| April
2000
Boys for beauty: how our media handled a gay story
|
|
I was involved in organising a screening of a
film, particularly the press publicity for it. It was a learning experience, and
I would like to document my observations here.
The film in question was "Boys for Beauty", a 63-minute documentary by Mickey Chen, about gay teenagers in Taiwan. In it, the boys speak of their experiences, from coming out to blowjobs, falling in love and being dumped. Very interestingly, one also hears from their schoolmates, straight brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. What was particularly important about the film was how it showed that Chinese families and friends can be remarkably supportive of gay sons. All in all, Boys for Beauty was an eye-opening film. It was the third-highest grossing release in Taiwan in 1999. It was also on the film festival circuit worldwide, and had its first showing here, as part of the Singapore International Film Festival [1] on 26 March. Unfortunately, there was not much advance publicity for the film, and the audience was almost exclusively gay men. My friend Chong Kee thought it was a shame that more straight folks did not get to see it. Meanwhile, director Mickey Chen decided, at short notice, to come to Singapore to pursue his case with the Film Festival organisers (as described in footnote 1). Tying in with his visit, a second screening of Boy for Beauty, this time with Mickey present for a Question-and-Answer session, sounded like a good idea. The big problem was that we heard about Mickey's visit on Friday night: he would arrive Monday and leave mid-day Thursday. We had just three working days to organise it – Monday to Wednesday. There's another side to this story – getting a venue, getting a censorship permit, getting an audience, all within 3 days – which Chong Kee and I hope to document separately. When we began, we didn't think our chances of success were good, but we worked flat out trying our best. Well, we succeeded. The second screening of the film, with Mickey taking questions from the floor, was held on Wednesday evening, 29 March. With only three working days, it was going to be an uphill task getting the press involved. We emailed a Press Release on Sunday, 26 March, pointing out the significance of the documentary and inviting journalists to the second screening, and to interviews with the director. Nothing much happened till Monday, and even then, only Asiaweek magazine and Love Radio, a Chinese-language station, responded directly to the point: We're interested in the story, how do we get more of it? they asked. Through contacts, we reached some other journalists, in television, in the Straits Times and in Lianhe Zaobao, the leading Chinese newspaper. Then later on, sometimes after leaving a few messages, Brave magazine, Xinming Daily News (Chinese) and Warna Radio (a Malay-language station) called back. Conspicuous by the lack of response (through all three days) were the New Paper, I-S magazine, Business Times (and they do have a society and lifestyle section) and Eight Days magazine, all of these quite widely read. We had a dinner with the press on Tuesday. Only Asiaweek and Love Radio were seriously interviewing Mickey that evening. The Zaobao journalist wasn't quite prepared because he didn't get clued to the story till just before dinner. The fourth journalist there was from the Straits Times, but she was from the political desk, and therefore the subject was quite tangential to her brief. The following evening, at the screening itself, only Asiaweek, Zaobao and Brave magazine were represented. The Love Radio journalist couldn't come personally, but she sent a proxy. The Xinming reporter wanted to come too, but she was struck down with diarrhoea! The Warna Radio reporter went to the wrong venue! Quite separately, Chong Kee arranged an interview with CNBC (a satellite broadcaster) for Mickey Chen. At the time of writing, I don't know what stories, if any, will be carried in the various media. I don't expect much. But if we look at who were intending to follow the story at least, we had 2 from the foreign media, 3 local Chinese media, 1 Malay radio station, and 1 English-language lifestyle magazine. No mainstream English media. What was interesting was what I heard, privately, from the reporters themselves. I can't quote any particular person, because to a large extent what they said, they said in confidence. But what they told me raises issues which are food for thought. From this tiny sample, and out of this very rushed event (which means we should be very careful about drawing any conclusions out of the experience), I could discern roughly three groups. The foreign media appeared most ready to follow the story. If the journalist was interested, he just did what was necessary to get the details. Asiaweek spent time with us, and CNBC taped an interview. By the way, the journalists themselves were not Caucasian expatriates, but professionals from Singapore and the region. The journalists from the local Chinese media seemed interested, but a bit wary about how they could angle the story. Nonetheless, they made the effort to get the story first and worry about the presentation later. What results from that, we shall see. Those from the local English media, e.g. Straits Times, television, were basically no-shows. Some reporters were personally interested, but felt obliged to check privately with the editors before even starting on the story. What they subsequently told me was that they got the strong impression it would be a no go, and thus, there would be no point in investing the time and energy to record the story. Of course, we didn't even get any response from the New Paper or the Business Times. In other words, the three groups were:
As this tale shows, censorship can be a subtle and deeply-penetrating cancer. Our local media feel that the government objects strenuously to any reporting deemed to "promote" homosexuality, though nobody stops to ask whether homosexuality can ever be "promoted". Without any need for explicit, detailed sanctions, editors know their role – to act as policemen on behalf of the government. No matter how enlightened or how interested their juniors are, stories seen to breach the boundaries will not see the light of day. Quite often, the excuse is that gay issues are not of public interest. But if so, why was the foreign press like CNBC and Asiaweek more ready to do the story? Their main audiences are in this part of the world, and certainly include many Singaporeans. The difference between the Chinese and English media was also interesting. This was not the first time I have noticed it. Zaobao has done features discussing homosexuality. The Straits Times has never done anything similar. As this example showed, the Chinese-language journalists, while aware of the sensitivity of the subject, felt that their editors would probably give them some leeway. It was worthwhile to follow the story, though it might suffer considerable editing. On the other hand, the English-language editors, and consequently reporters, felt they had no leeway at all, so don't bother. Why the difference in perception? And what does this difference indicate? One of the things that was significant about Mickey Chen's film, Boys for Beauty, was that in a thoroughly Asian, Chinese, society like Taiwan, families and friends could be accepting. They didn't always understand what it meant to be gay, but they tended to see homosexuality as nature. This accords with the traditional Chinese way of seeing homosexuality -- "My son is like that", "Don't blame the boys, they come from us, the parents, blame the parents then" [2] -- which is quite different from the Judeo-Christian view of homosexuality as abominably sinful acts. Mickey Chen himself told the audience that the Taipei city government has two budgetary items that serve the gay minority: one to provide safe spaces and support services, and another to promote visibility of minorities, among which the gay minority is specifically included. I should also add that nowhere in Taiwan, China, Hong Kong or Macau (the main Chinese cultural areas) are homosexual acts illegal. Here, there is this mantra that Singapore is an Asian society, and somehow this is warped to mean that we should stigmatise, silence and criminalise gay people. Is that really what being "Asian" means? How is it that Taiwanese society can have a vocal gay movement, government and societal acceptance, a free press and outspoken filmmaking, and still be Asian? How is it that our own Chinese media appear to be more ready to report on gay-related events compared to our more westernised English-language media? Which is it? That we are Asian, so we must be homophobic? Or that we are homophobic and demanding of narrow-minded conformity, and being Asian is a useful (even if erroneous) excuse to justify that? And here's a final fact that stands almost as mocking irony: Mickey Chen's
film, Boys for Beauty, was made possible through a funding grant by a newspaper
in Taiwan, the United Daily News. © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda
|
|
