Discover the fascinating journey of the Diana Foundation, America's oldest active LGBTQ nonprofit, as Bryan Hlavinka and Tanner Williams explore its whimsical origins and lasting impact. From a memorable Academy Awards party in 1953 to becoming a powerhouse in the Houston community, Tanner recounts the Foundation's unique path, marked by annual events like the Diana Awards. Gain insights into their meticulously documented 65-year history that highlights a trailblazing legacy in LGBTQ advocacy and community empowerment.
Join us for an eye-opening conversation with Brandon Mack, the endorsements chair for the Houston LGBTQ+ Political Caucus, as we uncover the art of political endorsements and the critical role they play in civil rights advocacy. Brandon shares the intriguing behind-the-scenes process where candidates undergo rigorous screenings to earn the caucus's endorsement. Learn about the invaluable endorsement card—a guiding light for voters keen on supporting candidates championing LGBTQ+ causes—and the transformative effect these endorsements have on both candidates and the community.
Take a nostalgic journey back to 1982 as we revisit the cultural significance of the film "Making Love," a groundbreaking portrayal of gay relationships amid the burgeoning AIDS crisis. Discover the societal impact of its release, the controversies it sparked, and the challenges of bringing such narratives to the mainstream. We reflect on its influence on the careers of its actors and the broader landscape of LGBTQ+ representation in media, emphasizing the timeless importance of visibility in both political and cultural arenas.
Queer Voices airs in Houston Texas on 90.1FM KPFT and is heard as a podcast here. Queer Voices hopes to entertain as well as illuminate LGBTQ issues in Houston and beyond. Check out our socials at:
https://www.facebook.com/QueerVoicesKPFT/ and
https://www.instagram.com/queervoices90.1kpft/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello everybody, this is Queer Voices, a podcast
version of a broadcast radioshow that's been on the air in
Houston, texas for severaldecades.
This week, brian Levinka talkswith Tanner Williams of the
Diana's Foundation.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Before the first brick was thrown and the
Stonewall Riots in New York,people were getting together and
they were finding a communityand they were finding space to
be out and celebrate each other.
It's an amazing story.
I encourage folks to visit ourwebsite.
We've got a version of thestory to download.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Then Deborah Moncrief-Bell has a conversation
with Brandon Mack, who is theendorsements chair for the
Houston LGBTQ Political CaucusPolitical Action Committee.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
The endorsement card is an actual listing of all of
the candidates, but also eventhe propositions, because we
actually have two propositionsactually three propositions this
year that the caucus has made aposition on.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
So it's a listing of all of the candidates and
positions that we arerecommending that people support
through their vote at the pollsand Brett Cullum discusses the
1980s film Making Love, whichmarked one of the first times
that gay men were shown in apositive light before the AIDS
pandemic.
(01:21):
Queer Voices starts now.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
This is Brian Levinka , and today I'm honored to
interview my friend, tannerWilliams with the Diana
Foundation.
Welcome to Queer Voices, Tanner.
Thanks for having me.
Brian, we've interviewed youbefore, but we may have
listeners that have never heardof the Diana Foundation.
Can you tell me what that is?
The Diana Foundation.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
we're recognized as America's oldest active LGBTQ
nonprofit organization and westarted in Houston, Texas, in
1953.
It was the first time theAcademy Awards was broadcast on
television.
A group of friends gay friendsgot together.
They bought a new television.
They were having a watch partyfor the Academy Awards.
(02:03):
Unfortunately, the bunny earson the TV at the time lost
reception.
So the friends started makingup some of their own funny
awards and again they got backtogether in 1954.
The party grew a little biggerand they started the evening by
giving really their firstofficial Diana Award, and the
name of the Diana Foundationcame from the roommate of the
(02:26):
host, David Moncrief.
His roommate was a windowdesigner at the Sackowitz
Department Store and they hadthis big statue of the Roman
goddess Diana, and they thoughtwell, she's the goddess of the
hunt and it seems to be partyingalong with us.
So they said well, on behalf ofthe hunt, and she, it seems to
be partying along with us.
So they said, though, on behalfof the Diana Foundation, the,
(02:49):
the movie in Houston is.
And ever since then the DianaFoundation grew into a more of
an organization.
But we've hosted our annualDiana Awards ever since.
So I always warn people carefulwhen you start a house party of
some kind, because it couldturn into a multi-year long-term
(03:11):
commitment in an organization,but with the ability to change a
lot of people's lives.
Speaker 4 (03:17):
How did you verify that you were the oldest
organization LGBT organizationin the country?
Speaker 2 (03:22):
We're celebrating our 72nd anniversary.
Going back, I helped publishour 65-year history book.
We did have a historian thatwas commissioned.
He did a lot of research,looked into the history of the
Dianas.
Actually, at the time when wewere really wanting to capture
and put together our history andand our story, it really wasn't
(03:45):
on our radar that we were theoldest gay organization in the
United States.
However, that's was an outcomeof the research in the book.
For a while that manuscript wasshelved, but we finally worked
through our during our 64thanniversary, raising some funds.
We put together the book.
It's published, it's out therewhich really tells an amazing
(04:08):
story of the men and women inHouston who, at a time before
the first brick was thrown andthe Stonewall riots in New York,
people were getting togetherand they were finding a
community and they were findingspace to be out and celebrate
each other.
It's an amazing story.
I encourage folks to visit ourwebsite.
We've got a version of thestory to download, as well as on
(04:32):
our Facebook page.
There's a full chronology ofthe history of the organization.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
This is the Otis Continuing Organization.
Were there other organizationsthat like that, I've heard of
the Manichean Society?
True, there were otherorganizations that, like I've
heard of the Manaching.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Society.
True, there were otherorganizations.
However, they have fizzled awayor they were merged into
another organization, theybecame something different or
they had a different change ofhands of some kind around in
their evolution.
The Dianas has always been theDiana Foundation.
We've always been the samegroup, we've always been the
(05:06):
same group, we've been the sametax ID number.
We've celebrated the same wayas we started back in 1953 and
1954.
We are still the entity as webegan, whereas others, again,
they've become other things.
(05:26):
In the book it actuallydiscusses some examples of those
organizations and what has beentheir evolution.
For example, one Archives couldbe an example that merged a few
times and was purchased acouple times.
So it's completely somethingdifferent.
It's truly special that in thecity of Houston that we get to
(05:50):
have the claim that we're homeof America's oldest active gay
organization.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
You're known for the Diana Awards, which happened, as
you said, during the AcademyAwards, but we're going to talk
about another event, the CountryDinner.
Can you tell me about that andhow it got started?
Speaker 2 (06:06):
We're actually celebrating our 61st anniversary
of Diana Country Dinner andDiana Country Dinner, the Diana
Foundation.
We host two major fundraisingevents a year one in the fall,
one in the spring, and this fallis our Country Dinner.
This started, gee, even beforethe Dianas made it a main
function of the organization.
(06:26):
It was really started by thefirst president of the Dianas,
charles Hebert, and it wasreally first called the Dog Days
of Summer Party, and he used tohave this party in his backyard
at friends' houses.
Again, when you have like agathering year over year over
year, it really starts to becomea thing.
(06:48):
When Charles passed away in 1987, the Diana Foundation really
claimed wanted to keep thattradition going, making sure
that it continued to be part ofthe major fundraising mechanism
(07:08):
where the foundation cancontinue to provide funds to
local charities.
It was actually really great.
Folks would come together withdifferent food committees.
They would make up creativenames for their food dishes.
At the time, a lot of gay menand women did not really want
their names published on certainmaterials, so they would make
up their own names about whocreated these country dishes of
(07:31):
food.
So we have a lot of these oldmenus that are actually in our
history books.
So it's pretty fun to go backand look and you actually begin
to see the change really in thelate 70s, when people stop using
more of a different made upname that they would begin to
use their own names.
Speaker 4 (07:52):
The event is coming up.
It's on November 3rd at theLuster Pearl, houston.
Can you talk about the LusterPearl?
What is that?
Speaker 2 (07:59):
The Luster Pearl.
They actually there are LusterPearls around the country.
I actually had my firstexperience when I lived in
Austin.
There's an establishment onRainy Street.
If you've never been, it's acool place to visit and they
just opened their establishmentjust, I believe, about six
months ago, in the Edo area.
(08:20):
We originally had a differentlocation for this year's event
and unfortunately we receivednotice two weeks ago that they
were having to close their doors, so that left us having to
shake things up and find a newhome.
But next door, the Lester Pearlis welcoming us to celebrate
country dinner from noon to fouron November the 3rd.
(08:41):
We're able to continue to haveour live band, barbecue buffet,
etc.
It'll be a great Sunday fun day, but it also allows people to
still to continue to come outand explore Edo and the area and
how things are changing, andit'll be a great day for
everyone.
Speaker 4 (08:59):
You mentioned that this was a fundraiser.
Can you talk about who you'reraising funds for?
Speaker 2 (09:04):
This year we're raising funds for Out for
Education, the Diana Foundation.
We've supported Out forEducation for a number of years.
Now we're formally establishingour own endowment fund so we
can have a continuingscholarship in our name.
So we're really excited to bepartnering with them.
They are a great group topartner with.
Especially they have volunteers, a lot of enthusiasm, and I'm
(09:28):
really excited about theirmission really wanting to expand
their scholarships, not justfor LGBTQ youth, but families,
lgbtq plus families.
It's really great work.
There's more to do and, as weknow, higher education and
continuing education is notgetting any cheaper.
So the more we can do toprovide resources for folks to
(09:49):
continue their education, thebetter.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
How does one become a member of the Diana Foundation?
Speaker 2 (09:56):
In our bylaws.
There are a couple ways.
One of the main parts is to bequalified as a member.
You must have attended one ofour country dinner events or one
of our award shows.
So if anyone is looking tobecome a member of the Diana
Foundation, you can go to ourwebsite, you can fill out an
application and you can join.
We've got a couple differentmembership levels.
(10:18):
We've got an associatenon-voting tier, which allows
people to have a lowintroductory dues rate, and I
can see if this is a good fitfor you to find community and
find your passions line up towanting to get involved with
some creative events and charitywork.
Or we also have then ourgeneral full dues voting
(10:39):
membership.
Either way, Country Dinner is agreat way to come out and help
raise funds for out foreducation and it also qualifies
you to become a full member ofthe organization.
Speaker 4 (10:52):
I was looking at the website and it says that you're
the president.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
I am back as president.
I served my first term reallymy first three years, back in
2014 to 2017,.
I have returned again aspresident.
The organization is looking tobe a lot more active and I was
asked to come back and help leadour board of governors, which
(11:18):
is a great honor, and I'm reallyexcited about the synergy that
our board currently has.
We're doing a lot of new andcreative things.
I'm very happy that our socialcalendar is front and center for
our membership.
Our membership is growing.
We were just recognized byOutsmart Magazine as Houston's
(11:41):
favorite philanthropicorganization.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
You're on the favorite podcast right now.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
I know that I was going to also say
congratulations to you all aswell.
Speaker 4 (11:52):
Well, Tanner, is there anything else you want
people to know about the CountryDinner or the Diana Foundation
itself?
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Sure Again Country Dinner.
This is open to everyone.
It is a fundraiser.
It will be a great Sunday funday.
We're going to have live musicfeaturing Christopher Seymour
and the Western cosplay.
We're going to be at a chic,western, cool event venue.
There's going to be barbecue.
There'll be great raffles andother entertainment.
(12:20):
We really want to make surethat folks come out on November
the 3rd from noon to four.
You can get tickets atthedianafoundationorg If you
have any questions.
My email is there on our eventwebsite.
You can shoot me a message andif folks are still looking out
there you want to sponsor orhelp give a little extra to help
(12:40):
support Alper Education.
Happy to talk with you andhappy to make those connections
and hope to see all of Houstonout on November 3rd to celebrate
our 61st anniversary of hostingHouston's Country Dinner.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
We've been speaking with Tanner Williams, the
president of Diana Foundation,about the Country Dinner
happening on November 3rd, 12 to4, at Luster Pearl Houston,
2106 Dallas Street, houston,texas.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Thanks so much for having me and congratulations
again on your recognition.
It's well-deserved.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
This is Queer Voices.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
Now there's some good radio, a conversation that you
almost feel part of, providingclear information and opinions
from people in our community.
I'd say that's almost worthpaying for.
Well, except that all of thegood work that you hear on Queer
Voices is done by volunteers.
But like anything, it stillcosts money as well as our
(13:36):
volunteers' time to bring thisunique radio program to you each
week.
Will you contribute a littlebit to help keep us and KPFT
going?
We're looking for listeners tobecome members of KPFT Partners
with us really in keeping us outthere on the airwaves and in
podcasts around the world.
(13:56):
But even a one-time gift willmake a difference.
Please go to kpftorg and clickthe red donate button for more
information.
We thank you and I think you'llthank yourself the next time
you hear us on Queer Voices.
I know Martha thanks you.
Speaker 6 (14:15):
This is Deborah Moncrief-Bell.
With us is Brandon Mack.
Brandon is the endorsementschair for the caucus.
Brandon, first of all explainwhat the caucus is.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
The caucus is the Houston LGBTQ plus political
caucus.
We are the oldest organizationdedicated to civil rights for
the LGBTQ plus community in theSouthwest and we operate one of
the best screening andendorsement processes here in
the city of Houston.
Speaker 6 (14:44):
And we operate one of the best screening and
endorsement processes here inthe city of Houston and we
endorse candidates from the topof the ticket all the way to the
the caucus has been aroundabout the same length of time
that queer radio has in Houston,so there's a very solid
background of how theseendorsements became a thing and
(15:09):
the caucus itself because of itsstatus.
Is it a 501c4?
Speaker 3 (15:17):
That's correct.
We are a 501c4, as well as apolitical action committee.
Speaker 6 (15:23):
Tell me a little bit about what the screening process
is.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
The screening process is an opportunity for
candidates to seek theendorsement of the Houston LGB
Plus Political Caucus.
So candidates actually have toactively contact us to schedule
a screening interview and then,if you are a member of the
caucus and you've gone throughour candidate endorsement
(15:49):
training, you're actuallyeligible to sit in on screenings
and ask questions to thecandidates.
Screenings typically areanywhere from 30 minutes to an
hour and we ask all sorts ofquestions related to the
campaign as well as their stanceon LGB plus issues, and then
through that we make arecommendation of who to endorse
(16:12):
.
But it is the entire caucusbody that ultimately
participates and endorses thecandidate.
Speaker 6 (16:18):
Brandon, how long have you been part of doing the
endorsements?
Speaker 3 (16:27):
been part of doing the endorsements, so this is
actually my 10th year of beingscreening chair for the Houston
LGBTQ Plus program.
Speaker 6 (16:30):
And it's quite a bit of work because there's
scheduling, there's contactingpeople, there's so many
different personalities involved.
The interviewees receive aquestionnaire which they return,
and then the committee can lookat that questionnaire and
(16:51):
formulate the questions directedto that individual candidate.
What is the trickiest part ofthis?
Speaker 3 (16:58):
effort.
The trickiest part generally ofthis effort is getting all of
the schedules to kind of align,because you're having to deal
with candidates who of courseare very busy being on the
campaign trail, and then alsowe're an entirely volunteer
organization, so it's alsomaking sure when we're available
(17:21):
to do this important work.
So that's usually the trickiestpart.
But then outside of that theactual conversations, the actual
screenings themselves areactually relatively easy.
Speaker 6 (17:33):
I know from having been on the endorsement
screening committee and talkingto candidates that sometimes
they learn stuff from thatinterview process and some of
them carry that forward it'slike I wasn't really aware of
that before and then they add itto the repertoire of what
they're going to be doing ifthey're elected.
(17:55):
What are some of the benefitsof having an endorsement from
the caucus?
Speaker 3 (18:01):
So the benefits of having an endorsement from the
caucus.
Education is definitely one ofthem.
As you just mentioned, Deborah,many of our candidates are not
aware of a lot of the nuances ofthe LGBT plus community and
this becomes an amazing way forthem to learn that.
And then it does impact theirapproach to issues but also
(18:23):
maybe even changes the way thatthey even run and organize their
campaigns.
You also get the benefit ofbeing on our card, which is
highly sought after by voters,and that definitely is a big
benefit.
Also, the caucus works veryhard to support our candidates,
so we staff polling locationsPrimarily.
We're known for our staffing ofthe West Gray polling location,
(18:46):
but we also are at otherpolling locations throughout the
entire city.
We do phone banking, we doblock walking as well as we also
educate people about ourcandidates and provide
additional opportunities forcandidates to interact with the
community.
So there are a lot of benefitsthat come with being a part of
the Houston LGB Plus PoliticalCaucuses in CARD.
Speaker 6 (19:08):
Explain about.
You called it the CARD.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
The endorsement CARD is an actual listing of all of
the candidates, but also eventhe propositions, because we
actually have two propositionsactually three propositions this
year that the caucus has made aposition on.
So it's a listing of all of thecandidates and positions that
we are recommending that peoplesupport through their vote at
(19:33):
the polls during variouselection day.
Speaker 6 (19:36):
And this is distributed at polling locations
and mailed out to a largenumber of people.
It's not just the membership, Idon't think.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
Correct.
So it's not just our membership.
It is mailed to otherindividuals who also subscribe
to receive our card in the mail.
And so easily we hand out ordistribute well over 50,000 plus
cards each election cycle.
Speaker 6 (20:01):
And they used to not let you take the card in with
you, but I think that's allowednow.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
That is correct.
You can take the card in, andso it's another reason for why
we encourage people to eitherpick up the card.
You can also print out the cardand take it with you.
If you go to our website, thecaucusorg, you'll be able to
find our endorsement cardthrough our PAC website, and you
(20:28):
can easily be able to downloadand print it and take it with
you in the event you don't haveyour physical card.
Speaker 6 (20:34):
Let's get into it a little bit about those people
who have been endorsed for thiscycle, and I know that we have a
presidential recommendation.
How did that come about?
Was there an actual screeningwith the candidates?
Speaker 3 (20:50):
As much as we would have loved to have been able to
screen directly with VicePresident Harris and Governor
Tim Walz.
We unfortunately did not get achance to go around to interview
directly with them, but we didinterview with a representative
of the campaign who spoke to usdirectly about their approach to
lgbtq plus issues, theirapproach to running in texas you
(21:14):
reach out to all candidates ofall parties, anyone who is
running for office.
We want to clarify yes, theHouston LGBTQ plus political
caucus is a nonpartisanorganization, but we actually do
not reach out to candidates totell them we want you to seek
our endorsement.
The candidates actually have toactively see us because once
(21:37):
again, we are a marginalizedcommunity.
It should be that youauthentically want to engage
with us, that you authenticallycare about us as a community.
So for that reason thecandidates seek our endorsement.
Speaker 6 (21:52):
We don't go seeking does the issues that are raised
and the help that they get withtheir campaign, the recognition
that they get by being on thatendorsement card At the top of
(22:14):
the ballot?
Who is the recommendation forpresidential vice president?
Speaker 3 (22:20):
We endorse Vice President Kamala Harris and
Governor Tim Walz for USPresident and Vice President.
We did not endorse in the USSenator race.
We definitely had aconversation about that, but
ultimately we as a bodydetermined and decided not to
endorse in the US Senate.
Speaker 6 (22:39):
So that's.
Another important thing to knowis that there are some races
where there's no endorsement foreither candidate.
There are candidates that areviable, candidates that for one
reason or another, may not getan endorsement, and there are
races where there's not going tobe an endorsement.
(23:02):
So that doesn't mean that thesecandidates are not worthy of.
They just didn't go through theprocess or, for one reason or
another, were not endorsed.
So you have to do your homework.
You can't just go by the caucuscard, and especially in those
races.
One of the things I do is I goto the candidates' website.
(23:23):
Of course, they always makethemselves sound like they're
the best things in sliced bread.
You have to see, maybe, whatother endorsements they have.
Brandon, what are the otherraces where there are
endorsements?
Speaker 3 (23:36):
Before I get into some of the other races where we
have endorsements, I definitelywant to emphasize that last
point that this is about onceagain who do we feel is the best
representative of the values ofthe caucus?
And also those candidates thattruly value the LGBTQ plus
community.
Because I can definitely say,especially in the US Senate race
(23:57):
, we do understand that that isa very high stakes race, but
once again, we need candidatesthat truly value our community,
that truly engage authenticallywith our community and do not
just only come around when theywant something from the
community and then will notcontinue to engage outside of
that.
So I want to make that very,very clear.
(24:27):
That that is a very importantcomponent of when we are making
our decisions is that we'remaking decisions based off of
who is representative of thevalues of the Houston LGBT plus
caucus.
But we also have some amazingcandidates we are recommending
to endorse Lizzie Fletcher, katGreen, scott Sylvia Garcia.
Speaker 6 (24:38):
Wait a minute, let's say what position they're up for
.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
What's going to get into that?
Oh, ok, I'm sorry all four ofthose amazing candidates are all
running for us representativeum in their respective districts
.
So we have four that we'rerecommending at the federal
level, but we also have um statesenator molly cook and state
senator carol alvarado, umnumerous candidates that are
(25:03):
running for judge, and we alsohave, of course, our very
important local races, such asCounty Attorney Christian
Menefee, county Sheriff EdGonzalez, harris County Tax
Assessor Collector AnnetteRamirez.
So, as mentioned, we encouragepeople to vote from the top all
the way down to the bottombecause, in all honesty, the
(25:23):
lower down you get, the closeryou actually get to yourself,
because, in all honesty, thelower down you get, the closer
you actually get to yourself andto things that are going to
impact you on your day-to-day.
So, while the US presidentialelection very, very important,
let's not forget that our schoolboard, our county constable,
our county officials and ourcity council elections are
equally as important, if notmore important, because we deal
(25:45):
with those individuals on a moreregular and day-to-day basis.
Speaker 6 (25:49):
I kind of stepped on you a little bit there when we
first started talking about whohas received endorsements and
the people that you mentionedthat are running for United
States representatives.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
So please name them again representatives, so please
name them again.
We have for US RepresentativeDistrict 7, lizzie Fletcher, us
Representative District 22,marquette Green-Scott, us
Representative District 29,sylvia Garcia and US
Representative District 36, danaSteele.
All have been proudly endorsedby the Houston LGBT Plus
(26:22):
Political Committee.
Speaker 6 (26:22):
That's wonderful.
We have an interestingsituation with filling the seat
that belonged to USRepresentative Sheila Jackson
Lee, who was a longtimesupporter of our community.
There's actually two placesthat you can vote regarding
filling that seat.
Can you explain what that'sabout and is there an
(26:45):
endorsement in either of those?
Speaker 3 (26:48):
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee was a longtime
caucus supporter and longtimecaucus endorsed candidate and
unfortunately, when she passedaway there had to be a special
election to replace her on theballot and also there had to be
be another special election tofill the remainder of her term.
(27:10):
So that's the reason for whythere are two elections with
respect to that race.
In the first one, the one toreplace her on the ballot, that
was a election that was decidedby the precinct chairs of Harris
County's Democratic Party andin that particular race the
Houston LGBTQ Plus PoliticalCaucus did make a recommendation
(27:31):
to endorse Amanda Edwards.
Amanda came in second in thatrace and Mayor Sylvester Turner
is now the candidate to run inthe November general election
for US Districts 18.
And then in the specialelection to finish out the term
for Congresswoman Sheila JacksonLee, we did not make a
(27:54):
recommendation to endorsebecause we did not have any
candidates.
Submit a questionnaire for ourendorsement.
Speaker 6 (28:01):
And her daughter Erica, is seeking to fill that
remainder of her term.
Governor Abbott could havecalled an election sooner, but
he chose to wait until theNovember election for it to get
on the ballot and thereforeit'll just be a few months of
having that representation there.
(28:22):
The other thing is the bondelections Explain about those.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
We actually made a decision to take a position on
three of the bonds.
