Arts and Faith: michael medved and gay jesus movies - Arts and Faith

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

michael medved and gay jesus movies

#1 User is offline   Peter T Chattaway 

  • He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 19,824
  • Joined: 05-July 03

Posted 07 October 2003 - 10:02 PM

Be warned, some of the stuff I quote here is kind of distasteful -- it's not excessively graphic, but it may plant unwelcome thoughts in your head -- but I think I may have finally resolved a mystery that goes way, way back to my early teens and possibly even to my pre-teens.

Anyone here familiar with The Golden Turkey Awards? It's a 1980 book that Michael Medved and his brother Harry co-wrote back when Michael was known mostly as a bad-movie buff and had not yet become a religious culture warrior. The very first page of this book declares ...
A Challenge To The Reader:
Over 425 actual films are described in this book, but one is a complete hoax. Can you find it?
... and I have long wondered if the hoax film in question might be Him, the alleged 1974 gay-porn film about Jesus and/or a present-day man who obsesses over him sexually. This is how it is described on page 165, where it is listed as one of the nominees for "The Most Unerotic Concept in Pornography":
This innovative film, designed exclusively for gay audiences, goes into excruciating detail concerning the erotic career of Jesus Christ. The ads for the film show the face of The Savior (with a cross glistening in one eye) while the headline inquires "Are You Curious About HIS Sexual Life?" Filmmaker Ed D. Louie satisfies that curiosity by showing us that the Son of Man was a voracious homosexual. (After all, why did he spend all that time hanging around with the Apostles?) The central character of the film is actually a young gay male in contemporary America whose sexual obsession with Jesus helps him to understand the "hidden meaning" of the Gospels.
And then, on page 168, when it is declared the winner in its category, the Medveds write:
For sheer tastelessness, this film has no equals. In one scene, our homosexual hero goes to his local priest to confess his erotic fixation on Jesus Christ. The priest sits in the confessional, listening to the young man breathlessly elaborating his perverted fantasies, while taking advantage of the situation to reach under his cassock and masturbate grotesquely on camera. This charming episode surely marks one of the absolute low points in the history of American cinema. Those pathetic few who might want to see Him ought to come to the theater dressed in plain, brown paper wrappers, that hopefully cover their eyes along with the rest of their faces.
Now, like I say, I have often wondered whether Him might be the hoax film in question, but since it's the one that won the 'Golden Turkey Award' in its category, I kind of assumed it wasn't; that is, I assumed that only one of the also-rans would be the hoax film. The possibility that this film actually existed was given a boost when I came across a reference to it in Roy Kinnard & Tim Davis's Divine Images: A History of Jesus on the Screen, which lists all the Jesus films made up to 1992 and has this to say at the end of the intro on page 18:
Dramatic films that contain only fleeting glimpses of Jesus, but do not otherwise concern themselves with the subject, are also excluded; among them, The Birth of a Nation (1915) and Sparrows (1926). Otherwise unrelated films that use brief appearances by Christ or Christ-like figures merely for shock or satirical effect are not examined; this category includes such diverse titles as L'Age D'Or (1930), Gas-s-s-s (1970), A Clockwork Orange (1971), The Devils (1971), Savage Messiah (1972), The Trial of Billy Jack (1974), and The Visitor (1980). Sub-professional, amateur productions like The Sin of Jesus (1961) and Multiple Maniacs (1970) also are excluded. So are animated films such as The Star of Bethlehem (both 1921 and 1969 versions) and pornography like Him (1974) and I Saw Jesus Die (1976).
But today I chanced upon this comment at the Snopes urban legend site:
We've been unable to turn up anything to confirm this purported film's existence, however -- we've never found a copy of it, anyone who has seen it, or a review of it, nor have we located any other reference to the film or "filmmaker Ed D. Louie" anywhere other than this one entry in the Golden Turkey Awards book.
And this reminded me of how it had always seemed a little suspicious that Him did have one of the shorter write-ups in the Medveds' book, and that it was one of only three award "winners" that did not even have a photo (the others being Rat Fink a Boo Boo and Attack of the Mushroom People -- both of which have IMDB entries, BTW, which Him does not). And I suppose it's possible that Kinnard & Davis's only source of info re: Him, which they evidently felt no desire to track down, was the Medveds' book. Running a Google search for more info, I came across a site that states even more definitively:
Michael Medved, a well-known film reviewer, wrote a book with his brother that was published in 1980 called the "Golden Turkey Awards." It reviewed bad films. Medved claimed that it was a review of over 425 actual films, but that he had included one hoax and asked readers to spot it. The hoax was a review of a non-existent 1974 film called "Him" which supposedly portrayed Jesus as a homosexual. The film never existed.
I have no idea if this is something that Medved himself has confirmed in more recent years or if this is a conclusion that the site in question reached for itself.

