I liked Michael well enough but - Queer as Folk (2000) Discussion

[–] dergil27 13 years ago

........To the poster who wants Michael to kill Justin

So I assume you want Justin out of the picture for good.Can't agree with this.Michael is my favorite, but the show is about Brian's interactions with both of these men.Never did get all the excitement over the B/J thing.But having the whole program be about Brian and Michael would get old.Wouldn't get old as fast as a show with nothing but Brian and Justin,but it would get old.

Didn't get as many scenes with Brian and Michael together as I would have liked.But I think this has more to due with David,and later Ben and Hunter, than with Justin dominating Brian's attention..

reply

[–] dergil27 13 years ago

To the poster who believes Michael merely became "resigned" to Brian and Justin as a couple in season five.See little to no evidence of this.But see plenty of examples to the contrary:

In the first episode of the season Michael and Brian are talking about Brian's trip out to Los Angeles to see Justin. Michael is happy almost to the point of giddiness for the couple's reunion.

Later in the season,Michel invites Brian and Justin as a couple to his and Ben's new home.

Michael takes Justin's side after he and Brian break up.Even sacrificing his friendship with Brian to do so.

As to the B.S. comment as proof that Michael still hates the Brian/Justin relationship.This show has always left a lot of the characters actions up to the viewers interpretation.But the reason for the "This is f*#king bulls%@t!",comment is explained in no uncertain terms.Brian had spent most of the season putting down Michael's choices of marriage, a house and a family. Even claiming Michael "infected" Justin with the desire for an "imitation heterosexual" lifestyle.It becomes such an issue that both Justin and Michael break ties with Brian.Then,after all that, Brian sends Michael an invitation to his wedding. Michael even says this is why he is so pissed about getting the invitation. For explaining the reasons behind an action,this is about as clear as this program ever gets.

reply

[–] dawnlxix 13 years ago

I know why Michael made the b.s. comment when he received the wedding announcement. You totally missed my point. The reason why he said it is irrelevant. My point is that Michael can never simply be happy for someone without whining and complaining about how he is so aggrieved. If he was so giddy about B/J's relationship and wanted Brian to grow up and embrace the type of lifestyle that he and Ben were leading, then why couldn't he just be happy that Brian had finally come to his senses and that two people, whose relationship he is championing according to you, have gotten back together. Why must he be negative and refuse to support his friend until Ben, once again, points out to him that he's being petty? If Michael was actually the decent human being that some of his supporters make him out to be, then he would have expressed nothing but happiness and relief that Brian and Justin had gotten back together and were taking such a huge step towards a committed relationship. Compare his reaction to the way Brian supported and help facilitate Michael and Ben's nuptials when they decided to get married, despite Brian's personal beliefs on the subject.

The point is that Brian always acts like a true friend whereas Michael always acts like a spoiled child who thinks the world revolves around him.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2mda2o.jpg

http://bit.ly/GIA9PI NSFW

reply

[–] VoulezVous100 13 years ago

I'm one of the minority who never had a problem with the character of Michael. I love the show 100 percent. Yes sure, some characters can have their annoying moments at times, but it's all part of the package to me. This is one of my favourite shows of all time. The only thing that really bugged me was Brian's constant cynical ways, but that is part of his personality.

As for Michael, I thought the relationship breakdown with David could have been better conveyed. We ended Season 1 with him obviously following David, only to have it all over very early in Season 2. I assume the guy who played David no longer wanted to be in the show. Also, the quick arrival of a new Prince Charming was somewhat unbelievable to me. I just cannot imagine someone like Ben being interested in a character like Michael.

These are just minor criticisms about a show I rate very highly. It is a wonderful show and one that I am currently re-watching from start to finish.

reply

[–] KatrinaW 12 years ago

I'm one of the minority who never had a problem with the character of Michael. I love the show 100 percent. Yes sure, some characters can have their annoying moments at times, but it's all part of the package to me. This is one of my favourite shows of all time... These are just minor criticisms about a show I rate very highly. It is a wonderful show and one that I am currently re-watching from start to finish...

I totally agree! I just started watching this show a month or so ago, and have whipped through almost the entire series. I just started S5 last night, and I'm loving it so far. I do get the criticizms, and can understand why people might thing the show went downhill in S5, but I'm still loving it a lot, and once I finish, I'll start the series over again from the beginning. Aah, the beauty of Amazon and used DVDs!

As for Michael, to paraphrase myself in a reply on the Ben vs. David thread:

I've always thought Michael was quite endearingly adorable, despite his flaws (and there are quite a few, but don't we all have flaws?). Maybe it's that I find Hal Sparks extremely cute, and it's clouded my judgment!

Mikey is very cute, has big brown puppy dog eyes, has an athletic, boyish body (just my type), is enthusiastic about comic books (hey, some people find that nerdishly sexy), a good and loyal friend (most of the time), is running his own business (two, if you count the Rage comic books), and has survived having Debbie for a mother all these years. Heck, after being raised by her, I'm amazed that he's not a bit more f'ed up!

Sure, he has jealous rants about his best friend's boyfriend, often seems to make everyone else's issues about him, and holds silverware like a four-year-old, but the guy is flippin' adorably gorgeous, so I can excuse those things. Also, he's been a very good friend to both Ted and Emmett over the years, Emmett especially. He's so sweet when a friend is in need, whether it be a place to crash (both Emmett and Justin have crashed at his place in times of need), lending his clothes (I loved Emmett in Mikey's too-short pj bottoms and Astro Man t-shirt!), and has been a great listening ear and shoulder to cry on in a lot of instances, for all of his friends. In that respect, he's kind of like the mom of the group in a lot of ways.

And, although he was very reluctant to let Hunter into their lives at first, he changed his opinion quite quickly, and was shortly the one getting nervous and upset that Hunter didn't come back to the apartment at night. He's the one that ran with Hunter when his mom showed up with the police. He's now Hunter's mom, pretty much. They even share a love of comic books and Cap'n Crunch cereal.

So, he still carries the torch for his gay, gorgeous, charming, charismatic, cynical and hedonistic best friend. Heck, if my best friend looked like Gale Harold and had Brian's personality, I'd probably have issues with this, too!

Michael/Justin - yes, Mikey was jealous of Justin from the get-go, but as for asking why would he be jealous of one of Brian's tricks, when all Brian seemed to do was bring home a different trick every night, my thoughts are, he sensed something different about Justin from the beginning, and knew that Brian felt much more for him than even Brian would admit. Heck, B & M are best friends. Do you think Michael isn't clued in to his moods, can't read every emotion on his face when necessary, doesn't know him better than almost anyone else? I came to love the tentative friendship and bond that Michael and Justin shared over the Rage comic book.

But yes, it was funny when Brian punched Mikey in the eye at Mel and Linds' party!

reply

[–] livingfortoday 13 years ago

I really liked him the second time I saw the show. Not my favorite character, but I really like his gentle and kind heart. Yes, he's annoying at times. But who isn't?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dergil27 13 years ago

....To the poster who thinks Michael is a spoiled child who was only resigned to Brian and Justin's relationship.

The world does not revolve around Michael,nor does it revolve around Brian and Justin,at least not on the actual show.And while Brian may have supported Michael in his decision to get married,when choices were made that adversely effected Brian and Michael's playtime,it was a different story.Brian does come to Michael and Ben's dinner party but almost immediately insults Michael's other guests.Yes,Eli was an ass and probably deserved it,but he was still one of Ben and Michael's friends.And the choice and presentation of Brian's gift to the couple was clearly meant to embarrass Michael.At another of Michael's parties Brian shows his disapproval for the "Rage" wedding issue by rather contemptuously discarding the comic.And there was the episode of Brian coming to Michael's house in the middle of the night to berate his friend for putting visions of white picket fences in Justin's blond little head.Before the wedding announcement Brian had spent months repudiating Michael's "stepford fag" lifestyle. And at this point the two hadn't been on friendly terms for some time.Yet when Michael gets the announcment in the mail he's supposed to forget all this and just be happy because Brian and Justin are finally together? This would be the proper responce if Michael spent every minute rejoycing or fretting over the ups and downs of Brian and Justin's lovelife.But all of the qaf characters have their own lives and their own problems.For Michael,or Emmett or Ted for that matter,the sun doesn't rise and set according to the state of Brian and Justin's romance.Michael was also upset because he believed Brian had not been to see him at the hospital.When Ben set him straight on this,(Why didn't he tell him earlier?),Michael softened rather quickly and patched things up with Brian.

But suppose,for the sake of argument only,Michael really was being childish and self involved.The mini hissy fit he had over the invitation lasted only a few minutes.And ended not after Ben told Michael he was,in your words,being petty,but when he found out about the blood transfusion uproar.But take away even this mitigating circumstance.And say Michael,again for the sake of argument,was being a total son of a b*tch at the time he made the B.S. comment.Don't follow how this demonstrates that Michael was just "resigned" to Brian and Justin as a couple.This was still only one instance in the entire fifth season.From five point one til their breakup mid season,Michael is unfailingly supportive of Brian and Justin as a couple.There are several examples of this, a few of which I mentioned in an earlier post.Doesn't make sense to waive that all away due to one short-lived outburst.

Sorry for the late reply.Wanted to respond sooner but around here almost everyone's electricity was out for days.

reply

[–] dergil27 13 years ago

........fairpenguin

I can think of two things off the top of my head that definity cost him

When, after discovering who his real father was, Michael went along with Debbie's wish to go on pretending his father was a war hero.This cost him any chance to get to know his father.

He told Ben to go ahead and go to Tibet.Michael didn't want him to go,but didn't want to hold Ben back from something he really wanted to do.Only Debbie's intervention kept Ben in Pittsburgh.

.....on the post ending "agree to dissagree,a lot"

Hope that wasn't a kiss off.Thought we were always agreeing to dissagree.Still hope to respond to this post.But I wanted to rewatch the season four scenes mentioned.Have yet to do this.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dergil27 13 years ago

....fairpenguin

I'm now convinced that Michael is supposed to function as US qaf's everyman. Also agree that Michael's character,as presented, is ill suited for this purpose. But as I said before,I don't need to identify with a character to like him. And don't consider Michael a failed character because his British counterpart may be more relatable to viewers. And why does Michael need to be like Vince anyway? Is Emmett a failed character because he is less camp than Alexander? Is Ted a less successful character because he survived? And I've heard only one person complaining,(And that person may be one of the Brian/Michael people),about Brian not being enough like Stuart.So Michael may be a poor everyman,but for me,this is beside the point.And as to Michael not being like Vince,if he were,he would no longer be my favorite.

Much is made of Michael following after Brian for over ten years waiting for Brian to take a romantic interest in him. But few take into account Brian's complicity in Michael's unreturned longings. I once knew a successful,otherwise sensible person who bore an unrequited love for someone for eight years.And that was with no encouragment from the object of effection. And while it's true Michael should have wised up faster than he did,it's often hard to let go of something you really want. Especially if someone is giving you false hope. And Brian had been giving Michael false hope for years. Notice you do mention and dissaprove of Brian's role in Michael's romantic/sexual obsession with him. But you say you understand where Brian's behavior came from. What do you mean by this? Think you are letting Brian off more easily than I do

The underwear party scene always seemed strange to me. Like it had been cut off a minute too soon. My interpretation of what happened is that Brian and Michael continued to look at each other while Brian engaged in sexual acts with one or more partners.One could see this as Brian and Michael sort of f*##ing by proxy. And while this couldn't be called innocent fun,in my opinion actual physical sexual contact needs to be made between two parties for it to be sex. So I don't consider it unfaithfulness on Michael's part.I do however see this as yet another example of Brian "leading Michael on",so to speak.

Still say Michael appears to be so angry about Brian and Justin's reconciliation due to Justin's perceived ingratitude. Say this because jealousy,for reasons stated earlier, makes no sense to me. But then, it also makes no sense to me for a closeted musician to risk exposure by sleeping with a fan the first chance he gets. So jealousy could be the cause of Michael's pissy look.But until a reliable source says otherwise,I'll go with what I see as the more logical explanation.

Don't see the "turn out the lights" comment as particularly selfish. I agree that generally when Michael is unhappy or feeling abused he lets it be known. Yet you don't often ,if ever, hear him complain about his situation with Ben and Hunter. Some might say he has no business complaining,since Michael chose this path. But having two HIV positive people to worry about has to be difficult. And for the most part Michael does suffer this burden in silence. And whatever happens after death(Heaven and Hell, reincarnation,spirits roaming the earth, you just rot,other),the suffering is most likely over for the departed. But those left behind have to go on feeling the loss of a someone close until they themselves die. This is why I don't condemn Michael for worrying about how a loved ones possible death will effect him.

I can see why I forgot the footprints line.It makes no sense to me. Under what circumstance would Michael think his and Brian's footprints alone would be cast in Hollywood? Perhaps Michael doesn't include Justin simply because he isn't present. Still don't read it as a romantic overture from Michael towards Brian. If I did,at least I would understand what Michael is talking about. But as the footprints comment stands,I honestly don't know what to make of it.

Know a lot of Brian/Justin fans get absolutly livid over the scene where Michael tells Brian that he and Justin know about his cancer after telling Justin to keep quiet.But I really don't understand what all the furor is about. Maybe this is because I don't get up in arms everytime someone or something causes a rift in the Brian/Justin relationship, and therefore don't understand. And maybe I don't understand. But the way Michael is often crucified over this seems an overreaction. Yes Michael runs his mouth off to Brian after repeatedly telling Justin not to say anything,resulting in Brian throwing Justin out.However, when Michael discovers this he takes steps to correct the situation.He tells Brian he is being s*#!!y to Justin and later ,goes to Justin and explains why Brian threw him out.In the end Brian and Justin are back together in the chicken soup scene so many viewers love. You say Michael redeemed himself a little. And while many B/J fans don't even give him this much credit,results suggest Michael redeemed himself completely.

You say Justin didn't get enough screentime or separate storylines after the middle part of season three.I bemoaned the diminished number of scenes between Brian and Michael at about the same time.My guess is that the shorter season along with the addition of Hunter is what ate up some of the B/M scenes.Perhaps Justin as an individual was another casulty of the new 14 ep. standard.Maybe separate Justin storylines had always been last on the writers list of importance.We just didn't know it before. But I think and the overemphasis on the B/J romance had even more to do with the loss of "not just Brian's boyfriend" Justin.It's true that for Justin to have more separate storylines he would require more screentime.But more screentime doesn't always result in better or more varied storylines.In the early days of the show Mel and Linds got less time,and their main stories involved infidelity,fighting,and a baby.Later,when this couple got more airtime,their main stories revolved around more fighting,more cheating, and another baby. Do admit this is an extreme example and no one on the show was more poorly served than Mel and Linds.But it does demonstrate that more screentime doesn't always matter.And so it would be with Justin.I really do think the only way we would see Justin in the later years would be as part of the Brian/Justin entity.And this would be the case no matter how much airtime Justin's character received. However,for the sake of discussion,I would be happy to see more stories focusing on "not just Brian's boyfriend" Justin,providing they didn't take one single second of screentime away from Michael.Let Justin take airtime away from someone truely boring instead.I nominate Mel and Linds.

Still don't see how anyone can prefer Vince as a character over Michael.I Like Vince,he is sweet,nice and kind.He gave new life to the most overused three word phrase in the English language and he was adorable.But he was too nice and cloyingly sweet.Even Ben had more of an edge.I like nice but when "the nice" is excessive I don't find it interesting. And though I like both characters,I'll take Michael and his snippy comment about Justin's dentalwork over Vince's "Oh My God" anyday.

.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dergil27 13 years ago

...fairpenguin

Took me a while to reply as well. But, looking forward to it.

reply

[–] moonprincess1788 13 years ago

I really disliked Michael on my first viewing. Felt he was whiny as all hell. Then I read more about Hal Sparks...fueled my dislike even more. Years later, Michael is OK. I don't like or dislike him anymore. He's just...OK. Not the demon I originally made him out to be and sometimes he can be a little funny and have great lines and calls Brian on his b.s. Still, sometimes he needed to punched, especially when he told Brian he should have left Justin for dead in 3.01. I don't care what Justin did, you do not say that. WTF? I think it angered me that Brian is the one that got called an animal for that scene and Michael came off looking like an innocent. If only they knew what he said that caused Brian to snap.

reply

[–] dergil27 12 years ago

What do you mean "If only they knew..."? Of course they knew. There is a discussion earlier in this very thread about this topic.

Why do people leave posts without bothering to first read through the subject?

reply

[–] moonprincess1788 12 years ago

^why are you such as a$$hole. Step off. You're lucky we're online.

Sometimes I don't feel like reading huge threads before I post. I read the OP and then post my individual thoughts. That's how I roll. You need to have several seats.

reply

[–] shadowsfan18 12 years ago

I loved Michael--for the most part.

The few times I wanted to curse at him and/or hit him was when he went into hyper-bitch-mode and started to stick his nose/opinions where it didn't belong. ESPECIALLY when it came to matters concerning his "best friend, Brian".

For example: the way he took it so personal when Justin "cheated" on Brian and subsequently left him really irked me. He was doing the absolute MOST in going out of his way to defend the poor, victimized Brian.

I'm glad that Justin seemed to hold his own against Michael's bullying during that entire ordeal.

reply

[–] mjw2157 12 years ago

I did not like Michael and I did like B/J, but they have nothing to do with why I don't like Michael. Just as Brian did, Michael sometimes treated people like crap. His mother, for one. While he did grow up - Michael never seemed to meet his problems head on, especially early in the series. He had a tendency to lie, and I could not stand that. But the biggest problem I had with Michael, was he never seemed to think before he spoke and could be insensitive. Several examples - when he told Justin he was only living with Brian because he was bashed. This was true - but Justin was an 18 year old kid who was still overcoming a very traumatic experience. I know he was trying to be helpful to Justin, but he just blew it big time. Talking about how JR should not be raised by a single mom, when his mom was there. Not inviting Deb to the fundraiser David threw and what he said to her at the party (that is what I never forgave him for). Granted they shouldn't have crashed it - but would not have if he had not been so snobby in the diner. Talking to Brian in Babylon about how we was going to be a real father to his child - not like Brian to Gus. Whether or not any of it was true - it was still crappy. He did have his moments, and he wasn't an evil guy - just sometimes insensitive.

Also he literally whined, tone of voice and everything and I cannot stomach whining.

As for what he said about Justin - nothing justifies that comment, he can hope he gets dumped by people and lots of unpleasant things, but to say he should have been left on the garage floor to die to the person who lived the experience also was cruel. He deserved to be punched, although I always thought that Brian surprised himself when he hit Michael.

reply

[–] shadowsfan18 12 years ago

I'm a Michael fan, but even I thought he "deserved" that punch from Brian. I can't stand Justin...but I agree that what Michael said was way out of line.

reply

[–] dergil27 11 years ago

I am also a Michael fan. Also agree that he deserved to get hit for it. But some fans go on and on and on about it. As if nothing Michael ever did or ever will do can obliterate the horrid crime of saying what he did about Justin.

reply

[–] briebo1 12 years ago

Very good examples mjw. I wouldn't say I hate Michael but he is one of my least favorite characters because of his immaturity. I also have similar issues about things I dislike about Justin, often that also stem from immaturity, but I show Justin a little more grace than Michael in this area because Justin is 17 and Michael is 29 when the show begins, Justin is allowed some immaturity even if it annoys me at times. And I think some immaturity is good in the beginning of the series it gives the characters room to grow, but Michael starts off soooo immature that it did turn me off. One of my first annoyances with Michael is when Justin is going to move into his old room and Michael comes off with the pettiness of a 12 year old not wanting him to stay in "his" room or touch his stuff. I couldn't understand why a man of Michael's age would even care, he has his own place. If his mother wants a kid to move in, its her house and her room. But I also don't like how the other characters encourage Michael's immaturity, especially when it came to Brian. Randy Harrison made the observation on the commentary that Brian treats with Michael with kit gloves - which I agree with and couldn't stand. For example Michael has a romantic infatuation with his best friend, and instead of encouraging Michael to grow up and realize this was a fantasy and would never be reality (and I find it annoying when any character is blind to reality) no one can just get in Michael's face and tell him to snap out of it and make him realize Brian doesn't return the romantic feelings. Everyone has to act like the elephant in the room doesn't exist for the sake of Michael's feelings I guess - even his own mother. Deb never seems hesitant to get in someone's face and tell it like it is - except with Michael who I guess can't handle the truth - it is on Brian to come up with a scheme to make Michael distance himself from him? I just wanted someone to treat Michael like a man and give him a cold hard dose of reality which no one ever does. So yeah, it was very observant to say that Michael doesn't think before he speaks (immaturity) and can be incredibly insensitive - but that didn't make me really dislike Michael because in the end I really think Michael had a good heart as to things when he thought them through. For me it was mostly the way he was written and how the other characters treated him at times to shield him from reality that annoyed me about Michael right from the start, treating Michael like a baby just reinforced the fact that he acted like one at times to me.

reply

[–] dergil27 12 years ago

Michael is my favorite character. An while his tendency to speak before he thinks and his infactuation for Brian are annoying, many here treat these flaws as intolerable crimes. But not going to get into that right now.

Never really thought of everyone else encouraging Michael's behavior. I have however, noted how often Brian encourages Michael in his decade long crush on his best friend.

