Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Gay Austin, Vol. 3, No. 7, April 1979
File 019
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Gay Austin, Vol. 3, No. 7, April 1979 - File 019. 1979-04. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. August 10, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/gcam/item/2581/show/2578.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(1979-04). Gay Austin, Vol. 3, No. 7, April 1979 - File 019. Gulf Coast Archive and Museum (GCAM) Digital Archive. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/gcam/item/2581/show/2578

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Gay Austin, Vol. 3, No. 7, April 1979 - File 019, 1979-04, Gulf Coast Archive and Museum (GCAM) Digital Archive, University of Houston Libraries, accessed August 10, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/gcam/item/2581/show/2578.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Gay Austin, Vol. 3, No. 7, April 1979
Contributor
  • Murray, John
Publisher Gay Community Services
Date April 1979
Language English
Subject
  • LGBTQ community
  • LGBTQ people
Place
  • Austin, Texas
Genre
  • newspapers
Type
  • Text
Identifier OCLC: 5962538
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries Special Collections
  • LGBT Research Collection
  • Gulf Coast Archive and Museum (GCAM) Digital Archive
Rights No Copyright - United States
Note This item was digitized from materials loaned by the Gulf Coast Archive and Museum (GCAM).
Item Description
Title File 019
Transcript 18april 1979 Gay Austin vol 3, no. March... Continued from page 1. the march, claiming they needed more time to organize for it. Chuck Renslow of the Metropolitan Gay Business Association of Chicago agreed with the Houstonians. "I'm pushing for a 1980 date in order to get properly organized," he said. Differences aside, Shiflett and Ray Hill, also from Houston, later agreed to serve on the interim steering committee for the march. An important decision on the nature of the planning organization was made early in the conference when the delegates accepted a proposal from the women's caucus to assure "complete gender parity throughout its proceedings and march preparations, leadership, publications, paid positions and in all related areas." The vote to require an equal voice for women offset early accusations that the conference would be dominated by men, accusations stemming in part from the letter inviting organizations to participate in the conference, which encouraged, but did not require, gender parity in the delegations. Since delegates to the conference represented organizations, a disproportionate number of them came from large cities with highly developed gay communities like San Francisco and New York. On the second day the conference was criticized in a proposal from the Hinterlands caucus, which consisted of delegates from non-urban and non-coastal areas. Bringing to light antagonisms already glimpsed, they accused the delegates of "cultural and regional imperialism," and "blatant disregard of regional delegates." They moved to delete the word "national" from the march title "until adequate representation of regions is obtained." Their proposal failed by a vote of 74 to 24. There had been talk before the convention of scuttling it in favor of a later meeting modelled after the International Women's Year Convention, in which delegates were chosen by regions. But the conference decided the principal organizing structure for the march would be a steering committee whose members would represent every region of the country equally. The rest of the organizing body is to consist of a national board made up of representatives of groups supporting the march and a coordinating committee whose members would represent two proposed offices and other committees. The delegates accepted a list of demands for the march, which reads: 1. Repeal all anti-lesbian/gay laws. 2. Pass a comprehensive lesbian/gay rights bill in Congress. 3. Issue a Presidential executive order banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in the Federal Government and in Federally contracted public employment. 4. Non-descrimination in lesbian mother and gay father custody cases. 5. Full rights for gay youth, including revision of the age of consent laws. Gary van Ooteghem. publisher of Houston's Upfront, a gay paper, has been advocating for some time a "human rights" march on the capital which would be organized primarily by homosexuals but would avoid being identified as a gay event. Originally set at May 6, the date was later changed to October 28. Claiming that "Houston human rights activists are the furthest advanced of any in the country," an article in the January 12, 1979 issue of Upfront said that "large numbers of gays would not attend a gay march, but would support the more broad human rights concept." Van Ooteghem's proposal was soundly rejected at the Philadelphia conference. Unless conflicts evident at the Philadelphia convention grow and destroy what solidarity exists between lesbians and gay men across the country, we are likely to witness this year a spectacle never imagined before: a million openly homosexual people on the streets of Washington.V Cinema... Continued from page 