So the bonds are very importantbecause those are, of course,
the allocation of funds at thecounty and even the HISD level.
Members of the community canpropose a position that they
would like the caucus to take.
Individuals can come and theyliterally get the opportunity to
present on why they feel weshould take a position and once
(28:58):
again the caucus body determinesif we are going to take a
position.
So for the Harris County FloodControl District Proposition A
we are for that particularproposition.
But for the HISD propositionsboth Proposition A and B we are
against.
Speaker 6 (29:16):
We're talking with Brandon Mack, the endorsement
chair for the caucus.
Brandon is he's the ace when itcomes to running a meeting.
I'll tell you that he reallykeeps everybody on track and we
know that.
It's like herding cats, so Igreatly admire his skill in that
.
What other things do you thinkpeople need to know about the
(29:38):
endorsements and are the caucus?
Speaker 3 (29:42):
one thing I definitely want people to know
is that we want you to be a partof the caucus.
Our meetings are held the firstWednesday of every month.
I highly encourage people to goto our website, thecaucusorg,
to find additional informationand become involved, because it
is so important that we allraise our voices and are part of
(30:05):
the political process.
That could be through beinginvolved in the caucus.
That could also be as simple asvoting, so I highly encourage
you to look into theorganization, but also look into
the amazing candidates thatwe've endorsed, and to go and
vote when voting starts.
Early voting is literally justaround the corner.
Voting starts Early voting isliterally just around the corner
(30:29):
.
It's going to be on October the21st when it will start and
will go all the way up untilElection Day being Tuesday,
november the 21st.
Speaker 6 (30:34):
I've already voted, because I voted by mail.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
Love it, absolutely love it.
So glad that you already havegotten involved in the process
already, deborah.
Speaker 6 (30:44):
Well, one thing about it is I get anxiety that for
some reason, like it would beelection day and I wasn't able
to get there, and I do highlyencourage people to vote early,
because it just makes it you'redone, you've cast your ballot
and you can go on and maybevolunteer in a campaign or push
(31:06):
the endorsement card or dosomething else to help, because
voting is the basis of ourresponsibilities as a citizen.
But there's more that can bedone.
So if you really want to make adifference, if you really want
to have an impact, then gettinginvolved in the caucus, working
(31:26):
in a campaign, reaching out topeople, talking to people
however way you have at yourdisposal, use your skills and
and get the out so that we canchange the world for a better
place, as Brandon Mack and theother good folks at the caucus
(31:47):
do.
Thank you for being with us onQueer Voices.
This is Deborah Moncrief-Bell.
Speaker 7 (31:53):
I am Brett Cullum and today I am going to be talking
about Making Love, the 1982 filmdirected by Arthur Hiller.
It stars Michael Onkeen, kateJackson and Harry Hamlin, and I
am taking a look back with oneof my biggest partners, my
husband R Lee Ingalls, who isalso an author and writer for a
(32:14):
magazine as well.
So welcome, lee, thank you.
Thank you, glad to be here.
All right, so we're talkingabout Making Love, which was a
huge film for 1982.
And 1982 was actually kind of abig year for gay films, just in
general.
I mean, we had Making Love from20th Century Fox.
We also had Victor Victoria, amovie that one of you like yeah,
(32:37):
it's my favorite movie of alltime and we also had a couple of
other things happening aroundthat time as far as different
gay things.
Personal Best came out.
There was a comedy calledPartners which didn't do so well
, but you remember that.
But Making Love was really animportant film because they
wanted it to be the love storyfor the 80s that's what they
(33:01):
were saying, and the directorwas actually the same director
as had done love story arthurhiller.
So it was interesting.
It was kind of a drama about aman who realizes, or rather
comes out it's a little bitambiguous there, but obviously
his marriage he has to confronthis wife and all of that kind of
(33:24):
happens.
But what did you think of themovie?
What do you think that the toneand the way that the story was
told?
Speaker 8 (33:31):
Yeah, so I'll take it back a little bit further than
that.
In its pre-release it wasbilled as a love story, as you
say, for the age, so a differentkind of love story.
It was supposed to be the firstfilm with a gay theme, where
the two main characters, michaelon keen and harry hamlin, were
(33:51):
going to play gay characters.
So the gay community was reallylooking forward to having a
film with two leading men of theday playing gay characters.
We were looking at the visualsof seeing gay representation on
the silver screen, the bigscreen, when it was released.
I think there was somedisappointment in the way that
(34:12):
the characters were portrayed.
They were a little bit clichein how they were written and
presented themselves on screen,and then there was a lack of
intimacy that we were looking tosee and kind of normalized.
So yeah, that was my sense ofit back in those days.
Speaker 7 (34:30):
Well, it's interesting too.
The film is rated R almost forno reason.
There's hardly any nudity in it.
There's nothing that's reallyall of that racy about it.
And actually Michael Unkean andHarry Hamlin had an agreement
with the studio.
They didn't want to do lovescenes, they agreed to kiss on
screen and they had body doublesactually for any intimate
(34:54):
scenes, which was kind of amarker of the time.
They were very worried abouttheir careers, going into this
film and playing gay roles.
So it was very interesting thatyou kind of noted that it
wasn't very intimate and we hadjust done, a month or two ago, a
film that was very much showeda lot of sex in it and this one
really didn't.
(35:14):
The studio was really scared ofit.
Speaker 8 (35:16):
Right, and that one was ten years prior to this one,
and in this one when Ire-watched it, of course, I
hadn't seen it in a number ofyears.
So I re-watched it and I waswatching specifically, for how
did they relate to each other?
And so Michael Unking kind ofwent more in than Harry Hamlin
did, and you could tell thatthey were a little bit
uncomfortable with getting closeand the more intimate scenes.
(35:40):
Kate Jackson, however, I thinkshe did a brilliant job in her
acting.
I don't know why she didn't getmore credit for that, because
she did a great job.
Speaker 7 (35:49):
Well, actually there was a rumor that she was going
to be nominated for an Oscar.
They really thought this wasgoing to be her breakout role
and she was trying to get out oftelevision.
Of course, kate Jackson was onthe show Charlie's Angels and
she was a big kind of tv star atthe time.
She had done Dark Shadows andshe had done a couple of
different projects fortelevision and this was really
(36:10):
supposed to be her big breakoutmovie role and at the time Harry
Hamlin and Michael Uncane werebasically movie stars, so they
were banking on that and whatwas interesting is that, as the
film didn't do as well as thestudio wanted, uncane and Harry
Hamlin both ended up going intotelevision, which is where they
would really make their mark.
I'm not really sure what KateJackson did.
(36:33):
Necessarily after this.
I didn't see her as much, shedidn't seem as present as they
expected her to, but I wasshocked at just how amazing she
looked and how great she was asan actress and I was like this
should have gone a lot farther.
Speaker 8 (36:47):
Yeah, no, I absolutely agree.
She should have done much moreafter this.
Just because of the way sheportrayed the character in this
movie, I thought she did anexceptional job.
Looking at it again after allthese many years movie.
I thought she did anexceptional job looking at it
again after all these many years.
She was a standout actor in it.
Like I said, the two men notthe actors, but the men, the way
they were written were verycliche and, looking back at it,
(37:10):
were stereotypes of what peoplethought gay men were like at
that time.
Speaker 7 (37:14):
Well, it was interesting, a man named Scott
Berg actually wrote the scriptfor this and he thought this was
going to be the next big socialmovement of the country.
He thought that what blackrights movements meant to the
60s and what the feministmovement was in the 70s, the gay
movement would come to fruitionin the 80s.
He really expected that tohappen and so he pitched it to
(37:38):
20th Century Fox and they reallykind of were like I don't know
about this, but after ArthurHiller took the project on and
they rationalized the film alittle bit, saying that it was
more about the husband and wife,and I do get that sense.
I mean you really do see a lotmore of them.
I almost feel like they almosthave a more intimate and
satisfying relationship than thegay relationship between Harry
(38:00):
Hamlin and Michael Onkean.
Speaker 8 (38:02):
Yeah, no, I would agree.
Yeah, there's very much aboutthat relationship and the
confusion.
And one of the things we talkedabout early, right after
watching the show, was that theytalked about Michael Onkean's
character having these feelingsof desire toward other men late
in his life.
And I don't know, I mean frommy personal perspective, that
(38:25):
was never a question for me.
That didn't happen late in mylife.
I didn't have a time where Ididn't know that.
So him saying that kind ofindicated that this was
something that grew inside ofhim over time and I just I'm
still scratching my head overthat because that doesn't make
sense to me and I just I'm stillscratching my head over that
because that doesn't make senseto me.
Speaker 7 (38:41):
I think the story is a little bit clumsy.
It doesn't show enough of hisprogression, we don't see enough
about him and his sexuality toreally get a good idea of what
he was going through, and thereare some bits that feel like
they're missing.
There's a confrontation late inthe film where Kate Jackson's
character actually finds a phonenumber in one of his jackets
(39:02):
and goes and confronts this guyand to my disappointment, it's
not Harry Hamlin, it's somebodyelse, it's some random guy and
she talks to him and I'm likewait, why didn't this film go
with the Harry Hamlin KateJackson square off?
That would have beendramatically more promising
promising, but it was somethingthat we really didn't even see
on screen.
So I was kind of like wait,where did this come from and why
are we all of a sudden goingleft field here to this thing?
(39:24):
I mean, it really didn't do agood job with showing michael on
keen or zach's progression andhis struggle with that.
Speaker 8 (39:32):
I think it just kind of it was almost like an on off
switch, which was weird that wasa very odd part of the movie
because, I agree with you, itjust didn't make sense it had
from a movie and the messagedelivery it gave a sense of
they're trying to make somereason over this and give her
the information that she needsto kind of move on and figure
(39:54):
this out, but just theconnections weren't there.
So it was just really odd thatthey put that in there and that
way.
I think there was a better wayto do that.
Speaker 7 (40:03):
But one of the things I thought was interesting for
1982, they showed two verydifferent styles of the gay
lifestyle.
You had Zach, the husband, andhe kind of wanted to mirror that
with his new person that he met, bart.
He wanted to be monogamous, hewanted to settle down, he wanted
(40:23):
to do all of these things, butBart, who is Harry Hamlin's
character, was shown as reallynot interested in that at all.
He was really about the barlife.
He was very popular in the bar.
He is shown with various guysand things like that and you get
the feeling that he reallydoesn't want that.
And I thought that that was aninteresting facet of our
community to show that strugglebetween two men.
(40:46):
One wants to settle down, onewants to keep going the way that
he's been going in LA and justkind of playing the field.
And you see that and I thinkthat's something that we
struggle with even now.
Speaker 8 (40:55):
Yeah, I totally agree with that.
I think that that was probablytrue to our community.
You do see, those in ourcommunity today, there are those
that are commitment-orientedand those that are not, and a
lot of times those that are willpursue those people that are
not and you end up with thattype of conflict in the
relationship One feels likethey're not getting what they
(41:16):
want and the other one feelslike they're being covered and
need to escape.
So that was true to ourcommunity then and now.
Speaker 7 (41:27):
Well, it just feels like a very soap opera-ish film.
It didn't feel quite as itfeels a little bit like a
melodrama, if you will.
It didn't go as deep as youwant it.
Probably I think that may havebeen the disappointment with,
maybe the gay community andMaking Love in 1982.
Speaker 8 (41:43):
Yeah, maybe, and I think you know to measure it by
today's standards might not beexactly fair, because at that
point in time it was the firsttime that we saw a mainstream
production company putting out amovie with the current actors
of the day in a gay role.
So all of that was new.
So, going into a lot of depth,I think that would have been
(42:03):
unreasonable to expect at thattime.
Today we might expect that, butnot back then.
But even at that again, it youknow, for those of us that were
part of the gay community and solooking forward to having some
representation that way, it fellshort for us.
Speaker 7 (42:19):
One thing I thought was interesting was they did a
lot of publicity for it.
Obviously they really went crazyand I watched the Tonight Show
appearance of Kate Jackson backwhen the film was being released
and she was being interviewedon the Tonight Show and she
mentioned that the plot of themovie was about homosexuality,
about two men finding andfalling in love and the audience
just in love and the audiencejust went crazy and they almost
(42:41):
booed her.
I mean, it was really kind of asavage reaction.
It was a very visceral one andI think the marketing of the
film.
They really wanted it to appealto middle America but when they
did previews and things likethat with audiences that didn't
really know what was going tohappen once they had the two men
kissing, there was a visceralreaction in the audience.
It was either kind of laughinginappropriately or screaming or,
(43:04):
you know, they walked out.
It was a very surprising thingthat a lot of people were caught
off guard by the imagery andfrom that standpoint it's hard
to imagine that there would besuch a strong reaction to two
men just kissing and not evenreally having a detailed sex
scene or anything like that.
Speaker 8 (43:21):
It was just crazy that that was the reaction of
just middle america back thenwas everyone naive and thinking
that this would be accepted andkind of blossom into something
bigger than what it was.
Maybe I was surprised by thatas well.
There's a lot of people youknow I'm I'm the only gay person
in my family and I'm I thinkI'm the only one that actually
saw this.
Speaker 7 (43:39):
Well, one of the things that fascinates me about
Making Love is that it was partof an era where Sherri Lansing
was over 20th Century Fox.
Sherri Lansing was one of thefirst women that really kind of
controlled a studio for a while,but this year was just
disastrous for her.
She actually ended up resigningover things like Making Love.
(43:59):
Now it wasn't only Making Love,it was also.
She had some other things.
She had an Al Pacino projectcalled Author Author that didn't
do very well.
There was another big filmcalled Monsignor that she
greenlit, basically, and so whenthey brought out Making Love,
it opened in February of 1982,just in time for Valentine's Day
, and it was originally firstweekend was a hit.
(44:21):
That was the big surprise.
It earned about $3 million inone weekend and they expanded
the theater count Back then theydidn't open them in thousands
and thousands of screens, butthey went from 300 to 700 within
one week, and then that nextweek it just began to bomb
seriously and all this moneythat they had spent.
(44:41):
They said that they projectedabout 13 to 14 to make 14
million to make the film, andthen there was about 5 million
in advertising campaign and thetotal domestic box office tally
for Making Love was only 6million, so sherry lansing was
in a lot of trouble with thatand they ended that year.
(45:01):
20th century fox lost a ton ofmoney and they really wouldn't
get it back until well, starwars saved them.
Turn of the jedi came out inthe summer of 1983 and brought
back 20th century fox.
But it was sad because we lostshry Lansing, who's a female
voice, and I think that that'swhat's interesting about Making
Love is it is a gay movie, but Ifeel like the most compelling
(45:24):
character in the film and theone that has the best emotional
journey, kate Jackson.
Speaker 8 (45:29):
I absolutely agree, yeah, and what it does do that
we, you know, don't often talkabout is illustrate the
difficulty for women that getcaught up in that kind of
situation, kind of stepping wayback in time.
When I first came out, therewere a lot of men that came out
late in life and they came outafter getting married and having
(45:50):
children, deciding that theywere going to be true to their
nature and go out and live asgay men, leaving their wives,
and it really left the womenfeeling like they had done
something wrong or blamingthemselves.
And you really get that sensefrom Kate Jackson, at least in
part of the film.
So I think they did a reallygood job of that.
(46:11):
She did a good job portrayingit.
Speaker 7 (46:13):
I think the one thing that made me a little bit
disappointed in the portrayalwas Bart, who is played by Harry
Hamlin.
He really doesn't factor intothe final act of the film very
much.
He kind of just fades off.
And the film has this setup ofthem each talking to the camera.
You see the wife, you see thehusband, you see the lover all
talking straight to the camera.
(46:34):
They break the fourth wall,they talk about their feelings a
little bit forward in this kindof weird dreamy, white-lit
background kind of thing.
And you think that Bart isgoing to play a much bigger part
and he really doesn't.
It's kind of strange that theyset it up that way as this
incredible love triangle, andthen he just kind of fades away
and you know we watch as Zachand Claire's marriage gets
(46:56):
dissolved and he's just not evena factor.
After a while he just kind ofgoes off and does his own thing,
never to be heard from again.
Speaker 8 (47:04):
Right and one of the final scenes they again go back
to the kind of cliché of the gayor what was expected of the gay
community at that time is theyshow Michael in his life after
all of this, living in New Yorkin a really nice apartment, has
a very handsome boyfriend atthat time and very successful in
that life, which I don't knowhow many of us actually lived
(47:27):
that.
So that again was a little bitcliche.
But you're right, in the finalinterviews that they did in the
story you kind of get a sensethat Harry Hamlin's character
was a little bit regretful thathe didn't pursue that
relationship and I'm not reallysure that that would have been
true to who he is supposed torepresent in our community.
Speaker 7 (47:47):
Now one of the things that most people remember about
this movie and I think that itlives on a little bit better
than the film itself.
There was a theme song, makingLove, and it was performed by
Roberta Flack and it was writtenby Burt Bachrach and Bruce
Roberts and Carol Bayer Sagerand they were nominated for a
Golden Globe Award for the song.
(48:09):
And Roberta Flack was kind ofcornered by the media at that
time and said you know, were younervous to give the film's
title song?
And she famously answered youknow, afraid of singing a song
about love, never.
I was so glad when that songcharted and people who did not
know that the song was aboutlove between two men loved that
(48:31):
song.
She loved the idea that all ofthese people were fans of this
song and had no idea what it wasreally about or what the movie
was about.
But she basically said love isuniversal, it's like music.
So I thought that was reallyinteresting that Roberta Flack
was such a big proponent andsuch a fan of this movie and so
supportive and willing to giveher voice to this.
(48:52):
I thought that that was a bigmark plus column for Roberta
Flack.
Speaker 8 (48:56):
Yeah, I agree, I agree, I agree, and in fact even
for myself, I did notnecessarily in time associate
the song with the movie.
The song, as far as I wasconcerned, stood alone.
Speaker 7 (49:06):
Well, I think it's interesting when we look at the
narrative of the history of film, because this film came a
couple of years after Cruising,which infamously kind of showed
that K-Life is negative and alittle bit scary and there was a
serial killer and a lot ofweird things going on at the
time.
There was Dressed to Kill, whichBrian De Palma, which is
famously known for kind of histransphobic stance about a lot
(49:29):
of different things.
It kind of is seen today as afilm like that.
And there was another filmcalled Windows, which kind of
equally it was showing that gaypeople were scary, probably more
than anything else.
So Making Love 1982, maybe itdoesn't do as much as you and I
want, but at least it's apositive or more positive look
(49:50):
at gay men and it's one of thefew that we get before a certain
era takes over, because ofcourse this film was filmed,
produced, before AIDS and it'sright there at the beginning of
the epidemic and I think thatthat's one of the things.
Can you kind of talk about thattime era and what that was like
before?
Speaker 8 (50:09):
because the the first time I was really being
portrayed in a positive sense,even though I don't think that
most of us that were gay reallysaw us in ourselves in either
one of those characters.
But you're right, it came outright as the AIDS epidemic was
coming to the surface andbecoming more impactful, so
where our community had made alot of progress prior to that,
(50:30):
this was where we started tostruggle.
For that reason, so I think thetiming for the movie
perspective was unfortunate, butyeah, there was a really
difficult time to followimmediately after this.
Speaker 7 (50:44):
There's one scene in the film that seems so prescient
.
Michael Onking's character,Zach, is an oncologist and Harry
Hamlin's character, Bart, comesin to get basically an exam and
he says I've got this strangespot.
And he asks him to take a lookat it.
(51:06):
Michael Don King kind of says,no, it's fine, You're fine,
there's nothing big there.
But it's almost nerve wrackingto watch it after what.
We know what was coming,Because you think about it and
you think, oh my gosh, this isalmost like a prescient kind of
vision of what gay men are aboutto go through and that part of
it really, really was strange.
Now, AIDS was around You'vereminded me of that before this
(51:30):
but it wasn't really defined yet.
I think that they defined it in1982.
We had a lot of theidentifiable risks and factors
and things like that in 83.
Rock Hudson was around 85.
But you mentioned that you knewsome people before that were
affected and impacted by this.
Speaker 8 (51:43):
Yeah, so I left the dance industry and went to work
for the phone company in 1979.
And right before I left and runthe holiday shows, there was
one of the dancers that was sicka lot and missing rehearsals
and and all that stuff.
So and at the time I thought hewas just being lazy and didn't
(52:05):
want to come and and many of usthought that at the time as well
.
And then, shortly after goingto work for the phone company
and this would have been so Istarted with the phone company
in April of 79, so it would havebeen probably around December
of that year.
That's when I remember startingto see articles being written
about the sicknesses, illnesseswithin the community, and the
(52:28):
strange phenomena.
And then it wasn't long afterthat that we found out that this
particular dancer was sufferingfrom whatever that was.
That this particular dancer wassuffering from whatever that
was, and, if I recall correctly,he passed away before it.
Really everything started tohappen, but he was known to be
one of those ones that weresuffering from whatever that at
(52:49):
that time was called the gayplague.
So yeah, yeah, I think it wasthere, but just not in the sense
that we had in the early 80s.
And you're right, I think theHarry Hamlet character, just not
in the sense that we had in theearly 80s.
And you're right, I think theHarry Hamlet character going to
the doctor for that was veryunnerving.
Speaker 7 (53:06):
Now, of course, one of the things that people are
going to ask is where can I seeMaking Love Now?
And unfortunately, because 20thCentury Fox is not all that
proud of being a pioneer in thegay big film industry, or rather
the film didn't earn a lot ofmoney.
There is a dvd that is nowcurrently out of print and I
could not find it on anystreaming platforms either, but
(53:29):
I did notice on youtube you canwatch the entire film.
It's on there, so you can getit there.
The one difference is therethere is no Roberta Flack song.
Obviously, with YouTube theyhave some kind of issue with
that particular piece of music.
It's obviously a very big hitfor Roberta Flack, so it's an
alternate score at the very end,because you really don't hear
(53:51):
that song until the final scene,when you see Zach and Claire
finally kind of reconciling thatthey're divorced now and all of
that.
It's interesting.
But if you are interested inmaking love, you either hunt
down the DVD and see theoriginal cut of the film and all
of that, or you can go toYouTube.
But, like I said earlier, what'sinteresting is that when I saw
the YouTube edit of the movie,they don't cut any intimate
(54:16):
things out at all, because eventhough this film was rated R, it
was rated R solely for the factthat it mentioned homosexuals,
two men and them kissing.
That was enough back in 1982 tomake your film an R.
There wasn't anything thatcould have.
It could have easily been PG,and back then in 1982, people
were so scared of this material.
(54:37):
And so kudos to Sherry Lansingand 20th Century Fox and these
actors to taking on this projectback then, even though it
wasn't quite the one we wantedand it does feel a little bit
melodramatic.
It doesn't quite mineeverything.
I still have a lot of respectfor Making Love and it's still
one of those films that I thinkis very important and we are
talking in segments aboutdifferent films that we feel are
(54:59):
important for that.
Speaker 8 (55:00):
So, and obviously you feel Victor, victoria was a
little more successful in 1982yeah, well, you know, the Victor
, victoria, yentl, thosecharacters that are having to
live a life where they hide partof who they are, a significant
part of who they are.
Of course, it's going to be apassion of mine, but you know,
and I think that you're right,this was a giant first step for
(55:22):
our community in getting us onthe big screen.
So, yeah, you know, I'm glad itwas made, I'm glad that you and
I were able to watch it afterthe fact and kind of look at it
from today's perspective.
Yeah, it was a good movie.
Speaker 7 (55:36):
All right, so Making Love 1982.
Certainly one that's worthlooking up for just the history
perspective and things like that.
And, Lee, thank you for joiningme on this trip down memory
lane.
It's always nice to have you.
Obviously, we watch this on ourown couch, so yeah, well, thank
you for inviting me toparticipate.
There's nobody else.
