Anthony Bowens’ new trophy, Miles McMillan’s popsicle, & Gus Kenworthy’s black lipstick

Anthony Bowens’ new trophy, Miles McMillan’s popsicle, & Gus Kenworthy’s black lipstick

This week a gay Trump supporter made the case (or not?) for Trump, Miley Cyrus gave her followers some horrible advice, Patti LuPone completely trashed Evita and Andrew Lloyd Webber, and the WWE hired another beautiful out gay man. Here’s what happened on Instagram:

Antoni Porowski got burned.

View this post on Instagram

Dreaming about modesty.

A post shared by Antoni Porowski (@antoni) on

Colman Domingo dunked himself.

View this post on Instagram

Take a dip. ?

A post shared by Colman Domingo (@kingofbingo) on

Tom Daley sweat it out.

View this post on Instagram

???????

A post shared by Tom Daley (@tomdaley) on

Anthony Bowens won a trophy.

View this post on Instagram

Hi Photo by: @bobmulreninphotos

A post shared by Anthony Bowens (@bowens_official) on

Maluma danced in the gym.

Gus Kenworthy channeled the 80’s.

KJ Apa held a dog.

Miles McMillan had a popsicle.

View this post on Instagram

It’s too hot!!

A post shared by Miles McMillan (@milesmcmillan) on

The Chainsmokers rocked crop tops.

Matthew Daddario got sand on his face.

View this post on Instagram

This is me now.

A post shared by Matthew Daddario (@matthewdaddario) on

Austin Mahone toured Japan.

View this post on Instagram

????

A post shared by Austin Mahone (@austinmahone) on

Garrett Swann looked in the mirror.

Titanius Maximus ran to the camera.

View this post on Instagram

Running to bae like.. ?????#PAPI #BBC

A post shared by Titanius Maximus (@titaniusmaximus) on

Lenny Kravitz wandered in the desert.

View this post on Instagram

Being free is a state of mind. #believe

A post shared by Lenny Kravitz (@lennykravitz) on

Jussi-Pekka Kajaala read his boyfriend Adam Rippon’s new book.

View this post on Instagram

This is how I started my weekend??#beautifulontheoutside

A post shared by JP (@jussipekkakajaala) on

LeBron James flexed hard.

Ryan Cleary spent Friday night in.

View this post on Instagram

Friday night spent at my happy place

A post shared by Ryan Cleary (@theryancleary) on

Andres Camilo gave Max Emerson an eyeful.

View this post on Instagram

“Boo!” ? @grant_parks

A post shared by Max Emerson (@maxisms) on

Rickey Thompson posed for Calvin Klein.

View this post on Instagram

“How do I feel in #MYCALVINS? I feel phenomenal, amazing and excited.” – @rickeythompson shedding #Thursday feels in #CALVINKLEIN. ???????????????????? This is Rickey IRL. Show us your unfiltered side ? ???????????????????? By @sandycandykim ???????????????????? Tap to shop: 1981 Bold Low Rise Trunk [US, EU, Asia]

A post shared by CALVIN KLEIN (@calvinklein) on

Derrick Gordon got comfortable.

View this post on Instagram

Always be comfortable in your own skin ????

A post shared by Derrick Gordon (@itsderrickgordon) on

Simon Dunn took a dip in Coogee.

And Alan Cumming wore a corset.

View this post on Instagram

Just another day at the office with @mattbrownbear

A post shared by Alan Cumming (@alancummingsnaps) on

www.queerty.com/anthony-bowens-new-trophy-miles-mcmillans-popsicle-gus-kenworthys-black-lipstick-20191026?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+queerty2+%28Queerty%29

‘RuPaul’s Drag Race U.K.’ Queens Go ‘Posh On a Penny’ [RECAP and RANKINGS]

‘RuPaul’s Drag Race U.K.’ Queens Go ‘Posh On a Penny’ [RECAP and RANKINGS]

It’s not that I didn’t enjoy last night’s episode of RuPaul’s Drag Race U.K. on Logo, but it definitely didn’t delight me like the previous installments.

