Posted on 12/20/2005 10:22:54 PM PST by LdSentinal
Many thanks to film critic Michael Medved for his review of Hollywood's latest piece of social propaganda, "Brokeback Mountain." Medved has spared 98 percent of American males what he calls "the eww! factor" by warning us of its graphic scenes of homosexuality. This "love story" is set in 1963 between two young, married sheepherders who seek regular fulfillment of their lust for each other by engaging in homosexual adultery while their unsuspecting wives sit home believing they are off together on "hunting trips."
Medved compares the film, which is skillfully directed by Ang Lee ("Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon") to "Triumph of the Will," Leni Riefenstahl's 1934 documentary of Adolf Hitler: a brilliant, convincing bit of filmmaking, the sole purpose of which was to promote a political and/or social agenda.
Many believe that money trumps all else in Tinsel Town, but if that were true, why would Hollywood continue to make offensive movies no one wants to see? In the 1980s, Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" was a box office bomb. Critics loved it. Moviegoers hated it. Yet, did the moguls conclude that instead of Scorsese's vision of Jesus as some sort of flawed pervert, the public might prefer to see a portrayal of Jesus Christ that depicts His noble suffering for the sins of all humanity? Of course not. That vision took another fifteen years to bring to the screen, and when it did, Mel Gibson had to finance, produce, direct and promote "The Passion of the Christ" all by himself. Hollywood hated it. Critics panned it, attacked it, snubbed it and ignored it on Oscar night. Moviegoers gave it four stars and two thumbs up by spending more than a half billion of their hard-earned dollars to see it.
One might believe that numbers like those would have gotten someone's attention. Yet, have you seen "The Passion, Parts 2, 3 and 4" yet? No, and you won't, unless Gibson produces them.
Examples abound of overreaching Hollywood box office stink bombs meant to serve as propaganda. A couple of years ago, they gave us "The Day After Tomorrow," a global-warming-is-going-to-kill-us-all movie so ridiculous it caused audiences to laugh out loud. "Syriana," currently in theaters, rails against the American oil industry. "Jarhead," an engaging but incomplete view of the 1990 build-up to the Gulf War, robs U.S. Marines of their humanity by reducing them to sex-crazed killers.
Hollywood's obsession with deviant sex has become almost a cliche. Loving, monogamous sexual expression between a man a woman committed to each other and to their marriage vows has been relegated to its classic movie vaults. Today, human relationships rarely are explored onscreen sans freewheeling, irresponsible sex. Of course, any pain caused by such behavior is inevitably blamed on the repressive attitudes of a puritanical society that simply will not allow human beings the freedom to explore their true sexuality. "Brokeback Mountain" is no exception. The message is a ham-fisted attempt to persuade us that same-sex marriage would benefit us all. If only society would allow these two frustrated lovers to marry each other, the message goes, then everyone would live happily ever after. Yeah, right. Tell that to their humiliated wives.
Why is Hollywood so out of touch with America? Because, with a few notable exceptions, it is populated with shallow, vacuous people whose personal lives are a train wreck. They live in a bubble. Their wealth and celebrity seem to insulate them from the consequences of their actions. They feed each other's narcissism at all the most fashionable parties and never venture beyond the borders of their make-believe world.
It is not hard to understand why those of us who believe in faith, family and fidelity, and who find movies like "Brokeback Mountain" offensive, look like freaks to them.
How would you like to be one of those poor pimply faced ushers who have to clean up after one of the showings? No telling what they find.
I pose the same question from another thread: Just how many people have paid good money to see this perverted stinker?
I read a Q&A in the local rag from the author of the story from which the movie was made. What a waste of 2 minutes of my life, typical touchy-feely drivel, and exactly what this author describes.
An awful lot of Hollywood "intellectuals" feel that this movie has co-opted a bastion of straight America, the Western, and that somehow we will never think of the ouevre the same way again. Personally I don't think a pair of sheepherders buggering one another has a great deal to do with Wayne and Gable and Autry and LaRue, but then I'm not a Hollywood Deep Thinker. Thank God.
The sad thing is that when many people in other countries think of America, they think of the filth coming out from Hollywood.
"Why is Hollywood so out of touch with America? Because, with a few notable exceptions, it is populated with shallow, vacuous people whose personal lives are a train wreck."
This guy nails it.
Uh, I dunno about that. I mean, does this writer know the story The Passion is based on? It doesn't lend itself to sequels.
Kinda gives a whole new meaning to the term "Cow Poke".
Yuck.
I've got my DVDs of Rio Bravo, The Wild Bunch, Lonesome Dove, Red River, etc. I don't think anything Hollywood can cook up next will overshadow those classics.
Why is Hollywood so out of touch with America? Because, with a few notable exceptions, it is populated with shallow, vacuous people whose personal lives are a train wreck. They live in a bubble. Their wealth and celebrity seem to insulate them from the consequences of their actions. They feed each other's narcissism at all the most fashionable parties and never venture beyond the borders of their make-believe world.
Sums it up...
Can you imagine what John Ford or Sam Peckinpah would've thought about this latest "western"? Turnin' in their graves.
If you live in the DFW area, you may have been subjected to the reviews of our local critics. They refuse to acknowledge that it is a message movie.
The thing I don't get about these kinds of op-eds is, why do the authors even care what these people think of them?
We are constantly (properly) attacking the morals of Hollywood, and then complaining that these perverts, proabortionists and homos aren't giving awards to the movies we like.
Anyone see something wrong with that picture?
I think it was John Wayne who, when asked what he thought of nudity in movies, said "You mean pornography? I think its disgusting". Or something along those lines.
Seriously, Peckinpah's movies, for all their flaws, are serious works of art about loyalty, duty, and the seductive qualities of violence. Whatever one thinks of them, they weren't propaganda--most viewers and reviewers were repulsed by some of the ideas in the movies, but they're great because Peckinpah showed the mess of emotions these situations create. Peckinpah didn't give you easy answers.
Ford, on the other hand, wasn't interested in navel (or other parts of the male body) gazing. He told a damned story.
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.