LOOKING — Page 5

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#101

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 1:34pm

I agree with Luscious and Kad that Groff's character was definitely committing a self-sabotaging act with almost everything he did on that date.

And as for the being "too cute," much of my Facebook feed is made up of performers, some of whom are naturally stunning and work hard to maintain that. And I am constantly amazed by the Facebook posts from some of the most stunning among them about their disastrous dating history. The comments on their postings are filled with their friends saying "I can't believe you did that!" or "Why do you date such losers?" So I can definitely see someone making those mistakes, especially given his ability as an actor to show us his immediate regret.

I don't know where the writing is going, but I hope the writer and director are smart enough to have read Alan Downs's 2005 book, THE VELVET RAGE, the best book on gay psychology and relationships around. He talks a lot about why we do those kinds of things.

#102

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 1:40pm

^^^ All of that.

Physical beauty--like wealth--is only a magic solution to life's problems for those who feel they don't have enough of it.

In addition to the fact that one can be either/both rich and/or beautiful and still be sad/lonely/confused/self-sabotaging/self-destructive etc., one gets remarkably little sympathy from the larger world. "How can s/he possibly have troubles when s/he is so rich and/or good-looking???"

You think, what do you want? You think, make a decision...

#103

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 1:47pm

There was an article I read today (which I am loathe to link to...so I won't) that said this show is just gay minstrely of a different sort. My mind boggled.

#104

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 1:58pm

That was a review by a straight guy in Esquire.com

It was (almost immediately) followed by a denunciation of the reviewer's condescension on Salon.com

#105

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 2:00pm

Openly-gay Rich Juzwiak of Gawker was very critical of it, too- proclaiming it to be "boring" (in a lot more words than that).

Of course, he used to write essays about his own sex/drug life that revealed a lot about his own mental health.

"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."

#106

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 2:02pm

I dunno who simply complain about things like that don't hold much weight for me. If the poster actually said gay minstrely, it seems particularly harsh for a show that was directed, written by, and largely stars gay men (not to mention all of the exec producers, including David Marshall Grant are gay.) But it's just a catch phrase to say you didn't like it (and really -- nothing wrong with that if you didn't relate but at this point I hope TV shows based mainly around gay characters shouldn't have to feel they have to represent everyone.) Of course HBO is probably aiming for a certain demographic, but regardless...

JC nice to see the Velvet Rage shout out -- great book (though I found some of the ending chapters heavy handed.)

#107

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 2:03pm

The Esquire review:
A STRAIGHT MAN'S GUIDE TO HBO'S LOOKING A show about three boring gay men By Mick Stingley

#108

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 2:04pm

The response:
Esquire’s astoundingly homophobic “Looking” review expects gay men to be “mincing” How did this get published? A straight critic slags gay men for not being stereotypes by DANIEL D'ADDARIO

#109

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 2:04pm

Agreed in re: Velvet Rage. Fantastic book. Even as a fairly well-adjusted gay man, I found a lot of it illuminating to my own behavior.

"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."

#110

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 2:09pm

I wasn't talking about the Esquire article, which deserves no attention whatsoever. It was an article on Slate. Ugh...I guess I'm going to post it.
Ugh. This.

#111

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 2:13pm

Salon, Esquire, Slate. In my day we went to JO clubs when consumed with the desire for a circle jerk.

Twitter @NamoInExile Instagram none

#112

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 2:18pm

It really gets my goat when people decry the loss of the queen on one show. I mean...

I love a queen. I can be a queen. But the fact that the pilot of LOOKING didn't feature is queen is not some kind of death knell. I look nothing like Jonathan Groff (as Paddy...ugh I love that nickname for Patrick). I sound and act nothing like him. And yet I identified with every choice he made throughout those 30 minutes. Isn't that what entertainment is suppose to do? Reflect ourselves back through someone that isn't us?

My grammar is terrible today. I blame the polar vortex.

#113

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 2:20pm

I find myself not fretting over the fact that in the pilot episode they have not yet run into a queen. I just understand that the odds are they probably will before the season's over.

Twitter @NamoInExile Instagram none

#114

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 2:27pm

Ugh, I hate agreeing with Daniel D'addario but he's right about that dumb Esquire article. I seriously thought for a moment it was satire.

Robbie appears to be referring to J. Bryan Lowder (who is far worse than D'addario) of Slate's piece on Looking which also called it both boring and minstrelsy, suggesting among other things anybody who is straight who praises the show is suspect because Looking is not up in your face about sexuality. Not sure if Lowder ever saw Weekend or how many episodes of the season he saw of the show (most people got four screeners) but he definitely called it 'a gay minstrelsy of a different kind' and a 'cynical tokenism'. So many provocative descriptors yet his case feels very concern trolling than actually giving, y'know, a case. Kind of rude of him to be suspicious of his colleague Willa Paskin's positive review.

