Our BetterMost Community > The Polling Place

50 dumbest people in Hollywood

<< < (2/8) > >>

delalluvia:

--- Quote from: garycottle on December 01, 2007, 04:43:31 pm ---It's been a while since I've seen the film.  I enjoyed it, but the gay charaters were cast in such a poor light that I've never been able to watch it again.  I recall how the prince and his lover were depicted as prancing nancy boys, and I remember how the prince had a servant walk around with him holding a mirror, so he could admire himself at will,
--- End quote ---

Well, some gay men can be prancing nancy boys, can't they?  From Wikipedia about Edward II

"It has been hypothesized that Edward's love for "low brow" activities developed because of his overbearing and ruthless father. The prince took part in several Scots campaigns, but despite these martial engagements, "all his father's efforts could not prevent his acquiring the habits of extravagance and frivolity which he retained all through his life...His main interest was in entertainment..."

Edward II 'good friend' was from the French court, which also had a bad reputation as a bunch of vain peacocks, so perhaps the portrayal isn't that far off the mark.


--- Quote ---and I remember how the prince's lover was shoved out of a window, and how it was depicted in such a way that it caused the audience to clap and cheer.  I was mortified by the experience, and I wondered if this mob would clap and cheer if I had been shoved out of a window.
--- End quote ---

It was the audience you saw it with.  The audience I saw it with was appalled and openly gasped and you could hear the sympathetic murmur at the movie character Edward II's tearful, furious reaction against his father's cruelty.


--- Quote ---It's true that films, especially films like Braveheart, are collaborative efforts.  But the director is the director.  Gibbson could have read the script and sent it back to the writer and said that he didn't want the gay characters to come across as villains because of their gayness.  And if this one writer couldn't get it right, he could have hired another writer.
--- End quote ---

Dunno.  Randall Wallace got all the accolades and awards for his script, so if he had help, they weren't mentioned nor ever spoke up.


--- Quote ---I remember that Gibbson claimed that he didn't realize that the audience would have that kind of reaction to the prince's lover being shoved out of a window by the king.  And that troubles me.  He was working with a large group of people.  Could they all have failed to realize how hostile the story was toward gay men?  Or were they simply afraid to say something to Gibbson?

Gary         

--- End quote ---

I remember Gibson's claim as well, he was shocked because it was claimed the scene was a sign of homophobia.  He pointed out - rightly - that the king didn't just kill gay men.  He and his minions killed anyone who stood in their way.  I thought it was a good point.  Why isolate one character's murder and protest it?  There was plenty of killing by this king.

That situation reminds me of the Hollywood habit of killing off the black men in any adventure movie.  It's become so cliche that it was even a humorous line by a black character in a movie 'The brother always gets killed!"  Is that a sign of racial prejudice by the writers/directors? [shrug]

delalluvia:

--- Quote from: garycottle on December 01, 2007, 11:27:38 pm ---Hi Del,

But nevertheless the way in which the gay characters were portrayed in the film Braveheart was deeply and profoundly offensive to me.  And I am hardly the only one who had that reaction.  As I said, I have not been able to watch the film again because of the way these gay characters were portrayed.

BTW, I'm not a big fan of action/adventure films, so I've not seen enough of those kinds of films to notice any kind of pattern in regards to how often black characters get killed.  But in general I would say that Hollywood has not treated black people very well in their films.  I remember when that whole string of highly praised films about inner city life were being talked about.  Films like Boyz In The Hood.  Many of them were very powerful films, but after seeing several of them I began to wonder why is this the only kind of film about black characters being made?  I remember someone, I forget who, but it was a black man, asking why we hardly ever see black people making love in films.  I thought that was a good question.  It might be hard to pick out any specific film and say that it was racist.  But still, it's wrong when a disproportionate number of black people are portrayed as drug addicts and violent drug dealers.  Some black people are drug additcts and violent drug dealers.  But most are neither, and films should reflect that.  Some gay men may be vain and have a tendency to preen a lot, but I'm hardly vain, and I'm kind of a slob, and most of the gay characters I see in films bare little resemblance to me or the gay men I know.  There is something wrong with that.

Gary             

--- End quote ---

There is definitely something wrong with that, but there are many types of gay men.  Hollywood marches at a glacial pace at showing all types of people.

Look at how women are portrayed in movies.  How recently has it been since a woman has been anything other than a whore/madonna?  A bimbo, eyecandy or victim?

Look at the worst of those - victim.

Women invariably have to suffer and die in horrible ways for the main character - a man - to proceed with the plotline.

e.g. Braveheart.  Lest we forget, Wallace's young wife was strung up like a piece of meat and had her throat slit.

There - you have the sacrificial lamb, the flashpoint, now let's proceed with the important part of the story - the man's story.

I find that and the trend very disturbing.  I imagine most women do.  So that's 50% of any audience right there, but as was pointed out earlier, no one brings this up as a misogynistic portrayal by Gibson.

