Blogcritics Comments on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Comment by alessandro on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:20:50 EST

Blah, blah... Loss of Hedger notwithstanding, when does the sequel come out? I hear it's about a story of forbidden love between a Cowboy and an Indian. Together they bring peace to "Squeal Valley." Native (claps hand once): "Me. You." Cowboy (Points to himself): "Me? Ok." They may even bring back that banjo player in Deliverance for the love scenes.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:10:45 EST

No need to apologize, it's a hard point to see and easy to miss given my general political direction. "think our heterosexuality is flaunted, waved like a flag, and paraded around excessively in marketing, music videos, television shows, movies, porn, etc. on a constant and consistent basis throughout the 24/7 of the daily grind." Actually, yeah that's true too.

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:05:11 EST

I should also apologize for some confusion I had with the idea of self-identification vs. external identification. While I took much of your comment to mean that many homosexuals self-identify themselves mainly by their "gayness," I missed what you were saying about the external identification of the gay community by those upholding mythological social mores. That surely is a great tragedy and I apologize for failing to see this point.

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:02:19 EST

"First, don't judge a book by it's cover." A point noted and dutifully conceded to me in my first retort. The entire basis for my comment in question was an ironic statement in jest about your screen name. Rightly or wrongly, it led to all of this. "And just because I am an American (or sarcastically obnoxious) does not mean that I am singly defined. Frankly if I am representative of America, then I am defined by a huge variety of things, none of which relate to preference. To suggest that I am singly defined by having the word American in my name is utterly superficial." It absolutely is, yet it speaks to self-definition as I mentioned in my post. It is equally superficial to assume that homosexuals (or at least in your words "many" of them) define themselves in the same way and not also in a huge variety of things. The original context of your comment was to suggest that, for right or wrong reasons and for good or for bad, that many homosexual people define themselves by their homosexuality MAINLY. Do I have this right or do I not? "On the point of adapting good humor, I do all the time. But your comment didn't contain any." I apologize. Again, it was meant mainly in jest. It had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with how we, as individuals, choose to identify ourselves. In your specific case, I poked fun at how you chose to identify yourself in this particular website and how your self-identification can be seen as identifying yourself as "mainly" an "Obnoxious American." I can see now that my comment was offensive more than it was humourous, so I do offer my sincere apologies. I do not regret the subsequent discussion, however. "Actually, I said "person" on the basis on their preference. Notice I didn't single out homosexuals. I brought that point up because I have a friend who is a transexual. For me, I live my entire life not even thinking about my sex, or preference. It's a given and I can spend my time thinking about my job, my family, my playtime, etc." Notice I didn't claim you singled out homosexuals. In a previous post, I mentioned that you could replace "homosexuals" with "black" or some other sort of variable and this conversation would still have merit. All of these things speak to how we identify ourselves in certain spaces. In this instance, at the particular moment in space and time during my original post, it struck me as ironic and humourous that your observation was such with your screen name as such. Talking about "mainly identifying" oneself, I thought! If you live your life not thinking about your preference, I suppose that is your cross to bear. However, as outlined in my other post, I do not think that that philosophy is indicative as a culture by and large. I think our heterosexuality is flaunted, waved like a flag, and paraded around excessively in marketing, music videos, television shows, movies, porn, etc. on a constant and consistent basis throughout the 24/7 of the daily grind. I think our culture does, as a majority, DEFINE itself by its sexuality. Sex sells, as they say. In THAT context, then, I think my commentary takes on a bit of a new meaning. I agree 100% with your subsequent statements in your post, by the way. It damn well SHOULD be a chiding of the way things are, Obnox.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:38:39 EST

"I would argue that you think it IS disapproving that homosexuals DO define themselves "mainly" in this way, however, or you probably wouldn't have said it in the first place." Actually, I said "person" on the basis on their preference. Notice I didn't single out homosexuals. I brought that point up because I have a friend who is a transexual. For me, I live my entire life not even thinking about my sex, or preference. It's a given and I can spend my time thinking about my job, my family, my playtime, etc. However, my friend, whether she likes it or not, is completely defined by her preference. She's an incredibly smart person, but her whole life has been spent thinking about the fact that she was born with the wrong equiptment, or dealing with the process to change it, and then dealing with living with that change. So much work, for something that people with "normal" preferences don't even have to think about. This to me is what the tragedy is. She could contribute so much more for herself, for society, but social mores force her to spend so much time on which hole to put the thing into. I can't think of a worse tragedy. Hence my last actual statement in this thread that meant anything (because our exchange has been nothing more than remedial) "I can't wait for a day when we can hate each other for much less superficial reasons." Props to Jet who actually read and understood what I was saying from the get go. Have a great weekend yall.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:33:00 EST

