I heard yesterday a female co-worker went to see the movie with here 13 year old daughter.
She had a bad time after the movie when other adults looked at here with fire in the eyes, but I say RESPECT :bravo:
The 13 year old had a lot of questions to her motjher afterwards but has an understanding now about something which is freaking TABOO in big parts of the world.
Screw the pope, screw the American theaters who refused to run the movie.
Poagoa, have you seen the movie? Let me restate some of my implicit review: the characters are so thin, and the plot so brief (it was a short story originally), that once you subtract the country music and the pretty scenery, this particular movie, there is nothing left but the gay theme. Of course a movie does not have to be about confirming one’s sexual preferences, but there is precious little else there in the thin gruel of this film.
It would be interesting to see how the gay press critiques this movie, IMHO if you scratch beneath the surface it has a few scenes they may find offensive.
Paogao wrote: [quote]As to the “constant diet of gay movies” you refer to, do you have a list of movies you were “force-fed”? Do the numbers overwhelm the numbers of “straight” movies on the market to prove your “pro-gay film bias” accusation?[/quote]
There are certainly more openly gay characters on television and in movies now than there was even a couple of decades ago, and while “force fed” might not be the greatest metaphor it has to be admitted that television and movies are a big part of the culture in which we live and both reflect and create it. Which of course isn’t to say necessarily that there are too many gay characters in film. I don’t know if there is enough. But it would certainly be nice if those characters generally recieved a fuller treatment. A lot of gay characters seem to exist as just that, gay characters, with no other unique qualities, no families, no lives seperate from that. As such we never see an honest treatment of how a persons homosexuality affects the other people in their lives. If there is any real bias it is against looking at that issue squarely.
Well, it was either “force fed” or “shoved down our throats”. Seems to me a gay reviewer or activist might well object to the thin characterizations of the protagonists in Brokeback Mountain… two dimensional and “just gay”. Or the portrayal of violence against gays or that gays worry about this constantly (this seems to be the only character trait Jack has). Or that gays need it and go down to Mexico to get it. Or that they love to prance around shirtless and wrestle in meadows. This is all part of the movie. Maybe its good, I can’t say. It does seem to me that a 2 hour platform for the gay cause could have done so much more. And yes, it is inevitably more of a political movie than a work of art (partly because I find it fails as the latter).
Sorry I added this bit while you were responding:
I really have to see the film toe tag to comment on it’s artistic merits. It’s not that I don’t trust your judgement but quite a few really outstanding reviewers have praised the heck out of it so…
[quote=“Toe Tag”]Poagao, have you seen the movie? Let me restate some of my implicit review: the characters are so thin, and the plot so brief (it was a short story originally), that once you subtract the country music and the pretty scenery, this particular movie, there is nothing left but the gay theme. Of course a movie does not have to be about confirming one’s sexual preferences, but there is precious little else there in the thin gruel of this film.
It would be interesting to see how the gay press critiques this movie, IMHO if you scratch beneath the surface it has a few scenes they may find offensive.[/quote]
Yes, I’ve seen it; I found that, although it had a slow start, the pacing was apt as the characters were well-developed and deep, the emotions captured artfully and truthfully, with an interesting plot. I’ve also read the short story as well as the book from where it came, and I’m impressed that Ang Lee could develop such a short story so richly, but when you think about it, so often literature developed into movie form so often has to cast off a lot of background and development just to get it into a certain length; with this short story Lee was able to get in just about all of the nuances and pacing of the original story. In fact, I thought he did a better job this time than he did in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, character-wise. I don’t usually go for love stories, but this one was a genuinely moving, interesting piece of cinema concerning a pair actually fairly traditional star-crossed lovers.
I still don’t see how one major movie is “force fed” or “shoved down your throat”, though.
I don’t imagine I’m in a position to make that sort of request but if it had been me that put it up, I’d take it down. Paogao is one of the very few people here who will admit to being gay. He is also quite knowledgable about film apparently. At the very least I think we could respect his point of view in this thread.
Well…haven’t seen/heard a word from the most expressive of the Forumosa folks, LBTW.
How about it ?
And I didn’t even know Pogagao was gay…shows how much attention I pay to that.
You got a frog in your pocket?
It’s true TC, you weren’t trying for anything.
bob,
With all due respect WTF are you talking about in this post? Because Poagao is gay, and he is able to throw around the appropriate film critiquing jargon, we accept his opinion regarding the movie’s merits? That’s silly. I am struggling to understand what your post means. Are you saying that others on the thread have been disrespectful of Poagao? of his point of view? If that is your meaning, then I disagree. I think there is a valuable exchange of differing points of view going on between Toe Tag and Poagao and others. Since it seems to make a difference to you, I am a big fat dyke (really) - does that make my point of view more or less valid regarding the topic of this movie?
Bodo
[quote=“Poagao”]
Here in Taiwan, thankfully the audience didn’t scream “Ewwwww!” and make snarky comments at the screen, as I’ve heard is common in many areas in the states.[/quote]
Gosh, I remember people in the U.S. doing that during the same-sex kissing scenes in “Basic Instinct” and “Truth or Dare”. Nice to see the States has made such great strides during the last 15 years.
Sorry Bodo that post was in relation to another post that has since been removed. I don’t know why they didn’t remove mine as well. Anyway I didn’t say that we should accept his opinion (about the films merits as some sort of final judgement or something I think you meant) I was saying that we should respect his point of view with regard to the tone of the discussion. It’s all a little pointless now since the posts I was referring to have been removed.
[quote=“Toe Tag”]
Well that’s my point, I’ve put up with this pro-gay-film bias for several decades and finally I’ve decided to speak out about it. (And risk being labeled homophobic, etc.) You had to go back to the 1990’s to come up with your Asian example. We’re not fed a constant diet of over-hyped Asian-themed movies because 1. unlike the gay-themed movies we are force fed, its not a contant diet, it was just a fad, and more importantly 2. the Asian-themed movies you mention were actually pretty good movies, they were hyped, but not over hyped like they were the second coming of the deer hunter.
I’d like to add that “A History of Violence” sucked; completely incoherent, downright pornographic, and the worst music I’ve ever seen fitted to a film like a bad suit.
The good news is, by whinging about it, the conservatives have shot themselves in the foot and pulled hordes into the theatres to see Brokeback Mountain. But I still feel the movie will then polarize its audience, and you will either realize you need to come out of the closet, or realize that you are sure of your heterosexuality, Kinsey (great film BTW) notwithstanding.[/quote]
Are you really being fed a constant diet of over-hyped gay films? Most gay films are artsy-fartsy movies that nobody ever saw or only generated hype within small groups.
Good point. Toe Tag, your constant diet of over-hyped gay films should make it very easy for you to name, say, 10 such films from the last few decades right off the top of your head with no googling.
I’ll start you off with La Cage aux Folles, My Beautiful Laundrette and Priest, although that’s not really fair, since none of them could be described as over-hyped and none are even American. Still, only 7 to go.
Flawless - good movie too. Philip Seymor Hoffman and Robert Deniro. Deniro plays a tough cop character who has a stroke and Hoffman a gay transvestite who tries to help him speak again by teaching him to sing! Priceless.
Yeah, but that’s hardly a “gay” film in the sense I get from Toe Tag. It just has a gay character in it.
Yeah, but that’s hardly a “gay” film in the sense I get from Toe Tag. It just has a gay character in it.[/quote]
Yeah, that would be like calling Philadelphia a “black” movie becasue of Denzel Washington.
It was a gay film in that it showed the sort of struggle gay people face just trying to be regarded as complete human beings. At the beginning of the film deniro’s character could never have imagined how wise and tough hoffman’s character could be. By the end he knew. That’s progress.
I saw that movie.
It was gay.
OK, that’s one, then, I’ll give you that. Toe Tag? Only six to go. Should be easy as pie – after all, there’s Philadelphia there too, so only five left. A measly five other over-hyped gay films from the last 40 years. And remember, you can’t choose films in which the gayness is used as a comic stereotype.
Ooh, I’ll even give you another one – Boys Don’t Cry. So, four more, and remember, you’re getting off very, very lightly indeed, claiming as you do that you’ve been constantly force-fed these movies for several decades. You must be able to think of DOZENS, for heaven’s sake!
I’d also be interested to know exactly who was doing the feeding – did it involve toothpicks to hold the eyelids open? Duct taping your wrists to the arms of the chair, what?