Arkan Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/eo/20060107/en_movies_eo/18098 For the most part, the critics agree that Brokeback Mountain is one of the year's most commendable films. Then there's Gene Shalit's point of view. The veteran Today show critic has been taken to task by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation over his negative review of the gay cowboy western, in which he referred to Jake Gyllenhaal's character, Jack, as a "sexual predator" who "tracks Ennis down and coaxes him into sporadic trysts." The group claimed that Shalit's statements, delivered during his "Critic's Choice" segment on Thursday's Today show, promoted "defamatory anti-gay prejudice to a national audience," and criticized NBC News for providing the eccentric critic with a platform from which to air his views. "Shalit's bizarre characterization of Jack as a 'predator' and Ennis ( Heath Ledger) as a victim reflects a fundamental lack of understanding about the central relationship in the film and about gay relationships in general," GLAAD said in a statement. "It seems highly doubtful that Shalit would similarly claim that Titanic's Jack ( Leonardo DiCaprio) was a 'sexual predator' because he was pursuing a romantic relationship with Rose ( Kate Winslet)." GLAAD demanded an apology from both Shalit and NBC News and urged supporters to contact the network and complain. In addition to offering his searing analysis of the romantic relationship between the lead characters, Shalit commended Ledger's performance in Brokeback and allowed that the film had a "few dramatic peaks." He concluded that Ang Lee's much-nominated oeuvre was "wildly overpraised, but not by me." "Shalit has every right as a film critic to criticize Brokeback Mountain," GLAAD retorted. "But his baseless branding of Jack as a 'sexual predator' merely because he is romantically interested in someone of the same sex is defamatory, ignorant and irresponsible." The group reported on its Website that GLAAD representatives had spoken with a Today show producer, who promised to bring their concerns to Shalit's attention. While Shalit may not be a Brokeback fan, his colleagues in critique have clamored to commend the cowboy drama. To date, the film has been named Best Picture by the Los Angeles Film Critics Association and the New York Film Critics Circle and deemed one of the year's 10 best films by the American Film Institute and the Broadcast Film Critics Association. The kudos don't stop there--Brokeback is up for eight Critic's Choice Awards, seven Golden Globes, a Writers Guild Award, a Producers Guild Award, a Directors Guild Award and four Screen Actors Guild Awards, to name a few. And that's before nominations for [the Academy Awards are announced on Jan. 31. I hope Shalit doesn't apologize. What a bunch of hypersensitive sissies. "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta
Surreptishus Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 He'll need to performa duet with Elton John to get out of this one.
Child of Flame Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 Eff that noise. GLAAD needs to save this **** for when someone actually says something prejudiced. On the other hand, is the movie actually any good or is it just getting strong reviews because the critics are worried about being run down by an angry mob of homosexuals?
Arkan Posted January 7, 2006 Author Posted January 7, 2006 Eff that noise. GLAAD needs to save this **** for when someone actually says something prejudiced. On the other hand, is the movie actually any good or is it just getting strong reviews because the critics are worried about being run down by an angry mob of homosexuals? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's a chick flick that the critics don't want to pan....probably due to the latter. "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta
Child of Flame Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 Really I just wanted to use the phrase 'run down by an angry mob of homosexuals' once in my life. Now I am complete.
SteveThaiBinh Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 I haven't seen the film yet, though I hope to soon. If this critic is labelling the character as a 'sexual predator' for behaviour that would be fine in a heterosexual character, then he's a homophobic idiot and deserves to be called as such. Well done to GLAAD for doing their job and standing up for gay rights. "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
Hurlshort Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 It's true that he wouldn't be branded a sexual predator if Heath Ledger's character was a woman. I'm glad they are taking him to task on this. Homophobia is a serious problem in this country.
Child of Flame Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 Woo! I'm homophobic because I don't want guys coming onto me! Note that it has happened and I took it as a compliment, if only I was that popular with the ladies.
Surreptishus Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 Ladies are more fussy and guys have a raging libido. Its fun to be gay!
Arkan Posted January 7, 2006 Author Posted January 7, 2006 It's true that he wouldn't be branded a sexual predator if Heath Ledger's character was a woman. I'm glad they are taking him to task on this. Homophobia is a serious problem in this country. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't remember it being illegal to voice an opinion. IF any of you think Gene Shalit is a homophobe...well, you obviously have no idea who the man is. "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta
SteveThaiBinh Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 IF any of you think Gene Shalit is a homophobe...well, you obviously have no idea who the man is. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're right. Who is this man whose pro-gay credentials are beyond reproach? Surely this organisation 'GLAAD' has every right to voice its opinion as well? "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
Arkan Posted January 7, 2006 Author Posted January 7, 2006 IF any of you think Gene Shalit is a homophobe...well, you obviously have no idea who the man is. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're right. Who is this man whose pro-gay credentials are beyond reproach? Surely this organisation 'GLAAD' has every right to voice its opinion as well? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yes they do. But they don't have the right to try and stifle that of others. Here is a picture of Gene Shalit. "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta
Judge Hades Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 If I guy made advances towards me I would tell him I am strictly hetero. If he doesn't back off, then a well placed skull bash with a crowbar will be next. I have no problems with gays and lesbians otherwise. They live their life and I live mine. If they don't bother me I will not bother them.
LadyCrimson Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 Prejudice is bad. But so are over-sensitive, over-blown reactions. “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Volourn Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 Poor babies. A likely overrated movie has one reviews that didn't kiss it's butt. Boo hoo for them. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Lucius Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 If I guy made advances towards me I would tell him I am strictly hetero. If he doesn't back off, then a well placed skull bash with a crowbar will be next. I have no problems with gays and lesbians otherwise. They live their life and I live mine. If they don't bother me I will not bother them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then you'll do jail time and become the new man-meat on the block, surely by then you'll regret smashing him with a crowbar. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Hurlshort Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 (edited) Poor babies. A likely overrated movie has one reviews that didn't kiss it's butt. Boo hoo for them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That was my first reaction...but after reading the review, I see the point that GLAAD is making. I don't have any interest in seeing the movie. It looks like a lame romance movie, and I avoid those types of movie as often as possible. But there is a double standard here. The one character is being labeled a sexual predator by Gene Shalit. Every other review I've seen paints this as a tragic romance. But to say that Jake Gyhhenal (or whatever the spelling) is a sexual predator because he pursues Heath Ledger is a total double standard. When a male pursues a female on screen, it's called romance, if it's male on male, it suddenly becomes a criminal issue. A couple guys here seem pretty freaked out about a gay man hitting on them. Let me ask you this, if a woman you find unattractive hits on you, do you feel the need to bash her skull in? Seriously, no one is forcing you to sleep with them, so relax. I'm completely comfortable with my sexuality, so I don't see what there is to get worked up about. Also, if you think people choose to be gay, you really need to think about what a difficult life it is. Statistics show that 10% of the population is gay, so I really doubt there are just a ton of people who enjoy being discriminated against. It's a tough life to lead, and anyone who chooses it has my admiration and support. Edited January 8, 2006 by Hurlshot
Commissar Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 If I guy made advances towards me I would tell him I am strictly hetero. If he doesn't back off, then a well placed skull bash with a crowbar will be next. I have no problems with gays and lesbians otherwise. They live their life and I live mine. If they don't bother me I will not bother them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Man. If I was a whiny little girl, or just trying to make an ironic point, I'd report this.
Judge Hades Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 (edited) Why? I treat everyone the same. If it was a Christian or Muslim bothering me and won't leave me alone I would bash their skull inwith a crowbar. If it was a woman or hispanic who was bothering me and won't leave me alone I would do the same. I am an equal opportunity skull basher. Leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Edited January 8, 2006 by Judge Hades
Lyric Suite Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 Has anybody noticed the more effords are made to raise awarness for homosexuality, the more homophobic people become?
Lyric Suite Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 Also, if you think people choose to be gay, you really need to think about what a difficult life it is. It's a tough life to lead, and anyone who chooses it has my admiration and support. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Make up your mind, is it a choise or what?
julianw Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 Also, if you think people choose to be gay, you really need to think about what a difficult life it is. Statistics show that 10% of the population is gay, so I really doubt there are just a ton of people who enjoy being discriminated against. It's a tough life to lead, and anyone who chooses it has my admiration and support. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But homosexuality cannot be purely genetical either since natural selection would have killed it eventually.
Hurlshort Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 Also, if you think people choose to be gay, you really need to think about what a difficult life it is. It's a tough life to lead, and anyone who chooses it has my admiration and support. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Make up your mind, is it a choise or what? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Genetically, it's a dormant trait that can be triggered. That much is scientifically shown, but what triggers the trait is a bit more unclear. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to that. The Catholic church has accepted this scientific fact, although it doesn't accept the lifestyle of course. There is a ton of literature out there on the subject. Here's a site that seems fairly impartial to me: http://www.societyandgenetics.ucla.edu/mothernature.htm The choice isn't about being gay or not, the choice is whether you accept being gay. Many gay people who have tried to live straight lives will tell you that they felt they were lying to themselves. The choice is whether they want to be happy, or they want to conform to "normal" sociatal standards. Again, I think it takes quite a bit of courage to choose to be themselves.
Hurlshort Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 Also, if you think people choose to be gay, you really need to think about what a difficult life it is. Statistics show that 10% of the population is gay, so I really doubt there are just a ton of people who enjoy being discriminated against. It's a tough life to lead, and anyone who chooses it has my admiration and support. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But homosexuality cannot be purely genetical either since natural selection would have killed it eventually. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If it's a dormant trait that appears in 10-15% of people, then it would not be difficult for it to survive. Also, being gay does not mean you can't reproduce. But seriously, if you don't think genetics have a bit to do with it, why do you think people choose this lifestyle? It's not a few oddballs choosing to be different, it's a big chunk of the population. 10% isn't a tiny number. Why would 10% of the people in this world choose to be discriminated against and treated like second class citizens?
Recommended Posts