Choice: A Short Film on the Aftermath of Prop 8
When making a film, the circumstances in which you find yourself are always a surprise. Tuesday Nov. 4, 2008 was supposed to be a day off for a feature film I was producing. Unfortunately, the weather had other plans. On Monday the 3rd, we were shooting on a rooftop in downtown Los Angeles well after midnight when our set was nearly knocked down by wind and rain. We were forced to suspend shooting and call the cast and crew in on their day off to finish the scene.
Thus, while the nation chose its new leader, we went about the business of making our movie. In between takes we watched -- via wireless internet connections -- as Barack Obama won the presidency of the United States. His victory represented so many things -- a new beginning in a troubled time, the chance to restore our country's image in the eyes of the world, a civil rights landmark that seemed impossible not that long ago, and so much more.
It was amazing to be a part of the collective sense of hope that the victory caused. However, as the country celebrated and we went about making our movie, another landmark civil rights moment occurred: California voters passed Proposition 8, which banned marriage for gays and lesbians.
I have to admit that the impact of that vote did not hit me until days later -- when I witnessed the outpouring of grief and anger from friends whose vows had been taken from them; it was such a stark contrast to the idealism personified in Obama's victory.
To see people that I know and care about being treated like second-class citizens was something I was not prepared for; it's so contrary to the values with which I was raised. Oddly enough, aside from my friends who were personally affected, the people I sympathized with the most were a pair of fictional characters, Mabel Mayville and her wife Elle, from a short film I directed called Learning to Fly.
As a filmmaker, it's my job to put obstacles in front of my characters, help them find ways around those problems and force them to grow. As strange as it may sound, it hurt that this real world obstacle was presented to these characters and nothing I did would help them. Of course, this seemed like a perfect opportunity to visit Mabel and see how Prop 8 had affected her.
I decided to return to the format of a staged video blog, which I had used in the past for other shorts. What appeals to me about this device is that it rips away two of the biggest crutches a filmmaker depends on: editing and music. Here all we have is a small window into a character at a single, uninterrupted moment in time. Like theater, this brings an amazing level of danger to the actor's performance. They are out there on their own, there will be no cut, and there will be no post-production magic. The piece becomes dependent on the oldest and best special effect ever created: the human face.
Of course, the benefit of writing for Mabel is that I know that actress Marion Kerr will be there to speak the words and add depth that I never considered. When I presented Marion with the first draft of the script, she was open to the project but immediately recommended we tone down the raw anger that the script expressed. As she said, doing this piece would do no good if we simply preached to those who already agreed with us; to really achieve something, we would have to try and reach out to those who did not agree with our view point and see it from their side. Working together, I hope we have turned out a text that will, at the very least, make a few people dig a little deeper and reexamine their beliefs on this issue. I would consider changing a single person's point of view to be an amazing success.
Words aside, I defy anyone on either side of the issue not to be moved by Marion's performance. For me, Mabel's final statement of hope recaptures the wonderful feeling that I had standing on that rooftop in November as Barack Obama addressed the nation as president-elect. For a brief moment, it felt like this nation stood together and believed that everyone is created equal.
For more information, please visit the Choice web site.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Equal rights and SSM are not rights that are to be voted on by popular vote. Because if that were true, we'd still have segregation in the South. These are issues that are discussed and fought over in the Supreme Court. Equal rights are equal rights, regardless of the percentage of people that agree. African Americans received equal rights through the courts, not through voting in the South.
No one is asking Churches to marry people they do not want to marry. Many marriages are a legal union through the government. That's all the GL folks want. they have children, they want to bind their families together for security, love and finances. to ensure they can visit their loved partner in the hospital, have a say in their advanced directives, ensure that they get custody of their loved partners child if that loved partner dies. How many people have had to fight in court for custody of the children that have grown up in their home?
Allowing SSM doesn't hurt me. I am a 56 year old hetero woman in the middle of nowhere, Iowa. What hurts me? Not SSM, but the fact that our country does not give equal rights to everyone. It just doesn't hurt Mr. and Mrs. Christian Fundamentalist right wing if someone marries. I just don't understand why they would fight so hard against something that does not impact them at all.
