"This was the most thought provoking programme I have watched for a very long time."

" hope Channel four continue to make such innovative and thought provoking dramas"

The Ku Kux Klan were thought-provoking, but it didn't mean they were right

funkster: 'The Ku Klux Klan were thought provoking, but it didn't mean they were right'

This just smacks of indignance for the sake of being contrarian. There is no parallel to be drawn between the Ku Klux Klan and the producers of this show. As I said earlier i believe alot of this forums views to be outdated, we do not all want normalcy or civil partnerships some of us enjoy and relish in deviance. My concern is that your outrage and indignance is condemning these acts and saying 'we are not all like that' only hurts the queer community at large, you are wedging a divide between those who do acceptable or 'normative' things and those who in your eyes are doing immoral or 'abnormal' things. It is this attitude and lack of acceptance that creates conservatism in both the straight and queer communities, rendering the queerest of our group complete outcasts.

This is an accurate portrayal of issues in the queer community in London, it is not all inclusive in that it does leave out those trying to live 'acceptable' lives, but in my view it is both incredibly powerful and useful to all.

quote:

The gay men commenting on this forum and stating that they 'don't judge' are clearly trying to dissasociate themselves from the more deviant sector of the queer communtiy.

What is wrong with that? I am gay and do not want to be associated with the behaviour portrayed here. It is not a part of my life and I do not see why I should have people thinking that because I am gay, it is.

We are simply not far enough along in being accepted fully into society to have the luxury to be so flippant with perceptions of the Daily Mail set.

drew kerr:

What is wrong with that? I am gay and do not want to be associated with the behaviour portrayed here. It is not a part of my life and I do not see why I should have people thinking that because I am gay, it is.

What is wrong with it is that a lot of people in the situations portrayed are not at fault. The same thing that motivates your conservatism and outrage at 'immoral' behaviour is what motivates drug users and cottagers - social contempt of deviance. By dissassociating yourself from other queers you begin to break apart the subculture and leave many helpless and without a support network. We should be accepting that people can live there lives in many different ways and then trying to combat the destructive elements of being queer in a society that professes to accept us but does no such thing.

quote:

Originally posted by ben_j:
I posted this earlier and i think it is important to reiterate as many are refusing to take the positive aspects of this drama on board:

I am shocked by a lot of these comments. I think this programme was incredibly powerful, I think that stereotypes if anything were flipped on their head and given a more human element.

The gay men commenting on this forum and stating that they 'don't judge' are clearly trying to dissasociate themselves from the more deviant sector of the queer communtiy. No matter how hard you try, you can have your civil partnerships and buy a house in the country with a white picket fence, this doesn't make you straight and it doesn't make you 'normative'. I know im going to get slated for saying this but there are more important things for queers to be focusing on than civil partnerships (STI prevention, education in schools, the infringement of civil liberties abroad) if anything they were a conservative measure that segregates our community further. Marriage in general is an institution that legitimises some at the expense of others, by creating a married social norm you create an 'inner/outer' scenario that places judgement on the relationships and lifestyles that do not conform. What about those who are not suited for marriage (Trans-sex, S&M, Androgynes) should we conform to straight models of living instead of creating new ones and forcing normative society to assimilate our ways of life.

In short, I think that any comments riling against this drama are really in response to the shame and stigma that these people carry around as part of a minority (deviant) social group that they do not wish to be part of. These things do happen, and yes there are other sides of queer life, but these sides do not need to be championed, if channel four made a programme about 'happily married, successful couples' then those men and women that are struggling or choose to be different are seen as even more deviant and will face more homophobic abuse.

I hope Channel four continue to make such innovative and thought provoking dramas, perhaps one comparing these two views?

Some good points made however to put it simply gay people and hetrosexuals see very little gay drama on tv.
Gay people have a right to get upset when one drama comes along portraying gay people in a bad light and feeding into the stereotypical nonsense that most homophobes already possess.

I think most people were upset about their not being a balance where was the balance we know there is alsort of deviant behaviour that goes on in the gay scene and hetro scene why would gay people try and disocciate themselves against it it's a fact of life and most gay people do not shy away from the reality of the world they live in.

