|
January 06, 2006
The film review that changed my mind
"Brokeback Mountain" was not my favorite movie. Although it was a good (if artsy) film, I thought it a bit slow for my tastes, and as I complained in an earlier post, I saw it as being unfair to the so-called "Red States." But a man named David Kupelian who writes for WorldNetDaily seems to think "Brokeback Mountain" is the very epitome of evil. His long, no-holds-barred attack on the film is one of the most obsessive movie reviews I have ever read. I don't want to bore readers with extensive quoting, but I think people who want to understand what's inside the minds of anti-gay thinking (I don't want to use the overwrought term "bigotry" lest I offend people who agree with Kupelian) should read it. He calls the film an example of "the marketing of evil" and his central thesis is that "Brokeback Mountain" is doing for homosexuality what the Marlboro Man did for Marlboro cigarettes (and presumably what Ronald McDonald did for evil foods). Except worse, for he obviously considers homosexuality as striking at the heart of all he holds dear. Argumentum ad Hitlerum is of course invoked, and various analogies are made about what "Hollywood" could have done: Do we understand that Hollywood could easily produce a similar movie to "Brokeback Mountain," only this time glorifying an incest relationship, or even an adult-child sexual relationship? Like "Brokeback," it too would serve to desensitize us to the immoral and destructive reality of what we're seeing, while fervently coaxing us into embracing that which we once rightly shunned.Yeah, I guess they could have glorified pedophiles or heroin dealers. They also could have made a movies glorifying Charles Manson, Richard Speck, or John Wayne Gacy. But those things and people are not what this film is about. Occasionally, I need a reminder of the fact that there are people in this world who don't merely oppose gay marriage, they don't just think that two men screwing is gross; they think homosexuality is one of the greatest evils of which man is capable, that acceptance of it is even more evil, and that this threatens all of Western Civilization. Suprisingly, Kupelian left out homosexuality causing the fall of Rome. I don't know why. But in his conclusion, he makes it clear that dire consequences await all of us, if we allow "Brokeback Mountain" to change our views: As I said at the outset, Hollywood has now raped the Marlboro Man. It has taken a revered symbol of America – the cowboy – with all the powerful emotions and associations that are rooted deep down in the pioneering American soul, and grafted onto it a self-destructive lifestyle it wants to force down Americans' throats. The result is a brazen propaganda vehicle designed to replace the reservations most Americans still have toward homosexuality with powerful feelings of sympathy, guilt over past "homophobia" – and ultimately the complete and utter acceptance of homosexuality as equivalent in every way to heterosexuality.There are so many mouthfuls in the review that I'm sorry I can't do it the justice it deserves. For starters I'm getting ready to go on a trip, and I'm already spent valuable time I just don't have... But let's just take three assumptions from a fragment of a single sentence ("America will have totally abandoned its core biblical principles – as well as the Author of those principles"). While homosexuality is listed in Leviticus as a sin amongst a variety of other sins (including cursing one's parents), does that make it the core of the Bible? And from there to the core of America's principles? How and when did that happen? And from there to abandoning the Author? From a marketing standpoint, that's even more of a stretch than using cowboys to sell evil. While I don't think I was changed much by seeing "Brokeback Mountain," Kupelian thinks I was: Changed indeed. And that's the goal. Film is, by its very nature, highly propagandistic. That is, when you read a book, if you detect you're being lied to or manipulated, you can always stop reading, close the book momentarily and say, "Wait just a minute, there's something wrong here!" You can't do that in a film: You're bombarded with sound and images, all expertly crafted to give you selected information and to stimulate certain feelings, and you can't stop the barrage, not in a theater anyway. The visuals and sound and music – and along with them, the underlying agenda of the filmmakers – pursue you relentlessly, overwhelming your emotions and senses.I honestly didn't feel changed until I read the entirety of Mr. Kupelian's review. I've now changed my mind. Not what I think about the general quality of the film, mind you. What's changed is that the Kupelian review makes me now want to support the film any way I can, simply to oppose mindsets like his. While I'm too cynical to engages in such antics, I almost feel like sending a donation to Hollywood. For me, that's a change. AFTERTHOUGHT: This might be totally irrelevant, but I knew one of the Marlboro Men, and he was no virgin. In fact the guy was gay. Hmmmm.... Maybe Kupelian is onto something about the marketing of evil. Cigarettes are called "fags" in England, aren't they? MORE: If David Kupelian hated "Brokeback Mountain," I doubt he'll like the upcoming Hollywood film about a professional football player named Dave Kopay: Kopay, who at 6-feet and 213 pounds is seven pounds below his playing weight, is working with a screenwriter on a film treatment of the “David Kopay Story.” It will center on his relationship with tight end Jerry Smith while both played for the Washington Redskins in 1969 and 1970. Smith died of AIDS in 1987 while never publicly admitting his homosexuality. To honor Smith’s desire for privacy, Kopay never mentioned him by name in the book, though he was a catalyst in Kopay’s coming out.Sounds unrepentant as hell. But alas! I never really enjoyed football. So I doubt I'd like that film either. (I guess I'm becoming a rather obnoxious old poop.) posted by Eric on 01.06.06 at 03:49 PM
Comments
As a heterosexual female, I hope the football story has more of a love interest than Brokeback apparently does. I haven't seen the film yet, but from the reviews it apparently follows the short story pretty closely. In that story, the relationship is portrayed as more of an obsession than love. Perhaps that's because they weren't socially able to allow love to grow from the obsession, and maybe that's the point of the story. I just hate most of Annie Proulx's stuff and that is really coloring my desire to see the film. Donna B. · January 7, 2006 03:02 PM Here's my rant for the day: Jesus didn't say one bad word about homosexuality, I believe, because as the Son of God, he KNEW homosexuality was a genetic trait that could not be undone. He did, however, condemn divorce, something we Christians do in droves. Why? Because we focus not on Christ’s words as the template for conduct but instead of the writings of Paul. When stuff like this comes up (Brokeback Mountain, gay marriage, etc.) the Christian right scrambles to holler about it, yet no one condemns movies about adultery or divorce. No one stands up to ask how come so many Christian marriages end up in divorce. The way I see it, homosexuality is the "mote" in our neighbor's eye, when we as Christians have the "beam" of divorce in our own eye. Divorce is a crisis in the Christian world, the destruction of the family unit, and yet what do we choose to argue about at Christian conventions? Homosexuality. What do we choose to rant about in World Net Daily? Brokeback Mountain. Bonnie · January 7, 2006 03:34 PM So, if I didn't like the movie I'm a "homophobe?" anonymous · January 8, 2006 08:58 PM Every time I hear about this movie, I can't help but think of the South Park episode where an indy film festival comes to town. The whole time, Cartman mocks all indy films as just being about, "Gay cowboys eating pudding." Strikingly prescient of him. Well, except for the bit about pudding. Beck · January 9, 2006 09:40 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
This is where the homophobic right agrees with the PC Left: the point of art is didactic, not artistic. Ergo, the mere act of depicting a homo relationship is endorsing it, because it doesn't moralize about it or condemn it. Just like GLAAD, CAIR, & the NAACP are always crying about Hollywood needing to portray 'good role models'. Fuck role models. Do you want art or agitprop?