In any case, I would be interested to know what Medved has to say about this now. I was only 11 or 12 when I got this book as a birthday present from someone in my Sunday School class, and just reading those paragraphs excerpted above bothered me a fair bit at the time. (To this day, I cannot hear the word "cassock" without thinking back to the first time I saw it in this book.) If it turns out Medved was planting those thoughts in minds like mine just as part of some stupid hoax, then I think he's got some 'splaining to do -- especially if he is now promoting himself as some sort of defender of pious Judeo-Christian sensibilities.

#2 User is offline   DanBuck 

  • Grad. Dad. Never Wears Plaid.
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 2,419
  • Joined: 28-June 03

Posted 08 October 2003 - 07:41 AM

Peter,

What an interesting bit of trivia. Thanks for recounting it. I was thinking along the lines of your last paragraph. If indeed this film is the hoax, then the medveds actually conceived of the film. And his more recent pieties would call for an apology or at least an explanation.

Fascinating.

#3 User is offline   Nick Alexander 

  • White Knight
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 1,220
  • Joined: 02-July 03

Posted 08 October 2003 - 08:10 AM

While I cannot venture into the mind of Michael Medved, I think I can offer a very good reason why he would be inclined to make such an addition to his "golden turkey awards."

IIRC, "Him" was put in a chapter comparing the worst Jesus films' and/or Jesus' performances. Now, this is a touchy matter. For every person who considers such movies to be pure tackiness there is likely another that has made a personal life-long decision to follow Christ to. To slam such a movie is akin to slamming Jesus Himself, according to such movie-converts.

Think of the millions that saw the Campus Crusade's "Jesus" film. Now I have not seen it, but on numerous occasions I could have, and turned it down--every time I saw a snippet of it, I saw bad acting, low budget scenery, and no-named actors. And yet millions presumably have given their lives to Jesus on account to this one film.

I would suppose that if Medved were to put CCC's "Jesus" movie in his Golden Turkey awards, I'm sure that there would be some who would take grave offence. So perhaps he took a safe way out, created a fictitious movie to slam, give that the prize, and say, well, I MEANT to do that... and isn't this FUN?

Even so, I don't think this is the cause of the controversy (even tho it might have planted a seed somewhere). Fact is, the same folks who dreamt this up are probably working for Amway, trying to also push the idea that the president of Proctor and Gamble is a high priest Satanist and has outed himself on the Donahue show.

Nick

#4 User is offline   MattPage 

  • Bible Films Geek.
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3,919
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 08 October 2003 - 08:27 AM

Ah I'd always wondered about this film. As you say unmentionned in "Divine Images" or "The Bible on film" but I knew about if from some website. The mystery explainned. I had thought 1975 seemed a bit early.

By the way does anyone know anything about Jesus Christ Vampyr Hunter? I don't think this is a hoax, unless they really do take it to extremes and get a local Leicester arts cinema to advertis it in their programme. Does anything know anything about it, or have advice on whether to go see it or not?


Matt

#5 User is offline   Peter T Chattaway 

  • He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 19,824
  • Joined: 05-July 03

Posted 08 October 2003 - 03:13 PM

Nick Alexander wrote:
: IIRC, "Him" was put in a chapter comparing the worst Jesus films' and/or
: Jesus' performances.

Not so. Like I said, Him was nominated for (and won) the award for "The Most Unerotic Concept in Pornography", where it competed against Chatterbox (in which a woman discovers her vagina can talk), Percy (in which a man is emasculated in an accident and receives the world's first penis transplant), and The Erotic Adventures of Pinocchio.

There WAS a category for "The Worst Performance by an Actor as Jesus Christ", but Him was never mentioned in that part of the book. Instead, the chapter focused on The Gospel Road's Robert Elfstrom, King of Kings' Jeffrey Hunter and Johnny Got His Gun's Donald Sutherland before handing the award to Jesus Christ Superstar's Ted Neeley.