In a nutshell would a homophobe change his way of life after seeing this would it confirm his predjudices and see it as a green light.
There were no consequences or light at the end of this film, it's all very well being thought provoking etc but these sort of films with gay characters dont come along every 5 mins to counter balance the negativity as say hetrosexual films do, their out there in the ether till the next enlightened gay drama comes along in a year or 2.

I love grittiness realism as much the next person but these sort of programmes need to have balance due to the subject matter, its a long time to wait for the next drama.
But as the producer says or implies there was a sophisticated audience watching, ah so no worries then, ironic that the film was about homophobia.

I've registered on this site specifically to say to Elinor that this programme was damaging to gay men.

I found the plot wildy implausible in a number of places and with a total lack of lightness of touch. But that's not the real point. It was like a rerun of old novels and programmes where gay characters could only be unhappy, pathetic, evil or a combination of the three.

If the writer wnated to explore issues, what about the massive problem of bullying at school (expressed here only by a character who was barely given a word to say)? What about the rise of the influence of fundamentalist religious groups and the threat they pose to gay people? Or the contrast and strain between acceptance outside work with the need people may still face to live a lie at work. Or any of a number of other issues that didn't draw on a range of dated stereotypes?

The MOST damaging angle was the inclusion of the peadophile plotline. Exploring this is an issue of peadophile sexuality not gay sexuality. Ironically it was the best acted part of the programme but utterly inappropriate for a programme marking the legalisation of male homosexulaity. The linking of the two things is an undercurrent of prejudice gay men have to live with ll the time. It's really not far from many people's minds - just look at Charley's comments on Big Brother.

A nasty programme.

The naked civil servant was made in the 70s at least it had it's light relief moments and you were left with the feeling that you could actually live a fullfilled and productive life it left you with a feeling of hope and a sense of over coming your own personal obstacles, demons, you knew that were coming your way for the mere fact of being gay .
If I was a teenager watching this I would be left with sorting out the fiction with the fact and that's a lot on your plate to be left with, like you haven't got enough already.
This leaves you with a feeling of despair.

quote:

Originally posted by ben_j:
drew kerr:

What is wrong with that? I am gay and do not want to be associated with the behaviour portrayed here. It is not a part of my life and I do not see why I should have people thinking that because I am gay, it is.

What is wrong with it is that a lot of people in the situations portrayed are not at fault. The same thing that motivates your conservatism and outrage at 'immoral' behaviour is what motivates drug users and cottagers - social contempt of deviance. By dissassociating yourself from other queers you begin to break apart the subculture and leave many helpless and without a support network. We should be accepting that people can live there lives in many different ways and then trying to combat the destructive elements of being queer in a society that professes to accept us but does no such thing.

The situations that were of no fault were NOT limited to the gay community. My objection is that they were portrayed under the guise of 'gay programming'. Hence, an association is built (or rather reinforced) that these are 'gay' problems.

THAT is damaging.

As a 44-year-old gay man who has lived in London all his life, I watched 'Clapham Junction' last night with mounting incredulity.

Yes, some gay men are gay-bashed; yes, some enjoy cottaging; yes, some are so promiscuous that I guess they might even seek to have sex with an unknown waiter during their own civil partnership celebrations; yes, some 30-something gay men doubtless enjoy sex with 14-year-olds (though I've never met any).

What I objected to, what beggared my credulity, was the programme's lack of appropriate balance. For, while I would always defend Channel 4's right to make such a programme - a gay 'Blue Velvet', if you like, where everything and everyone is rotten to the core - it was wholly inappropriate for such a programme to be a major part of a 40-year celebration of the decriminalisation of gay sex (and, axiomatically, of same-sex relationships) in the UK.

Where was the normality? Where was the acceptance? Where was everything that Wolfenden made possible, and that we, the gay community of the UK (and our friends and supporters) have worked so hard to destigmatise, and to enjoy, ever since?

And, before the programme's makers seek to explain themselves by saying, "We thought it important not to ignore negative aspects of gay life in the UK" (or some such hogwash), let them consider, first, whether, in this case, a simple apology might not be more appropriate and more honest.

And let them then shout that apology from the rooftops, lest it not be too late to rekindle the self-confidence that their hateful (literally) programme surely extinguished in the many young gay men and women who doubtless watched it; men and women who are perhaps still trying to come to terms with who they are and why they are who they are; men and women who, today, having watched 'Clapham Junction', are once again feeling - yes, I'll use the (in)famous phrase - despised and rejected.

