‘Versace: American Crime Story’ Will Actually Be About Being Gay in the ‘90s

dcriss-archive:

The premiere episode of The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story boasts style in exactly the grand scale you’d expect from a TV series associated with the doomed fashion icon.

The camera turns its lens on the ostentatious opulence of Versace’s Miami Beach mansion almost as a fetish. The fashion is as late-‘90s glamorous and decadent as it is garish and tacky. Sex oozes everywhere, from the sweat of the South Florida beach setting to the lingering gaze on star Darren Criss’s exceptionally sculpted (briefly nude) body.

A hypnotizing, wordless first act, backed by a rousing string-heavy score, gives a Shakespearean start to the whole endeavor, echoed, of course, in the horror of the murder by gunshot that left Versace bleeding to death at the front gate of his home in 1997.

And just wait for Penelope Cruz’s entrance as Donatella Versace, an unveiling dripping with enough melodrama and high fashion to make you gasp. The Oscar-winner, donning what appears to be an upper lip prosthetic to aid in nailing Donatella’s almost indecipherable Italian accent, is perfect—as is the pilot, which thrills as much in its visuals and sensuality as it does in the graphic nature of its titular crime and ensuing manhunt.

Only the first episode of FX’s newest installment of its American Crime Storyfranchise, the first follow-up to its awards-guzzling People vs. O.J. Simpsonseason, screened Monday night, for a room packed with curious celebrity fans including Glenn Close, Patricia Clarkson, and Andrew Rannells. That’s not enough for a proper review of the new series, which officially premieres January 17. But creator Ryan Murphy, the producers and writers, and stars Criss, Edgar Ramirez, and Ricky Martin were on hand to tease the season and its perhaps surprising greater message.

More than a murder mystery or a lavish look at the life of a fashion legend, Versace will tackle what it was like to be gay in the 1990s.

“Like in O.J., the themes we’re tackling in this show seem so modern to me,” Murphy said, referring to how the American Crime Story found renewed resonance in the identity politics, race and class bias, media circus, and misogyny surrounding the O.J. Simpson trial. “They don’t seem like they’re frozen in amber,” he continued. “They feel very alive and plucked from today’s headlines.”

The Versace season is heavily based on journalist Maureen Orth’s book Vulgar Favors: The Assassination of Gianni Versace.

Orth had been investigating serial killer Andrew Cunanan (played by Criss in the series) for months before he murdered Gianni Versace (Ramirez) on the steps of his Miami Beach mansion while Versace’s partner (Martin) was inside. Cunanan had evaded police while successfully murdering five men that he knew, the last being Versace. Orth’s reporting revealed a highly intelligent sociopath—he once tested at 147 for his IQ—with tortured feelings about being gay, and perhaps even jealousy that he had all these gifts and promise yet somehow wasn’t succeeding in the same way as these other men.

“We didn’t understand, and you’ll see as the show goes on, that Versace was the last victim, and Andrew had killed people that he knew before this,” executive producer Brad Simpson said. “As we began to unpack the show, we realized this was about the politics of being out in the 1990s.”

Murphy revealed that the season will be telling the story backwards. The first and second episodes deal with the assassination of Versace and the manhunt for Cunanan in Miami, and then the series will head back in time so that, by episode 8, we are seeing Cunanan as a child. Then the final episode will deal with his eventual demise.

Broad cultural themes will of course be explored along the way. Said executive producer Nina Jacobsen, “I think what we realized during the first season is that we wanted every season of the show to ultimately be about a crime that America feels guilty of, and find a way to sort of explore what is a cultural crime as well as a specific crime, or in this case a series of crimes. In this case, to try to explore and re-conjure what it was to be gay in the ‘90s.”

Orth explained that Cunanan was from San Diego, a big military town, growing up while “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was in the news, which created agony for people who were conflicted over how they felt about being gay, whether they could express themselves, or whether they could be publicly out. The parents of two of Cunanan’s victims didn’t even know their sons were gay until after they were murdered, for a sense of the environment.

Equally fascinating was the incompetency of the police and investigators pursuing Cunanan, who struggled with infiltrating the gay community and understanding its nuances, something Orth said didn’t necessarily reflect a homophobia, per se, but an ignorance.