Luckily, not only is TIME on our side, but so is GOD. For, being Gay or Lesbian is nothing less than a gift from our creator. (However you define God) We are as God intended us to be. It is that simple. It is that true.
If you disagree with that, you have clearly misinterpreted HIS word and have some deep, difficult soul-searching to do.
God did not put ANY of us here to be degraded, dehumanized, lynched or murdered simply for living an HONEST & AUTHENTIC life, as he instructs us to do. He put us here to learn to love each other, and ourselves.
Anyone not doing that has missed the whole purpose of life and furthermore, of God.
Gays & Lesbians must let go of the shame that Heterosexuals place on us from the time we are their little children and all throughout our lives. We must somehow help them to understand that they are abusing, degrading, and humiliating THEIR VERY OWN GAY & LESBAIN creations. From the time we are little children, all throughout our lives, as well.
We must help them understand that while we DO love them, we hate THIER sin, as well.
Their sin of abuse, mistreatment, dehumanization, as well as the violence and murder that they commit against our people on a daily basis is a HORRIBLE sin.
Far more horrible than MY sin of LOVE for a person with matching genitals.
"If you disagree with that, you have clearly misinterpreted HIS word and have some deep, difficult soul-searching to do."
Please don't bastardize the word of God. Not like this. It's nauseating.
God implores us to love everyone. He DOES NOT implore us to love everyone one boundlessly. He doesn't implore us to blindly permit people to do and act however they want. God loves us too much to let us do things that ultimately destroy us.
I normally don't go here with the gays, but Christians are convinced that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle. Now, if they are wrong, show them, based on Scripture, how they are wrong. Show them where God condones homosexuality, where he condemns the lack of support for it, or anything else.
He wants us to rebuke that which is sinful. Love the sinner, hate the sin. If some define themselves by their sin, it's hard to see the difference. But it is there. And if you're going to mention the Bible, you needn't be this naive about what it says.
I think the polygamy and incest "it's their choice" was too tied together with being gay and was confusing. Though it is a choice, it is an illegal choice and I think that should be said, or make another inference to it all together, or delete it and use other comparisons. Otherwise the clip was good.
Gay people are fighting for their right to form their own families. Often gay people are rejected by their family of origin so why would they not think to form their own families who will honor their need to belong and to thrive in life? No healthy person, gay or straight, seeks marginalization. Marriage is the social institution that forms the foundation of the family. That is why gays want to marry. Gay people want and need families too. Why do church people want to deny gay people the fundamental need to be a functioning member of a family where they are accepted and feel they belong? If family fulfills our fundamental human needs of safety, love, and belonging then denying the ability to form a family of one's choice to gay people alone is a denial of fundamental human rights. Gay people want and need families. too!
I wasn't aware gay people needed handouts from the government to form their own families. Does this mean that up until May of last year, no gay families existed in CA?
wonderful video clip and great article. Thank you for your time and effort. There are many ways at moving an issue forward and there is room for them all. This clip is very special.
What I had to struggle with the most was not to lose my ability to love and feel the presence and connection with my God during the prop 8 nightmare. I had to use great discipline to let go of the anger and hatred of others I began to feel as a result of being treated badly on a rally line (cursed at, spit at, flipped off and assaulted by moving vehicles) and as a result of the language used to promote prop 8 ect... I failed on many occassions.
It is like the last 8 years of Bush cast a darkness over America where anger and hate has grown and festered. Prop 8 supporters used language and political tactics that ignited this powder keg of hate the likes I have never experienced before. The creepy thing to me has been that many churches have been the messengers of hate. If I had not been disciplined I would have been sucked into this funnel of hate albeit from another point of view but hate nontheless.
Finally, I have cast off this sickness (feelings of hatred) and, today, I have found my heart of love once again. I hope we as a Nation can find our hearts of love and human compassion for all once again.
