Truth and L.I.E.

October 2001

Why is Michael Cuesta’s film L.I.E. rated NC-17 (“X” in the old system)? It has no frontal nudity, little explicit sexuality, and less violence than is routinely seen on daytime television. So why the adults-only rating?

L.I.E. (an acronym for the Long Island Expressway, where the movie is set) was slapped with an NC-17 rating because of its political content. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the industry’s censorship board, decided that the ideas contained in L.I.E. were sufficiently offensive that even kids accompanied by their parents would not be allowed to see the movie. Indeed, given that films rated NC-17 are shown only in a handful of urban theaters across the country, very few adults will be able to see L.I.E.

What is the MPAA so afraid of?

L.I.E. is being muzzled because it suggests that the relationship between an adult man and a teenage boy, a relationship first sparked by sexual interest but never consummated, need not be monstrous.

In the movie, fifteen-year-old Howie Blitzer is adrift; his mother was killed in an auto accident, his dad’s busy with work and legal woes, and his best friend has run off to California without him. Howie crosses paths with “Big John,” an ex-Marine respected by neighbors and cops… also a boylover and highway rest stop play-for-pay cruiser. Though Big John’s initial interest in Howie is carnal, he quickly realizes that the boy needs a friend and parent more than he himself needs sex. Thus, Big John offers Howie a shoulder to cry on instead of the originally contemplated blow job. Big John has time to teach Howie to drive and to shave. He encourages Howie’s poetry, tells him the truth about his father’s legal troubles, and insists on Howie reconciling with his dad.

That a boylover might have an interest in a boy that transcends sex, that he might act responsibly, that he might provide the love missing in an adolescent’s life, that he might be something other than the predatory monster everywhere else depicted– these are the ideas that so offend the MPAA. Had Big John hatchet-murdered Howie and feasted on his body parts, the movie might have earned an R-rating. But because he loved him instead, the MPAA decided the film merited the most restrictive rating.

The MPAA’s censorship means more people are likely to read reviews of L.I.E. than will actually see the movie– regrettable, given how dreadful almost all reviews of the movie have been.

Most critics, including those in the gay press, note that director Cuesta has not made a “total monster” of the “child molester.” Thus, “disturbing complexity” is introduced into this “troubling” film. Typical is the New Yorker’s Anthony Lane who notes “the maddening thing is that [Big John] gives the genuine impression of caring for his young charge; but is that not precisely the impression he plans to give, as a means of softening Howie’s defenses? Are we, too, not being fooled by the classic tactic of the pedophile?”

Just like journalists who cover child “molestation” cases, L.I.E. reviewers cannot even consider that maybe the facts suggest something other than their preconceived notions. Big John is not an ambiguous character; again and again he demonstrates caring and love for Howie, and he repeatedly passes on opportunities to simply seduce the teen, accurately sensing that sex is not what Howie most needs. That Big John’s caring is genuine is what upsets reviewers– but none have the insight or courage to admit it.

As gay people, former legal and psychiatric pariahs ourselves, we remember how “troubled” society has been when confronted with our “complexity,” i.e., that we are not the “monsters” of anti-gay lore. Let us use that recognition to help others like the MPAA and film critics realize that if they squirm while watching L.I.E. it may be because they are being forced to confront the truth.

Pasted from <http://guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=5A481ABE-4844-4FED-B5DA585B9E7B6FFC>