BlueDev BlueDev

Magically gay

Magically gay

I think it is now official. There can be no denying it. Just look at Hollywood and the media and it should be obvious.

Being homosexual confers upon you magical, mystical powers.

Homosexuality is the instant tool to elevate something from the blasé to the avant-garde. Take, for instance, tonight's Golden Globe awards. One of the front-runners in numerous categories is the acclaimed movie "Brokeback Mountain". Now, I haven't seen this movie, but I do know that every single time it was mentioned on CNN this morning it was touted as "the critically acclaimed movie about two gay cowboys". Now, take that same story, make one of the characters a woman (but leave everything else the same-they become close, part ways, each start their own families, but continue to struggle with their relationship) and I guarantee, the movie would flop.

Ah, but the gayness. That is the ticket right there.

Look elsewhere. I have only watched a few episodes of "Will and Grace", and found it pretty tedious and often unfunny. But some of the characters are homosexual! And so suddenly, a pedestrian show becomes a hot ticket. I promise you, no one this side of the Atlantic would have any idea who tATu was were it not for the suggestion of homo-eroticism in the group.

And so, I suggest to some of Hollywood's pre-eminent directors that they go back and make a few changes in some of their movies. The outpouring of love from the media and from critics will surely take these movies to new levels.

Peter Jackson - We all know "King Kong" was expensive, huge and over the top. However, it hasn't done nearly as well in the theaters as was expected or hoped. So, make the gorilla gay! Have Kong fall hopelessly in love with Jack Black's character, and carry him up to the top of the Empire State Building. Instant winner.

George Lucas - Imagine, on the scorched landscape of Mustafar, a grief stricken Obi-Wan yells out to Anakin "You were my lover!" rather than "You were my brother!". Throw in a subplot of a sordid love affair between the Jedi Knight and Master. Critics would fawn, the media would love it, and suddenly Lucas becomes, once again, one of the most visionary directors in Hollywood.

The list could go on and on. The media moguls continue to sensationalize homosexuality and the more vocal gay advocates press this mystical ability to the max. But I can't help but think that somewhere there are average, run-of-the-mill people, who happen to be homosexual, who are shaking their heads in frustration at the whole thing. After all, just as many of us who are heterosexual do not define ourselves by our sexuality, I have to believe there are many homosexual people who are the same. It isn't who they are, but simply a part of their lives.

But don't tell Hollywood. That makes being gay so much less sexy.

Site Meter Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
6,832 views 40 replies
Reply #26 Top
By way of background: One of my nephews is gay, as is one of my business partners. They, and their respective partners, are the only gay men my wife and I know well. We love our nephew and have great respect for my business partner. Neither "define their lives by their sexuality" - they both are just ordinary folk going about their lives who happen to be gay and don't make a big deal of it.

So my wife and I hardly qualify as "homophobes." But neither of us has any interest in seeing Brokeback Mountain, maybe because the idea of two guys loving each other is not particularly novel to us and we have no need to "understand." My nephew has seen it, and says he was actually a bit put off by it. But then, his all-time favorite movie not starring Divine is Sordid Lives - an absolutely hysterical film which I highly recommend.

I agree that Hollywood is determined to impress us with its enlightenment on issues of gender & sexuality, just the way its been trying to enlighten us on issues of politics, war & peace for so many years. I see it as corporate narcissism, personally, though I'm sure Hollywood would do snuff films if it thought there was money in it. There's also a difference in my mind between "Hollywood" and the art of filmmaking. There's the Hollywood equivalent of the MSM, and there's a bunch of other really good stuff out there. It's the Hollywood equivalent of the MSM that you're talking about, busily patting themselves on the back just now for how "good" they are. I'll exempt Spielberg from that charge - Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and Munich were the 3 most powerful films I've ever seen and none of them tried to manipulate either the facts or the audience with an agenda in mind.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #27 Top
Are you really complaining about a film you haven't seen, or could it just be how the media represents it?


excellent point, furry. Even Michael Medved, who could hardly be considered a champion of gay rights, has expressed appreciation for the movie, while expressing STRONG opposition to the way it's being promoted.
Reply #28 Top
on the other hand, i'm looking forward to seeing brokeback mountain because it's a real story to me. same reason i went to see philedelphia and long time companion


I have to take issue with the way this comment is phrased..."Philadelphia" (an excellent movie) was NOT about a homosexual, it was about a man who HAPPENED to be homosexual. As Ryan White's life and tragic death poignantly pointed out to us, AIDS is not a gay issue, but a humanitarian one.
Reply #29 Top
Would adventures set in Sub-Saharan Africa (or even North Africa, or the Middle East) count?