The thing that bothers me about this is that, if Him IS a hoax, then it is a very tasteless one and I wonder what it says about the Medveds' imaginations and just who they were trying to offend, exactly.

MattPage wrote:
: I had thought 1975 seemed a bit early.

Really? Why? Even if it turns out Him is a hoax, it seems there WAS a pornographic movie about Jesus as early as 1976's I Saw Jesus Die.

: By the way does anyone know anything about Jesus Christ Vampyr
: Hunter? I don't think this is a hoax . . .

Well, it does have an IMDB page.

#6 User is offline   Nick Alexander 

  • White Knight
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 1,220
  • Joined: 02-July 03

Posted 08 October 2003 - 03:39 PM

Quote

Nick Alexander wrote:
: IIRC, "Him" was put in a chapter comparing the worst Jesus films' and/or
: Jesus' performances.

Not so. Like I said, Him was nominated for (and won) the award for "The Most Unerotic Concept in Pornography",


Whoops. Read your post a little too fast. At least I prefaced my post with "IIRC", in which, in this case, I most certainly did NOT "RC."

Quote



Which is clearly what I confused it with.

Quote

The thing that bothers me about this is that, if Him IS a hoax, then it is a very tasteless one and I wonder what it says about the Medveds' imaginations and just who they were trying to offend, exactly.


Michael Medved is pro-family and all that, but he allows a little room for coarse humor. He gave thumbs up to such drivel as "See Spot Run," for example. I remember listening to a radio telecast where he brought someone on who specialized in fart humor, or something to that nature (which he defended by saying that it's okay to laugh every once in a while). Shortly afterwards, he was replaced in that time slot.

Does the description of "Him" fit the category of coarse humor that he prefers later on? Not sure. Michael Medved is someone I admire, but also give the freedom to change. I suppose he wrote "Golden Turkey Awards" when in his twenties, but "Hollywood vs America" after he had a family. It's interesting to see the changes one makes once family becomes an issue.

*sigh*. I DO wish he updates his Golden Turkey Awards book. But alas, it may have too many entries to warrant a single book...

Nick Alexander

#7 User is offline   Peter T Chattaway 

  • He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 19,824
  • Joined: 05-July 03

Posted 09 October 2003 - 12:40 AM

Nick Alexander wrote:
: Michael Medved is pro-family and all that, but he allows a little room for
: coarse humor.

Fair enough in general, but still ...

: Michael Medved is someone I admire, but also give the freedom to change.

Absolutely -- I wouldn't necessarily want to be judged by the things that I wrote 23 years ago either. smile.gif I'm just wondering if he has addressed this anywhere since becoming so overtly religious.

#8 User is offline   MattPage 

  • Bible Films Geek.
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3,919
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 09 October 2003 - 02:18 AM

[quote="Peter T Chattaway"]MattPage wrote:
: I had thought 1975 seemed a bit early.

Really? Why? Even if it turns out Him is a hoax, it seems there WAS a pornographic movie about Jesus as early as 1976's I Saw Jesus Die.

Quote

Ah, hmm, well, er - Ok I admit it - you got me :oops:

[quote="Peter T Chattaway"]: By the way does anyone know anything about Jesus Christ Vampyr
: Hunter? I don't think this is a hoax . . .

Well, it does have an IMDB page.
Yeah I checked it, and it only serves to heighten my curiosity. Do I take it you've not seen it Peter?

Matt

#9 User is offline   Peter T Chattaway 

  • He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 19,824
  • Joined: 05-July 03

Posted 09 October 2003 - 02:43 AM

MattPage wrote:
: By the way does anyone know anything about Jesus Christ Vampyr
: Hunter? . . . Do I take it you've not seen it Peter?

Nope, I haven't. Can't say I have any interest in it, at the moment.

#10 User is offline   Peter T Chattaway 

  • He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 19,824
  • Joined: 05-July 03

Posted 18 March 2004 - 12:08 PM

The plot thickens -- someone on one of the listservs I frequent recently rattled off a list of unorthodox Jesus movies and included Him on the list, to which he added this parenthetical remark: "I know many on the Internet say this movie is an Urban Legend, but I remember actually seeing the newspaper ad." Now all we've gotta do is figure out which newspaper ...