I would want to watch this with.
Speaker 1 (56:04):
This has been Queer Voices, heard on KPFT Houston
and as a podcast available fromseveral podcasting sources.
Check our webpagequeervoicesorg for more
information.
Queer Voices executive produceris Brian Levinka, deborah
Moncrief-Bell is co-producer,brett Cullum and David
(56:29):
Mendoza-Druzman are contributors, and Brett is also our
webmaster.
The News Wrap segment is partof another podcast called this
Way Out, which is produced inLos Angeles.
Speaker 5 (56:42):
Some of the material in this program has been edited
to improve clarity and runtime.
This program does not endorseany political views or animal
species.
Views, opinions andendorsements are those of the
participants and theorganizations they represent.
In case of death, pleasediscontinue use and discard
remaining product.
Speaker 1 (56:55):
For Queer Voices.
I'm Glenn Holt, Thank you.
Hello everybody, this is Queer Voices, a podcast
version of a broadcast radioshow that's been on the air in
Houston, texas for severaldecades.
This week, brian Levinka talkswith Tanner Williams of the
Diana's Foundation.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Before the first brick was thrown and the
Stonewall Riots in New York,people were getting together and
they were finding a communityand they were finding space to
be out and celebrate each other.
It's an amazing story.
I encourage folks to visit ourwebsite.
We've got a version of thestory to download.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Then Deborah Moncrief-Bell has a conversation
with Brandon Mack, who is theendorsements chair for the
Houston LGBTQ Political CaucusPolitical Action Committee.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
The endorsement card is an actual listing of all of
the candidates, but also eventhe propositions, because we
actually have two propositionsactually three propositions this
year that the caucus has made aposition on.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
So it's a listing of all of the candidates and
positions that we arerecommending that people support
through their vote at the pollsand Brett Cullum discusses the
1980s film Making Love, whichmarked one of the first times
that gay men were shown in apositive light before the AIDS
pandemic.
(01:21):
Queer Voices starts now.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
This is Brian Levinka , and today I'm honored to
interview my friend, tannerWilliams with the Diana
Foundation.
Welcome to Queer Voices, Tanner.
Thanks for having me.
Brian, we've interviewed youbefore, but we may have
listeners that have never heardof the Diana Foundation.
Can you tell me what that is?
The Diana Foundation.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
we're recognized as America's oldest active LGBTQ
nonprofit organization and westarted in Houston, Texas, in
1953.
It was the first time theAcademy Awards was broadcast on
television.
A group of friends gay friendsgot together.
They bought a new television.
They were having a watch partyfor the Academy Awards.
(02:03):
Unfortunately, the bunny earson the TV at the time lost
reception.
So the friends started makingup some of their own funny
awards and again they got backtogether in 1954.
The party grew a little biggerand they started the evening by
giving really their firstofficial Diana Award, and the
name of the Diana Foundationcame from the roommate of the
(02:26):
host, David Moncrief.
His roommate was a windowdesigner at the Sackowitz
Department Store and they hadthis big statue of the Roman
goddess Diana, and they thoughtwell, she's the goddess of the
hunt and it seems to be partyingalong with us.
So they said well, on behalf ofthe hunt, and she, it seems to
be partying along with us.
So they said, though, on behalfof the Diana Foundation, the,
(02:49):
the movie in Houston is.
And ever since then the DianaFoundation grew into a more of
an organization.
But we've hosted our annualDiana Awards ever since.
So I always warn people carefulwhen you start a house party of
some kind, because it couldturn into a multi-year long-term
(03:11):
commitment in an organization,but with the ability to change a
lot of people's lives.
Speaker 4 (03:17):
How did you verify that you were the oldest
organization LGBT organizationin the country?
Speaker 2 (03:22):
We're celebrating our 72nd anniversary.
Going back, I helped publishour 65-year history book.
We did have a historian thatwas commissioned.
He did a lot of research,looked into the history of the
Dianas.
Actually, at the time when wewere really wanting to capture
and put together our history andand our story, it really wasn't
(03:45):
on our radar that we were theoldest gay organization in the
United States.
However, that's was an outcomeof the research in the book.
For a while that manuscript wasshelved, but we finally worked
through our during our 64thanniversary, raising some funds.
We put together the book.
It's published, it's out therewhich really tells an amazing
(04:08):
story of the men and women inHouston who, at a time before
the first brick was thrown andthe Stonewall riots in New York,
people were getting togetherand they were finding a
community and they were findingspace to be out and celebrate
each other.
It's an amazing story.
I encourage folks to visit ourwebsite.
We've got a version of thestory to download, as well as on
(04:32):
our Facebook page.
There's a full chronology ofthe history of the organization.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
This is the Otis Continuing Organization.
Were there other organizationsthat like that, I've heard of
the Manichean Society?
True, there were otherorganizations that, like I've
heard of the Manaching.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Society.
True, there were otherorganizations.
However, they have fizzled awayor they were merged into
another organization, theybecame something different or
they had a different change ofhands of some kind around in
their evolution.
The Dianas has always been theDiana Foundation.
We've always been the samegroup, we've always been the
(05:06):
same group, we've been the sametax ID number.
We've celebrated the same wayas we started back in 1953 and
1954.
We are still the entity as webegan, whereas others, again,
they've become other things.
(05:26):
In the book it actuallydiscusses some examples of those
organizations and what has beentheir evolution.
For example, one Archives couldbe an example that merged a few
times and was purchased acouple times.
So it's completely somethingdifferent.
It's truly special that in thecity of Houston that we get to
(05:50):
have the claim that we're homeof America's oldest active gay
organization.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
You're known for the Diana Awards, which happened, as
you said, during the AcademyAwards, but we're going to talk
about another event, the CountryDinner.
Can you tell me about that andhow it got started?
Speaker 2 (06:06):
We're actually celebrating our 61st anniversary
of Diana Country Dinner andDiana Country Dinner, the Diana
Foundation.
We host two major fundraisingevents a year one in the fall,
one in the spring, and this fallis our Country Dinner.
This started, gee, even beforethe Dianas made it a main
function of the organization.
(06:26):
It was really started by thefirst president of the Dianas,
charles Hebert, and it wasreally first called the Dog Days
of Summer Party, and he used tohave this party in his backyard
at friends' houses.
Again, when you have like agathering year over year over
year, it really starts to becomea thing.
(06:48):
When Charles passed away in 1987, the Diana Foundation really
claimed wanted to keep thattradition going, making sure
that it continued to be part ofthe major fundraising mechanism
(07:08):
where the foundation cancontinue to provide funds to
local charities.
It was actually really great.
Folks would come together withdifferent food committees.
They would make up creativenames for their food dishes.
At the time, a lot of gay menand women did not really want
their names published on certainmaterials, so they would make
up their own names about whocreated these country dishes of
(07:31):
food.
So we have a lot of these oldmenus that are actually in our
history books.
So it's pretty fun to go backand look and you actually begin
to see the change really in thelate 70s, when people stop using
more of a different made upname that they would begin to
use their own names.
Speaker 4 (07:52):
The event is coming up.
It's on November 3rd at theLuster Pearl, houston.
Can you talk about the LusterPearl?
What is that?
Speaker 2 (07:59):
The Luster Pearl.
They actually there are LusterPearls around the country.
I actually had my firstexperience when I lived in
Austin.
There's an establishment onRainy Street.
If you've never been, it's acool place to visit and they
just opened their establishmentjust, I believe, about six
months ago, in the Edo area.
(08:20):
We originally had a differentlocation for this year's event
and unfortunately we receivednotice two weeks ago that they
were having to close their doors, so that left us having to
shake things up and find a newhome.
But next door, the Lester Pearlis welcoming us to celebrate
country dinner from noon to fouron November the 3rd.
(08:41):
We're able to continue to haveour live band, barbecue buffet,
etc.
It'll be a great Sunday fun day, but it also allows people to
still to continue to come outand explore Edo and the area and
how things are changing, andit'll be a great day for
everyone.
Speaker 4 (08:59):
You mentioned that this was a fundraiser.
Can you talk about who you'reraising funds for?
Speaker 2 (09:04):
This year we're raising funds for Out for
Education, the Diana Foundation.
We've supported Out forEducation for a number of years.
Now we're formally establishingour own endowment fund so we
can have a continuingscholarship in our name.
So we're really excited to bepartnering with them.
They are a great group topartner with.
Especially they have volunteers, a lot of enthusiasm, and I'm
(09:28):
really excited about theirmission really wanting to expand
their scholarships, not justfor LGBTQ youth, but families,
lgbtq plus families.
It's really great work.
There's more to do and, as weknow, higher education and
continuing education is notgetting any cheaper.
So the more we can do toprovide resources for folks to
(09:49):
continue their education, thebetter.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
How does one become a member of the Diana Foundation?
Speaker 2 (09:56):
In our bylaws.
There are a couple ways.
One of the main parts is to bequalified as a member.
You must have attended one ofour country dinner events or one
of our award shows.
So if anyone is looking tobecome a member of the Diana
Foundation, you can go to ourwebsite, you can fill out an
application and you can join.
We've got a couple differentmembership levels.
(10:18):
We've got an associatenon-voting tier, which allows
people to have a lowintroductory dues rate, and I
can see if this is a good fitfor you to find community and
find your passions line up towanting to get involved with
some creative events and charitywork.
Or we also have then ourgeneral full dues voting
(10:39):
membership.
Either way, Country Dinner is agreat way to come out and help
raise funds for out foreducation and it also qualifies
you to become a full member ofthe organization.
Speaker 4 (10:52):
I was looking at the website and it says that you're
the president.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
I am back as president.
I served my first term reallymy first three years, back in
2014 to 2017,.
I have returned again aspresident.
The organization is looking tobe a lot more active and I was
asked to come back and help leadour board of governors, which
(11:18):
is a great honor, and I'm reallyexcited about the synergy that
our board currently has.
We're doing a lot of new andcreative things.
I'm very happy that our socialcalendar is front and center for
our membership.
Our membership is growing.
We were just recognized byOutsmart Magazine as Houston's
(11:41):
favorite philanthropicorganization.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
You're on the favorite podcast right now.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
I know that I was going to also say
congratulations to you all aswell.
Speaker 4 (11:52):
Well, Tanner, is there anything else you want
people to know about the CountryDinner or the Diana Foundation
itself?
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Sure Again Country Dinner.
This is open to everyone.
It is a fundraiser.
It will be a great Sunday funday.
We're going to have live musicfeaturing Christopher Seymour
and the Western cosplay.
We're going to be at a chic,western, cool event venue.
There's going to be barbecue.
There'll be great raffles andother entertainment.
(12:20):
We really want to make surethat folks come out on November
the 3rd from noon to four.
You can get tickets atthedianafoundationorg If you
have any questions.
My email is there on our eventwebsite.
You can shoot me a message andif folks are still looking out
there you want to sponsor orhelp give a little extra to help
(12:40):
support Alper Education.
Happy to talk with you andhappy to make those connections
and hope to see all of Houstonout on November 3rd to celebrate
our 61st anniversary of hostingHouston's Country Dinner.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
We've been speaking with Tanner Williams, the
president of Diana Foundation,about the Country Dinner
happening on November 3rd, 12 to4, at Luster Pearl Houston,
2106 Dallas Street, houston,texas.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Thanks so much for having me and congratulations
again on your recognition.
It's well-deserved.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
This is Queer Voices.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
Now there's some good radio, a conversation that you
almost feel part of, providingclear information and opinions
from people in our community.
I'd say that's almost worthpaying for.
Well, except that all of thegood work that you hear on Queer
Voices is done by volunteers.
But like anything, it stillcosts money as well as our
(13:36):
volunteers' time to bring thisunique radio program to you each
week.
Will you contribute a littlebit to help keep us and KPFT
going?
We're looking for listeners tobecome members of KPFT Partners
with us really in keeping us outthere on the airwaves and in
podcasts around the world.
(13:56):
But even a one-time gift willmake a difference.
Please go to kpftorg and clickthe red donate button for more
information.
We thank you and I think you'llthank yourself the next time
you hear us on Queer Voices.