8. Once again, there are three nominees who could very well win. Warren Beatty (Heaven Can Wait) is an enigmatic, mythified darling in Hollywood; he may overwhelm everybody with his magnetism and sexiness, but not with his somnambular performance in this film, his personal brainchild. Once previously nominated, Beatty could steal the award, but I say he won't unless "Heaven" sweeps most of the categories. Don't hold your breath. Jon Voight (Coming Home) was a favorite throughout most of the year, and may indeed pull it out. His warm, sensitive portrayal of a paraplegic Vietnam vet practically saved the movie. In his favor: he has been nominated before. Working against him: like Fonda, Voight must contend with the Academy's poor memory of springtime films. My bet is that Robert DeNiro (The Deer . ■*®*-' 2532 Guadalupe ' &ci. tAe active man" the best selection in adult material... Anywhere! Hunter) will take home the Oscar. He has been growing slowly since Ins de trifying performance in The Godfather, Part II. and the Academy has bee watching closely, offering first one Best Actor nomination (for Taxi Drive. and now another. With The Deer Hunter, DeNiro firmly establishes himse as a major talent and artist. He makes superb acting appear effortless: h concentration and his ability to communicate with or without wonN amazing. I can't help but believe that, in the Academy's eyes, his time I Best Picture of 1978. Predicting this category is always tricky businei To guess Best Picture with any hope of success, at leasi two things must t considered. First, how narrow is the nominated film's subject and tliemt Second, how closely does the film reflect the nation's "lone".' That is. ai the attitudes and the mood of current American society better projected i this nominated film than the others? I think these are important considfi ations, and they often work together. Annie Hall, for example, was not a rtarrtt film; it dealt with a very fundamental concern in our society: the interpersod relationship, and how it works - or doesn't work - under the pressures ,it priorities of the seventies. Since this is a topic that is relevant and im portal to almost everyone today, it follows that the film also reflected the "lone of America to a substantial degree. Consequently it wasn't really surprisii that Annie Hall won Best Picture. What about this year? I'm afraid that Midnight Express, which documerj the personal ordeal of an American youth imprisoned in Turkey for drug smu gling, is too narrow a film to win. An Unmarried Woman is not really "narrow. ii deals with a woman's perspective of love, and coping with change and nel found self-reliance. That is relevant to everyone - women, and those who1 women affect in some way. Still, the film has a sort of upper-class bias th: lessens its overall impact, and it doesn't carry the social consciousness th: distinguishes the other dramas nominated. So ! rule it out. Coming Home and The Deer Hunter, among those newly emerging Hint) that try to bring the Vietnam War to some sort of meaningful perspective in th American conscience, should be considered together for the purposes of the Bes Picture award. Vietnam is not a narrow concern in any sense; though some o us would rather not think about the war and its consequences, it remains in ou minds, and therefore is relevant in one way or another to all of us. The questioi is, "If competing alone, which of the two war films would win the award, baso on its ability to deal with the concern most relevantly, skillfully and powei fully?" The Deer Hunter would probably come out ahead of Coming Homi It is more ambitious (to some extent Coming Home is contained within it] if not necessarily more skillful. And, in my mind, it is more powerful, thougj of course there is room for disagreement here. Still, I believe, The Deer Hunte wins out. So that leaves two movies to consider head-to-head: The Deer Huutc and the one comedy nominated. Heaven Can Wait. To speak of the latter a "narrow" or "irrelevant" is ironically useless; where a light comedy is con cerned, its escapism is precisely what people like about it. Its irrelevance i its relevance, and in this case that's a powerful force indeed. Heaven Can Wax is a slick, classy daydream, full of wit and gentle sarcasm. So the choice fo Best Picture comes down to two films as different as night and day; there cai be no hazy allegiance. The Academy will swing either to a painfully relevant emotionally purging movie, or to a joyous harmless fairy tale. Whichever wa; the Academy chooses, the decision will influence winners all the way dowi the line. I believe the award will go to The Deer Hunter. But the selection o either film will be an interesting reflection on the times in which we live. Best Director. I don't mess with this one. Twenty-three out of the pas twenty-five years, the Director award has gone to the person responsible fo the Best Picture. Since 1 have picked The Deer Hunter as Best Film, I wouh be foolish not to pick the director of that film, Michael Cimino. Other picks. Cinematography: Nestor Almendros, Days of Heaven; Bes Original Score: Giorgio Moroder, Midnight Express; Original Song, "Hope lessly Devoted to You," from Grease.^
File Name uhlib_5962538_v003_n007_018_ac.jpg