Then of course there’s the ever-resonant idea of fame, and the craven pursuit of it that is very much embedded in the fabric of today’s culture.

“I think the idea that [Cunanan] was willing to kill for fame, there was kind of a trajectory between that and getting famous through a sex tape like the Kardashians and then right down to becoming the president of the United States because you were a reality TV star,” Orth said.

Murphy said that each actor they cast was actually their first choice to play the roles, from Cruz as Donatella down to Martin’s revelatory dramatic turn. “I have a theory that in every singer is a great dramatic actor waiting to come to out,” Murphy said about the music superstar.

Martin, who spends much of the first episode shaken and in tears after discovering Versace’s body, explained that he actually got to spend several hours of quality time with Antonio D’Amico, the designer’s partner of 15 years, who also helped curate the roster of boys they would also be intimate with. “Every time I see this episode I’m just really moved,” he said.

Murphy first dangled the idea of playing Cunanan in front of Criss, whom he had worked with on Glee three years ago, going so far as to call it the role of the young actor’s career.

There’s an uncanny resemblance between Criss and the real-life Cunanan, down to the fact that they are both part Filipino. With just the first hour to judge by, Criss is extremely watchable in a complicated and potentially off-putting role: a sociopathic narcissist, whose gay self-loathing manifests in an unsettling violent streak.

“I think stories that bend people’s sense of empathy are what really interest me,” Criss said. “It’s Shakespearean. Is has this very operatic feel. It’s Greek in scale. I’m a good, old fashioned acting student. Put me in a Greek tragedy or a Shakespeare play. If I get to do that on FX with Ryan Murphy, then fuck yeah, let’s do it.”

For all the talk of broader themes, there’s one specific detail that Murphy wanted to drive home: the unusual experience of filming the series in Versace’s actual Miami Beach mansion. That meant actually recreating his assassination where it really happened, in front of the house that Versace curated every detail of, which still emanates his soul and passion. It “was one of the most emotional, profound, moving, experiences,” Murphy said. “The day we shot that the crew was crying. The actors were crying. It was very intense.”

It wasn’t just that day, but the entire experience that was emotional for Ramirez, who spent months channeling Versace and living with his unnecessary death—and what that death said about the value of a certain demographic’s life at that time in the U.S.

“Me living in Venezuela, I knew about Andrew Cunanan,” Ramirez said. “He was on the news in my country. [I’m disturbed by] the fact that it took so long to get him, because apparently he wasn’t a threat to society because he was killing gay men. I feel very proud to be part of a project that talks about love and family but at the same time, hopefully makes something light out of something so dark.”

‘Versace: American Crime Story’ Will Actually Be About Being Gay in the ‘90s

luvlydoll reblogged your post “luvlydoll reblogged your post and added: War is ugly…” and said:  

For you to say no other men were treated bad that refused to surrender. Argella didn’t burn alive in her castle like Harren the black. She was slaughtered along with her whole house like Mern Gardner. She didn’t lose her title as queen like Sharra Arryn. She didn’t like her father on the battle field.

I did not say that “no other men were treated bad that refused to surrender” I said that no one suffered Argella’s fate which makes it an inexplicable anomaly that, besides not needing to happen to advance the narrative in the first place, stands as a clear example of casual gendered violence in the text, something that GRRM utilizes a lot. The narrative goes out of its way to indicate Stormlander loyalty only to promptly contradict it by introducing a careless and needless assault that does not serve the narrative and that stands as an appalling punishment to defiance (because apparently the most natural response to a woman’s defiance, even in politics, is sexual violence? Punishing defiance or controlling a woman by attacking her sexuality is a something that permeates even our current time, and that is glaring in the text as well. See Tywin’s stripping of his father’s mistress and forcing her to walk through Lannisport. See Kevan arranging the Walk of Shame for Cersei and the High Sparrow approving it to break her power. See Tysha). That this deviation happened in defiance of previously established sentiment, solely for Orys Baratheon’s characterization so the text could frame him as kind and decent is a problem. This continues a pattern of gendered violence being used as a plot device that solely exists for a man’s story, which was the entire point of my original post that you dismissed by “war is ugly and bad things happen”. 

