Outrage (2009) Reviews

• A Serious And Important Topic Handled With The Intelligence, Respect And Humor It Deserves!

  Michael-702009-04-29

  This is a new documentary from filmmaker Kirby Dick and it is a pleasure. Outrage looks at notable people in American politics who actively fight against any legislation that may help gay Americans achieve the same equal rights enjoyed by heterosexuals. But the twist is, these politicians are themselves gay and are living a hypocritical double life. The film also looks at various journalists, mostly from the independent and underground press who investigate gay rumors and then confront the guilty with the truth and in doing so, effectively "out" them. Outrage makes the salient point that the reason so many of these intrepid journalists come from the non-mainstream media is because the mainstream media outlets simply prefer to ignore these kinds of stories, in part because of guilt over their own complicity in demonizing something that is not wrong, i.e. being gay. But those people expecting a salacious film full of trashy rumor and innuendo will be disappointed. Outrage is a well researched and balanced documentary that takes a difficult topic and still manages to find moments of humor without sacrificing the necessary seriousness. And this topic is deadly serious. People have died as a result of closeted gay politicians voting against AIDS funding and hate crimes legislation. And the elected officials who do that while still enjoying the "gay" lifestyle are beyond despicable, they are downright criminal. It's no surprise that most of the hypocrites are conservative Republicans and Outrage addresses why there is such a clear disparity between the humongous number of hypocritical politicians among Republicans and the vastly fewer number among Democrats. As it is explained, when Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter ran for the Presidency in 1976, at that time, it could be argued that both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party were about equal in their support for gay rights. But starting with Ronald Reagan and continuing downward to George W., the Republican Party has made a dangerous Faustian pact with the arrogant and bigoted leaders of the Christian Right (which is neither). So, in exchange for plenty of money and votes, Republican candidates have been forced to adopt their hateful anti-gay lunacy, along with their misogyny and complete religious intolerance. This means that many decent Republican candidates who are firm believers in solid Republican values of small government and creating a pro-business climate are now forced to go along with idiotic policies they don't agree with like banning gay marriage or forbidding adoption by gay couples. But they have to do it or they won't get the cash or votes they need to get elected in some parts of the country. This is a very sad state of affairs and the Christian Right will eventually destroy the Republican Party, if they have not already done so. You have been warned! Much of the film looks at some recent, but noteworthy cases of famous gay men who have been caught in double lives like former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy and former Arizona Senator Jim Kolbe. It is completely amazing that all of them, to a person says that finally coming out of the closet was the best thing that ever happened to them with Jim McGreevy saying it most eloquently when he says (I'm paraphrasing) "the only right value is living the truth, not someone else's conception of the truth". But, for every breath of fresh honesty, there are ten douche-bags like Idaho Senator Larry Craig. This sanctimonious fool has been rumored to be gay for his entire career and was eventually arrested for soliciting sex from a cop in an airport bathroom, and the man still denies he's gay. But, you know something? I believe him. Senator Larry Craig can engage in sodomy or fellatio all day, every day and that won't make him gay. It just makes him a guy that likes homo-sex. Outrage even manages to make you feel sorry for the supremely deluded Larry Craig. Really, a guy with this much cognitive dissonance affecting the intimate parts of his life is a man in real, demonstrable psychological pain. He needs our compassion. He needs psychiatric help. What he doesn't need is a vote in the Senate. It's the same way I feel sorry for an alcoholic who can't stop drinking, I understand it's difficult, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let you drive a car. Outrage, director Kirby Dick combines very excellent interviews with a treasure trove of local and national news clips that make the filmmakers points with a hefty sense humor combined with a political stridency that you would think would get tiring, but doesn't. I happened to see the film tonight at a Preview Screening with Kirby Dick in attendance answering questions and he proved to be as quick witted and knowledgeable as his film. If Outrage plays anywhere near you, please take the time to see it or most certainly add it to your Netflix queue when it is available on DVD

  More

• Your argument sounds more like an emotional outburst than logic.

  scope_722009-05-09

  Here is a much better logistical argument. 1.The government is involved in marriage. 2.All adult citizens of the United States are guaranteed equal protection under law. 3.Therefore, the government has two choices. A.Not be involved with marriage at all -OR- B.Treat all adult citizens equally This whole debate is not complicated guys. So if you do not like the idea of gay marriage get used to it, because the authors of the constitution laid down the groundwork for this centuries ago. p.s. as for your "slippery slope" theory about people one day marrying their pets, it should first be noted that a pet does not have a choice in the matter so it would not be able to be defined as marriage. The pet would not even know that it had been married. In other words, that part of your comments is laughable, and can be construed as very rude. Very similar to a comment like this, "I mean, why would anyone be religious, thats just left over tradition from cavemen." Don't be inconsiderate of others please.

