quote: SALT LAKE CITY - A movie theater owned by Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller abruptly changed its screening plans and decided not to show the film "Brokeback Mountain." The film, an R-rated Western gay romance story, was supposed to open Friday at the Megaplex at Jordan Commons in Sandy, a suburb of Salt Lake City. Instead it was pulled from the schedule.
A message posted at the ticket window read: "There has been a change in booking and we will not be showing 'Brokeback Mountain.' We apologize for any inconvenience."
Cal Gunderson, manager of the Jordan Commons Megaplex, declined to comment.
The film, starring Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, is about two cowboys who discover feelings for one another. The two eventually marry women but rekindle their relationship over the years.
The movie's distributor, Focus Features, said that hours before opening, the theater management "reneged on their licensing agreement," and refused to open the film.
Gayle Ruzicka, president of the conservative Utah Eagle Forum, said not showing the film set an example for the people of Utah.
"I just think (pulling the show) tells the young people especially that maybe there is something wrong with this show," she said.
Mike Thompson, executive director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah, called it disappointing.
"It's just a shame that such a beautiful and award-winning film with so much buzz about it is not being made available to a broad Utah audience because of personal bias," he said.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Although, hey. Mike Thompson, that's not the only theater in Utah -- a lot of other places are showing it. The movie *is* available to the audience.
And, hey. Gayle Ruzicka, you freaking maniac, you're a maniac.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote: SANDY, Utah, Jan. 8 (UPI) -- A suburban Salt Lake City cinema owned by Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller has canceled its opening of Ang Lee's critically hailed "Brokeback Mountain."
Director Ang Lee's R-rated gay western was supposed to open Friday at Jordan Commons in Sandy, Utah, but would-be moviegoers were greeted with a sign at the ticket window saying: "There has been a change in booking and we will not be showing 'Brokeback Mountain.' We apologize for any inconvenience," the Salt Lake Tribune reported.
Neither theater management nor Miller returned calls from the newspaper.
"Brokeback's" distributor, Focus Features, issued a statement blasting the "deplorable business practices of this one theater."
"Given the gigantic grosses already being posted in Salt Lake City for 'Brokeback Mountain,' this is their loss," the statement said.
The Utah Film Critics Society has named "Brokeback Mountain" the year's best movie, named Lee best director.
The movie has seven Golden Globe nominations is considered a front-runner for the upcoming Academy Awards.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Way to show some backbone! Keep bad movies out of the Theaters! If they'd only done the same for Catwoman....
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Good news for people around Sandy who want to see the film:
It is playing nearby at the Century 16 down on State Street, and of course it is playing at the 24-screen Cinemark Jordan Landing theater.
(Salt Lake Valley people will know what I'm talking about)
The Cinemark is a better theater than Larry H. Miller's anyway.
What a creep.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Backbone? Are you insane?
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I keep forgetting that you people don't actually know me. If you did, TL, you'd realize that asking what you just asked isn't as rhetorical as it was meant to be. If you were talking Good Night and Good Luck, which lasted about a week in Augusta without me getting a chance to see it, then I would be more than a little bit enraged, but a sappy new drama that replaces what could have been an attractive young cowgirl with a dude....I have very little respect for that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I never got a chance to see Good Night and Good luck either. I was very angry about that.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:"Given the gigantic grosses already being posted in Salt Lake City for 'Brokeback Mountain,' this is their loss," the statement said.
That's really all it comes down to. So the theatre exec pulled a movie he had a problem with...oh well. He gets to deal with the loss of revenue and whatever fines might be implied with violating his licensing agreement with the studio.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:but a sappy new drama that replaces what could have been an attractive young cowgirl with a dude....I have very little respect for that.
O_o Good Night and Good Luck doesn't have any young actresses for you to ogle at, so why didn't you lose respect for it, too? And I'm confused about your use of "replaces" since the story was always about gay cowboys.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think his point was that this is just a typically romance, but with the girl replaced by a guy. I don't have any idea if that's an accurate statement, but that's how I read it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I don't think this movie is posting gigantic grosses anywhere? I mean gigantic is all a relative term, but I think it has only grossed about $15 million? I wonder what movie they replaced it with?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I think his point was that this is just a typically romance, but with the girl replaced by a guy. I don't have any idea if that's an accurate statement, but that's how I read it.
If that's his "point", it only underscores his ignorance. There is no way either male role could be replaced with a female role and have the story even remotely be the same story.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
There are tons of movies out there that I find heaps more offensive than this one. But I suppose that theatre owners have the right to show whatever movies they want to in their theatres. And I guess that is why they show so many offensive ones.
That's why James Bond movies get so much screen time.
James Bond movies are way more offensive to me that Brokeback Mountain is.
My rule of censorship for movies is very personal -- if I don't approve, I don't see it. But this isn't censorship. This is a movie house owner deciding what goes on his screens. You may disagree with his choices, reasons, or philosophy, but I can't see how you can disagree with his right to make those choices.
Posted by Xan (Member # 9015) on :
Meh, everyone is entitled to there opinion, even if some of you dont like it.
If he doesnt agree with a Gay film then he doesnt agree, its not your place to comment on it.
Cant say i'm too thrilled myself; while i have nothing against gay people it isnt natural to not like the oposit sex. If every man and woman had been gay the human race would never have gotten past the first generation.
As i said i ahve nothing against it; doesnt mean its what nature intended.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:If every man and woman had been gay the human race would never have gotten past the first generation.
And if every man and every woman became a doctor, we'd have no one growing food and we'd all starve to death. So obviously being a doctor is a bad thing.
Edit: and its not a "Gay film" (and why capitalize the word "gay"?). Its a film about two gay characters.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not what nature intended? Strange how there are large numbers of examples of homosex among all sorts of animals, then.
Not to mention the assumption that nature has an "intent" in the first place.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Here we go again!
Wheee!!! Good thing this debate started with a movie theatre. Makes it all that much easier for me to grab some popcorn and enjoy the show. So far, guys, the opening credits look promising.
Carry on.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
I have no problem with what the theater did.
But I really cannot believe they're still giving Ruzicka a pulpit. Please, it's not that hard to refrain from sticking a microphone in her beak. If we ignore her, I'm sure she'll go away.
Posted by Xan (Member # 9015) on :
As i said, i have nothing against gay people; but i dont see it as a good thing either, it just Is.
I have plenty of gay friends, but i'm entitled to my opinion that while i accept it it isnt natural.
To be gay rather than bisexual is to Only like your own gender; which means the person will never have children and therefor their genes wont carry on. In nature creatures may have sex with their own gender, but they will also mate with the oposit to have children.
Your answer to my phase is just the usual defensivness, and almost the exact wording usually used.
If everyone was a Doctor and no one was growing food then Yes, it would be a bad thing since a Doctor cant heal a starving man.
As it is not everyone is a Doctor, nor is everyone gay, so there is no worry eh? I'm just expressing my opinion.
I wasnt Capitalizing Gay because i wanted it to stand out, its just a grammer problem i have, i tend to Capitaize words that i dont use much. I have the same problem in writing y book; the editor will probobly have my head.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh yes - how dare a theatre show the movies they think their customers want to see. How dare they sully the idealistic world of moviemaking with their filthy economics!!
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
I wish I had kept the article containing Ruzicka's horrified description of her first view of a naked marble statue at Caesar's Palace.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Come on, Katie. Do you think the reason they pulled the movie was because they didn't think it'd make money?
How many stinkers does every theatre host a year? A week? This is clearly a case where the theatre owner is making a moral stand against a movie which centrally features a homosexual relationship. Whose theatre is dead center of the most sexually conservative area in the U.S.
I think the claim that this was an economic decision is misguided.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I'm curious to see it because, with the notably awful exception of Hulk, Ang Lee is really a wonderful director.
I was also unhappy about missing Good Night and Good Luck, which looked wonderful.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xan: To be gay rather than bisexual is to Only like your own gender; which means the person will never have children and therefor their genes wont carry on.
And we all agree that underpopulation is a HUGE PROBLEM nowadays.
Um, I mean,
<munch munch munch>
quote: i tend to Capitaize words that i dont use much. I have the same problem in writing y book; the editor will probobly have my head.
I'd work on that, if I were you.
Posted by Xan (Member # 9015) on :
I'm just playing devils advocate; i really have no problem with the film.
What i have a problem with is people jumping on Airmanfour for having a diffrent opinion.
Tante Shvester: I'm not going to spend the whole thread playing ping-pong with people just bacause i didnt like that Airmanfour was getting jumped on for having a diffrent opinion.
As i said i know plenty of gay people; and am friends with them too.
Drop it; i'm not willing to continue what will continue for pages if we let it.
Accept that i have a diffrent opinion; it doesnt change who i am as a person, the fact i have gay friends is proof enough i'm not some rabid anti-gay guy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The theatre did not give an explanation for why they weren't showing it. I doubt it was the personal feelings of the theatre owner, since they were going to show it and changed their mind. They probably got complaints, and decided it was in the economic interest to show the movies their customers wanted to see and not show the movies their customers didn't.
It's their business - I'm not going to fault them for working in their economic interest. I love movies, but trotting out "bravery" or "cowardice" as a motive for what to show is slightly hilarious to me. It's a business.
Ruzicka's on his own. So is Thompson - both of them are attributing ideological motives to what was, by all evidence, an economic decision.
quote:There is no way either male role could be replaced with a female role and have the story even remotely be the same story.
Legends of the Fall Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:The movie's distributor, Focus Features, said that hours before opening, the theater management "reneged on their licensing agreement," and refused to open the film.
This is the statement that tells you that it wasn't an economic decision, IMO. Theatre owners don't just pull a movie hours before they premier it just because they don't think it will do well. If they don't think it'll do well, they show it on only one or two screens. Or they don't book it in the first place. I agree that they probably decided to pull it after receiving some complaints, but I think ultimately they probably weren't comfortable with the material.
The other reason I don't buy the economics argument is that the film has gotten stellar reviews, and is doing fairly well at the b.o. in a limited release. That makes it even stranger to pull it at the last minute. Critically acclaimed movies, even when they don't do all that well, get people to go to the movies who wouldn't normally. I don't think that a movie featuring gay cowboys would be a big hit in Utah, but surely they knew that when they ordered it in the first place. It's the last minute turn around that makes me think someone's making a statement.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Either way, the owner refused to comment. What we guess the reason is says more about us than about the owner.
I refuse to castigate someone for the motives invented for him.
I also hate it when people want someone else to take all the risks for an ideological stance. It's easy to dictate what someone should from the safety of your living room.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oh, I don't know JT, it could still be an economic decision, given that. Given how conservative the region is, it's entirely possible that the theater owner was concerned at the possibility of a boycott if the theater showed the film.
I'm not saying that this is certainly the case, but it's a possibility.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Oh, I don't agree with the ideological stance I "invented" for him.
But when I hear hoofbeats, I think "horsies", not "zebras".
[edit for Noemon] Yeah, I think that's a possibility too. I just don't think it's the most likely one. But as kat says, no way for us to determine from here what the motivation was. I just figured if there were boycotts afoot, we'd have heard about it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's a business, and he had already decided to show it. I think it's likely that he made a business decision.
It seems much more likely than a few hours before it opened, the theatre owner said, "Oh my heck, I forgot! I hate gay people!"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How many stinkers does every theatre host a year? A week? This is clearly a case where the theatre owner is making a moral stand against a movie which centrally features a homosexual relationship. Whose theatre is dead center of the most sexually conservative area in the U.S.
I think the claim that this was an economic decision is misguided.
I think the first paragraph I quoted here is pretty good evidence that this was an economic decision.
Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
quote:But when I hear hoofbeats, I think "horsies", not "zebras".
Xan, we're not jumping all over Airmanfour for expressing another opinion. We're jumping all over him for expressing an opinion in deliberate ignorance of the facts; namely, the fact he assumes it could be done just as well with a cowgirl shows that he does not know the story at all, and is just making up his argument as he goes.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Of course, there is the possibility that the theater owner has mixed motivations.
I also want to add that the "horsies, not zebras" and "Oh, heck, I forgot!" lines in this thread both made me giggle out loud.
Edited again to remove an extra word.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Backbone? Are you insane?
Brokeback bone...
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:There is no way either male role could be replaced with a female role and have the story even remotely be the same story.
Legends of the Fall
Only if you're asserting that all movies set in cowboy country are "the same story". Or all movies set in cowboy country and dealing with romantic/sexual relationships. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In a Western setting, after the turn of the century, two people fall madly in love and are able to be together for a season, and then are torn apart because of society's dissaproval. They could be together and one asks for it to happen, but the other refuses to pay the price and reject society to do so. It ends sadly.
The above is the description of both Brockback Mountain and Legends of the Fall.
Not saying that Brokeback Mountain isn't original. However, the central plot is an old story.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xan: Cant say i'm too thrilled myself; while i have nothing against gay people it isnt natural to not like the oposit sex.
It is if you're gay. Actually, if you're gay, it isn't natural not to like the same sex.
quote:Originally posted by Xan: If every man and woman had been gay the human race would never have gotten past the first generation.
God didn't make everyone the same. Not everyone is gay, and not everyone is straight. I mean, if every person in the world spelled as well as you, written communication would be next to impossible. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you spelling that way.
quote:Originally posted by Xan: As i said i ahve nothing against it; doesnt mean its what nature intended.
Doesn't mean it's not.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Because they didn't realize when they booked the movie what it was about? Or what their clientele's social leanings were?
A small percentage of the theatrical releases make a large percentage of the money. Hosting a stinker is no big deal. Cancelling one at the last minute is a big deal. That, to me, says that there's more to it than the possibility of lost revenue. That's before I factor in which movie this happened to, and the possible motives the owner might have for making this call. I don't know, maybe I'm way off base.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:vBecause they didn't realize when they booked the movie what it was about?
Oh, come on!
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
You know, there is the possibility that you're both right--that there was some business/financial motation, and also some consideration of the impact of hosting a film that went against much of the theater's clientele's social leanings.
Posted by Xan (Member # 9015) on :
starLisa. i respect your opinion, i just dont happen to share it.
But i'm not going to keep arguing; its pointless.
As long as i'm not out lynching and insulting gay people does it really matter if it bothers me?
I still have gay friends; so it isnt like my being against it is hurting anyone, people just seem to take it as an insult.
And for the record i'm Taoist, i dont beleive in 'God'. Just for the record so people know 'God intended' doesnt mean much to me. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Megan,
That's totally unacceptable. If this can't be definitively decided by good ole fashioned arguing, then we'll have to arm wrestle. I'm not at all optimistic about my chances.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Oh, you'll do fine.
*aside* $5 on Kat! Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*laugh*
Arm Wrestling: The sure path to truth.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
The central plot is an old plot. The stories are completely different stories. The particular societal disapproval is dramatically different so as to not even be comparable as can be demonstrated by the fact that Legends of the Fall didn't even hit the controvery radar while Brokeback Mountain is all over it.
Oh, and Brokeback Mountain is set closer to the turn of this century than the turn of the last one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So the story is different because the level of disapproval is more extreme, and it starts thirty years later?
It's a difference of degree, not of story.
In other words, is it a universal love story that anyone can relate to, or is it a gay love story and gay love stories are totally, completely different?
---
I was thinking the other day how happy relationships generally make unexciting stories. Two unattached people meet, are attracted, go on a date, have lots in common, kiss and it's great, there is no angst, so they decide to move to Denver together. That's not the story being told.
What was being told was a story of intense, surprising, forbidden love, and the tragedy of how the participants failed to resolve it. I don't think that one kind of forbidden love is so extremely unique that it cannot be analogized to another kind of forbidden love.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think the reason it's different is because a gay love story is totally foreign to a large chunk of the population. And even while most of the elements are the same, the fact that it's a same sex relationship makes the one little change a pretty big one. I for one have no ideas what sort of different challenges being a same sex couple presents.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Are all "love stories" the same? I'm simply asserting that the differences outweigh the similarities to the degree that you can't just plug in a female in one of the roles and have the same story. Do you seriously believe otherwise? If we were argueing Romeo and Juliet vs. West Side Story, you might have a point. But we're not and the point you seem to be making appears to me to be simply to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing. Do you believe that the stories are so similar to one another that swapping either male role for a female role would be insignificant?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:What was being told was a story of intense, surprising, forbidden love, and the tragedy of how the participants failed to resolve it. I don't think that one kind of forbidden love is so extremely unique that it cannot be analogized to another kind of forbidden love.
To quote Dagonee, "Good thing that's not what I was arguing."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I disagree with the proposition that one kind of love has nothing in common with other kinds of love.
I think the reason it resonates with people is because of the irreconcilable, forbidden love part of the story, not because the two leads are both men.
If it succeeds as a story, it lives or dies on the basis of the resonance of that romance. As a story, it will neither fail nor succeed because the leads are gay.
I think the reason it is more powerful now than Legends of the Fall is is because there really isn't any major obstacle for two heterosexual adults to get together. Romantic comedies are generally lame because the writers have to invent reasons for the lovers to not get together, and considering how easy it is to get divorced nowadays, there isn't any good reason why two adults who want to, can't. Could the same movie be just as powerful if the leads were male and female and there was a strong, unbreakable reason for them not to get together that would last as long? I think so - but I can't think of a reason.
Any obstacle not based on a wacky misunderstanding generally just takes a decision to resolve. Just as, when it comes down to it, the reason this story turned out the way it did was because one person refused to take the action that would resolve it.
Brokeback Mountain taking place with male and female leads in an age where people still get stoned for adultery could be the same story.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: But when I hear hoofbeats, I think "horsies", not "zebras".
Really? Even if you're out in the middle of the African bush?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No, I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I disagree with the proposition that one kind of love has nothing in common with other kinds of love.
OK. With whom are you disagreeing then? This started with a presumed rebuttal to my first post in this thread and I have suggested nothing of the kind.
quote: Brokeback Mountain taking place with male and female leads in an age where people still get stoned for adultery could be the same story.
You and I clearly have different ideas of what constitutes the "same story". Perhaps you could come up with a viable story between a man and a woman that we might agree is essentially the "same story", but simply setting it back in an even more puritanical time would not do it. For starters, the reasons a man and a woman would not get together with each other, but choose to start families with others instead of with the one they love are fundamentally different than the reasons two men would choose to do so. Has there even ever been a time or place in history where the love between an unrelated man and woman of the same class was a forbidden love? Was there ever at time where the very fact of the hetero-sexual attraction itself even if not acted on brought society's condemnation and even self loathing to the participants? Do you think the difference between societal disapproval of the situation two lovers find themselves in is the same as societal disapproval of the very nature of the attraction itself?
Read this review and then tell me you honestly believe it is "the same story" as Legends of the Fall or any other heterosexual love story, for that matter, and I'll drop my complaint.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Has there even ever been a time or place in history where the love between an unrelated man and woman of the same class was a forbidden love?
When one of them is married. When one is dying. When one is Muslim and the other is Hindu. When one is an avowed celibate priest. When they are soldiers and their countries are fighting against each other. When their families are historically fueding. When they are both spies. When one is a giant ape!! There are dozens of reasons, ranging from the poingnant to the ridiculous. There are forbidden love stories plastered across history and literature. It was not invented by Oscar Wilde.
I have read the short story, and yes, I honestly believe it has much in common with Legends of the Fall. It's not the exact same story (it's a different movie!), but it is more similar than dissimilar.
From your link:
quote:It is the story of a time and place where two men are forced to deny the only great passion either one will ever feel. Their tragedy is universal. It could be about two women, or lovers from different religious or ethnic groups -- any "forbidden" love.
[ January 09, 2006, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
"Married" is a completely different obstacle than being same sex. Loving someone who is dying is not "forbidden" in the least. In fact nearly any story involving it, the love is considered "noble". Different religions, political affiliations, or species would be covered in my qualification of "the same class". Even in the priest and fueding families stories, it isn't the nature of the love itself that is forbidden, it is the acting on it. Yes, there are "forbidden love stories plastered across history. . . " Again you jab me (with "It was not invented by Oscar Wilde") with insinuations that I'm arguing gay love is some how more tragic or more drama worthy than any other kind of love in the world. Now I'm torn between granting the courtesy of assuming you've actually read what I wrote before responding and assuming that you're not lying when you say you're not arguing just to argue, since I have specifically stated I am not asserting any such thing. Never mind. You win. A story is a story is a story. If you can find the slimmest point wherein two elements intersect then they're basically the same thing. (Is that how the rhetoric works? I'm new at it.)
Edit to respond to your edit: Yes, the TRAGEDY is universal. The tragedy is an element of the story, not the story itself.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not writing to make you upset.
I think you do a great disservice to religion and marriage by saying they are not true obstacles. If it helps to convince you, I can say that I do not believe that either betraying one's spouse or betraying God is noble.
Maybe we are looking at it differently. I've read the short story. I think it is a gay love story - a love story first. It is also a finely developed character sketch of a man crippled by inability to reconcile hisself with himself. Both of those stories do not need to be about someone gay in order to be told.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, to be honest, I am upset, and it don't think it's entirely because this particular subject is personal with me. Though admittedly it is personal and I am therefore more likely less able to argue it dispassionately.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't mean to make you upset.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I think you do a great disservice to religion and marriage by saying they are not true obstacles.
How many words are you going to put in my mouth in this single arguement? This is primarily the reason I am upset. It is something you are too smart not to know you are doing and the primary reason I think you are just argueing to score debate points rather than to actually discuss anything of value.
quote:If it helps to convince you, I can say that I do not believe that either betraying one's spouse or betraying God is noble.
I have no idea why you might think this would "help convince" me or what you are trying to convince me of. The only time I mentioned "noble" love, was in relation to loving one who is dying.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, I am not scoring points. And I'm not being flip.
You keep saying it is fundamentally different, but I don't buy the reasons you have given. As far as I can see, you are saying that in those obstacles, love is still supported as a higher value and therefore forbidden artificially. Is that right?