The stormland men witnessed what dragons could do, many men were burned, injured and died. Can you blame them for being scared as shit when Argella bared them in like Harren did before being burned alive with his family. A queen or king is supposed to protect their people not wish them all dead to retain their own dignity. Which is something Argilac and Argella continued to do.

And we’re going in circles. I don’t blame them for being scared or for not wanting an excruciating death but the point isn’t that they surrendered, it’s that they broke every oath they ever took and every code of conduct by needlessly humiliating and assaulting their liege lady which is repugnant and indefensible. The point is that this did not need to happen. There was no conceivable reason for it to. 

They could have just given Argella to Orys clothed. But the only thing that mattered was how Orys decided to treat her and Argella was lucky he was so benevolent to her. He could have decided to kill her and proclaim himself king or could have proclaimed one of her bannerman ruler like what happened with the Gardners.

Instead her life was spared, Argella’s son became king, Orys adopted the Durrandon sigil and house words, and she kept her title. If Argella was a man Orys wouldn’t have been as chivalrous to her. Since Argella was a woman someone he could produce heirs with and unite their houses he married her. If Argella was a man she would have died.

No, no, that is not the only thing that matters. This is like saying “Sansa was physically and sexually assaulted but she was not raped or murdered so what really matters is that Tyrion did not rape her. How lucky was she!!”. Not only does this ascribe more precedence to a man’s actions over a woman’s experience even in her own story (which is what I was arguing against in the first place. Why should Orys’ actions matter than what Argella went through?), but it dismisses her abuse for not being bad enough because “well, it could have been worse.” There is not a fixed standard of suffering that someone should reach before their suffering matter. The end result does not have to be horrific for the pain and violation to matter. Argella suffered a horrific experience that matters. She does not have to suffer more to ping our suffering meter for it to count. 

But the irony is that, if anything, you’re just proving the point of my original post. I’ve criticized how the way the text handled this plot robbed Argella of her voice while simultaneously shifting the narration focus to Orys which makes Argella’s dreadful experience about him. You dismiss my criticism but in the same breath tell me that her suffering did not matter and what did matter is Orys’ actions. I guess I rest my case.

Now, to the whole business of Orys proclaiming himself king…. Um, Orys was fighting in Aegon’s name to enact his vision of a united realm, and Aegon’s realm had no place but for one king: Aegon. So, no, Orys couldn’t have decided to proclaim himself king. And no, no bannerman was declared the new ruler because Orys took the stormlands himself. The Stormlands belonged to Orys from that moment. Argella was demoted, not just from queen to lady but from queen in her own right to lady consort. Orys was the ruler of the Stormlands, not Argella. Her power was derived from him. She did not retain her title. She did not retain her position as ruler. Her castle and lands no longer belonged to House Durrandon.

Marrying Argella and adopting her words and sigil wasn’t a favor from Orys. That was a political act. Establishing continuity in a ruling line is a smart idea, especially for an outsider like Orys. Unlike the Tullys and the Tyrells who were natives of their new domains, Orys Baratheon was a foreigner with no link to the Stormlands and no shared history or common experience with his new vassals which ran a significant risk of dissent and a troubled rule since people tend to resist foreign rule. Associating himself with the previous ruling dynasty so obviously by adopting the sigil and words of the previous rulers, and taking Argella as his wife eases the transition of power from House Durrandon to House Baratheon, frames House Baratheon as a continuance of House Durrandon, and ensures that any Durrandon loyalists would be mollified by the blood, if not the name, of the Durrandons surviving and ruling Storm’s End. That was keen politics, not a favor to Argella.

Your moral outrage is conpelling when Many women in Asoiaf weren’t so lucky after rebellion or losing a battle.

Rhaenys fell in battle she was tortured to death by the Ullers her body wasn’t even sent back to Aegon.

Ellyn Tarback rebelled against the Lannisters was killed boulder from a trebuchet collapsed the keep of Tarbeck Hall upon her and her son Tion the Red. Tywin then had the castle put to the torch and her house was extinguished.