reply

[–] briebo1 12 years ago

I guess due to my own personal experience I really sympathize with Brian here because I have been in his situation and it is incredibly difficult. If anyone has been there, it is hard to be in this position. I can be a fairly affectionate person with my friends and of course to most friends it is not confused, but it really is hard to have to sensor yourself with someone you generally care about and love and want to be normal with and act like yourself with but you can't because they take things the wrong way, and when they get drunk they come onto you etc. It is often easier to just ignore it and just be yourself and act like it doesn't exist (especially when it only comes out in drunken moments often) - and for a time it can feel like things are normal and the other person has moved on - and the pressure of the awkwardness isn't weighing on you anymore and you can be yourself - only to find out, usually in a drunken moment - that nothing has changed. I know many make this Brian's fault that Michael feels the way he does, he should treat Michael differently. Again with the babying of Michael. But when you love someone you want to treat them like they are special to you and give them special attention, which Brian did and of course he knew that his special attention bonded Michael closer to him, it usually does, but that sort of bond and intimacy is a basic human desire. And that is usually OK with friends to be close like this and a wonderful part of friendship - and it is equally hard on the person in Brian's position to not be able to do what comes naturally to them with their most intimate friend because they won't accept that you don't have romantic feelings towards them. Personally I have never been on the unrequited side of love because I can't as a person develop feelings towards someone unless they are returned so I am not as sympathetic to Michael here, but I have been in Brian's position and it sucks big time. And in truth even if you are brutally honest with your friend about this - they sometimes don't accept it - so the only option is to ignore it to keep the friendship. Brian really had no good options here, distance himself from his only close friend, not be able to express the human need for affection and intimacy with the one person he is comfortable doing that with? It is easier to ignore, not that that is a good response in this situation, but sometimes it can appear like the only one you have. Not to mention the fact that it is completely wrong to EVER make anyone else responsible for another person's feelings. Maybe it is my psych degree here talking - but no therapist would have ever told Michael Brian was responsible for his feelings as other characters and posters seem to do. Michael is responsible for his own feelings, and not making him so stunts him emotionally and psychologically, as we see with Michael's character.

reply

[–] dergil27 12 years ago

I would never say that Michael is not responsible for his feelings. But many fans here see Michael's Brian infactuation as something close to criminal while absolving Brian for encouraging him. And even if Brian was only trying to express his platonic love for Michael in a sexual manner, he knew how Michael saw it. And he did nothing to discourage it. He didn't even dial it down.

So you think Brian's sexual gestures towards Michael were out of friendly affection. That's different. Everyone I have "talked" with on this board thinks Brian's actions toward Michael are purely manipulative, while at the same time saying Michael should have known better. Perhaps this is because saying otherwise would mean that Brian had feelings, be they of friendship or romantic, for somebody other than Justin. And we simply can't have that.

There might be something to your friendly affection idea. But even if this was so, Brian's actions were still partly, probably even mostly, for manipulative purposes. Brian wanted to keep Michael around and the best way to do it was to keep Michael wanting him. Or at least that's what Brian seemed to think. There were some episodes that were purely manipulative. Brian's first meeting with David being one ot them. Brian goes over to Michael and pretty much fondles him right in front of his new boyfriend. Another time which was at least partly manipulative was in ep 301 when Michael began noticably favoring Ben, Brian just as noticably racheted up the affection.

Again, I have no problem saying Michael should have given up his longing for Brian long before he did. But his unrequited crush on Brian is hardly a heinous crime. So when someone (no, I don't mean you) comes here and tries to act like it is, it becomes nessessary, in my opinion, to remind that person(s) that Michael had some help in believeing as he did.

reply

[–] briebo1 12 years ago

I definitely think Brian was jealous and acting out when Michael began to see David, just the same way Michael acted out as to Brian getting involved with Justin. They are each other's best friends and the closest people in each others lives and when another person comes in it can be threatening - even with all romantic feelings aside. You can see with two hetero women or even men even that have no interest romantically in each other but can get jealous and act out over their longtime bff getting into a serious relationship that takes attention away from the friendship. It is immature, but very common. This is hardly something that can only be explained by romantic feelings and I don't think sends a mixed signal. I think that Michael and Brian's jealousies over each others romantic lives are normal and a part of growing up and are normal problems to be dealt with when two very close friends have to change the friendship somewhat due to developing romantic interests that eventually, if they become serious, will supersede the friendship in certain ways. I don't see either Michael or Brian's jealous behaviors as crimes.

In my book encouragement is actually sleeping with someone and that is it. If Brian slept with Michael occasionally only to insist there was nothing there - I would completely sympathize with Michael and hold Brian at fault - that is a seriously mixed signal but I know people who have been in that situation, very confusing. But hugging, friendly kissing, showing extra attention - these are things that are not misleading in my book if taking it further has been approached and denied by one of the parties - which Brian did in the bathroom and I am sure had probably done before. And Michael obviously knows they are just friendly - he and Brian are still affectionate friends when Michael is in a relationship and if Michael really believed that Brian's actions mean something more he wouldn't still receive them once he is involved with someone. In my opinion Michael knew that Brian was just being friendly, but would hold a fantasy that it may DEVELOP to be something more, I didn't get the impression ever that Michael was so deluded as to think Brian's actions were more than what they were and I think the fact that their interactions don't really change when Michael is in a relationship prove that.

Like I said I don't think Michael's feelings for Brian are a crime - very annoying yes and contribute to Michael not being a favorite character of mine - but it bothered me more that everyone knew about it and that Michael needed to get over it and no one would confront it - and put it on Brian as his fault which like I explained I thought was unfair and giving Michael a free pass in an area he should man up in.

