I edited the thread title to warn people about potential spoilers.
So Gene Shalit wrote an innacurate movie review. I’m having a hard time getting my blood pressure up over it. Accurate or not, he criticized one fictional character, and clearly no intention to mean his criticism to apply to anyone else.
On to more important matters: Did Harry Belafonte like the movie?
As my homies in the inner city of Weokahatchee, AL, would say “Thank you! That’s what I’m preachin’.”
I haven’t seen Brokeback Mountain, and don’t really intend to anytime soon. I’ll take as stipulated that Gene Shalit’s interpretation of the character of Jack is wildly off-base. You don’t even need to provide any actual evidence for this beyond, “Gene Shalit said it.” But it seems that there are a lot of people out there besides just GLAAD that need to learn the difference between “not getting a movie” and “being a gay-bashing hypocrite.”
Christ, people, he didn’t like the movie. For whatever reason, one particular character struck him as creepy. Maybe he’s an idiot for seeing that character that way, maybe he’s just got <gasp> a different interpretation from the movie than you did. So fucking what? He’s also been publically supportive of his gay son, marched in pride parades, and done a hundred other things that are a thousand times more important than giving a good review to one stupid fucking movie! Get some perspective, people! It’s a movie! It’s not real life! Just because you liked it, and he didn’t, does mean he’s morally inferior to you!
And whoever wrote that press release for GLAAD that started this bullshit off needs to slapped silly. This is the sort of crap that makes the whole organization look like a bunch of clowns, making it that much harder for them to be taken seriously when they address something that actually fucking matters.
The question is, as DtC notes, would he have characterized Jack as a sexual predator had he not been gay. It’s highly doubtful given that he hasn’t in the past characterized similar hetereosexual characters in similar circumstances. While on a scale of Fred Phelps to RuPaul, he’s certainly not on the Jerry Falwell end of the spectrum; this does seem to indicate he’s not entirely comfortable with gay male sexuality and that likely influenced his review. If he’s a predator, then his eventual fate is just rather than a tragedy.
Perhaps GLADD would have been better served to communicate their concern privately with Mr. Shalit. But some good will come of it if Shalit is more careful with his word choice in the future.
Or a fatal character flaw in an otherwise noble character, like a classic Greek tragedy? (Not that I’ve seen it or am planning on seeing it, although I’d see it if it were free and in a movie theatre due to not having seen a lot of nice outdoorsy scenery on the big screen in awhile (if there’s a lot of that in it, which some have implied). Ironically, there wasn’t too much of that in Narnia and people STILL complained that it ripped off the scenery in LOTR too much :mad: I guess some people don’t see anything more than trailers.)
Or perhaps - although I hate saying things like this - they would have been better served to focus on some real problems. It seems like they’ve attacked someone who obviously supports their views who might have chosen his words poorly. The amount of good that comes of that - The Education of Mr. Shalit - seems minor compared to the harm that comes from becoming a group that goes after its own friends.
I’m willing to believe that Shalit’s comments were not consciously or deliberately homophobic but it does seem like an over-the-top description of the character and it is odd that Shalit has not expressed similar reactions to hetero movie characters are far more sexually/romantically aggessive than Jack is. I can still understand why it would set off GLAADS alarms, though and why they’d want an explanation. It sounds like they’re satisfied with what Shalit told them, so that should be that. I would also agree with Homebrew that they probably should have spoken to him privately first, but I can’t say I agree that GLAAD was wrong to be initially concerned about it. Battling the image of gay men as predators is part of why they exist.
Are you sure that he hasn’t? I’m not overly familiar with his reviews. Are they available online?
It almost seems as if you’re taking it as a given that Jack might be a sexual predator, so Shalit’s words have wormed their way into your brain. Shalit’s words are having an impact.
Dio and I are seemingly the only ones who have seen the film in this thread, and those who are giving Shalit the benefit of the doubt (either that the imflammatory words “sexual predator” aren’t so bad or well, maybe the Jack character is one after all) haven’t seen the film (and some are “not intending to” for whatever reason) we’re talking to blank walls here. Shalit’s words are having an impact.
Sampiro, you don’t know my father. He doesn’t pay attention to movie ads or awards kudos, and he doesn’t read anything but the business and sports sections of the newspapers, but he watcheed the Today show (or whatever it was). He heard “Western” (his favorite genre), “gay cowboys” (two words that should never go together in his lifetime) and “sexual predator” (that sounds about right). That might be the only thing he ever hears about the movie. He’s a blank wall too, preferring to listen to some crotchety old reviewer because it fits his perception about the way things are (i.e. gays are sexual predators) than listen to his wayward liberal daughter. Shalit’s words are having an impact.
And I don’t believe that had GLAAD not said anything, Shalit’s words would have gone unnoticed. Ask my dad, one of the millions of people who watched Shalit, and zeroed in on those words, and believe them.
Btw, straight guys? As the wife of a straight man who also thought Brokeback Mountain was one of the best movies of the year, seeing the movie won’t turn you gay. Just so you know.
I don’t know, Equipoise, it sounds to me like your Dad would have stopped at “gay cowboy” and never gotten to “sexual preditor.” I’m pretty sure that anyone who doesn’t get worked up (in a bad way) about gay cowboy wouldn’t give a fuck about Shalit’s thoughts about the character’s motive.
I’m a straight man who is looking forward to seeing this movie. I’m going to wait for the DVD though because I hate movie theaters.
Or we don’t assume that something said about one fictional gay man is supposed to reflect on all gay men, any more than it is supposed to reflect on all cowboys.
Will it make me a cowboy?
I should probably deliver my authoritative and binding verdict here:
- Shalit’s use of the phrase “sexual predator” is bizarrely over the top and difficult to reconcile at all with the movie. It’s hard to avoid the idea that the only reason he uses that term is because Jack is gay and he sees this as inherently twisted, drastically rhatcheting up a few notches the badness of any sexual behavior. Hell, it’s Jack that desperately wants to be free of his love for Ennis because the fact that Ennis can’t envision a life together tears him apart. If anything, it’s Ennis that treated Jack as convienient sex on the side, and Jack that wanted to have a real relationship.
- GLAAD should have given Shalit the benefit of the doubt and wrote to him privately first asking for an apology before blowing it into a public scene before even feeling out what kind of guy Shalit was. They might have even gotten a less grudging apology.
Of course, it could be worse. Shalit could be a devotee of a wacky ideology that then made him interpret the movie thusly:
http://lookingcloser.org/movie%20reviews/A-G/brokebackmountain.htm
Will it make Jake Gyllenhaal finally admit he loves me? (I’ve given him ultimatum after ultimatum, but he won’t make a commitment, and Jake, baby, what the hell are those restraining orders all about? You’re sending me mixed signals.)
hajario, my dad heard the “sexual predator” alright. I shouldn’t care about what other people think, but I do. I don’t care if someone dislikes the film (if they’ve seen it) and I don’t care if someone has no interest in seeing it (even if I think they should). But, if they haven’t seen it, I care very much that they don’t have a false impression of what the movie is about, just because they heard some moron critic spew falsehoods about it.
I think the movie will do very well on DVD. Online retailers and Netflix will be busy. I love seeing movies in the theater, especially ones with wide vistas of beautiful scenery like this one, but I can understand waiting for the DVD.
I don’t think it was meant to reflect on anyone but Jack, but that’s the thing. I loved the Jack character, and don’t like to see him defamed in that way. Not to mention that it changes the whole plot of this wonderful film, and turns it into a completely different movie. It changes the whole genre of the film.
No. Maybe a shephard (since Jack and Ennis actually herd sheep and not cows).
(On preview, yay, Apos has seen the movie too!)
You’re entirely missing the point. This thread isn’t about wether or not Shalit’s review was accurate. Most everyone, it seems, is freely willing to stipulate that it wasn’t. The point is that not liking this one character in this one movie doesn’t make Shalit a homophobe, or even a hypocrite.
So if Shalit had gushed about the movie, and talked about how wonderful Jack was, that would change what with your dad, exactly? He’d still feel exactly the same way about the movie, and gays in general, except he would have the towering reputation of Gene Shalit to back up his views. Big fuckin’ deal.
And now that, thanks to GLAAD, he’s come out with a partial retraction, your dad has changed his mind about the whole thing, right?
Because, of course, the only reason someone would not want to see this movie is because of some sort of latent homophobia, of course.
:rolleyes:
Ha! He is a cutie. I’ve liked him ever since October Sky. His playing Jack certainly adds to my love of the character. Did you see Jarhead? More Santa-dancing please!
I don’t think Shalit’s a homophobe or a hypocrite. I just think he’s a idiot. But then, I always have.
That’s not the point either. He (and maybe hundreds of thousands if not millions of others) now think it’s a movie about a guy who forces a straight guy into having sex. It’s now more a movie about a criminal and a victim than it is a tragic love story. The love story bit would irk him without the added layer of criminality. It’s just the perception that bothers me. Let homophobes be all uptight about it being a gay love story, I don’t care. But if Jack is perceived as a criminal, then so should Johnny Cash. And the Jack from Titanic, and Rhett Butler, and hundreds of other romantic leads.
Well it was a joke, but I’m on some message boards where you’d think that was the problem, to listen to these guys. I haven’t really been exposed to that here. So it was a lame joke. I understand people not wanting to see this movie and it not having anything to do with homophobia. I also want people to see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind but if they have no interest, I’m not going to think it’s because they’re technophobes.
Then I wasn’t clear. I agree that Shalit’s labeling of Jack is grossly inaccurate and probably reflects an uncomfortableness with gay male sexuality. By labeling him such, it weakens the character and makes his eventual fate less shocking. I find that a big problem. I think it’s wider in society than just Shalit also.
Make no mistake, it’s not bashing to the extent of those throw bottles at gay couple on the street or blow up gay clubs. But every bit of homophobia from seemingly mainstream sources gives succor and and excuse to those who would do harm. Every preacher who condemns the “gay lifestyle” encourages those rednecks with bats. Every movie reviewer who winces at a gay kiss confirms their revulsion. Every President or Democratic wannabe who says Same-Sex Marriages are wrong reinforces bigotry. Violent homophobes don’t exist in a vaccuum.