Brokeback Mountain

Ah, but let's not go to far. Michael Medved, that Christian reviewer, has claimed that Brokeback Mountain is a direct attack upon John Wayne and should be derided since it's a story about adultery.Of course, one would think that from his complaints about how the reliationship "wrecks the marriages of both of them," Medved would be a staunch supporter of same-sex marriage. He can't seem to make up his mind. If he's truly concerned about the sanctity of marriage, why is he advocating for people to enter into loveless marraiges?And just think! If society had never had this hangup with gay people, Brokeback Mountain would never have been made, there wouldn't have been a supposed attack on John Wayne, and there wouldn't be a story about adultery. He is actually causing the climate people are rebelling against and is the source of his own agony.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Oh absolutely, and there's much worse than Medved out there too.

quote:

---

...why is he advocating for people to enter into loveless marraiges?

---

Cuz he's just another fundie. This is not a guy of any intellectual depth. He likes the Left Behind crap, for crying out loud.The problem for Medved is that he, like other fundies, has worked himself into an intellectual box over homosexuality. I don't think he can get out of it, so all he can do is preach to other fundies. Anyone who sees the film without the preconception that gay = evil would have to see that the only reason the two men had loveless marriages was because of the attitudes of the society they lived in. It's too obvious (I say that based on my reading of the short story). But Medved and his American Taliban have built an empire on demonizing gays (among others), so the only thing they can do is comdemn the picture and hope (pray?) that their followers don't see it.Incidentally, the Catholic review has undergone a couple accretions and deletions since I posted that link. At the time, the Catholic rating was adults-only. The day after my post, a disclaimer was added at the beginning saying that the rating had been changed to morally offensive. The disclaimer has since been dropped. The morally offensive rating remains, but it isn't mentioned until the final paragraph. No changes have been made to the review itself.

The picture continues to do an excellent business. I don't know if anyone's noticed but in the catagory of per-screen averages it's been number one since its release, and that's likely to remain true for the next few weeks as it runs its slow, methodical release scheme.I emailed Jackson's Cinemark theater about Brokeback Mountain and they responded that it should be on at least one screen somewhere locally by late January or early February. One damned screen in a city of over 500k people (600k post-Katrina) for a major picture in wide release seems pretty pathetic, but then this "city" is really just an over-grown small southern baptist town. In any case, I suppose I'll sit tight for now and see if I'll be spared the need for a mid-winter road trip to go see it.Rrhain wrote me:

quote:

---

And just think! If society had never had this hangup with gay people, Brokeback Mountain would never have been made, there wouldn't have been a supposed attack on John Wayne, and there wouldn't be a story about adultery. He is actually causing the climate people are rebelling against and is the source of his own agony.

---

I wanted to respond to this again to add a coda to your point: I think it was Andrew Sullivan who first got me to thinking seriously about gay marriage. Back during the Clinton-era debate over gays in the military, Sullivan was arguing that although equality for gays in the military was a laudible goal, the gay marriage issue should come first because from that all other forms of fair treatment would inevitably follow. In hindsight I think he might have been right, especially when you consider that both the national mood and the courts were more liberal at the time.

Too right! Two adult male, err, muppets... sharing a bed!!!Screwed up my childhood.Can't tell you the relief when they finally got those single beds

Did you ever watch Morecambe and Wise?TTFN,WK

Eric & Ernie?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yep, Erik and Ernie. I was thinking of them as I wrote my post, but didn't think too many outisde the UK would get the reference. How wrong could I have been Jar? They used to share a double bed too...

Can someone make a review of the movie with spoilers, please? I don't have any intention of going to see that movie or to rent it when it comes out on dvd.From what I have read so far, if the fact that those two cowboys are gay and it ruins their marriages, wouldn't this be more of an anti-gay movie? The fundies have been saying something like this for years, and now there's a movie telling us that gay relationships ruin marriages.

Just seen it, 10 out of 10. The lump in my throat actually caused me pain.

The New Yorker had it on their website for a while and I made a copy. I can email it to you if you like. It only takes about 20 minutes or so to read it.

mark24 writes:

quote:

---

Just seen it, 10 out of 10. The lump in my throat actually caused me pain.

---

It just opened in Jackson today so I'm planning to see it this weekend, probably tomorrow night. Can't wait.

Mark, you didn't do your "sig" that message.Is that a decimal or binary rating? If it's binary, it could translate to as little as 6 out of 10 in decimal (You know, good/not good).Moose

Moose,No, no, 2 out of 2 in decimal = 100% Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

But what is 6 out of 10 in decimal, translated to binary? A little more "Bad Moose"