I don't think Brian was manipulative. Debbie blaming Brian for Michael's dysfunction because he had been "too nice" to her son. Please. Notice how she refers to their entire friendship - I really don't see Brian as such a horrible person that the he manipulates Michael for over a decade to be his friend. I see Brian as the type of person that in order to be vulnerable and trust someone and feel safe to have feelings he needs to be assured of their utter sincerity and devotion to him - which allowed him to open up to Justin in my opinion and attracted him to Michael as a friend. In truth for most of the show Michael was really Brian's only intimate friend and something Brian values highly and wants desperately to keep. I see Brian's actions as being a good friend, going above and beyond and being "too nice" to Michael not just because he cares about him but because he wants to keep that friendship intact because it is so vitally important to him - it is really all he has as an emotional touchstone. So I can see why Brian tries to hang onto Michael - not out some sick manipulation that some perceive, I think Brian genuinely loves Michael and not only wants but emotionally needs his friendship. He does what he does for him in my opinion just to see a smile on his friend's face like any non-sociopathic person does, it makes us feel good to make someone we love happy, but when David entered the picture he also does try to "outdo" him so to speak not out of sinister manipulation but out of an attempt to keep his place in Michael's life out of a self-protective instinct because he needs Michael so much. Of course this is also dysfunctional, and Brian eventually sees that, he needed to move on from Michael just as much as Michael needed to move on from him, just not from romantic fantasies like Michael but from an emotional dependance he had on him. So I do see Brian with his own issues that surfaced when Michael got a boyfriend, but I don't view Brian as manipulative and I do think he truly loved and cared about Michael. But I do not feel it is his fault in any way that Michael harbors romantic feelings towards him or fault him for Michael not being able to move forward with David at first because he was being too good a friend like Deb states. That to me is ridiculous and again why I take issue with Michael here - he wants to pass up on a good guy for a fantasy is his fault - Brian was trying to hang onto a friendship, which is normal and not sinister, and if it were two hetero women here for example with no feelings for each other and one was threatened by the relationship and started going above and beyond in the friendship to compete with the relationship we would not fault her as many do for Brian, we would sympathize with her. The only reason Brian is faulted here is because of Michael's feelings for him, which in my opinion are not his fault nor his responsibility and put him in a really awkward position, which is why I put Michael's feelings all on Michael and the problems they bring into his life as not Brian's fault.

reply

[–] dergil27 12 years ago

Wow. If your idea of encouraging someone is nothing less than sleeping with them, I can't imagine what actions are imployed when one is truely interested in a person.

As said earlier, it may be that some of Brian's overly affectionate gestures are just that, affectionate. And I didn't use Brian and David's first meeting merely due to Brian's jealousy, but because it shows Brian showing Michael affection for manipulative purposes. And the affection between the two does continue after Brian stops manipulating Michael. In fact, this affection goes on even to the very end, when the series leaves off. But there is a difference between how Brian kisses Michael at Babylon in ep.301, an in ep.501 of the show. And that difference is that one kiss is clearly more sexual and is used partly or primarily to keep Michael's attention, while the other is pure affection. And there was certainly no affection involved when Brian took Michael to the underwear party and groped another man while looking direcly at Michael. That manipulation was purely sexual.

Manipulation is manipulation. It doesn't matter if it's being done for the good or bad of the "target" or for the good or bad of the manipulater. So Brian's early attempts to get rid of David and the birthday party that drove Michael back to David were both forms of manipulation. Agree that Brian loved Michael and cared about his well being. Also agree that both parties got a lot from this arrangement. And in my opinion, Brian didn't need to add the hint of a sexual element to the relationship to keep Michael around. But Brian thought he needed to. Or maybe it wasn't all to keep Michael around. Perhaps it was just as David said, Brian just likes that Michael wants him to f@$k him. But I don't think so. And it if this was the case, then Brian really would be a complete ass.

You cannot compare Brian and Michael's friendship to that of two hetero women. Brian and Michael are two gay men and as such are potentially capable of sexual and romantic feelings toward each other. This would not happen with two straight women, no matter what the media, largely run by straight men and their fantasies, tell you.

Sorry for the late reply,

reply

[–] briebo1 12 years ago

Like I said in another post people are different, but for me there needs to be intent for sex in any affectionate exchange for them to be sexual, and actual sex is the only act that can't be written off as anything but sexual. Kissing, dancing, hugging etc. to me are not sexual or misleading in and of themselves if there is no intent for sex behind them, IF a sexual relationship between the parties has been approached and denied. I don't fault someone for misunderstanding something once - but I don't know how one can confuse a kiss as sexual if they try to follow it up with sex and the advance is denied - obviously someone has got the wrong impression and should quickly see that there was nothing sexual behind the kiss for example, and not make the mistake again. But that is just me. I personally have kissed friends of mine of the opposite sex, with tongue, in a moment of drunken dancing and what not and it isn't misconstrued as anything more than us just having fun, and it doesn't mean I am sexually attracted to them. I view most of Brian's kisses this way, though I do see the end kiss is different because there is so much emotion going on and that kiss isn't just for fun or playful affection but expressing something much deeper due to the scene, but I don't see sexuality in his other kisses. And personally I have had many group sex experiences and have watched my friend who I am not sexually attracted to have sex, it is a very primal sexual encounter but it in NO way meant that I had a desire to be sexual with them! Making eye contact in a situation like this and watching each other doesn't mean I am sexually attracted to my friend, though I admit it could be confused that way, but it can happen at least in my life without there being a sexual attraction to my friend, and I had no intent of encouraging that in those exchanges (and luckily my friends in which this has happened thank god have not confused it!)

And I wasn't comparing Brian and Michael's friendship to hetero women. I was using it as an extreme example that jealousies over a close friend getting into a relationship do not have to have sexual undertones but happen in relationships where sexual attraction isn't involved.

reply

[–] dergil27 12 years ago

Two people involved in group sex can watch each other and it may not mean anything if neither is attracted to the other. But Michael was attracted to Brian, and Brian knew this. And Brian didn't just make eye contact, he stared intently at Michael while engaging in sexual activity with another man. And he was still staring as the camera cut away from the action. Though we don't know for sure, it is very likely that Brian continued to maintain eye contact with Michael up to the very end of whatever sexual act he was performing. Brian and Michael were practically involved in a quasi sexual encounter with each other here. So if sex itself needs to be involved as a means of encouragment or manipulation, this should certainly qualify.

reply

[–] briebo1 12 years ago

I don't deny that they were involved in quasi-sexual encounter here - they obviously were involved in a sexual encounter here! We can quibble in that Brian wasn't just looking into Michael's eyes - he was "intently" looking into them according to you - but if you are in a highly sexually charged moment like this everything looks pretty intent in people's eyes, that's why it is hot. When this happens with two close friends, they tap into something a little deeper than what is happening on a surface/sexual level in my opinion, because they are observing in each other in a sexual state which they have never seen before, I won't go as far as to say you bond deeper in an experience like this, but after an experience like this you definitely seem to know the person in a way you didn't before (you have observed their sexuality) but you also are observing it knowing the whole person and you are seeing them in these moments as a whole person (mind, spirit and the sexual) which if it is a close friend you can tap into when looking into their eyes and it is intense.