I know Martha thanks you.
Speaker 6 (14:15):
This is Deborah Moncrief-Bell.
With us is Brandon Mack.
Brandon is the endorsementschair for the caucus.
Brandon, first of all explainwhat the caucus is.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
The caucus is the Houston LGBTQ plus political
caucus.
We are the oldest organizationdedicated to civil rights for
the LGBTQ plus community in theSouthwest and we operate one of
the best screening andendorsement processes here in
the city of Houston.
Speaker 6 (14:44):
And we operate one of the best screening and
endorsement processes here inthe city of Houston and we
endorse candidates from the topof the ticket all the way to the
the caucus has been aroundabout the same length of time
that queer radio has in Houston,so there's a very solid
background of how theseendorsements became a thing and
(15:09):
the caucus itself because of itsstatus.
Is it a 501c4?
Speaker 3 (15:17):
That's correct.
We are a 501c4, as well as apolitical action committee.
Speaker 6 (15:23):
Tell me a little bit about what the screening process
is.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
The screening process is an opportunity for
candidates to seek theendorsement of the Houston LGB
Plus Political Caucus.
So candidates actually have toactively contact us to schedule
a screening interview and then,if you are a member of the
caucus and you've gone throughour candidate endorsement
(15:49):
training, you're actuallyeligible to sit in on screenings
and ask questions to thecandidates.
Screenings typically areanywhere from 30 minutes to an
hour and we ask all sorts ofquestions related to the
campaign as well as their stanceon LGB plus issues, and then
through that we make arecommendation of who to endorse
(16:12):
.
But it is the entire caucusbody that ultimately
participates and endorses thecandidate.
Speaker 6 (16:18):
Brandon, how long have you been part of doing the
endorsements?
Speaker 3 (16:27):
been part of doing the endorsements, so this is
actually my 10th year of beingscreening chair for the Houston
LGBTQ Plus program.
Speaker 6 (16:30):
And it's quite a bit of work because there's
scheduling, there's contactingpeople, there's so many
different personalities involved.
The interviewees receive aquestionnaire which they return,
and then the committee can lookat that questionnaire and
(16:51):
formulate the questions directedto that individual candidate.
What is the trickiest part ofthis?
Speaker 3 (16:58):
effort.
The trickiest part generally ofthis effort is getting all of
the schedules to kind of align,because you're having to deal
with candidates who of courseare very busy being on the
campaign trail, and then alsowe're an entirely volunteer
organization, so it's alsomaking sure when we're available
(17:21):
to do this important work.
So that's usually the trickiestpart.
But then outside of that theactual conversations, the actual
screenings themselves areactually relatively easy.
Speaker 6 (17:33):
I know from having been on the endorsement
screening committee and talkingto candidates that sometimes
they learn stuff from thatinterview process and some of
them carry that forward it'slike I wasn't really aware of
that before and then they add itto the repertoire of what
they're going to be doing ifthey're elected.
(17:55):
What are some of the benefitsof having an endorsement from
the caucus?
Speaker 3 (18:01):
So the benefits of having an endorsement from the
caucus.
Education is definitely one ofthem.
As you just mentioned, Deborah,many of our candidates are not
aware of a lot of the nuances ofthe LGBT plus community and
this becomes an amazing way forthem to learn that.
And then it does impact theirapproach to issues but also
(18:23):
maybe even changes the way thatthey even run and organize their
campaigns.
You also get the benefit ofbeing on our card, which is
highly sought after by voters,and that definitely is a big
benefit.
Also, the caucus works veryhard to support our candidates,
so we staff polling locationsPrimarily.
We're known for our staffing ofthe West Gray polling location,
(18:46):
but we also are at otherpolling locations throughout the
entire city.
We do phone banking, we doblock walking as well as we also
educate people about ourcandidates and provide
additional opportunities forcandidates to interact with the
community.
So there are a lot of benefitsthat come with being a part of
the Houston LGB Plus PoliticalCaucuses in CARD.
Speaker 6 (19:08):
Explain about.
You called it the CARD.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
The endorsement CARD is an actual listing of all of
the candidates, but also eventhe propositions, because we
actually have two propositionsactually three propositions this
year that the caucus has made aposition on.
So it's a listing of all of thecandidates and positions that
we are recommending that peoplesupport through their vote at
(19:33):
the polls during variouselection day.
Speaker 6 (19:36):
And this is distributed at polling locations
and mailed out to a largenumber of people.
It's not just the membership, Idon't think.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
Correct.
So it's not just our membership.
It is mailed to otherindividuals who also subscribe
to receive our card in the mail.
And so easily we hand out ordistribute well over 50,000 plus
cards each election cycle.
Speaker 6 (20:01):
And they used to not let you take the card in with
you, but I think that's allowednow.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
That is correct.
You can take the card in, andso it's another reason for why
we encourage people to eitherpick up the card.
You can also print out the cardand take it with you.
If you go to our website, thecaucusorg, you'll be able to
find our endorsement cardthrough our PAC website, and you
(20:28):
can easily be able to downloadand print it and take it with
you in the event you don't haveyour physical card.
Speaker 6 (20:34):
Let's get into it a little bit about those people
who have been endorsed for thiscycle, and I know that we have a
presidential recommendation.
How did that come about?
Was there an actual screeningwith the candidates?
Speaker 3 (20:50):
As much as we would have loved to have been able to
screen directly with VicePresident Harris and Governor
Tim Walz.
We unfortunately did not get achance to go around to interview
directly with them, but we didinterview with a representative
of the campaign who spoke to usdirectly about their approach to
lgbtq plus issues, theirapproach to running in texas you
(21:14):
reach out to all candidates ofall parties, anyone who is
running for office.
We want to clarify yes, theHouston LGBTQ plus political
caucus is a nonpartisanorganization, but we actually do
not reach out to candidates totell them we want you to seek
our endorsement.
The candidates actually have toactively see us because once
(21:37):
again, we are a marginalizedcommunity.
It should be that youauthentically want to engage
with us, that you authenticallycare about us as a community.
So for that reason thecandidates seek our endorsement.
Speaker 6 (21:52):
We don't go seeking does the issues that are raised
and the help that they get withtheir campaign, the recognition
that they get by being on thatendorsement card At the top of
(22:14):
the ballot?
Who is the recommendation forpresidential vice president?
Speaker 3 (22:20):
We endorse Vice President Kamala Harris and
Governor Tim Walz for USPresident and Vice President.
We did not endorse in the USSenator race.
We definitely had aconversation about that, but
ultimately we as a bodydetermined and decided not to
endorse in the US Senate.
Speaker 6 (22:39):
So that's.
Another important thing to knowis that there are some races
where there's no endorsement foreither candidate.
There are candidates that areviable, candidates that for one
reason or another, may not getan endorsement, and there are
races where there's not going tobe an endorsement.
(23:02):
So that doesn't mean that thesecandidates are not worthy of.
They just didn't go through theprocess or, for one reason or
another, were not endorsed.
So you have to do your homework.
You can't just go by the caucuscard, and especially in those
races.
One of the things I do is I goto the candidates' website.
(23:23):
Of course, they always makethemselves sound like they're
the best things in sliced bread.
You have to see, maybe, whatother endorsements they have.
Brandon, what are the otherraces where there are
endorsements?
Speaker 3 (23:36):
Before I get into some of the other races where we
have endorsements, I definitelywant to emphasize that last
point that this is about onceagain who do we feel is the best
representative of the values ofthe caucus?
And also those candidates thattruly value the LGBTQ plus
community.
Because I can definitely say,especially in the US Senate race
(23:57):
, we do understand that that isa very high stakes race, but
once again, we need candidatesthat truly value our community,
that truly engage authenticallywith our community and do not
just only come around when theywant something from the
community and then will notcontinue to engage outside of
that.
So I want to make that very,very clear.
(24:27):
That that is a very importantcomponent of when we are making
our decisions is that we'remaking decisions based off of
who is representative of thevalues of the Houston LGBT plus
caucus.
But we also have some amazingcandidates we are recommending
to endorse Lizzie Fletcher, katGreen, scott Sylvia Garcia.
Speaker 6 (24:38):
Wait a minute, let's say what position they're up for
.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
What's going to get into that?
Oh, ok, I'm sorry all four ofthose amazing candidates are all
running for us representativeum in their respective districts
.
So we have four that we'rerecommending at the federal
level, but we also have um statesenator molly cook and state
senator carol alvarado, umnumerous candidates that are
(25:03):
running for judge, and we alsohave, of course, our very
important local races, such asCounty Attorney Christian
Menefee, county Sheriff EdGonzalez, harris County Tax
Assessor Collector AnnetteRamirez.
So, as mentioned, we encouragepeople to vote from the top all
the way down to the bottombecause, in all honesty, the
(25:23):
lower down you get, the closeryou actually get to yourself,
because, in all honesty, thelower down you get, the closer
you actually get to yourself andto things that are going to
impact you on your day-to-day.
So, while the US presidentialelection very, very important,
let's not forget that our schoolboard, our county constable,
our county officials and ourcity council elections are
equally as important, if notmore important, because we deal
(25:45):
with those individuals on a moreregular and day-to-day basis.
Speaker 6 (25:49):
I kind of stepped on you a little bit there when we
first started talking about whohas received endorsements and
the people that you mentionedthat are running for United
States representatives.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
So please name them again representatives, so please
name them again.
We have for US RepresentativeDistrict 7, lizzie Fletcher, us
Representative District 22,marquette Green-Scott, us
Representative District 29,sylvia Garcia and US
Representative District 36, danaSteele.
All have been proudly endorsedby the Houston LGBT Plus
(26:22):
Political Committee.
Speaker 6 (26:22):
That's wonderful.
We have an interestingsituation with filling the seat
that belonged to USRepresentative Sheila Jackson
Lee, who was a longtimesupporter of our community.
There's actually two placesthat you can vote regarding
filling that seat.
Can you explain what that'sabout and is there an
(26:45):
endorsement in either of those?
Speaker 3 (26:48):
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee was a longtime
caucus supporter and longtimecaucus endorsed candidate and
unfortunately, when she passedaway there had to be a special
election to replace her on theballot and also there had to be
be another special election tofill the remainder of her term.
(27:10):
So that's the reason for whythere are two elections with
respect to that race.
In the first one, the one toreplace her on the ballot, that
was a election that was decidedby the precinct chairs of Harris
County's Democratic Party andin that particular race the
Houston LGBTQ Plus PoliticalCaucus did make a recommendation
(27:31):
to endorse Amanda Edwards.
Amanda came in second in thatrace and Mayor Sylvester Turner
is now the candidate to run inthe November general election
for US Districts 18.
And then in the specialelection to finish out the term
for Congresswoman Sheila JacksonLee, we did not make a
(27:54):
recommendation to endorsebecause we did not have any
candidates.
Submit a questionnaire for ourendorsement.
Speaker 6 (28:01):
And her daughter Erica, is seeking to fill that
remainder of her term.
Governor Abbott could havecalled an election sooner, but
he chose to wait until theNovember election for it to get
on the ballot and thereforeit'll just be a few months of
having that representation there.
(28:22):
The other thing is the bondelections Explain about those.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
We actually made a decision to take a position on
three of the bonds.
So the bonds are very importantbecause those are, of course,
the allocation of funds at thecounty and even the HISD level.
Members of the community canpropose a position that they
would like the caucus to take.
Individuals can come and theyliterally get the opportunity to
present on why they feel weshould take a position and once
(28:58):
again the caucus body determinesif we are going to take a
position.
So for the Harris County FloodControl District Proposition A
we are for that particularproposition.
But for the HISD propositionsboth Proposition A and B we are
against.
Speaker 6 (29:16):
We're talking with Brandon Mack, the endorsement
chair for the caucus.
Brandon is he's the ace when itcomes to running a meeting.
I'll tell you that he reallykeeps everybody on track and we
know that.
It's like herding cats, so Igreatly admire his skill in that
.
What other things do you thinkpeople need to know about the
(29:38):
endorsements and are the caucus?