"I told you where my inference came from (your s/n). If it does better for the course of the overall discussion, change my word "chide" to "observe." I didn't type your name in contempt, actually, I typed it in good humour. It may do you some good to adapt some of that." First, don't judge a book by it's cover. And just because I am an American (or sarcastically obnoxious) does not mean that I am singly defined. Frankly if I am representative of America, then I am defined by a huge variety of things, none of which relate to preference. To suggest that I am singly defined by having the word American in my name is utterly superficial. On the point of adapting good humor, I do all the time. But your comment didn't contain any.

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:17:45 EST

"See Jordan, I have gay friends, I've grown up in NYC. I may lean right, but this is where I lean left." Okay. I never once asserted that you had any problems with homosexuals, the homosexual lifestyle, or the homosexual arrangement of self-identification. I merely pointed out an irony and, when asked to clarify my own observations, did so. You continue to miss the irony, as evidenced in the remainder of your posts. You're hung up on a word I used to describe certain sentences of your posts. By no means do I wish to articulate that your idea OVERALL is to "chide" homosexuals for identifying themselves "mainly" by their homosexuality. "Don't try and turn the tables claiming that I took you out of context, because that's laughable - you said that it was ironic that I would chide people for having one thing that defines them. That would either indicate that I was chiding, or that I only have a single definition of who I am, or a combination of the both. Sorry bud, neither is true, had you read my comments before you typed my name in contempt, we wouldn't be wasting keystrokes right now." I told you where my inference came from (your s/n). If it does better for the course of the overall discussion, change my word "chide" to "observe." I didn't type your name in contempt, actually, I typed it in good humour. It may do you some good to adapt some of that. I also did say that you critiqued people for having "ONE thing" that defines them. I used the term "main thing" to discuss this. Then I said that being "American" is the "main thing" that many people use to define themselves. I went on to say that this is no different than those who use "homosexual" as their "main thing." You said that you believe it is a TRAGEDY (for whatever reason you believe it is a tragedy is actually irrelevant here because I am not making any moral or ethical statement against you nor am I uttering your precious name in contempt) for homosexuals to have as their main defining factor their homosexuality. I noted that some might think it is a tragedy for an American to have as their main defining factor their national identity. "It's not a chiding or a scolding or a disapproval, it's an observation. Nothing more. Next time read and try to understand the purpose of the comments before posting." This does not change one word of my point. Whether you were hostile or genteel or even indifferent hardly matters to the irony I found in the situation. I would argue that you think it IS disapproving that homosexuals DO define themselves "mainly" in this way, however, or you probably wouldn't have said it in the first place.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:06:52 EST

Jordan, Last time I spell it out for you. If I was disapproving of the fact that being gay defines many gays, then I wouldn't have said this: "I know, it's hard to ignore prejudice, which is why I said that's part of the reason why so many gays are defined by their sexuality." It's not a chiding or a scolding or a disapproval, it's an observation. Nothing more. Next time read and try to understand the purpose of the comments before posting.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:02:51 EST

Here is my second post on the topic: "I think for many gay people, it is the main thing that defines them. That's why there are not that many gay republicans out there. I don't think all gays are anti war liberals, but invariably they vote Democrat because this issue for them takes precidence over anything else. I know, it's hard to ignore prejudice, which is why I said that's part of the reason why so many gays are defined by their sexuality. I can't wait for a day when we can hate each other for much less superficial reasons." See Jordan, I have gay friends, I've grown up in NYC. I may lean right, but this is where I lean left. Don't try and turn the tables claiming that I took you out of context, because that's laughable - you said that it was ironic that I would chide people for having one thing that defines them. That would either indicate that I was chiding, or that I only have a single definition of who I am, or a combination of the both. Sorry bud, neither is true, had you read my comments before you typed my name in contempt, we wouldn't be wasting keystrokes right now.

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:52:21 EST

By the way, as to not reading the whole quotation, I actually responded to most of the selections in that quote on a sentence by sentence basis. It seems to me you didn't get that far in my post before you started to articulate your reply, but I might be wrong.

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:49:50 EST

So we're having a semantical discussion on what "chiding" means and YOU are giving me a lesson on "context" by glossing over my entire post? Interesting. Would you care to answer any of my questions or concerns or shall we simply debate what "chiding" means? chide v. chid�ed or chid (chd), chid�ed or chid or chid�den (chdn), chid�ing, chides v.tr. To scold mildly so as to correct or improve; reprimand: ex: chided the boy for his sloppiness. v.intr. To express disapproval. You were EXPRESSING DISAPPROVAL of the notion that homosexuals would use, as their "main identifying factor," their gayness. You were "scolding mildly" so as to correct or improve. I hardly see why this is so difficult to understand, but if your intent is to simply misrepresent yourself, I guess I can't do anything about it.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:36:40 EST

Jordan, you'll have to do better than that. ""One of the tragedies of being gay, and interestingly one of the problems of the gay movement is that in a lot of ways, being gay is how many gay people define themselves." Here you reprimand (also known as "chiding") the "gay movement" for defining themselves by being gay. You even refer to it as a tragedy that they do this." Here was the full comment of what I said (try to read it completely this time): "One of the tragedies of being gay, and interestingly one of the problems of the gay movement is that in a lot of ways, being gay is how many gay people define themselves. I am hetero, but that hardly defines who I am. Obviously this identification problem exists because of prejudice, but it's just a shame because for one, gay people should be able to define themselves much more broadly just as hetero people do, and for another, it's annoying for the rest of us to deal with people who define themselves purely by their sexual preference." That's hardly chiding. You're being rather childish trying to take words out of context. Thankfully, most of the other people here are smart enough to refrain from doing that.

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:09:44 EST

The same applies to you, dear friend. You elect to take ONE sentence out of my post, then give a rather smug "what?" response to it, then attempt to dictate the terms of discussion to me. I'd invite you to also give my posts the thorough read that you invite of me. Perhaps then we can understand each other better. Now let's see if we can't shed some light on what I was referring to. I didn't know what to respond to with your "what?" reply, so I'm glad you chose to be more specific. "One of the tragedies of being gay, and interestingly one of the problems of the gay movement is that in a lot of ways, being gay is how many gay people define themselves." Here you reprimand (also known as "chiding") the "gay movement" for defining themselves by being gay. You even refer to it as a tragedy that they do this. You go on to say that homosexuality shouldn't be the way gay people define themselves because, after all, you're a straight male and that's not how you define yourself. You dictate terms of self-definition on people here, implying (or stating outright) that it is a "tragedy" that people choose to define themselves in this way. "gay people should be able to define themselves much more broadly just as hetero people do" Most do, from my experience. This is a rather hollow generalization that, again, speaks to your own standards of self-identification. The irony part is coming.... "it's annoying for the rest of us to deal with people who define themselves purely by their sexual preference" The rest of us? Who are the "rest of us?" "I think for many gay people, it is the main thing that defines them." I think for many Americans, it is the main thing that defines them. "I know, it's hard to ignore prejudice, which is why I said that's part of the reason why so many gays are defined by their sexuality." I know, it's hard to ignore prejudice, which is why I said that's part of the reason why so many Americans are defined by their national identity. So here you are defining yourself by "American," correct? Surely there's nothing wrong with that (by the way, I'm not suggesting there is). Surely YOU are capable of picking your own terms of self-definition and I am guessing that you choose to define yourself as an American. I'm betting, based only on your S/N mind you, that the "main thing" you use to define yourself is your national identity (ie. where you're from). Now let's look at all of my post in that context. "I think everybody chooses how self-identification works, though." Individuals set their own self-identification standards. Whether one wants to be "mainly gay" or "mainly American" is up to the individual. It is no great tragedy to identify oneself as "mainly American," so who gets to say that it IS a great tragedy if one selects to identify themselves by "mainly gay?" I'm not asserting that you have any homophobic issues here, by the way. "Gay" could just as easily be substituted with "black" or what have you. "I find it incredibly ironic that "The Obnoxious American" would chide others for having one main thing to define them. Clearly we choose how we define ourselves and homosexuals are no different." These two sentences were written closely together because they go together. Taking one apart from the other is like separating conjoined twins. We CHOOSE how to define ourselves, whether we say we're "Obnoxious American" or "Obnoxiously Gay." Again, judging this purely from your S/N, you choose to define yourself as a certain type of American. That is your MAIN definition. "Whether we choose to make our defining factor our nationality or our sexuality, it is our right and I don't think it deepens the inevitable social divide created be prejudices and ignorance." There is no evidence to suggest that what we define ourselves as has any bearing on the abundance of prejudice in society. The ONLY consideration here is to assume that if homosexuals remained in the closet (which would be absolutely horrible), their self-identification might have led to self-preservation. By not telling anyone you're gay, nobody knows you're gay. Much like an American traveling abroad, however, there's no sane reason to hide this fact of life. Whether one's homosexuality or heterosexuality is one's "main thing" is really a matter of personal choice and chiding a people group for it (as you did) is ironic given the idea that your nature appears to be similar. The problem with your argument is in its flaws of self-expression. By the way, I'd argue that there are MANY individuals out there that have as their main identifying factor their heterosexuality. Commercials, pornography, sexuality in media all seem to direct us to the point that we're "straight and we're proud." I don't think it's erroneous to suggest that people use their sexuality, gay straight or other, to identify themselves. I do agree with your notion that we can find much better reasons to hate one another. It is ridiculous to hate anyone because of a life preference they have made or because of a national identity. But it is also ridiculous to suggest that one people group shouldn't be so "proud" of their gayness and identify themselves so "mainly" with their sexuality. With the amount of boobage that a gay man likely has to ensure just by flipping on the television or walking past a magazine stand, I don't blame him for wanting to express his lifestyle in turn.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 13:49:11 EST

Jordan, I never chided anyone. I would appreciate it if you ever do plan to respond to my posts, to give them a thorough read first, and ensure you understand the concepts I am putting out there. You don't have to of course, it's a free country and you can certainly choose to be ignorant. I'd just prefer if you kept your ignorance away from any conversation about me, thanks.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:38:02 EST

"I find it incredibly ironic that "The Obnoxious American" would chide others for having one main thing to define them. " what?

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 01:19:25 EST

Especially ignorance...

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 00:28:00 EST

I think everybody chooses how self-identification works, though. I find it incredibly ironic that "The Obnoxious American" would chide others for having one main thing to define them. Clearly we choose how we define ourselves and homosexuals are no different. Whether we choose to make our defining factor our nationality or our sexuality, it is our right and I don't think it deepens the inevitable social divide created be prejudices and ignorance.

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Thu, 6 Mar 2008 22:31:10 EST

In an old episode of Star Trek there's a race of people born with one entire half of their bodies black and the other side white split right down the middle. Every one sees them as half black and half white, until it's pointed out why one seemingly "normal" one is discriminated against... because he's black on his left side instead of being black on his right side. When you're constantly being discriminated against depending on something that seemingly doesn't seem to or shouldn't make a difference, it does become your identity, though you don't want it to. It's the same reason protestants and catholics were killing each other in the British Isles and Ireland. To look at them, you'd never be able to tell the difference, yet their whole being was identified as either one or the other... There's a line from "Guess Whose Coming to Dinner" where he tells his father, "Dad; you think of yourself as a colored man. I think of myself as a man." That's how it should be for everyone, but we gays just keep on letting bigots identify ourselves by our sexual preference. Until we learn, that's how it'll always be.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Thu, 6 Mar 2008 18:47:02 EST

Certainly, but look at some of the responses in this thread. Rather, look at the response to the movie itself. Take away the fact that it's two men, and this is just another love story. I mean you are certainly right that it's what makes us different that defines us, to a degree. But it shouldn't be the only thing that defines us. I think for many gay people, it is the main thing that defines them. That's why there are not that many gay republicans out there. I don't think all gays are anti war liberals, but invariably they vote Democrat because this issue for them takes precidence over anything else. I know, it's hard to ignore prejudice, which is why I said that's part of the reason why so many gays are defined by their sexuality. I can't wait for a day when we can hate each other for much less superficial reasons.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Thu, 6 Mar 2008 18:35:10 EST

One of the tragedies of being gay, and interestingly one of the problems of the gay movement is that in a lot of ways, being gay is how many gay people define themselves. I am hetero, but that hardly defines who I am. Wouldn't you say, though, that a lot of what defines a person is what makes them different? As a Limey living in California, I'm certainly more keenly aware of my Britishness than I used to be. If you pay attention on these boards, I'm usually one of the first to leap to my country's defence when someone trash-talks the old country. (Usually just behind STM, interestingly enough, who's often quicker off the mark even though he's not even British and professes - with tongue firmly in cheek - to hate the place and its people!) So it's not all that surprising or odd that a gay person would view their gayness as a primary part of their identity.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Thu, 6 Mar 2008 18:14:22 EST

You're being a little too harsh on Tammy. I am a straight male, not interested in watching gay love, it's not interesting to me, and it is a turn off to watch. I am not anti gay by any stretch, I have no problem whatsoever with gays. I think they should have equal rights and be allowed to marry. But does that mean I shouldn't feel the way I do when confronted with watching the activities of two consenting male adults, whether as a result of screenplay or PDA? I wouldn't want to watch an old hetero couple french kiss. That does not mean I am anti old hetero relationships either, just means I don't care to see it is all. One of the tragedies of being gay, and interestingly one of the problems of the gay movement is that in a lot of ways, being gay is how many gay people define themselves. I am hetero, but that hardly defines who I am. Obviously this identification problem exists because of prejudice, but it's just a shame because for one, gay people should be able to define themselves much more broadly just as hetero people do, and for another, it's annoying for the rest of us to deal with people who define themselves purely by their sexual preference.

Comment by Chris Evans on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Thu, 6 Mar 2008 17:52:30 EST

"You don't pass up an opportunity to work with Ang Lee... I was never offered the movie... He didn't think I was a good enough actor to play the part," Wahlberg said in the interview..." Jet, this quote doesn't dispute the original one. We already knew Ang Lee passed over him for the role, Mark was stating the reasons he was happy Ang did pass it up.

Comment by William on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Thu, 6 Mar 2008 17:33:35 EST

50 yrs old-caucasion-straight-male I believe Mark Walberg was sharing his personal truth and in no way was he condemning others. He was merely stating that he felt uncomfortable with what he would be asked to do in the role. If I were an actor I would have to turn down a role in a horror movie where I would be required to have spiders crawl all over me. It would creep me out! And yet spiders are a natural and necessary thing on this planet that we share. I am certainly not equating the two, but despite what certain zealots say, Homosexuality is natural in a certain percentage of humans. Just as it is found in nature's animal kingdom. Years ago I worked in a magazine store where we offered mags of every type, including hardcore gay. "Creeped out" is exactly how I would describe my physical reaction when viewing the graphic sex between two men. It was a purely visceral feeling, crude and unreasoning, without any concious thought to it. Now let me tell you this, At that time my boss was gay and he was a good man and I admired him. Alot of my friends were gay and I had done some experimentation including kissing. That did not "creep me out". Today I am a Minister that follows the teachings of Jesus. The sex life of another human being is a non-issue to me, unless they are using it in a way to harm themselves or others and they come to me for counseling. In that way, sex is the same as food or drugs or shopping or any other activity. To truly live according to the teachings of Christ, one must be caring and not judgemental, tolerant and not condemning. Homosexuality is much less a problem for this world than the people that use their idea of God as a weapon to hurt and control others. How bizarre it is to find that many of the people preaching Heaven are making this life a "Hell on earth" for their spiritual brothers and sisters.

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:29:48 EST

...Allegedly Wahlberg said the following; "I met with Ang Lee on that movie, I read 15 pages of the script and got a little creeped out. It was very graphic, descriptive - the spitting on the hand, getting ready to do the thing. I told Ang Lee, 'I like you, you're a talented guy, if you want to talk about it more...' Thankfully, he didn't." However, in a later interview with Access Hollywood, Wahlberg denied the story. "You don't pass up an opportunity to work with Ang Lee... I was never offered the movie... He didn't think I was a good enough actor to play the part," Wahlberg said in the interview..."

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Mark Wahlberg "Creeped Out" By Brokeback Mountain Role

Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:24:52 EST

Tammy, I think you should take your own advice and mind your own business. I hate eating clams, snails, and seafood, but I don't go around bitching people out because they talk about how much they like it in my presence. Judge not lest you be judged yourself dearie. As for Marky, he's changed his tune lately and now says he'd have loved to have taken the roll in order to work with such a great director as Ang Lee. I guess he can't keep his story "Straight"