It is a quite intimate experience with a friend, but again it doesn't mean that you are sexually attracted to them, you tapped into in each other's sexuality which is hot and intimate, but does not necessitate sexual attraction to occur. You can't separate the sexually charged atmosphere from your friend in these scenarios, you go with it, often when these encounters take place you are not in your "right" mind you are tapped into something primal and sexual, and these are situations where things CAN get easily confused, through no direct fault of anyone in my opinion. And if Michael had never made a pass at Brian I would forgive him if he confused this - this encounter in my opinion was neither showing Brian's lust for Michael nor did it awaken him to sexual feelings he may have held for him nor should it have encouraged Michael. In my opinion, any non-deluded person who may be attracted to someone, if they have been rebuffed and shown the attraction is not returned, should not take what happened with Brian and Michael to mean anything more than it did. Any sane person may consider after the encounter that there could be something more there, but the reality of ALL of the other experiences where the other party expressed no interest should be considered, and make the person not put so much weight on ONE group sex encounter (especially if your friend is Brian who is highly sexual and doesn't bring emotion into sex). I don't fault Brian for treating Michael like a sane person - though he was obviously in la la land when it came to Brian - because it isn't wrong to think that rebuffing someone's advances isn't communication enough to encourage them to stop entertaining romantic ideas about you, and it isn't wrong to think (well in group sex situations there really is no thinking) that a group sex encounter is, no matter how intent the eye contact was, not an encouragement towards someone (of course unless you actually had sex with them). Again, Michael's feelings are his own responsibility, and you can't make them Brian's fault, especially from this encounter in my opinion.

reply

[–] dergil27 12 years ago

You seem to be suggesting that Brian did this just because. And that he was treating Michael as an adult and trusted that Michael knew that his lust for Brian was not reciprocated.

But what I see is Brian using Michael's lust for him in an attempt to keep him near. Agree that Brian feels no lust for Michael here. Brian's actions are purely for manipulative purposes. And I have never said Michael's obsession with Brian was all Brian's fault. But he is not blameless, and this encounter shows that most blatantly.

reply

[–] briebo1 12 years ago

I am suggesting Brian did this because of the moment - he is engaged in a group sex experience in the back room (you see Brian often getting head in the back room and watching the sexual encounters going on around him are part of the arousal so I would view all back room encounters as group sex) and Michael decides to participate, and then they stare into each others eyes "intently." Like I said before, these are very sexually charged situations, and what is on your mind is really not much, you are completely in the moment and riding the wave of sexual energy, your mind is wholly and completely focused on SEX.

It seems many here seem to give Brian way too much credit, for lack of a better word, as being some sort of super-human. Like he isn't just like every other person out there and feels pretty much the same things normal people do, granted he is complex and filled with issues many "normal" people don't contend with which makes him sometimes behave differently than expected and it is exciting to watch, but to me he is not super-human. And that is how I view him in this moment, like every other person engaged in a group sex experience, and his mind is on sex! The fact that it is conceivable that in this moment Brian is so much in his right mind that he is beyond the sex and in seeing Michael he can completely separate himself from what is going on to focus his mind on master manipulation of his friend . . . that is just not realistic in my opinion, unless you view Brian as some sort of super human which I don't perceive him as. Or that in this sexually charged atmosphere and moment it is asking too much in my opinion to expect the person to remove their mind from the moment and to worry about what their friend might think of your eye contact when he is right next to you, and making the eye contact as well!, that would be a great way to lose your hard on, and I don't fault Brian in this moment for not being able to be "responsible" and worry about Michael's feelings. Again, that to me is asking super-human qualities from Brian. Which is why I see him as blameless here, if it were me I would have felt that the times I had shown my friend I wasn't interested were enough to curb their infatuation. In my mind you can't lead someone on if you have turned them down.

reply

[–] dergil27 12 years ago

This is hardly a backroom encounter where Brian and Michael are in the same space by chance. Brian pretty much insisted that Michael come to the party with him. And when Brian finds himself a suitable partner he takes the initiative and invites Michael to watch him. This was not incidental eye contact, it was deliberate, possibly even planned. Brian was desperate for company and Michael's longstanding sexual attraction to Brian seemed to be waning. So Brian stepped up his manupulation from kisses to sex by proxy, which is probably as close as you can come to the real thing.

reply

[–] katiedyd 12 years ago

Brian could have taught an honours class in manipulation. And yes, I did love Brian Kinney. This is how he operates. He finds a weak point in a person or something that he knows they are soft about and he plays it. It is what makes him so successful in advertising. He doesn't do this out of hatred or because he's a horrible person but as a form of self-preservation. There was such a small group of people who he allowed into his inner circle and become his family when his true family became so twisted. Brian always seemed to believe that people couldn't really love him and would always leave him and so he seemed to need to find ways to keep them close to him and would often panic when his friends found other interests or people in their lives that took their attention and affection elsewhere. We are shown in the first episode that this is well underway with Lindsay and Melanie. There is extreme animosity between Brian and Mel, and he continues to flirt with Lindsay, remind Melanie that he is Gus' parent, and always drops remarks about how Lindsay loves him better. Again, this shouldn't be taken in a sexual way even when he at times becomes very touchy feely. It has more to do with him using his charms (looks, magnetism, sexuality) any way he can in order to keep people rooted to him.

