January 6, 2004
The first movie to use the word "homosexual" was "Victim", made in 1961, in England. America, of course, was not going to be first to break that taboo.
Time Magazine said this:
But what seems at first an attack on extortion seems at last a coyly sensational exploitation of homosexuality as a theme-- and, what's more offensive, an implicit approval of homosexuality as a practice. Almost all the deviates in the film are fine fellows-- well dressed, well spoken, sensitive, kind... Nowhere does the film suggest that homosexuality is a serious (but often curable) neurosis that attacks the biological basis of life itself.
In this film, Dirk Bogarde plays Melville Farr, a married, respected lawyer. An extortionist contacts Farr and informs him that he has photos of Farr engaged in sexual acts with a young man, and demands an enormous sum of money. An enlightened, tolerant detective helps Farr but at the price of public exposure.
Well, they always said that the movies were responsible for corrupting us. "Victim" tries to make it look as if homosexuals have a right to live lives free of extortion and death. How shocking!
But what I hope people realize is that Time Magazine is a product of our day and age and is limited by it's own desire to reflect the values of the mainstream of literate America. Literate America is more liberal than average but not as liberal as, say, a Canadian. Most importantly, Literate America wants to be thought of as being "enlightened", but not too enlightened. In 1961, the bar was set pretty low for homosexuals, as it was for women and blacks.
Clearly the Bush White House can't be accused of being Neanderthal in their thinking. They are now demonstrably up to about 1961, and ready to support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one monkey.
Time Magazine should not be relied on for insights into the human condition, just as Reader's Digest should not be relied on for literary taste..