A New Gay Friend for Archie, Betty, Veronica, and Jughead

Posted on April 23, 2010 at 9:44 am

There’s a new kid at Riverdale High School. Archie Comics has announced that this fall Kevin Keller will join the gang at the maltshop and become the series’ first openly gay character.

“The introduction of Kevin is just about keeping the world of Archie Comics current and inclusive. Archie’s hometown of Riverdale has always been a safe world for everyone. It just makes sense to have an openly gay character in Archie comic books,” stated Archie Comics Co- CEO, Jon Goldwater.

VERONICA #202 features the full-issue story, “Isn’t it Bromantic?” that introduces Kevin, Archie Comics’ first openly gay character. Kevin Keller is the new hunk in town and Veronica just has to have him. After Kevin defeats Jughead in a burger eating contest at Pop’s Chocklit Shoppe, she desperately latches onto him. Mayhem and hilarity ensue as Kevin desperately attempts to let Veronica down easy and her flirtations only become increasingly persistent.

In addition to the new ongoing achievements at Archie Comics–the #4 iPad book app and most downloaded comics on iTunes, the launch of Stan Lee Comics, Archie’s Red Circle superheroes at DC, and exciting new partnerships with Abrams, Dark Horse and IDW–the introduction of Kevin as an openly gay character is part of the commitment to keep Archie properties reflective of the current world of teens and teen media.

The gentle, sweet comedy of the Archie comics has brought important lessons about inclusion in the past about Moose’s learning disabilities. The frank but casual approach to the new gay character and to Archie’s kissing Valerie of Josie and the Pussycats shows that Archie’s hairstyle may never change but that he and his writers keep up to date and want their readers to be, too.

Bruno

Posted on November 24, 2009 at 11:00 pm

Sacha Baron Cohen is back, and once again he has created an outrageously offensive character from another country who crosses the ocean to interact with unsuspecting Americans so that we can laugh at their reactions, which range from befuddlement to extreme discomfort to outrage. But this time his scope is narrower, his character is shallower, and his meanderings are more random. His shtick is getting tired.
This time he plays Bruno, a flamboyantly gay Austrian fashionista who decides to come to America to seek fame, and his two themes are homophobia and the obsession with celebrity. But the homophobia is not as virulent as the worst revelations of “Borat.” When he goes camping with some good old boys, they roll their eyes and resist his efforts to bait them — until he takes off all his clothes and tries to crawl into one’s sleeping bag. The preachers who talk with him about gay conversion do their best to be sincerely patient with his questions. Even the boot camp sergeants barking at him to make his bed and drop and give them twenty handle his insubordination — and his designer additions to the overly “matchy-matchy” uniforms — with reasonably good humor. It’s a long way from “Full Metal Jacket.” The scariest people he encounters are the stage mothers who want him to pick their babies for a photo shoot. As he asks them increasingly appalling questions (“Could your baby lose some weight?” “Are you okay with the baby riding without a car seat?” “Being covered with bees?” “Being crucified?”), they all look him in the eye and assure him that would be just fine.

Baron Cohen wants to provoke. The movie opens with an extended sequence of very explicit, highly athletic, extremely creative, but logistically improbable sex acts between Bruno and his “pygmy flight attendant” boyfriend. But he stops short, oddly cautious for once, and avoids confrontation with the virulent anti-gay forces of Fred Phelps. When he goes to the Mideast and sits down with representatives of Israel and the Palestinians, he sticks with silliness like pretending to confuse hummus with Hamas. Baron Cohen is in trouble if his outrageousness is dwarfed by Jimmy Kimmel (the capper here does not come close to the Ben Affleck song) and by real life (the take on obsession with celebrity does not come close to Michael Jackson’s memorial). This is less what we expect from Baron Cohen that what we expect from Alan Funt or Ashton Kutcher.

(more…)

Related Tags:

Comedy

Dan Savage Takes on “The Suite Life of Zach and Cody”

Posted on June 17, 2009 at 8:00 am

I am a huge fan of advice columnist Dan Savage and his essays for “This American Life.” His recent commentary on the death of his mother brought me to tears. And I am very impressed with his thoughtful assessment of the Disney Channel series “The Suite Life of Zach and Cody.” As a gay man, he remembers the feeling of disconnection he had as a child who never saw on television characters who reflected his view of the world, how he felt, who he wanted to be. And now as a father, he sees his son watching the ostensibly wholesome “Suite Life” and finds it as disturbing a portrayal of heterosexuality as the over-the-top stereotypes of gays he saw when he was growing up. Ten-year-old Zach’s fascination with a pretty teenage girl, his advice about how to get “babes” by lying to them, his creepy come-ons, comments like “I’d better practice my kissing” — Savage says that his son has a “look of concentration” when he watches as though he is “filing things away for future reference.” Savage wants his son, a straight boy growing up with gay parents, to see positive models of heterosexual behavior in the media. But “stereotypes are patient,” says Savage. “They’ll wear you down.”

How Tolerant Should We Be of Intolerance?

Posted on February 13, 2009 at 5:47 pm

I received warring press releases this week from both sides in the controversy over a film called Silencing Christians, each accusing the other side of intolerance and censorship. Each side believes that the other is infringing on its right to live within its beliefs.
“Silencing Christians” argues that the “homosexual agenda” interferes with their freedom of religion. It was produced by the American Family Association and scheduled to run on a Michigan television station as a paid broadcast (like an infomercial). But the Human Rights Campaign organized a protest and the station canceled the broadcast. The HRC, in requesting that the broadcast be canceled, did not ask for a one-sided portrayal of the issues but proposed that the station “air a fair discussion or debate on both the issues and pending legislation.”
Words like “propaganda” and “censorship” get tossed around in situations like this one, and they usually and understandably throw as much suspicion on the people using the terms as on those they are describing. Freedom of speech and equality are the foundation of the United States. They underlie every aspect of our politics and culture. When they clash, as they do here, we end up with both sides feeling that their rights have been trampled. The AFA wants the freedom to describe homosexuals in ways that affront the notions of equality of many people, including heterosexuals and others who are members of Christian or other faith communities. When does “speech” become “hate speech?” When is one side’s version of the truth so biased that it should not even be permitted to be said?
It is hard to make much of a case for censorship here, despite the television station’s decision (which was made not on the basis of the merits of the argument but on the equally valid basis that they did not want to be in the middle of the fight). Silencing Christians is available online. Even a few minutes’ viewing will raise some questions for anyone not already convinced. The use of terms like “agenda” should always be a red flag; for some reason everyone wants to accuse the other side of having an “agenda” but you never hear them acknowledging their own.
As a lawyer with a strong commitment to freedom of speech, my inclination is to let all sides be heard. The bigots, the ignorant, and the liars will betray their biases and hypocrisy with their own words. They get more attention by protesting “censorship” than they do promoting their views. Better to let them say what they have to say and provide a rebuttal. It only adds to the credibility of those who tell the truth to recognize that nothing anyone can say will mislead those who make their judgments based on facts, logic, and a commitment to fairness and integrity. “Silencing Christians” is itself the best proof of the spiritual and intellectual vacuum of its arguments.

Related Tags:

Commentary