Again he does this with Michael anytime he thinks that Michael may be wising up and moving on. He doesn't trust that his friendship with Michael will maintain even if Michael does lose the blind devotion and find a partner. He needs to have a faithful servant, and if he needs to use touching, kissing and sexual flirtation (the exact thing that Michael was most weak about when it came to Brian) in order to keep Michael hanging on to a hope at the exclusion of all others, then he will do that. I don't fault Michael for coming under this manipulation in the first season. However, at the end of the season and in particular in Season 2 when it is clear that Brian is in love with Justin and no longer manipulates Michael in this way (the everyone is moving on episode comes to mind) is when I lose empathy for Michael and really think he should have come to his senses.

Brian manipulates Michael at his 30th birthday party. Even though he hated David and feared losing Michael's worship, he knew that nothing romantic/sexual would happen between them and that Michael did need to get on with his life. He even manipulates Justin at the end of the show. He knows that Justin is very sensitive to Brian's happiness and he put on the Stepford Fag routine of "cooking and gardening" in order to make Justin think he was honestly losing himself and becoming what he never wanted to be. He did this because he knew it was the only way to get Justin to truly look at the possibility of going to New York.

Again I don't think any of the manipulation he showed toward Lindsay or Michael signified any romantic love or sexual attraction to either. I don't feel he experienced any of these feelings for Michael. It was Brian reacting out of panic and fear. It wasn't until Justin that he had someone in his life challenge him to accept that he could be loved and feel security for who he was and trust that love... and even then it was a very arduous, half-decade journey.

reply

[–] briebo1 12 years ago

Katiedyd - I definitely agree with a lot of what you said. Except you say that Brian manipulates out of self-preservation, however both of the examples of manipulation of Michael at his 30th and with Justin and NY are examples of manipulating someone to do what is good for them, at great personal sacrifice and not for any sort of self-preservation. Like many intelligent people Brian can get someone to do what he wants them to do - but manipulation is defined by UNSCRUPULOUS control over a person - which is having no moral principles. The very word not only implies but explicitly removes any virtue or ignorance as to the outcome - and in my opinion Brian's actions were virtuous to Michael and Justin in the situations you describe. Now is Brian capable of manipulation - of course we all are, and like you pointed out his job requires it - but is he manipulative with his friends, I disagree.

I think some of us will just disagree on the "flirting" depending on how seriously we personally receive affection. For myself flirting has an intent for sex, but the actual acts of hugging, touching and kissing are not in and of themselves flirting without intent for romance. So in my opinion Brian doesn't flirt, with Lindsey or Michael, he is just affectionate with them. Brian until Justin doesn't even have a romantic life - he strictly separates any emotional physical contact from sex and attraction and to me appears to only show affection to those in his inner circle as you described (and I see his needs of devotion from his inner circle as coming from a great cynicism and distrust of people in general and only being able to trust and love those with the utmost devotion but your ideas are also interesting). Brian obviously has some issues, but to me his acts of affection are expressing his closeness to someone, which he separates completely from sex, not with flirtatious intent. And it is a two-sided exchange here - yes Brian knows that his affections draw his friends closer to him (that is what affection does) and he has a need to have them close - but it also very heady to be on the receiving end of being the ONLY person another has affection for - and Michael and Lindsey thrived on being Brian's "one and onlys" so to speak as much as Brian thrived on the devotion that brought out of them in my opinion. If there is true dysfunction here (all relationships have some sort of dysfunction because everyone has their issues) and anyone wants to place blame the blame goes to every party in my opinion. It takes two. But I see Brian as competing for the affections of Lindsey and Michael, if either decided they were going to distance themselves from him I don't see Brian as the type that would resort to true manipulation to keep them in his life - he wants people to make their own decisions and choose to love him based on how he treats them and the affection he shows them like every other human being - he is not pulling their strings in a grand scheme to bring them to himself knowing it would be to their detriment in my opinion, if he was he had more than enough opportunity to do that and a kiss here and there is hardly a grand plan.

The example of manipulation is the Iago figure - which I just don't see Brian as. If he really wanted Michael not to be with David so he could have him to himself he would of just told him about the baths, filled Michael's head with thoughts that men like that never change and that he deserved someone who could love him and David was not that guy. Michael would have ate it up. He could trap Michael in a never-ending cycle of telling him how men he dates aren't good enough for him which would truly keep Michael single forever. But he doesn't. He lets the events unfold - he does compete for Michael's affections which as I explained is normal - but he doesn't manipulate him to destroy his relationship in my opinion. Or with Lindsey, he had plenty of opportunity to turn her against Mel, but he doesn't. He is affectionate towards her? That is pretty weak manipulation in my opinion - but it is an effort to be close to her as would be expected in my opinion. And we don't know who started it - Brian or Mel - but they are equally antagonistic to each other and Brian asserting himself as the father and undermining Mel seems natural considering her behavior towards him - both of them are nasty to each other - I really wouldn't know who to blame for their issues but neither of them are wrong in the way they respond to each other considering the cycle they are in of treating each other badly, they are now just reacting to each other and I don't see either as a clear aggressor.

So I just don't see Brian as being manipulative with the people he cares about. The physical affection he shows them he does not only to have an outlet for affection that he enjoys but they also enjoy it in my opinion and it is mutually encouraged and enjoyed by all. So in a friendship, especially if it seems threatened by an outsider, you step up the things your friend enjoys, and I don't see that as manipulative it is a basic human instinct and I just don't see competing for attention as manipulative. It is coming from a place of love, and I see it as an effort to keep his place in someone's life not an effort to eliminate the competition, if that is what Brian wanted which I don't think he did, he sure was a crappy manipulator in my opinion because in the end that doesn't happen.

reply