In the 90s and 2000s, many films seemed destined, for no reason, to dominate cable television. For example: do I have proof that Sarah Jessica Parker’s 1985 vehicle Girls just want to have fun does it exist, apart from the fact that it was broadcast at least 250 times on television in 2002? Some films, it seems, were designed to be played on repeat.
That said, not all of these films are in the same class. For each Girls just want to have fun, there are 5-10 duds that you would catch once on cable, watch enough for it to stick firmly in your brain for the rest of your life, and quickly change the channel in search of a better deal . One of those duds is the 1998 Jennifer Aniston Paul Rudd vehicle. The object of my affectiona film that asks: why don’t all gay people drop what they’re doing to help Jennifer Aniston raise a baby?
It was a movie that I saw on cable halfway through and hated, but that didn’t stop it from taking up real estate in my mind for the next 20 years. When you desperately need representation, even Paul Rudd as a gay man forced to pretend to be bisexual will somehow do it for you.
Entertainment with an edge
Whether you love indie comics, groundbreaking music, or queer cinema, we’re here to keep you up to date twice a week.
Related:
Because what is it The object of my affection is about. Elementary school teacher George (Paul Rudd) meets youth counselor Nina (Aniston) after George has just been kicked to the curb by her obnoxious boyfriend. The two become roommates, but soon Nina begins to want more from George, and she is not shy about making her feelings known. It doesn’t matter that Nina has a (straight) boyfriend: that boyfriend won’t snuggle up to Kiki and watch Gene Kelly movies with her like George does! And when Nina finds out she’s pregnant, it’s George, not the boyfriend, she asks to be the father.
Look, I can see where they thought they were going with this: a bohemian woman meets a gay man and falls desperately in love while undergoing life changes. But the problem here – and I bet you can already guess this – is that when you position Nina’s love for George as the emotional center of the film, it leaves little to no room for George to have his own feelings, his own character. development, and above all, his own hot gay sex.
This thing !
Because the elephant in the room here is that Paul Rudd is Paul Rudd — he’s known for being cute and dreamy, and while this wouldn’t be the last time the Apatow favorite plays the gay role ( 2018 Ideal home pairs him with Steve Coogan), it would be his most explicit queer role to date, 10 years before the 2009 bro-romcom I love you man. In Object, Rudd’s character remains – rightly – rudderless. He just sort of drifts, doesn’t fight back, and fully tries to play into Nina’s fantasy that he’s bisexual.
The problem is that George is not bisexual. However, when he tells Nina about his high school girlfriend, she takes this as proof that she can “transform” him and creates a fantasy around them that is simply destined not to come true. Things get heated when George finds a cute boy to take home, and Nina yells at him for not wanting to be with her. And we’re supposed to side with Nina on this, which makes no sense if you’re gay and watching this movie.
I’m not saying that straight women don’t fall for gay men all the time, or that it would be a mistake to do so. Of course not: feelings happen! But this film, intentionally or not, positions Nina’s struggle as the most important. We’re supposed to view George’s weirdness as some kind of betrayal. Why can’t this cute boy get his act together already and date America’s Sweetheart!
Fortunately, the film ends with George and Nina still in each other’s lives, but in a platonic way. It’s not the worst ending to a queer film you could imagine in 1998, but it can’t really make up for the misery of the last 90 minutes. Especially when you consider…
Some of the extremely unfortunate things said in this movie:
-Alan Alda considers being gay a “valid and wonderful choice.”
-Paul Rudd tells his brother (Steve Vaughn) “you can get close to a woman without sleeping with her.” Vaughn responds, “That’s news to me.”
-Jennifer Aniston’s Boyfriend Tells Paul Rudd: “You Homosexuals Are Ruining Women’s Personal Lives But You Can’t Take Any Physical Responsibility!” “I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean, because it seems pretty specific to this movie – unless there’s a secret trend of gay men coming to raise children with heterosexual women they just met?
Alison Janney says: “I like gay people. I just don’t like that my pregnant sister is in love with one of them. Go… queen??
Jennifer Aniston says: “I have this new theory that any man who doesn’t hit you over the head with his opinions must be gay. » Solid theory but… have you met any Log Cabin Republicans recently?
Now keep in mind that this is just a small selection – I could go on. It’s an artifact, that’s the point — an artifact that was always on television during my peak cable movie-watching years. I’ll never forget The object of my affection and the portrait of a delirious romance that it paints, but I’m also happy to never have to see it again.
Help us ensure LGBTQ+ stories are told…
We cannot rely on the mainstream media to tell our stories. That’s why we don’t lock our articles behind a paywall. Are you supporting our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
