Fine reading, many thanks for the thoughts

I have no interest in seeing a movie about gay cowboys.

I am sure that in the eyes of all you good progressives this makes me a homophobe huh.

I have to say...I have no intentions of seeing this movie...but one line in your write up bothered me...It should trouble us all that civil rights are now left up to the masses.

Maybe it's be better if the politicians did it for us???

Andy writes he is bothered by my deep concern over civil rights being left up to the masses. History clearly shows my view is based in fact.

As for seeing the movie or not, that is your choice. Movies serve lots of purposes in a society, and this one is starting conversations in a small groups of movie goers about attitudes and actions that impact millions of Ameicans. So your actually seeing the film is not vital to the larger world that is evolving around you. Not everyone is brave enough to see the film but that doesn't mean its impact will not catch up to you. There are those momments where art moves people in ways that other forces can't, or at least not as quickly.

Is it a matter of bravery? or taste?

or.....

or...just not a big cowboy movie fan? I don't like the football team either...something about cowboys I guess...

yeah....

Claiming art can change society is absurd. But, sometimes, just sometimes, that claim is true. When knee-jerk right-wing partisans sneeringly declare their unwillingness to see this movie, they reinforce the left-wing claim that maybe this particular work of art really is one of those rare turning points in the development of our cultural norms and values.

For my own part, I haven't taken a side in the debates about this movie. I haven't had time to watch it (or any movie in recent months) and I'm usually not the sort of person to praise or condemn art I've never seen.

Still, it's fascinating to watch the responses to it, both from those who have seen it and from those who clearly are afraid to see it.

So anyone who doesn't want to see the movie is a "knee-jerk right-wing partisan," Victor or a coward Allen?

So I guess that means after I said I didn't want to see the movie in my ealier post I slapped on my Stihl baseball cap, got in my pickup truck with gun rack, and went cruising to fund some homesexuals to beat up and drag from the back of my truck huh Victor, huh Allen?

It is the far left themselves who are reinforcing all the hoopla about this movie. Typical left wing bullshit. Anyone who doesn't appreciate and wholeheartedly agree with thier point of view is either a bigot, a sexist, or a homophobe. According to Allen I'm not "brave" enough to see the film as if not wanting to see the film somehow makes you a person of inferior character. Notice nowhere in my previous post did I make any derogatory remarks about gay men but the simple fact that a movie about gay cowboys does not interest me makes me a narrow minded homophobe in the eyes of all the enlightened "progressives."

This movie is just a tool being used by the far left to promote thier agenda and anyone who doesn't heap mountains of praise on the virtues of this film will be labeled all kinds of undesirable names.

Today's a new day.. but it's the same old elitist, leftist, condescending bullshit.

I just don't want to see it simply because it's a love story. I don't like love stories. Even if it was Heath Ledger and Maggie Gyllenhaal, it'd be labeled as a "chick flick" and not of my taste.

Well, I am shocked anyone would think art can't change society, as Victor stated. Perhaps I need to warn Bing prior to giving my response on this matter that I have lived in Europe after graduate school and as such he will view this response as 'elitist'. That is too bad as I am very tired of the anti-intellectualism that has taken hold of the country in the past 5 years. It seems he finds that a virtue.

Art is essential to the way we understand history for it has, in its own right, shaped and formed it. Let's take the Renaissance in Italy for example. Around the early part of the 13th century, artists in Italy began to better understand the games of perspective. We are able today to get relative measurements of buildings of the time period, which we can confirm with a tape measure, because in the masterpieces a man's foot painted along the joint of a flooring tile allows us to estimate the relative distance shown. When the artists were able to explain their notions of distance in aesthetics, we were able to create major works of architecture. The Duomo of Florence is a magnificent Brunelleschi (1377-1446) dome, and was for several centuries the largest in Europe. The top of the dome is crowned with a magnificent lantern, which is more like a room which acts as the key stone to the construction. From the ground, it looks perfectly proportioned in relationship to the rest of the building; in real measurements, it is unusually tall. Looking from several hundred meters below, it is the right size, because Brunelleschi understood perspective.


The idea that art cannot change society is absurd and is not only wrong but misinformed. Literature has shaped how we practice politics today--Emile Zola didn't write J'Accuse on a legal pad but rather in a literary journal. 1898 Spain, which was thrown into a major national crisis after losing the last of its empire, was able to recover and move on as a nation only because of its poets and playwrights, which are known today as the Generation of 98. Post-war Europe understood its relationship to its past thanks to existentialist writers like Camus and Sartre.

Music has brought peoples and nations together for centuries. Even when nations were at war in Europe throughout much of the 18th and 19th centuries, musicians were making their way around, sharing their styles and genius.

The exaggerated machismo of your responses gives you away, Bing, not the mere fact that the movie doesn't interest you.

If you simply weren't interested in the movie, you could simply refrain from commenting in the discussions about the movie. I'm sure that's what you do in most discussions about movies that simply do not interest you.

Clearly it isn't quite so simple in this case. Clearly you feel a compelling need to announce your lack of interest to the world, which leads an inquiring mind to wonder just what your flamboyant announcement is supposed to prove.

Ooh, ooh, tell me I'm a bigot too!

And who's got the machismo around here? Isn't Heath Ledger playing Casanova in his next film?

What's the fact that you lived in Europe have to do with anything? I've been all over the world...doesn't mean a thing...except that I've been all over the world. But starting your comment like that makes you sound like you THINK you're some kind of elitest. It's not anti-intellectualism...it's anti-stick-up-your-assism!

Nice of you to put words in bings mouth before he even comes in and gives you the ration of shit that you deserve!

I haven't called anyone a bigot. I've only said Bing's motives for commenting here are obviously not so simple as he'd like us to believe.

The whole spectacle is quite amusing, actually.

No one needs to put stupid words into Bings mouth.

...and I meant that in a good way.

Back to the topic: This is a thoughtful and well written piece, allendrury. You capture some important points about our evolving culture.

Victor - GREAT comments there!

Well Victor I post on a lot of threads on BC not just this one. Am I not allowed to have an opinion on this thread?

Allen is the one who siad that some may not be brave enough to see this movie. What do you think he meant by that Victor? What do you think he was implying about people that aren't brave enough to see it?

I took it to mean that he thinks people who see it are better.

In his next post he states that he is tired of the "anti-intellectualism" that has taken hold in this country, which implies that he believes anyone who disagrees with him is lacking in intellect. Allen also feels the need to point out that he has lived in Europe and went to graduate school. ( I am genuinely shocked that he didn't mention how inferior the USA is to Europe after mentioning this.) He wouldn't be doing this to laud it over me because he is smarter than poor narrow minded unelightened me? I wonder....

I am currently a grad student but never feel the need to mention it in my posts as I don't believe being a grad student makes me a better person or more "enlightened" than others posting on here.

I call Allen an elitist, leftist condescending, [Deleted] because based on the several posts he has made on here there is nothing else any rational person can conclude.

The patronizing tone with which he refers to anyone who is not "brave enough" to see this film or who does not share his view on art, culture and all other things liberal and "enlightened" is typical of his ilk.

I on the other hand do not feel the need to do this to those I disagree with. Example Brokeback Mountain......I don't care to see this movie nor do I care for anything that celebrates or glorifies the gay lifestyle. But I don't include demeaning remarks, either overt or subtle, in my posts about gay men. I find nothing appealing about the gay lifestyle and want no part of anything to do with it or the expression of it but at the same time I have no problem with those who do as long as they don't force it on me or throw labels at me.

I'm sure I'm not the only one has picked up on Allen's condescending, narcissistic, John Kerry -like tone.

Oh piss boy!!! Come hither!

"But I don't include demeaning remarks, either overt or subtle, in my posts about gay men."

So why don't you like Gay Cowboy Movies?

And what did you think of Midnight Cowboy?

The Dsutin Hoffman flick. I know, it wasn't about Gay Cowboys, but it kinda had one in it.

What level of Gay Cowboy-ness disqualifies a movie?

First, I mentioned Europe because for no reason he labeled me as an 'elitist'. And since my response to Victor was based on things I saw and learned while there I wanted to forewarn Bing so he could avoid reading the rest of that response and not offend his fragile nature.

But now we find in his latest post what we knew all along...he is not that deep or hard to figure out. (They never are.) Bing says, "I don't care to see this movie nor do I care for anything that celebrates or glorifies the gay lifestyle."

That says it all.

He can call me an eltist, but we all know the label that fits him.

Thanks Bennett for those kind words. I appreciate them.

My pleasure.

I'm with you, I like seeing more cultural awareness and a willingness to let all people live whatever short life they have in their own fashion (barring child molestation of course).

And from what I've read about this flick, the two guys follow their brief affair with heterosexual marriages and abandon their feelings for a conventional and locally accepted lifestyle. Why aren't the bible thumpers championing this movie?

I agree that the Bible thumpers should be happy over the film since the two cowboys got involved in loveless relationships too!!

I did figure out one thing today. The reason that Utah can't stand this film is because Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar wanted a monogamous relationship...

LOL!

Having worked in politics and broadcast journalism for 25 years I know hi-jinks when I see it. I have helped create some too. And be happy, your GOP friends won that round.

Sorry about that last post..placed on wrong thread.

I find some of your comments in this article rather troubling. Specifically this one: "It should trouble us all that civil rights are now left up to the masses." Ummm...who exactly would you prefer to leave them to?

Perhaps you define "the masses" as those who are not "educated" or "enlightened" enough to agree with your point of view. If this is true, then you are guilty of hypocrisy, given that you consistently speak of how tolerant you are of other's views and lifestyles.

It seems to me, based on your article and the ensuing comments that you are only "tolerant" of those who agree with you, or at least those who are left of center politically. This seems to be a common characteristic among those who shout tolerance the loudest.

True tolerance requires intellectual honesty, and does not preclude disagreement. In a truly tolerant environment we would be able to rationally and respectfully debate any issue, without glibly looking down our noses at those who disagree.

Anyway, all that to say this; no matter whether you agree with the consensus, civil rights are decided by the "masses", or at least by elected officials appointed by the masses. This is called democracy. If this troubles you, then perhaps you should look around at those places where democracy is absent, and then honestly ask yourself if you would like to live there. I would wager that even a flawed democracy looks pretty good next to China, Cuba and North Korea, among others.

Hey Allen, you've made me realize how absolutely essential it is to watch gay cowboys, heterosexual anal rape and abusive and manipulative relationships on the big screen if I want to be a good person. Well, I want my kids to be good people too, so it's okay for me to take my 3 year old and my 13 year old - more than okay really, right?

Dave

Of course Dave. Who wants their kids to grow up right these days anyway?

I'm with Allen; I don't want the masses deciding my rights. Have we forgotten a little thing the founders were afraid of when they put together our little government and political system? Tyranny of the majority.

The majority cannot simply vote away a minority's rights. I think there was something in the Constitution about "equal rights."

The SCOUS might change how some of our rights work from time to time since it would have been just about impossible to clearly define all of our rights.

So I say again; I don't want the masses deciding my rights.

So then Druxxx...go see the movie...nobody's stopping you!

Bing, I never even hinted that you're not allowed to have an opinion on this thread. I merely pointed out how your claim of disinterest reveals more about you than you seem to realize. If you can't take the heat, don't whine to your mama.

What's truly mind-boggling is that any person even marginally aware of what's going on around them could possibly believe Brokeback Mountain "celebrates or glorifies the gay lifestyle" in any way. I haven't even seen the movie, but just by reading others' comments about it, I can tell for a fact it has nothing to do with celebrating or glorifying anything.

The movie merely portrays gay men as human beings. If you want to disagree with that, go right ahead and state your views. Just be honest about it, and don't hide behind obviously false claims.

outpouring? its a fucking flop.

What is a flop?

It's no Titanic, but taking over $32 million at the box office in its first 6 weeks of theatrical release, on a budget of about $14 million to make the movie, is hardly a flop.

(source)

On this issue, as on so many others, Ryan could do so much better if he'd learn how to check his facts.

Every person in the movie industry wishes they could have a "flop" like "Brokeback Mountain" on their resume!

Refering to homosexuality as a 'gay lifestyle' is in and of itself demeaning to gay people. Have you ever heard the words hetero & lifestyle used together? No- because it just sounds ridiculous and is both condescending & trivializing. One's sexuality is not a lifestyle, its a part of who one is as a person.

Mr. Bing wrote: "Notice nowhere in my previous post did I make any derogatory remarks about gay men but the simple fact that a movie about gay cowboys does not interest me makes me a narrow minded homophobe in the eyes of all the enlightened 'progressives.'"

All? This progressive doesn't give a shit what movies you see. So your accusation against the left seems to be a perfect description of YOU. It isn't your list of avoidable cinema that paints you as what you appear to be - it is your words, here and in myriad other comments.

But really, it seems BBM would be your kinda flick: Two gay guys ignore who they really are and whom they really love to pair up conventionally - and one of 'em gets offed before the film's end. It doesn't celebrate the "gay lifestyle" (god, what an offensive phrase) at all. You ought to love that.

NR Davis