It just seems these gals are being stuffed in an American box for portions of the show (the lip-syncs especially). Having already not been blown away by many of the queens’ fashions, I certainly didn’t come into tonight’s design challenge with very high hopes.

Don’t get me wrong, there were a couple of stunners, but there was a lot of “meh” there as well.

More importantly, the episode really plodded toward the runway after a satisfyingly silly mini-challenge. The workroom scenes this week just felt more lifeless than normal. It’s time for some of these English roses to show their thorns.

Enough prattling on, though. Let’s dive into our recap and rankings below.

After a little light trash talk from Baga, the gals are back to the workroom for this week’s mini-challenge. Ru arrives to introduce the May Pole, which the queens will dance around in quick drag in a sort of twerking musical chairs. Crystal is ambitious mounting the pole for a stripper spin, and Blu takes a chance with a weird little character that looks like something modeled after Drag Race All Star Milk.

This is Cheryl’s time to shine, though, and she does. The stunt queen let it drop and mopped the floor with the rest.

Her prize is a very slight advantage in this week’s maxi-challenge. It’s an unconventional materials challenge (shame on Ru for not capitalizing on the Ru-Bish pun just sitting there). They’ll need to transform trash into treasure, and Cheryl gets first dibs on materials.

A few gals are at an advantage, like Divina, the Vivienne and especially Crystal, who studied costume in college. Of course, Vinegar isn’t well-suited, since she’s struggled to pull together looks from existing, professionally-made materials. Crystal is taking a wacky approach with too many yellow rubber gloves.

But Divina seems to have divine inspiration, seizing on some plaid laundry bags and pushing forward with a bold vision. Her seemingly surging is interesting as Baga, Vivienne and Crystal seem to be forming a little clique like the Heathers or RoLaskaTox before them. Could Divina end up being this season’s Jinkx?

There are few surprises in the judges’ critiques. Baga and Blu are rightfully safe. It’s an incredibly close call among our top three of the night — Divina, in a punky, Vivienne Westwood/Leigh Bowery get-up that is truly sickening; the Vivienne giving Angelina Jolie a run for her Malificent money using unspooled videotapes and rugby pads to make a dramatic silhouette; and Crystal deliver a gorgeous, polished piece with plenty of avant-garde pizzazz. The judges opt for Divina, further cementing her status as a threat.

The judges seemed at least a little charmed by Cheryl’s campy presentation, even if the actual garment was lacking. Vinegar also gets by on a lot of personality, but there’s no saving her horrendous paper bolero and kitten heels. It’s rough.

Oddly enough, Sum Ting also went with a bare-chested look with her jacket. Vinegar wore a nude bodysuit, which definitely made the look worse, but I can’t believe these two saw each other’s outfits in the workroom and didn’t think to change their concept.

The queens all seem shocked to see Vinegar in the bottom with Sum Ting, assuming Cheryl would be next on the chopping block. Instead, the two friends dueled to the Eurythmics’ “Would I Lie to You,” and it’s … fine.

Sum Ting is just a bit more committed to the performance, while it seems like Vinegar is struggling to do something to create a “moment.” They both do what I think is supposed to be a reveal, where they tearaway their bottoms, but … there’s nothing revealed? They’re just bottomless now. The whole thing felt flat. I guess it’s sort of overdone to drag Drag Race U.K. for the ill-fitting lip-sync elimination format, so I’ll just move on and save you the pixels.

Sum Ting gets to shantay, while Vinegar sashays away.

Where does that leave our standings? Check out our (totally subjective) rankings below, and leave yours in the comments.

