[emingeRek]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Interesting that Mr. Incoherent Stream of Consciousness would call you on this one.
As I recall from your badly thought out and researched posts in other threads, you're the one with difficulty getting his ideas to cohere.

Still, always amusing to see you attempting a little insult- must compensate you for your lack of anything substantive to say, hmm ?

[Ijkavylo]

Originally posted by Winston
So what you're proposing is, everybody must go see this movie even if they're not the least bit interested? Should we buy the movie poster too, and have it framed above computer screen?
I'm not proposing that at all; in fact, I can see no mention of compelling people to view the film or read the novella in my posts.

Red herrings a part of your diet now ?

[allmyflights]

Originally posted by Winston
Herring

No, it's just that you seemed to complain an awful lot about some people, such as my humble self, not feeling like acquainting themselves with this film.
I'm not complaining; simply stating that I find your reasons disingenuous at best, inadequate at worst.

It's a reductio ad absurdum to make Ang Lee's film or E. Annie Proulx's novella 'gay people's personal problems' and then compare the film (unfairly, as you haven't seen it) with a documentary about breast cancer!

Some things you give a damn about, others, like gay dramas playing in the theatre in perfect accordance with the mainstream ephemeral interest in these matters... See, it seems to me you formed your judgment not based on the director's credentials, the actors, the plot, the mise en scene, the cinematography (all things pertinent in deciding to see a film, one might think) but instead on a pre-existing bias towards gays- given that you 'complained' or harped on about their 'personal problems' so.

I had, given our previous correspondences, perhaps expected better- that's all.

[Thorwaywhobia]

I had to see Rent with my girlfriend so I've seen my quota of gay movies and muscials for the next couple of years.

[payporanymn]

Originally posted by Sikander


Everybody has AIDS! And sings about it.

[ulw7A8Po]

In defense of Winston and all the other uncomfortable straights trying to articulate their lack of desire to see this film, but showing their obvious curiousity, due to the media hype and evidenced by their posting in this thread, I submit the following.

The reason straight men don't want to watch a film with gay men is simple. To be a straight male, you can't have homosexual relationships or be seen doing anything remotely homosexually related without calling your heterosexuality into question. To be heterosexual is to literally walk the straight and narrow. To use a popular idiom, "once you play for the other team, you are not allowed back into the locker room." For a heterosexual to have his sexuality questioned would be socially catastrophic. It would call into question their identity and all of their core values. A complete realignment of their existence would have to be done. Gay and bisexual men on the other hand can watch heterosexuals without having their sexuality questioned. In the eyes of the straight community, they are already compromised. Heterosexual men can't even watch the Lifetime channel without having their manhood called into question.

[Piediahef]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
In defense of Winston and all the other uncomfortable straights trying to articulate their lack of desire to see this film, but showing their obvious curiousity, due to the media hype and evidenced by their posting in this thread, I submit the following.

The reason straight men don't want to watch a film with gay men is simple. To be a straight male, you can't have homosexual relationships or be seen doing anything remotely homosexually related without calling your heterosexuality into question. To be heterosexual is to literally walk the straight and narrow. To use a popular idiom, "once you play for the other team, you are not allowed back into the locker room." For a heterosexual to have his sexuality questioned would be socially catastrophic. It would call into question their identity and all of their core values. A complete realignment of their existence would have to be done. Gay and bisexual men on the other hand can watch heterosexuals without having their sexuality questioned. In the eyes of the straight community, they are already compromised. Heterosexual men can't even watch the Lifetime channel without having their manhood called into question. That's strange -- when I saw Brokeback Mountain with my friend (who is gay as well) I had the impression that we were in the minority, and that most of the people watching it with us were straight -- some were women, but there were straight men there too.

Although, I should note that most of the straight men who were there seem to have been with a girlfriend, fiancee, or wife. Maybe they dragged their man out to see it?

[I9dydJrX]

Originally posted by Winston


Some defense.