Mostly a very good short film, but as someone who voted against Prop 8, I have one small quibble - strategically speaking. The part where she says that if a man or a woman want to marry a family member or multiple people doesn't strike me as brilliant - surely the whole argument many NO on 8 campaigners made is that polygamy and incest are not comparable to gay marriage? From a state-centric viewpoint, there are very good reasons not to allow polygamous or incestuous marriages; however, there are not good reasons for prohibiting gay marriages. Thus tying gay marriage to polygamy and incest seems like a really bad plan...
Watch it again. She says that polygamy and incest are choices - but being gay is not. She was not tying them, she was showing their fundamental difference.
Your right everyone is created equally. They are just not treated equally.
I consider myself liberal on most issues but the core of this issue is about freedom of religion.
The Christians (that's alot of people religions lumped together) use the word " marriage " as a religious definition as handed to them from ancient history. Their faith dictates a special connection to this union and their morality and family values are based almost entirely on this definition.
For Government to change the words meaning without support of the people would be in perpendicular conflict with the principles in which this country was founded.
I do not, however, forgive or excuse those law makers who refuse to correct the inequalities that effect alternate lifestyle people as they use and interact with city / state / and federal agencies. These are also just as aggregious a violation of our principles as a country. There are ways to ensure these people are covered by the same freedoms as everyone else without changing the definition of "marriage".
No, the core of this issue is about all citizens being treated equal. If this was about religious freedom then any church willing to perform the marriage ceremony would be able to and it would be legitimate (hence religious FREEDOM). What the fight is about is the LEGAL aspects of marriage, not the religious aspects. So the term "marriage" is not strictly a religious term.
As for religion, most churches harbor quite a few bigots, which is why I quit going years ago. Being religious does not guarantee morality any more than being non-religious equates with immorality.
The law refers to "civil union" not "marriage" and not as the author (the state) of "marriage" but the acknowledgement of a religious ceremony having took place forming a "union". And that the State is licensing the union in acknowledgement of this ceremony.
Separation of church and state.
Morality hasn't been brought up yet.
They (the state) can treat everyone equally by amending the laws. The problem is when doing so they want to hijack the word "marriage" inorder to inact those laws. Which is a lie.
Then the Christians need to be provided with a new and updated dictionary.
Marriage was co-opted by Christianity as a "sacrament"- and this semi sacramental status has to be separated from all official government definitions of the term.
It was only considered a Sacrament if it was done in a Church, with all correct words spoken by a Priest or Pastor. The Catholic Church does not even recognize a marriage in front of a Judge. It has to be done in a Church by a Priest. Other Christian /Churches recognize all legal marriages. Its a Sacrament if you are Religious. Its a legal bonding if you are not. There are legal and financial rights that are involved in marriage. If all of these financial and legal problems were fixed, the great majority of GL people would not complain. But then you have to deal with the fact that these GL people love whom they love, you can't change that, even if you want to. If someone loves another, they want to show the world. don't you ever remember feeling that way?
The government ALREADY changed the word's meaning, without the vote of the people, when they decided that a couple can only be legally "married" with a government-issued marriage license----in effect, redefining marriage (once again) as a functioning "civil union", and reducing it to a legal contract. Nothing churchy about it.
Therefore, since the government, not a church, "marries" you, you're going to have to come up with a much better argument than your personal religious beliefs to deny two consenting adult citizens said contract.
And funny, but I don't remember the church howling about the gov't co-opting the blessed sacrament.
You discounted your own statement in the first para. "Legally married". These are two words. Not one. There is "legal" (through the state) and "married" by denomination. The state does not refer to "marriage" as though they themselves were the author of the term or that issued the termed definition but as an " acknowledgement " of a ceremony conducted by ones faith.
My personal beliefs are not religious. I stopped attending institutionalized church in my teens. I believe in learning about faith and theology and making a choice either by experience or knowledge and following that path.
I believe in separation of church and state.
And don't think its my place or anyone else's place to hijack terms used by a faith to grant a false freedom to others.
Gays can have a fully legislated law that covers them 100% without the term "marriage" used.
Anything more than that is a lie.
Marriage is not always performed in a church or by clergy. It is just as often performed by a layperson, a judge. And it is not recognized unless certified by the state. Whether you like or not, marriage is not a strictly religious word. It has governmental ties as well in our country.
Now, that said, i would be in favor of legislation allowing churches to refuse to carry out same-sex ceremonies. No religion should be forced to honor a ceremony it disagrees with.
However, it gets sticky in certain situations. Perhaps a church owns part of a pier that is often rented out for public events. (Why do churches own such things anyway? Are they merely businesses now?) What about adoption agencies? A church adoption agency wouldn't be allowed to refuse to place children with black people as "descendents of Cain," so should they be allowed to refuse to place with gay couples?
Sadly, only time and education will solve these problems.
This is not a religious rights issue. No law forces churches to marry all couples who request it and there will still be freedom to reject unqualified marriage applications at churches. Depending on individual church policies, a church may object to any heterosexual marriage on grounds of any irreconcilable incompatibilities identifiable between the partners. As the law currently stands, a church can reject any marriage applicant they consider unfit or unwilling to meet their church requirements for the marriage contract . That won't change with gay marriage. And there is no law forcing any heterosexual person to marry a non-heterosexual person.
Heterosexual marriage is not affecrted by gay marriage, nor is the church's right to screen its marriage applicants. So gay marriage is not a religious rights issue at all. There is no right granted to any institution or individual that allows discrimination of any minority group in America. Churches cannot use their bully pulpit to discriminate against anyone, gay or straight. But, we all know, many churches do it anyway as their is no consequence except a ban on federal or state funding that churches don't even get or a reduced membership in the church.
No doubt about it, gay marriage is a civil rights issue.
This clip is a wonderful piece of drama. Good food for thought. But in terms of moving the political process in the right direction, this clip is so wrong. Mr. Crewe defies “anyone on either side of the issue not to be moved by Marion's performanc
What happened election night in California was devastating. The public recriminations and finger pointing that followed were even worse. Many people spoke from their heart and spoke of their pain.
What I wanted to hear was good sharp analysis of what polls and strategies had failed and why, and by how much. But my suspicion is that there was little of that going on.
The plight for many gays in this country is an American tragedy. But worse still is the proposition that this societal rift will go the way of the “debate” on abortion. There are those that say “No need for the politicos. Just speak from the heart and with passion.”
And I say there are those that will use their best political tools. They will string out this debate, and whip elements of the population into a frenzy. And then they will make the last eight years look like the Garden of Eden.
When are we going to get smart.
selikson radnor, pa
This clip is a wonderful piece of drama. Good food for thought. But in terms of moving the political process in the right direction, this clip is so wrong. Mr. Crewe defies “anyone on either side of the issue not to be moved by Marion's performanc
What happened election night in California was devastating. The public recriminations and finger pointing that followed were even worse. Many people spoke from their heart and spoke of their pain.
What I wanted to hear was good sharp analysis of what polls and strategies had failed and why, and by how much. But my suspicion is that there was little of that going on.
The plight for many gays in this country is an American tragedy. But worse still is the proposition that this societal rift will go the way of the “debate” on abortion. There are those that say “No need for the politicos. Just speak from the heart and with passion.”
And I say there are those that will use their best political tools. They will string out this debate, and whip elements of the population into a frenzy. And then they will make the last eight years look like the Garden of Eden.
When are we going to get smart.
When I was younger--about 50 years ago--I knew two white homosexual males who killed themselves rather than be publically outed. So, we are making progress. Slow to the point of glacial, true. The outing of the religious bigots over their support for Prop 8, and their subsequent squawking, shows that they're vulnerable. The fact that many of those who voted for Prop 8 are blind to their own bigotry shows that there is no deader weight than ignorance, unless it's smug, self-satisfied ignorance. It takes real talent, real charisma, to preach the word of Christ as a doctrine of hate and exclusion. And it takes an audience of intellectually lazy proud-to-b
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