Kad- I was just thinking. Juzwiak is very much a provocative writer of ideal, 'Can you believe I did this?' clickbait when speaking about his whole personal life. What can shock him? Never read his pieces on Girls but I've always ventured to guess that was more of his show to watch if he wants to see himself.

#115

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 3:10pm

I hate that Slate article.

I find it BORING.

#116

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 4:18pm

I thought Nussbaum (who I assume is a straight woman) made a good point in her positive New Yorker review when she (briefly) argued critics who called the show slight (which she didn't think was a bad thing really) or not sexually graphic enough. I know that one gay blog I unfortunately randomly came upon (and I have no idea what it was now--maybe Gawker) basically complained that the camera cut away before we saw a stimulated blowjob and so the show was regressive as a gay show. Umm, ok.

(Strummer, I know a number of critics did get the first four episodes as screeners--so I assume that's what most were reviewing as a whole, but some of these critics probably never got past the first episode, if they even were offered screeners.)

#117

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 4:20pm

So, the lead character had a tryst in a public park with a stranger, a bad date, attended his ex's bachelor barty, and wound up with a guy he met on the subway...all on the same day, and this is boring? And one of the other characters had a three-way with his boyfriend on the same day they decided to live together. Again, boring? I know I lead a dull life, but what exactly would it take to rise above boring?

"It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson

#118

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 4:23pm

(I'm confused though. Some gay critics think the show has way too many gay sex stereotypes--park cruising, online cruising, strippers in clubs and threesomes--in its first episode that he finds it old fashioned and regressive. But Slate basically says it has no sex, no queens, and so is as boring as reading a magazine in a Dentist's office. Umm, ok. With regards to the Slate piece, I think the key is that the critic, whoever he is, actually says that gay men feel contractually obliged to watch the show -- so he's let down. Do they? I have friends who are gay and have no desire to watch it. Many people found Weekend boring as well...)

#119

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 4:36pm

Let us disengage! Let us no longer take input on this matter! It seems that if any gay man is ever shown doing anything, somebody somewhere will clamor to be the first to say he did it stereotypically. At this point, homomen do EVERYTHING stereotypically by virtue of the fact that they are gay.

Twitter @NamoInExile Instagram none

#120

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 4:40pm

That's so existential. I love it.

For a while, I considered the type of portrayals of gay men I was putting out in the world...but then I thought 'F*ck it...Imma do me, and everyone else can piss off.'

#121

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 5:20pm

The idea that the show dwells on gay stereotypes is ridiculous. I do think Jonathan Groff's character is a "type" within the genre of romantic comedy TV shows, but at no point did I feel he was a stereotype. I don't know that people at this point can tell the difference between a type and a stereotype. On top of that, when you boil it down, we (I mean we, gay men) all have characteristics that are stereotypically gay; hell, just the fact we are members of a Broadway message board is stereotypical to some people. Like I can just imagine someone writing a paper or review about us and saying "ugh, he is in a Broadway message board, how stereotypical." And well, guess what? Some of us gay men do love show tunes and Broadway. Some gay men cruise in the parks, I know many. Many gay couples I know have threesomes. I don't know, I don't get the whole stereotype thing with this show. Like I said earlier, I think the show itself relies too much on character types (see Roscoe's post a couple pages ago for a very eloquent description of this), but it in no way is simply using stereotypes. That's just a misguided criticism.
Also, who found WEEKEND boring? I think it's the best movie about gay people I've ever seen.

"Some people can thrive and bloom living life in a living room, that's perfect for some people of one hundred and five. But I at least gotta try, when I think of all the sights that I gotta see, all the places I gotta play, all the things that I gotta be at"

Updated On: 1/22/14 at 05:20 PM

#122

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 5:29pm

I like WEEKEND a lot. But I still don't think it comes close to LONGTIME COMPANION, MYSTERIOUS SKIN or the unbearably moving YOSSI.

What it does is tell a small story in a very realistic way. Something that LOOKING seems to be doing. I think it's wonderful. But, personally, I'll always like something a little larger in scope.

#123

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 5:36pm

I like all those movies too. The guys I knew who found Weekend boring I think are just the types who wouldn't wanna watch a character, largely plot-less (depending on what you call plot) film like that, regardless, and felt somehow obliged to watch it because it became a well loved gay movie. Which it sounds like already some of these people who dislike Looking are backlashing against it about--they probably would find it boring no matter what kinds of guys (or girls) it featured.

#124

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 5:49pm

Someone was faulting Looking for NOT featuring a queen?

Is there some sort of queen void in media that is empty right now?

If there is, from what alternate, queen-filled timeline was all the gay representation I've experienced coming from?

"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."

Updated On: 1/22/14 at 05:49 PM

#125

LOOKING

Posted: 1/22/14 at 5:52pm

Add my voice to the chorus, I loved the show. I was really impressed by the actors, so natural.
And as a twenty-something gay kid living in the city, I completely related to Patrick.

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $58

Tickets From $71