L.A. Plays Itself/Boys in the Sand: A Queer Film Classic (Queer Film Classics)

Usually it's a good thing when an important sexually explicit film that is generally overlooked by the mainstream is given a serious academic treatment. Right? Wrong. Arsenal Pulp Press's slim book on two gay porn film classics, LA Plays Itself/Boys in the Sand, written by Cindy Patton, is basically a hatchet job setting out to prove that Wakefield Poole's film and his work in general is inauthentic and not valid, while Halsted's film and work was more authentic and more valid. She goes about this by repeating falsehoods, innuendos, taking quotes out of context, and even saying what Poole's intentions were without offering any evidence (or by insinuating that even though Poole says his intention is X, it's clearly Y). It's shocking that a series of books supposedly aimed at "Queer Film Classics" feels the need to publish a book like this. It's one step above a Buzzfeed list of Why [Name the Popular Film or TV show] Sucks. And Patton (in a disturbing trend among lazy film writers looking to diminish Poole's legacy), she never mention's Poole's next film,his masterpiece Bijou, though she brings up Halsted's other works. Patton only wants to talk about Poole's two financially disastrous later films as evidence that Poole is not a good filmmaker because to Patton, financial success and artistic success are the same thing, except when it comes to Boys in the Sand. Then the fact that it made money is a bad thing. Or at least the fact that Poole insisted on charging $5 a ticket rather than $3 a ticket. Seriously, she makes this an argument as to why LA Plays Itself is a film that cares about gay liberation and Boys in the Sand is just a way to make as much money as possible and exploit gay people. Poole's works (and his intentions) are bad and no facts will get in Ms. Patton's way in proving this. So little serious work gets published in book form concerning important adult films and when something this one-sided and obviously written with an agenda comes out, it's particularly irritating. Poole is alive and can be interviewed about his intentions and to check facts. Yet Patton didn't bother. She relies on word of mouth (for folks with an axe to grind if you know the history), one-sided arguments, and in some cases, downright falsehoods to make her point. If you have any interest in gay history, the history of gay porn or porno chic, or the history of sexuality in American culture, take this book with a huge grain of salt. Certainly don't use this book for academic research without double checking the "facts" Patton gives.

Usually it's a good thing when an important sexually explicit film that is generally overlooked by the mainstream is given a serious academic treatment. Right? Wrong. Arsenal Pulp Press's slim book on two gay porn film classics, LA Plays Itself/Boys in the Sand, written by Cindy Patton, is basically a hatchet job setting out to prove that Wakefield Poole's film and his work in general is inauthentic and not valid, while Halsted's film and work was more authentic and more valid. She goes about this by repeating falsehoods, innuendos, taking quotes out of context, and even saying what Poole's intentions were without offering any evidence (or by insinuating that even though Poole says his intention is X, it's clearly Y). It's shocking that a series of books supposedly aimed at "Queer Film Classics" feels the need to publish a book like this. It's one step above a Buzzfeed list of Why [Name the Popular Film or TV show] Sucks. And Patton (in a disturbing trend among lazy film writers looking to diminish Poole's legacy), she never mention's Poole's next film,his masterpiece Bijou, though she brings up Halsted's other works. Patton only wants to talk about Poole's two financially disastrous later films as evidence that Poole is not a good filmmaker because to Patton, financial success and artistic success are the same thing, except when it comes to Boys in the Sand. Then the fact that it made money is a bad thing. Or at least the fact that Poole insisted on charging $5 a ticket rather than $3 a ticket. Seriously, she makes this an argument as to why LA Plays Itself is a film that cares about gay liberation and Boys in the Sand is just a way to make as much money as possible and exploit gay people. Poole's works (and his intentions) are bad and no facts will get in Ms. Patton's way in proving this. So little serious work gets published in book form concerning important adult films and when something this one-sided and obviously written with an agenda comes out, it's particularly irritating. Poole is alive and can be interviewed about his intentions and to check facts. Yet Patton didn't bother. She relies on word of mouth (for folks with an axe to grind if you know the history), one-sided arguments, and in some cases, downright falsehoods to make her point. If you have any interest in gay history, the history of gay porn or porno chic, or the history of sexuality in American culture, take this book with a huge grain of salt. Certainly don't use this book for academic research without double checking the "facts" Patton gives.