| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tam1MI
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
558 Posts |
 Posted - 02/18/2006 : 12:42:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dirk
I was involved in an interesting discussion about the film a few days ago. We were speculating as to whether Brokeback would be as successful if the gay main characters were something other than cowboys... like, if they were gay bank tellers or gay circus performers. Or if the film featured two bald, overweight homosexuals in their 50's rather than the handsomely chiseled teen heartthrob stars of Brokeback. Any thoughts?
I can say without hesitation that it would be an unqualified bomb. People have not and do not go to movies to see un-pretty people. They go to see beautiful people.
As far as Mickey Kaus is concerned, I also read his piece, and was struck by the fact that he proffers pretty much no evidence whatsoever to make his claim. He's constantly been on this kick of, "Democrats kid themselves when they say that Middle America is just as tolerant and open-minded as people anywhere else, as soon as they admit that everyone in flyover country are violent bigots, they'll win elections." It's coastal snobbism disguised as conservative populism. And, like many other people who have posted here, I too have issues with David Brooks and his his "red state-blue state" thesis.
An interesting factoid I read somewhere was that Brokeback was actually struggling when it was booked in the big cities on the coast - it didn't start to make a profit until it opened wide.
Anyway, I think the whole furor over Brokeback Mountain has been way overblown - it was never going to do anything more than English Patient-syle numbers in the best of circumstances. I give the PR peopel for that movie credit, though, for spinning that modest success into a perception that the movie is a breakout hit. |
 |
|
|
RVHorror
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 1:36:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dirk
RV Horror: wasn't the whole "gay cowboy" thing a stereotype already? ;) If not, it will be now. I hear the "why can't I quit you" and "he's my fishin' buddy" lines more than Anchorman quotes now.
When I heard of Brokeback, my first thought was that here was Cartman's typical "independent" movie--gay cowboys eating pudding. ;-) |
|
|
|
Ubiq
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
347 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 3:13:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ken HPoJ
The Red State Blue State meme is the current shorthand.
I really hate the word "meme". I just wanted to note that.
quote:
I also agree with Triviachamp regarding how confusing labeling conversative (in all the myriad meanings of that word) half of America as the 'Red' half. That continues to throw me.
See, I've always been slightly amused by that for just that reason. Imagine trying to sell Reagan on the idea of Republicans identifying themselves as Reds during the '80s for instance, let alone an old school conservative like Goldwater.
Anyway, the Red and Blue scheme was universally adopted by the media outlets in the year 2000 despite the fact that most networks had their own individual schemes that they had used in previously years. Considering how it magically popped up then, my guess is that it was something Rove or some other conservative strategist came up with it and somehow managed to sell the media on the concept.
I'm pretty sure whoever came up with it was a Republican for the following reason: of the three obvious choices, each has subconcious connotations. Red is dynamic, Blue is melancholy, and White is theoretically neutral, but can have unpleasant overtones if you're a political party.
Red is obviously the choice that you want while you need to associate one of the less pleasant connotations with the other party. Assigning White to the Democratic Party would have recieved a lot of complaints and comments along the lines that "If anybody should be White, it should be the Republicans", so they instead went with Blue.
I think it'd be interesting to see which news agency adopted this system first; if it's Fox News, I would not be the least bit surprised.
BM: I should have mentioned this at the beginning. I solve my problems with violence. |
|
|
|
Pip
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 7:05:50 PM
|
quote:
The Red and Blue scheme was universally adopted by the media outlets in the year 2000 despite the fact that most networks had their own individual schemes that they had used in previously years. Considering how it magically popped up then, my guess is that it was something Rove or some other conservative strategist came up with it and somehow managed to sell the media on the concept.
It was me. I did it. There's nothing wrong with being red.
Pip |
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 9:45:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ubiq
quote:
Originally posted by Ken HPoJ
The Red State Blue State meme is the current shorthand.
I really hate the word "meme". I just wanted to note that.
But Meme is the new Meme!
Ironically enough, if you were really unperceptive, you could watch "Capote" and not realize that he was gay. He and his male lover are pretty distant to each other, and there's no overt acknowledgement that they are lovers. As Stephen Colbert put it, "That Truman Capote was nailing Harper Lee, right?"