A good post oh and you'll remember Quentin Crisp too.

Well you are very brave to come in here. I haven't seen anything positive about the programme. As I have said, it was gay mans attempt at pushing boundaries even further by exploiting its actors. Shameful banal drivel.

benj "we do not all want normalcy or civil partnerships some of us enjoy and relish in deviance. My concern is that your outrage and indignance is condemning these acts and saying 'we are not all like that' only hurts the queer community at large, you are wedging a divide between those who do acceptable or 'normative' things and those who in your eyes are doing immoral or 'abnormal' things."

I find your line of argument a bit confused/confusing. Some of the most "worst" characters in this drama are those who are pretending to be the most acceptable and "normative" but are actually cheating on their partners a minute after getting married or pretending to their wife not be gay while kneeling at a toilet glory-hole. In other words total hypocrites. Why should you expect anyone to identify with that as representative of gay men. Apart from the various psychos in the film (I have no idea if they were gay or not), and maybe the loner who was seduced by the young boy, (a grey area since he did his best not to be) I don't think anyone would have any problem identifying with the other gay men in the film, who though they may have cruised a bit here and there were relatively "normal". The point you seem to be missing by a mile is that two of these rather normal gay men were victims in the most awful way, and that is the point of and message implicit in the film, that this is what gay-life leads to, death and disaster, a very well-worn message that we have seen for decades and one would have hoped might have finally worn through by now.

It's all very well saying "yes, but these things do happen", “it’s just one story” and "why should all portrayals of gay men on TV be automatically positive'. That would be fine if there a balance existed, with a wealth of other gay-themed story-lines and gay characters on TV attempting to show the way real gay men really live and what they think and feel, but where are they? Graham Norton? Julian Clary? Will and Grace?

The film opened with a playwright being told by a TV editor that gay issues were no longer interesting, and it seems they could only be made of interest here with a good deal of sensationalism and violence. Gay people have minds and emotions just like everyone else, and there is just as much of interest to explore in gay-related themes without resorting to this, which is really just pandering to post-Big-Brother, lowest-common-denominator prejudice and ratings .

funkster: 'The Ku Klux Klan were thought provoking, but it didn't mean they were right'

ben j
: This just smacks of indignance for the sake of being contrarian. There is no parallel to be drawn between the Ku Klux Klan and the producers of this show

btw, I did not draw any parallel between the Ku Klux Klan and the producers of this show. I was making the fair point to those who said the show was "thought-provoking" that you can't simply use that as an excuse for it being bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Elinor C4:
Hello everyone, My name is Elinor and I'm the producer of CLAPHAM JUNCTION. That means I helped to put the film together, working closely with the writer, Kevin Elyot, and director, Adrian Shergold.

It would be great to hear what you thought of the film. Please do get in touch.

Elinor

STUNNING, COMPLEX, AND POWERFUL, TRUTHFUL, AND
UTTERLY, POSITIVELY, HUMAN, A FINE PIECE OF DRAMA, THAT
SHOULD BE PART OF EVERYONE’S SOCIAL EDUCATION.”

The above sums up what I thought of last night’s “Clapham Junction”, I’d like to send my profound thanks for a deeply rewarding dramatic experience and my most enthusiastic congratulations to all those who created it.
It contained wonderful performances, production values, and deeply insightful writing.
I am a sixty two year old gay man, now in a civil partnership with my partner of the last 18 years, we became civil partners simply for the legal equality, not to imitate a heterosexual marriage, and I have been lucky enough to work in Theatre, Film, Television, and Education, for most time since the 1967 Sexual offences act. I say “lucky“ because I feel that is what has “buffered” me on many occasions from some the sort of events portrayed in last night’s drama, though all of those events, and all of those characters, are totally familiar to me, I could take you and introduce you to their real life counterparts this very day.
Many of the characters illustrate aspects of my own life. The boy violinist’s “judicious change of direction” is something I’ve practiced since pre puberty, and still, on occasion, feel I have to, I’ve lost two dear creative friends to the brutality of psychopaths, whose internalized self hate, has made them want to destroy their own reflection, and on many occasions had my career thwarted by men who feel that choosing or contacting me might reveal too much about themselves. I’ve felt the pressure of inappropriately young, but more powerful, personalities than mine deciding that I was what they wanted, and I witness hysteric paedophobia every day,(from gay people as well as heterosexuals)
Homophobia, 40 years on, IS alive and flourishing, just below the surface, and in many subtle forms, something that’s easy to forget in our chic little commercial ghettos, as we spend our pink pounds, and feel so right on and politically correct because we are being allowed to appear to behave just like heterosexuals, and this play shows us that.
It also shows us that, just as there are many homosexuals with problems, there are those, like the lead Character who have fruitful, useful, and happy lives, are men of honour , and feel, like me, that despite the fear and hate we may sometimes face, being born gay is a gift, a joy and a privilege.
Once again thanks for a wonderful dramatic experience, I hope it goes on to an even wider audience, I think it should be part of the national curriculum!
billcort.

I was thoroughly sickened by the programme. Remorselessly grim. I get the gimmick that all the stories inter-related but it would have been good to see one character that wasn't either a victim or a prepetrator.
What purpose did it serve?
Who was it for?

I watched it with my partner and his mother. At the end she said she would have been really distressed if she'd seen such a programme shortly after her son came out and left home for a new life in London. I can't imagine the impact the programme could have on a young man considering moving to a city to discover himself.

Of all the 'gay season' this programme has had by far the most pre-publicity yet it deserved none. A Very British Sex Scandal should have received the attention Clapham Junction got.

It's not often that I see a programme that makes me ashamed to be gay - but you achieved it last night.

In response to Ben J I do disagree! Just because we have the same sexuality, does not mean I have to give my support to anyone who behaves like that! If you talk to a bunch of homophobes they could sum up their thoughts on gay men solely from watching this show! Why do some (thankfully few) gay people now see anyone who wants to publicly show their commitment to the person they love with all their heart (a civil partnership) as “oOo you’re ‘normal’” and therefore a ‘conformist’, it’s the attitude of a immature teenager who thinks that acting like a deviant is the way to get attention. It’s true, this would get you noticed, but would anybody want to be known just as the sex obsessed, promiscuous, drug taking, and paedophilic man or would you rather be known for the positive qualities you have and the good you do for society and other people.

I’m a fierce supporter of gay rights, hugely politically opinionated in such matters, and I resent any accusation that I {and others like me} am somehow responsible for ‘selling out’ as it were, or not being ‘gay’ enough. It’s just your sexuality, the qualities that matter are who you are and who you love, that’s all. Don’t knock people who are settled in faithful relationships because they want to show others that. It is fine for anybody to live their life how they see fit but to make this one of very few portrayals of gay people in society and then launch it under the banner of “how tolerant society REALLY is” like condescension of the behaviours ‘explored’ in this film is tantamount to homophobia! Rubbish!

This film had nothing to do with homophobia and everything to do with how much shock you can put on T.V. and, where possible, set gay rights back to 1967. As a standalone piece fine, but to be the “flagship” of the season of films exploring homosexuality in the U.K. today it’s just out of order! Channel 4 had done so well up to that point but this piece collapsed a house of cards. A real opportunity for good publicity missed/wasted. I know a lot of work went into this guys, and I just wish you had of thought ahead and you could have worked out how much this would anger gay viewers.

Quite a lot of people here are saying that it wasn't good because it didnt reflect their lives as gay men while fewer are saying it was good because it did. As far as I am aware the relevance to my life isn't a valid criteria for judging the dramatic quality of any tv drama. Only a poor GSCE student would write "I liked it because it was all about me."

And get real - how many straight male homophobes do you think were still watching it after the first male kiss anyway?

...Hi Elinor,

I would just like to say I agree completely with Sixu and the reasoning for Tim and Theo's relationship. I don't see what there is to be ashamed of, which is what a lot of gay people on here seem to be. These things happen, they are real, so whats your problem? I think it is testament to channel 4 as a progressive broadcaster to the way it handled the encounter. The sex scenes were done very tastefully, not a crasse manor as one might expect, and superbly acted by I think Luke Treadaway and Joseph Mawle. We have seen teenagers in straight relationships on TV for many years doing all sorts, including ones with a significant age disparity, so why does it make a difference that these two characters are Gay? Believe it or not gay teenagers exist, and its was nice to see the issue tackled tastefully, while still being engaging and interesting to watch.