Speaker 3 (29:42):
one thing I definitely want people to know
is that we want you to be a partof the caucus.
Our meetings are held the firstWednesday of every month.
I highly encourage people to goto our website, thecaucusorg,
to find additional informationand become involved, because it
is so important that we allraise our voices and are part of
(30:05):
the political process.
That could be through beinginvolved in the caucus.
That could also be as simple asvoting, so I highly encourage
you to look into theorganization, but also look into
the amazing candidates thatwe've endorsed, and to go and
vote when voting starts.
Early voting is literally justaround the corner.
Voting starts Early voting isliterally just around the corner
(30:29):
.
It's going to be on October the21st when it will start and
will go all the way up untilElection Day being Tuesday,
november the 21st.
Speaker 6 (30:34):
I've already voted, because I voted by mail.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
Love it, absolutely love it.
So glad that you already havegotten involved in the process
already, deborah.
Speaker 6 (30:44):
Well, one thing about it is I get anxiety that for
some reason, like it would beelection day and I wasn't able
to get there, and I do highlyencourage people to vote early,
because it just makes it you'redone, you've cast your ballot
and you can go on and maybevolunteer in a campaign or push
(31:06):
the endorsement card or dosomething else to help, because
voting is the basis of ourresponsibilities as a citizen.
But there's more that can bedone.
So if you really want to make adifference, if you really want
to have an impact, then gettinginvolved in the caucus, working
(31:26):
in a campaign, reaching out topeople, talking to people
however way you have at yourdisposal, use your skills and
and get the out so that we canchange the world for a better
place, as Brandon Mack and theother good folks at the caucus
(31:47):
do.
Thank you for being with us onQueer Voices.
This is Deborah Moncrief-Bell.
Speaker 7 (31:53):
I am Brett Cullum and today I am going to be talking
about Making Love, the 1982 filmdirected by Arthur Hiller.
It stars Michael Onkeen, kateJackson and Harry Hamlin, and I
am taking a look back with oneof my biggest partners, my
husband R Lee Ingalls, who isalso an author and writer for a
(32:14):
magazine as well.
So welcome, lee, thank you.
Thank you, glad to be here.
All right, so we're talkingabout Making Love, which was a
huge film for 1982.
And 1982 was actually kind of abig year for gay films, just in
general.
I mean, we had Making Love from20th Century Fox.
We also had Victor Victoria, amovie that one of you like yeah,
(32:37):
it's my favorite movie of alltime and we also had a couple of
other things happening aroundthat time as far as different
gay things.
Personal Best came out.
There was a comedy calledPartners which didn't do so well
, but you remember that.
But Making Love was really animportant film because they
wanted it to be the love storyfor the 80s that's what they
(33:01):
were saying, and the directorwas actually the same director
as had done love story arthurhiller.
So it was interesting.
It was kind of a drama about aman who realizes, or rather
comes out it's a little bitambiguous there, but obviously
his marriage he has to confronthis wife and all of that kind of
(33:24):
happens.
But what did you think of themovie?
What do you think that the toneand the way that the story was
told?
Speaker 8 (33:31):
Yeah, so I'll take it back a little bit further than
that.
In its pre-release it wasbilled as a love story, as you
say, for the age, so a differentkind of love story.
It was supposed to be the firstfilm with a gay theme, where
the two main characters, michaelon keen and harry hamlin, were
(33:51):
going to play gay characters.
So the gay community was reallylooking forward to having a
film with two leading men of theday playing gay characters.
We were looking at the visualsof seeing gay representation on
the silver screen, the bigscreen, when it was released.
I think there was somedisappointment in the way that
(34:12):
the characters were portrayed.
They were a little bit clichein how they were written and
presented themselves on screen,and then there was a lack of
intimacy that we were looking tosee and kind of normalized.
So yeah, that was my sense ofit back in those days.
Speaker 7 (34:30):
Well, it's interesting too.
The film is rated R almost forno reason.
There's hardly any nudity in it.
There's nothing that's reallyall of that racy about it.
And actually Michael Unkean andHarry Hamlin had an agreement
with the studio.
They didn't want to do lovescenes, they agreed to kiss on
screen and they had body doublesactually for any intimate
(34:54):
scenes, which was kind of amarker of the time.
They were very worried abouttheir careers, going into this
film and playing gay roles.
So it was very interesting thatyou kind of noted that it
wasn't very intimate and we hadjust done, a month or two ago, a
film that was very much showeda lot of sex in it and this one
really didn't.
(35:14):
The studio was really scared ofit.
Speaker 8 (35:16):
Right, and that one was ten years prior to this one,
and in this one when Ire-watched it, of course, I
hadn't seen it in a number ofyears.
So I re-watched it and I waswatching specifically, for how
did they relate to each other?
And so Michael Unking kind ofwent more in than Harry Hamlin
did, and you could tell thatthey were a little bit
uncomfortable with getting closeand the more intimate scenes.
(35:40):
Kate Jackson, however, I thinkshe did a brilliant job in her
acting.
I don't know why she didn't getmore credit for that, because
she did a great job.
Speaker 7 (35:49):
Well, actually there was a rumor that she was going
to be nominated for an Oscar.
They really thought this wasgoing to be her breakout role
and she was trying to get out oftelevision.
Of course, kate Jackson was onthe show Charlie's Angels and
she was a big kind of tv star atthe time.
She had done Dark Shadows andshe had done a couple of
different projects fortelevision and this was really
(36:10):
supposed to be her big breakoutmovie role and at the time Harry
Hamlin and Michael Uncane werebasically movie stars, so they
were banking on that and whatwas interesting is that, as the
film didn't do as well as thestudio wanted, uncane and Harry
Hamlin both ended up going intotelevision, which is where they
would really make their mark.
I'm not really sure what KateJackson did.
(36:33):
Necessarily after this.
I didn't see her as much, shedidn't seem as present as they
expected her to, but I wasshocked at just how amazing she
looked and how great she was asan actress and I was like this
should have gone a lot farther.
Speaker 8 (36:47):
Yeah, no, I absolutely agree.
She should have done much moreafter this.
Just because of the way sheportrayed the character in this
movie, I thought she did anexceptional job.
Looking at it again after allthese many years movie.
I thought she did anexceptional job looking at it
again after all these many years.
She was a standout actor in it.
Like I said, the two men notthe actors, but the men, the way
they were written were verycliche and, looking back at it,
(37:10):
were stereotypes of what peoplethought gay men were like at
that time.
Speaker 7 (37:14):
Well, it was interesting, a man named Scott
Berg actually wrote the scriptfor this and he thought this was
going to be the next big socialmovement of the country.
He thought that what blackrights movements meant to the
60s and what the feministmovement was in the 70s, the gay
movement would come to fruitionin the 80s.
He really expected that tohappen and so he pitched it to
(37:38):
20th Century Fox and they reallykind of were like I don't know
about this, but after ArthurHiller took the project on and
they rationalized the film alittle bit, saying that it was
more about the husband and wife,and I do get that sense.
I mean you really do see a lotmore of them.
I almost feel like they almosthave a more intimate and
satisfying relationship than thegay relationship between Harry
(38:00):
Hamlin and Michael Onkean.
Speaker 8 (38:02):
Yeah, no, I would agree.
Yeah, there's very much aboutthat relationship and the
confusion.
And one of the things we talkedabout early, right after
watching the show, was that theytalked about Michael Onkean's
character having these feelingsof desire toward other men late
in his life.
And I don't know, I mean frommy personal perspective, that
(38:25):
was never a question for me.
That didn't happen late in mylife.
I didn't have a time where Ididn't know that.
So him saying that kind ofindicated that this was
something that grew inside ofhim over time and I just I'm
still scratching my head overthat because that doesn't make
sense to me and I just I'm stillscratching my head over that
because that doesn't make senseto me.
Speaker 7 (38:41):
I think the story is a little bit clumsy.
It doesn't show enough of hisprogression, we don't see enough
about him and his sexuality toreally get a good idea of what
he was going through, and thereare some bits that feel like
they're missing.
There's a confrontation late inthe film where Kate Jackson's
character actually finds a phonenumber in one of his jackets
(39:02):
and goes and confronts this guyand to my disappointment, it's
not Harry Hamlin, it's somebodyelse, it's some random guy and
she talks to him and I'm likewait, why didn't this film go
with the Harry Hamlin KateJackson square off?
That would have beendramatically more promising
promising, but it was somethingthat we really didn't even see
on screen.
So I was kind of like wait,where did this come from and why
are we all of a sudden goingleft field here to this thing?
(39:24):
I mean, it really didn't do agood job with showing michael on
keen or zach's progression andhis struggle with that.
Speaker 8 (39:32):
I think it just kind of it was almost like an on off
switch, which was weird that wasa very odd part of the movie
because, I agree with you, itjust didn't make sense it had
from a movie and the messagedelivery it gave a sense of
they're trying to make somereason over this and give her
the information that she needsto kind of move on and figure
(39:54):
this out, but just theconnections weren't there.
So it was just really odd thatthey put that in there and that
way.
I think there was a better wayto do that.
Speaker 7 (40:03):
But one of the things I thought was interesting for
1982, they showed two verydifferent styles of the gay
lifestyle.
You had Zach, the husband, andhe kind of wanted to mirror that
with his new person that he met, bart.
He wanted to be monogamous, hewanted to settle down, he wanted
(40:23):
to do all of these things, butBart, who is Harry Hamlin's
character, was shown as reallynot interested in that at all.
He was really about the barlife.
He was very popular in the bar.
He is shown with various guysand things like that and you get
the feeling that he reallydoesn't want that.
And I thought that that was aninteresting facet of our
community to show that strugglebetween two men.
(40:46):
One wants to settle down, onewants to keep going the way that
he's been going in LA and justkind of playing the field.
And you see that and I thinkthat's something that we
struggle with even now.
Speaker 8 (40:55):
Yeah, I totally agree with that.
I think that that was probablytrue to our community.
You do see, those in ourcommunity today, there are those
that are commitment-orientedand those that are not, and a
lot of times those that are willpursue those people that are
not and you end up with thattype of conflict in the
relationship One feels likethey're not getting what they
(41:16):
want and the other one feelslike they're being covered and
need to escape.
So that was true to ourcommunity then and now.
Speaker 7 (41:27):
Well, it just feels like a very soap opera-ish film.
It didn't feel quite as itfeels a little bit like a
melodrama, if you will.
It didn't go as deep as youwant it.
Probably I think that may havebeen the disappointment with,
maybe the gay community andMaking Love in 1982.
Speaker 8 (41:43):
Yeah, maybe, and I think you know to measure it by
today's standards might not beexactly fair, because at that
point in time it was the firsttime that we saw a mainstream
production company putting out amovie with the current actors
of the day in a gay role.
So all of that was new.
So, going into a lot of depth,I think that would have been
(42:03):
unreasonable to expect at thattime.
Today we might expect that, butnot back then.
But even at that again, it youknow, for those of us that were
part of the gay community and solooking forward to having some
representation that way, it fellshort for us.
Speaker 7 (42:19):
One thing I thought was interesting was they did a
lot of publicity for it.
Obviously they really went crazyand I watched the Tonight Show
appearance of Kate Jackson backwhen the film was being released
and she was being interviewedon the Tonight Show and she
mentioned that the plot of themovie was about homosexuality,
about two men finding andfalling in love and the audience
just in love and the audiencejust went crazy and they almost
(42:41):
booed her.
I mean, it was really kind of asavage reaction.
It was a very visceral one andI think the marketing of the
film.
They really wanted it to appealto middle America but when they
did previews and things likethat with audiences that didn't
really know what was going tohappen once they had the two men
kissing, there was a visceralreaction in the audience.
It was either kind of laughinginappropriately or screaming or,
(43:04):
you know, they walked out.
It was a very surprising thingthat a lot of people were caught
off guard by the imagery andfrom that standpoint it's hard
to imagine that there would besuch a strong reaction to two
men just kissing and not evenreally having a detailed sex
scene or anything like that.
Speaker 8 (43:21):
It was just crazy that that was the reaction of
just middle america back thenwas everyone naive and thinking
that this would be accepted andkind of blossom into something
bigger than what it was.
Maybe I was surprised by thatas well.
There's a lot of people youknow I'm I'm the only gay person
in my family and I'm I thinkI'm the only one that actually
saw this.
Speaker 7 (43:39):
Well, one of the things that fascinates me about
Making Love is that it was partof an era where Sherri Lansing
was over 20th Century Fox.
Sherri Lansing was one of thefirst women that really kind of
controlled a studio for a while,but this year was just
disastrous for her.
She actually ended up resigningover things like Making Love.
(43:59):
Now it wasn't only Making Love,it was also.
She had some other things.
She had an Al Pacino projectcalled Author Author that didn't
do very well.
There was another big filmcalled Monsignor that she
greenlit, basically, and so whenthey brought out Making Love,
it opened in February of 1982,just in time for Valentine's Day
, and it was originally firstweekend was a hit.
(44:21):
That was the big surprise.
It earned about $3 million inone weekend and they expanded
the theater count Back then theydidn't open them in thousands
and thousands of screens, butthey went from 300 to 700 within
one week, and then that nextweek it just began to bomb
seriously and all this moneythat they had spent.
(44:41):
They said that they projectedabout 13 to 14 to make 14
million to make the film, andthen there was about 5 million
in advertising campaign and thetotal domestic box office tally
for Making Love was only 6million, so sherry lansing was
in a lot of trouble with thatand they ended that year.
(45:01):
20th century fox lost a ton ofmoney and they really wouldn't
get it back until well, starwars saved them.
Turn of the jedi came out inthe summer of 1983 and brought
back 20th century fox.
But it was sad because we lostshry Lansing, who's a female
voice, and I think that that'swhat's interesting about Making
Love is it is a gay movie, but Ifeel like the most compelling
(45:24):
character in the film and theone that has the best emotional
journey, kate Jackson.
Speaker 8 (45:29):
I absolutely agree, yeah, and what it does do that
we, you know, don't often talkabout is illustrate the
difficulty for women that getcaught up in that kind of
situation, kind of stepping wayback in time.
When I first came out, therewere a lot of men that came out
late in life and they came outafter getting married and having
(45:50):
children, deciding that theywere going to be true to their
nature and go out and live asgay men, leaving their wives,
and it really left the womenfeeling like they had done
something wrong or blamingthemselves.
And you really get that sensefrom Kate Jackson, at least in
part of the film.
So I think they did a reallygood job of that.
(46:11):
She did a good job portrayingit.
Speaker 7 (46:13):
I think the one thing that made me a little bit
disappointed in the portrayalwas Bart, who is played by Harry
Hamlin.
He really doesn't factor intothe final act of the film very
much.
He kind of just fades off.
And the film has this setup ofthem each talking to the camera.
You see the wife, you see thehusband, you see the lover all
talking straight to the camera.
(46:34):
They break the fourth wall,they talk about their feelings a
little bit forward in this kindof weird dreamy, white-lit
background kind of thing.
And you think that Bart isgoing to play a much bigger part
and he really doesn't.
It's kind of strange that theyset it up that way as this
incredible love triangle, andthen he just kind of fades away
and you know we watch as Zachand Claire's marriage gets
(46:56):
dissolved and he's just not evena factor.
After a while he just kind ofgoes off and does his own thing,
never to be heard from again.
Speaker 8 (47:04):
Right and one of the final scenes they again go back
to the kind of cliché of the gayor what was expected of the gay
community at that time is theyshow Michael in his life after
all of this, living in New Yorkin a really nice apartment, has
a very handsome boyfriend atthat time and very successful in
that life, which I don't knowhow many of us actually lived
(47:27):
that.
So that again was a little bitcliche.
But you're right, in the finalinterviews that they did in the
story you kind of get a sensethat Harry Hamlin's character
was a little bit regretful thathe didn't pursue that
relationship and I'm not reallysure that that would have been
true to who he is supposed torepresent in our community.
Speaker 7 (47:47):
Now one of the things that most people remember about
this movie and I think that itlives on a little bit better
than the film itself.
There was a theme song, makingLove, and it was performed by
Roberta Flack and it was writtenby Burt Bachrach and Bruce
Roberts and Carol Bayer Sagerand they were nominated for a
Golden Globe Award for the song.
(48:09):
And Roberta Flack was kind ofcornered by the media at that
time and said you know, were younervous to give the film's
title song?
And she famously answered youknow, afraid of singing a song
about love, never.
I was so glad when that songcharted and people who did not
know that the song was aboutlove between two men loved that
(48:31):
song.
She loved the idea that all ofthese people were fans of this
song and had no idea what it wasreally about or what the movie
was about.
But she basically said love isuniversal, it's like music.
So I thought that was reallyinteresting that Roberta Flack
was such a big proponent andsuch a fan of this movie and so
supportive and willing to giveher voice to this.
(48:52):
I thought that that was a bigmark plus column for Roberta
Flack.
Speaker 8 (48:56):
Yeah, I agree, I agree, I agree, and in fact even
for myself, I did notnecessarily in time associate
the song with the movie.
The song, as far as I wasconcerned, stood alone.
Speaker 7 (49:06):
Well, I think it's interesting when we look at the
narrative of the history of film, because this film came a
couple of years after Cruising,which infamously kind of showed
that K-Life is negative and alittle bit scary and there was a
serial killer and a lot ofweird things going on at the
time.
There was Dressed to Kill, whichBrian De Palma, which is
famously known for kind of histransphobic stance about a lot
(49:29):
of different things.
It kind of is seen today as afilm like that.
And there was another filmcalled Windows, which kind of
equally it was showing that gaypeople were scary, probably more
than anything else.
So Making Love 1982, maybe itdoesn't do as much as you and I
want, but at least it's apositive or more positive look
(49:50):
at gay men and it's one of thefew that we get before a certain
era takes over, because ofcourse this film was filmed,
produced, before AIDS and it'sright there at the beginning of
the epidemic and I think thatthat's one of the things.
Can you kind of talk about thattime era and what that was like
before?
Speaker 8 (50:09):
because the the first time I was really being
portrayed in a positive sense,even though I don't think that
most of us that were gay reallysaw us in ourselves in either
one of those characters.
But you're right, it came outright as the AIDS epidemic was
coming to the surface andbecoming more impactful, so
where our community had made alot of progress prior to that,
(50:30):
this was where we started tostruggle.
For that reason, so I think thetiming for the movie
perspective was unfortunate, butyeah, there was a really
difficult time to followimmediately after this.
Speaker 7 (50:44):
There's one scene in the film that seems so prescient
.
Michael Onking's character,Zach, is an oncologist and Harry
Hamlin's character, Bart, comesin to get basically an exam and
he says I've got this strangespot.
And he asks him to take a lookat it.
(51:06):
Michael Don King kind of says,no, it's fine, You're fine,
there's nothing big there.
But it's almost nerve wrackingto watch it after what.
We know what was coming,Because you think about it and
you think, oh my gosh, this isalmost like a prescient kind of
vision of what gay men are aboutto go through and that part of
it really, really was strange.
Now, AIDS was around You'vereminded me of that before this
(51:30):
but it wasn't really defined yet.
I think that they defined it in1982.
We had a lot of theidentifiable risks and factors
and things like that in 83.
Rock Hudson was around 85.
But you mentioned that you knewsome people before that were
affected and impacted by this.
Speaker 8 (51:43):
Yeah, so I left the dance industry and went to work
for the phone company in 1979.
And right before I left and runthe holiday shows, there was
one of the dancers that was sicka lot and missing rehearsals
and and all that stuff.
So and at the time I thought hewas just being lazy and didn't
(52:05):
want to come and and many of usthought that at the time as well
.
And then, shortly after goingto work for the phone company
and this would have been so Istarted with the phone company
in April of 79, so it would havebeen probably around December
of that year.
That's when I remember startingto see articles being written
about the sicknesses, illnesseswithin the community, and the
(52:28):
strange phenomena.
And then it wasn't long afterthat that we found out that this
particular dancer was sufferingfrom whatever that was.
That this particular dancer wassuffering from whatever that
was, and, if I recall correctly,he passed away before it.
Really everything started tohappen, but he was known to be
one of those ones that weresuffering from whatever that at
(52:49):
that time was called the gayplague.
So yeah, yeah, I think it wasthere, but just not in the sense
that we had in the early 80s.
And you're right, I think theHarry Hamlet character, just not
in the sense that we had in theearly 80s.
And you're right, I think theHarry Hamlet character going to
the doctor for that was veryunnerving.
Speaker 7 (53:06):
Now, of course, one of the things that people are
going to ask is where can I seeMaking Love Now?
And unfortunately, because 20thCentury Fox is not all that
proud of being a pioneer in thegay big film industry, or rather
the film didn't earn a lot ofmoney.
There is a dvd that is nowcurrently out of print and I
could not find it on anystreaming platforms either, but
(53:29):
I did notice on youtube you canwatch the entire film.
It's on there, so you can getit there.
The one difference is therethere is no Roberta Flack song.
Obviously, with YouTube theyhave some kind of issue with
that particular piece of music.
It's obviously a very big hitfor Roberta Flack, so it's an
alternate score at the very end,because you really don't hear
(53:51):
that song until the final scene,when you see Zach and Claire
finally kind of reconciling thatthey're divorced now and all of
that.
It's interesting.
But if you are interested inmaking love, you either hunt
down the DVD and see theoriginal cut of the film and all
of that, or you can go toYouTube.
But, like I said earlier, what'sinteresting is that when I saw
the YouTube edit of the movie,they don't cut any intimate
(54:16):
things out at all, because eventhough this film was rated R, it
was rated R solely for the factthat it mentioned homosexuals,
two men and them kissing.
That was enough back in 1982 tomake your film an R.
There wasn't anything thatcould have.
It could have easily been PG,and back then in 1982, people
were so scared of this material.
(54:37):
And so kudos to Sherry Lansingand 20th Century Fox and these
actors to taking on this projectback then, even though it
wasn't quite the one we wantedand it does feel a little bit
melodramatic.
It doesn't quite mineeverything.
I still have a lot of respectfor Making Love and it's still
one of those films that I thinkis very important and we are
talking in segments aboutdifferent films that we feel are
(54:59):
important for that.
Speaker 8 (55:00):
So, and obviously you feel Victor, victoria was a
little more successful in 1982yeah, well, you know, the Victor
, victoria, yentl, thosecharacters that are having to
live a life where they hide partof who they are, a significant
part of who they are.
Of course, it's going to be apassion of mine, but you know,
and I think that you're right,this was a giant first step for
(55:22):
our community in getting us onthe big screen.
So, yeah, you know, I'm glad itwas made, I'm glad that you and
I were able to watch it afterthe fact and kind of look at it
from today's perspective.
Yeah, it was a good movie.
Speaker 7 (55:36):
All right, so Making Love 1982.
Certainly one that's worthlooking up for just the history
perspective and things like that.
And, Lee, thank you for joiningme on this trip down memory
lane.
It's always nice to have you.
Obviously, we watch this on ourown couch, so yeah, well, thank
you for inviting me toparticipate.
There's nobody else.
I would want to watch this with.
Speaker 1 (56:04):
This has been Queer Voices, heard on KPFT Houston
and as a podcast available fromseveral podcasting sources.
Check our webpagequeervoicesorg for more
information.
Queer Voices executive produceris Brian Levinka, deborah
Moncrief-Bell is co-producer,brett Cullum and David
(56:29):
Mendoza-Druzman are contributors, and Brett is also our
webmaster.
The News Wrap segment is partof another podcast called this
Way Out, which is produced inLos Angeles.
Speaker 5 (56:42):
Some of the material in this program has been edited
to improve clarity and runtime.
This program does not endorseany political views or animal
species.
Views, opinions andendorsements are those of the
participants and theorganizations they represent.
In case of death, pleasediscontinue use and discard
remaining product.
Speaker 1 (56:55):
For Queer Voices.
I'm Glenn Holt, Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com