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
TheFoywonder
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
833 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2006 : 3:35:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BrainFromArous
Oh, Ken... don't hold your breath waiting for a balanced (or even honest) film about McCarthy, et alia. Remember what happened when Kazan finally got his due recognition? The white-lipped anger and venom-spewing on display? Decades later, when even the f--- ing RUSSIANS have admitted McCarthy was not jumping at shadows, the Hollywood Left cannot admit the truth.
And you never will. You know why? Some people on the right don't want to admit and it's not just about leftist politics. It's about the fact that McCarthy and his committee took things to such a monstrous degree that he managed to completely destroy his own cause and forever tarnish it. There may have been actual Communists lurking about looking to undermine things but the people seeking them out managed to undermine many of the very principles the country is supposed to be found upon and did so in the highest profile possible. Like it onot, history has judged them a bigger threat to American values than the Communists they were after because they were the ones that were supposed to be protecting our freedom, not the opposite. You're never going to see a movie sypathetic to McCarthy because McCarthy doesn't deserve sympathy. He isn't a misunderstood character; he's one of history's villains. It's isn't a liberal thing. It's a historical thing. The fact that so many conservatives can't see the forest for the trees is the only misguided point of view in this case. Who knows how many actual Communists got away with stuff because McCarthy and the Red Scare forever gave the cause a permanent black eye.
And since I'm willing to guess that I'm one of the only people commenting in this thread that has actually seen GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK let me take this opportunity to break some news to you: the film is about journalism, not the McCarthy era. Murrow vs. McCarthy is an example of what hard hitting journalism is supposed to be about. One of the most respect newspeople (something almost unheard of today) was willing to take on a reckless, powermongering politician who was undermining our very values in the name of protecting them at a time when virtually no one would. The recurring message of the film isn't about McCarthy but about how TV journalism is not valued by the people controling the airwaves, how it has been reduced to infotainment by some and completely eliminated in other cases, how too many journalists then and now aren't willing to do the hard work and take the knocks that comes with doing what he did when he took on McCarthy, and how the general public would often rather spend hours watching junk than take the time to watch something that might inform or educate simply because it isn't entertaining enough.
The fact that so many of you that haven't even seen the movie have immediately dismissed it as some sort of leftist propaganda film only goes to prove how blinded so many of you are by your own particular politics, something that has become far too common amongst those on the right and left these days.
Now Playing in Foyeurism at Schlocktoberfest.Com:
BALLAD OF THE NASTY HERO - An overlooked gem of 80s action cheese gets it due
Plus: B-WARE THE BLOG is alive at http://www.livejournal.com/users/foywonder |
|
|
|
RockerD
Archdeacon of Jabootu
12 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2006 : 6:02:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
quote:
Originally posted by BrainFromArous
Oh, Ken... don't hold your breath waiting for a balanced (or even honest) film about McCarthy, et alia. Remember what happened when Kazan finally got his due recognition? The white-lipped anger and venom-spewing on display? Decades later, when even the f--- ing RUSSIANS have admitted McCarthy was not jumping at shadows, the Hollywood Left cannot admit the truth.
And you never will. You know why? Some people on the right don't want to admit and it's not just about leftist politics. It's about the fact that McCarthy and his committee took things to such a monstrous degree that he managed to completely destroy his own cause and forever tarnish it. There may have been actual Communists lurking about looking to undermine things but the people seeking them out managed to undermine many of the very principles the country is supposed to be found upon and did so in the highest profile possible. Like it onot, history has judged them a bigger threat to American values than the Communists they were after because they were the ones that were supposed to be protecting our freedom, not the opposite. You're never going to see a movie sypathetic to McCarthy because McCarthy doesn't deserve sympathy. He isn't a misunderstood character; he's one of history's villains. It's isn't a liberal thing. It's a historical thing. The fact that so many conservatives can't see the forest for the trees is the only misguided point of view in this case. Who knows how many actual Communists got away with stuff because McCarthy and the Red Scare forever gave the cause a permanent black eye.