Ramsay captured the Hornwood keep and forced Lady Donella Hornwood to marry him. He raped her, forced her to sign a document proclaiming him Lord of the Hornwood, then locked her in a tower without food, to starve to death after eating some of her fingers.

Except what happened to Rhaenys Targaryen was not gendered. Ellyn Tarbeck’s death, while motivated by Tywin’s misogyny and had a lot of fucked up sexual issues behind it, was not inherently gendered in nature as well. That’s the divide that I do not think you get. I’m not disputing that atrocities happen in wars or that women suffer awful fates, I’m questioning how Martin uses sexual violence repeatedly in his narrative as a window dressing or a plot device that isn’t even about the women suffering from it, but about the men around her. Argella is but one example – Elia Martell, Tysha, Joanna Lannister, Rhaella Targaryen, and many others, fall under the same umbrella. I’m questioning why, in a report that does not assign war crimes like sacks and pillaging and rapes to the conquest, we have that random misogynistic act that does not fall in line with Martin’s own telling of the events because, again, Yandel notes the loyalty of the Stormlanders, and there is no logical reason for Argella’s own men to go that extra mile in surrendering the castle. Having the reasoning for this be “this is how things happened back then” is neither an explanation nor an excuse. That’s lazy uninspired writing and blind acceptance and employment of a very problematic element. 

Your statement also uses the suffering of other women as a measuring stick to decide what constitutes as a morally repugnant action, as if there is a certain standard of suffering that a woman should go through for her suffering to merit condemnation. It does little but derail the conversation for your rebuttal of me saying “this is not okay” to be, essentially, “look at these other women who suffered more”. I am perfectly capable of feeling outrage on behalf of more than one woman, you know. I’m capable of sympathizing with more than one woman. I’m also capable of recognizing that speaking for one woman does not preclude speaking for another, or imply dismissal of another.

I can give you a list of the women who suffered from war in the text, and one of those who suffered outside of war (even though Martin insists on claiming historical accuracy for this when a good portion of the rapes and sexual abuse in the text do not even happen in war). I can give you a list of the women whose assault was no more than a plot device or window dressing in GRRM’s narrative (because that’s not an isolated incident.) 

But I’m talking about Argella Durrandon right now, both as a part of a larger pattern in Martin’s writing and as a standalone character. Because she deserves to be recognized and talked about just as any of the other women in the text. Because another woman’s suffering does not erase hers or makes it more palatable. Because there is a glaring gendered approach to her fate as opposed to other monarchs in the conquest. Because this means that Argella was stripped and paraded through an enemy camp (at a time when Rhaenys Targaryen mysteriously vanishes into thin air) because she was a woman, because a popular misogynistic method to break a woman is to humiliate her publicly through a sexual component. Because the way Martin frames the story makes this an undeconstructed incident of sexual violence that robs a woman of her voice in a series already rife with voiceless women who exist to suffer and give birth. Martin swiftly punishes Argella’s sole defining act in the text and reduces her to suffering and giving birth. We hear nothing from her after that.

dcriss-archive:

johncameronmitchell: @darrencriss #edgarrodriguez & me at the @assassinationofgianniversace premiere. Damn were they great as Cunanan and Versace. The show is intoxicating and touching, it touched me when i was intoxicated. #ryanmurphy killed it!

edgarramirez25: Thank you John! Your words mean the world to me. You are one of the creative minds I admire the most. I ADORE your work & sensitivity. It was such a pleasure to meet you tonight. Thank you so much for coming, for your warmth and generosity. The first of many I am sure! Abrazos! #Repost@johncameronmitchell

‘The Assassination of Gianni Versace’: 6 Things We Learned From FX’s First Screening

dcriss-archive:

Darren Criss has taken on a “Shakespearean” role in bringing the tortured life story of serial killer Andrew Cunanan to life in FX’s “The Assassination of Gianni Versace.”

So said “Versace” director and executive producer Ryan Murphy on Monday night as he “played Barbara Walters” during a Q&A with stars and producers that followed the series’ first public screening, held at New York City’s Metrograph theater.