Only a poor GSCE student would write "I liked it because it was all about me."
No need, jimbobo to attempt some kind of correlation between people’s feelings regarding this and intelligence. I think I haven't explained (at least my position) clear enough if that is what you think I was referring to. I was actually trying to say that due to the fact it was advertised as the flagship of a series of programs marking the decriminalisation of homosexuality, possibly the worst ending possible in that it just reinforced every cliché for a gay male. I (and others) am frustrated because it was advertised to be about gay life today and how we still have prejudice which is very true, but they didn’t have to use such extreme examples to show this! It could easily of been achieved by two men walking down the street holding hands while some uneducated deficient xyz shouts “Queers” or something to that effect.

As far as rating it standalone, it also failed to impress with its continuous depression, with a real lack of any contrasting characters (they were all sad and lonely with nobody to give any real reference point) aside from the one nice guy who would be the Dr. and he received about 5 minutes on screen. I got a constant feeling of seediness and the feeling that if you are gay you end up maladjusted and lonely that just made me uncomfortable throughout. It wasn’t “thought provoking” either, although the storyline was far from transparent (because it was so incoherent), the event which it centres around (the murder) wasn’t really generating an emotive response like it should (for example a similar murder in something like “six feet under”) which was really a testament (especially because it didn’t make ME have an emotional response! lol) to the quality of this show!

Anyone affected by the show, I'd love to give you a big hug! If you loved it or hated it because I'm just too happy 'cause my partner is flying back from Africa tonight and I can't wait to cuddle him!

quote:

Originally posted by Elinor C4:
Hello everyone, My name is Elinor and I'm the producer of CLAPHAM JUNCTION. That means I helped to put the film together, working closely with the writer, Kevin Elyot, and director, Adrian Shergold.

It would be great to hear what you thought of the film. Please do get in touch.

Elinor

I’d like to echo what many people have said in the forum about this programme. Having watched the show, I am left with the impression that we are all supposed to be degenerate, coke-snorting perverts who cheat on our partners and have anonymous, violent sex in public toilets and parks. While I accept that a minority of gay men act this way, just as a minority of straight men do, I don’t see what useful contribution the programme makes to the contemporary discussion on sexuality and society.

The programme’s ‘esteemed’ writer says “While there seems to be a greater acceptance of gays in society – consent, equality, civil partnerships, higher media visibility – homophobic violence has not disappeared. Bigotry is still bubbling just below the surface and sometimes in the most surprising quarters.” I would argue that his (mis)representation of gay men simply panders to the homophobes and bigots. His concept of gay men seems extremely outdated and harks back to behaviour that was more common decades ago when homosexuality was clandestine.

The main protagonists are not people who inspire a feeling of empathy or inspiration. There’s a man who has cocaine-fuelled sex with a waiter immediately after his civil partnership ceremony. Also featured is a 14-year-old boy who forces his way into a 29-year-old man’s home to persuade him to have sex with him. The suggestion later is that the older man is a known paedophile. Most of the characters are shown taking class A drugs and cruising for sex in public toilets and parks.

What was Kevin Elyot’s motivation for characterising gay men in such a way? I can only presume he is stuck in the past and is following his own agenda about homosexuality rather than having a true desire to undo myths about gay people. He could have highlighted the struggles we still face as a diverse social group – one that is not homogenous, but is instead made of people from all walks of life, classes, religions, races, educational backgrounds etc.

All the main protagonists are white and middle class. One minor character is a black teenager, but his story is glossed over in favour of the others. His story is one that the show should have paid more attention to: a young black schoolboy who experiences homophobic bullying. Homophobic bullying in schools is something where progress still desperately needs to be made, but is given just a few token scenes in the programme.

While the theme of isolation is an important aspect in some ways, the programme failed to show any of the characters as having a supportive circle of friends or a loving relationship. The gay mens’ friends in the programme were more like enemies and the only relationship featured was effectively broken within the first five minutes.

I cannot quite describe just how enraged I feel by this awful programme’s portrayal and betrayal of gay men. I just hope the viewing public realise that this was such a poor reflection of gay mens’ lives and that Channel 4 chooses to be more inclusive and intelligent in it’s decisions when commissioning programmes in the future.

Andrew

Elinor seems to have gone very quiet....