Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

USCCB reclassifies gay Western "Brokeback Mountain" after complaints
Catholic News Agency ^ | December 16, 2005

Posted on 12/16/2005 4:23:29 PM PST by NYer

Washington DC, Dec. 16, 2005 (CNA) - "Brokeback Mountain," originally rated L (limited adult audience) by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has been reclassified as an O (morally offensive) after several pro-family organizations expressed concern for what they saw as an implicit endorsement of the USCCB film critic to the controversial gay western.

Brokeback Mountain is the story of two sheep-herding cowboys in Wyoming who begin a homosexual relationship on the range in the 1960s, and continue their affair even after they marry women.

The $13-million film garnered seven Golden Globe nominations from foreign film critics.

Director Ang Lee’s homosexual Western premiered last weekend in limited release. Showing in five theaters in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, the film grossed $544,549, averaging $108, 910 per theater. A wider release is slated on December 16, with a nationwide release in January.

In the original comment posted on the USCCB's website, the reviewer wrote that the Catholic Church "makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity," and that "Ennis and Jack's continuing physical relationship is morally problematic."

"While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true," said the original USCCB's review, which also called the movie "a serious contemplation of loneliness and connection."

"Looked at from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels but few people can articulate, the plight of these guys is easy to understand while their way of dealing with it is likely to surprise and shock an audience," the original USCCB review said.

“Brokeback is the ‘Perfect Storm’ of Hollywood’s war on morality,” said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America’s (CWA’s) Culture & Family Institute (CFI). “It combines high production values with a lowdown attack on morality. It’s a mockery of the Western genre embodied by every movie cowboy from John Wayne to Gene Autry to Kevin Costner. I can’t think of a more effective way to annoy and alienate most movie-going Americans than to show two cowboys lusting after each other and even smooching.

After several pro-life and pro-family websites strongly criticized the original review, the USCCB decided on Friday to change its classification, while still providing a very positive description of the film.

"Brokeback Mountain, originally rated L (limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling) has been reclassified as an O (morally offensive). This has been done because the serious weight of the L rating -- which restricts films in that category to those who can assess from a Catholic perspective the moral issues raised by a movie -- is, unfortunately, misunderstood by many. Because, in this instance, there are some who are using the "L" rating to make it appear the Church -- or the USCCB -- position on homosexuality is ambiguous, the classification has been with revised specifically to address its moral content," says the new USCBB posting.

The new full review of the USCBB can be seen at:
http://www.usccb.org/movies/b/brokebackmountain.shtml


TOPICS: TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: bishops; brokebackmountain; catholic; gay; hollywierd; homosexual; homosexualagenda; hornswaggling; morallyoffensive; movie; moviereview; pudding; usccb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-178 next last
To: RichInOC

I vote for "Buttcrack Mountin'"

LOL!


61 posted on 12/16/2005 5:12:01 PM PST by olivia3boys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

Buttcrack Mountin'


62 posted on 12/16/2005 5:12:20 PM PST by Cinnamon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

Guess they changed the rating, due to explicit "abiding in the fields," huh? ;)


63 posted on 12/16/2005 5:14:06 PM PST by Uncle Vlad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

It was originally entitled "Brokedick Mountain", but for some unknown reason they changed it. Why does queerdom have to go to the cowboy. Is not New York, Los Angeles and city high ligfe good enough for these pricks. The only refuge I have left is hunting and fishing, and I am sure the queers are hot on the trail to ruining that too. I suppose their claim on beastiality would naturally drive them that direction. What a world.


64 posted on 12/16/2005 5:16:24 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon

Buttcrack MountHim!


65 posted on 12/16/2005 5:16:46 PM PST by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: CheyennePress

Do they acutally "stump-break" a heifer in this movie?


66 posted on 12/16/2005 5:17:30 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Wait; you remember that South Park episode where the film festival came to town, and all of the independant films were about gay cowboys eating chocolate pudding?

I want to know if Trey Parker and Matt Stone have somethig to do with this movie. I wouldn't put it past them to do something like this as a joke.

67 posted on 12/16/2005 5:18:30 PM PST by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: TexanToTheCore
"Cowboys do not herd sheep. Ever"

You couldn't be more wrong. I have known and still do know cowboys (ranchers) so run sheep. In fact, I grew up on a sheep ranch and there wasn't ever a man who epitomized the ideals of a "cowboy" more than my Dad and his Dad.

He was the genuine article....not some phony.

