posted
If your point is to shock and gain sympathy, you need to hit on something that provokes sympathy, so you pick people who believe something. In a way, it's a compliment.
It's a consequence of getting bigger, and being in the public eye.
[ January 15, 2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Same thing. Drama thrives on conflict. There's only conflict if there is strong, opposing motivations.
THere's no point in telling a coming out story if the reaction of friends and family is, "Okay. Whatever makes you happy."
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's hard to tell from the trailer, but I am curious how accurate the portrayal will be. Obviously, more than one young Mormon has come out of the closet while on his Mission. Factually, that has happened. But, are Mormon's portrayed with accuracy and dignity? Or are they just the butt of "Look how antiquated their beliefs are" sermonizing.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd think that a movie like this is also made because it's a possibility. Watching the trailer, it looks like an interesting movie. Granted, it also looks like it takes some of the ideas/stereotypes of the Mormon church to the extreme... But there are always people who believe the most extreme ideas in any religion...
I'd probably see this movie.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's probably sermonizing, though I would suppose that it's more directed to criticize the greater mass of homophobic religions, not just Mormonism.
And for your daily required amount of irony, isn't it a sad comment on the homophobic quality of the country that a movie with two male lovers needs be a social commentary itself?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
My first reaction was "Oh great, another one of those 'Singles Ward' movies." As it went on, I can only imagine the confused look on my face, since my friends had the same look.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have several gay friends, and I can state for the record that I would have zero interest in seeing a movie about two gay lovers.
It has less to do with homophobia, and more to do with a total inability to relate to the events on the screen. And, to be honest, there is still the squick factor, even for most 'enlightened' men. So, if it isn't for social commentary, then I'm guessing it's target audience excludes most heterosexual males.
I admit, I couldn't sit through the movie 'Lolita' because I had no ability to picture myself falling in love with an underage girl, and so could not get into the story at all. Not that falling in love with a man and falling in love with an underage girl are at all the same thing, just that they are both things I have no interest in or ability to empathize with.
[ January 15, 2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. Strange, Ty -- I'm completely heterosexual, and I'm really looking forward to this movie. It looks pretty freaking good, if the trailer's anything to judge by.
Are you planning to see Monster? After all, it's a movie about two lesbians, a situation you can't possibly empathize with.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly? Monster has only limited appeal. It might be interesting as a study in serial killer mentality, but if it was just a love story between two women, probably not.
I guess I should probably also point out that most love stories of the legal age and heterosexual variety leave me bored as well. So, mostly it would just be boring with added squick.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The LDS movie market "niche" was reportedly modelled on the gay movie niche market. At least I remember Dutcher talking about that when "God's Army" was released. So it's increasingly ironic. I think a lot of LDS people are going to just stumble into it, thinking it's another "Single's Ward." Do you think it will be playing in the Utah megaplexes? I think not.
But there used to be one major art movie house in Salt Lake, The Tower, and then they formed an association with the 6 screen Centre theater, and now one of the theaters in Trolley Square is Art/Indie/Foreign. I think it's a 3 or 4 screen. So even if only the art houses play it, there is considerable chances of some very surprised customers. Maybe they are actually running a camera under the screen to see what the audience does. Kind of a reverse Truman Show.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's opening January 30th in NY, LA, Pasadena, Irvine, and Salt Lake City. The Salt Lake City venue is "Madstone Theatres" more dates herePosts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
**this is Pat, who is too lazy to change logins**
I wouldn't want to see this movie for two reasons. One is similar to Slash's assertion that I have no desire watch a movie about man-love. It just doesn't do it for me.
The other is because it's also a story of a Mormon missionary who struggles with something that is prohibited by the strict mission rules he agreed to keep. That part of it has nothing to do with the other part. If this guy had the same problems with a female while on his mission -- which happens every once in a while -- it would bug me too. I'd be uncomfortable watching a movie that deals with a missionary who has problems with satanism, or whatever. I just woudn't choose to see a movie about that.
and did you notice in the stills that the nametags say 'Ladder-Day"?
[ January 15, 2004, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Trogdor the Burninator ]
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hee hee hee. Maybe we can make a movie called "Ladder Day" where a gay man aggressively pursues a male missionary, only for the nasty surprise that it's a girl in drag who wanted to go on a mission at 19 instead of 21. I mean, I was totally that psyched to go when I was 20.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, you don't model a market on another market. You don't "create" a market. It's a small, niche market, just like gay films, but the take-away characteristic is not the gay part.
Just like some people say Harry Potter is meant to be an allegory about coming out as gay. No, it's about being different. There are many ways to be different.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The other is because it's also a story of a Mormon missionary who struggles with something that is prohibited by the strict mission rules he agreed to keep. That part of it has nothing to do with the other part. If this guy had the same problems with a female while on his mission -- which happens every once in a while -- it would bug me too. I'd be uncomfortable watching a movie that deals with a missionary who has problems with satanism, or whatever. I just woudn't choose to see a movie about that.
So am I the only one who believes that if something makes you uncomfortable, you should pay attention to it? Maybe you'd do well to watch the movie, Pat, even if it makes you squirm a bit.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll go to 12 months of LDS sunday meetings if you'll go to 12 months of services of the faith of my choice.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not uncomfortable with church -- god knows I've gone to it long enough. My father's a Mexican immigrant, which means I'm Catholic. I'm certainly not unsettled or disturbed by the revelations of the LDS church, though -- and I say this for the sake of candidness, not offense -- I would probably end up slightly bored with the rituals. Somehow I'm guessing Pat's against seeing this movie less because it bores him than because it makes him uncomfortable.
But if Mormon priests don't mind dissent and questioning, and can provide some reasonable defense of their beliefs, sure, I'll make it a point to stop by a Mormon temple the next chance I get. God knows I harass the Catholics enough...
posted
Eddie, that's not fair. I mean, my beloved and I don't watch movies where adultery is put in a positive light, just on general principle. Partly because they tend to be movies about unhappy people who only get more unhappy, which not only blows but is also boring and depressing.
On the other hand, I'm very pro man-love. Two pretty boys getting smoochie is a definite plus in my book ( not so with the hubby, for reasons similar to Slash's). I mean, I wouldn't want to see Roger Ebert and Gary Shandling swap spit, but ... I think this post just sort of crossed that imaginary line, so I'll stop now. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Eddie -- I have lived it. My older brother pretty much did the same thing, and while the family is doing pretty well now, it really threw our little family into a swirl for a while. It was tough, but we got over it, and we are all good buddies with my big brother. My brother has helped me to understand a lot, and despite our differences, we're very good friends and have reached a common understanding.
So, no, I don't think I need to sit through a movie based on two situations I have lived through. I've learned a lot more than the movie could teach me through real life and believe I'm fine right where I'm at.
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eddie, the purpose of doing things that make you uncomfortable is to get you out of your comfort zone and make you think. The virtue is not in the uncomfortableness. Would you like to watch movies about the sensitive and beleaguered cause of the KKK and its eventual triumph?
Reading the old Tarzan books makes me uncomfortable. By your logic, that means they are correct and I should devour, when in actuality they are wildly rascist.
If you want to convince other people, you have to understand where they are coming from. To do that, you need to understand the premise and assumptions from which they are working. You can disagree with their assumptions, but if their actions are consistent with their premise, pointing out how their actions are inconsistent with YOUR premise means nothing.
Added: No good going to the temple. Try the missionaries.
[ January 15, 2004, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree with the principle of watching something that makes you uncomfortable. How is this constructive?
(I better put a disclaimer in here - in the following, I will not be discussing homosexuality as anything nasty or evil. I am simply talking about Eddie's comment about watching things that make one uncomfortable as related to the trend towards making art shocking and uncomfortable)
It's all a part of the whole postmodern trend of "revealing" every nasty bit of our culture, of reveling in misery and darkness, but not proposing any solutions. Do I agree with pretending that problems don't exist? Of course not; that solves nothing. Do I agree with portraying the human condition pessimistically? No. I don't think dark exposés accomplish anything. If we want to effect social change, we should address problems realistically and then propose solutions. This is what Victor Hugo did. He addressed the darkest parts of human nature, but then proposed a compassionate answer and provided an example that allows the reader to want to improve.
There is still room for idealism, there is still room for fantasy. Sitting in the dark pits of reality gets us nowhere; sometimes we need a Norman Rockwell to paint a glossy picture of the way life should be to make us aspire to rise above our current situation.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We need midle ground. Take Last Exist to Brooklyn vs. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. The first is the most depressing movie and book in the whole world. Everything is darkness, depravity, misery. You walk out of the movie or put down the book just feeling like crap. Like real life is hopeless and full of despair and is pointless. But then there is a book like a Tree Grows in Brooklyn with its alcoholic yet sensitive father, lack of food and money, a child being forced to go to a horrible school and just trying to find the hope and love in between everything. To me a Tree Grows in Brooklyn is more realistic than Last Exit to Brooklyn because life is not completely dark and hopeless. This may seem off topic a bit, but everything does not have to be shown in its most darkest form. As for the issue of gayness in movies... *shrug* It's a good way to help people deal with it, but mostly people who are gay or sensitive towards gay issues will watch them while others will say, there is no WAY I am watching men kiss and carry on. (Which I think is a nice thing to watch, but oh well...) *hopes I was not too off topic*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps some (certainly not all, or even most, I'll grant) of those "postmodern" no-answer films are construted as such because the idea isn't to solve the problem objectively (through the plot of the movie), but rather rather cause everyone to come up with an answer from their own subjectivity (which is a fairly major point in postmodernism). The easy route, especially if the film is poorly done, is to fall back on your unthinking moral principles, which is fine, but ultimately not all that different, it seems to me, than a sophisticated session with Stuart Smally (sp); "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darnit, people LIKE me!" But if the conflict in the film is nuanced enough, you may find yourself reasoning in an unexpected manner, even if only for a second, before you catch yourself.
Now, that isn't to say that this manner is philosophically better or as good as other philosophies... Rather, I think it is a novel aesthetic method.
For instance, "Lost in Translation" is a great character study (if it doesn't gather a bushel of awards this winter, I will be a bit peeved), in which the main conflict/situation is never completely resolved, or at least, is ambiguously resolved (to me). One could be crass, and think it was a portrayal of the inherent gender imbalances that exist in our socety (young, naive woman and an older, wiser, more experienced man). You could even flip that notion on its head, and argue that the film is actually a portrayal of the ongoing neutering of the male authority (not really the word I want, "authority" is a bit too cut-and-dried, I think) in our society. Not that I agree with either of these, but don't you think a case could be made?
Or you could see it half-a-dozen other ways, easy. I think the movie also LETS you do that, and conciously so. It ultimately gives you the option to reaffirm, or research, or possibly even reject, previous assumptions. The power is given to the audience, which makes whatever the audience decides, much more powerful.
But maybe "Lost in Translation" isn't postmodern enough...
I agree, however, that idealism often hits the spot. I loves me my LotR trilogy as much as the next non-wench person Sometimes though, purposefully jarring yourself, even a little bit, can be worthwhile. Unless, I guess, you are certain enough in your set of beliefs and deadset against being manipulated into questioning them (which is what those postmodern movies do, no doubt about it).
Me, I'm more of a Kierkegaardian self-doubter myself, so everything I've written probably doesn't apply to anyone else here (since I'm a weird breed, not because anyone else here is inferior).
Man, I should sell this post on one of those college essay sites
If a Mormon filmmaker made a film about a Mormon girl who wooed and converted a gay man that ended with them marrying in the temple and living happily ever after, he would be lambasted and the film would be dismissed as ridiculous propoganda.
But this guy makes a movie where a faithful, good member of the church is seduced and led away from commitments and promises he's made, the things he believes, and it's considered enlightening and insightful.
I'm sure everybody will come up with all the appropriate knee-jerk reactions. The gay community will ooh and ah over how wonderful and touching and insightful the film is, the Mormons who don't know any better will make a big stink about it, which will get media attention, and bring the film far more money than it actually deserves.
So the gay filmgoing community will get to enjoy a film, the filmmakers themselves will make more money than they would have had they avoided controversy, and the Mormons get to feel righteously indignant. So everybody wins.
Unless we all just shrug and move on and find something more worthwhile to worry about.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference is that there's more of a social outrage in the case of a "faithful" church member being seduced away from the church by the homo-gays. (no slur meant) If a Mormon girl lured a boy away from the gay side, it's likely that his community would assume that he wasn't really gay or that he's Mormosexual.
I'm not saying that both aren't possible, but I'm saying that if the boy in question is really and truly a "faithful, good member of the church", he's not going to change what he believes just because he likes guys. And it's not like he's going to go from straight as a board to gayer than the day is gay. It's most likely that both a real person and a character in a movie would already have those leanings.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I think among the audience this movie is meant to target, there will not be one bit of social outrage that a Mormon kid is seduced into "discovering" his homosexual inclinations. I don't even think non-homosexuals are going to find it offensive.
But they would be offended by the opposite. They'd see it as a Mormon propoganda peice, that asserts that the Mormon lifestyle is superior to other lifestyles. The characters would be called "caricatures" and "paper-thin cut-outs" designed to portray a Mormon fantasy world, another blatant attempt to peddle Mormonism to people who don't want to hear about it.
It's sort of ironic--they're feeding on the general public's contempt for (dare I say hatred?) of the Mormons as a means to promote a film that's supposedly about understanding and loving those whose lifestyle is different from yours.
Don't believe me? Read any thread on this film at any movie site (movies.yahoo.com, imdb.com, etc) and see how long you go before you come across a post that's something along the lines of "This movie is right on the money! All Mormons are morons and idiots and hypocrites who need to be shot! They sacrifice goats in thier temples and beat their six wives! We need more films like this to put a stop to thier hatred and igorance!"
Alright, let me be perfectly honest about my feelings about this movie.
I think a lot of homosexuals have issues about religion. They hold religion responsible for a lot of the oppression and ostracism they feel. However, a lot of them still hold some kind of faith in a divine creator. They just don't know how to reconcile that faith with something that's so ingrained in their personality.
That's why a lot of people with homosexual inclinations latch on to studies that suggest that such tendencies are ingrained into their genetics. It's the perfect retort to those who want to claim God doesn't want them to be that way--they can say God made them that way.
So for them, the scientific evidence is used in a religious self-justification.
So coming to terms with this new relationship with God that those parameters suggest (he hard-wired me up this way--does he really want me to deny that? If he does, does that really mean he's loving?) is something a lot of gay men and women struggle with.
At it's best, this film would be an opportunity to explore some of those issues. I actually think of the Gay community as a deeply commited religious group, with certain core theological tennents (In a lot of ways affects how I want to vote on issues like Gay marriage, because heaven knows how strongly I believe in freedom of religion). God may not always come up, but they still have enough core beliefs and culture and lifestyle to be compared with a religion.
But for most of them, coming to some sort of terms with their relationship with God played an important part in their coming to terms with thier sexuality. So this film could really be an important film to the Gay community.
On the other hand, it could be a cheap attempt to stir up controversy, a la "Last Temptation of Christ."
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't mean social outrage out there in the real world, I meant social outrage in the context of the movie. A mormon community is more likely to be upset about one of their members "turning" gay than the friends and family of a homosexual would be about him "turning" straight. And a movie with no conflict is just plain not interesting.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's great that film-makers have moved beyond the, "Mormons are a dangerous cult who still practice polygamy" phase.
:shrug:
Big deal. We got past 'Orgazmo,' we got over 'Avenging Angel,' we survived 'Plan Nine from Outer Space,' we'll get over this too.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I thought 'Orgazmo' was pretty funny. And that guy didn't leave the church or anything.
Edit: Though I do admit that Orgasmo offended me when it wasn't making my laugh 'til it hurt. I actually have very mixed feelings about it, but I hardly think it's as destructive to the Mormon image as this film may be. Because this film is at least... plausible.
posted
Scott, I only know vaguely of "Plan 9" as a campy SF film with an almost-cult following. Do you possibly mean "Plan Ten"? (I love Google! )
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A friend of mine saw this over the summer at a gay film festival in Philadelphia. He said it was excellent. He even wrote a paper on it for out senior seminar (he got a special promotional copy because it wasn't even in the theaters yet).
I really don't think it's mormon bashing, per se. It seems no organized sect of Christianity (or Judeaism or Islam) accepts homosexuality. I think maybe the writer wanted to show this, but chose the Mormon faith because of its strong cultural lines (most other Christian faiths are not so culturally ingrained). I suppose they could have chosen Jehovah's Witnesses as well, but I thing LDS was chosen for the missionary factor---that young people leave their families and their homes for a bit of time. They're young and vunerable, inexperienced. A lot can happen.
And generally, would a young mormon man coming out of the closet be acceptable to his family or his community. Trogdor's case, it seems to be, but, in general, is that the case?
Please bear with me---I know one mormon, and I don't think he would be a good example of a mormon. What little I know was from my Religions in America class 3 years ago and what I see on this site.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It seems no organized sect of Christianity (or Judeaism or Islam) accepts homosexuality.
The United Church of Christ and the Metropolitan Community Church are both Christian denominations that accept homosexuality.
Edit: "accept homosexuality" is not a particularly good way to put it. Both of those denominations celebrate same-sex marriages and ordain openly gay clergy. (As does the Episcopal Church, though with them it seems to be more a case of not forbidding such marriages/ordinations than formally endorsing them.)
posted
Er...yeeeah. What does Plan 9 from Outer Space have to do with Mormons? You guys have a secret fetish for bad acting or something? Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
j/k![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
