Does this mean I am redeemed for liking Kenny G?

Sorry Doc, some things are just irredeemable

I think it is ridiculous the way things get labeled

As I said earlier on a blog of Dr. Guys, the whole compartmentalising issue (or pigeon-holing) is just ridiculous. When are we going to be judged for who we are, as people, rather than for our race, religion, sexual inclinations, politics or the f*%king shoes we wear... It is crazy, I tells ya, crazy...

Sorry Doc, some things are just irredeemable

Damn!  Ok, if you say so! {grumble}{Grumble}{grumble}

(Whoops!)

'He said "dont tell hollywood", not "stop hollywood from doing it".'
Ah, you just can't help yourself from piping up for the organ grinders, can you Doc?

I heard that Brokeback Mountain one 4 Golden Globe Awards, including "Best Drama". I wonder if it would even have been considered for 1 if it wasn't for the "gay" theme? In fact, I'm trying to remember the last "cowboy" film that did very well in the Golden Globes... Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven" comes to mind, and that win was based more on the "buzz" than the film itself also.

umm, dude, you kinda overstate the case just a wee little bit. after all, if we're talking about the show will and grace ... will's character is generally *not* defined by his gayness. instead, jack the flaming queen from hell, *is* defined by his gayness and he's largely made fun of because of it.

putting gay characters in a movie or tv show isn't going to "magically save" it. look what happened to the ellen sitcom after the character came out. a crummy show got even worse and was cancelled. look at how long the sitcom friends dragged on ... without any minorities of the sexual or colorful varieties.

but, as someone who happens to be gay (and doesn't define my life by sex), it is nice to see some shows that have gay characters. do i watch will and grace religiously because there are gay characters? no ... but i don't find it any more pedestrian than most of the stuff on television. it's one of the funnier shows i've seen -- because it speaks to things i've seen my friends do or say.

i wouldn't go see king kong in the theatres because it looks dumb. frankly, a gay king kong would look even more stupid ... unless he was wearing a cowboy hat and chaps ... then it might be worth going to see.
(that's a joke)

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 ... same reason i went to see the re-release of the original star wars movies ... and the new star wars movies (even if lucas' writing got even WORSE over the intervening years) ... same reason i went to see 8 mile. the stories caught my interest ... not because of anyone's sexuality ... the story was compelling to me.

it's not magic to capture a chunk of the population's attention (whether that chunk of the population is the media or us joeuser types), it's just lucky to be tapped into something that catches our interest.

piping up for the organ grinders

That is kind of condescending dont you think?

Wanna hear something great? Apparently this year is unofficially the "Year of the Gay" in Hollow-wood. From today's Washington Post:

The cowboy romance "Brokeback Mountain" led the Golden Globes on Monday with four prizes, including best dramatic film and the directing honor for Ang Lee.

It was a triumphant night for films dealing with homosexuality and transsexuality. Along with the victories for "Brokeback Mountain," acting honors went to Felicity Huffman in a gender-bending role as a man preparing for sex-change surgery in "Transamerica" and Philip Seymour Hoffman as gay author Truman Capote in "Capote."

"I know as actors our job is usually to shed our skins, but I think as people our job is to become who we really are and so I would like to salute the men and women who brave ostracism, alienation and a life lived on the margins to become who they really are," Huffman said.

But just remember: if you are upset by this, you're a homophobe. Or if you're indifferent to this, you're a homophobe.

but, as someone who happens to be gay (and doesn't define my life by sex),

But you just did.  You said that you're 'gay'.  As in homosexual.  As in you prefer to have sex with men (or women if you're a chick).  By saying that you're gay, you yourself are defining your life by your sexual orientation.  You could have written the entire comment without telling us that you were gay and we'd never have known or even cared.  But you told, and you proved a point.

So, Brokeback mountain is a 'real' story for you because you're gay.  It's not for me, because I'm straight.  If it were a movie about straight ranch hands falling in love, would you be interested?  I'm going to hazard a guess and say that you wouldn't, because you've already stated that your interest in it is bascially because the characters are gay, the same as you. The story is 'real' to you because they share your sexual orientation (on screen, at least).  Can you not see how you're kind of making Dev's point for him?

Or if you're indifferent to this, you're a homophobe.

You mean I cant not care? Damn!  I just dont want to give a poop!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.