  More

• Kirby Dick takes another look at a facet of American life that's considered a 'no-no' to talk about

  Quinoa19842009-05-05

  Kirby Dick's attitude to material that's a 'no-no' is to say "yes-yes!" His previous film, a near masterpiece chronicling the hypocrisy of the MPAA on American film censorship since the inception of the NC-17 rating, served as an indictment while also having some fun. While a sense of fun only springs up on occasion in Outrage he still gets right what needs to be shown: an in-depth look at the rampant hypocrisy of government's 'in-the-closet' stance. Gay politicians rarely come out of said closet - in the film we see two such promininent figures interviewed at length, NJ governor Jim McGreevey and Massachusetts rep Barney Frank - and Dick's aim with the documentary is to seek out the hows and whys. It's poignant when it needs to be, but above all else it serves up information we as the public should know about figures. It's a truth-to-power assemblage on public figures who, time and time again, have voted against gay and AIDS rights (it may not surprise some to know it's Republicans who are the ones most in the closet-side) while denying what people can see outright. Dick frames his doc on two key figures, one being Larry Craig, the disgraced congressman who was caught in a bathroom doing something that, perhaps, was equatable to what he described Bill Clinton as doing in the mid 90s. He propositioned a cop for 'something' and fervently denied it in public, despite allegations that there had been other incidents in the past suggesting more than likely that he was and has been in the closet. It's been one of the great follies of the past couple of years, and opened up the discussion that appears in the film (Craig, it should be added, has something like a 16% voting record on gay rights through his career). The other figure, not with as much national notoriety as Craig, is Florida governor Charlie Crist, a "bachelor" who had married once and quickly divorced in the 70s and remained a single man for as long as anyone could tell - not to mention having a chief aid allegedly going with him around the world on vacations (the trick being that one would go the day before and the other the day after - every vacation for *decades*), and denied up and down being possibly, at all, gay. Despite all matters on the contrary, Crist denies it (after going through a girlfriend and another wife during and after the election), and continues to put fervent anti-gay judges on the state court. Dick isn't out to "out" anyone of the closet - at least, anyone that would rather be kept private. But these are public figures, and the aim is that of This Film is Not Yet Rated: open up the lid, look inside, and see what makes this subject tick to hell. And with Washington and US politics and media, there's so much to mine and Dick and his team do a very good job. Hell, we even get Ed Koch! Who knew?

  More

• Constitutional Issues

  pthornton-22009-05-11

  Most of the comments left previously do not address the actual legal aspects of this. The worst offender is lady moon. The Constitution of the U.S. guarantees each and every one of us Freedom of (and FROM) religion. The separation of Church and State is VERY important in this issue. The word "marriage" is semantics, yet it is the most commonly used term world-wide and that is why advocates use it in attempting to secure the rights they were born with but are being denied. It is organized religion which is fighting this tooth and nail. Yet it is not organized religion which issues "marriage" licenses; It is states, counties, and cities. States who have changed their constitutions denying same-sex marriage will eventually lose this fight because it it is unconstitutional (at the Federal level) to deny any group the same rights as others. Granting same-sex couples the right to marry will in no way affect organized religion. Why? Because of their right to practice their religion(s) without government interference; "The Freedom of religion" will protect them, which is as it should be. Additionally, saying those rights are available through various legal avenues is ridiculous! Does a heterosexual couple have to pay (as much as) $60,000.00 to secure only SOME of the rights? No. And I'm not gay - I have been happily married to the same woman for over 20 years. I just happen to believe that denying a segment of society the same rights that others enjoy is wrong. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, just as was the case for inter-racial marriages until 1967, it is going to take the US Supreme Court to guarantee those rights.

  More

• persuasive

  Michael Fargo2009-05-21

  I walked into this film with quite a bit of ambivalence on "outting" anyone regarding their sexual orientation. True, it would be nice to live in a world where that isn't or shouldn't be an issue. The phenomenon of "interalized self-hatred" is something I was introduced to in the early 1990's. It may not be the reason someone--in particular a closeted homosexual--takes a position on a particular political issue, yet this film lines up a number of politicians and people who work in Washington's legislative community and lays out quite convincingly the argument that bigotry indeed is at work in our Nation's capitol, and the suppression of a group of people's rights is achieved through collusion with people who cannot or will not be honest with themselves or the people they represent. Does exposing these individuals accomplish anything other than the satisfaction of calling a spade a spade? This film makes the case that, yes, in more than a few cases it is worthwhile. A superb example of the art of film-making, together with passionate testimony from people on one side of a fence that often aren't covered in the mainstream press, this is one of the better documentaries of the decade. I was a convert by the time I walked out of this film.

  More