Blogcritics Comments on We Aren't Lost Yet In The Rhetoric Of Our Time

Comment by Natalie Davis

Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:02:02 EST

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

Comment by pyramidias

Sun, 12 Feb 2006 04:19:51 EST

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.

Comment by allendrury

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:59:56 EST

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

Comment by Victor Plenty

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:27:12 EST

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.

Comment by allendrury

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:14:10 EST

What is a flop?

Comment by ryan

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 02:47:28 EST

outpouring? its a fucking flop.

Comment by Victor Plenty

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:19:14 EST

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.

Comment by Andy Marsh

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:50:41 EST

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

Comment by Druxxx

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:44:41 EST

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.

Comment by Anthony Grande

Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:04:02 EST

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

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:56:11 EST

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

Comment by The Kid

Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:35:17 EST

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.

Comment by allendrury

Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:46:35 EST

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

Comment by allendrury

Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:41:03 EST

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.

Comment by Bennett

Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:14:12 EST

LOL!

Comment by allendrury

Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:56:56 EST

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...

Comment by Bennett

Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:49:39 EST

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?

Comment by allendrury

Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:31:10 EST

Thanks Bennett for those kind words. I appreciate them.

Comment by allendrury

Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:27:52 EST

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.

Comment by Bennett

Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:17:43 EST

"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?

Comment by Andy Marsh

Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:05:36 EST

Oh piss boy!!! Come hither!

Comment by Bing

Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:54:51 EST

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.

Comment by Bennett

Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:05:08 EST

...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!

Comment by Bennett

Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:37:59 EST

No one needs to put stupid words into Bings mouth.

Comment by Victor Plenty

Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:33:57 EST

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.