Doc On Russian Homophobia Overshadowed By Filmmaker's Controversial Line Of Work

The state of human rights in Russia got a lot of coverage during the Winter Olympics in Sochi earlier this year. But after the elaborate closing festivities ended and the Olympic torch was extinguished, the issue seemed to get scant attention, given all the other things going on in the world.

There are few journalists or filmmakers who seem interested in spending a significant amount of time in Russia, to pull back the Iron Curtain and really expose what life is like there. Especially for oppressed minorities like the LGBT community.

Filmmaker Michael Lucas, who grew up in Russia before immigrating to the United States, has done just that with his documentary, Campaign of Hate: Russia and Gay Propaganda. The documentary screened Nov. 21 as part of the Columbus International Film and Video Festival's "Fighting Global Hate" event, which featured movies from around the world that focus on human rights abuses.

Campaign of Hate features interviews with several gay and lesbian Russians about the discrimination, harassment and even violence they suffer on an almost daily basis. It's too bad that the documentary is getting only limited distribution because of Lucas' controversial background: he's a self-proclaimed producer and star of pornography.

During the Q&A after the documentary screening, I told Lucas that the impression I got from watching the movie is that the vast majority of Russians are homophobic. He said he believes this to be the case, adding that the country's unwelcoming environment can't be attributed to religion, since the communist regime promoted atheism in the Soviet Union for decades. Intolerance, he said, is just part of the culture in Russia.

I also asked Lucas if he has trouble being taken seriously as a filmmaker since he produces porn. That may seem like a rude question, but I just figured that if he was going to participate in a public forum, he should be prepared to be questioned about his "day job."

Lucas was frank in his response, admitting there are pros and cons to being known as a porn star/producer. On the one hand, he's well-known in his native Russia because of his "success" in America and had no trouble securing interviews for the documentary or self-financing the project. On the other hand, he said it's unlikely that he'll ever recoup the more than $100,000 it cost him to produce Campaign of Hate because major outlets like HBO don't want to be associated with him.

Of course, there may be a variety of reasons that HBO didn't pick up the documentary that may have little or nothing to do with Lucas' dubious reputation: the production values may not be up to their standards, it doesn't have any famous interviewees, etc. And there are many well-produced, heartfelt, high-quality documentaries that never reach a wide audience or make any significant amount of money. The movie business is inherently subjective, arbitrary and unfair.

Lucas could have minimized the impact his reputation had on Campaign of Hate if he hadn't put his name on it as the producer/director. And although he's a good interviewer, listening intently as his subjects tell their stories, there was no reason he needed to appear on camera. He could have hired a journalist to conduct the interviews and a director to oversee the production, enabling Lucas to remain totally behind the scenes as an "angel investor."

Perhaps Lucas felt like honesty is the best policy, and that if he'd hidden his involvement, the secrecy could backfire if a distributor were to discover that the documentary was financed by porn profits. Or, perhaps Lucas saw Campaign of Hate as his chance to go legit' and achieve mainstream success.

Is Lucas the victim of Hollywood hypocrisy? After all, cable networks like HBO and movie studios make big bucks off "real" movies that are borderline pornographic, not to mention violent to the point of qualifying as "torture porn."

Imagine if notorious Hustler publisher Larry Flynt were to make a documentary about human trafficking. On the one hand, Flynt is a subject matter expert who has an insider perspective on the issue. On the other hand, his credibility is questionable because of how he makes his money.

"Don't shoot the messenger" is an age-old saying. In Lucas' case, it seems as if his important message about combating hatred around the world is being shot down because of the messenger.