Replies

As I read the synopsis of this movie in moviespoiler, it is a story about two lovers who have a brief passionate affair in their youth. They go their separate ways, marry and have children. Then they find each other again. Fanning the flames anew, they engage in an extramarital affair lasting years. One divorces because of the affair. The other is killed while seeking more extramarital sex while the lover is absent. The movie makes the lovers the sympathetic characters while soft-pedaling the tragedy of the broken families and fatherless children.

Sorry, I don't find that to be an uplifting movie, but then I also refused to see Titanic and Bridges of Madison County for the same reason I will not see this movie: it glorifies immorality. And the gay aspect of this movie is only a small part of what makes it so wrong in my book. And I couldn't care less about technical perfection, emotional satisfaction or Academy-grade acting.

This message of this movie is not the tragedy of a society which doesn't understand and accept homosexuals but of homosexuals not understanding and honoring fidelity and covenants.

Having actually read the story, I disagree. Yes, the infidelity is a tragedy, and it was caused by the initial tragedy of the two gay men being forced to act like they weren't gay (act like they didn't have sexual and emotional love toward each other when they really did). The story is more complex than you seem to consider it.

Now if it were a story of gay lovers without the adultery angle, that wouldn't make it any more uplifting. Try as one might, there's a reason for heterosexual love. Hollywood can elide over it all it wants but just because depravity is now politically correct doesn't make it right.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")