Maybe Lawrence of Arabia is a "western". What about all those Allan Quartermain adventures, such as King Solomon's Mines?

What I'd like to see is a western-style story set in Asia: that whole vast tract of land from the Urals to the Middle Kingdom, from Siberia to the Himalayas. Open plains, legendary horse-tribes (the Khazaks and the Mongols come to mind)... surely there's a whole body of Steppe adventure stories we Westerners have never been exposed to.
Reply #30 Top
umm, dude, you kinda overstate the case just a wee little bit.


Heh, of course I am overstating things a bit. After all, if the media can sensationalize homosexuality, I will go ahead and sensationalize their sensationalizating (if that makes any sense).

And you bring up valid points. Perhaps it is because I am not gay that I don't get it. I wouldn't go see a movie or watch a show because of the sexual orientation of any of the characters. I would go see it because it is a good story. Period. I don't go see movies because they are about white people, but I am white. I don't watch movies about Mormon people just because they (and I) are Mormon. I watch them because the story intrigues me.

But the media (including Hollywood) capitalizes and sensationalizes on the homosexual part. I find it insulting to any gay people I know. It is like Hollywood and the media are screaming to them "Hey, you're gay, this movie has gay people, you better watch it!". As if gay people are suddenly so one dimensional that all it takes is homosexuality to spark their interest.

It just seems to be cheapening the person, reducing them to their sexual preference. Thanks for the comment and your input.
Reply #31 Top
i wouldn't go see king kong in the theatres because it looks dumb. frankly, a gay king kong would look even more stupid ...


Oh, and the King Kong and Star Wars examples were supposed to be ridiculous, over-the-top suggestions, attempting to satirize the whole situation. Sorry if I failed.
Reply #32 Top
That is kind of condescending dont you think?


Of course it is Doc. It is easier to disparage that which you think is below you.
Reply #33 Top
Neither "define their lives by their sexuality" - they both are just ordinary folk going about their lives who happen to be gay and don't make a big deal of it.


That is the key. I can't help but think there is a silent majority who are like those two, and probably find the sensationalizing of Hollywood to be a slap in the face.
Reply #34 Top
nope, dharmagirl, i disagree that i defined my life by my sexuality just by saying i'm gay. do you say you are married and have a husband (or if you're male, that you have a wife ... sorry, didn't see the screen name at first, but why assume anyway)? does that mean that you have just defined your life by your sexual preference? i don't think it does. and i don't think that just saying i'm gay defines my entire life by my sexual preference.

would i see a story about straight ranch-hands who fell in love? probably if it looked compelling. i see plenty of movies and shows that have straight characters in them and i do find the stories just as interesting as some of the movies with gay characters ... that was exactly why i mentioned the star wars movies! no gay characters in ANY of those and yet i still found them interesting... geez, i am NOT so shallow as to only want to see gay movies ... that was part of my point!

i think the media does tend to over-sensationalize a gay movie or story or whatever. and as bluedev suggests, i wish they'd just let it go. and, i did NOT say that philadelphia was a gay movie! i put it next to longtime companion, yes, but because it was a compelling story to me. as someone else said, philadelphia was about a guy who happened to be gay ... and it was a better movie for that. i didn't say it was specifically a gay movie ... in fact, i went to see longtime companion with a straight friend who was awaiting her HIV test results ... back in the late 80s when those results took forever. both of those movies were about HIV/AIDS to me ... not about "being gay."

and, i also, just to set the record straight, don't think that just because some people have no interest in seeing brokeback mountain think that those folks are auomatically homophobes. the story doesn't look compelling to you ... fine.

as for using king kong and the star wars films as "over the top" examples... not necessarily. i knew you were kidding about king kong, which is why i attempted to make a joke about king kong in chaps ... i'm sorry if that didn't come across as the same joking tone you were using. there is a long tradition in sci-fi, tho, to play with various things like sexual orientation, so i wasn't being snitty by bringing those up in my example. and, i honestly liked the movie 8 mile, too. and not because eminem's character has a gay friend in it (actually, i didn't realize the dude was supposed to be gay until someone else pointed it out). whatever ... didn't matter ... i found the story compelling.

brokeback sounds compelling to me. a really floofy "girl" movie about two straight ranch hands in love would bore me. something a little more realistic about two straight ranch hands in love ... sure, i'll go see it.

all i was trying to do was point out exactly what bluedev says in one of his comments: i don't go see a gay movie b/c i'm gay any more than he goes to a "white" movie because he's white. i go see any movie because it looks compelling.

didn't mean to cause a ruckus ... i actually thought i was supporting bluedev's point about wishing the media would chill out some.
Reply #35 Top
didn't mean to cause a ruckus ... i actually thought i was supporting bluedev's point about wishing the media would chill out some.


No worries ender. After I read it, that was my take on your comment as well. Thanks for stopping by again!
Reply #36 Top
(It never seemed to bother me that Jodi (on SOAP) - Parated2k

Man, Soap is ancient.

I love that sh*t.

I've seen the first and second seasons and enjoyed the hell out of them.

Jodi was a great character. It did help that Billy Crystal took the role....
Reply #37 Top
Hollywood plays to their own social ills, surely not society hopes in general.

Just think, if Hollywood creators used the views of the majority. Shows like Little House on the Prirrie and Joan of Arcadia that foster healthy character related choices and normal family issues would be on. But no... what we have are shows the likes of Will & Grace, a dysfunctional wacky job of a Jewish woman, a dysfunctional lawyer that's hoping for a normal life but surrounds himself with wacko's, a worthless entertaining flamer that has no regard for safe sex, and a sleazy entertaining wealthy divorcee with no character .

We have a new gem on the block. The new dysfunctional "Out of Practice" family that showcases a confused young psychologist that's not accepted by his MD family, MD dad that prefers air head receptionist verses bright dominating MD wife, a single plastic surgeon hetro son that will nail any woman, and a confused writer son that hasn't came out of the closet yet followed by his lesbian sister that wants acceptance from her confused prominent MD mother.

How is it we've got one show with so many folks lacking character, multiple gay family members and fosters an hours worth of dysfunction on a network channel. None of us are perfect but lambasting viewers with so many dysfunctions can only mean one thing, their spoon feeding us for some reason.

Have the producers and writers figured out if they combine situation comedy with dysfunction and unacceptable magically gay issues, society will laugh it's way into numb acceptance of such ills without a fight. I hope not... We watched it half way through and turned the channel!

Reply #38 Top
i really miss joan of arcadia ... i still can't believe they cancelled that show and replaced it with some girl who talks to ghosts (or whatever it was). i think joan of arcadia was the last tv show i watched with any real regularity. was season two ever released on dvd? i got season one ... but i haven't seen season two anywhere yet.
Reply #39 Top
Have the producers and writers figured out if they combine situation comedy with dysfunction and unacceptable magically gay issues, society will laugh it's way into numb acceptance of such ills without a fight.

I think it's laziness on the part of writers. It's much easier to write a marginally funny story about a dysfunctional family where hilarity ensues than to make a happy, well-adjusted family's life watchable and interesting. (For example, see "7th Heaven".)
Reply #40 Top
I think it's laziness on the part of writers


You could very well be right. However, a little face time with some writers and producers at a few Hollywood type party's in years past leads me to believe otherwise. All it takes is listening to their personal, professional and social ideals and watching them challenge their boundaries of acceptable behavior. It's not hard to imagine them in charge of a studio incubator with enough money and creative power to affect creative direction, TV programming, and out comes what appears as socially acceptable and normal Will and Grace and Out of Practice.

To add credibility to the my theory, it's commonly known there is an unmeasured population of viewers that believe to some extent TV characters reflect a microcosm of real life. They also believe partial themes are taken from real life, which we know that to be true. Then isn't it likely those same viewers could question and or modify their personal choices and behavior based on what they think social trends are, as seen on TV. Just look backwards at forms of media and theorize the relationship between what the media presented then and what direction our society has taken up to today.