Outrage (2009)

Such a frustrating disappointment

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

An indictment of closeted politicians who lobby for anti-gay legislation in the United States.I found something missing here, though I am not sure what. I feel like there was some muckraking going on, but the film never completely raked the muck -- there was still something more they could have done. For one thing, they never really touched the religion connection -- perhaps a gay man is in the closet to try to appease what he sees as God's wishes? Most interesting is viewing the 2009 film from a 2013 vantage point. Here we have the Republicans pushing for a same-sex marriage ban through a federal amendment. Four years later, we have same-sex marriage spreading to more states and even Rush Limbaugh saying the conservatives have lost the issue. What was seemingly impossible a decade ago is almost common sense now. And what this film shows is a step in that path we have taken as a country.

This movie made me really angry. It is a partisan attack on republicans who happen to be gay. Where is Bill Clinton in all this the man who signed the Defense of Marriage Act? No where, but poor old Bush is made to be the devil incarnate. The documentary is so biased it made me sick.I am a conservative republican who happens to be gay. I vote for politicians I think will help promote the economy and make the country stronger and wealthier...if they have to pirouette on issues like gay marriage to get elected it does not matter to me. If you extend the logic of this documentary to its ultimate conclusion, I myself am some sort of dysfunctional cognitively dissonant closet case for voting for republicans. I am apparently only allowed to vote for people with pro gay rights agendas and records irregardless of whatever else they stand for and have accomplished in their careers. These people like Michael Rogers running around like gossipy old maids exposing gay republicans are the ones who are morally compromised. What right do they have to ruin these men's careers? The mind set of this documentary is the sort of thing that gives gays a bad name and sets us back. They should also remember when attacking these politicians that these politicians are supporting their constituencies norm; they are not actively seeking out novel ways to harm gays. 99.99% of their legislation does not involve gay issues. The end result of Roger's crusade will be to get people in those elected posts who truly have zero sympathy for gay issues. It is wrong from every angle.Apparently this country will be a paradise if only the Congress was filled with Barney Franks---now there is a real nightmare.

Most of the comments left previously do not address the actual legal aspects of this. The worst offender is lady moon.The Constitution of the U.S. guarantees each and every one of us Freedom of (and FROM) religion. The separation of Church and State is VERY important in this issue. The word "marriage" is semantics, yet it is the most commonly used term world-wide and that is why advocates use it in attempting to secure the rights they were born with but are being denied.It is organized religion which is fighting this tooth and nail. Yet it is not organized religion which issues "marriage" licenses; It is states, counties, and cities. States who have changed their constitutions denying same-sex marriage will eventually lose this fight because it it is unconstitutional (at the Federal level) to deny any group the same rights as others.Granting same-sex couples the right to marry will in no way affect organized religion. Why? Because of their right to practice their religion(s) without government interference; "The Freedom of religion" will protect them, which is as it should be.Additionally, saying those rights are available through various legal avenues is ridiculous! Does a heterosexual couple have to pay (as much as) $60,000.00 to secure only SOME of the rights? No.And I'm not gay - I have been happily married to the same woman for over 20 years. I just happen to believe that denying a segment of society the same rights that others enjoy is wrong. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, just as was the case for inter-racial marriages until 1967, it is going to take the US Supreme Court to guarantee those rights.

Kirby Dick's attitude to material that's a 'no-no' is to say "yes-yes!" His previous film, a near masterpiece chronicling the hypocrisy of the MPAA on American film censorship since the inception of the NC-17 rating, served as an indictment while also having some fun. While a sense of fun only springs up on occasion in Outrage he still gets right what needs to be shown: an in-depth look at the rampant hypocrisy of government's 'in-the-closet' stance. Gay politicians rarely come out of said closet - in the film we see two such promininent figures interviewed at length, NJ governor Jim McGreevey and Massachusetts rep Barney Frank - and Dick's aim with the documentary is to seek out the hows and whys. It's poignant when it needs to be, but above all else it serves up information we as the public should know about figures. It's a truth-to-power assemblage on public figures who, time and time again, have voted against gay and AIDS rights (it may not surprise some to know it's Republicans who are the ones most in the closet-side) while denying what people can see outright.Dick frames his doc on two key figures, one being Larry Craig, the disgraced congressman who was caught in a bathroom doing something that, perhaps, was equatable to what he described Bill Clinton as doing in the mid 90s. He propositioned a cop for 'something' and fervently denied it in public, despite allegations that there had been other incidents in the past suggesting more than likely that he was and has been in the closet. It's been one of the great follies of the past couple of years, and opened up the discussion that appears in the film (Craig, it should be added, has something like a 16% voting record on gay rights through his career).The other figure, not with as much national notoriety as Craig, is Florida governor Charlie Crist, a "bachelor" who had married once and quickly divorced in the 70s and remained a single man for as long as anyone could tell - not to mention having a chief aid allegedly going with him around the world on vacations (the trick being that one would go the day before and the other the day after - every vacation for *decades*), and denied up and down being possibly, at all, gay. Despite all matters on the contrary, Crist denies it (after going through a girlfriend and another wife during and after the election), and continues to put fervent anti-gay judges on the state court.Dick isn't out to "out" anyone of the closet - at least, anyone that would rather be kept private. But these are public figures, and the aim is that of This Film is Not Yet Rated: open up the lid, look inside, and see what makes this subject tick to hell. And with Washington and US politics and media, there's so much to mine and Dick and his team do a very good job. Hell, we even get Ed Koch! Who knew?