Philebrity Wonders: Is “I Am Gay” Homophobic?
For about a year now, we’ve been tracking the development of Holland Boys, the new dance-pop project from Mike Robinson, formerly of the dark synth-pop band King God. We loved King God — think Sisters Of Mercy meets Depeche Mode — so we’ve been interested to see the stylistic changes and hear the tunes. Unlike King God, Holland Boys is an “identity band,” meaning that the entire project is delivered in character. In the case of Holland Boys, that identity happens to be a that of an internationally famous homosexual Eurotrash outfit led by a character called “Diamond Eyes,” played by Robinson. And after lots of Internet hype and on-location shooting, last week Holland Boys debuted the video for their new single “I Am Gay” on their MySpace page. And we won’t lie: We groaned. Was it satire gone wrong? Did it just not hit the mark? Or was it over our heads? We sent a message to Robinson asking a few questions point blank, and admitting that we kind of didn’t get it. Robinson, to his credit, was quick to defend the Holland Boys schtick, claiming that it was made both to challenge gay stereotypes and with the consultation of other gay friends. Robinson also requested that we not quote him directly, as he’d rather be interviewed in character; he also clarified that he is not homosexual. But it’s still not sitting well with us. So we figured we’d ask you, the readers. So presented for your consideration, then, is “I Am Gay” by Holland Boys. After viewing, please cast your vote in our poll. We’ll check back in on the poll later in the week.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
A grand Teutonic tradition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siF-kaxWR6E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM-v5ShRyUo
July 16th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Und ya:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cejq10jZ0kQ
July 16th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Not sure why this would be offensive. How is this different from a gay minstrel show like, say, VIP–other than the fact that they are actually gay?
Is “authenticity” the issue, here? If so, that is very shaky ground to plant a flag, since that is rarely a concern to any artist worth their salt. Dylan? Springsteen? Bowie? The Stones? All fakes, thank heavens. This doesn’t invalidate what they do–it just makes them artists. If they were hung up on being “authentic” and “unpretentious”, they would all be singing about middle-class suburbs. That axe-wielding aesthetic bigot Pete Seeger never realized that authenticity was just another kind of artifice, and that he was just as much a phony as Dylan was, which is rather sad.
One can be both inauthentic and sincere–and as Big Oscar once said: “A mask says more than a face.”
July 16th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
This song/video is no more homophobic than that new Adam Sandler movie, but it’s also no more witty or entertaining than that new Adam Sandler movie.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
It’s not even a GOOD gay minstrel show. VIP isn’t that good either, but at least they talk about drugs and nasty butt sex instead of being fastidious and having good flossing habits. Holland Boys aren’t being offensive, they’re being simpletons. And even if they are trying to be offensive, the content is as passe’ as gay pride itself, so they’re doing a sickly job of it.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
As far as gay minstrelry, Julian and Sandy still outwit the stale or crass gay tropes exploited by either.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:18 am
The “consultation of other gay friends” provided Holland Boys with the peace of mind that the song/video was not homophobic.
Yet I wonder why no one pulled them aside to explain how boring it was? Super fucking yawn. If anything is homophobic it is their trite and exhausted representation of gay folk.
Unless they are supposed to be Euro-trash gays from 1985. There were no shots of clocks in reverse, right? Is this gay time travel?
July 17th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
lord_whimsy: agreed
rjb: agreed
July 18th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Homophobic or not, it’s just sad.