I'm saying that I don't think that marriage or religion is an artificial taboo. I think that kind of forbidden love is honestly forbidden, and if the people involved let it happen or act on it, they are acting less honorably than if they do not. How is my belief about those obstacles different from society's belief about the two leads of Brokeback Mountain?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Fine, and were you willing to argue the reasons I've given - to show me that you have actually read and given the slightest consideration to my point of view rather than the fictional point of view you have repeatedly implied I am argueing, then we might have a productive discussion. As it is, though, I am increasingly upset at your (albeit percieved) glibness and apparent disregard for what I am saying in favor of some fiction you can better argue against.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm going to respond in about an hour just to give us both time to stop editing what we've written.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, bite me. I wasn't being rude, and I resent the implication.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I just hate living in a country where sexual orientation and sex itself is more offensive to people then violent movies.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't watch violent scenes either. Braveheart was basically pointless to me, and I covered my eyes during the fight scenes in The Chronicles of Narnia.
But it's possible that wasn't directed at me.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
The part of this that I think is bad business is that it was cancelled a few hours before opening, instead of just not being selected when the theater was making up schedules in the first place. When I feel like going to a movie (especially opening weekend) I check the movie times online the day before. I'd be pretty ticked if I showed up at the theater that said they were playing something and then they weren't. Especially if it was a relatively small film that wasn't being shown everywhere to start with.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
I think the fact it's a gay love story entirely changes the dynamics. Whatever we choose to say, men are different from women, and a romance between two men is very different from one between women. So yes, there is a clear distinction. And it is important: I'd say "boy meets boy" is a completely separate plot type from "boy meets girl". Or, for that matter, "girl meets girl".
That doesn't mean straight audiences can't relate to it. A good film allows you to relate to a role in life that's alien to you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'd argue that the cowboy setting adds another layer to the story. No other setting in the American mythological canon conveys an equivilent sense of lonliness and isolation. I don't see that you could have a forbidden love story told in this setting that involved a man and a woman that was comparable to one involving a man and a man.
There may be only seven basic stories, but there are worlds...or rather entire universes...of differences in the tellings of these stories.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I just hate living in a country where sexual orientation and sex itself is more offensive to people then violent movies.
Which country has tastes more aligned with yours? Because I think this country is pretty darn permissive about most stuff.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Is one theater not showing one movie really that big of a deal? I mean is this item really that newsworthy?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:You keep saying it is fundamentally different, but I don't buy the reasons you have given. As far as I can see, you are saying that in those obstacles, love is still supported as a higher value and therefore forbidden artificially. Is that right?
No. That is not right. I do not believe that love is still supported as a "higher value" at all. But at the very least it is understood and accepted as a natural feeling that would be just fine if all those other obstacles (artificial or otherwise) were removed. That is decidedly not the case between two men. There are very few love situations that are not fundamentally changed when the love is between two men, even in societies where homosexuality has been more accepted than in ours. In other words, if the man were not a priest, it would be fine for him to act on his love of that woman. Take away the war between their countries, it is just fine for him and her to get together. Or to make it clearer, no one faults the priest because he finds a woman attractive as long as he doesn't act on it. Marriage isn't an artificial taboo, but it is widely known that attraction itself does not recognize the taboo. It's widely accepted as natural that in many circumstances feelings can and will pop up between men and women who are not available. The taboo isn't in having the feelings, it is in acting on them.
quote:How is my belief about those obstacles different from society's belief about the two leads of Brokeback Mountain?
The fundamental difference is that the love between two men itself is considered taboo whether they act on it or not. The very idea of the attraction is widely considered perverse. Male lovers not only have to contend with acting in opposition to their desires or not, but also in dealing with feelings they are told are in their very nature perverse, or evil, or somehow pathological. The story of Brokeback Mountain (the movie) would not even exist if it were between a man and a woman. They would meet and fall in love and probably get married, all other things being equal. You could not make a plausible story by swapping genders with a character alone. You would have to introduce some other obstacle that would make them forgo desires that otherwise would be considered fine to act upon. For the two men in Brokeback Mountain, there is no "otherwise".
I think that difference is pretty fundamental.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tante, The "permissiveness" of our society is rooted in it's prudishness. The uproar over Janet Jackson's bare nipple is directly related to the tittilation people got out of "OMG, a nipple!!!!". There's not that much difference between the American public's fascination with sex and its disgust with it. It's almost the same thing and just as unhealthy in either form.
For myself, I'd prefer that sex (while still being important) not be such a big deal, as either a postive or a negative.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It isn't fair to say that it isn't the same story becuase another obstacle would have to be created. Of course another obstacle would have to be created, or else there would be no story at all. That's what I meant earlier about few love stories being about happy relationships that never had any deterents. It's bad for drama.
I don't believe that "the course of true love never did run smooth." Sometimes it does. That doesn't mean it isn't true love - it just means it would be a really boring movie.
I can think of exceptions to this:
quote:But at the very least it is understood and accepted as a natural feeling that would be just fine if all those other obstacles (artificial or otherwise) were removed.
, but I can't think of any that won't make you mad.
I think what you are saying that it is different because in order for what they want to be okay, they would have to be other people entirely. Yes, I can think of other situations that fit that description, but none that you won't be offended by or else dismiss offhand.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Is one theater not showing one movie really that big of a deal? I mean is this item really that newsworthy?
I don't think so, considering other theaters in the same area are showing it, so no one is deprived by the action. However, having sat in many a movie alone or with only two other people in the audience, and having witnessed many films showing automatically to completely empty houses, I simply can't believe that the consideration was economics alone except insofar as it is in reaction to a threatened or feared backlash by other patrons opposed to the subject matter of the movie.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:a threatened or feared backlash by other patrons opposed to the subject matter of the movie.
This is still economics.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Since the movie opened in a limited release, overall gross isn't a good indicator. With independent films like this, the best indicator is per screen daily gross.
This past weekend, Brokeback Mountain had a per screen average gross of $11,904 (in its fifth week). The next closest to it was Hostel ($9,157) in its opening weekend. Not a fair comparison. Perhaps a better comparison is movies at a similar stage of their runs. Narnia's per screen average was $4,390 (also in week 5) and was number two (behind Hostel) in total weekly revenue.
Another theatre in Salt Lake showed Brokeback Mountain and posted the 9th highest per screen gross. Still think it was economics?
quote:It isn't fair to say that it isn't the same story becuase another obstacle would have to be created.
I don't feel that it is unfair in the least. I feel that this particular obstacle is significantly different enough that to change it changes the fundamental nature of the story. To water the story down to "two people with a forbidden love", while making it easier to compare it to a million other stories, also makes discussion of the story itself meaningless. The forbidden love between a man and his brother's wife is a very different taboo from the forbidden love between two un-attached, adult males.
quote:I think what you are saying that it is different because in order for what they want to be okay, they would have to be other people entirely.
I don't think it's as easy as that. If they are other people does that make what they want OK, or does it simply make them want something else that is already OK?
Again, nowhere have I said that similarities can't be drawn between certain aspects of Brokeback Mountain and any number of other stories. What I have said, and continue to maintain, is that replacing either male role with a female would make the story fundamentally a different one.
Sure, if you state the plot in a simplistic enough way you can get it to fit a loose category, but "Forbidden love" is not a story. "Boy meets Girl" (to paraphrase Black Mage) is a story, but it isn't the same story as "Boy meets Boy".
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Actually, if you knew anything about the movie booking business, you'd realize that this had to be a moral decision and not a financial one. This could cost him a lot more than a few customers. But, I'm willing to bet there won't be much retaliation because it's Utah. If this happened in NYC, I bet the theater owner would be out of business.
And just FYI, per screen, Brokeback is making more money than any other currently in theaters.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Sorry Spang, I was typing when you posted and I didn't see your post. But yeah, what you said.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Here's why it's not a business decision.
This film has been selling out screens like crazy in limited release. Salt Lake City is not a conservative demographic; we elect liberal Mayors. We are Democrats. The majority of Salt-Lakers are non-LDS.
Fahrenhet 911 *killed* here. And Brokeback Mountain is selling out shows all day long in the two theaters where it's playing.
It will cost Larry H. Miller money to do what he did. It will cost him money in future business dealings with Focus Features, lost revenues. (I have to wonder what they're doing. Are they leaving a theater sitting empty right now because they don't have a film booked into it?) And it will cost him money because he undoubtedly will still have to pay for the booking.
And unfortunately it cost Focus Features quite a bit of money, also. It cost them several thousand dollars to strike that print, and ship it to new the theater. Hopefully the print is still in good shape after the Larry H. Miller threadmonkeys had their hands on it.
They didn't pull it until hours before it was set to start. Which means:
It was viewed by the theater's staff a day or two earlier.
When movie theaters get new movies, they have to be built-up and pre-screened by the management to make sure there are no problems with the print. So what most likely happened is, upon viewing it, management said to themselves, "We're not showing this," because they found it personally offensive.
That's just a guess.
But it absolutely, 100% without a doubt was not a busines decision. If it was a business decision, they wouldn't have booked the movie in the first place.
These people are showing some bombs, folks. Blood Rayne, anyone?
Whereas Brokeback Mountain was awarded best film of the year by the film critics in Utah.
etc.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
JT-
That doesn't preclude it from being economic. Let's say a substantial group of frequent moviegoers (say families from the area) threatened to boycott the theater. The amount of lost revenue from Chronicles of Narnia and King Kong might make up the revenue differential between Brokeback and whatever was shown in its place. And if I read you right, Brokeback was having a relatively (to the national average) poor showing at another Utah theater. Placing 9th in SLC, while placing 1st nationally might indicate a weak market for the film. Screen time in that market might more economically be given to more showings of something with a better per screen average.
That being said, I'm with Mandy (?) in that the decision was probably affected by both economic and personal considerations.
And in response to Kayla, I think the decision in Utah is likely to win him customers rather than the other way around. It certainly isn't NYC.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:To water the story down to "two people with a forbidden love"
Why do you think it would be watering down? I don't agree that this kind of forbidden love is more intense than any other possible kind of forbidden love.
quote:If they are other people does that make what they want OK, or does it simply make them want something else that is already OK?
If they are other people, this is no longer their story. Because they are other people. It is a story where the love is impossible with who they are.
Since Denver is mentioned is a possibility, that which makes it impossible is as much the character of Ennis as anything else.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:What was being told was a story of intense, surprising, forbidden love, and the tragedy of how the participants failed to resolve it. I don't think that one kind of forbidden love is so extremely unique that it cannot be analogized to another kind of forbidden love.
To quote Dagonee, "Good thing that's not what I was arguing."
When I went back to look at what you quoted, I got cross-eyed and thought you had posted "What was being told was a story..."
Needless to say I was confused until I figured out my mistake.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Senjo, if groups of moviegoers were threatening to boycott the theater (which is preposterous), there would have been just as much news and uproar as there has been about the cancellation.
It didn't happen.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
No, the way to read that is that the other SLC theatre which showed the movie had the 9th highest per screen average take in the nation.
That shows demand, locally.
And I've never said it couldn't be an economic decision, what I've said was that I find it unlikely.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Since the movie was booked and then later removed, I still think it was an economic decision.
Where's the ire for all the theatres that never booked it in the first place?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:a threatened or feared backlash by other patrons opposed to the subject matter of the movie.
This is still economics.
Did you not read my post, or did you leave out the "except insofar as" part on purpose to serve your rebuttal. Your answer will reveal whether my frustration with you today is because of your inattention or because of your deliberate mis-representation of my point of view. You've done this repeatedly throughout this discussion. I think it is at best disrespectful and at worst insidiously dishonest. I hesitate to type this because I dislike getting personal on a public forum and for the most part I like you. But sometimes your posts frustrate me to the very core and invariably it is when you utilize this sort of oblique mis-statement of an arguement, for whatever reason you do it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, I'm not, and repeatedly accusing me of not dealing in good faith is pissing me off.
You are just going to have to deal that someone intelligent can understand you and still disagree. I'm done. *furious*
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: And in response to Kayla, I think the decision in Utah is likely to win him customers rather than the other way around. It certainly isn't NYC.
Not if the bookers blackball him and he can't get a movie in the theater.
Like I said, if you knew anything about how movies actually get into a theater, you'd realize that the studios are basically a monopoly.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Just so we're clear, this is what Karl said, with my bolding:
quote:I simply can't believe that the consideration was economics alone except insofar as it is in reaction to a threatened or feared backlash by other patrons opposed to the subject matter of the movie.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, You haven't been treating Karl or Karl's argument with much respect. The "This is still economics." is a good example of what you've been doing.
I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but Karl's got plenty of reason to not expect good faith from you, in terms of you actually trying to understand what he is trying to say.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:Since the movie was booked and then later removed, I still think it was an economic decision.
Where's the ire for all the theaters that never booked it in the first place?
Again, you have no idea how the industry works. If you did, you wouldn't have asked the question.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mr. Squicky, I know you love commenting on me, but you are not helping.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I'm never going to love you, Squicky - stop stalking me.
Oh my. The tale of woe that is Squicky's doomed love for katharina...
Brokeback Hatrack.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:you'd realize that the studios are basically a monopoly.
Disney will be glad to hear it. "Pixar, you are ours, no matter what you do. Mwahaaaaaahaaa! PREPARE TO UNLEASH 'NEMO SWIMS AGAIN!'"
I don't think the non-booking has had any real effect beyond making kat and Karl mad at each other.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Perhaps they are not objecting to and pulling the movie because the characters are gay, but because the two main characters cheat on their wives? Why would the gay community support this film? Simply because the characters are gay and played by well known actors? That seems a bit silly to me that the gay community supports a film simply because it portrays a homosexual relationship. I have to believe that people who are gay have morals, so why support a movie which promotes homosexuals as lacking morals and willing to betray their significant other because of a sexual desire?
If the movie switched one of the men with a woman it would still be a movie about cheating on a spouse and I imagine the people in Utah would object to that as well.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
This movie, I find less offensive than say, Million Dollar Baby, but I do respect the theater owner's right not to show it. Whatever his reasons are, he has the right as a business owner to make decisions about what is shown in his cineplex. Now, if there are repurcussions for breaking a contract agreement, then he should have to suffer those and if the public is upset by his actions they certainly can show it by refusing to patronize his business in the future.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
uh oh. Somebody didn't edit her post in time. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I changed it for Squicky's sake, but I'm sure he appreciates the original quoting.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I do respect the theater owner's right not to show it.
I don't respect anyone making horrible financial decisions based upon what, basically, appears to be a biased and ugly personal viewpoint.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I don't respect anyone making horrible financial decisions based upon what, basically, appears to be a biased and ugly personal viewpoint.
I do. Because business owners have the right to do stupid things based on any kind of reason. The beauty is, if the public agrees with you, the business owner will pay for it by losing business.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
To TL: Spoken like armchair moralist who has never had a business to run.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Perhaps they are not objecting to and pulling the movie because the characters are gay, but because the two main characters cheat on their wives? Why would the gay community support this film? Simply because the characters are gay and played by well known actors? That seems a bit silly to me that the gay community supports a film simply because it portrays a homosexual relationship. I have to believe that people who are gay have morals, so why support a movie which promotes homosexuals as lacking morals and willing to betray their significant other because of a sexual desire?
If the movie switched one of the men with a woman it would still be a movie about cheating on a spouse and I imagine the people in Utah would object to that as well.
One of the many problems with this argument is the fact that the people in Utah aren't objecting to this movie at all and it's not just "the gay community" that is supporting it.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Spoken like armchair moralist who has never had a business to run.
I run a business. Wrap your head around the fact that Larry H. Miller's decision is costing him many thousands of dollars in lost revenue.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wrap your head around the fact that he may have reasons other than the ones you choose to invent for him.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Because business owners have the right to do stupid things based on any kind of reason.
I'm not arguing against his right to do it. I'm saying I don't respect what I consider to be the utter stupidity of it.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
When my husband and I owned a business we made lots of decisions that cost us money because of our moral principles. Lots. Had we compromised our beliefs on certain things, like say overcharging customers, paying bribes to inspection officials, and other things we'd probably still be in business and have made a huge profit. But we didn't do it because our own moral principles were more important to us than money.
If this man has made a decision based on moral principles (and from what I've read he hasn't commented so we don't even know if that's the case) I do respect it. I would respect a Jewish theater owner who didn't want to show Passion of the Christ for example, if he thought it was anti-Semitic. I disagree that it was anti-Semitic but I would respect his decision to not show it.
For whatever reason this guy chose to pull Brokeback Mountain, I say he had the right to do so and I have no quarrel with it. Some things are more important than money. If this is one of those things for this theater owner, then I respect him for his stand, even if I may not entirely agree with it. Like I said, I find many more movies more offensive to me than the thought of this one.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, If I could break through your shell of perceived victimhood and egocentrism, I think it might help. Your behavior here is not correct. You are obviously not paying enough attention to what Karl is saying, as the example he provided (which you've pretty completely ignored) shows extremely clearly.
If you accept that and even perhaps try not to do it in the future, you can have a respectful conversation here, and, who knows, maybe Hatrack will be a less nasty place. Otherwise, I don't think you're going to be able to. But the choice is yours.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
katharina, holy crap. You just have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky, if only I respected anything you said. Seriously, why do you follow me around commenting on me? You know I don't listen, so I am forced to believe you are either obsessed or using me to preen. Either way, knock it off.
Here were my choices as presented to me.
1. Agree with Karl. 2. Be an idiot. 3. Be dishonest.
You don't understand why I'm angry about that?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Belle, Would you respect a racist theater owner's decision not to show films that cast black characters in a positive light? Is it just making a stand on your beliefs that is important or do the content of the beliefs matter as well?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No, I'm not, and repeatedly accusing me of not dealing in good faith is pissing me off.
You are just going to have to deal that someone intelligent can understand you and still disagree. I'm done. *furious*
I'm still waiting to find out how you disagree with me. Your points of disagreement have been:
quote:I don't think that one kind of forbidden love is so extremely unique that it cannot be analogized to another kind of forbidden love.
quote: I disagree with the proposition that one kind of love has nothing in common with other kinds of love.
quote:I think you do a great disservice to religion and marriage by saying they are not true obstacles.
and
quote:As far as I can see, you are saying that in those obstacles, love is still supported as a higher value and therefore forbidden artificially. Is that right?
None of those are remotely what I have argued, and only in the last case did you do me the courtesy of flagging your mis-statement of my arguement as an attempt at re-stating it and asking if you got it right. The other ones are nothing more than figments of your own mind you try to attribute to me for reasons unimaginable to me if I can't assume you're just trying to score points.
I have no doubt that you are intelligent. I have no doubt that you disagree with me. Perhaps that disagreement is legitimate, or perhaps it is because you just want to disagree, but for all your intelligence you haven't demonstrated the former. I'm sorry that my calling you on it has pissed you off. I hope my record here at Hatrack shows that I don't generally make a habit of jumping to offense.
quote:You are just going to have to deal that someone intelligent can understand you and still disagree.
I re-quote this because I hope I'm not deluded in my feeling that you must be about the only person on this board who even remotely feels I have problems "dealing" with people who disagree with me. I do have a problem dealing with people who repeatedly and unappologetically mis-state my arguement and then rebut the mis-statement.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Again, you have no idea how the industry works. If you did, you wouldn't have asked the question.
Presumably the movie theater owner does understand how the industry worked. It might not have been an accurate economic decision, but I seriously doubt a theater owner would take action he thinks will cause him serious economic harm.
I think it was definitely an economic decision, based on an assessment of the likely economic impact of the moral issues surrounding the film. If a theater thinks the backlash from patrons for playing the movie would be worse than the fines and the backlash from distributors, then it is an economic decision to drop the movie.
Under that analysis, it is accurate to say it was pulled based on moral sensibilities and it is accurate to say it was pulled for economic reasons.
Either way, I have no problem with a theater dropping films considered objectionable by its patrons, as long as contractual obligations are fulilled.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Here were my choices as presented to me.
1. Agree with Karl. 2. Be an idiot. 3. Be dishonest.
*still angry* I think you're biased on this topic and refuse to grant what I'm saying legitimacy. That's not my problem.
I'm saying exactly what the link you provided said - did you see that part? That it's a love story first, and that it's an old story with a different twist on it. Maybe you disagree with how similiar stories need to be before they are the same story, but it is highly unfair for you to paint me as stupid or dishonest because I don't agree with you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, The option you are being asked to consider is to actually read what Karl has written and respond to that, rather than the much wekaer arguments that you've made up for him. I don't think you're getting that you are clearly not accurately getting what Karl is saying.
Think about it, you've accused Karl of not being able to handle people disagreeing with him. You might want to consider that other people might have a point here.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Promethius: Perhaps they are not objecting to and pulling the movie because the characters are gay, but because the two main characters cheat on their wives? Why would the gay community support this film? Simply because the characters are gay and played by well known actors? That seems a bit silly to me that the gay community supports a film simply because it portrays a homosexual relationship. I have to believe that people who are gay have morals, so why support a movie which promotes homosexuals as lacking morals and willing to betray their significant other because of a sexual desire?
If the movie switched one of the men with a woman it would still be a movie about cheating on a spouse and I imagine the people in Utah would object to that as well.
This is a very good point and one I'd like to address. The story resonates with me, not because of the cheating or because I feel that "love conquers all" or anything of the sort. The story is very real in that these two men had a love that was doomed from the start. They could have nourished their love from the beginning and been killed for it later. They could have lied to themselves about who they are and lost themselves in the false lives they built to fill the void.
I know what it's like to be expected to marry despite being gay. I was counseled by more than one religious leader that I needed to get married and the feelings I was struggling with would probably go away. I was even told by one of them that it would be a good idea if I got married to not discuss my homosexual tendencies with my prospective wife because it would be harder to put them behind me. I think the far greater sin than cheating on their wives was getting married to them in the first place. But regardless, seeing, enjoying, being moved by, or otherwise supporting a film does not equal support of all the choices of the characters involved therein. I loved Requiem for a Dream but despised nearly every choice of every character in it. I love the film because it made me love the characters in it despite the errors of their choices. I felt I knew them and cared for them even as they basically went to hell on earth. That made the film all the more powerful.
A film can be important and worthy of support if it is truthful, even if the truth it shows isn't pleasant, or even noble, or if the moral choices of the characters is questionable.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Belle, Would you respect a racist theater owner's decision not to show films that cast black characters in a positive light? Is it just making a stand on your beliefs that is important or do the content of the beliefs matter as well?
I would not respect his reason for making the decision, but I would respect his right to make it.
I dont' think a person like that would be in business very long, fortunately.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
The movie theater owner has little say over what movies he'll be allowed to show and at what price. It's often the case where the booker takes a few dogs to get a good movie. Or they'll agree to run it in a certain number of theaters, or only in theaters with a certain type of sound system. Or they might take a bigger percent of the take the first few weeks. The distributors are the ones with the power.
It will be interesting to see if there is any fall out from this (in the theaters ability to book future movies, not whether or not people boycott the theater.) Right now, I don't think any of us are in a position to say that this was a financial decision. I'm not even sure if the owner knows the full ramifications of his actions yet. Like I said, the distributors may be forgiving because it's Utah. Or because the owner is high-profile. But to say, as many have, that this movie was pulled for financial reasons is, at best, only half true. But I doubt it's even half true.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky, seriously, go away. I don't feel like being your practice field for the lay psychology. You do not have permission to comment on me, and your continued insistence on doing so is creeping me out.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: No, the way to read that is that the other SLC theatre which showed the movie had the 9th highest per screen average take in the nation.
Oh, well, erm, oops. Thanks for the (polite) clarification.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Depends on what time period he was doing it in. He'd have had no trouble for the majority of time there were movie theaters.
So, in this case, if the theater owner made his deciosn because of having problems with gays, is it admirable or just something he has a right to do?
To me, there's a big difference between what people have a right to do and things I don't have a problem with.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kayla, you seem to be assuming that a financial decision can't be bad. Whether or not the owner knows the full ramifications of his actions yet is not relevant as to whether he had financial reasons for his decision.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Very, very well said in your last posts KarlEd, Kayla, and MrSquicky.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wondered how long before Peter appeared.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: You do not have permission to comment on me, and your continued insistence on doing so is creeping me out.
Holy crap. We have to get permission to respond to your comments?
I don't think so. You put them out there, we comment on them. If it creeps you out, stop posting.
quote:Kayla, you seem to be assuming that a financial decision can't be bad.
I'm not assuming that. He could be making a bad financial decision. However, if that were true, then the reason he pulled the movie from the theater wouldn't be because "for financial reasons" as adamantly argued early by others.
If he knew it was a bad financial decision, the only reason to do it would be because of his moral code.
And if he pulled it without knowing the full financial cost, he's a fool, but is still pulling it for other than financial reasons.
Can you think of a reason to pull the movie and lose money?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, You seem to have mistaken Hatrack for your imperial throne room. If you want me to stop trying to get you to behave respectfully and errr non-nastily, I think your best bet may be to start behaving more respectfully and non-nastily. But who knows, maybe the dictatorial commands will work out for you. Good luck with that.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Here were my choices as presented to me.
1. Agree with Karl. 2. Be an idiot. 3. Be dishonest.
You don't understand why I'm angry about that?
You forgot #4. Acknowledge that you've mis-represented my arguement repeatedly, at least as I have pointed your mis-representations out.
I don't care if you agree with me. Lots of people disagree with me. I'm fine with disagreement. I don't even care about an apology. I'd just like some indication that you understand why I'm upset with you and that it's even the slightest bit important to you that we not be upset at one another. I know that I have been harder on you than I normally am with people, but I feel very disrespected by you in this thread. Feeling that way, I've been very careful to state only what I believe is the truth of the situation and to not be unnecessarily vicious. You've given me "Bite me." So, yeah, I kinda do wonder why you are angry at anyone but yourself.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:So, in this case, if the theater owner made his deciosn because of having problems with gays, is it admirable or just something he has a right to do?
It's something he has a right to do. His reasons for it may or may not be admirable. I think I said (no, I KNOW I said) I didn't really have much of a problem with the film. It doesn't cause me to lose sleep to think there is a film out there about gay characters in a forbidden love arrangement.
But I don't have a problem with what the theater owner did regardless of his reason. If a racist theater owner refused to show Glory Road for example, I wouldn't have a problem with it, because it's his decision and he will either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences of the decision. I probably would personally choose never to patronize that particular theater again, but I don't think there should be anything that prevents him from making that type of decision. He has the right to make the decision and I have the right to decide not to give him any of my money. Just like this situation - if people are upset, then don't go there.
I would suspect he is already paying some type of financial price because he broke a contractual agreement. He may pay an even greater one. Maybe he'll even wind up out of business over it. Maybe it's the stupidest decision he ever made. I still support his right to make that decision.
Just because you don't agree with people on certain subjects doesn't mean you can't respect their rights. I respect the right of the KKK to exist and to assemble under the first amendment, even though I find their beliefs reprehensible.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Karl, I haven't suggested that the reason we disagree is because you are being stupid or dishonest. You are feeling disrespected?
quote:You forgot #4. Acknowledge that you've mis-represented my arguement repeatedly, at least as I have pointed your mis-representations out.
That's just #3 restated.
No, I do not want us to be upset with each other. I also do want to feel like if I disagree with you, then I am doing something wrong, either through stupidity or dishonesty. It is so unfair to suggest that.
Do you disagree that this is a forbidden love story, and it belongs in the same category as other forbidden love stories?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Belle, And I agree with you on that. There should be nothing to prevent this guy or the KK or whoever from exercising their rights. But we've got the right to approve or disapprove of their decisions.
I'd read what you said before:
quote:If this man has made a decision based on moral principles (and from what I've read he hasn't commented so we don't even know if that's the case) I do respect it.
as implying that you respect this decsion, not on a "he's got the right to do it" basis, but because he made a stand based on his moral principles.
edit: Although going back over your last, I get the feeling that we're using different meanings for things. The way I'm saying things, choosing never to go to a theater whose owner wouldn't show Glory Road because he was racist would constitute having a problem with his decision. You seem to be using it more in a "he should legally be prohibited from doing this" way. I think, anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, if that were true, then the reason he pulled the movie from the theater wouldn't be because "for financial reasons" as adamantly argued early by others. If he knew it was a bad financial decision, the only reason to do it would be because of his moral code. And if he pulled it without knowing the full financial cost, he's a fool, but is still pulling it for other than financial reasons. Can you think of a reason to pull the movie and lose money?
Sure. But I doubt anyone at this point can say he will definitely lose money, and it's a far cry from misanalyzing the repercussions and being a "fool." It's very possible that if the distributors retaliate, he'll attract customers who like him "standing up to Hollywood."
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Dagonee, we absolutely *can* say he will lose money. In fact, he already HAS lost money from the cancellation.
What is conjecture is whether or not the cancellation will end up having some kind of positive effect in the future that will make up for that lost revenue.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Customers seeing what movies, exactly. Like I said, the movie distribution industry is a cartel. When you're blacklisted, what movies are you going to show?
Sure, it's extreme, and unlikely to happen to a theater in Utah, especially one owned by such a high profile person. But, if the industry wanted to, they could bankrupt a regular theater owner.
But like I said, I doubt that will happen. Focus Films might never give him another chance at a film, but I think the fall out will barely register with this guy. My only point is that there is no way anyone can say this was a financial decision with at least acknowledging the fact that the financial decision was based on a moral code.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
To me, the thing I object to the most about this situation is the stain of negative perception it leaves on the great state of Utah.
Everywhere else in the world people are reading about this and thinking that Utahns really are this backwards; when in fact we're not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat,
quote:That's just #3 restated.
It really isn't, you know. People often misunderstand each other and make mistakes based on this misunderstanding, even when they are not trying to do so. I've even said I don't think that you're doing this on purpose.
You're a proud person, but I believe you have it in you to admit that you've made mistakes and even behaved disrespctfully. I think you'd have more to be proud of if you did this than if you continue insisting that there's no way you could have done anything wrong and that the people saying that you did are just out to get you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What part of go away do you not understand? I don't want you analyzing me - it's creeping me out.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Karl, I haven't suggested that the reason we disagree is because you are being stupid or dishonest. You are feeling disrespected?
quote:You forgot #4. Acknowledge that you've mis-represented my arguement repeatedly, at least as I have pointed your mis-representations out.
That's just #3 restated.
No, I do not want us to be upset with each other. I also do want to feel like if I disagree with you, then I am doing something wrong, either through stupidity or dishonesty. It is so unfair to suggest that.
I think it's abundantly clear that you have misrepresented my arguement in several places. I have pointed them out to you. I won't call this "stupidity", per se, but it is at the very least disrespect of my posting, especially in light of the fact that you don't even acknowledge that you have done so. Only you know to what degree the offense is dishonesty or whether it is something else, but that the offense exists is plainly posted throughout this thread. It's not unfair to suggest some sort of deficiency on your part in this, but stupid is your word, not mine, and I'm open to any other adjectives you want to give it.
quote:Do you disagree that this is a forbidden love story, and it belongs in the same category as other forbidden love stories?
Of course not. I implied as much above. But again, "Forbidden Love" is not a story or even plot. It is a category. Brokeback Mountain isn't the same story as Legends of the Fall or Romeo and Juliette or The Tragic Story of the Cat Who Loved the Dog. Despite all of them being stories of Forbidden Love. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, we absolutely *can* say he will lose money. In fact, he already HAS lost money from the cancellation.
Money is fungible, and I was using the term "lose money" as an evaluation of all the effects.
quote:Customers seeing what movies, exactly. Like I said, the movie distribution industry is a cartel. When you're blacklisted, what movies are you going to show?
Sure, it's extreme, and unlikely to happen to a theater in Utah, especially one owned by such a high profile person. But, if the industry wanted to, they could bankrupt a regular theater owner.
As you said, it's unlikely.
quote:My only point is that there is no way anyone can say this was a financial decision with at least acknowledging the fact that the financial decision was based on a moral code.
Which I did (and I know you didn't say I didn't ).
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:edit: Although going back over your last, I get the feeling that we're using different meanings for things. The way I'm saying things, choosing never to go to a theater whose owner wouldn't show Glory Road because he was racist would constitute having a problem with his decision. You seem to be using it more in a "he should legally be prohibited from doing this" way. I think, anyway.
Yes, Squicky, I was thinking more in the line of he shouldn't be prohibited from doing this and I don't think anyone has implied that he should.
So, like you said earlier, there needs to be demarcation - I can respect a right to do something even if I disagree with the reason behind it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Karl,
Then we are disagreeing on what the term "same" means. I think they are all the same story, in that they all resonate for the same reason and all work as stories for the same reason. Halfway through the story, I knew how it had to end, because that's how forbidden love stories in our culture end. To me, that makes it the same story. That's not an insult or a dismissal - it's an aknowledgement the story is part of the universal human story.
How is that a bad thing?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Do you disagree that this is a forbidden love story, and it belongs in the same category as other forbidden love stories?
I'm pretty sure most of page two was devoted to this very topic. Were you not paying attention. He repeatedly said they were not. Unless you only read the one concession he made which was "You win. A story is a story is a story. If you can find the slimmest point wherein two elements intersect then they're basically the same thing."
Every movie with a horse is the same story. Is that your point?
quote: Everywhere else in the world people are reading about this and thinking that Utahns really are this backwards; when in fact we're not.
Hey, at least you're not Kansas. (That should be the new Utah State Motto. "Hey, at least we aren't Kansas.") Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Too bad Karl posted before you did, Kayla - his aknowldgement just highlights how rude you are.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:What part of go away do you not understand? I don't want you analyzing me - it's creeping me out.
What part of "this is a public forum and any member can comment on any post" do you not understand?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The part where he's making me uncomfortable. It's creepy.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Star Wars and Blue Velvet are the same story. Both have bad guys who wear black and breathe through masks, and a hero who yearns for adventure.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, I wasn't here for page 2, but I think that being so rude and dismissive of kat was a bit uncalled for, kayla.
I think she makes very valid points, I think all of us here have probably done some study of mythic archetype, and there are universal story themes that resonate, that's why they get repeated so often.
And I'm puzzled why the idea that Brokeback Mountain is an archetypal forbidden love story is a bad thing.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
It's rather obvious from the time stamps that I was typing when he posted.
It's more obvious how incredibly rude you are.
At least I didn't tell anyone to "bite me." I guess that's not rude.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Belle, The mythical archetype thing isn't really what's being debated though. Both Karl and I have made the point that, yes, this story fits into the "Forbidden Love" catgeory, but that it is also indelibly marked by being a man-man "forbidden love" story. Karl's argument, to me, seems to say that removing this element would completely change the story (I don't know. Haven't seen it.).
edit: That is, I don't think anyone (except for kat when she describes her version of what Karl is saying) is saying that it's incorrect to consider Brokeback Mountain as part of the "Forbidden Love" archetype. What Karl was saying is that it is incorrect to say that it could be essentially the same story if the principles were a man and a woman.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Karl,
Then we are disagreeing on what the term "same" means. I think they are all the same story, in that they all resonate for the same reason and all work as stories for the same reason. Halfway through the story, I knew how it had to end, because that's how forbidden love stories in our culture end. To me, that makes it the same story. That's not an insult or a dismissal - it's an aknowledgement the story is part of the universal human story.
How is that a bad thing?
I said very early on that we were using different thresholds of "same". Again, I have absolutley no problem with you disagreeing with me.
I hope you will re-read this thread carefully. I respect your disagreement with me to the degree it is disagreement with me. I do not appreciate the "<insert something Karl didn't say in such a way that it looks like his arguement> <insert pithy counter-arguement>" manner in which the discussion progressed. I think you will find that my anger is born of this irresponsible arguing tactic and not of any legitimate disagreement. That IMO poor tactic is why I feel disrespected. I'm sorry for the hard words, but I do feel they are warranted. Maybe this should have happened in private email. Maybe it wouldn't have happened there. I honestly don't feel, however, that I have been out of line. I'm willing to consider evidence (in context) to the contrary. I don't think "You have misrepresented me. It seems that is carelessness or dishonesty" is out of line. I don't think it's out of line to lean more toward the latter when the instances are pointed out and pointedly ignored. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My point is that if it is still about forbidden love and hits the same plot points (meeting, yearning, obstacles, meeting despire obstacles, tragedy), then it is still the same archetypal story. It's been changed, but not "completely" changed. It has not suddenly become Hero's Quest or Coming of Age or Othello.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:Well, I wasn't here for page 2, but I think that being so rude and dismissive of kat was a bit uncalled for, kayla.
You should go back and read page 2 then. kat is being incredibly dismissive of Karl. And now she seems to be insisting that some people aren't allowed to comment on her posts. Talk about dismissive and uncalled for.
quote: I think all of us here have probably done some study of mythic archetype, and there are universal story themes that resonate, that's why they get repeated so often.
Absolutely. And I wouldn't have any problem with agreeing with the fact that, if painted with a broad brush, this was a forbidden love story, if I were discussing it with you.
Which is exactly where the problem is. While some people can say, "sure, I'll grant that in broad terms, this is a forbidden love story, if you'll grant that there is huge difference between the societal taboo on homosexuality and that is the very difference makes it unlike any other 'forbidden love story' ever made."
kat refuses to acknowledge that there is a lot more to this movie than broad strokes. It's nothing new for her, but that is the problem.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kayla, bored again? You and Squicky, I swear.
Okay, this:
quote:I'll grant that in broad terms, this is a forbidden love story, if you'll grant that there is huge difference between the societal taboo on homosexuality and that is the very difference makes it unlike any other 'forbidden love story' ever made."
This is the opinion I do NOT hold. I think it is different, but not VERY different.
That, apparently, is the opinion that I am not allowed to have if I am to remain either intelligent or honest. Too bad - I'm both and I still don't agree with it. I don't think that this kind of forbidden love is so completely different than its intensity or tragedy cannot be matched by any other.
If that is a misrepresentation of your view, then what is your view? Everything I have read from you seems to support that, and I don't agree with you. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I don't know if I understand what's being debated her. That forbidden love is forbidden love or that the story would change if the characters were not two men.
Is it, at its heart, the same story as a white person loving a black slave? Or a Christian loving a Jew a way back when? In a sense, yes. There were times when such a union would go completely against the social fabric and just having such feelings would be considered wrong, as homosexuality does to many today.
But, that being the case, no this story would not be the same if you changed the gender of one of the characters. For the very simple reason that the audience is as important as the author when telling a story. I don't think one can discount the times in which it was written and for who it was written so easily.
Edit: Man, I left this reply open back a page or two when we were more concerned with the story than who may or may not be a bad person. Yeesh.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yeah, we stalk you. We can't help it. If you ever left Hatrack, what would we talk about?
I'm thinking we should start calling you the Artful Dodger, though. I've never seen anyone dodge an argument like you do. That was a brilliant change of topic.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, but what you've been saying is roughly the equivilent of "You could tell Ender's Game without it it being in space and it would be the same story." or "Ender's Game and The Illiad are the same story."
Broadly true, but false for almost any level of specifics.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You'd cry for days, and you know it. It's so hard to be fascinating. I guess I don't mind your stalking so much - it's flattering in a sick and twisted way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squick, it isn't false. I'm not misrepresenting squat. I'm just apparently looking at it from one step farther out, and I pick out different things to be the story's sine qua non.
Neither of things are disrespectful or dishonest. They are my opinions about how literature can be read.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Knowing you live in fantasyland, I can see how you'd think that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:you've been saying is roughly the equivilent of "You could tell Ender's Game without it it being in space and it would be the same story."
I think this is absolutely true.
To really rile your feathers: Simba = Hamlet.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, No one is saying what you said is false or inherently disrespectful.
The whole point of contention here is that you were not at all accurately responding to what Karl was saying and you were doing so in a disrespectufl and somewhat nasty manner. The disrespectful part was not you saying "They are the same archetype.", but you saying "You are wrong Karl. They are the same archetype." when that had nothing to do with what Karl was saying.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
kat, while I can't really disagree with what you're saying, I have to ask (with fear of dog piling. But what's one more? Especially when you're as pretty as I am.) do you read stories that broadly? I mean, why read at all if all you're looking for are themes?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Exactly, Squick.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Shall we list the percieved sins on either side? I was doing nothing of the sort deliberately, if it happened then it was misscommunication, and I'm sad that you think I was. With all your study of me, I wonder how you got me so wrong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:do you read stories that broadly? I mean, why read at all if all you're looking for are themes?
Generally, yeah. I still read them because I love it - I like reading them for themes. I like figuring out why a story resonates. I like discovering the same story told a thousand different ways. I like categorizing my books not by author or time period or cover color by by the deeper story that I think they are telling. I read most books and watch most movies that way, and I like it.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:if it happened then it was misscommunication,
It happened over and over. Karl told you over and over. As did others. You ignore them all. At what point and time does it become disrespectful if not downright dishonest?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kayla, your drum is about to wear out.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:That, apparently, is the opinion that I am not allowed to have if I am to remain either intelligent or honest. Too bad - I'm both and I still don't agree with it. I don't think that this kind of forbidden love is so completely different than its intensity or tragedy cannot be matched by any other.
The first sentence tells me you haven't cared to understand anything I've written even as I've tried to express to you why you frustrate me. The last sentence is again a misrepresentation of my view. I have taken pains to tell you that I don't think it is more anything than any other story, just that it is different in such a way that changing the genders changes the story. It changes who the people are, why they have the conflict they do, why they make the tragic choices they do, and why it ends the way it does. That is all that I am asserting. The rest of the thread is me correcting all your mis-representation and trying to explain to you why it is silly to be offended for non-existent reasons (like me not letting you have a legitimate disagreement with me) and why you frustrate me. This probably should have been in private email and probably should have been done a long time ago since this style of yours crops up frequently. But the examples are here and it seems appropriate that my reasoning be here along with them. You can learn from it or not. I will probably get along with you here on Hatrack because of or in spite of the way you handle this thread, so I guess it's irrelevant really. What I'm learning, though, is one key to that might very well be ignoring you when you get this way. It has worked in the past. I'm sure it will work in the future.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ouch.
Karl, I've explained many times why I have the opinion I do, and I refuse to dismiss you for yours the way you have dismissed me for mine. This is your problem.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: However, having sat in many a movie alone or with only two other people in the audience...
Karl, it definitely sounds like we have the same taste in movies.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...maybe the problem is that we both wished to define the discussion? I wanted to discuss archetypes, and Karl wanted to discuss specifics. I don't think the specifics matter in discussing the essential characteristics of the story, and I think that's where it all blew up.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think the problem with equating this with a regular old star-crossed love story is that in any traditional love story, regardless of the obstacles you can always say, "Except for x, we could be together."
quote:Is it, at its heart, the same story as a white person loving a black slave? Or a Christian loving a Jew a way back when?
To use BtL's examples, the slave and free person could say, "If it weren't for our skin color, we could be together." Or the Christian and the Jew could say, "If it weren't for our religions we could be together."
It's external pressures keeping them apart when otherwise it'd be perfectly normal for them to be together. If Romeo and Juliet were Jones and Smith instead of Montague and Capulet there'd be no tragedy; it would be a short and boring story.
I can't see that that is the case for this story.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Ouch.
Karl, I've explained many times why I have the opinion I do, and I refuse to dismiss you for yours the way you have dismissed me for mine. This is your problem.
I acknowledge I have a problem because of this thread, though I suspect it is a different problem from the one you think I have.
By saying it's my problem, though, you're implying that it's not a problem for you. If you're really comfortable with that estimation, then that makes my own problem a bit easier to deal with because what I thought was an amicable relationship really isn't all that important, at least not in both directions. I'm sorry you feel that way.
I'm offline for the next couple of hours, (for whatever that information is worth.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:"Except for x, we could be together"
I think you can say that about this story as well.
Except for Ennis's inability to reconcile himself, they could be together, either in Denver or on a ranch.
Karl, I don't want to fight and I like you very much. The only part that made me mad were the implications about my character.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
But see I did read page two, Kayla.
And I think that the dogpiling on kat is uncalled for.
You guys know I'm not a champion in a white horse who is going to defend kat no matter what (how's that for a mythic archetype reference?) we disagree probably more often than we agree.
I just think that her points have validity and everyone has been too busy jumping down her throat to see it.
Not that she hasn't made some rude posts too, I think there is some of it on both sides, but I think that people are so busy being mean that they are missing what she's saying.
I totally agree with her in regards to the fact that this is an archetypal forbidden love story.
I see people saying "No it's different, these characters are GAY!" Well, honestly, isn't it better if it isn't any different? I mean, don't most gays like KarlEd who are in committed loving relationships want their relationships to be seen as the equivalent of heterosexual love relationships? Why would you want there to be a difference? Why should Brokeback Mountain fail or succeed as a movie based on the orientation of its characters, shouldn't it fail or succeed based on how well it portrays the story itself and the essence of forbidden love? I would think it's more of a victory for those that want gay relationships to be taken seriously if people walk out of the theater thinking "Wow, what a beautiful love story, I really related to those characters and their situation, that could have happened to me if my husband or wife were of a different religion, or a were married when I met them, etc." than if they walked out saying "That was a cool gay cowboy movie."
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Except it would still be considered "wrong" by society at large.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, the problem was you didn't listen to what Karl said nor paid any attention when he said "No, that's not what I said." or when other people said "No, that's not what Karl said at all." The dismissiviness you showed him was in no way limited to the archetypal thing (The "This is still economics." example springs to mind.) The problem was you were wrong. The problem now is that you are trying to get out of saying you were wrong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe I don't think that's a good reason for not being with someone.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Aw, Squicky and Kayla. *pat pat* So worried about me. It's sweet. Oh, if only I had been a proper girl and had prevaricated by putting "I think" in front of that sentence! Then Squicky wouldn't be upset that I was being all uppity.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
It's only different because of the society we live in, JT (and don't get me wrong, it's an important difference). But it's not impossible to imagine a society where the gender really wouldn't matter, in which case it goes back to being about 'x'.
Their being gay is fantastically important as far as the story's reception goes in the society in which it was written, it is utterly unimportant when compared to the archetypes that follow a similar thought.
So then, what really defines a story? Its writing or its reception?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I think the problem with equating this with a regular old star-crossed love story is that in any traditional love story, regardless of the obstacles you can always say, "Except for x, we could be together." ... I can't see that that is the case for this story.
Why not, "Except for our genders, we could be together?" Is gender more essential or central somehow than race, religion, or family?
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:There is no way either male role could be replaced with a female role and have the story even remotely be the same story.
Legends of the Fall [/QB]
first, my apologies if I post a lot in a row, I'm working my way through this thread slowly and there's just something I wanted to say before I continue.
I haven't seen that movie, but I have seen Brokeback. Have you? I could be wrong, but I think that comment was relating to Brokeback. There is no possible way that that movie could be made into a guy/girl movie. There are so many more things that, at times, have to be dealt with in an LGBT relationship than a straight relationship that you CANNOT compare the two.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
James, you are way late to the party. There's lots of places in the thread where that has been addressed.
I am interested in what everyone thinks the sine qua non of a gay forbidden love story is that makes it fundamentally different from other forbidden love stories.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Belle, It's different in a similar way to a story about black people is different from a story about white people or a story set in China is different from one set in Spain or how a story about women is different from a story about men.
There are fundamental differences between people and groups and these fundamental differences carry over into stories told about these groups of people. I've no doubt that there are important parts of Brokeback Mountain that wouldn't make any sense if it were translated into a heterosexual story.
Many of the aspects of a homosexual relationship are the same as those of a heterosexual one, but there are some necessary differences. You can't really responsibly say that they are the same thing. For whatever reason, they're just not.
It might be nice to say that they are in all important ways the same (and yes it works good for the people who support homosexual relationships) but it's neither accurate nor respectful to real gay relationships, that do actually have differences.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Aw, Squicky, look how cute kat is being. I just feel like patting her on her head and saying "good girl" even though she's being terribly naughty. It's just that impish look in her eye, I guess. After all, it's not her fault she can't comprehend that what she's doing is naughty.
*patpat*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That was pretty good. *beams proudly*
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:It might be nice to say that they are in all important ways the same (and yes it works good for the people who support homosexual relationships) but it's neither accurate nor respectful to real gay relationships, that do actually have differences.
This is where I have a problem - with you saying it's disrespectful to real gay relationships by saying the story is essentially the same as a forbidden love story about a hetero couple. I don't see that. This is what our fundamental disagreement hinges on - why is it disrespectful? I know he said he'd be offline for a while, but I'd really like KarlEd to answer that.
quote:There are so many more things that, at times, have to be dealt with in an LGBT relationship than a straight relationship that you CANNOT compare the two.
Again, James, why can't you compare them?
Gay couples have to overcome obstacles to be together. Society, in general, disapproves. Family may disapprove. They may have to make extreme sacrifices to be together.
All of those things could also be said about other forbidden loves.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Dear BtL and Senoj,
Those are both good questions. I don't have an answer for either of them.
Respectfully, JT
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps part of the difference is that some forbidden loves are forbidden because of circumstance and some, like this one, are impossible because of something essential about the people involved.
It would be great to live in a world where we would have to invent obstacles for this love story.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:some forbidden loves are forbidden because of circumstance and some, like this one, are impossible because of something essential about the people involved.
Hmm...I think there are other forbidden love stories where the conflict is because of something in the essential nature of the participants.
While I post this in fear of being taken as flip (and it isn't), there's Buffy and Angel - vampire slayer and vampire.
I also think that religion can be just as firm a barrier. There's The Scarlet Letter. That's a complex tale, but part of it is a forbidden love story, and in the society they lived in, there was no way for them to be together. That book even has the self-loathing that Ennis displays.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Perhaps part of the difference is that some forbidden loves are forbidden because of circumstance and some, like this one, are impossible because of something essential about the people involved.
What's essential, and what's circumstance? Is race essential or circumstance? What about religion? What about social class?
"If not for you being born a Nubian slave and me an Egyptian prince we could be together" - how is that different from "If not for us being born the same gender we could be together?"
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I know I'll get shot down big time for this, but I think religion is the weakest comparison.
No matter how hard people will claim it can be, you can change your religion. Race, gender, and family, though, you can't do anything about.
That's not to say that I don't think religion can be huge obstacle. But I think it's a boulder, not a mountain.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
El JT, why don't you qualify that by saying "Some people can change their religion."
Many people find the idea of converting their religion to be as abhorrent as having a sex-change operation. It's an individual thing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not surprised that people think that. I don't agree, though.
I think religion can be so fundamental to someone that changing it would make them a different person entirely.
In The Scarlett Letter, the participants were in a society shaped by religion that would never approve of them being together. I think that's why that story still resonates. It's not surprising to me that many of the books we ask teenagers to read are about thwarted love.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
On a semi-related tangent, I've studied mythological archetypes in cross cultural settings, but I've never really looked at archetypals stories, which I'm know pretty motivated to do. I think it would be interesting to see if other cultures hold the same basic seven (or whatever) stories as we do.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Many people find the idea of converting their religion to be as abhorrent as having a sex-change operation. It's an individual thing.
And I get that. But it is possible. That's my only point.
I know a sex change is possible, too, but they're not exactly the same. You can change religions just by deciding to do so (depending on which you choose to go to/from, of course).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think I understand what you are (both) saying. I think that social class, race, and even religion are less essential than gender. The prince and the slave would still be more themselves if that circumstance were magically altered than if they changed genders.
I also think that people can see the archtypal similarities is rather promising.
Edit: typed too slow. (Both) refers to katherina and Belle.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: James, you are way late to the party. There's lots of places in the thread where that has been addressed.
I am interested in what everyone thinks the sine qua non of a gay forbidden love story is that makes it fundamentally different from other forbidden love stories.
Well thanks for that. You know after reading this whole thing, I'm with squicky and kayla. And my drum isn't wearing out. It's barely broken in.
I don't think you answered my question. Have you seen this movie?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: I am interested in what everyone thinks the sine qua non of a gay forbidden love story is that makes it fundamentally different from other forbidden love stories.
What's bugging me is the fact that everyone keeps harping on it being a forbidden love story.
To me, from the reviews and what I've read here, this story is more like the (terribly pathetic) story in Titanic. Even though Rose married, had children and grandchildren, when she died, the person "waiting for her" on "the other side" was Jack. How sad is that? She waited all that time to be with Jack. Obviously, her marriage and children didn't mean that much to her. I found it bizarre that people thought it was romantic. I found it to be a terrible tragedy.
The "sine qua non" only tangentially touches on forbidden love. It more lies in the area of pragmatics and reality.
Belle, while it would be nice to live in that world, we're not there yet. Could you make a movie about Diary of Anne Frank without her being a Jew in WWII? I mean, sure, there are a ton of movies out there about kids that die, but is that really the main theme of the book? If you just changed Anne to a Presbyterian, would the story still work? Or if you moved the location to the US?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
James,
I'm sorry, I don't want to have the same discussion again. Maybe someone else wants to reenact it with you.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
quote:Again, James, why can't you compare them?
Gay couples have to overcome obstacles to be together. Society, in general, disapproves. Family may disapprove. They may have to make extreme sacrifices to be together.
All of those things could also be said about other forbidden loves.
Let me make myself clear. I was not comparing gay -excuse me LGBT- couples to straight couples in general. In my post, I was comparing the guy/guy, girl/guy question that was posed on page 1 in relation to Brokeback Mountain. You can't stick a girl into Ennis or Jack's roles and have it be the same movie.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: James,
I'm sorry, I don't want to have the same discussion again. Maybe someone else wants to reenact it with you.
Jeez, I just want to know if you've seen the movie or not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have read the short story on which it was based. The movie follows the plot and the characters almost exactly.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
Yes I'm aware of that, thanks.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wow, that was rude. You sure you want to be that way?
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
Brokeback Mountain isn't showing in theaters near me either. And personally, I don't care because I don't care about seeing it. I don't want to see two cowboys...uh...riding each other.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Wow, that was rude. You sure you want to be that way?
a) you don't know how I was expressing that
and
b) are you sure you want to talk about being rude?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, otherwise I wouldn't have done it.
Were you not being rude? I thought you were being sarcastic to me. I apologize if I misinterpreted your tone.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
*takes everyone's hand and sings Kumbaya*
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
quote: Yes, otherwise I wouldn't have done it.
Ok, then you've been rude throughout this thread.
quote:Were you not being rude? I thought you were being sarcastic to me. I apologize if I misinterpreted your tone.
Not sarcasm so much as dry. Not intended to be rude.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
Pix, I'll bring the guitar.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh. The dryness didn't really translate, sadly.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
Yea, I've found that to be a problem in other areas of the internet, such as AIM. I should put little /dry markers or something.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I normally really like dry, as long as I know it is dryness as opposed to rudeness. Matt is very dry and wry, and I find it very amusing.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
Matt?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kayla, now you're being rude about Matt? Shall I bring up my mother, so you can mock her too?
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
Er.. who's Matt?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Why would I be rude about Matt? I was rolling my eyes at james for even bothering conversing with you after having been bitten by you for his previous posts.
How is it possible for you to perceive imaginary slights (which you accuse others of slinging your way,) yet be completely unaware of the intentional verbal slaps you pass out that others actually call to your attention?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Matt is her new boyfriend.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's a marvelous question, but I'll limit myself to telling you that Matt is the person that I like everything about, so comparisons to him are a good thing.
Oh, sorry - I mistook the eyeroll to be directed at me.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Wow...I've been having so much fun reading between the lines here that I actually have no idea what this thread is about anymore!
I think I'll jump on the rude bandwagon: Kat & Kayla, I think you two need to take this off this forum. This is not the place.
The correct place is the swimming pool filled with Jello, and the correct dress code is "birthday suit."
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
quote:I was rolling my eyes at james for even bothering conversing with you after having been bitten by you for his previous posts.
Because, for now, it seems the biting has stopped and she apologized for mistaking my comment in a rude way. Despite the fact that I disagree with a lot of things she's said in this thread, I'm also one to drop it and continue on in a normal way. It takes a lot for me to stop conversing with someone.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
Erosmniac, I think it should be pudding. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
But pudding isn't transluscent!
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
But jello is weird.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Excellent point.
Jello it is.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
My housemates have been trying to get someone to pudding wrestle since we lived in the dorms a few years ago. There was even a kiddie pool outside a room at one point.
I don't know where that got to...
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:But jello is weird.
Pudding is far, far weirder than Jello. (Note the decided lack of anything indicating this is an opinion, including [but not limited to] the phrases "I think," "IMO," and "IMHO.")
quote:Excellent point.
Jello it is.
I'm glad we've reached a concensus.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I've jello-wrestled before. I was fully dressed in black jeans and a black t-shirt so it wasn't very comfortable, though. It was also more of a slide than a wrestle. However, th essential ingredient of jello was present.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
Jello jiggles. How is that not weirder than pudding?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I've jello-wrestled before. I was fully dressed in black jeans and a black t-shirt so it wasn't very comfortable, though.
quote:The correct place is the swimming pool filled with Jello, and the correct dress code is "birthday suit."
C'mon, let's all chant it together:
Birth! Day! Suit! Birth! Day! Suit! Birth! Day! Suit!
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
Given the choice, I'd pick pudding over jello to wrestle in.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Given the choice, I'd pick pudding over jello to wrestle in.
See, there's the thing: in any situation I can think of involving nude wrestling in a foodstuff, there isn't much choice involved. It's more of a "we're going to hold your parents/children/dignity hostage until you objectify yourselves for us" sort of thing.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
Shhhhh. Just let me think I have a choice.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
If it makes you feel better. I don't really care, as long as my mission of perpetuating the Nude-Food-Wrestling Lifestyle (NFWL is the PC abbreviation) continues unhindered.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
I think my hope is that I don't meet you and then somehow get drunkenly suckered into NFW.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Bartender, Johnny on the rocks and a roofiecolada, quickly now!
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Bartender, Johnny on the rocks and a roofiecolada, quickly now!
I can't believe you SAID that!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm really glad the food wrestling tangent started, because the first four pages just confused me.
"You cannot substitute cottage cheese for ricotta and still call it lasagna. It's entirely different." "It's still a pasta dish, like many other pasta dishes." "But ricotta is essential, lasagna is defined by ricotta. Nothing else would be the same." "I don't see how it would be any different from pasta salad or even spaghetti." "You're missing my point. It would no longer be lasagna."
This is horribly over-simplified and a trivialized comparison but it's how the first four pages of this thread read to me. People are arguing different things trying for different conclusions and then getting upset with each other for not recognizing it.
I found I had no problem agreeing with both KarlEd and katharina (except for the arguing about argung parts). And now I want to see the movie...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Chris,
No one ever said that lasagna isn't lasagna if it has cottage cheese. It just doesn't practice lasagna-ness.
Sorry wrong thread.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I can't believe you SAID that!
This entire thread full of craziness and a Family Guy misquote is what grabs attention? Argh! Argh! Tante! Outside, food wrestling, now!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I'm really glad the food wrestling tangent started, because the first four pages just confused me.
"You cannot substitute cottage cheese for ricotta and still call it lasagna. It's entirely different." "It's still a pasta dish, like many other pasta dishes." "But ricotta is essential, lasagna is defined by ricotta. Nothing else would be the same." "I don't see how it would be any different from pasta salad or even spaghetti." "You're missing my point. It would no longer be lasagna."
The only real question now is: can you wrestle in it?
Ricotta is kinda chalky, so I imagine lasagna wouldn't be nearly as good for NFW as pasta salad, which tends to be pretty oily.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I love lasagna with cottage cheese. Unfortunately, because my husband is a heathen and refuses to eat any soft, white cheeses, my lasagna has neither ricotta nor cottage cheese. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I love lasagna with cottage cheese. Unfortunately, because my husband is a heathen and refuses to eat any soft, white cheeses, my lasagna has neither ricotta nor cottage cheese.
Does this mean he refuses Brie? 'Cause THAT would be a tragedy.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
That's not really TOO much of a tragedy, as it means there's more brie for me. It really only affects the meals I make for both of us, like lasagna.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Oh come on. A genuine Italian Lasagna does not contain either ricotta or cottage cheese, these are both American perversions of this fine Bolognese dish. A real Lasagna is made with Bechamel sauce.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Well, I'm not really trying to make a genuine Italian lasagna. I'm making lasagna the way my mom made it. Is it an Americanized dish? Sure! But I love it.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
What's really good is when you use homemade ricotta. My mouth is watering just thinking about it.
--Mel
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Belle wrote:
quote:This is where I have a problem - with you saying it's disrespectful to real gay relationships by saying the story is essentially the same as a forbidden love story about a hetero couple. I don't see that. This is what our fundamental disagreement hinges on - why is it disrespectful? I know he said he'd be offline for a while, but I'd really like KarlEd to answer that.
I'm not sure I can answer that directly because I don't think it's a contention I particularly hold. I don't feel like Chris and my relationship is disrespected by this thread in the least. On the other hand, though, the relationship between Ennis and Jack could be said to be disrespected by saying it is essentially the same as any other forbidden love story and simply leaving it at that. Were I in their position, I'd be highly offended. But that offense is likey just as much due to the almost inescapable flippancy of such a general comparison as it is to any slight against their sexuality specifically. So I'm not really sure this particular question, phrased this way, is worth pursueing, to me at least.
However, earlier you wrote:
quote:I see people saying "No it's different, these characters are GAY!" Well, honestly, isn't it better if it isn't any different? I mean, don't most gays like KarlEd who are in committed loving relationships want their relationships to be seen as the equivalent of heterosexual love relationships? Why would you want there to be a difference?
Sure, "it" is "better" if there isn't any difference. Sure I want my relationship with Chris to be seen as the equivalent of heterosexual love relationship. But the reality of it is there is a difference. Our relationship isn't seen as the equivalent of a heterosexual love relationship, or even a "forbidden" heterosexual relationship. Wishing it were so does not make it so. Acting as if it is so -- or even worse as if it were always so (which is what pretending it's basically just like any other "forbidden love" does) -- disregards all the very real pain suffered by probably millions of homosexuals throughout history and even today. I can be more specific with specific comparisons. And on that note, perhaps there is another specific "forbidden love" that might be closely analogous to gay male love, but one or two such examples hardly make it "just like any other forbidden love".
quote:Why should Brokeback Mountain fail or succeed as a movie based on the orientation of its characters, shouldn't it fail or succeed based on how well it portrays the story itself and the essence of forbidden love?
Personally, I don't think it intends to portray the "essence of forbidden love". I think it tries to portray a particular kind of forbidden love, and portray some of the pitfalls and tragedy that are unique to this particular kind. I think the movie would fail miserably if it set its sights so high as to speak to forbidden love in general. Then, the genders of the characters really would be interchangeable. But Brokeback Mountain isn't just about "forbidden love". It is about two men who find love with each other. By its nature, such love is rare enough even in today's more permissive society. In 1963, and in cowboy country, actively looking for such love would likely get you killed. So it's even more of a treasure when it is found. Nonetheless, the terror of dying the fate of a pervert keeps Ennis from being able to accept the love when it is available, but his sexuality keeps him from finding love elsewhere. And that's probably the crux of the matter. In any heterosexual forbidden love, love might be found elsewhere in better circumstances. Gay love is forbidden by the nature of the participants themselves. Take away all other obstacles and they are still two men who cannot love one another fully, nor indeed can Ennis at least, love himself.
So, although this isn't what I was arguing initially, I do believe that gay love is fundamentally different from most, if not all, other forms of forbidden love. Note I haven't said it is more important, transcendant, glorious, noble, better, worse, or in any way or degree "more X" than any other kind of forbidden love, only that it is different. I hope that answers your question.
But for the record, I haven't up to now argued much of anything about archetypes. I simply argued that making either Ennis or Jack a girl would make the story completely different. For one, you couldn't just change the gender of one of them. To make it a viable story you'd have to change a gender and a social situation, or a time, or a place or something else to retain the conflict. If the only difference was that one was a girl, there'd be no story at all. They'd get married and have their ranch and be happy and no one else would care except insofar as they were jealous of the happy couple.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Oh come on. A genuine Italian Lasagna does not contain either ricotta or cottage cheese, these are both American perversions of this fine Bolognese dish. A real Lasagna is made with Bechamel sauce.
Americans mess up Italian food way too often.
*shakes fist at bruschetta with cheese*
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Tante! Outside, food wrestling, now!
Oh, was that another pop culture, TV type reference? I'm always missing those.
I absolutely refuse to participate in any Jello wrestling. It's cholent or it's nothing.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I've just read this whole thread. I am coming to it now, after all editing has been done, so bear that in mind.
In the "Who the hell asked you?" category, I need to say that I think I understand, as Chris thinks he does, the arguments that are going on, both about what type of story Brokeback Mountain is, and with regard to Karl's feeling of being misquoted. And having grasped all of that, and being able to see both people's sides of both debates (remember, nobody asked me, but I'm going to say it anyway) I think Kat is being treated terribly badly here. I don't blame Karl for this, for the most part. I think Kat would have been more likely to explore their different understandings of the issue if he had not been so quick to get hurt, but it's hard to control whether you get hurt or not. Lord knows I am too quick to get hurt. But I think a lot of other people have taken the opportunity of somebody disagreeing with Kat to jump on her.
Specifically, I know I see MrSquicky and Kayla jump in each and every time someone gets in a conflict with Kat, and spend the next two pages talking about what a nasty person she is. Every freaking time, and I'm sick of seeing it. Invariably, they exacerbate the problem. I can understand Kat's reluctance to find middle ground, when she is so predictably under fire from the same people, who almost never get called on it, every time.
(Why do they never get called on it? Maybe I'm wrong in how I see things. Or perhaps everyone wants to stay the hell out of it. All I can say is how I see it.)
Outside of this dynamic I have been watching for at least a couple of years, I have no beef with Squicky or with Kayla. I like them both. So why am I posting what potentially could alienate them both from me, not to mention possibly alienating KarlEd as well, especially given that, as noted previously, nobody asked for my input?
Because I think Kat has been treated shabbily. And I think it would do her good to know that somebody else (besides herself and Belle) sees it. EDIT TO ADD: And feeling as I do, to do less would be cowardice.
EDIT AGAIN: to add missing word and antecedent for pronoun
[ January 09, 2006, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Let me make myself clear. I was not comparing gay -excuse me LGBT- couples to straight couples in general. In my post, I was comparing the guy/guy, girl/guy question that was posed on page 1 in relation to Brokeback Mountain. You can't stick a girl into Ennis or Jack's roles and have it be the same movie.
What if you set the movie in 1950 and made Jack a white girl and Ennis a black guy?
No it still wouldn't be the same unless you showed the movie in 1950 as well.
Because this movie was made and we are viewing it at a time when the ethics of homosexual love are a major social controversy, Brokeback Mountain is two stories. In one way, Katie is right this is a familiar and ever popular story of forbidden love. But because a very large section of the population today believes that gay love should be forbidden -- it is also a social commentary. Its a story that begs the question of whether gay love should be forbidden.
When we watch Romeo and Juliet, there is never a serious question about whether It justifiable for Montegues to feud with Capulets. Imagine what a different play it would have been if it had been written just as it is but in Verona and played to an audience of feuding Capulets and Montegues.
I sometimes wondered over the movie/novel South Pacific. Viewed from the 21st century perspective, the whole inter-racial forbidden love thing seems almost farcical. I can't really relate at all when Nellie freaks out over the fact that Emile was once married to a polynesian woman. I think it would have been very different to see the broadway musical when if first opened in 1949 before the civil rights movement, when racisms was as wide spread in America as opposition of homosexuality is now. I don't think I can fully understand what it would have been like to hear that story at a time when perhaps half the audience would have agreed that marriage between a white american and a dark skinned polynesian was a perversion of nature.
Brokeback mountain is the story it is because it is a classic tale of forbidden love. It is a story which move people to sympathize with these starcrossed lovers. And because it is successful as a story of forbidden love, it becomes much more than that. We can't sympathize with these lovers with out questioning our social norms which made their love forbidden.
In every forbidden love story, there is an "if only". In this story it is, "If only love between to men were accepted or even welcomed by society". That's the problem. The "if only" of this forbidden love story won't stay neatly inside the fantasy world of the story. That is why people are afraid of it.
[ January 09, 2006, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*claps*
Thank you Rabbit, 'cause now I don't have to say anything. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Your welcome Olivet, I wish I'd had time to make the post this morning before the thread turned so ugly.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ic, If you want to defend kat then defend her. Show me how she wasn't doing what people claimed she is doing. I don't respond well to personally attacking me as a defense for someone else. When I criticize someone, I point to specific things they did wrong. If you want to defned them, I'd appreciate it if you address these specific points as opposed to making nebulous derogatory statements about me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Specifically, I know I see MrSquicky and Kayla jump in each and every time someone gets in a conflict with Kat, and spend the next two pages talking about what a nasty person she is. Every freaking time, and I'm sick of seeing it. Invariably, they exacerbate the problem. I can understand Kat's reluctance to find middle ground, when she is so predictably under fire from the same people, who almost never get called on it, every time.
This is nebulous? It seems pretty definite to me.
I'm sure you'll find an instance where Kat got in a spat with someone and you didn't pop in, thus disproving "every time," but that won't change the fact that it's a noticeable trend.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
Rabbit, here's the thing.
In the movie Ennis says, "I'm not queer" and Jack says "Neither am I." Can someone say "I'm not white" or "I'm not black"?
This is why you can't take a girl and replace one of the guys with her. I don't see things as broadly as other people seem to be thinking of them. Yea, sure, it's a tragic forbidden love story, but for this particular movie to work, you need two guys.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Allow me to offer a slightly different alternative. I tend to try to encourage and to seome extent enforce a certain standard of behavior at Hatrack. kat has a tendency to violate these standards. When she does, I often call her on it, pointing out specifically what I thought she did wrong.
When Icky comes in and says "Oh, you're bad because you're always picking on her." I'm just asking that he show me where I am unjustifiably picking on her. Because, to me, the situation seems closer to what I described, with kat behaving disrespectfully and people like Icky not calling her on it (or apparently seeing it) for some reason. And it's not like we haven't had precedents for this. Leto springs to mind.
I imagine that there are plenty of instances of kat getting into spats that I have nothing to do with. She gets in a lot of spats.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Specifically, I know I see MrSquicky and Kayla jump in each and every time someone gets in a conflict with Kat, and spend the next two pages talking about what a nasty person she is. Every freaking time, and I'm sick of seeing it. Invariably, they exacerbate the problem. I can understand Kat's reluctance to find middle ground, when she is so predictably under fire from the same people, who almost never get called on it, every time.
This is nebulous? It seems pretty definite to me.
I'm sure you'll find an instance where Kat got in a spat with someone and you didn't pop in, thus disproving "every time," but that won't change the fact that it's a noticeable trend.
It's also a fairly noticeable trend that Kat's treated many others shabbily -- and I've yet to see Squick or Kayla respond to anyone with the same contempt for honesty and courtesy as Kat's consistently demonstrated to many who disagree with her on her critical issues.
I'm sure both have been rude before, as it's a trait of human nature -- and nobody's arguing that Squick and Kayla aren't human, only that they're fairly upstanding, intelligent, and respectful examples thereof. But Icarus, much as I like him, is way out of line accusing them of jumping "in each and every time someone gets in a conflict with Kat, and spend the next two pages talking about what a nasty person she is." He's not talking about the Squick and Kayla I know.
I haven't been around Hatrack much lately, nor have I read the entirety of this thread -- and hey, maybe everyone's radically changed from my former understandings of them. Maybe Kat's developed a moral backbone that can survive even arguments over homosexuality. Maybe Squick and Kayla truly have degenerated from the fine people I knew into the nastiness they once disagreed so intensely with. But I seriously doubt that, and I'm surprised Jose would offer such a vague, defenseless criticism. He's better than that. Or... was. Maybe he's changed, too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm just asking that he show me where I am unjustifiably picking on her.
1.) Because you ignore far worse behavior from others, your incessant focus on Kat makes it appear personal and discredits your self-assigned role as protector of ... something ... at Hatrack. "Stalking" might be overblown, but not by much.
2.) Because you are more than smart enough to know that you don't help the situation, it makes it appear as if your intention is not to improve discussion but to pick on Kat.
3.) Because your initial post directed at Kat in this thread was far more nebulous than anything Icarus has said about you in this thread.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote: quote:I'm just asking that he show me where I am unjustifiably picking on her.
1.) Because you ignore far worse behavior from others, your incessant focus on Kat makes it appear personal and discredits your self-assigned role as protector of ... something ... at Hatrack. "Stalking" might be overblown, but not by much.
Oh, please.
Dagonee, you're smarter than this argument. If Squick holds her to higher standards -- and you've in no way demonstrated that he does -- then perhaps it's because he has a respect for her she doesn't return, and believes she, both as function of her identity and as her status as an adult woman, should maintain a bare minimum of intellectual honesty and straightforward discussion. If he doesn't get as annoyed with raging fifteen year olds who've just discovered homosexuality exists, perhaps it's because he trusts Kat to have intelligence and experience enough to know dishonesty and denial only lower the chances of resolution in a discussion. Perhaps he expects her to have faith enough in her position to stand behind it. And perhaps he's simply exasperated with her longstanding history of moral underperformance and asks her to maintain a bare minimum of straightforward discourse.
That said, you might be right. If Kat hasn't improved by now, perhaps she never will -- and Squick's wrong to hope she will, much less that his urging will prompt her toward intellectual honesty. But the position you've made up for him, fraudulent as it is, shows much more respect and belief in Kat than yours of dismissing Kat as a troll -- wrong as he may be to believe, in your imaginary posit, that he has any right or responsibility to change her for the better.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:n the movie Ennis says, "I'm not queer" and Jack says "Neither am I." Can someone say "I'm not white" or "I'm not black"?
I hardly think that changing one line in the movie constitutes making it a different story. Besides, replacing "I'm not queer" with "I'm not white" would not have been the equivalent in a deeply racist society. It was never considered perverse for a woman to be white, it was considered perverse for a white woman to find black man attractive. The equivalent to "I'm not white" would have been for Ennis to say "I'm not male".
Let me explain how I understand those lines, and its possible that I'm way off the mark but I don't think so. Both Ennis and Jack have stereotypes about what it means to be "queer" and they don't see themselves as the kind of guys they think of as queer. They don't want to be queer. So when they find themselves madly in love with another man, they don't know how to face it.
I think those feelings are fairly universal among people caught in a forbidden romance. I see in those lines many of the same thoughts and feelings I had as young faithful Mormon girl who was in love with a Catholic guy.
I don't pretend the situations are identical. What I am saying is that my limited experience with heterosexual forbidden love, allows me a window into this story. Even though I have no experience with same sex attraction, I can empathize with these men because their experience is not as different from mine as people want us to believe. That is exactly why this is a powerful story. It takes a familiar story "forbidden love", one with which I have some limited experience, and uses it to move me to feel empathy for a story which is foreign to me -- homosexuality.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Lalo, Dag, Squicky, Kayla, Kat, and anyone else who is more interested in who's been mean to who, could you please move your fight out in the hall. Some of us would like to have a civil discussion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But the position you've made up for him, fraudulent as it is, shows much more respect and belief in Kat than yours of dismissing Kat as a troll -- wrong as he may be to believe, in your imaginary posit, that he has any right or responsibility to change her for the better.
First, I have NOT dismissed Kat as a troll. Talk about "making up postitions" for others. You have utterly twisted what I said. Unfortunately, this is not something I'm surprised about. To be clear: I do not think Kat is intellectually dishonest. I do not think she's a troll.
She's not perfect - I've clashed with her myself - but it's a little galling to see her subjected to courtesy lessons from Squick, who has admitted to lying to people to score intellectual points, and Kayla, who takes pride in hating everybody.
Second, as you've said, you haven't been here. This is a noticeable pattern - one noticed by at least two people absolutely independently, and, I suspect, by others.
Third, Squick has absolutely ignored far worse behavior by others, including adults.
So please, specifically, what fraudulent position have I assigned to Squick?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know that the "not wanting to be in the forbidden love" is anywhere near as universal as you're saying Rabbit. In the the commonly used exemplar, Romeo and Juliet, one gets the idea that Juliet is so into the relationship in part because it'll cheese her parents off. And many other forbidden love stories involve one or both of the princples actively seeking out the taboo love.
Or there are stories like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, where the forbidden love taboo exists in a wider context, but is not felt by the principles.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Icky, I have no problem admitting that kat and Karl were talking past each other. I know I wasn't helping, and I won't speak for Squicky. I have no problem with the fact that kat thinks it's a forbidden love story. What I have a problem with, and have a problem letting go of, is her outright refusal to admit that same exact thing. No matter how many times it's pointed out to her, she continues to talk past the point.
Over and over. It's like she's in her own little world and has no idea there is anyone else out there.
She's managed, by herself, to drive at least a half a dozen people away from Hatrack, that I can think of off the top of my head, for this very reason. There is no reasoning with her.
If she had just, once, at some point and time said, "you know what, I can see what you're saying, but I was making a completely different point," I'd be fine. But it doesn't seem she's even capable of that. And she infers motives and creates entire myths from other people's posts. And when called on it, she whines about being attacked and runs out of the thread.
But what do I know, I'm just a meany.
And I'm totally willing to admit that her behavior is a trigger for me. People denying the truth, making condescending, snide remarks masquerading as politeness (the southern slam) while sticking their fingers in their ears and refusing to listen to anyone else's point of view (or instead of just listening to what they actually say, rather than half pay attention and make up what you think they said) has always set me off. I've had enough of that in real life. My mother still likes to give me updates on the man who raped me. His parents and mine are still friends and because she's selfish, careless and clueless, she thinks I give a damn. The fact that he shattered my life is lost on her. She just lives in her own little fantasy world and says whatever comes to mind, no matter who it might hurt. She reminds me a lot of kat. If just once, kat could acknowledge that she's aware that her actions hurt other people, I'd be quite. But as long as she continues to deny there's a problem, when threads like this come up, I'll be here. She's not going to run me off like she's done to other people.
Dags, the point isn't that I pride myself on hating everyone, it's that I don't just hate men. I'm perfectly willing to hate women, too. Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
quote:The equivalent to "I'm not white" would have been for Ennis to say "I'm not male".
No, no it wouldn't. It really, really wouldn't. As a transguy, I take issue with this statement.
quote:Both Ennis and Jack have stereotypes about what it means to be "queer" and they don't see themselves as the kind of guys they think of as queer. They don't want to be queer. So when they find themselves madly in love with another man, they don't know how to face it.
I think those feelings are fairly universal among people caught in a forbidden romance. I see in those lines many of the same thoughts and feelings I had as young faithful Mormon girl who was in love with a Catholic guy.
I don't pretend the situations are identical.
Ok, so instead of writing something that would probably end up being rather messy, I think we both agree to a certain extent.
I think the reason why I jumped when someone said that the story can be the same is because in spite of the similarities there are glaring differences between every sort of forbidden love story out there, whether it be religion, race, family clashes such as Romeo and Juliet, etc. I am choosing to focus on the differences whereas most people are choosing to focus on the similarities. And yes, I blame this on my bias, because I'm not straight (and no, that has nothing to do with being trans).
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Just for the record, so everyone's aware, I believe kat doesn't have internet access in the evenings. So if this conversation continues, please remember that she won't see it or be able to respond until tomorrow.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: And yes, I blame this on my bias, because I'm not straight (and no, that has nothing to do with being trans).
Lesbian caught in a man's body? That's what my husband always says he is. Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
No, transguy means I have a female body.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
In a way it's simular to various Chinese movies. Like one in which a woman was married to a child and fell for a man close to her age having heard about how a man got his legs broken and the woman got drowned for having an affair. So she was stuck in a relationship that would later become an embarassment to her husband when he grew up. In Brokeback Mountain you get a pair of very rugged manly men who are just drawn to each other instantly and cannot resist the heat and gravity they have for each other. You just don't get the sort of issues with a man and a woman you get with two men who are rugged and under other circumstances maybe even beat up other men in relationships like that. Plus, spoiler, most of the time a man and a woman wouldn't have to fear the sort of punishment a gay male living among other cowboys would get. Those who saw the movie would know what I mean... It's sort of a double lover story in a way, because there are also wives involved too. Living that double life, yet being more strongly drawn to another person and being forbidden from showing it...
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:So please, specifically, what fraudulent position have I assigned to Squick?
You just posted, word for word, that "it appear as if your intention is not to improve discussion but to pick on Kat." ""Stalking" might be overblown, but not by much."
You have assigned a malicious, nearly predatory attitude to Squick's criticisms of Kat's dishonest behavior -- behavior which has been consistent throughout the five years I've frequented this forum, and noticed by far more than the "two people absolutely independently" you cite. Is it really so difficult to simply listen to Squick and Kayla and believe them when they explain their criticisms by intense dislike of "people denying the truth, making condescending, snide remarks masquerading as politeness (the southern slam) while sticking their fingers in their ears and refusing to listen to anyone else's point of view (or instead of just listening to what they actually say, rather than half pay attention and make up what you think they said)"?
In my experience, Squick and Kayla have earned considerable respect at Hatrack. I doubt you can find many who believe Kat has. And while both sides deserve their say... what is the criticism against Squick and Kayla? Your outrageous claim that Squick's practically stalking Kat? Jose's vague and unfounded belief that the two are sadists persecuting the woman? Neither positions are particularly believable, nor at all backed up with the considerable amount of transcript at your immediate disposal.
Or can we simply recognize Kat has a long history of infuriatingly dishonest tactics, and both Squick and Kayla -- and many others, I suspect -- are tired of them?
I agree that the woman should be left alone, but more for her oft-proven failure to provide rational or straightforward discourse than for fear of appearing malicious in criticisms of that same behavior. If she wants to live in her own world, I doubt anything Squick or Kayla tell her will change her mind -- and any efforts the two make are obviously unwelcome.
That said, what Kat posts in a public forum is of course subject to critical analysis, and it's more than ridiculous to complain Squick and Kayla have done exactly that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You just posted, word for word, that "it appear as if your intention is not to improve discussion but to pick on Kat." ""Stalking" might be overblown, but not by much."
Way to leave off the entire point, Lalo. I'll try to break it down more simply for you.
Squick has claimed he is trying to "encourage and to seome extent enforce a certain standard of behavior at Hatrack."
Squick often calls Kate on behavior he thinks is contrary to this standard while ignoring worse behavior from others.
This makes it appear that his motive is not pure.
I didn't say that's what his motive was. I said that the inconsistency makes it appear that his motive is more personal than otherwise.
quote:Is it really so difficult to simply listen to Squick and Kayla and believe them when they explain their criticisms by intense dislike
Perhaps you can explain why Squick disproportionately calls Kat on such behavior.
quote: I doubt you can find many who believe Kat has.
I doubt you can, because you are about as anti-Kat as anyone gets. I know I can, though.
quote:Or can we simply recognize Kat has a long history of infuriatingly dishonest tactics, and both Squick and Kayla -- and many others, I suspect -- are tired of them?
Considering your history of honesty on this forum, I'm not sure I'd go there.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:In my experience, Squick and Kayla have earned considerable respect at Hatrack. I doubt you can find many who believe Kat has.
I do.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Hey, I saw that chinese movie. The whole movie was just too foreign for me to really ever empathize with any one in it. The end where the marriage of the ~5 illigitimate son is timed to coincide with the wife/mother taking her one time infant husband into her bed was strange.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Way to leave off the entire point, Lalo. I'll try to break it down more simply for you.
Squick has claimed he is trying to "encourage and to seome extent enforce a certain standard of behavior at Hatrack."
Squick often calls Kate on behavior he thinks is contrary to this standard while ignoring worse behavior from others.
This makes it appear that his motive is not pure.
I didn't say that's what his motive was. I said that the inconsistency makes it appear that his motive is more personal than otherwise.
And you've again utterly failed to cite a single example of Squick "ignoring worse behavior from others." To say nothing that you've completely dismissed other possible explanations for your imaginary situation -- perhaps he hasn't noticed the other arguments. Perhaps he's simply tired of her rather constant failure to maintain a bare minimum standard of courtesy and honesty. And perhaps you're simply wrong, and he isn't persecuting the woman as you seem to enjoy believing he is.
quote:Considering your history of honesty on this forum, I'm not sure I'd go there.
And... really? I'd love to go there, Dag. Why don't you tell me about my history of honesty on this forum, and where exactly you seem to believe it falls short?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The one where you said something to the effect of "Dag reminds me of me when I was his age" while faking your age the whole time.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And you've again utterly failed to cite a single example of Squick "ignoring worse behavior from others."
You'll note I haven't claimed to cite any such examples. That doesn't mean they don't exist. You could find them in about a half hour of browsing yourself.
quote:To say nothing that you've completely dismissed other possible explanations for your imaginary situation -- perhaps he hasn't noticed the other arguments. Perhaps he's simply tired of her rather constant failure to maintain a bare minimum standard of courtesy and honesty. And perhaps you're simply wrong, and he isn't persecuting the woman as you seem to enjoy believing he is.
I've said he has created the appearence of picking on Kat. I even italicized that portion for you. Why don't you refute what I'm actually saying instead of making crap up to refute.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't have a problem with the guy cancelling the show.
"But-- it's like 'The Hours!' Only with COWBOYS! See?"
Yeah-- I didn't like "The Hours" either. Award-winning, my decroted left toe. That was a heaping helping of LAME, smushed between two slices of PRETENTION.
Do they wind up in a shootout with Gene Hackman and Kevin Costner?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:The one where you said something to the effect of "Dag reminds me of me when I was his age" while faking your age the whole time.
The what? I've never pretended to be older than you -- in fact, I made it a point never to lie about my age when I was a teenager here, simply to avoid questions about it.
But no, Dag. You're rather badly mistaking me for someone else. I won't deny I didn't allow people to believe I was a college student when I was still in high school, but I never lied about my identity. And I never even considered the possibility that anyone would take me for older -- much less pursued that as my identity.
And I don't quite see how failure to disclose my age when I was younger is dishonest, on any degree. Were my arguments any less dishonest for the age of the man putting them forward? Were my opinions invalidated, or my thoughts somehow tainted? I have a vague idea that you're in law school, and probably your late twenties -- but I also don't particularly care. I know you're a brilliant debater, and I have a deep respect for the integrity you've shown in the many arguments I've seen you participate in, but I wouldn't think you any less intelligent if you were fifteen or fifty -- if dishonest for claiming to be someone you're not, something I never did.
Is this all you have to lobby at my integrity, lacking claims I somehow falsified my identity?
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
Hey Scott don't you be dissing "The Hours"
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't have a problem with the guy cancelling the show.
"But-- it's like 'The Hours!' Only with COWBOYS! See?"
Yeah-- I didn't like "The Hours" either. Award-winning, my decroted left toe. That was a heaping helping of LAME, smushed between two slices of PRETENTION.
Do they wind up in a shootout with Gene Hackman and Kevin Costner?
Never seen the Hours, but Brokeback Mountain was pretty damn good. Heart wrenching. Good acting too. Man...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But no, Dag. You're rather badly mistaking me for someone else. I won't deny I didn't allow people to believe I was a college student when I was still in high school, but I never lied about my identity. And I never even considered the possibility that anyone would take me for older -- much less pursued that as my identity.
No, you definitely said something to the effect of "he reminds me of me when I was that young" - after you knew I was in Law School, just before your "confession" landmark.
I don't care about anyone's age (for the record, I'm 35) and agree it doesn't matter. That wasn't my point. My point was that you used the assunmptions about your age in a fraudulent manner to condescend to me. It went beyond just non-disclosure - it was an implicit assertion that you were at least 21 at the time.
quote:Is this all you have to lobby at my integrity, lacking claims I somehow falsified my identity?
That, your characterization of Kat here and before, and your charaterization of my own beliefs about homosexual actions as "God hates fags," for a start.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:And you've again utterly failed to cite a single example of Squick "ignoring worse behavior from others."
You'll note I haven't claimed to cite any such examples. That doesn't mean they don't exist. You could find them in about a half hour of browsing yourself.
Er. I think you miss the point, I don't believe him guilty of the accusations you've levelled at him. It's your responsibility, both as accuser and as a decent person, to either back up these baseless claims or apologize for assaulting both Squick and Kayla's integrities.
Nobody will think less of you if you do. In fact, my already considerable respect for you will only increase if you can admit you've made a mistake in defaming the two.
quote:
quote:To say nothing that you've completely dismissed other possible explanations for your imaginary situation -- perhaps he hasn't noticed the other arguments. Perhaps he's simply tired of her rather constant failure to maintain a bare minimum standard of courtesy and honesty. And perhaps you're simply wrong, and he isn't persecuting the woman as you seem to enjoy believing he is.
I've said he has created the appearence of picking on Kat. I even italicized that portion for you. Why don't you refute what I'm actually saying instead of making crap up to refute.
...yes, Dag. It's not at all insulting to say Squick's nearly a stalker, so long as you preface it with the disclaimer that he only appears like he's a stalker. She only appears like an abusive mother. He only appears to be a rapist.
Come on, Dag. I don't know if adding that disclaimer means insults don't legally qualify as slander -- not that I'm accusing you of such -- but it's not fooling anyone here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Er. I think you miss the point, I don't believe him guilty of the accusations you've levelled at him. It's your responsibility, both as accuser and as a decent person, to either back up these baseless claims or apologize for assaulting both Squick and Kayla's integrities.
Unfortunately for you, you are not the determiner of such things. Unless no one on Hatrack has ever done anything worse than what Squick claims Kat has done in this thread, then my assertion is accurate. And you know someone has done something worse. Or you would if you bothered to read the thread before leaping in.
quote:...yes, Dag. It's not at all insulting to say Squick's nearly a stalker, so long as you preface it with the disclaimer that he only appears like he's a stalker. She only appears like an abusive mother. He only appears to be a rapist.
Are you deliberately missing the point? If someone backhands her daughter in a supermarket and sends her flying, she will appear to be an abusive mother. If she was doing that to knock the daughter away from an exposed electrical wire, then she's not being abusive. But she shoulsnb't be surprised if people call her one until they see the electrical wire.
Here, we have no visible way of determining whether there is an electrical wire at hand. All we can see is that Squick does X to Kat and does not do X to others doing things far worse than what Kat has done. The existence of actions inconsistent with claimed impersonal motivations makes the motivations appear personal.
I generally pick my words very carefully. If it didn't matter whether the word "appear" was there or not, you wouldn't have so carefully left it out when attempting to challenge me.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*steps gingerly in*
Dag, I think you are mistaking Lalo for someone else. I remember those things happening, but not with him.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'd like to apologize to Kat for not taking the discussion with her to private email when it got personal. I felt at the time I should have and yet ignored the instinct. I'd like to apologize to Hatrack for my role in the nasty airing out of personal grudges this thread has become.
I probably need a time-out. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think you were here, yet, ElJay. It was very early in my Hatrack participation - well before my thousandth post.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:But no, Dag. You're rather badly mistaking me for someone else. I won't deny I didn't allow people to believe I was a college student when I was still in high school, but I never lied about my identity. And I never even considered the possibility that anyone would take me for older -- much less pursued that as my identity.
No, you definitely said something to the effect of "he reminds me of me when I was that young" - after you knew I was in Law School, just before your "confession" landmark.
I don't care about anyone's age (for the record, I'm 35) and agree it doesn't matter. That wasn't my point. My point was that you used the assunmptions about your age in a fraudulent manner to condescend to me. It went beyond just non-disclosure - it was an implicit assertion that you were at least 21 at the time.
quote:Is this all you have to lobby at my integrity, lacking claims I somehow falsified my identity?
That, your characterization of Kat here and before, and your charaterization of my own beliefs about homosexual actions as "God hates fags," for a start.
I'm sorry, Dag, but the first is untrue in every respect. I never claimed to be older than I was -- and I never imagined anyone would consider me older than a college student. All I cared was that my arguments were taken with the merit I believe they earned, and not dismissed by those with no defense against them but condescension. I had no motivation, desire, or even thought to be understood as older than nineteen or twenty -- a transition I'll bridge, for the record, in just a few days.
And how is my characterization of Kat dishonest? I believe her to be sadly lacking in intellectual integrity, a belief forged through numerous attempts at straightforward discourse with the woman. You may believe me mistaken -- and, obviously, do -- but dishonest?
And yes, I believe proving disapproval for homosexuality by citing divine mandate is the same principle, if not degree, of claiming God hates homosexuals -- which is, of course, disapproval for homosexuality by citing divine mandate. I understand that you disagree with that position, but how on earth can you declare it a blow to my moral integrity?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Never saw The Hours, but two guys macking is hot.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And yes, I believe proving disapproval for homosexuality by citing divine mandate is the same principle, if not degree, of claiming God hates homosexuals -- which is, of course, disapproval for homosexuality by citing divine mandate. I understand that you disagree with that position, but how on earth can you declare it a blow to my moral integrity?
Because I spent about 1000 words explaining that it was not disapproval of homosexualty, but homosexual actions, at the heart of my belief, and you continually and unapologetically summed it up as hating homosexuality before saying that I thought "God hates fags."
It has nothing to do with whether you disagree with me or not and everything to do with you simply restating purposely and inaccurately what I believed.
In other words, exactly what you like to accuse Kat of without even bothering to read the whole thread.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Never saw The Hours, but two guys macking is hot.
Quite true...
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
I don't think there's any guy kissing in The Hours.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Er. I think you miss the point, I don't believe him guilty of the accusations you've levelled at him. It's your responsibility, both as accuser and as a decent person, to either back up these baseless claims or apologize for assaulting both Squick and Kayla's integrities.
Unfortunately for you, you are not the determiner of such things. Unless no one on Hatrack has ever done anything worse than what Squick claims Kat has done in this thread, then my assertion is accurate. And you know someone has done something worse. Or you would if you bothered to read the thread before leaping in.
And where have I ever claimed to "be the determiner of [Squick's moral character]"? All I've asked you to do is provide evidence for the insults you've heaped upon his character -- and since I don't share your beliefs, why do you believe the onus lies on me, not you, to prove them?
It's really not that hard, guy. All I'm asking is that if you can't back up your accusations, apologize for insulting the man. It's what any decent person would do -- and I believe you to be much better than that bare minimum.
quote:
quote:...yes, Dag. It's not at all insulting to say Squick's nearly a stalker, so long as you preface it with the disclaimer that he only appears like he's a stalker. She only appears like an abusive mother. He only appears to be a rapist.
Are you deliberately missing the point? If someone backhands her daughter in a supermarket and sends her flying, she will appear to be an abusive mother. If she was doing that to knock the daughter away from an exposed electrical wire, then she's not being abusive. But she shoulsnb't be surprised if people call her one until they see the electrical wire.
Here, we have no visible way of determining whether there is an electrical wire at hand. All we can see is that Squick does X to Kat and does not do X to others doing things far worse than what Kat has done. The existence of actions inconsistent with claimed impersonal motivations makes the motivations appear personal.
I generally pick my words very carefully. If it didn't matter whether the word "appear" was there or not, you wouldn't have so carefully left it out when attempting to challenge me.
"Carefully left it out when attempting to challenge me"? Dag, we're not fighting for leadership of the pack and pick of the wenches. I've manipulated nothing, and misquoted you not at all.
And no, we do not see "that Squick does X to Kat and does not do X to others doing things far worse than what Kat has done." You have time and time again failed to report a single instance of Squick persecuting Kat above all others -- I'm not even sure how you'd go about showing that, citing every example of intellectual dishonesty in the forum and complaining Squick hasn't criticized them all?
Really, I thought you better than this. Is it so difficult to admit you've levelled unfounded accusations at good people, and regret your mistake?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No, just Meryl Streep and I bet she's hamming it up. One of the things me and OSC agree on. She's not half as good as Emily Watson. Not even 1/4th, but does Emily Watson get an oscar, of course not.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
Remind me of who Emily Watson is?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Dags, I don't think there are many people who so consistently ignored logic. Baldar comes to mind, and Squicky and I both relentlessly called him on that. Bean Counter is regularly called on his outrageousness, but since he's not doing the specific things that set me off, I blow him off as just someone I disagree with, but who has a right to his own opinion.
I have no problem with people who have differing opinions. I disagree with you often, yet respect you greatly. I've said before that while Patrick holds many of the same opinions as kat, I adore Patrick. I call kat on her behavior for the very reasons I stated. She sticks her fingers in her ears and pretends not to hear or refuses to acknowledge anyone else. She can't, for second, put herself in their place and say, "I see you point. I disagree with you, but I hear you and understand what you are saying." That's because she either doesn't read the posts, or is being willfully dismissive. And for that, I will continue to call her on it, because she hurts people's feelings and has been told that she's hurting people's feelings and refuses to change her ways.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Emily Watson.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And where have I ever claimed to "be the determiner of [Squick's moral character]"? All I've asked you to do is provide evidence for the insults you've heaped upon his character -- and since I don't share your beliefs, why do you believe the onus lies on me, not you, to prove them? It's really not that hard, guy. All I'm asking is that if you can't back up your accusations, apologize for insulting the man. It's what any decent person would do -- and I believe you to be much better than that bare minimum.
You haven't said, "I haven't seen this." You've said, "You're wrong about this." So you prove me wrong if you want. Go ahead.
quote:And no, we do not see "that Squick does X to Kat and does not do X to others doing things far worse than what Kat has done." You have time and time again failed to report a single instance of Squick persecuting Kat above all others -- I'm not even sure how you'd go about showing that, citing every example of intellectual dishonesty in the forum and complaining Squick hasn't criticized them all?
I don't include you any time I use "we" in this discussion. At least two people have noticed this and commented on it in this thread.
quote:You have time and time again failed to report a single instance of Squick persecuting Kat above all others
I haven't failed. I haven't done it. Nor am I going to. In this thread, Squick has made accusations about Kat that extend beyond her behavior in this thread. Why aren't you asking him to back them up.
Why aren't you providing evidence of your accusations against Kat?
Don't try to hold me to a different standard just because you can't be rational about Kat.
quote:Really, I thought you better than this. Is it so difficult to admit you've levelled unfounded accusations at good people, and regret your mistake?
Ah, yes, there's the Lalo condescension. I won't dance to your tune, so bring out the tired old "I thought better of you" and couch it as if I know I've made a mistake and aren't admitting it. Don't even acknowledge the possibility that I actually believe what I'm saying.
And you wonder why I question your intellectual honesty.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:And yes, I believe proving disapproval for homosexuality by citing divine mandate is the same principle, if not degree, of claiming God hates homosexuals -- which is, of course, disapproval for homosexuality by citing divine mandate. I understand that you disagree with that position, but how on earth can you declare it a blow to my moral integrity?
Because I spent about 1000 words explaining that it was not disapproval of homosexualty, but homosexual actions, at the heart of my belief, and you continually and unapologetically summed it up as hating homosexuality before saying that I thought "God hates fags."
It has nothing to do with whether you disagree with me or not and everything to do with you simply restating purposely and inaccurately what I believed.
In other words, exactly what you like to accuse Kat of without even bothering to read the whole thread.
You're misconstruing my position as badly as you claim I have in your example.
Again, I must tell you that I believe the difference in declaring that God disapproves of homosexual actions and that God hates fags is a matter of degree, not principle. Both cite the will of divine providence in criticizing homosexuality -- that you're forced to nitpick between the natural urge towards homosexuality and homosexual sex is rather indicative of the identical nature of the two beliefs.
I've never claimed you hate fags, nor that the majority of anti-homosexual sentiments contain such levels of hate as are associated with fundamentalists chanting that God hates fags. And I'm ashamed on your behalf that you'd claim such falsehoods. I believe intolerance of homosexuals based on citations of divine will is a common thread between fundamentalists and many moderates -- and that one need not be evil or hateful to believe God desires the end of homosexual deeds. I believe you are wrong, not diabolical. And if you truly feel you must demonize me to such an extent to "win" the argument of my dishonest nature and broken integrity, then I fear you have greater battles to fight than this one.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I don't think you were here, yet, ElJay. It was very early in my Hatrack participation - well before my thousandth post.
I considered the possiblity that there may be more than one such incident before I posted. If that is the case, than I withdraw my objection.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have no problem with people who have differing opinions. I disagree with you often, yet respect you greatly.
I definitely don't think you have a general problem with people who disagree with you.
quote:She can't, for second, put herself in their place and say, "I see you point. I disagree with you, but I hear you and understand what you are saying." That's because she either doesn't read the posts, or is being willfully dismissive. And for that, I will continue to call her on it, because she hurts people's feelings and has been told that she's hurting people's feelings and refuses to change her ways.
You make it sound like she never (unless I'm misinterpreting "can't for [a] second") disagrees and understands. I don't think that's an at-all fair summation of Kat.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:that you're forced to nitpick between the natural urge towards homosexuality and homosexual sex is rather indicative of the identical nature of the two beliefs.
Alright, I guess we have to be done then, because if you are going to call a basic premise "nitpicking" then we simply can't communicate. I evidently use language in a very different manner than you do.
quote:I've never claimed you hate fags, nor that the majority of anti-homosexual sentiments contain such levels of hate as are associated with fundamentalists chanting that God hates fags. And I'm ashamed on your behalf that you'd claim such falsehoods.
Since I never once claimed that you claimed I hate fags, your shame might be better reserved for someone who is actually claiming a falsehood.
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
I know you guys are having a lovely argument, but could you please refrain from using the word fags. It's rather offensive.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Dag, on any topic in which she might have done it, I haven't called her on it, because she's been able to do it. On threads, like this, and one other that specifically comes to mind, she "can't for a second." And that thread caused a good person to stop posting here altogether.
kat and I have done this before. She either knows how I feel about it, therefore, knows what she is doing, or she's willfully ignoring the repeated(what were originally pleas, which later have become less pleas and more just calling her on the carpet for what she's doing) requests to stop hurting other people. The more inflammatory she becomes, the more is sets me off and the more inflammatory I become in childish retribution.
I believe the last time this (kat and I publicly arguing) happened, at least one person offered to intervene and try to work out a system where one of us wouldn't post at a one of the off-shoot forums so the other could be left alone. At the time, I decided that rather than banish myself to one forum, I would just ignore her. I shouldn't have been pulled into this conversation and really only started posting to clear up some misunderstandings about how movies are booked and how much control theater owners have over the process. But while doing that, I could feel the pain she was causing Karl and being the weirdo freak that I am, it caused me pain and I reacted. But in general, I try very hard to completely skip all of kat's posts.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
James, I'm totally sorry about missing the fact that you were a transguy. I thought it was transgen. And from that, I made a stupid assumption you were a guy wanting to be a woman, who liked women. So, you're a man in a woman's body who likes men? (almost had an embarrassing type there, forgetting the n on that last word. ) (Not that I'm not likable, but I was thinking it was men you liked, not me. ) Damn, I'm just confused now. Sorry. I don't mean to be a dork. It's just a natural talent.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:And where have I ever claimed to "be the determiner of [Squick's moral character]"? All I've asked you to do is provide evidence for the insults you've heaped upon his character -- and since I don't share your beliefs, why do you believe the onus lies on me, not you, to prove them? It's really not that hard, guy. All I'm asking is that if you can't back up your accusations, apologize for insulting the man. It's what any decent person would do -- and I believe you to be much better than that bare minimum.
You haven't said, "I haven't seen this." You've said, "You're wrong about this." So you prove me wrong if you want. Go ahead.
Uh. Dag, that's exactly what I just said. You cited it yourself, in your selective quote choosing. "All I've asked you to do is provide evidence for the insults you've heaped upon his character -- and since I don't share your beliefs, why do you believe the onus lies on me, not you, to prove them?"
And what do I have to prove wrong? You haven't provided anything of substance for me to disagree with, just vapors of accusations and refusal to substantiate them. You're a good enough lawyer to know the responsibility lies with the accuser to provide evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the defendant -- and you've provided nothing but defensive posturing and ad hominem attacks on my integrity and identity in response to queries about your accusations.
Really, guy. I don't want to back you into a corner, and it really looks like you feel like you're in one. Would you like to drop this and take a break? There wouldn't be any hard feelings -- I know Squick's a good guy, and forgave you your accusations long before I asked an apology from you.
quote:
quote:And no, we do not see "that Squick does X to Kat and does not do X to others doing things far worse than what Kat has done." You have time and time again failed to report a single instance of Squick persecuting Kat above all others -- I'm not even sure how you'd go about showing that, citing every example of intellectual dishonesty in the forum and complaining Squick hasn't criticized them all?
I don't include you any time I use "we" in this discussion. At least two people have noticed this and commented on it in this thread.
Uh. Okay. In that case, would you like to show me why you believe Squick so nefarious a villain?
quote:
quote:You have time and time again failed to report a single instance of Squick persecuting Kat above all others
I haven't failed. I haven't done it. Nor am I going to. In this thread, Squick has made accusations about Kat that extend beyond her behavior in this thread. Why aren't you asking him to back them up.
Why aren't you providing evidence of your accusations against Kat?
Don't try to hold me to a different standard just because you can't be rational about Kat.
You know what, that's a good point. I have a fairly long history of disgust with Kat's debate tactics, but I have neither the interest nor time to provide evidence for her wrongdoing. I'm not going to hunt down the members she shares responsibility for chasing away, and I'm not going to dig through old threads (if they still exist) in pursuit of arguments I disliked the first time around. She can consider my claims against her integrity dropped -- her beef this time is with Squick and Kayla, and I know them to be intelligent enough for their arguments to somehow stand without my support.
My contention lies with your utterly unfounded and unreasonable attack on the characters of Squick and Kayla, two people I greatly admire and like. As such, I've requested you either provide some, any evidence at all for what seem baseless accusations -- or apologize for insulting two good people who command a great deal of my respect. To date, you've yet to provide either, and lashing out at me isn't much of a defense on your part.
quote:
quote:Really, I thought you better than this. Is it so difficult to admit you've levelled unfounded accusations at good people, and regret your mistake?
Ah, yes, there's the Lalo condescension. I won't dance to your tune, so bring out the tired old "I thought better of you" and couch it as if I know I've made a mistake and aren't admitting it. Don't even acknowledge the possibility that I actually believe what I'm saying.
And you wonder why I question your intellectual honesty.
I've never questioned the sincerity of your beliefs, only their accuracy -- but then, you know that, and obviously believe a strong offense preferable to a substantial defense.
Take a break, guy. I understand if this is an off day for you -- I've more than a few of those myself, and I know deterioration is the only result of pursued argument in the face of weariness. Sleep it off, and if you choose to apologize to Squick and Kayla in the morning, know you'll have my respect for it. And if you don't, well, you never owed me an apology in the first place.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Also james, it might be a reference to a thread we had about Fred Phelps who is a guy in Kansas who likes to picket homosexual funerals with signs that say "God hates (the word you find offensive.) We've had many discussions about him because he lives near me and my niece has AIDS.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Lalo, have you read this whole thread yet? If not, I suggest you take a step back and read it. Have you watched the movie? Read the book?
Posted by james01 (Member # 8863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kayla: James, I'm totally sorry about missing the fact that you were a transguy. I thought it was transgen. And from that, I made a stupid assumption you were a guy wanting to be a woman, who liked women. So, you're a man in a woman's body who likes men? (almost had an embarrassing type there, forgetting the n on that last word. ) (Not that I'm not likable, but I was thinking it was men you liked, not me. ) Damn, I'm just confused now. Sorry. I don't mean to be a dork. It's just a natural talent.
S'all good. My gender is male, my sex is female, and I'm almost positive I'm bi. James is the name I'm planning on changing my name to at some point in the future.
And dorks are fun.
As for the other thing, I know who Fred Phelps is. And I thought that's what it might be referring to, but it was still used sentences other his catchphrase.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:No, just Meryl Streep and I bet she's hamming it up. One of the things me and OSC agree on. She's not half as good as Emily Watson. Not even 1/4th, but does Emily Watson get an oscar, of course not.
Woah. Emily Watson is a fine actress, but to accuse Streep of being a ham? And to brush her off like that? Too often all that's said of Streep is that she's one of the greatest accent talents to ever grace cinema (which isn't quite true, she's probably the greatest), she's an absolute chameleon. Like many great method actors she may occasionally be accused of over acting, but never bad acting. Of course she isn't infalliable, she's made a lot of dreck, but I have to wonder if you actually know what you're talking about.
I mean, certain people will rub you the wrong way and for some reason they can't control you won't care for them. But you're going to be hard pressed to find fault in Streep's grasp of the craft.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, It might help you to understand Lalo's position to know that I tore into him a couple of times when I thought he stepped over the line way back in the day. Incidentally, by the time you came around, Lalo's age was pretty well known on the forum, so I think you may need more than your claim to how you totally remember wehen he lied to you about his age to be taken seriously. Lalo, whatever his faults, was never much one for dishonesty.
---
Are you seriously complaining that I don't join in the dogpiling on KOM or starL when they say something really out there? I think I may use a different method of determining when it's important that [i}I specifically[/i] say something than the "how bad is the behavior or thing said" metric you are suggesting. Frankly, I'm like to think I'm less stupid than that. If you can show a pattern where I ignore poor behavior by long term, central members of the community who no one else is going to call them on it, well, I'd be amazed, really, but you also would have proven your point. I eagerly await your efforts in this vein.
And I've also got to wonder, even if, as I appear to be under your conception, "stalking" kat, are you saying that my criticisms of her behavior are unfair? Becuase I'm not clear if it's the unfairness/inaccuracy of my criticisms that bothers you or just their relative frequency.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I just saw Equilibrium (good flick, the gun katta was really amazing and the story was above average, even if the "I am your Father" semi-twist was pretty predictible) and I was wondering who that actress was, but, you know, not enough to actually look it up or anything. But, hey, turns out it's Emily Watson.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:. . . are you saying that my criticisms of her behavior are unfair?
I think they are, yes.
-o-
Dag joined well before Lalo's landmark admitting his age, IIRC.
-o-
I liked Meryl Streep twenty years or so ago. Lately I just can't stand to watch her in anything. I think her acting has declined; she seems too hard be be working at being a *presence* instead of being a character. But my impression could be off. Something about her appearance also rubs me the wrong way, and possibly makes me less able to appreciate her talent. Specifically, her facial muscles no longer seem to go through the whole range of motion.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Watson's best work was probably in Breaking the Waves, it's heart breaking and unwaveringly real in its presentation, with a close second (to my mind) in Angela's Ashes. I haven't seen everything she's done, so maybe I missed some greats.
***
No, I know what you're saying, Ick (it kinda ties in to what I said about over acting, right? Too much presence/weight, not enough light touch. And she's got some real Streep things she does that creep into her characters, but sometimes I wonder if many actors do that and you don't notice as much because you don't see as much of them, or if it's really her fault. Probably largely her.), but she's still had some great roles. Did you see Adaptation? She was fantastic in that. And, though it may be a dangerous movie to name here, she was wonderful as the rabbi and the ghost in Angel's in America.
[ January 10, 2006, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Icky, So you've said, but errr, I have asked you to make a case for this other than me being a bad person, which you haven't exactly been quick to do. Which is not to say that they weren't really smashing personal insults.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Holy cow! i feel almost responsible for the initial emotional explosions while at the same time realize that some people just need to have something about which to disagree. the premise is trite (i'm talking about the movie again) with the obvious twist of cowboy falling in love with cowboy. its so obvious it's stupid. That's what i was talking about, the stupidity of the whole idea, pandering to those that love the unusual. Thats it. And the backbone thing was meant to be funny. You can blame it on me not having a sense of humor.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote: Lalo, whatever his faults, was never much one for dishonesty.
I have faults?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sometimes you come across as overly modest.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
To my knowledge, I have not claimed you are a bad person. (In fact, I believe I specifically said otherwise.) And I have no idea what your last sentence means, but if you're accusing me of making personal insults, then I don't believe I have done this either.
As for making a case that your criticisms of Kat are unfair, I don't see a need. I expressed my point of view. You then asked a question (were they unfair?). I gave my answer. I actually haven't seen any misbehavior by Kat in this thread, aside from some snarky replies once she was already being bashed. In general, I think the only thing that sets Kat apart from people like Pat or Dag or Porter or any other conservative Christian is that, when she feels attacked, she pulls up the drawbridge, oils the moat and sets it aflame, and hunkers down for a nice, long siege. On occasion, I believe she has done this before actually being attacked, when she perceives it coming from someone who is often antagonistic to her. Also, in general, I believe this to be a counterproductive strategy, because many times I have found, in my own online experience, than even in the midst of anger and harsh words, an understanding can be reached. I have formed some online friendships with people I respect greatly specifically from the ashes of such out-fallings.
I believe that when Kat feels attacked, all (or most communication) is done. I think this drives people who argue with her nuts, because they see it as stubbornness on her part, and because she gives smartass responses to everything once she thinks that what she actually says will not be listened to. And maybe they, in turn, start to attack her more than they would other people who, as dag noted, behave far worse.
Mr. Squicky, It might help you to understand my position to know that I have, on multiple occasions, specifically told Kat in one of these fights that I think she is in the wrong. I think it only fair, therefore, to tell her, publicly, when I don't think she is.
(I am not adressing the original debate between her and Karl, btw. They each are clearly arguing different points.)
I think Kat builds here far more than she unbuilds--if, indeed, she ever unbuilds at all. I think your comments to her were out of line, undeserved, and destructive. I think your behavior was worse than what you charge her with. Feel free to disagree. I only post because some clarification seemed to be in order. Clarification I will provide; argument does not interest me. I am not interested in offering myself up to be a sacrifice in Kat's place. So if you disagree, disagree. If you want to start condescending to me and insulting me, I will (publicly) ignore it. *shrug* I felt like my conscience demanded that I state my peace, and I have done so.
EDIT: typos
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*applauds Ic*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Icky, I'm asking you to explain your view. To me, I saw kat clearly disrepecting Karl and what he was saying. I am interested in how you see this such that it is so different.
If you can show me how to see situations where I think kat is being nasty and disrespectful in another light, I'll gladly stop the behavior you apparently find so objectionable. However, as it stands, I do actually see her acting this way (the insults I was talking about were what seemed to me to be your implication that I don't really see it this way, but rather just like attacking kat), I see it being a problem for Hatrack, and I'm going to try to counteract it.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:I believe that when Kat feels attacked, all (or most communication) is done. I think this drives people who argue with her nuts, because they see it as stubbornness on her part, and because she gives smartass responses to everything once she thinks that what she actually says will not be listened to. And maybe they, in turn, start to attack her more than they would other people who, as dag noted, behave far worse.
I'm rather unwilling to believe Kat such a frail woman that she dives for cover in a bunker of dishonesty and denial the second she feels threatened. Give her some credit, Jose.
But if true, this fails to villainize Squick and Kayla -- you can perhaps condemn them for failure to understand the true nature of Kat, assuming yours is the correct interpretation, but it's hardly damning to accuse them of honest disagreement and frustration with evasiveness.
I personally disagree with you -- in my experience, Kat responds negatively to disagreement, not merely belligerence, at least as regards her core issues (such as homosexuality). I sincerely hope I'm wrong about her, and that she'll prove me so in the future. But in either case, why condemn others for her failing? If I go berserk when I feel threatened, will you hold me responsible or those who disagree with me? I'm enough of a feminist to believe Kat doesn't merit treatment we wouldn't grant any other sentient adult.
That said, I agree that beating the dead horse is useless, as it has been so many times before. If Kat feels like honest, straightforward discourse, she's more than welcome in my book, no hard feelings remembered. If she doesn't, well, I'll stay away as I have for some time now -- there's one hell of a world around me, and while I enjoy civil disagreement, dishonesty disgusts and wearies me; and I see no reason to afford it my time. I don't feel this thread is one of her worse examples, but I'm more than familiar with those -- and I can see where Squick and Kayla's frustration might carry from.
But, yeah, enough of this. I'll go to sleep and hope Hatrack remains the bastion of civility and decency I've long held it to be in the wasteland of the Internet.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
To go back to address something that KarlEd said on page one or two. It was about the hub bub being different over Legends of the Fall, vs Brokeback Mtn. In the fundamentalist Christian community at the time of Legends of the Fall, I heard sermons against seeing the movie. Heard sermons against Dirty Dancing because of abortion.
While I think the theater owner is within his rights to pull the movie because it is a free country, I don't think he is being morally consistent. If he refused to show any R rated movies he'd have a leg to stand on. Or if he refused to show any extra-marital or cheating sex he'd have a leg to stand on.
I question what made him do it at the last minute, because that is ethically inconsistent as well. You are then in breach of contract, with the film company as well as betraying some of your customer base. Sudden moral scruples don't set well to me, for any reason other than publicity, unless he changes his booking patterns from here on out. I don't see a true change of heart.
I also think that there is some hypocrisy in the community itself if it was community pressure that contributed the owner to pull the movie. If they were showing up to other R-rated movies against the general cultural prohibition of the area, they don't have a moral leg to stand on either.
As far as the greater "forbidden love" concept. I 'm myself not convinced that the male-male aspect changes the greater archetype, nor that it is any different relative to this generation than other stories have been in other generations. I would submit Lady Chatterly's Lover as a work alongside South Pacific.
Alongside that I also have to put myself. Although I am female, my brain *is* a very masculine brain. In fact it is so masculine that most guys don't like it in a girlfriend. (I have the high testosterone levels to go along with the brain too.) In that sense, I *have* to believe that the story would work even if one of the characters was female. Because with or without cultural prohibitions, it would be two masculine brains falling in love. But, no male has fallen in love with Calamity Jane in Deadwood (although we haven't had the second season yet).
AJ
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Holy cow! i feel almost responsible for the initial emotional explosions while at the same time realize that some people just need to have something about which to disagree. the premise is trite (i'm talking about the movie again) with the obvious twist of cowboy falling in love with cowboy. its so obvious it's stupid. That's what i was talking about, the stupidity of the whole idea, pandering to those that love the unusual. Thats it. And the backbone thing was meant to be funny. You can blame it on me not having a sense of humor.
Bolded area mine. I don't blame any of this on your sense of humor or lack thereof. I do think you need to learn the difference between an "obvious twist" and a basic premise that is integral to a story.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Emily Watson was great in Hilary and Jackie. She really becomes whatever character she's playing, a person can really feel that. That's kind of rare these days.
Don't get me started on Sharon Stone... She really, really cannot act.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Belle, I responded to your last post where you specifically addressed me. It's at the top of page 6. I'm just bumping so you know I responded. I'm interested in your comments on my response.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Uh. Okay. In that case, would you like to show me why you believe Squick so nefarious a villain?
I said he appears to be harassing Kat. I've stated my reasons (inconsistency in application of his stated purpose) more than enough now. It's why I said appears - for all your complaints of nit-picking, it's accurate. I'm not going to provide a detailed list of past occurences any more than Squick did about Kat. I'm just trying to break through his shell of perceived consistency and egocentrism.
quote:And what do I have to prove wrong?
Would you like to just provide my lines for me? You italicized "have" as if I actually said you have to prove me wrong. I didn't. This is why it's so frustrating - you're not actually responding to me, but to some Lalo-modified version of what I said. How do you go from "Do X if you want" to "Why do I have to do X?" The only reason you seem me as backed into a corner is because you don't see me - you see some construct you've created.
quote:I've never questioned the sincerity of your beliefs, only their accuracy -- but then, you know that, and obviously believe a strong offense preferable to a substantial defense.
The "accuracy" of my beliefs? Are you listening to yourself? You are betty qualified t accurately state my beliefs than I am?
I've provided many substantial defenses, to which the substance of your response is, "You don't really believe what you say you believe. You believe X."
quote:Incidentally, by the time you came around, Lalo's age was pretty well known on the forum, so I think you may need more than your claim to how you totally remember wehen he lied to you about his age to be taken seriously.
As Ic said, "Dag joined well before Lalo's landmark admitting his age." Further, I have checked my recollection with several people who were amused at it after the Landmark - it happened closely enough to it that people connected the two, and they remember doing so. I can't find the thread where it occurred, but that's fine. The people whose opinion I care about either remember it as I do or trust me enough to know I'm not making it up.
quote:Are you seriously complaining that I don't join in the dogpiling on KOM or starL when they say something really out there? I think I may use a different method of determining when it's important that [i}I specifically[/i] say something than the "how bad is the behavior or thing said" metric you are suggesting. Frankly, I'm like to think I'm less stupid than that. If you can show a pattern where I ignore poor behavior by long term, central members of the community who no one else is going to call them on it, well, I'd be amazed, really, but you also would have proven your point.
Perhaps now you understand why Ic felt the need to speak up tonight.
If your general rule results in action against only one person, a person who you demonstrate dislike for in every interaction, then you shouldn't be surprised if you appear to have a rule concerning only that person.
It's kind of like that ill-fated law the Florida legislature passed about Schiavo - it purported to be a rule of general applicability but wasn't. No one was fooled. Here we don't have direct proof of your intent to disguise a specific outcome with a general rule like we had in Florida. But the only visible evidence - the result - creates a strong appearance. (There's that word again, Lalo.)
quote:And I've also got to wonder, even if, as I appear to be under your conception, "stalking" kat, are you saying that my criticisms of her behavior are unfair?
Yes, they are. Especially when taken as a whole. The grains of truth that might or might not be in any specific post don't change this fact.
[ January 10, 2006, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
There are three classy people in this thread. And I'm not going to say who they are. See if you can pick them out.
You only have to wade through 4 pages of sewage. It's worth it, though, to see how classy people respond to misunderstanding, disagreement, and bile.
Huzzah, you three. Huzzah.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Emily Watson was great in Hilary and Jackie. She really becomes whatever character she's playing, a person can really feel that. That's kind of rare these days.
I agree about Hilary and Jackie--excellent movie, even if it definitely stretched the truth a bit with regard to the Du Pre sisters' lives. I found Angela's Ashes fairly dull, but it wasn't because of her.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh, and Rabbitt & Kojabu-- I've had lasagna in Italy with ricotta cheese.
So there.
Also, bruschetta with parmeggiano cheese.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Squick, I typed a reply to you last night and then my dsl went down. God's way of telling me to go to sleep, perhaps. I saved it to Notepad, though. I can post it when I get home this evening, or e-mail it to you, if you want.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
BannaOj wrote:
quote:Alongside that I also have to put myself. Although I am female, my brain *is* a very masculine brain. In fact it is so masculine that most guys don't like it in a girlfriend. (I have the high testosterone levels to go along with the brain too.) In that sense, I *have* to believe that the story would work even if one of the characters was female. Because with or without cultural prohibitions, it would be two masculine brains falling in love.
I still don't think it would work because the story also wouldn't be the same "without cultural prohibitions". The masculinity of the brains is a side issue. By that I mean that it's entirely possible that Ennis might have fallen in love with a very masculinely brained woman, but if he had there still would be no story. The love would also no longer be "forbidden love" either. What makes the story is the cultural prohibition which has made Ennis fear his own self and only see a tragic end if he pursues the love he feels. And I see a unique aspect of this cultural prohibition in regards to homosexuality in that for many people, expecially in the time and place the story is set, the prohibition is just as much against being homosexual as it is against setting up house with your same-sex lover. Ennis has to deal with the feelings he has not only in what they make him want to do, but also in what they say about himself. If Jack were a girl, that conflict would be non-existant, no matter how masculine his brain was.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm sorry, but Ennis is just a horrible, horrible name to inflict on a child.
Whatever your view on this topic, you've gotta agree with me there.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I've known 2 guys named Ennis. I don't really have any thoughts about that name. Although now I wonder where the name came from.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The Dukes of Hazzard.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I haven't yet seen the movie. Does "Ennis" rhyme with "tennis" or with, um, "Venus"?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: If Jack were a girl, that conflict would be non-existant, no matter how masculine his brain was.
My proposition is that in that culture and time the romance would be non-existent. In other words it would have gone from "forbidden love" to "impossible love" simply because it never would have happened. Not because Jack would be a girl, but because Ennis would find Jack's brain in a female body so repugnant that sex of any kind would have been the farthest thing from his mind.
Jack as a woman, (Jill? *grin*) would have been equally conflicted and filled with self-loathing, because of the cultural prohibitions against a woman in that masculine of a to begin with. In fact part of the reason that Ennis wouldn't have liked her is because undoubtedly there would have been whispers that "Jill" was butch. She wouldn't have been worth anyone loving to begin with.
"forbidden love" is at least still love. Being so different that nobody would even think of loving you as yourself in the first place is worse. Is the gap that would have had to be bridged for Jill to be loved at all, lesser than the other? Would Jill's self-loathing be any less than Ennis'?
Now the relationship wouldn't have necessarily been as dangerous for both parties involved, however Jill being Jill, would have been in equally great, if not greater, physical danger from being labelled as a butch lesbian, even if she wasn't one.
AJ
(This does not contradict what I said earlier. I would *hope* this could actually be overcome temporararily but we'd have the same sort of movie with an equally rending choice at the end, except that instead, Jill wouldn't have any other family to go back to, just the life she'd made for herself without anyone else.)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I get that, Banna, and I think it would be a very interesting story.
It would also be a very different story.
I see the archtype, of course, and when you look at it that way there are only about six basic stories. Ever.
But the stories differ significantly according to the people involved. My stories, the stories of things that have happened to me in my life, are much the same as other people's stories, but they are different because they happened to me.
If a character or characters feel "real", then their story would be unique.
You could tell a very similar story to Brokeback Mountain, but have the leads be twin brothers played by Steve Buscemi. *shudder*
That would still be a VERY different story.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:I said he appears to be harassing Kat. I've stated my reasons (inconsistency in application of his stated purpose) more than enough now. It's why I said appears - for all your complaints of nit-picking, it's accurate. I'm not going to provide a detailed list of past occurences any more than Squick did about Kat. I'm just trying to break through his shell of perceived consistency and egocentrism.
This is getting tiring, Dag. You've accused Squick of harassing Kat, yes. You claim he persecutes her above all others. Throughout this entire thread, you've failed to back up your accusations in the slightest. And I fail to see how empty accusations break "through his shell of perceived consistency and egocentrism" -- perhaps you're trying to duplicate what you believe to be his misbehavior, so he might take a lesson from it? Or... what?
quote: quote:And what do I have to prove wrong?
Would you like to just provide my lines for me? You italicized "have" as if I actually said you have to prove me wrong. I didn't. This is why it's so frustrating - you're not actually responding to me, but to some Lalo-modified version of what I said. How do you go from "Do X if you want" to "Why do I have to do X?" The only reason you seem me as backed into a corner is because you don't see me - you see some construct you've created.
Stunning disingenuity, Dag. Here's the quote in its context:
You haven't said, "I haven't seen this." You've said, "You're wrong about this." So you prove me wrong if you want. Go ahead.
Uh. Dag, that's exactly what I just said. You cited it yourself, in your selective quote choosing. "All I've asked you to do is provide evidence for the insults you've heaped upon his character -- and since I don't share your beliefs, why do you believe the onus lies on me, not you, to prove them?"
And what do I have to prove wrong? You haven't provided anything of substance for me to disagree with, just vapors of accusations and refusal to substantiate them.
If that was confusing structure, allow me to rephrase -- have you provided anything to "prove me wrong"? What have you provided of substance for me to disagree with but vapors of accusations and refusal to substantiate them?
You're in law school. You're more than intelligent enough to read a request for evidence -- much less many, many repeated ones -- and understand I'm not asking why you're forcing me to do something.
I have no idea why you're being so evasive and disingenuous, but know such qualities are largely responsible for my lack of hope in Katharina. I'd hoped a night's rest might help you pull yourself together and answer with the same quality I've come to associate with you -- and, obviously, I was mistaken.
Feel better, dude. I don't know what's wrong, or if anything is, but I hope everything's okay or will be soon. When you're feeling more like the Dagonee I knew, I'd love to pick your brain on controversial subjects again. As far as this idiotic disagreement goes, Squick and Kayla know their quality, and have too much class to ask an apology on their own behalf -- nor, I believe, do they need or even desire one. It would've been nice if you'd had the class to apologize, but, again, I'm no stranger to off days myself.
I hope you're doing okay, guy.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I'm not sure I can answer that directly because I don't think it's a contention I particularly hold. I don't feel like Chris and my relationship is disrespected by this thread in the least. On the other hand, though, the relationship between Ennis and Jack could be said to be disrespected by saying it is essentially the same as any other forbidden love story and simply leaving it at that. Were I in their position, I'd be highly offended. But that offense is likey just as much due to the almost inescapable flippancy of such a general comparison as it is to any slight against their sexuality specifically.
Okay, see here's where we still disagree. I don't think it's flippant at all. In fact I would think it would be a compliment, an acknowledgement that their love was genuine and real enough to be seen as the equivalent to other types of forbidden love. I'm still not getting the disrespectful part, at all.
quote:Our relationship isn't seen as the equivalent of a heterosexual love relationship, or even a "forbidden" heterosexual relationship. Wishing it were so does not make it so. Acting as if it is so -- or even worse as if it were always so (which is what pretending it's basically just like any other "forbidden love" does) -- disregards all the very real pain suffered by probably millions of homosexuals throughout history and even today.
We're still running up against the same thing - I don't think that comparing it to other forms of forbidden love disregards any pain anyone has suffered. To say that, implies that other people in other forbidden love arrangements don't suffer pain, or that the pain suffered by homosexuals is somehow more intense, more meaningful than the pain of other couples. I think, in fact, that view is the disrespectful one - it's denying the very real pain other couples suffer, or saying their suffering is not as significant because they're not gay.
quote:I think the movie would fail miserably if it set its sights so high as to speak to forbidden love in general.
Here's where the archetype arguments come in, I (and perhaps kat too) are maintaining that any story about any forbidden love is at its essence an archetypal forbidden love story and it's purpose is to portray the essence of forbidden love. Regardless of what makes the love forbidden, they're still archetypal stories.
quote:So, although this isn't what I was arguing initially, I do believe that gay love is fundamentally different from most, if not all, other forms of forbidden love. Note I haven't said it is more important, transcendant, glorious, noble, better, worse, or in any way or degree "more X" than any other kind of forbidden love, only that it is different. I hope that answers your question.
Unfortunately it doesn't answer my question because I don't see how it's different. If you're not claiming it's more transcendant, glorious, noble or better, then what are you saying? That it's more difficult than a heterosexual relationship? Can we really make the claim that being homosexual makes a relationship more difficult than being of two different cultures or religions or social statuses? Especially if we go back through time and look at obstacles that existed for couples that maybe don't exist today. I'm not going to make the claim that one is more difficult than the other, because that would be saying to one group "Your pain and your suffereing at being apart is not as significant as the pain of this gay couple, because you're hetero." Again, to me that's where we start disrespecting others.
quote:But for the record, I haven't up to now argued much of anything about archetypes. I simply argued that making either Ennis or Jack a girl would make the story completely different. For one, you couldn't just change the gender of one of them. To make it a viable story you'd have to change a gender and a social situation, or a time, or a place or something else to retain the conflict. If the only difference was that one was a girl, there'd be no story at all. They'd get married and have their ranch and be happy and no one else would care except insofar as they were jealous of the happy couple.
Well of course in this story simply making one female would mean there is no story, because it would remove the forbidden love aspect. But making one a poor black female and one a wealthy white ranch owner's son and you have the same archetypal story. Or making one Muslim and the other the daughter of a Christian missionary. Or numerous other examples we could name.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Oh, and Rabbitt & Kojabu-- I've had lasagna in Italy with ricotta cheese.
So there.
Also, bruschetta with parmeggiano cheese.
I don't care so much about the lasagna, I've never had the stuff being someone who *ahem* doesn't eat cheese (no I'm not vegan).
Now this bruschetta of which you speak, did it come with the cheese or did they ask you if you wanted cheese?
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I haven't yet seen the movie. Does "Ennis" rhyme with "tennis" or with, um, "Venus"?
Tennis.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
They *taught* me to grate parmeggiano over the bread and tomatoes.
This was Northern Italy, though-- I seem to recall you lived in the south.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I was in Rome, though my Grandfather is from Calabria. The best bruschetta I've ever had came from Tuscany.
I just wish they'd say "toasted bread with tomatoes, garlic, spices, and CHEESE" but they don't. At least not in the few places where I've been surprised by the cheese on my bruschetta. Because they're out to get me.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Olivet, I'm rebutting here.
quote: I simply argued that making either Ennis or Jack a girl would make the story completely different. For one, you couldn't just change the gender of one of them. To make it a viable story you'd have to change a gender and a social situation, or a time, or a place or something else to retain the conflict. If the only difference was that one was a girl, there'd be no story at all.
I don't see my above scenario with "Jill" as "completely different" from the other. Because the seeds have already been built in with the story to retain the conflict even if one character were female.
Obviously it would be a *different* story, but "no story at all" is where I disagree. And it's fiction, characters are characters. Could you actually change a man to a woman without changing the character? Because if you haven't truly changed the character, than you haven't changed the story. That's really where the heart of the question lies.
AJ
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote: quote:Incidentally, by the time you came around, Lalo's age was pretty well known on the forum, so I think you may need more than your claim to how you totally remember wehen he lied to you about his age to be taken seriously.
As Ic said, "Dag joined well before Lalo's landmark admitting his age." Further, I have checked my recollection with several people who were amused at it after the Landmark - it happened closely enough to it that people connected the two, and they remember doing so. I can't find the thread where it occurred, but that's fine. The people whose opinion I care about either remember it as I do or trust me enough to know I'm not making it up.
As far as this particular personal attack goes, I'd really like to hear from the "several people" you checked your recollection with. I suppose their opinions don't particularly matter if they don't have the class to come forward themselves, but I do take offense at this assault on my character and integrity -- I'm no liar, and it's rather sad that you've had to resort such falsehoods for rebuttals. Since when are you reduced to ad hominem attacks, dude?
And no, nobody's saying you're "making it up" -- I'm sure you sincerely believe me a liar. However, have you entertained the possibility, faint as it may seem to you, that you could be inaccurate? That you are, as ElJay suggested, confusing me with some other incident?
ElJay joined the forum on March 22, 2004, a month before I wrote my landmark. Unless this happened in the four weeks between her joining and my landmark, I don't quite see how I can be the subject of her recollection of an incident when someone falsely claimed to be your elder. Is it at all possible you might be misremembering whatever happened?
I'd like either substantiation or withdrawal of your charge, aware or not as you may be of its falsehood. The only reason why I ask is because I hold enough respect for you to care that you think well of me -- and this will be my final request for one or the other. You don't seem particularly apt at either currently, and if you fail again I'll maintain hope for a future revival of the classy Rob I remember -- but it'd be nice if you could again stand behind your positions and defend them as you once did. What you've been doing for the past few pages is simply disappointing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is getting tiring, Dag. You've accused Squick of harassing Kat, yes. You claim he persecutes her above all others. Throughout this entire thread, you've failed to back up your accusations in the slightest. And I fail to see how empty accusations break "through his shell of perceived consistency and egocentrism" -- perhaps you're trying to duplicate what you believe to be his misbehavior, so he might take a lesson from it? Or... what?
I'm sorry you're getting tired of asking me to something I've stated quite clearly that I am not going to do - something you are not demanding of Squicky, by the way. If you and Squick get to make vague references to past behavior, then so do I.
The appearance exists. This is a factual statement, because it appears that way to both Ic and to me. You are utterly unable to dispute it, because it's a statement about what others perceive. It is unquestionable that people are perceiving Squick's actions toward Kate in the manner I've described.
And the shell phrase is a direct paraphrase of something Squick said about Kat.
quote:If that was confusing structure, allow me to rephrase -- have you provided anything to "prove me wrong"?
You seem to think so, since you have been harping about what I've said. Regardless, if that's what you meant, then I misinterpreted that sentence. I read it as a continuation of "why do you believe the onus lies on me."
So just apply everything I said except the italicization part to the onus sentence. I've placed no onus on you. Do it if you want to. I don't care.
quote:You're in law school. You're more than intelligent enough to read a request for evidence -- much less many, many repeated ones -- and understand I'm not asking why you're forcing me to do something.
And you're intelligent enough to understand my many, many repeated statements that I am not going to do that, any more than you or Squick has done it with your accusations about Kat. Accusations you had dropped but seemed to have picked back up again.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:I was in Rome, though my Grandfather is from Calabria. The best bruschetta I've ever had came from Tuscany.
My brother was stationed in Sicily for a couple years. Apparently, nowhere else in the world -- or even Italy -- compares.
But he might've been talking more about the women than the cheese, impressive as it sounds.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The next time I read the word "archetype", I think my head may asplode.
Is there anyway we can substitute another word in, like maybe "cupcake", or "svengali"?
Thanks.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Is there anyway we can substitute another word in, like maybe "cupcake", or "svengali"?
Um, no. Sorry.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Lalo, maybe that's because of the mafia.
Scott, who were those 3 you were talking about on the previous page?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
AJ, you're supposing so many changes that it's hard to make this discussion coherent. First, if you make one of the characters female, I don't see how you can just assume Ennis would find her repugnant. Likewise, what follows above is you writing a completely different story about a woman who is so conflicted about her inner self she either can't be loved, or can't believe love is possible for her and thus kills it. That's a possible and potentially very compelling story to tell, but it's not remotely Brokeback Mountain, which only underscores my point.
My point is, (and you have to assume Ennis can love the female lead or there is no love story at all), Ennis could love her and marry her. One of the more popular vile things said about lesbians is that what one needs is the right man. I think even if "Jill" were the butchest lesbian around, she'd be more accepted by the community married to Ennis than she would being single. Ennis would probably be talked of as the man who was able to tame her, for that matter. The conflict in this story would be in Jill (the lesbian) entering into an unfulfilling relationship with Ennis for whatever motivations you give her. Or with Ennis frustratedly wooing someone who, to him, is a butch hottie, but she doesn't return the affection. Again, neither of those is Brokeback Mountain. The conflicts are different and the consequences of character choices are also different.
I'm not discounting whatever inner turmoil you want to assign to "Jill", or even whatever conflict you want to give Ennis and Jill between themselves as a couple. The fact is, though, if one is a man and one is a woman and all other external factors are equal, they have no obstacles to getting married and having a happy life. No one is going to bust into their cabin one dark night and kill them for their perversions. Jill isn't going to go shack up with a lesbian (and find acceptance in doing that) because society would find that more acceptable than a man marrying a butch woman.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
This thread has made me hungry for lasagna. Guess what's for dinner tonight!
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Steak?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Wrong! Next guess?
Hey, when your appetite is as hit and miss as mine with all the chemo meds, the instant something sounds good to you, you better take advantage of it.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I'm guessing new greens with grape tomatoes and balsamic vinaigrette.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
But, but.
Steak! It's what's for dinner!
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
No, that's beef. It doesn't have to be steak.
Besides, maybe Belle feels like chicken tonight (like chicken tonight, like chicken tonight)!
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Oh. Oops. I guess I don't remember the commercial as well as I thought I did.
Showertime!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
No chicken, but she does feel like going to the fabric store to shop for fabric for her sofa slipcover project. See you peeps later.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And no, nobody's saying you're "making it up" -- I'm sure you sincerely believe me a liar. However, have you entertained the possibility, faint as it may seem to you, that you could be inaccurate? That you are, as ElJay suggested, confusing me with some other incident?
The comments were made to me after the landmark, referencing the prior remark and commenting on the irony of it. The memory I have is specifically tied to the landmark.
It's possible I'm mistaken - I can't find the thread. But the memory is tied specifically to your landmark. These people brought it up on their own after it was posted.
And no, I won't tell you their names and drag them into this. Disbelieve me if you want.
There is an incident where Tom talked about how he had been a Star Wars fan for longer than I was alive. That was amusing, but I am not confusing this with that.
You have said despicable things about Kat in this thread. You've backed them up not once. You've withdrawn them and then referred to them again. And the thing is, this does not disappoint me, because it's what I expect from you when the subject of Kat comes up.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Just to be clear, my whole involvement in this thread was because of a very flippant remark by airmanfour about how Brokeback Mountain was just a sappy new drama with a guy in the chick role. What I'm trying to defend here is the idea that the fact that Jack and Ennis are men is absolutely integral to Brokeback Mountain. If you change that, you no longer have Brokeback Mountain. You have some other movie that may or may not have poignant and truthful things to say about some kind of love, but it can't say the things Brokeback Mountain is saying about the kind of love it has chosen to portray.
Belle, I think we are argueing past each other similar to the way Kat and I were yesterday. (And Kat, if that is true, I appologize for taking offense too quickly.) I'm not saying gay love is incomparable. I'm saying it's irreplaceable. The attitude I have been percieving is that since both are remotely related under the archetype "Forbidden Love" then any kind could do just as good a job of telling the story as any other kind. That idea I do find very disrespectful, not just of gay love, but of any kind of forbidden love. Now, I'm not saying that you are arguing that point. I don't think you are. Are you? What follows is going on the assumption that neither you nor Kat was arguing that idea.
Kat, I see now what less invested people here have been saying about us talking past each other. If I re-write your posts taking them out of context as responses to me, specifically, I think I understand what you are saying. It was the juxtaposition of them as counter-points to my arguement (from an apparently totally different starting point) that initially made me take offense. I think if you read my posts as defense of the idea that although many forms of "forbidden love" can fall under that archetype and therefore can be compared and contrasted, they are not in themselves simply interchangeable I think you might see more sense in my points. To swap one out with the other would make a given story, though still dealing with "forbidden love", a different story because one form of "forbidden love" does not address the uniqueness of the other forms you might try to replace it with. I fully admit that although it was clear to me that was what I was defending, I failed in making that point clear to you. To the degree this description of my view of the issue is acceptable to you, I appologize for my part in the silliness that followed the initial disagreement.
Belle,
quote: If you're not claiming it's more transcendant, glorious, noble or better, then what are you saying?
I'm saying that it is different. I think that is important. It is unique as is each of the other forms that may fall under this archetype. While you could take Ennis and Jack and make them a heterosexual couple and add some other aspect to make their love forbidden, saying the new story is "the same" is to disrespect the uniqueness of their particular situation and their particular kind of "forbidden Love". This is in much the same way that it would be disrespectful to you to say that since your own life story falls under the archetype of Religious Inspirational Stories, nothing important would be lost by making you a Muslim or by having you deal with a gay husband instead of health and other challenges. Does that make sense?
To take this further, (to explain my point of view regarding disrespect), although we homosexuals would like our love to be seen as equal in validity[i] or even [i]in kind, it isn't equality in the mathematical sense I'm talking about. While it's possible to treat gay love equally to straight love and to accept it equally, it disengenuous to think this means they are one and the same. We all know there are differences: different challenges, different possibilities, different pitfalls not in all ways, or even most ways, but in ways that make one not the mathematical equal of the other. It would be disrespectful to extrapolate that into an attitude that dismisses these differences and acts as if they didn't exist. I'm not saying you are espousing this. I just think there is a fine line between accepting the similarities and not giving due respect to the differences. It's a line I think is worth noting and respecting. Does that make sense?
Posted by Ray Bingham (Member # 9006) on :
Gay victims trump marriage and family everytime in Hollywood. This movie only puts a glossy finish on it.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
O_O
Well, you could also assert that tragic and painful stories are more interesting to most of us, as we live comfortable and largely un-tragic lives. For example, I've always loved the sad broken-heart ballads, even though I believe my heart has never been well-and-truly broken. Maybe because I have been so exceptionally lucky at love, I enjoy stories the horrible emotional torture people go through.
And gay love is ripe for that, dude. I think it's more interesting than "Mary and John fall in love and have babies." Happy realities are the best. Happy stories... you have to work really, really hard to make them not suck.
Just my two cents.
*ducks and covers*
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Karl,
You're really a gem, you know. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Katie and I have exchanged a couple of emails and I have to say that I understand the situation better and can't at this point blame her any more than myself for the flare up between us. I believe if the topic had been less of a hot-button issue for me I would have tried harder to seek clarification before getting short. I think neither Katie nor I trusted each other enough to give the other the benefit of the doubt.
Katie, I retract my insinuations of dishonesty. I locked myself into an either/or estimation of your words and failed to see the truth in between. I'm sorry. I know I said this in the email, but the public insinuation calls for a public apology.
Karl
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
See: this is class.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I've known 2 guys named Ennis. I don't really have any thoughts about that name. Although now I wonder where the name came from.
Also a very nice town in Clare. Up the banner!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Karl, I'm sorry for my part in the misunderstanding, and especially for the bite me comment. I wish I hadn't said it - I shouldn't have. Thank you for your apology, and I'm glad everything is good between us. I respect you very much.
Katie
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
More class.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
THIS is why I loved Hatrack.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sorry I've been away from the computer most of the day. Work has been crazy which is why I've been on fora less in general when not out of town.
quote: it isn't equality in the mathematical sense I'm talking about. While it's possible to treat gay love equally to straight love and to accept it equally, it disengenuous to think this means they are one and the same. We all know there are differences: different challenges, different possibilities, different pitfalls not in all ways, or even most ways, but in ways that make one not the mathematical equal of the other. It would be disrespectful to extrapolate that into an attitude that dismisses these differences and acts as if they didn't exist. I'm not saying you are espousing this. I just think there is a fine line between accepting the similarities and not giving due respect to the differences. It's a line I think is worth noting and respecting.
That explains the difference in perspective I think. I am a bit more mathematical about it although I intend no disrespect. While there is uniqueness to each different kind of "forbidden love" I tend to see all romantic relationships, forbidden or not as two people, two humans, working things through together, and gender being less relevant in that process.
As was said in Ecclesiastes several thousand years ago "There is nothing new under the sun". Humans are humans and the spectrum of human emotions is basically the same as then. However, having said that, every individual is unique. And even while greater archetypes play out, where the beauty actually is, is how individual humans respond to each other. And that is a unique kaliedescope, that includes history, culture, sexual orientation etc. and where there aren't any identical repeats, ever.
AJ
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
That is class. My compliments and apologies.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: While it's possible to treat gay love equally to straight love and to accept it equally, it disengenuous to think this means they are one and the same. We all know there are differences: different challenges, different possibilities, different pitfalls not in all ways, or even most ways, but in ways that make one not the mathematical equal of the other. It would be disrespectful to extrapolate that into an attitude that dismisses these differences and acts as if they didn't exist.
I'm afraid to ask this question for fear that someone will interpret this as a nasty rhetorical question and start the fight over again. But this is a serious question and I am looking for an insightful answer. Please don't anyone take offense.
The arguement KarlEd uses here is frighteningly similar to an argument I've heard opponents of gay marriage use. They say that although there maybe many ways in which gay love and straight love are alike, the differences between them are real and important. They then claim that those difference justify limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
I don't believe that argument when its made by gay marriage opponents. I'm seriously trying to understand how the argument Karl is making differs. What are the differences between gay love and straight love that make it so that this story could never have happened between a man and woman? Why do those difference count in the telling of this story, but should be overlooked when considering whether two men should be allowed to marry?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If they were the same, there would be no basis for saying that gays could only be gay. It's a two edged sword.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Rabbit:
I think KarlEd is making a between the way he'd like to SEE gay marriage (indistinguishable, legally and socially, from heterosexual marriage) and the way gay marriage currently is (filled with "different challenges, different possibilites, different pitfalls").
In that sense, I think his argument that Brokeback Mountain represents a different movie than "just another forbidden love story" is valid without presuming to WANT the situation to remain that way. With most forbidden love stories, the situation isn't something we're struggling with so publicly in present society: the slave and the slave owner, the feuding Italian families, etc. all represent something that we can view as distant from ourselves, since those situations don't exist to the same extent anymore. I'm not trying to say that a white protestant girl with racist parents wouldn't have problems selling marriage to a black man to her parents, but the trials and tribulations involved would be different than those involved with her bringing home a woman.
Eventually, gay marriage may be commonplace or accepted enough in society that we WILL be able to look at a movie like Brokeback Mountain as "just another forbidden romance tale" - because the situation will be historical, rather than a present day struggle.
Beyond that, I think there will always be differences between gay and straight marriage - unavoidable differences, like the inability to conceive - just like there are differences and issues that other couples have to deal with and others don't.
(Karl, if I'm off base here, I apologize - feel free to slap me down and say "YOU'RE WRONG, YOU MORON!" at which point I will have to reference my previous posts in this thread and suggest we take it outside, with food)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
ersomniac, said
quote:With most forbidden love stories, the situation isn't something we're struggling with so publicly in present society: the slave and the slave owner, the feuding Italian families, etc. all represent something that we can view as distant from ourselves, since those situations don't exist to the same extent anymore.
Agreed, I made the same comment several pages back, although it may have been lost in the petty bickering. If that is what Karl means, then my question is answered. But then I have another question. Could this story have been written about heterosexual love if the man and woman had been brother and sister.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Agreed, I made the same comment several pages back, although it may have been lost in the petty bickering.
It very well might have been - or lost in my nude food wrestling tangent.
quote:Could this story have been written about heterosexual love if the man and woman had been brother and sister.
I think it would have, again, been a different movie - since incestuous love is an issue that our present society (American) does not address: we simply write it off as wrong, wrong, wrong. If there's division on this issue, those who view it as something we should accept as normal are in the distinct minority. Unlike my examples in the previous post, this is not an issue we've dealt with on the same scale in the past, nor is it an issue we're actively dealing with presently.
For those who are interested in an interesting, engaging film involving an incestuous relationship, watch Oldboy.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I hate my key board. There is an absolutely stupid pair of "page back" and "page forward" buttons nestled with the arrow keys. I had a huge response to the last couple of posts above nearly ready to post and bumped the back page key and lost everything. I want to swear loudly, but I'm at work. $&@*! %&#*! #&%*!!!!!!!!!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:The Rabbit wrote: The arguement KarlEd uses here is frighteningly similar to an argument I've heard opponents of gay marriage use. They say that although there maybe many ways in which gay love and straight love are alike, the differences between them are real and important. They then claim that those difference justify limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
I don't believe that argument when its made by gay marriage opponents. I'm seriously trying to understand how the argument Karl is making differs.
Just to make sure we're on the same page, I think we're using "gay love"/"straight love" to mean "gay/straight relationships", otherwise the problem is meaningless since we don't (and indeed can't) legislate "love".
It is undeniable that there are differences in the details between gay and straight relationships. What they are, exactly, is perhaps a subject for a different thread. If someone wants to start one, I'll certainly post in it. I just think it's too complex a subject to include here. That said, I think there are "differences" and there are "legally significant differences". There are undeniable differences between Christian churches and Jewish churches, but none of them are legally significant. We use the same set of laws to govern both. The conflict between pro- and anti-SSM stances (once you strip away the useless rhetoric) isn't over the existence of the former, but over what constitutes the latter.
quote:What are the differences between gay love and straight love that make it so that this story could never have happened between a man and woman?
The differences are in the details, which are profoundly important if you want to go beyond labels and general classification and actually understand the individuals involved. If this movie were so generalized that any two characters or similarly conflicted relationships would do, it would not be a great movie. It would be a Harlequin Romance. If you replace one of the roles with a female role, it is no longer the story of Ennis and Jack. Not only could you not replace Ennis or Jack with a female role and still have the same story, you couldn't even replace the role of Ennis with a stronger, more self-confident Ennis, or the role of Jack with a Jack that was gay, but not attracted to Ennis. That's because the story isn't about "gay love" in a general sense any more than it's about "Cowboy Life in Wyoming" in any general sense. It's about the lives of two very specific cowboys who are gay and in love with each other and how they deal with it in the environment in which the story takes place. The story is great because it deals with individuals specific enough to be real and doesn't call upon them to represent a larger class in anything more than the most general way. It isn't a movie about "what happens when guys fall in love". On the other hand, if all you want is to say something very general about "forbidden love" then, no, it probably doesn't really matter whether you choose two men or a man and a woman to represent your forbidden love. Make sense?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I hate it when that happens. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
do'h! I need to refresh more, I guess! Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Without wanting to wade in too deeply, I think it comes down to at what remove you want to summarize things. Because I expect even the details you left out are important and differentiate the story from other stories, and this movie would not be the same regardless. But then, taken to an absurd extreme, summarization becomes impossible. So do you summarize this as a forbidden love story, or do you summarize this as forbidden love story between two gay men in this state and that era, and with these complicating issues? If you summarize this as a forbidden love story, then you could well lump it in with other forbidden love stories.
That doesn't mean flippantly dismissing it as a forbidden love story is not insensitive; just that, beyond that, we're debating details, or possibly semantics.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:erosomniac wrote: (Karl, if I'm off base here, I apologize - feel free to slap me down and say "YOU'RE WRONG, YOU MORON!" at which point I will have to reference my previous posts in this thread and suggest we take it outside, with food)
Although (see above) my specific arguement is different from what you supposed, I agree with what you wrote.
quote:The Rabbit wrote: Could this story have been written about heterosexual love if the man and woman had been brother and sister.
This story, no. Perhaps a story with many more common elements than if they were just an un-related straight couple, but it would still be a different story. And before I get misunderstood, I'm not equating gay relationships with incestuous ones, though I imagine a man in this hypothetical story could deal with some very similar inner turmoil as the character of Ennis is in Brokeback Mountain. But you would also lose other elements that I think are integral to Brokeback Mountain and take on elements that Brokeback Mountain can't address if you want the new story to be realistic.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Without wanting to wade in too deeply, I think it comes down to at what remove you want to summarize things. Because I expect even the details you left out are important and differentiate the story from other stories, and this movie would not be the same regardless. But then, taken to an absurd extreme, summarization becomes impossible. So do you summarize this as a forbidden love story, or do you summarize this as forbidden love story between two gay men in this state and that era, and with these complicating issues? If you summarize this as a forbidden love story, then you could well lump it in with other forbidden love stories.
That doesn't mean flippantly dismissing it as a forbidden love story is not insensitive; just that, beyond that, we're debating details, or possibly semantics.
Yes, but again, I wasn't arguing the classification of the movie or where, specifically, you should shelve it in your collection. I was defending it against airmanfour's implied insult (which I subsequently incorrectly thought Katie was defending)that it was such Hollywood pablum that they might as well have stuck a chick in the Jack role, because, after all, it would still be the same story.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Right. That's why I say it's not cool to flippantly dismiss it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
No worries. I agree with you on all points. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
) (Not that I'm not likable, but I was thinking it was men you liked, not me. ![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)