SteveThaiBinh Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 (edited) Sorry, Steve, I respect the fact that there is no politically correct issue that is not too politically correct for your tastes, but this goes well beyond the pale. No problem. I love being everyone's favourite political correctness nut. I found the original review (a video clip) at the GLAAD website here. As I said in my earlier posts, I haven't seen the movie and so I can't judge whether 'sexual predator' is a reasonable description of the character. However, if GLAAD is overreacting, there are plenty of people overreacting to its overreaction. I don't think Shalit should be persecuted for what he said, but he has a right to comment on the movie, and GLAAD has a right to comment on his comment. And you have a right to comment on its comment. And I have a right to comment on your comment. And you have a right to comment on my comment. Edited January 8, 2006 by SteveThaiBinh "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
Cantousent Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 The over-reacting to the over-reaction is true enough. I really think I am part of the matrix at this point. lol Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!
Surreptishus Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 (edited) Couldn't find the clip from Di's link (thanks anyway), while googling i found this interesting piece. http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid24133.asp EDIT: i've seen the review (more like a whimsical summary) now all i have to do is watch the film. Edited January 8, 2006 by Surreptishus
~Di Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 Couldn't find the clip from Di's link (thanks anyway), while googling i found this interesting piece. http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid24133.asp EDIT: i've seen the review (more like a whinsical summary) now all i have to do is watch the film. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, I hate the MSNBC site... takes forever to load, and half the time only half the page loads. When the full page on my link actually loads, you'll see "Gene Shalit's corner" on the far right. The Brokeback Mountain review, Jan. 5, is the first of 3 listed reviews. Mouse over the title "Brokeback Mountain" and click. (This is just generalized info, since you have already seen the clip elsewhere) As for your link, wow. I did not know that Shalit had a gay son... but then again homosexuality is pretty danged common (despite what certain groups would have us believe) so I cannot say I'm particularly surprised. Literally some of my best friends have gay children... and a couple are gay themselves! Point being that GLAAD perhaps should have done a bit more homework on Mr. Shalit before casting the "homophobe" stone at him.
Surreptishus Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 (edited) What the heck is a sexual predator anyway? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I MAY NOT BE FRED FLINTSTONE BUT I SURE CAN MAKE YOUR BEDROCK!! Edited January 8, 2006 by Surreptishus
Judge Hades Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK! (runs and hides)
LoneWolf16 Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 What the heck is a sexual predator anyway? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I MAY NOT BE FRED FLINTSTONE BUT I SURE CAN MAKE YOUR BEDROCK!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I had thought that some of nature's journeymen had made men and not made them well, for they imitated humanity so abominably. - Book of Counted Sorrows 'Cause I won't know the man that kills me and I don't know these men I kill but we all wind up on the same side 'cause ain't none of us doin' god's will. - Everlast
Hurlshort Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 I'm glad [GLAAD] are taking [Gene Shallit] to task on this. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have you seen the movie Hurlshot? <{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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so.. basically you are waffling? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How am I waffling? I don't enjoy the genre that the movie is in. If I did see it, my review would be something like "It's a lame romance." I would not call someone a sexual predator because he's pursuing a love interest. That's the complaint that GLAAD has with Shalit. It also seems pretty evident that Heath Ledger is a willing participant in the romance, he just doesn't want to go public with it. That's a bit different than being stalked by a sexual predator.
Surreptishus Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 (edited) If you haven't seen the film, then how does the observation you made about Ledger's character seem it "seem pretty evident"? Edited January 8, 2006 by Surreptishus
Hurlshort Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 If you haven't seen the film, then how does the observation you made about Ledger's character seem it "seem pretty evident"? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because I've read quite a few reviews (thanks to this thread) and Lucius stated as much after reading the book.
Surreptishus Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 Since you are going off of other people's opinion did you see the Shalit review? Most likely through selective editing they portray Gylenhaal as being the pursuer, the initiator after their initial tryst.
julianw Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 What the heck is a sexual predator anyway? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe this can help: A sexual predator is not necessarily a criminal. An adult male can cruise a bar looking for consensual sex from an adult female and be considered a sexual predator. He is looking for prey (metaphorically). In this case, no crime will be committed.
LadyCrimson Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 (edited) In this day of political correctness, the ideal of freedom of expression becomes even more seperated from the reality because people are afraid to open their mouths and dance around everything to avoid arguments or being sued. No one wants to be made an example of for a casual remark they barely remember making. I haven't read the book or seen the movie, but reviews I've read of the film suggest one character is more the agressor while the other is more reticient - maybe that reluctance comes from not wanting to come out of the closet & the encounters are always consensual, but it could still be viewed as being 'predatory' in the sense that if the one wasn't agressive about actively pursuing, the relationship would not have continued for so long? But then, like I said, I haven't seen the movie so maybe I'm talking out my ass here... My point I guess is that perhaps Shalit really does view the film relationship dynamic that way and used the term precisely because he figured he'd use it if the couple was hetrosexual, so therefore he deemed it appropriate to use for this movie. I've certainly heard him use such similar phrases before (not that I could quote you specific examples), he's been around a long long time, and he's always had that loud and kind of abrasively quick style, even when he's ga-ga over a film. Edited January 8, 2006 by LadyCrimson “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
Lucius Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 (edited) Dear Lady C, the reason one of the cowboys is reluctant is because his ****kicker dad showed him what happens to homosexuals in Northern Wyoming when he was a boy... and he made sure his son saw the bludgeoned corpse. Edited January 8, 2006 by Lucius DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
LadyCrimson Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 Good enough reason. Still, aren't they both married for much of their relationship? Maybe Shalit is old-fashioned and thinks people shouldn't pursue/have affairs when they're married. Er...yeah...I'll shut up now. heh “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
Lucius Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 (edited) They marry probably more because it's expected of them I think, knowing that there's a good chance of getting killed if anyone was to discover your sexual preference is kinda nervewrecking, or so I assume. Fixed. Edited January 8, 2006 by Lucius DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
LadyCrimson Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 Yeah, I wasn't trying to say Shalit's veiw of the novel/film itself is a 'good one', or the majority view...just that his using of the phrase in question could come from something other than homophobia. “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
Cantousent Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 (edited) That's pretty wild, Lucius. Not a very loving dad, eh? Anyhow, we have a family friend who has a gay son. There wasn't really any problem with his homosexuality, although I'm sure his grandparents were taken aback and disappointed. Still, they treated the kid with just as much after they found out as before. Well, the 18 year old kid, now 19, fell in love with a 56 year old man. When his mom evinced some real concern, he threw the "homophobic" charge in her face. What's funny is the 56 year old has suffered strained relations with his family since he declared his sexual orientation, and so he insists on refering to the mother as "mom." hahahahaha She's younger than he is. hahahahaha So, is she agist for not wanting her 18 year old son to marry a 56 year old? Would it make a difference if her son had married a 56 year old woman? People want the best for their children, but I think showing concern when your 18 year old child develops a relationship with a 56 year old is reasonable. I would be concerned as well. That's homosexual, heterosexual, or asexual. ...But it boiled down to homosexuality for the son, which was rather unfair to his mother. The upshot is that the mom went to the "wedding" (which is not legally binding in California anyhow) and has not disowned or attacked the son. She only wants what's best for her son and thinks the odds are stacked against such a marriage. Well, the odds are stacked against such a marriage, but it is still his choice. Her choice is to love him regardless of his decision. He loves someone over three times his age. I'm sure he can't help it. There's more to all this than homosexuality. It's possible to see someone as a predator without basing such a point of view on his sexual preference. EDIT: for clarity. Edited January 8, 2006 by Eldar Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!
kirottu Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 Jailbater... This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time.
Arkan Posted January 8, 2006 Author Posted January 8, 2006 Gene Shalit is a closet gay. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What if he was? Would that somehow make his point more or less valid? "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 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 I think that a lot of people here is overreacting. I know about over reacting, let me tell ya. Its just one man's opinion. Sheesh!
Skynet Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 *snip* Wow. That's just...wow. If I was the father of that 19 year old boy, I don't know what I'd do. That's one pretty messed up situation. "Who could blame Skynet? He's such a cute, innocent, steel-bolted robot." -Gauntlet
Recommended Posts