“Versace” stars Criss, Edgar Ramirez, Ricky Martin, writer Tom Rob Smith, author Maureen Orth, and executive producers Nina Jacobson and Brad Simpson offered insights into the limited series that has the hard task of following “The People V. O.J. Simpson” as the second installment of FX’s “American Crime Story” franchise.

Here are 6 things we learned from the first look at “Versace”:

  • Like “People V. O.J. Simpson,” “Versace” takes on larger cultural and societal issues beyond the sensational details of how Cunanan gunned down fashion superstar Versace on the steps of his Miami Beach villa on July 15, 1997. Through the once-and-future prism of a period drama, the first episode raises timely questions about discrimination against LGBT crime victims by law enforcement, disparity in health care for rich and poor, and the sick market for cashing in on grisly celebrity deaths. Versace was one of the first major public figures to live his life openly as a gay man, and the then-and-now perspective on cultural attitudes toward the LGBT community is clearly a major theme, based on the first episode. “We want every season of this show to be about that crime that America is guilty of,” Jacobson said. “We wanted to re-conjure what it meant to be gay in the 1990s.”
  • Don’t expect a simple linear storyline in “Assassination’s” nine episodes. “We’re telling the story backwards. The first and second episodes are about the assassination (of Versace) and the manhunt, and then we go back in time. In episode eight you meet Andrew Cunanan as a child. The final episode deals with his eventual demise,” Murphy said.
  • Orth, author of the 1999 book “Vulgar Favors: The Assassination of Gianni Versace,” said Cunanan was product of the modern age with his obsession with achieving a measure of celebrity. He was “besotted” with the idea of fame. “He was willing to kill for fame. He wanted to be everything Versace was, but he wasn’t willing to work for it,” Orth said. She added a harsh observation about the nation’s current political climate: “The idea that he was willing to kill for fame — there’s a line from there to getting famous from a sex tape like the Kardashians down to becoming president of the United States because you’re a reality TV star,” Orth opined.
  • Criss became emotionally invested in playing the emotionally disturbed serial killer. The role is without question a career-accelerator for the former “Glee” star. Murphy noted that Criss is in every episode as the story drills down on the factors that made Cunanan go so wrong. Versace was the fifth victim on a killing spree in 1997. “Stories that bend people’s sense of empathy are what interest me,” Criss said. “We’re trying to humanize somebody who is so conventionally vilified,” he said. Murphy added: “We’re not interested in the killer-of-the-week approach,” he said. “We’re trying to understand the psychology of someone who would be driven to do those deeds.”
  • Ramirez also got under the skin of Versace, even though his character spends most of episode 1 on a gurney in the morgue. Recreating the scenes of Versace’s murder on the actual site of his villa in Miami was a challenging process, said Martin, who plays Versace’s longtime lover, Antonio. “It was a profound, moving experience,” Martin said. “The crew was crying, the actors were crying — it was very intense.” Ramirez felt he channeled the soul of his character during his big death scene. He believed Versace lived through the trauma of being taken to the emergency room before he was declared dead at 9:21 a.m. “He was there,” Ramirez said. “He wanted to express something, but he couldn’t, about the insanity and the tragedy that (his murder) could have been prevented and it wasn’t.”
  • Criss also emphasized the importance of the production having access to the Versace villa. “That house — it bleeds his soul,” Criss said. “His creativity exits in every wall and every doorknob in the house. It’s a living vestige of his legacy. I did feel his presence. I had to say a prayer for thanks and an apology for us exposing it. I’m hoping some light can be made from this very, very dark thing.”

‘The Assassination of Gianni Versace’: 6 Things We Learned From FX’s First Screening

Why did Rhaegar need two different women for the three heads?

Elia could not bear more children after the difficult birth of Aegon, whether that meant that the trauma to her body rendered her sterile, or that she technically could have still gotten pregnant but it would have been fatal to her. But I’ve also theorized that Rhaegar’s interest in Lyanna preceded Elia’s physical injury, since the sequence of events and the timeline do not add up in the case of Rhaegar only setting his eyes on Lyanna as the mother for the third head after Elia’s health prevented another pregnancy.

In any case it seems like Rhaegar identified something in Lyanna that made him dead set on her, of all the women in the Seven Kingdoms who posed significantly less political risk, to be the mother of his third child. What it is exactly that made Rhaegar choose Lyanna is unclear. Some think it was her Stark ancestry that represented the ice component in the “song of ice and fire” to Rhaegar’s mind. Others believe it was a matter of regarding Lyanna’s personality as exemplified by her actions as the Knight of the Laughing Tree as a good fit for the mother of his Visenya, as per the theory that Rhaegar was trying to recreate the Conquest Trio with his kids. Another subset of fandom leans towards a more romantic narrative where Rhaegar fell in love with Lyanna at Harrenhal. Regardless of his reasoning, it becomes clear that Rhaegar wanted Lyanna specifically as the mother of his child, very much so that he caused a political crisis and instigated a war to make it happen.

riana-one reblogged your post “What happens if Viserys is born a girl?…” and said:

The question that plagues me is, would an unmarried Rhaegar need to disappear with Lyanna for months? Wouldn’t convincing Lyanna to give her guards the slip for an afternoon, a paid for priest, and a soft bed accomplished the same goal? It changes the narrative framework- from abduction to elopement.

There is not much Rickard Stark can do but accept the marriage when Rhaegar can produce a willing wife in his daughter. It is an act of utter disregard to the political structure, a grave insult to the Baratheons and a monkey wrench in any plans of the Southern Ambitions bloc, but the shame is split with regards to the Starks.

I have my reservations about the overall frame of this scenario so pardon how I slashed your post for the sake of keeping things on point instead of losing myself in the details (as I tend to do). Riana’s original post can be found here.

My main issue with this scenario is that it is based on the premise that Rhaegar would show far more care to the political ramifications of his actions than he’d ever demonstrated. It makes his starting point be the mitigation of the whole situation which we got no indication of. You laid out a viable scenario of what Rhaegar could do to mitigate the consequences of his actions, but that he could do something does not necessarily mean he would.

Everything Rhaegar did from the onset of this plot shows a complete lack of care or consideration about the consequences of his actions. It’s not that he had no options to somewhat palliate the severity of the situation, it’s that he chose not to go with any of them. He certainly could have done without making his designs on Lyanna public at Harrenhal. He could have reached out to Rickard Stark and tried to convince him to break the betrothal with Robert for the larger prize of making his daughter a princess. He could have taken care to, at the very least, make the entire matter discreet so as not to provoke a touchy political crisis. He did none of that. At every turn, Rhaegar chose the most idiotic and outrageous political act he could find. So I hesitate to make my starting point an assumption that Rhaegar would show caution and care in this scenario because then I’d be expecting Rhaegar to be a prudent political actor, which he wasn’t.

This scenario also mixes up Rhaegar’s priorities which skews the order of his actions. Rhaegar’s first priority was not preventing a political crisis or legitimizing his relationship with Lyanna, it was the acquirement of a child. That was his priority and the only thing he showed any attention to. He wasn’t interested in sticking around to placate his angered Lords Paramount, he just wanted to get that child immediately. There was a strange hurry in Rhaegar’s actions that we don’t really know the reason for, but that drove his thoughtlessness and his inattention to anything but impregnating Lyanna. The reason he stayed hidden all these months was probably to ensure that Lyanna was pregnant. I don’t think he’d be any less focused on that part or open to putting it off so he could salvage the relationship with the Starks or stop full-out crisis, something that would require a lot of politcking and a whole lot of lengthy maneuvering to redress the damages he caused, and that would in all probability force him into an instant confrontation with Aerys, partly because Aerys was already convinced that Rhaegar’s crowning of Lyanna at Harrenhal was a plot to win the Starks’ support for a coup, partly because spurning his little sister is a slap to Aerys’ face since it both shows Rhaegar’s defiance of his father’s will, and implies that a Stark was more a favorable bride than a Targaryen, which I don’t see Aerys abiding. That’s too much time wasted away from the task of having his prophecy child for Rhaegar to bother with.

Of course, a guy who thought prophecy and magic had his back also had no need to apply himself to mitigate the consequences of his actions. It was all going to work out because prophecy! That conviction was a main influence in shaping Rhaegar’s moves and informing his callousness.