68 posted on 12/16/2005 5:19:42 PM PST by Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

I must say, I take high offense at your directing that question to me. Can you elucidate why?


69 posted on 12/16/2005 5:20:06 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

Southpark,,,,,Southpark,,,,,,We don't get that out here on the ranch. Hell, I am even hesitant to say I live on a ranch with this g*****mn movie out there announcing this kind of sh*t. What a world.


70 posted on 12/16/2005 5:22:15 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Well, at least they revised but it remains a very huge problem to me that they'd have had to revise their opinion, in that the original opinion was irrational, given the contents of this film.

This film's contents, homosexual acts aside, is comprised of two main characters who embody and live their entire lives based upon active and preconceived decreit, dishonesty, corruption and even violence (to and about others and to and about themselves). THEN there's the added offense of homosexual sexual behaviors.

I realize that liberals who are so enthused about this film reject conservative, Christian (and otherwise) complaints and offenses about this film but they (those who enthuse about the film) don't understand why: yes, it's offensive as to the homosexuality involved, but the characters are the antithesis of heroic and are quite entirely corrupt and even worse, seem very gratified by their corruption.


71 posted on 12/16/2005 5:23:10 PM PST by MillerCreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

You know, now that I think about it, Donnie Gay may be fudgepacking Booger Brooks. Gay is a 7 times World Champion bull rider and Booger.....well Booger is Booger. I always was suspicious about anyone named "Donnie", and Gay, well, that speaks for itself.


72 posted on 12/16/2005 5:25:24 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Turning this issue back upon these nonsensical (I'm being kind) "reviewers" here, what is it about the film that they find worthy? What, exactly, in essence, does this film offer that is even (remotely) worthy of enjoyment?

It's pornography with pretty hats. It's still pornography and that the two profess a relationship of lifelong proportions to one another, is meaningless since they do same to others throughout their lives. All of which they violate.

The film is just about active, homosexual sex. No organization of any type, particularly affiliated with the Catholic Church -- my God! -- has any shred of reason to even be writing about this film other than to call it the pornographic title that it is.

It's pornography about homosexuals who live their lives deceiving and lying and engaging in various acts of perversion the entire 'story' through. One gets murdered, the other one lies to his parents and his wife and everyone else.

The film's an adaptation, worse, from a terrible story written in idiot-script.


73 posted on 12/16/2005 5:30:42 PM PST by MillerCreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: voiceinthewind

http://nypress.com/18/49/film/ArmondWhite.cfm


74 posted on 12/16/2005 5:31:55 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: voiceinthewind

Yeah, my take on that, too.

Their original opinion was what they actually think. The revised one is now what they conclude they should and have to opine inorder to avoid what little support some people are still willing to extend to them, within and as examples of Catholic opinion.

But, it's pretty clear here that the organization is corrupt and is no more Catholic in perspective and ideology than this film is.


75 posted on 12/16/2005 5:33:43 PM PST by MillerCreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

76 posted on 12/16/2005 5:36:04 PM PST by Boazo (From the mind of BOAZO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909
thought it was actually called "Bareback Mountain." LOL
 
aids... Adiós infected d... s...

77 posted on 12/16/2005 5:37:52 PM PST by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
This is classic (as in, classicly terrible but predictable)...the author of the story, "Brokeback Mountain," a woman who writes in near gibberish-to-actual gibberish, is interviewed in "Bookslut."

Note her being described there as "an artist," among other things. Her work is like something written by an illiterate in the dark of night with a crayon...terrible.

78 posted on 12/16/2005 5:37:52 PM PST by MillerCreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bulldozer

That's exactly WHY this film is being so "touted" and enthused about by, mostly, homosexuals and agenda-enthusiasts who are also, mostly, those in entertainment media (they rate the films and write the reviews): BECAUSE it's a film that's been expected to be shown and released in neighborhood theatres nationwide, and thus, conditions people into the assumption that homoseuxality on the screen is "normal," usual film fare, the big screen normalacy.

It's an agenda picture in that regard and that's what's got most of Hollywood (same crowd) going about this title. They're finding it marvelous and all that because it's called, "a love story."

It's THEIR concept of "love" unfortunately: deceit, lying, etc.


79 posted on 12/16/2005 5:42:49 PM PST by MillerCreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

It's actually called "Raw Hind."


80 posted on 12/16/2005 5:49:39 PM PST by YourAdHere (Viking kitties taste like chicken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-178 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson