dick 2

from “A Sneak Preview of Richard Nixon’s Memoirs” by Paul Krassner
in “Chic” 1976

There seems to be a tradition of accusing those who fight Communism of being homosexual. This smear tactic was used against Whittaker Chambers; against Senator Joseph McCarthy; against J. Edgar Hoover. In that vein, gossips used to joke about Hoover and Clyde Tolson double-dating with Charles "Bebe" Rebozo and myself.

Neither Rebozo nor I are"'gay." We have been very close friends since 1950. What we enjoy most about each other's company is the fact that small talk becomes unneccessary. Weare not afraid of silence. But we have never had any kind of sexual relationship.

We were introduced by Senator George Smathers, who was infamous for supplying female company to his fellow politicians. It was Smathers who sent Mary Jo Kopechne to Senator Edward Kennedy.

Whenever I was in Florida, I would always stay with Bebe, and he would occasionally get a couple of beautiful $200-a-night girls. Or, as they would be called nowadays, $200-a-night women. But when I bought my own home in Key Biscayne, then his yacht became the rendezvous site.

326: You Can't Lick Dick 1

from "Letters to the Editor"
in "National Lampoon" August 1971

click - be with you in a second, Bebe, as soon as I figure out how to work this new Dictaphone and record a letter for my idiot secretary to send out. There, I think it's on now. Ah, Miss Conklin, when you play this tape tomorrow, please transcribe it as a letter and send it to the National Lampoon, and let me make it perfectly clear that there are to be no accidental omissions this time, or your services will no longer be needed here in the White House.

Sirs:
A trusted advisor of mine had brought to my attention that your recent Pornography issue does not meet the minimum standards for decency as outlined by recent Supreme Court rulings. Because of this - ha, Miss Conklin, change that to "For this reason" - an injunction against your magazine is being prepared by the Attorney General specifically citing your obscene assertions that Mr. Rebozo and I habitually engage in - Bebe, cut that out - unnatural practices. These libelous and false assertions - c'mon Bebe, at least let me finish this letter - will also be brought to the attention of the postal authorities - Hey! You'll simply ruin my new pants. Now I mean it! - for proper disposition.

You are hereby directed to cease publication of such - oh, please stop - ridiculous and -oh oh- offensive material or face the legal consequences. Look, Bebe, will you stop fooling around? At least wait until we're in the car. Somebody might walk in. Now where was I? Ah, yes I must add that I, personally, find your publication - mmmmm - disgusting and degrading to American youth and a sign to our enemies that our moral fibre is in serious - faster, Bebe, oh faster! - question. I can, promise that if you keep up this sort of -oh oh oh oh - filth, none of you will even be able to write home for money - ooooh God! - oops! Who's there? Oh, heh heh, hello Pat. Funny I didn't hear you come in. I seem to have, heh heh, dropped one of my contacts in my lap and Bebe was kindly, ah, helping me find - er, Miss Conklin, please type this up and sign it for me. Why, Pat, I've always worn contacts, didn't you - click.

Richard M. Nixon
President of the United States
Washington, D.C.

325: When Intimacy Goes Wrong

Men kissing. Always good for a laugh. Unfortunately, particularly so among audiences watching serious gay films in the cinema. The scene builds up to a perfectly non-gratuitous kiss between the leads (often played by straight stars, let’s be honest, because gay men kissing gay men might be too much) and then just as lips touch, from somewhere in the audience there will come a giggle or two.
Now, let’s be thankful it’s not a cry of revulsion. Society has moved forward somewhat. But in an entertainment arena if its not turning you on or winning your sympathy then the sight of two men kissing most likely provokes a comic response. Is it because of diffused disgust, puzzlement, anxiety, awkwardness? Is the sight of two men kissing so outside of the normal order it can’t help stimulating laughter? Is it because the power of a same-sex kiss suddenly breaks the audience’s involvement and so like a bad line or cheesy special effect it can’t help but elicit laughs?
Of course, if a same sex kiss is truly intended to be funny then it’s best if it’s between two straight men. The discomfort will then be on the part of the two characters on screen, rather than on the part of the audience trying to parse their own response to two gay men kissing.
Such is the social power of gay kissing, that there are precious few examples of dramatic gay kisses being allowed, let alone funny gay kisses.
The 1982 black comedy “Deathtrap” has a twist about halfway through when Michael Caine and Christopher Reeves are revealed to be gay lovers. The most immediate and shocking way of proving this was by having them suddenly, unexpectedly kiss. In trade circles it became known as the $10 million kiss, since it’s estimated this how much the kiss cost the film in tickets. That’s a lot of audience to risk for the sake of one joke.

Other than in scenes where one man makes a move on another dressed as a woman, same-sex kissing tends to feature as the punchline to jokes about men discussing the boundaries of permissible intimacy. How close can they get, how can they show they like each other as friends? And then it just goes too far, and passionate kissing erupts. It’s usually not intended that these are closeted gay men, trying to sublimate, and never kissing for sexual gratification, but that in almost every instance there’s nothing half-hearted about these kisses.

You’ll notice each time there’s a kiss in the sketches below it gets shrieks, as taboos are broken, and the characters insist that there’s nothing sexual about two men kissing.


from “Fridays” 8 May 1981
“Men Who Hug”

Larry David
Michael Richards
Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill in an ugly suit kisses Michael Richards – not quite the “Star Wars” slash you were looking for?
A bunch of unembarrassed guys (David and Hamill are particularly boobish for contrast) are able to show their appreciation of each other. Although not in a casual urbane Parisian sort of a way.


from “Smith and Jones” (circa 1989-1990?)
Mel Smith and Griff Rhys Jones

The uptight, nigh-hysterically uncomfortable Griff Rhys Jones is almost a match for Gene Wilder at his best.


from “Exit 57”, 1996
Stephen Colbert as Father
Amy Dearis as Mother/Squirrel
Jodi Lennon as Daughter
Paul Dinello as Boyfriend

An occasional gag from sitcoms is for one character to show another how to put the moves on a potential date. At a particularly embarrassing moment a third character will enter to everyone’s gay-tinged discomfort. Here, it starts off with the inappropriateness of a father asking his daughter’s date if “he got any?”, not with disapproval but with encouragement. And then comes the kiss, which merits a positive evaluation on his daughter’s behalf.
Nothing makes sense and then it keeps being repeated with each element made more emphatic, culminating in the lingering, passionate romantic clinch of the third instance. The audience being left to assume how much further it can be taken in the fourth repetition.


from “Mad TV”, November 1, 2003
Ike Barinholtz and Josh Meyers

Basically the same celebrating athletes joke as Monty Python’s footballers and National Lampoon’s Disco Beaver’s hockey players, and the cartoons about the Football Association’s concern about emotional footballers. Except that here, rather than just a quick visual, the joke builds on the character’s confusion: “What just happened?” followed by much agonising as to whether they are gay. Of course, the fact that this is deliberately a joke, means the show can spend more camera time on men kissing (accompanied by leaping on each other, running their hands through each other’s hair, dancing provocatively), than any gay kiss would receive in any prime time drama.

Over the last five years or so, David Walliams has got a hell of a lot of mileage out of his sexually ambiguous persona, both in sketches, and on chat shows, flirting with other men, fondling them, and occasionally wrestling them to the floor and pulling their underpants off.

And for more crassly teen-oriented fare which I can’t be bothered wasting my typing on, why not search youtube for
“Baseketball” (1998) – Trey Parker and Matt Stone are two good friends affirming their friendship;
“Dude, Where’s My Car?” (2000) – Ashton Kutcher and Seann William Scott kiss each other in a moment of blithe one-upmanship;
“American Pie 2” (2001) Jason Biggs and Seann William Scott disgustedly forced into kissing each other against their wills to get out of trouble;
“Talledega Nights” (2006) - straight redneck Will Ferrell kisses cultured European gay NASCAR driver Sacha Baron Cohen as a sign of competitive admiration.

There's a lot of it about, you know.

324: John Lennon - Four in Hand

“Four in Hand” by John Lennon
From “Oh Calcutta!”, 1969

Well this was an unexpected find when browsing through “Oh Calcutta!”.
(“Oh Calcutta!” was a full-frontal comedic revue about sex first stage by theatre critic Ken Tynan in 1969 and which went onto long-running success in both England and America.)
For most people it’s the fact that it’s a homoerotic masturbation sketch by John Lennon that is the surprise.
For me, since I know more than is probably useful about Ken Tynan, it’s the fact that this is a homoerotic sketch in “Oh Calcutta!”. When Ken Tynan was compiling “Oh Calcutta!” he was very emphatic that any camp material or gay influences be excluded from the production. This was because “Oh Calcutta!” was intended as a heterosexual entertainment. No offense or prejudice against gays was intended (Tynan was always very proud of having stood bail for a gay friend), but he assumed gay men wouldn’t have the necessary responses upon which his show’s success was predicated. Camp or gay jokes were also to be excluded because it was a type of humour that already had a home on the stag and would be a distraction from the sexy humour of “Oh Calcutta!”.
Given all of the above, I assume that Tynan’s bending of his own rules is prompted by the prestige of John Lennon’s name.
Admittedly, if you’re going to do a mass jerk-off sketch, barring thoughts of impotence (and “Oh Calcutta!”is all about positivity, not incapability) then unexpected thoughts of other men are a likely source of humour. Which is of course why actual or potential gay boys often find themselves disbarred from dorm room frolics and rounds of the “Soggy Biscuit Game”, since if there’s no homosexuals involved then there’s nothing gay about masturbating with other men. Which the punchline of getting off to thoughts of the Lone Ranger rather undermines.

Jon Lennon’s sketch is based on experiences as a teenager he would masturbate with friends, during which they’d call out the name of movie actresses.
Paul McCartney: “We used to have wanking sessions when we were young at Nigel Whalley’s house in Woolton. We’d stay overnight and we’d all sit in armchairs and we’d put all the lights out and being teenage pubescent boys, we’d all wank. What we used to do, someone would say, ‘Brigitte Bardot.’ ‘Oooh!’ That would keep everyone on par, then somebody, probably John, would say, ‘Winston Churchill.’ ‘Oh, no!’ and it would completely ruin everyone’s concentration.”
Until the days of the Farrelly Brothers, this was probably the most witnessed scene of comic masturbation for public entertainment, since “Oh Calcutta!” was a success running for decades in one form or another.

Other adult revues of the time deliberately made more of their gay content. Often this was because they had their origins in a younger and more counter-cultural demographic. “Oh Calcutta!”’s biggest rival in the early ‘70s was a production called “The Dirtiest Show in Town”, another funny sex revue but much concerned with contemporary social issues about equality and environmental pollution. Most of the reviewers took particular notice of the camp performance style of one of the actors, Jeffrey Herman. “The Dirtiest Show in Town” was written by Tom Eyen, a gay man, who went on to be an almost permanent fixture of New York theatre and eventually write “Dreamgirls”.

-----------------------------

FOUR IN HAND
by John Lennon

(Four chairs, backs to the audience. Facing them, a large projection screen divided into four sections, one for each chair. Three men impatiently waiting. A doorbell rings.)

1: There he is now. I told you he’d make it. (He opens the door.)

(George enters: he wears a fedora.)

1: If you’re going to join the group, George, you have to remember we always start on time.

George: Sorry I’m late, fellas.

2: We don’t like people breakin’ the rules, George.

George: I already said I’m sorry.

3: Look--We gonna talk, or we gonna jerk off?

1: Ok, let’s get started. This is your seat, George. Now this (pointing to screen) is a new kind of machine--a telepathic thought transmitter. Whatever you think about flashes on the screen. Now the rules of the game are this: all of us think of things to jerk off to--until somebody comes--and the first guy who comes has to stop everybody else from coming. Got it?

George: Got it.

1: All right. Let’s give it a try. Whatever comes to mind, George.

(1 goes to his seat. George sits between 2 and 3. Rhythmic music starts. Images start to flash rhythmically on the screens. The men’s arms start to move rhythmically in front of them. The screens facing 1, 2 and 3 show Hollywood and Playboy-type pinups. George’s screen remains blank. The rhythm builds up while screens 1, 2 and 3 are all pulsating with glamorous women. Suddenly, we hear the strains of the William Tell Overture, and during a crash of cymbals, a picture of the Lone Ranger flashes on George’s screen. All screens go blank and all four men stop masturbating.)

3: What the fuck was that?

1: What are ya tryin’ to do, George?

2 (rises, adjusting his pants): I told you not to invite outsiders.

George: I’m sorry, fellas, it’s just the first thing that came into my mind.

2: We haven’t had a vacancy in six months, George! Harvey only left because he got a divorce.

3: How’d you like a silver bullet up your ass?

1 (walking to George): You sure you’re all right, George?

George: I’m fine, thanks.

1: All right, let’s try it again.

(They all sit down again.)


1: And cut the horseshit, George.

(The music starts again and the images start to flash. They are slightly more nude than before--close shots of breasts and bottoms. By trial and error, the four screens begin to form a composite picture. George is dutifully collaborating. Finally, at the height of the rhythm, screen facing 1 shows a nude model’s head, screen facing 2 shows her breasts, screen facing 3, her legs. Pause. The recumbent image of the model is almost complete. Suddenly the strains of the William Tell Overture are heard again with another image of the Lone Ranger on George’s screen.)

George (exultantly): Aha! A-a-a-a-ah!

(He rises. His screen continues to flash the Lone Ranger. With one jabbing sweep of his arm, he flashes Lone Ranger pictures on the other screens as the music builds. As each image flashes, 1, 2 and 3 lose their concentration completely and give up the contest.)

George (turns as he goes to exit): See you next week, fellas.

1: Get the fuck outta here!!!

(Sound of four “whistling” gunshots as each remaining screen blacks out.)

323: Monty Python - Carl French

The Album of the Soundtrack of the Trailer of the Film of Monty Python and the Holy Grail
1975
Michael Palin as Interviewer
Graham Chapman as Carl French


0.00 – 2.41

Interviewer: Mr. French, you're one of the film world's most arrogant queens. I mean not just homosexual or Gay or anything, I mean you are a raving queen.
Carl French: Well, yes.
Interviewer: I mean, a real screamer, a real "Whoops! Get her! Don't mind me dear!" limp-wristed caricature.
Carl French: Is that not in order?
Interviewer: No, no, that's fine. And I understand that you married the beautiful black heiress Hueyna Tanoy partly for the publicity but mostly to cover up the fact that you prefer going out with Little Boys.
Carl French: Look, really!
Interviewer: Carl, you're an offending little poof, a mincing gay-bar loiterer, a winnet-covered walking perfume shop and an evil perverter of innocent little boys!
Carl French: What!? Really! Is this part of the interview?
Interviewer: No, no, I just wanted a few contacts.
Carl French: Well, shouldn't we be talking about the film?
Interviewer: We’ve been off the air for ages. Now, where'd you find them?
Carl French: Look, I think we are still on the air.
Interviewer: Oh, sod the fucking air! Can’t you still get locked up for that sort of thing.
Carl French: What about the film?
Interviewer: Just a few addresses, please...
Carl French: Look, we’ve got James Dean in it, in a box!
Interviewer: I-I can turn the microphone off if you...
Carl French: And bits of Jayne Mansfield...

------------------------------

Apparently the first half, the stuff about keeping a dead Marilyn Monroe in a box, originated in a sketch by Douglas Adams.
As per Monty Python, one bizarre concept leaps into another, switching from the weird film into the strange abuse. And abuse it intentionally is, not what one usually expects in the course of some film PR. Chapman’s performanceplays it as un-gay as possible, a perfectly stolid character, even as the interviewer moves beyond abuse, into baroque invective, and then realms of scandalous sexual criminality. Yet there’s also a freedom, since this sketch would probably not have passed on television or on cinema. As a LP sketch it can ascend to new heights of bad taste, and just let the abuse flow, matched by Palin’s escalating shrieking hysteria, as he skips in and out of mocking faggy voices. And then the final twist, which isn’t a million miles away from “Nudge Nudge”’s “What’s it like?”

If you were wondering, a “winnet” is the ball of unremoved specks of shit that dry onto the hairs around your sphincter. Share this information with your colleagues at work.

322: Monty Python - Tchaikovsky

"Monty Python's Flying Circus"
26 October 1972

Wow, this gets though a lot in an awfully short time. Pay no attention to the subtitles.

Besides all the usual sharp Pythonesque nonsense subverting high culture and parodying the media, this is inspired by contemporary revelations and innuendoes about a long dead composer. From a period when Ken Russell films were big stuff, his 1970 film “The Music Lovers” was not shy about Tchaikovsky’s homosexuality – although it has absolutely no relevance to John Cleese’s summary. And it allows for slightly salacious comments through the sketch, ie, “contains material that some people might find offensive but which is really smashing” and “the naughty bits, which were extremely naughty for his time”

So Eric Idle’s opening salvo, “Was he just an old poof who wrote tunes” undercuts all the traditional respect and typical dignity of the arts documentary format.

“Hello Pianist” is an obvious play off the camp salute “Hello sailor”.

Particularly unexpected is Michael Palin’s gossipy hairdresser Maurice (and compare his previous outing as a hairdresser climbing Mount Everest). The campness is out of all proportion to the normal documentary manner, although tangentially related to Tchaikovsky’s homosexuality. A gay hairdresser is an acknowledged cliché, and rather more than Graham Chapman’s David Unction, deliberately exaggerating the stereotype is part of the joke. So this is a Pythonesque poof since it is a comic collision between disparate styles. The actual performance is just a great gawping mouth, with lots of eye rolling and delicately held hands. The alliterative slang is a new one to me though (25/11/09 Turns out that it's a variant on Polari, camply referring to things like "Lily Law".)

321: Monty Python - David Unction

“Monty Python’s Flying Circus”
21st December 1969
Graham Chapman as David Unction


3:36 – 4.42

Of itself there’s not much to this early gay cameo in the firsts series of “Monty Python’s Flying Circus”. It is made ever so slightly more complicated by the directions from the original script:

“Cut to effeminate announcer sitting at continuity desk. Any resemblance to Mel Oxley should be accidental. His name is David Unction.”

Mel Oxley was a real in-vision continuity announcer of the period. So this is intended as a parody of a particular person, besides encapsulating a certain sort of oleaginous showbiz, exuding smarmy false sentiment. A particular brand of desperately up-beat and insincerely ingratiating mannerisms – bright, bright, lots of smiles, etc – has gay connotations. Make of the twinkly sign what you will. Although the “Old Queen” is a more explicit attack on the figure being parodied.


6.00 – 6.24

Here the team ramp up their caricature a bit further. The appearance of an actual muscle-mag is deliberately surprising, and possibly a first in a comedy programme. And now David Unction has become a forthright queen. The “You Fairy” attack from the Viking brings forth a wheedling bitchy manner, flaring nostrils and a snide cry of “Hello sailor!” Is anything very advanced or complicated one with all this? Well, no. It not much more advanced than thinking that presenting a homosexual on screen is enough to be funny of itself.

One final complication in all this is that Chapman, an actual gay man, is playing this character. Of course at this time there is a tendency for gay men to play gay stereotypes on film and stage. Only no one actually will admit they’re gay. And Chapman at this point in his career was no different. You can see him play a theatrical queen in 1968’s “How to Irritate People”. He also played a similarly bitchy, quasi-hysterical camp photographer in the 1970 film “Doctor in Trouble”. A year or so later Chapman would donate funds to the establishment of “Gay News”, and would give a lengthy interview in one of the early issues. It’s notable that Chapman pretty much stopped performing these sort of roles after that.

320: Stephen Stucker in "Airplane!"

“Airplane!” 1980
Written and directed by Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, and Jerry Zucker
Stephen Stucker as Johnny Henshaw


This is someone’s edited selection of Stephen Stucker’s scenes and one-liners from the film “Airplane!”

Stucker’s performance would appear to be fondly remembered by many fans of the film, his role perfectly capturing the film’s off-the-wall one-liner style.
Over the course of the film, Stucker’s brief appearances paint a portrait in camp: exuberant, blithe, mischievous, inconsequentially and randomly silly playing off the more serious delivery of lines from other actors.

If you want to delve deeper into the gags Stucker delivers, you can just about snuffle out a few gay mannerisms: childish, trivial, bitchy, fashion-obsessed, and a Wizard of Oz reference. But I’ll admit I’m really straining to make that work.

How much Stucker is acting or whether this performance encompassed his range is hard to tell since he did not appear in many films. He had played an insane gay fashion designer Bruce (yes that stereotypically American gay name again) Wilson in a 1975 sexploitation film “Delinquent School Girls” aka “Carnal Madness”.

“Delinquent School Girls” trailer

Although mainstream American prejudices at the time liked to believe gay men were fairies, such flamboyant camp has never had a ready home on US screens, and Stucker’s style of performance may not have led to the career opportunities provided in the UK. Stucker’s equivalent in the UK would probably be someone like Christopher Biggins. Biggins played a number of coded or explicitly gay comedy cameos throughout the ‘70s (besides starring in ‘70s sex comedies like The Sex Thief, Eskimo Nell, It Could happen to You, and Adventures of a Plumber’s Mate). Panto also gave Biggins’ style of performance a regular home, and Biggins had occasional roles in serious dramas as villains and oddballs. Biggins of course has survived, and become a minor national figure in the process. Stucker was less lucky. Stephen Stucker was one of the first Hollywood actors to publicly announce he was HIV-positive. Here he is as part of a panel discussing AIDS on the “Phil Donahue Show” in 1985. Stucker died of AIDS on April 13, 1986.