No, it's lack of interest, honestly. Coupled with a slight annoyance over the whole "if you don't go see this movie, you're just perpetuating the awful and unfair treatment of gay people in the world today"-routine that lies implicitly in a number of posts to this thread.
I don't have a problem with people such as yourself, who have no interest in seeing the movie anymore than I would have a problem if you were not interested in seeing Chicken Little.

The problem I had, was what I thought Daz meant -- that films dealing with real life issues of gays in a realistic, profound way are to be denigerated as silly and laughable.

[paralelogram]

Originally posted by MrFun
Although, I should note that most of the straight men who were there seem to have been with a girlfriend, fiancee, or wife. Maybe they dragged their man out to see it?
ding ding ding ding. You got it right


My girfriend has been talking about it. I'm counting on her to forget about it since there are a couple more movies she wants to watch.

[pupyississido]

Originally posted by Sprayber



ding ding ding ding. You got it right
I should be given a permanently free Apolyton subscriber account for this.

[Indinehon]

Originally posted by MrFun


That's strange -- when I saw Brokeback Mountain with my friend (who is gay as well) I had the impression that we were in the minority, and that most of the people watching it with us were straight -- some were women, but there were straight men there too.

Although, I should note that most of the straight men who were there seem to have been with a girlfriend, fiancee, or wife. Maybe they dragged their man out to see it? they are probably closet gays. even the married ones.

[oranowdenda]

Originally posted by Winston
You must really care about me, molly. I've never been quoted so much in my life, at least not without the poster actually going somewhere with it.. I care about accuracy and honesty- as should we all.

[PymnImmen]

Reasons not to see the film

1. Unlike many here who say they dont want to see it (i wont name names) ive actually READ the Annie Proulx story it was based on (yup, some folks actually do read the New Yorker) and I wasnt overwhelmed. Whether that was due to subtle homophobia, I really cant say.

2. Its a romance tearjerker. If these were straights, we'd say right out it was a chickflick. Not that I would never see one, but I have my quota.

3. The redeeming aspect of straight chick flicks, is that it least involves some nice scenes of a nice looking actress. I mean Bridges of Madison County was torture to sit through, but would have been far worse without Meryl Streep. In this film, the women are not central to the romance.

Reasons to see the film

1. QOTM wants to see it. See 2 above.

2. All that mis en scene, ang lee sh*t that MB mentioned. I mean maybe it really IS better than the Proulx story.

OTOH Id rather see Rent. That has some nice sounding music, and some nice actresses.

And I really like musicals. Oops, shouldnt have said that. Runs away.

[Pypeassesty]

Originally posted by Az



Az- you never answer your e-mails, and your p.m. box is still full !!!!

Good to see you're still with us, however.

All that mis en scene, ang lee sh*t


Wassup wid dat, l.o.t.m. ?


Is you down wit' yo' homies on the street- shi' yeah, I sho'nuff know where youse be comin' from.

[Rx-Ultram]

Originally posted by Az

Az- you never answer your e-mails, and your p.m. box is still full !!!!

Good to see you're still with us, however.

Oh, sorry molly.

And yes, I am still around, but the date is set. late march I swing by the base and pick up uniforms, finish my tests, and mid april I return to service. Mixed feelings abound.
Mmm.... all hot photos in army gear appreciated !!!

Seriously- best wishes, mazel tov, and so on.

Re: email - aimez-vous Bjork, tovarisch ?

[dhYTvlAv]

Originally posted by molly bloom




Wassup wid dat, l.o.t.m. ?


Is you down wit' yo' homies on the street- shi' yeah, I sho'nuff know where youse be comin' from.


sometime i forget to be sufficiently reverent about Culchuh. Cause Ive been away from New England too long, ya know? Now you want people who are serious about all that culchuh, and where the straight men all want to go see this film, to show theyre superior to all the homophobes, youve got to go to a part of the USA that was settled by Puritans. Since I live in a part that was settled by Anglicans (allbeit low church Anglicans) Ive forgotten how to be part of the "elect"

Have a happy