And since I'm willing to guess that I'm one of the only people commenting in this thread that has actually seen GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK let me take this opportunity to break some news to you: the film is about journalism, not the McCarthy era. Murrow vs. McCarthy is an example of what hard hitting journalism is supposed to be about. One of the most respect newspeople (something almost unheard of today) was willing to take on a reckless, powermongering politician who was undermining our very values in the name of protecting them at a time when virtually no one would. The recurring message of the film isn't about McCarthy but about how TV journalism is not valued by the people controling the airwaves, how it has been reduced to infotainment by some and completely eliminated in other cases, how too many journalists then and now aren't willing to do the hard work and take the knocks that comes with doing what he did when he took on McCarthy, and how the general public would often rather spend hours watching junk than take the time to watch something that might inform or educate simply because it isn't entertaining enough.
The fact that so many of you that haven't even seen the movie have immediately dismissed it as some sort of leftist propaganda film only goes to prove how blinded so many of you are by your own particular politics, something that has become far too common amongst those on the right and left these days.
Now Playing in Foyeurism at Schlocktoberfest.Com:
BALLAD OF THE NASTY HERO - An overlooked gem of 80s action cheese gets it due
Plus: B-WARE THE BLOG is alive at http://www.livejournal.com/users/foywonder
Plus, don't forget what Nixon said about Uncle Joe: "McCarthy went after communists with a shotgun. I go after them with a rifle." |
|
|
|
UnknownSubject
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Australia
212 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 01:17:00 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Long Cut
It is disconcerting to me that, in the midst of such a great struggle and abundant heroic deeds, that Hollywood chooses to make such stuff as "Monster" (about a serial-killing lesbian hooker), BBM (which, though it probably is a good movie, nonetheless deals not a whit with anything important) and lionize them with such praise.
I disagree with the part of your statement that I've emphasised. I also haven't seen the film, but understand that it about the consequences of denying who you are. Such acts destroy people in a variety of different ways and I think that it is important that movies show this in a sensitive light. Given the political and social sensitivity that surrounds being gay at this point in time, I think that it is important for a film to address some version of what happens when people try to deny their own nature.
As for the rest of your post, I agree that the military is too often shown in a stereotypical light... but then again, it almost always has, for good or for ill. Of course, it would be nice for that to change.
Spandex Cinema
http://sc.thebeholder.org
Latest Review - Two more "Bibleman" reviews from Heckler King and I take a look at "The Crow" |
|
|
|
Bobby-G
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
904 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 03:04:31 AM
|
I don't think anybody was advocating Hollywood make a film Glorifying McCarthy -- I think what would be good would be a movie that focuses on the actual activities of the communists in this country, and the fact that they were a real threat (I recommended this book before, here goes again: HOLLYWOOD PARTY).
Looking at what eventually has happened, it looks like the communists couldn't have had a better PR man working for them than McCarthy.
Rob |
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 11:46:56 AM
|
I'm dreading the coming flame war over V For Vendetta, which is already ([url]http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/index.php?p=1241[/url]) being denounced as evil, pro-Osama anti-Bush propaganda by people with very tiny brains. What's amusing is that there's nothing (in the comic at least; perhaps the movie is different, but I haven't seen any indication of it) to link the totalitarian villains to Bush or any specific regime, so the anti-VfV arguments come off as "How dare they impugn our fascist leader, president Bush?"
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
TheKusabiBringsThePain
Altar Boy of Jabootu
8 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 12:40:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
You're never going to see a movie sypathetic to McCarthy because McCarthy doesn't deserve sympathy. He isn't a misunderstood character; he's one of history's villains. It's isn't a liberal thing. It's a historical thing. The fact that so many conservatives can't see the forest for the trees is the only misguided point of view in this case. Who knows how many actual Communists got away with stuff because McCarthy and the Red Scare forever gave the cause a permanent black eye.
Rubbish. You mean to assert that if McCarthy had never operated, that Hollywood would now or at any time be producing well-funded, well-made movies (i.e. not John Wayne's efforts) concerning Communist infiltration into and intended subversion of Western societies? I find that very hard to believe. Maybe you think otherwise? If so, do explain why I might have things wrong.
Also, it is not impossible to not allow McCarthy's activities to 'taint' the anti-Communist cause (unless of course one had a strong personal desire to use McCarthy as a means to smear the entire anti-Communist movement). I wager that, say, if someone were to make a movie about the Communist organisations in the US being every bit as adamant as the McCarthyites about blacklisting actors who failed to see eye-to-eye with them, and going to great lengths to deny them work, the question of whether McCarthy's 'badness' should be the be-all and end-all of the matter would be moot. Make a movie about that and see if the Communists don't come across as vicious hypocrites, instead of the prettier perception of them being the martyrs. Am I wrong?
The Repentance will come. |
|
|
|
BrainFromArous
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 1:22:30 PM
|
Okay, here we go...
There may have been actual Communists lurking about...
There may have been? Brother, you wrecked your whole post with that one. This is no longer an open question and in fact hasn't been for some time.
I find it interesting that "McCarthyism" is a voodoo word coined by the very same American Leftists who spent the entire Cold War bending over backwards to avoid confronting the true nature of the Soviet Empire - a political system that raised repression, paranoia and persecution to an art form.
McCarthy & Co. made their share of mistakes, to be sure, but the enemy they were fighting was real and dangerous.
Following the end of the Cold War, mountains of espionage and intel documents became available from the former USSR. That, plus now-declassified materials from the USA (such as the Venona transcripts) show that if anything, Americans weren't paranoid enough about subversion and infiltration.
McCarthy was right. Not perfect, maybe not even the best man for the job. But he was right.
Like it or not, history has judged them a bigger threat to American values than the Communists they were after because they were the ones that were supposed to be protecting our freedom, not the opposite. You're never going to see a movie sypathetic to McCarthy because McCarthy doesn't deserve sympathy. He isn't a misunderstood character; he's one of history's villains.
McCarthy did quite a bit of good. First, and most obviously, the mere act of going on the offensive against Red infiltration put the Soviets on the defensive. They were forced to become much more careful, cut certain recruitment operations altogether, and did in fact lose a number of key operatives to McCarthy and HUAC's investigations.
In the end, he was not the best man for the job because he cast his net too wide and wasn't patient enough.
As for being a "bigger threat," that's only true if you find McCarthy & Friends comparable to the NKVD/KGB in scope, duration and methods. To make such an equivalence is tantamount to declaring policemen "hypocrites" for carrying guns since the bad guys have them too - aren't the police lowering themselves to the level of the criminals?
The absurdity of this becomes apparent when we focus on just one aspect of this: the public battle between McCarhy and people like Edward Murrow.
From the first, McCarthy was loudly criticized by his foes - both CPUSA stooges and patriotic Americans who honestly thought he was wrong. People against him - common citizens as well as political figures - made speeches, wrote books and newspaper articles, went on TV and radio and readily availed themselves of every inch of their 1st Amendment freedoms.
How many were "silenced?" How many doors were kicked in at 1am, the entire family being dragged away for "questioning?" How many hundreds and thousands of journalists, political opponents, artists, scholars and intellectuals were marched away to re-education/work camps - many to never return? How many were tortured or summarily executed?
Even at the height of "McCathyism," you could slam Joe McCarthy in a New York Times op-ed, published in your own name, go home that night and sleep like a baby.
The sleep of the dead was the reward for most people caught speaking against Stalin and his enforcers.
To be clear: I'm not saying McCarthy was perfect, but any criticism which equates him with what he was fighting against sacrifices both intellectual and moral integrity.
The differences between Joe McCarthy and Lavrenti Beria - or for that matter, J Edgar Hoover and Felix Dzerhinsky - are so vast as to make hash of any argument of equivalance.
I'm also getting tired of hearing about all these supposed "victims" of McCarthy and the anti-Communist effort in general.
Who were/are these people? How often did the spotlight fall on good Americans whose words and deeds gave no grounds whatsoever to raise suspicion?
Witchhunt, my ass. There were no witches in Salem, but there sure as Lenin were Commies in Hollywood and the State Dept.
The last paragraph of this piece
http://www.moderntimes.com/palace/blacklist.htm
gets to the point:
The initial hearings did produce some tangible results. Whether or not they were just or popular is a topic for another day. It is legal in America to be a Communist. But open subversion is another matter. In that regard, the question must be asked “were these men in concert with the Soviet Union, or were they as Robinson, Bogart, and Garfield, simply duped, disillusioned, or seduced?
Just so.
Every serious discussion of this subject must begin with the recognition that the CPUSA was a subversive fifth-column movement controlled by a hostile foreign power. That is an objective fact.
Having recognized this, the question is (and was): What to do about it? The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact; our goverment has both the right and need to defend itself from those committed to its destruction.
It fits the romantic self-image of the political Left to see those investigated by HUAC, the FBI and McCarthy as martyrs to Cold War hysteria and the eeee-vil Right Wing, but the facts do not support that story and never did. Of course, Hollywood is the land of dreams, the American mythology factory, and the Left-leaners who populate it do their best to keep slicing the baloney.
Latest example: Good Night and Good Luck.
**********************
Boards don't hit back.
(Bruce Lee) |
|
|
|
Bobby-G
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
904 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 1:49:17 PM
|
Well, one can see how effective the communists (and their at times unwitting dupes) have been in rewriting history -- It's taken for granted these days that there was no real communist threat, and that fighting this "imaginary" threat was (and is) far more damaging to our freedom -- at least that's the impression I'd get from Hollywood. How often do you see "commie hunters" depicted as either monsters or clownish buffoons? And we are all supposed laugh knowingly "ha -- communist threat?"
Rob |
|
|
|
Long Cut
Archdeacon of Jabootu
19 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 1:52:19 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by UnknownSubject
quote:
Originally posted by Long Cut
It is disconcerting to me that, in the midst of such a great struggle and abundant heroic deeds, that Hollywood chooses to make such stuff as "Monster" (about a serial-killing lesbian hooker), BBM (which, though it probably is a good movie, nonetheless deals not a whit with anything important) and lionize them with such praise.
I disagree with the part of your statement that I've emphasised. I also haven't seen the film, but understand that it about the consequences of denying who you are. Such acts destroy people in a variety of different ways and I think that it is important that movies show this in a sensitive light. Given the political and social sensitivity that surrounds being gay at this point in time, I think that it is important for a film to address some version of what happens when people try to deny their own nature.
See, what you posted here and what I've reproduced is a classic example of what I was saying. Whilst "the consequences of denying who you are" might make for some drama in calm times, in the midst of a world war they are, to put it bluntly, irrelevant to the point of insignifigance. Sorry, but the love story of two gay cow(sheep)boys in love simply pales before the monumental task of defeating hordes of Islamist radicals bent on murdering all of us and reducing the concepts of freedom and liberty to historical footnotes.
As the incomparable Bogart himself said: "The problems of two little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world". To assert that they are more deserving of portrayal on film, or are even of equal worth, is to demonstrate just how "Oprah-fied" our society has become.
--------------------------------------------------
"My father was a drunk, a gambler, and a womanizer. I worshipped him!"...CWO Paul Brenner |
|
|
|
Ubiq
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
347 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 2:03:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BrainFromArous
McCarthy was right. Not perfect, maybe not even the best man for the job. But he was right.
See, I'm interested as to how somebody could construct a movie where the protagonist clearly constructed his political career on falsehoods and still sell the notion that he was right. Any honest depiction of McCarthy as a person will destroy the validity of anything that he brought forth in the minds of the viewers. Well, those that hadn't already made up their minds that is.
The situation isn't so much that Communists have rewritten history to the extent that people minimalize the potential threat that Soviet infiltration posed, it's that the people who sought out such infiltration were so grossly un-American in their actions that they have tainted such investigations.
McCarthy may have been right in his accusations that there were Communists in the Government, but he was right for all of the wrong reasons and also went out of his way to tarnish the reputations of innocent people in the process just because he didn't like them.
BM: I should have mentioned this at the beginning. I solve my problems with violence. |
Edited by - Ubiq on 02/20/2006 2:08:47 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked