Apparently there is a scene in Rush Hour 3 where Chris Tucker has an angry homophobic reaction (played for laughs) to a transsexual who removes her wig after a “sexual interaction”. I haven’t seen the movie so I may be getting this wrong as the contents of the scene are not completely spelled out. When The Advocate questioned Brett Ratner about putting homophobic jokes in his film, the hack director responded by saying, it’s okay because he’s also had the same experience. Um, what?
“No, no! That’s from my personal experience. My first blow job was from a man, but I didn’t know it was a man. That’s where that comes from. It’s based on personal experience. It happens to a lot of people,” claims Ratner. “I’m not homophobic or uptight about it. That happens to a lot of heterosexuals. You meet a girl in a bar, and it turns out she’s not a girl. I think a girl should tell you if she’s a girl or a man–that way it’s your preference. It’s comedy. Look, in this movie we don’t pull any punches. We make fun of black people. We make fun of Chinese people. We make fun of French people. We make fun of gay situations. We make fun of whites. It doesn’t matter. It’s the type of movie it is. It’s a fish-out-of-water comedy. You have to have those types of situations to have the comedy. That specific idea was because it’s happened to me. It’s happened to my friends. We’ll get together with a girl, and it’ll turn out to be a guy. The reaction is “Oh, shit!” if you’re not gay, which is funny, I think. Getting into the situation is funny. I laugh whenever I see one of my friends talking to a girl, and I’ll ask, “Is that a man or a woman?” It’s funny, especially if you don’t know about it. If you know about it, fine. If that’s your preference… “
I’m not homophobic. I live in San Francisco and am am very liberal, yet at the same time, very politically incorrect. Personally I don’t see the problem with a scene where a strait character has a post-homophobic response to gay sexual contact. Many gay advocate groups also had a problem with that Snickers superbowl commercial. When it’s played for laughs and not hate, then I see no problem (at least in the situation as it was described to me). I could understand if people were upset in another situation, say… when a lead character reacts angrily to two gay men kissing or something to that effect. That’s blatant hateful homophobic behavior which does not deserve screen time. Again, I have not seen Rush Hour 3 yet, so I shouldn’t even have a right to defend the scene in question.
But what shocks me the most about this is that Brett felt the need to deflect the situation by saying the same experience happened to him personally. How does that help your argument? You’re not homophobic but the character in your movie is?
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
“the hack director”
Nuff said.
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Personally I see no problem with something seen as “homophobic” in a film. “Homophobic” — political correctness notwithstanding — is seen, by many, as a valid viewpoint. It may be something that some people don’t like, so much so that they actively dislike people who are homosexuals or, at the very least, dislike the behavior they exhibit. To that extent, this is a valid characterization.
To me, it seems odd to say you can see the scene in the film being okay (a so-called “post-homophobic” scene) but not one where someone reacts to two gay people kissing (I guess that would be — what? — “pre-homophobic”?)
I don’t see anything to “defend” from the film but, since Ratner chose that approach I agree: his anecdote was an odd way to do so.
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Um, does Ratner mean the first blow job he ever gave or received?
It’s hard not having seen the film (and I probably won’t anyway) but this just seems like the typical attempt to have a laugh at the expense of “the other.” Just like “Chuck and Larry” which exploits the gay marriage issue to get a few cheap laughs becuase they still can. I wonder if they could get away with black face would they still do it? Gays are probably the only minority left that it’s socially acceptable to disrespect in a mainstream movie.
And you know, if it were done well and interestingly I would be cool with it. But something tells me it won’t.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Though not speaking from a gay viewpoint, I believe I understand the reaction. Homosexuality is by far still not accepted in mainstream society in a ‘healthy’ way. Homosexuality in mainstream movies and television tends to still be as comic relief. While some may see Will & Grace as a triumph, in reality, it isn’t much different than having a “negro” in white face. While we may be laughing with it, we are still laughing at it, deep down. I hate to throw out the “I am not gay, but…” because it shouldn’t be an issue, and I could care less what someone thinks I am, but also, I do want to be clear than my opinion is simply one of an outsider. Someone who leads a gay lifestyle may have a differing POV on the situation.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:52 am
“That specific idea was because it’s happened to me. It’s happened to my friends. We’ll get together with a girl, and it’ll turn out to be a guy.”
How do he and his friends keep getting is this kind of situation anyway? Doesn’t make much sense. I think he blew his cover with this article, but stat’s still no reason to see his flims. MEH.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Cheap laughs? Homophobic? I think we can all agree that if nothing else, this “You meet a girl in a bar, and it turns out she’s not a girl.” scenario is cliche. I don’t care if it happened to Ratner in real life, it’s a tired laugh-getter.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:10 am
Well, at least he’s honest. Most people would have kept that story to themselves.