Rant one: Brokeback Mountain. "The first cowboy movie where the good guy gets it in the end." Yup, this is a gay cowboy movie. I'm just going to warn you all now, that anyone who doesn't got to this movie may be berated as to why they didn't go. Don't like romance movies? Don't like westerns? Don't like movies where a guy leaves his wife and kids to be with his gay lover? Be prepared to be labeled as a homophobe!
People will tell you that this movie has the critics raving! Of course it does! The critics can't afford to go against this film! Would you wanna be blacklisted? What about this: If this movie was a love story between a guy and a girl, would it receive this same hype? Award nominations? Media coverage? (I'll give you a hint: no!)
Ask anyone who claims that you are a homophobe if you didn't go to this film the following: Did you see "Friday Night Lights? No? What are you a Footballphobe? Or did the film just not interest you?" Don't let anyone guilt you into seeing a movie that you have no interest in seeing!
One more thing about this film: If you aren't seeing it because of your value system, don't let anybody make you feel guilty about that either. I don't support movies that encourage people to disregard responsibility, no matter what it is. Bridges of Madison County, The American President, or Titanic.
Second: Oh secular tree, oh secular tree, how lovely are your branches. What's with the holiday tree thing? Does any other celebration in December use a tree? No. It's like saying that it's not an soccer ball, it's a game ball. Ever play the game Ping Pong with a "game ball?" what about billiards. Let's play that with our "game ball."
I wanna know what the ACLU will do when someone finally discovers that the word "Holiday" is a compound word consisting of "Holy" and "Day"? Happy Seculaday.
(On a humorous side, there is a sign at a tree sellers place in Texas that says "Fresh Cut Holiday Trees" in English, but the Spanish still says "Navidad" which means "Christmas!")
That and the Brits must think we're nuts! To them "holiday" is a vacation. We have vacation trees in our living rooms! Oh my!
Finally: AOL: Amish Online. A 75 year old Amish widower was bilked out of over $65,000 because a he was afraid that his church community would discover that he'd gone to a prostitute. The prostitute said that if he didn't pay her money that pictures of their "interaction" would appear on the internet. The internet? Alright, so this Amish man not only thought that people from his parish would not only be on the internet, but he also thought they'd locate the pornographic photographs he was featured in! Anybody else see something wrong there?
But wait, it gets better. The prostitute was caught when the Amish man's deacon came up with a scheme. The next time she demanded money, the deacon went with our widower and they got her to admit what the money was for: Blackmail. Here's the kicker: The deacon was wearing a small digital camera with a wireless transmitter! When did the Amish find technology?! Something just ain't right there!
Sorry it's been so long since you've heard just my opinion.
19 comments:
Right on with the gay movie. I'm not judging it until/unless I see it, but when I asked someone what it was about other than gay cowboys, I was still left saying, "eeeeeehhhhhh, I don't think so" and I'll be damned if I'm called a homophobe for that.
Good point on the critics, though. The problem there is that any genuine praise will be thought specious as well.
As for movies that go against one's morals and values - I know a guy who hated Forrest Gump because it ended sadly. See, anything that doesn't end happily, he says is a bad movie. He wouldn't let his 16 year old son watch it for the same reason. People are the same with their values. Look, things are bound to oppose your values; that's what keeps you focused and reflective. Not every movie you see will turn out the way you want, just as charcters in a book will make decisions that cause you to like them a bit less. That doesn't lessen the quality of writing, but, I think, often strengthens it. Writing, filmmaking, art that takes no risk is no art at all. So, boycott those movies that offend your delicate sensibilities, but I think you're missing out, at very least on some firm ground from which to argue.
Enjoyed the rants! I won't be seeing the gay western, mostly because if you're going to enjoy a gay romance, at least frame it in terms that make sense and aren't purely for media hype. But that's beside the point, maybe. I don't particularly care for any of the themes at all--romance, western, homosexual romps? I'd rather see Blade Runner: romantic/tragic film noir with a tech/Sartrean edge.
Love the rant about holiday trees. What say I fly up to Boston, we grab Thom, and all decorate a Christmas tree at Dorchester & Broadway, preaching on the street corner about what it is and why? :D
The Amish...ohmanohman...the Amish. Who knows.
Regarding Brokeback Mountain. First I probably won't be seeing it soon as the thought of Heath and Jake making out creeps me a bit. That aside . . . what are you afraid of Marc? As you haven't even seen the movie, you know nothing of it's content aside from "gay cowboys." Therefore, everything you're ranting about is completely conjectural (but spoken so matter of factly).