  1. Even though she didn’t get the win, the Vivienne continues to dominate. She took a familiar concept — the sort of Morticia Addams dramatic, slinky black dress — and some really cool choices with proportion and makeup. I’m hesitant to call her a “lock” for the finale at this point, but she is distancing herself from the pack each week.
  2. I wasn’t as sold as the judges on Divina‘s ensemble, but there’s no denying this was a surging week for her. I really, liked her approach, but I think there was a better ensemble on the runway. (More on that in a moment.) However, we’ve already glimpsed her acting chops, and she has design skills. Divina has all the makings of a winner, baby.
  3. I’m still smitten with Baga. At one point she says “I am so out of breath, I’m bloody knackered, I’ve got the wrong shoes on, I’m coughing me minge up, I feel like Paula Radcliffe, I’m gonna have a piss in the street in a minute!” and I don’t have a clue what most of that means. Nor do I care! Her steel wool minidress was a bit clunky, but Baga is already the breakaway star of this series.
  4. If it were up to me, Crystal would’ve won the badge this week. Her gorgeous gown was a brilliant idea perfectly executed, and it tied so many elements together so elegantly. This should’ve been Crystal’s week to shine.
  5. I appreciate Blu taking some risks in her mini-challenge character and runway presentation. She’s got a little bit of a contemporary Trinity the Tuck Taylor edge. What made Trinity so endearing though was her over-the-top personality. Blu is so sweet, and I love some of the concepts she’s serving. However, I think the stronger personalities are really asserting themselves, and Blu will be left in the dust.
  6. I kind of liked Cheryl‘s lewk? I know it wasn’t exactly “good,” but she sold it. It was more camp than fashion, and it wasn’t super well-made, but it was fun. Cheryl can be loud and at times a touch obnoxious, but she adds some energy to the workroom that I appreciate.
  7. There were many things wrong with Sum Ting‘s outfit on that stage. Her taste level is just not there. She’s funny and quick, so she may stick around a bit longer if she can skate by with sub-par fashion.
  8. What’s there to say about Vinegar? She is massively charming and has a ton of personality, but the drag just never made it up to standard. And look, I know Vinegar fancies herself a low-budget queen, and that’s OK! Look at early Alaska or even Chi Chi Duvayne. They took cheap materials, but they transformed them with their vision and creativity. (I thought Vinegar’s Bond Girl runway felt particularly off-the-rack.) As we’ve all been beaten over the head, U.K. drag puts less emphasis on super glam aesthetic, so I’m sure Vinegar will still have a fruitful career. It was the right call to send her home.

How would you rank the queens?

The post ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race U.K.’ Queens Go ‘Posh On a Penny’ [RECAP and RANKINGS] appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.


‘RuPaul’s Drag Race U.K.’ Queens Go ‘Posh On a Penny’ [RECAP and RANKINGS]

‘By the Grace of God’ director Francois Ozon on Catholic sex abuse: “They are…in the Middle Ages”

‘By the Grace of God’ director Francois Ozon on Catholic sex abuse: “They are…in the Middle Ages”

Director Francois Ozon

Francois Ozon has all the charms of a true French gentleman: intellect, sensitivity, humor and grace. That’s a good thing: his latest film, By the Grace of God, required all his faculties. The story of French survivors of Catholic sex abuse, it’s now playing in select theatres in the US.

By the Grace of God recounts the true story of three men: Alexandre (Melvil Poupaud), Francois (Denis Ménochet) and Emmanuel (Swann Arlaud) who come together to expose the crimes of Father Priyat (Bernard Verley), the priest who abused them all as children. The film indicts the Catholic church on its complacency in the ongoing scandal, and on its constant maneuvering to equate pedophilia with homosexuality.

Spoiler alert: the two are not related.

With a resume that includes 19 feature films like Swimming Pool and In the House, Ozon ranks as one of the most prolific and acclaimed out-gay directors in the world. By the Grace of God also qualifies as his best film to date.

Queerty caught up with Francois Ozon to discuss the film, the scandals that inspired it, and the scandals it brought to its production. By the Grace of God is now playing in select theatres in the US.

Congratulations, Francois. The film is wonderful, and very moving.

Thank you.

What made you select this story as your film? How did you connect with it?

I never had in mind making a film about pedophilia in the church, you know? I just wanted to [do a film] to focus on men, on male fragility, on male sensitivity. I’ve made many films before about women, and this time I was able to make a film about men. So I was looking for a subject, and by chance, I discovered, on the internet, the testimony of some survivors. I was very moved. So I decided to meet with them, and they told me their stories. I made some research about what happened to them, and I thought it would be a great idea for a film. I wanted to make it a documentary at that time…

Ok.

But I realized they had made so many interviews before, they were tired. They wanted to turn the page. But when I met them, I was relieved. I realized they were waiting for a French spotlight from me. They knew I was a director of fiction, so I decided to make it [a dramatization].

Wonderful. Now pardon my asking, but were you raised Catholic?

Yes.

Ok, so obviously you have a personal connection there since you grew up in the church.

Yes, I know very well that world. But I lost my faith when I was a teenager. But I still have respect for the church.

Of course. So in the United States we’ve had several films—notably Spotlight, which won a Best Picture Oscar—that have confronted the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. The church, or certain Catholic groups, will often interfere with the making of or release of the film. I know you had an issue with that yourself…

Yes, the lawyers of the priest [Father Priyat] tried to stop the release of the film, because he was not judged. So they said the presumption of innocence had to protect him from the film. So they tried to stop it, but fortunately, the judge decided with this film the freedom of creation was more important than the presumption of innocence, especially because the priest never denied it. For 30 years, he told everybody he had a problem with kids. So everybody knew, and the judge considered it, but the film got to be released. So we learned that at the last moment: one day before the release.

That’s amazing. Now, when you were casting the film and hiring actors, was anyone reluctant—because of their religious beliefs—to take part in it? France is a very heavily Catholic country.

No, because I know no one who is for pedophilia.

Well that’s good.

[Laughter]

Though it was not easy to produce the film, because we decided to make it secretly. We did not communicate on the film. We lied to people who’d stop the shooting. We decided to change the title; it was not called By the Grace of God, it was called Alexandre. And I said to the press, it’s a film about friendship between three different men. So we were free to shoot as we wanted. The problems arrived after when the trailer was released and when people knew the real title of the film.

Wow. I’ve never heard of a director who had to work in that kind of secrecy to get the film made.

In France it’s possible. In Hollywood, I don’t think it’s possible.

There are few secrets in Hollywood, that is true. So, in one scene in the film Alexandre confronts a priest about the abuse, and the priest refuses to accept the word “pedophile” when discussing the behavior of the clergy. He also seems to want to lump pedophiles in with gay people. As a queer person—as I believe you are—this makes me very angry. But it also is a bit confusing. I do not understand why or how the church seems to think that abusing children is normal.

I think they are very confused, but things are changing. I think for a very long time, the hierarchy of the church considered pedophilia a sin like homosexuality, like abortion. They didn’t see a difference. They didn’t realize it was a crime. And there was this confusion between homosexuality and pedophilia because they didn’t understand homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Pedophilia is a crime. I think now that’s understood, but it took them a lot of time.

Ok.

When I made my investigation, I tried to find some survivors who were gay. I realized, because I asked many [survivors] if they knew anyone who came out as gay after [being abused]. Very often, they said to me “You know what? They committed suicide because it was so difficult for them to accept their sexuality after what happened to them as a child.”

Oh my goodness. That’s horrible. So why has it taken the church so long to understand?

I think they made this confusion for a long time. I don’t really understand. I think they are like in the Middle Ages. They don’t live in the world today. I think, fortunately, the liberation of speech [in the church] changes things, and I think the movement teaches some new people to speak out. Society is moving on in a good way. People are able to speak out. You have to be brave, but now you know you can be supported by many people. So things are changing, and if the church wants to survive, they have to change too. If they don’t change, they will disappear. I think some of them know that.

Of course.

They need a revolution about sexuality, about social things, about many things. The problem is when you meet the bishops or the cardinal, they are very old people. You don’t make a revolution with old people.

[Laughter]

Support should be younger instead of 75 years old. And it’s paralyzed by the government of the Vatican.

The other big question is why the church doesn’t just defrock these priests. Why not? Why are they allowed to continue? This is something very common in the United States as well, and in South America. It seems to be everywhere. I think, for a lot of American Christians like myself, most of whom are protestant, it’s dumbfounding that these people are allowed to keep their jobs.

I don’t understand too. That’s why I decided to make the film. When I made my investigation, what I did uncover was that everybody knew about these priests. In certain years, they left these priests with children. It’s impossible to understand such a thing. So that’s why I decided to make the film, and I know it happens everywhere, all over the world.

One other subtle detail in the film is the way several other characters—parents, siblings—of the victims seem so reluctant to discuss the abuse. It’s “in the past” they say. They can’t understand why victims want justice, or to prevent the abuse from happening again. Where does that attitude come from?

Very often, the people around [the victims] feel guilty. The parents feel guilty because they did nothing. They were not able to protect their children. I think things are changing, and it’s a question of generations. I think now parents are able to listen to a child. For a very long time, the words of a child were not considered important. You didn’t believe the words of a child. Now it’s changing. I think parents today are able to teach children their bodies belong to them.

Right.

I was never told that when I was a child. We never spoke about sexuality. So, I think things are changing. I speak in the film about people of all generations. For siblings, it’s something else. I discovered very often the brother or sister can be jealous of the abused child because the parents try to protect them. So it’s very complex. When I did the research and did the interviews, I discovered many complex relationships between all these people. It’s not black and white, it’s very ambiguous.

Obviously this is a film with very heavy subjects, some very shocking details. What was the biggest shock to you in telling this story?

I think it was the discovery that child abuse is a ticking time bomb that damages everybody, all the family. I didn’t know that, so it was a surprise to add to the script.

So for you personally, when you deal with a subject this heavy, how do you keep going? How do you prevent yourself from getting so depressed that it hurts your work?

You know, the irony is very often you’re more depressed when you make a comedy than a drama.

Why is that?

When you make a comedy, if you are not able to laugh, if it’s not funny, it’s a disaster and you feel depressed. When you decide to make a drama about strong feelings, you are more confident in your work, especially if you have great actors. I think it is more difficult to make a comedy than a drama. With this film, I knew I had strong material and lots of emotions to develop the script and shooting. And I had very good actors with me. I had everyone involved with the film. So I felt very thankful. I felt strong during shooting. I was never depressed. I knew it was important to do, so I felt good.

That’s terrific. So what has the international reception been to the film? I know you won the Grand Jury Prize at the Berlin Film Festival, but what has the reaction been from audiences? In particular, Catholic audiences?

In France, the film was a huge success thanks to the publicity of the church since they tried to stop the release.

[Laughter]

Many Catholics came to see the film because they understood the film was respectful to their faith. It was an attack against the institution, not the faith. So many priests, many Catholics came to see the film, and I think it was very strong to see their reactions. The film was sold all over the world, especially in Catholic countries like Italy and Spain, in South America. So now we are waiting to see if it will change things. In France, it did change things: the priest was defrocked after of the release of the film, and Cardinal Barbarin was condemned. So it was a strong victory for the survivors.

That’s marvelous to hear. Now, in looking at your filmography, I noticed something. All your films are about people with secrets.

Yes.

What’s the allure for you?

I think I’m just interested in life, you know? Life as a fantasy, as imagination. Very often to support your life, you have to live in lies or live in fiction. As in this film, people decide not to lie anymore. You have to tell the truth. You have to be brave to speak out because it can be helpful for yourself, but it can destroy many things around you. I want to show that in film.

You’ve directed 19 feature films now, which is damn impressive. That’s more than some Hollywood directors will make in a career. And you’re still rather young!

Oh, I’m not so young. You can’t see me on the phone.

I’ve seen pictures. 51 is not very old. Do you ever rest? You just keep going. Where do you find your passion?

I love to make movies. It brings me a lot of pleasure. Many of my friends who are directors prefer to take time before they make a movie. I don’t. I like to shoot. I prefer it more than when I don’t shoot. It’s my way of surviving.

Last question then, Orson Welles used to say every artist should have that one work that when they meet God and ask to get into Heaven, they can say “Because I made this.”

Oh my God.

For you then, looking over your resume, what is that one work you would offer, that makes you proud?

That’s a difficult question. You know, once a film is shot, I turn the page very easily. If my films are like children, I’m a very bad father.

[Laughter]

So it’s not up to me. I think I would say to God “I’ve made many films. Choose one I’ve made.” For me it’s difficult to make a choice because I have some big link to each one. But I’m proud of all the work, not any one piece.

By the Grace of God is now playing in select cities.

www.queerty.com/grace-god-director-francois-ozon-catholic-sex-abuse-middle-ages-20191026?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+queerty2+%28Queerty%29

Jurors Award Nearly $20 Million to Veteran Cop Told to ‘Tone Down His Gayness’ if He Wanted a Promotion

Jurors Award Nearly $20 Million to Veteran Cop Told to ‘Tone Down His Gayness’ if He Wanted a Promotion

Jurors on Friday awarded Keith Wildhaber, an out 22-year veteran of the St. Louis County police, $19 million in damages in a discrimination lawsuit. Wildhaber sued the department in 2017 for discrimination, saying he was told to “tone down his gayness” if he ever wanted a promotion. The trial began on Tuesday.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports: “The jury deliberated about three hours before awarding Wildhaber $1.9 million in actual damages and $10 million in punitive damages on the discrimination allegation. It added $999,000 in actual damages and $7 million in punitive damages for the retaliation allegations.”

Said the jury foreman to reporters: “We wanted to send a message. If you discriminate you are going to pay a big price. … You can’t defend the indefensible.”

Jury foreman: “The STL County Police Department has a systematic problem.”
“We wanted to send a message. If you discriminate, you’re going to pay a big price. Bullying doesn’t work. Retaliation doesn’t work.”

— Christine Byers (@ChristineDByers) October 26, 2019

Earlier this week, Wildhaber told the court he was “sickened” after being told by former St. Louis County Police Board of Commissioners member John Saracino that he needed to “tone down his gayness” if he wanted to be promoted to lieutenant, the St. Louis Post Dispatch reported.

Wildhaber also said he was transferred to a precinct that tripled his commute and taken off of afternoon shifts and put on midnight shifts.

Wildhaber’s lawyers “depicted [Chief Jon] Belmar as having a penchant for promoting masculine men that dominates all promotional decisions and said that he will retaliate against anyone who questions them, as Wildhaber did by filing his lawsuit.”

Said Wildhaber: “The police department under Chief Belmar is big on high-testosterone, type A masculine personalities, and my method of policing doesn’t conform with that. This chief is very heavy on promoting the SWAT, masculine type of guys, and I wasn’t doing that.”

A group of jurors told reporters on Friday that photographs presented as evidence were a major part of their decision, and proved “how far the county was willing to go to beat Wildhaber.”

The photographs were presented to the jury by Donna Woodland, the widow of a former county police officer and girlfriend of a current officer.

Woodland had told the jury that Capt. Guy Means had called Wildhaber “fruity” at a police welfare event in 2015 and said Wildhaber was “way too out there with his gayness and he needed to tone it down if he wanted a white shirt. (promotion to command staff).”

The St. Louis Dispatch adds: “Means testified Thursday that he did not recall attending the event Woodland referred to and did not know Woodland. He said he would not be able to pick her out of the jury box if she was sitting there. On Friday, Woodland produced a photo booth array with three pictures of her and Means together at the event, including one frame that shows Means giving Woodland a bear hug.”

Read the Dispatch’s full report here.

The post Jurors Award Nearly $20 Million to Veteran Cop Told to ‘Tone Down His Gayness’ if He Wanted a Promotion appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.


Jurors Award Nearly $20 Million to Veteran Cop Told to ‘Tone Down His Gayness’ if He Wanted a Promotion