#11 User is offline   mrmando 

  • Lassie, the Barbarian Musical Thinker
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 2,842
  • Joined: 10-July 03

Posted 18 March 2004 - 02:28 PM

Well, like Peter, I remember thumbing through that Golden Turkey book and reading that writeup about Him. Shoulda just skipped over that section, in retrospect. Agree with Peter that it's a very poor choice of hoax, if indeed it's a hoax, and even to imagine such a film shows a serious lack of taste, whether or not the writer went on to become a culture warrior. (Is this Medved's equivalent of the famous Dr. Laura photos?) I'd rather he were a culture warrior than still searching out the worst porno films he can find.

(Of course, now Terence McNally has given the world a play along those lines. Remember Corpus Christi? If we could only prove that McNally once read the Golden Turkey book, we could blame the play on Medved.)

Even if it is a hoax, it doesn't necessarily follow that Medved is the originator. One needn't see a film in order to include a review of it in a book. Could be that someone duped M.M. into including a description of a nonexistent film in his book. Of course, that would mean there are actually two hoaxes in the book -- one that Medved knew about and one that he didn't.

Jesus Christ Vampyre Hunter does exist; I've seen the box at Hollywood Video. My friend Michael, who's a stage combat specialist and likes things with good combat sequences, says he's heard it's an enjoyable film at least on that score.

#12 User is offline   Peter T Chattaway 

  • He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 19,824
  • Joined: 05-July 03

Posted 18 March 2004 - 05:06 PM

I don't know why this never occured to me before, but I just went to michaelmedved.com and e-mailed them -- maybe they can shed some light on this.

#13 User is offline   MattPage 

  • Bible Films Geek.
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3,919
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 19 March 2004 - 03:52 AM

The thought occurs that the newspaper ad could be the original gag, Medved's book somehow picked up on it, and "du-duh!" an urban myth is born!

Matt

#14 User is offline   mrmando 

  • Lassie, the Barbarian Musical Thinker
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 2,842
  • Joined: 10-July 03

Posted 22 March 2004 - 05:57 PM

QUOTE
The thought occurs that the newspaper ad could be the original gag, Medved's book somehow picked up on it, and \"du-duh!\" an urban myth is born!


Except that a newspaper ad isn't likely to include the salacious details about the cassock ...

At least not the newspapers I read.

#15 User is offline   Clint M 

  • Purposefully Driving Somewhere
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 1,731
  • Joined: 15-January 04

Posted 04 April 2004 - 12:02 AM

Quote

I don't know why this never occured to me before, but I just went to michaelmedved.com and e-mailed them -- maybe they can shed some light on this.


Did they ever answer?

#16 User is offline   Peter T Chattaway 

  • He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 19,824
  • Joined: 05-July 03

Posted 04 April 2004 - 02:06 AM

Clint M wrote:
: Did they ever answer?

No, but that friend of mine who claims to have seen the ad tells me he probably saw it in the Ottawa Citizen, and probably back around the time the film allegedly came out (sometime in 1974, according to Medved's book). So ... anyone wanna check the microfilm?

#17 zyx (unregistered)

  • Group: Guests

Posted 13 May 2005 - 07:16 AM

I always thought that Him must be the "hoax" film Medved said he had fabricated especially for the Golden Turkey book, but I recently found a web site which claims that the film DID exist and features what purports to be an original newspaper ad for the film:

http://www.pimpadeli...d.com/lost.html

I emailed the webmaster asking where he got the ad from, but no reply. I never got a reply from Medved's web site either.

This post has been edited by zyx: 13 May 2005 - 07:27 AM


#18 User is offline   Peter T Chattaway 

  • He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 19,824
  • Joined: 05-July 03

Posted 13 May 2005 - 07:02 PM

Thanks for the link, zyx! I've blogged it now, though I do regurgitate a lot of what I said earlier in this thread.

#19 zyx (unregistered)

  • Group: Guests

Posted 14 May 2005 - 07:06 AM

I suppose it's just possible that some prankster fabricated the newspaper ad based on the description in Medved's book. unsure.gif

#20 User is offline   MattPage 

  • Bible Films Geek.
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3,919
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 16 May 2005 - 06:33 AM

I thought of this thread a couple of weeks back reading either Kinnard and Davis or Campell and Pitts. i think it was the latter that discussed the film as if they had actually seen it, which made me arch an eyebrow in surprise given this thread. I'll double check and report back.

Matt

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic