I understand what you meant now. Thanks. I agree with the rest of your post, and while I don’t think Shalit’s a homophobe (not since I learned about how he supports his son), it bothers me that he didn’t think how those specific words could be perceived to dismiss the movie, and used to condemn the movie and the character of Jack, the “more gay” one of the two. If this were a movie where Jack was a criminal, and got called so in an review, I wouldn’t be bothered at all and would think any protest was lame (I thought so when it happened with Cruising and Basic Instinct), but when Jack is totally innocent of any wrongdoing, it bugs the hell out of me. Saying you can slander a fictional character is very silly, I realize, but that’s what I think anyway. Jack was slandered.
I’m a little weary of making this point, but I’ll try once more.
Jake is a fictional character who happens to be gay. He is not all gay men.
If I say, “Jake herds sheep,” I do not imply that all gay men herd sheep.
If I say, “Jake herds cows,” I do not imply that all gay men herd cows. Even if this comment is inaccurate – which it apparently is – it STILL doesn’t imply that all gay men herd cows.
I also think it’s funny that, given the name-calling and profanity in this thread, anyone here would accuse Gene Shallit of not choosing his words carefully.
No one thinks it does. No one in this thread has said that Gene Shalit thinks all gay men are predators. What bugs me is that his characterization is so inaccurate. I’m bugged because I think he’s misinforming people about the movie, not because I think his review is going to hurt gay people.
What Dio said. I get and agree with this 100%, so I’m not sure why you had to make a point you’re tired of making. Everybody got it the first time.
No one here is on national television speaking to millions of people.
The point is, though, that Jake was not particularly aggressive. If his actions earn him the label “sexual predator” then others, as noted, are much more deserving of that label. The only difference between Jake and those who weren’t labeled in an offensive manner is that his affections are towards another man. Therefore, the implication is that otherwise reasonable behavior is elevated to predation simply because it is same-sex.
If you say that Jake’s rather tame flirting is predatory; then you must believe that the simple fact that it is same-sex flirting makes it predatory. And therefore all gay men who flirt are predatory.
Of course not, but in this specific context, it’s a ridiculous characterization.
“Sexual predator” has a specific meaning, and is ordinarily only applied to the worst sort of sex offenders. Being sexually aggressive where there’s mutual attraction doesn’t make someone a sexual predator.
There are plenty of ways that Shalit could have expressed what he apparently meant without implying that Jack’s romantic love was criminal – especially since, in the time and place where the story is set, the protagonists’ consensual affair made them “psychopathic offenders” in violation of reprehensible sodomy laws. “Sexual predator” is normally applied to sexual deviants who do great harm, are a real threat to society, and ought to be locked up.
It’s extremely hard to comprehend how someone could use the term “sexual predator” in this context without being aware of the implicit endorsement of the criminalization of homosexual love.
If Shalit said that Jack’s character struck him as too clingy or needy to be viewed sympathetically, no-one would have batted an eye.
There’s no rule that says anglo-Americans can’t be terrorists. That doesn’t mean that Harry Belafonte’s characterization of W. as “the greatest terrorist in the world” is going to pass without comment.
Unlike Belafonte, Shalit is (nominally) a writer – he ought not to have to rely on Humpty Dumpty “When I use a word, it means just what I want it to mean – nothing more, nothing less” retractions.
WTF? How could he be that clueless? What does “sexual predator” bring up on an IMDB search? The Boys of St. Vincent, Blue Velvet, Dracula, Führer Ex, Ted Bundy, Devil Girl From Mars, Red Light, Green Light: Meeting Strangers, Victims!, Girls Beware… Golly, a complete lack of tragic romances, even those involving morally questionable themes like adultery. Just a litany of deviant, violent, criminal behaviour.
Your level of outrage in this thread is pretty extreme for someone who merely found a movie review to be inaccurate.
[QUOTE=Equipoise]
What Dio said. I get and agree with this 100%, so I’m not sure why you had to make a point you’re tired of making. Everybody got it the first time.
:dubious:
I think that GLAAD’s sensitivity to the use of the word “predator” has a lot to do with the context in which it is normally expected to be linked with the film: Anti-gay polemic.
This is the kind of “review” of Brokeback Mountain in which the term “sexual predator” is expected to appear. Intentionally or not, Shalit’s review echoed this sentiment.
Of course it’s going to push buttons.
In one careless paragraph, Gene has become guilty-by-association of…
encouraging rednecks with bats
furthering your father’s homophobia
the contents of miscellaneous right wing websites
I always thought he looked menacing with that moustache.
Gene Shalit spoke lazily. What do you want? He’s a bad writer and and a bad critic. Because of the specific context of the movie, his choice of words could indeed have had the unintended consequence of fanning the homophobic flames that have already sprung up around this movie.
GLAAD has a responsibility, in living up to its mission, to call Shalit on this. That said, GLAAD’s rhetoric was over the top, and just as inflammatory as Shalit’s. They accused Shalit of malice, when it was really just stupidity. Someone at GLAAD should have contacted him privately. Knowing Shalit’s history, I think it likely that would have sufficed to induce Shalit to clarify.
OK, I saw the movie. I didn’t think Jack was a sexual predator. It’s also hard to imagine a reasonable person coming to that conclusion, since he really just made the first move. Sending a postcard four years after a tryst doesn’t strike me as stalking. That doesn’t make Gene Shalit a homophobe, just an idiot. I think he was hung up on that first “love” scene*, and didn’t get past that with the character.
If you wanted to pick up on a creepy line, it’s Ennis saying he’ll kill Jack if he cheats (meaning, with other men – it seems like in their relationship, women are OK, since they’re just beards).
- I don’t put love in quoteys because it was homosexual, but because it was almost brutally unromantic.
Props to you for seeing the movie for yourself and coming to an informed conclusion about it. I’m reasonably sure that Shalit is not a homophobe but I’m glad we can agree that his review gave a misleading description of the character.
This is it, exactly. Again, while I think that Shalit’s actions acquit him, it wasn’t unreasonable of GLAAD to assume the worst – because the extremely negative label “sexual predator” is applied to unoffending gay men by raging homophobes with dreary regularity, and, apart from this one, I can’t think of a single smoke-without-fire example. To a certain mentality, “initiating sex” does make someone a “sexual predator,” if that someone happens to be gay.
This is a typical instance in which a gay man earns that label from people without, you know, actually acting like a sexual predator:
See, no reasonable person could construe this man’s actions (even if the alleged lick took place) as those of a “sexual predator” – meeting guys at a gay bar and inviting them home is hardly predation – but bigots make the “gay man = sexual predator” connection all the time.
When such an equivalence is made out of nowhere, why wouldn’t an anti-defamation group initially assume it’s same-old, same-old? When you see hoof-prints, you don’t look for zebras.
UNBOXED SPOILERS AHEAD
I’ve bumped the thread as I’ve now seen the movie. Man… I don’t anticipate leaving the top off of my Zoloft bottle for the next couple of days.
First off let me say that I couldn’t disagree more with Shalit’s depiction of Jack as a sexual predator. Ennis wanted to resume the affair every bit as much as Jack and that reunion scene was far more passionate than the sex. Jack’s definitely the more assertive initially but afterwards both men are in the relationship because they want to be. Shalit’s a dumbass.
But not a homophobe, and I don’t think he meant by “sexual predator” the legal meaning. I still think GLAAD overreacted and that Shalit’s effect on movie box office or viewers’ opinions is less than a trace amount. My guess is that Shalit (whose sexual history I’m glad to say I know nothing about, other than that as the father of six children I’m guessing he has one) is very prudish about adultery and bisexual married men in general, which isn’t surprising considering his generation and the fact he’s been a widower for almost 30 years.
But, either way c’est la vie. He’s Gene Shalit- he has as much influence on movies today and the world at large as Barbara Stanwyk had on punk rock. Were I with GLAAD I’d definitely have mentioned the review and my disagreement with it, but I’d have stopped far short of where they did and I’d have apologized for accusing NBC of irresponsibility for letting him express an opinion. Personally I’d be far more pissed at them for never showing Eric McCormack kiss a guy or for what I see as its way overuse of fey stereotypes the word fag in Will & Grace.
But, I have to admit I understand their furor better after having seen the movie than I did before. I don’t agree with it, but I understand.
Oh, and a major [SIZE=7]FUCK YOU!!!** to the IGNORANT MOUTH-BREATHING KNUCKLE-DRAGGING LIPS-MOVING-WHEN-HE-READS INSECURE EMOTIONALLY-DICKLESS UNEXAMINED-COUNTRY-CLUB-LIFE-ASPIRING POSTURING LITTLE RC-COLA-SWILLIN MAGNOLIA-MYTHOLOGY-MINDSET MYRMIDON HEIR OF JEFFERSON DAVIS & PAT ROBERTSON "COLLEGE IS FOR NETWORKIN’ " "I OUTSOURCE MY THINKIN’ "FRATBOY on the backrow for your little snide comments, culminating in “You tell him faggot” when Jack tells off his father-in-law, and a SHOUT OUT to everybody else, including the girl who was with him, who simultaneously told him to shut the fuck up.
Though I was only slightly less annoyed at the amount of inappropriate laughter that went out when Alma saw Ennis & Jack kiss.
I have to confess that there are times I don’t like living in the provincial south.
And if anybody should see a Mod travelling down the road of life, could you please offer him or her a dressed rabbit and some cheese and bread if they’ll fix my coding above? I’ll pay you back, I promise.