Speaking of yesterday, you may recall our post on New York Magazine‘s article on the so-called porn king, Michael Lucas.
You may also recall that we narrowed in on the Lucas Entertainment/Dark Alley feud and HX Magazine‘s alliance with Mr. L.
Well, not long after said posting, we received an email from Heather Reznor, Lucas Entertainment’s publicity director, insisting that the real scandal isn’t the Lucas/HX Magazine alliance. Rather, Heather takes issue with New York Magazine and their editing of William Van Meter’s piece. She writes:
Rather than discuss Michael as an ambitious, accomplished, successful gay man, [the editors] turn him into some absurd cartoon of a gay, self tanner and all. It seems the editors just weren’t ready to depict Michael as a real human being rather than some cheap gay stereotype.
There’s your real scandal, but of course we’re all so used to gay people being discussed as absurd, catty, and ridiculous in the press that this editor’s bias has been overlooked. They’ve also shyed away from printing any picture that shows his physical beauty…perhaps they aren’t ready for male sexuality at this point in time.
Oh, snap! Heather’s a lovely girl and we’ve worked with her for years, so we definitely appreciate her insight on the matter. To prove how much, we’ve pasted her entire letter after the jump.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Also, as a side-note, we’d love to see Heather and New York Magazine EIC Adam Moss in a throwdown. No offense Mr. Moss, but we have a feeling Heather would kick your ass.
Earlier: Michael Lucas Publishing Scandal Revealed!
Hi Queerty,
Saw your posting today so thanks for paying attention to lil
old us once again …But there’s one thing I’d like to point out to you (aside from noting that
you ought to swallow a healthy dose of skepticism with that
article. There are a number of factual errors but we’re bored with
debating those points)William Van Meter started writing that article in March. It was pages
and pages long, originally containing many more positive sections
portraying Michael as a strong, powerful figure, alongside the more
scathing elements of the article. It wound up being a very lengthy feature
and was chopped to pieces by its editors, who manipulated it like one
of those characters on reality tv. Mr. Van Meter interviewed many of
Michael’s close and notable friends and celebrities, but there’s not one
positive quote in this article. Rather than discuss Michael as an
ambitious, accomplished, successful gay man, they turn him into some
absurd cartoon of a gay, self tanner and all. It seems the editors
just weren’t ready to depict Michael as a real human being rather than
some cheap gay stereotype. There’s your real scandal, but of
course we’re all so used to gay people being discussed as absurd, catty,
and ridiculous in the press that this editor’s bias has been
overlooked. They’ve also shyed away from printing any picture that
shows his physical beauty … perhaps they aren’t ready for male
sexuality at this point in time. I believe their cover on John Cameron
Mitchell’s new movie was rich with tits.
Best,
Heather Reznor
Publicity Director
Lucas Entertainment
ggreen
Do all Queerty readers realize that a publicist is paid to say flattering things about their employer no mater quasi or minor the celebutante employer may be? That letter reads as if an absurd, cartoon of gay, self-tanner personally dictated it. Someone that does his best to live down to negative gay stereotypes.
jackmax2
I thought the article was flattering considering the reality that is Michael Lucas. UGH.
reichen
The typical Michael Lucas fan:
A) Overweight.
B) Votes “gay Republican†ticket.
C) Like to wear a body harness that’s made of stretchy material.
D) Gets into bidding wars on E-bay over “Charmed†action figures.
E) Lives in Ohio
F) Drives a cheap older Dodge or Pontiac with dents.
G) Acts like Liberace and believes know one knows he’s gay.
H) Dreams of a PS2 game about Shannon Doherty.
I) Bathes once a week whether he needs it or not.
J) Ruined all his white sheets with self-tanner.
K) Thinks Michael Lucas would think he’s hot!
Eric W
Is Heather disagreeing with the depiction of Michael Lucas as an “absurd cartoon of a gay, self tanner and all”? She has met the man she works for, yes? I spent just a few minutes with the man, and that’s how I would describe the man. I know people who know him and his partner better, and it doesn’t sound like he’s any different the more time you spend with him.
spencer
From someone in the know:
I’ve had my differences with Michael–one in particular called him to task in his inappropriate use of bigoted fan letters on his site. Despite feeling the need to stand up for a group of people–how many of you still use the term “retard,”–I chose to sign on with the man as an exclusive because behind the facade, he represents something I thought all gay men would cherish: freedom of expression. I don’t need any catty queens telling me that my interests were monetary and thus this comment biased. Of course my interest in signing with him was partly monetary. But I also give people the benefit of the doubt until I have the chance to get to know them—personally. How many of you actually know Mr. Lucas? How many of you have judged others only to find out years later that they weren’t what you perceived?
I didn’t know Michael two years ago when I filmed Spy Quest in SF with Owen Hawk. I hadn’t met him and I really had no interest in him because I was secure in my own little Titan kingdom. Guess who gave me my very first impression of Michael? Yes, at that point, after having just filmed Dangerous Liasons for the man, Owen Hawk was spewing venom about the man. It was one of those instances where I realized immediately there was more than bad blood. There was jealousy, anger, and unbridled contempt. Yes, this was before DARK ALLEY was a reality. Owen hated him then. Is it so hard to believe that the whole lawsuit went deeper than any of you realize? That Michael’s supposed actions were a reaction to a very angry young man, a young man who was, at that point, trying to rally the entire industry to go UNION. Please, can’t you see that the version you are hearing is so completely one sided it’s a joke. The same joke you are calling Michael. So as Owen went on to bulk up over twice his normal size with steroids (hmmm…do you sense the kid had some masculinity issues???), Michael has continue to be the very same person he has always been. Consistantly. And if anything, he has grown more gentle and kind as the years go by. Ask anyone involved in the production of his movies.
I fear most of your readers and their comments are based on ignorance. They consist of the same bitchy quality that they love to blame others as having. And yes, Heather would kick some major ass in any bout!
FizziekruntNT
I love it when you make me swallow…your skepticism.
The New Yorker was, is, and always will be run by editors that make cartoons of the world around us to make money. Isn’t New York one giant Warner Brothers cartoonland anyway? Where else can one completely invent a persona, live it, breathe it, and get the rest of the world to believe it and have NOBODY question you? OH, silly me! That’s Hollyweird.
Michael Lucas is a caricature of his own making, and no matter how wonderful a person he may be, you’ll never know the truth unless you spend your days and nights with him. I think he’s hot in his own special way, perhaps most of all in his fearlessness. I’m more scared thinking of all the damage that tool would do banging into my internal organs than worried about wrecking my expensive bed linens with self-tanner.
Kevin
She’s right. This site more often than not demeans gay people while praising straight people. Internal homophobia, you bet.