Your post has such a fear-laden intonation to it and I really can't understand how you've drawn the conclusions you have. Critics can't afford to go against this film? This is such a shortsighted view, Marc. Have you noted the director? Perhaps even the writers of the screenplay? This is the same director who did Crouching Tiger (nominated for best picture) and the same screenwriter who wrote Lonesome Dove (Winner of 7 Emmy Awards and a Golden Globe) and Terms of Endearment (Winner of 5 Oscar Awards include Best Picture of 1983). I'd say this film has the potential to be critically praised based upon the makers previous credentials, my friend. Don't immediately knock this film which you haven't seen simply because it contains two characters who make choices you wouldn't personally make.
And to quote one of our most respected film critics, who happened to give this film four stars, Ebert says: "Brokeback Mountain" has been described as "a gay cowboy movie," which is a cruel simplification. It is the story of a time and place where two men are forced to deny the only great passion either one will ever feel. Their tragedy is universal. It could be about two women, or lovers from different religious or ethnic groups -- any "forbidden" love."
Lastly, you "Don't support movies that encourage people to disregard responsibility"? Weren't you a fan of the film Moulin Rouge?
In reverse order,
On the Amish: I grew up in rural Kansas and we had our Amish folk. They would roll into town on horse and buggy... with a boom box blasting.
On Holiday Trees: Why are Christians so upset? Who gives a flying crapp what they call it? I missed the part where not having "Jesus" and "Christ" plastered all over the place would be the death of the faith. This is just a big distraction from what is important. Also, if you look at the history of our faith many Christians didn't even celebrate the holiday, let alone give a crapp what a they called the tree. We are too damb sensitive.
On Broke Back: I have always said that all anyone has to do to get their book to be a best seller, their song to be number one, or their movie to make millions is to get the Christians all butt hurt about it. We give them loads of free publicity. And we have become such kill joys and babies about everything that when we complain about something that is a signal to everyone else that it must be good.
Your little analogy about Friday Night Lights doesn't hold up. No one is tying football players to fence posts and beating them to death (as happened a few years ago).
I don't think anyone will care as much about you not seeing the movie as much as about all the "rants" of Christians about how we shouldn't see the flick cause it is a "Gay" movie.
If you don't support movies that encourage people to disregard responsibility do you even go to the movies?
I think you have missed the point of the movie. I guess that is cause you haven't seen it.
I grew up on a ranch. My whole family are cowboys. Everyone I grew up with was a cowboy. All we did was cowboy. You know what? THIS KIND OF THING HAPPENS A LOT.
There were always stories about two buddies who were a little "closer" to each other than to their wives. And with similar disasterous effects.
I will see the movie. I have read most of the book - just so I can speak about it from knowledge not ignorance. What I got out of the book, and I suspect what I will get out of the movie is that it is a tragedy in the old sense of the word. These two have a love for each other that is forbidden and they do their best to conform to what society expects from them... but tragically they fail.
If anything it demonstrates the tragedy of infidelity.
I have participated in a couple of debates about this movie and what always comes out is that Christians are homophobes and hateful. Maybe that is not justified, but why even give someone the room to make that accusation when there is nothing to gain?
Two points - on Brokeback, I haven't see or heard a single incident of someone being called a homophobe because they didn't want to see this movie BUT I have seen and heard prolific comments to the same on right-wing blogs and news talk programs. Yet another case of the right concocting a ficticious "outrage" so they can disparage the opposition and feel morally superior to their (non-existent) petty, tsk-worthy, over PCness.
Two - I'm sorry, I missed the passage in the (Nicaean) Bible that talks about the Christmas tree. Maybe it's right in there with the passage that puts Christmas at Dec. 25th...
Kendra,
Perhaps you ought to read the two posts before you: Both have insinuated that I am a homophobe due to this post. Apparently, just like I haven't seen the movie, James and Fletch didn't read my post.
I personally have been asked if I was a homophobe because I wouldn't go see BB MT (and not only by Fletch and James.)
However, I was not encouraging people not to see this movie due to it's pro-homosexual content. I was encouraging people not to sit idly by and let politically correct sensitive people to label them as homophobes because they weren't seeing this movie. Especially if their reason has nothing to do with the sexual preference of the heroes. But because they aren't western folks, or romance fans, or prefer movies where stuff blows up.
James, you first say you won't see it, then you brate me for saying I won't see it? Pardon? (I don't see how the themes/message of Moulin Rouge is to disregard our responsibilities.)
Fletch, Sorry, I don't see how the hate crimes against gays means that I have to feel compelled to see this movie. Should every white person see "Babershop Two" because Americans used to lynch black people? I don't like westerns. I don't really like romances. "The thought of Heath and Jake making out creeps me a bit." Are these valid reasons for not seeing this movie? How about: cash flow is pretty tight right now and I have to be selective on what I spend my money on. Or should this movie be first on my list because I have fellow citizens who kill people because they are gay?
My biggest issue with this film is the media hype it's getting because of it's content. If this movie were as excellently written, produced, and acted, but were about a heterosexual affair it would not be on the front page of US Today.
In regard to the Christmas trees...(I mean holiday trees): Mostly, I think it's funny that both sides of the issue are making it such an issue. If a "Christmas Tree" is so offensive, why are cities still decorating them in public areas. Manger scenes are gone why not these trees used only in the celebration of Jesus' birth?
The Amish have boomboxes?! What is their current technology stance?!
Marc,
I might be wrong, but I feel as though I've been bait-and-switched. 1) I never called you a homophobe. 2) I never advocated seeing, or not seeing BB MT. 3) I in fact, did read your post. In fact I read it more than once.
All I've done here is critique your too-quick-to-judge written statement toward something I believe you know very little about. Read my comment again. My first question is "What are you afraid of? Not "Why are you a homophobe?" Not "Why won't anyone see this movie?" just "What are you afraid of?" The language of this post is so laden with fear you just seem very afraid of something.
Also your comment:
"My biggest issue with this film is the media hype it's getting because of it's content. If this movie were as excellently written, produced, and acted, but were about a heterosexual affair it would not be on the front page of US Today."
How can you say this? You haven't seen the movie!?
My criticism comes because you seem to be holding the American film industry to a Christian standard of lliving. How do you expect non-Christian entities or individuals to adhere to a Christian standard?
And Moulin Rouge...is there not promiscuity in this film? if your standard for watching films is based soley upon your stand against the "disregarding of responsibility," does not promiscuity fit this definition quite well?
Fair enough, what was the last film that you remember getting major hype, not because it was good, but because of the content?
All of the non-entertainment section articles that I've read regarding this have been about the content and how this group supports it and this group hopes it will fail.
I try not to hold hollywood to a Christian standard of living. I DO hold hollywood to messages that better society. Society is not bettered by people not taking responciblity. Promescuity is one thing when both people are not currently entangled with another. I am not saying do not show sin, do not display evil, do not offend Christians. I AM saying, do not promote things that undermine the foundation of society. Civilisation requires people to take responsibility for their actions and choices otherwise it crumbles down around us.
Make a film about gay men. Make a film about gay cowboys or construction workers, or football players. Have one of the plot points be that one of them is married. Do not glorify the fact that he leaves his responsibilities to others to follow his dreams/feelings/emotions/needs/ whatever. These things undermine civilization. How do I say this? I read reviews of people who have seen the movie. Hearsay, yes, but it is that hearsay that is supposed to encourage people to see the films, so if they are not factual, they aren't very useful...
What does "What are you afraid of?" insinuate? I've reread my post and I don't see the fear. I see the disgust in what I've experienced of people (not you) declaring homophobia because I've expressed my opinion that I simply do not plan on seeing this film.
Marc,
Thanks for clarifying. I may have read your tone wrong, but what I pulled from your post sounded like you were trying to play the "Christian persecution" card. And when Christians run around declaring how they are "persecuted" in America, it's as if there exists this giant fear that if we don't stand up for what we believe in, then Christianity is down the tubes. I just don't buy this, nor do i feel this is a proper understanding of the Kingdom.
I understand what you are saying about responsibilities. But sometimes films depict people making the wrong choices, and I think this is okay, holding that it is not gratuitous. For example "Million Dollar Baby..." Clint Eastwood makes a choice I feel shirks his responsibility. But it was a decision I believe was true to his character, and in a way it allows us to ask ourselves what we might do in similar circumstance. Granted I haven't seen "Brokeback Mountain" but it is possible there are some similar happenings.
Last film i can remember that got hype because of content? Uh, "Eternal Sunshine" comes to mind. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean controversial?
word. sorry if I misread your post.
James,
Thanks. Yeah, it's not about the persecution of Christians, it's about the assasination of character. My last paragraph to people who "aren't seeing it because of [their] value system" isn't meant to promote such behavior, but rather to encourage people not to hide that. If your reason for not going is value based, be sure to speak up about it. Rereading it, that may not have been clear.
Actually, in regard to persecution (which isn't happening in this situation), I fear the day when it ceases to happen. If that day occurs the American church will have to do some major searching to see where it messed up!
I think you may be right about "Eternal Sunshine." Either that or "Million Dollar Baby" but I don't know what that movie was about save a woman boxer.
Shame on me, I have not yet seen "Million Dollar Baby!" Wanna have a viewing?
Oh yeah, it's about assasination of character when people feel at liberty to label someone a homophobe (Christian or not) simply because they have no interest in seeing this movie.
I'll try to more clear in my initial posts.
I'm not getting something here. Is it not a person's responsibility to leave their spouse if they finally come to terms with their homosexuality? Is it not their responsibility to be honest and make it so each can persue a more fullfilling life than is currently had?
I think it's rather irresponsible to hang on, trying to make a relationship better that is just not going to work.
Now, I don't know the circumstances presented in the film. Maybe one character leaves his wife and children and never looks back. In that case, ok, he's irresponsible. But there's no sense or honor in trying to act the straight man.
Peace out homophobe.
So a person's personal responsibility comes before his responsibility to his family? He entered into a binding contract to love, honor, and cherish until he dies. Not until he decides that he need to determine if he's gay or not.
What I'm hearing is that a gay man cannot love his child/ren (don't know if he had more than one) or the woman who bore them simply because he's gay. Because leaving them certainly is not loving them. No matter how much better I turned out because my father took off, his leaving was not an act of love. And unless the father's presence actually endangers the life of his family, it never would be.
No, his responsibility to being a father and husband comes before his personal sexual needs. Though I have no basis to make this statement, it seems to me that being married to a loving, caring, supportive homosexual is better than being a single parent trying to make it one your own because the person who promised never to leave you left because they didn't like the sex.
Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute. You're saying the only reason for entering into a homosexual relationship is for the sex? So, you only got married for the sex?
'What I'm hearing is that a gay man cannot love his child/ren (don't know if he had more than one) or the woman who bore them simply because he's gay. Because leaving them certainly is not loving them.'
Not sure how you heard that. Of course he can love them and maybe the decision to leave is partly based on that love. What if the wife agrees seperating is for the best? Are you willing to go so far as to say neither loves their children because both are now backing out of their vow? Ok, now say she doesn't want him to leave. Do you believe a person should have to get permission from their spouse in order to leave!? That's a sadistic mentality.
In an ideal world, a person would have come to terms with their homosexuality before marriage, but this isn't an ideal world.
Is this person supposed to hide the fact they he or she is gay now? Or are they allowed to be who they are? How fucked up would it be to tell people, 'yeah, my husband/wife is gay.'?
Would you really want your wife to stay with you if you found out she was gay but just didn't want to tell you?
And one more thing, I wouldn't have my parents together for anything in the world. The decision to seperate was most certainly a decision of love.
Just my two cents in the last portion of this dialouge...i think the gay lifestyle thing is infintely more complex than either of your statements can capture. Not as simple as bucking up to who you are as a homosexual, and not as easy as sticking to your family and the heterosexual partner you've married. I'll leave it at that.
Marc, i'm definitely down for a viewing of "million dollar."
James, whose comments are you referring to? If mine, I didn't mean to imply in any way that it's a simple situation nor am I attempting to argue which course of action is right for any couple. I'm just putting forth a few questions because I think it is such a complex issue.
And as for the comment about my father leaving - I only wanted to point out that leaving is not always a sign that a person doesn't love their children.
Abraxas,
Yes, i wasn't trying to insinuate that you didn't think the situation was complex or something. Just throwing in that feelings of love and attraction for the same sex I imagine are far more complex than many of us straight folk would like to give credit to. I think too many in the Evangelical Christian community would be happy if every gay person in the world left their "gaydom" and just lived a straight lifestyle. I think this is too easy a conclusion.
The issue here isn't about one member of the marriage being gay. They could be straight and want to have an affair with a woman. I still stand on the fact that they shouldn't renig on their promise of marriage.
Let's say is wife was in a horrible disfiguring accident and he is no longer attracted to her. Is that a reason to leave? She's completely self sufficient but horribly ugly. Wouldn't you consider him a jerk for leaving? Why is it ok for him to leave a non-disfigured woman just because he isn't attracted to her?
My point is that a marriage isn't about sex! It's about love and devotion. Whether gay or straight, it is never ok to leave a non-abusive marital relationship, especially when there are kids involved.
Post a Comment