A representative of the entire half of the human species killed/brutalized over and over simply to give the hero something to do.

Where is the outcry?

Since the majority of literature throughout history and film starts or centers around this type of plot device, there's not a whole lot I can do about it.

You were very disturbed at Braveheart, wondering if the audience would cheer if you got thrown out a window.  I tend to sit there at almost every movie, rather disturbed that no one thinks women shown being victimized is anything other than normal.

 

delalluvia:

--- Quote from: garycottle on December 02, 2007, 02:42:52 am ---That may be because there aren't very many gay characters.  I just don't see gay characters that often.  Most Hollywood films pretend they don't even exist.  So I'm sure you can imagine how hugely disppointing it is for me when I finally do see one, and he has a servant walking behind him carrying a great big mirror, and the film isn't even a comedy.

Gary       

--- End quote ---

I believe that is slowly changing Gary, though you may not be any happier about it.  :-\

True equality means the ability to be portrayed as just as good, normal and empowered or just as evil, twisted and pathetic as anyone else.

Tragedy - happy lovers cannot be together and death comes to one or both (Romeo and Juliet, Out of Africa, BBM)

Comedies with gay characters as the 'joke' of the movie has already happened for all of us whether we be gay or straight, female or male

Drama/adventure - happy, loving couple has to be torn apart by violence in order for the hero to have something to do (you've seen what happened to loved ones in Braveheart?  Now imagine that happening in almost every movie where the hero is a gay/bisexual in a relationship).

Drama/social commentary -  happy, loving couple is attacked by bigoted outsiders, but because they are so saintly and stereotyped cannot even speak up in their defense because - well, they're just too nice! (almost any 'family' movie from before the 1960's and The Family Stone)

Action/adventure - married couple with problems, one kills the other with a 'funny' one-liner (gun pointed by hero husband at evil husband's head "Consider this a divorce." BANG!)

 :P

oilgun:
I'm with Gary on this one, Mel is one of the worst

An interesting rant about Mel Gibson from a poster at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x39083

[...]
And so we turn to Mel Gibson and his now-undeniable anti-semitism -- and to my next obvious question:

Why didn't anyone care that Gibson has a history of verbally bashing gay people?

Why did it take an attack on Jews to make people see that he's a hater?

Believe me, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to personally deliver a hard kick in the nuts to anyone who says, "Fucking Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."

But in truth, that's the worst thing he's ever said openly about Jews -- despite his apologia for his Holocaust-denying father, despite his cinematic portrayal of Jews in "Passion of the Christ" as (to paraphrase Loretta Haggers in "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman") "the people what killed our Lord," despite all the dodging, the weaving, the ducking.

Oh, it's horrible, what he said; there's no denying that. And he's never said anything like "Fucking fags... The queers are responsible for all the AIDS in the world."

But there's also no denying that Gibson is a homophobe of the first water, and always has been.

Now, listen: I am not playing the "my persecution is worse than yours" victim game. As far as I'm concerned, all persecution is equal; when you're the one getting lynched, or burned at the stake, or herded into a gas chamber, your victimhood is 100%. And it doesn't matter if you're gay, or Jewish, or black, or even an Australian in the wrong place at the wrong time when a bomb goes off in an Indonesian pub. You're just as dead as everyone else, and your family is just as destroyed as any other.

You could argue that Jewish persecution has occurred on a larger scale, and you'd be right; e.g., the Nazis gassed some 6 million Jews, and "only" about a million male homosexuals. But persecution is persecution, and dead is dead is dead.

Matt Shepard is just as dead as Anne Frank.

Anne Frank is just as dead as Emmett Till.

Emmett Till is just as dead as Brandon Teena.

And only by the grace of God (or providence) is that 17-year-old Texas boy not as dead as any of them.

Dead is dead is dead.

And hate is hate is hate. And while I can fathom the many reasons for it, I don't think I'll ever be able to accept the fact that the general public just doesn't care much (or at all) when it's the queers who are being bashed, murdered, or verbally assaulted.

Think I'm making too much of this? Fair enough. Let's play the old substitution game: Read the the following statements below, and imagine the speaker is talking about Jews instead of gay people:


"They take it up the ass." (pointing to his own ass) "This is only for taking a shit."


"(W)ith this look, who's going to think I'm gay? It would be hard to take me for someone like that."


"Do I sound like a homosexual? Do I talk like them? Do I move like them?"


(on the above remarks) "I don't think there's an apology necessary, and I'm certainly not giving one. ... If someone wants my opinion, I'll give it. What, am I supposed to lie to them?"


(after GLAAD brought his homophobia to light) "I've been chased by automobiles doing dangerous things on the freeway. People have tried to spit on me. It's made me totally paranoid."


(claiming he had been confronted by a "gay group") "They had signs, they were screaming and frothing at the mouth -- pure hatred. It was wild."

Those are all public statements by Mel Gibson over the years -- when he wasn't drunk.

And I haven't even touched on the way "Braveheart" portrays Edward II as an evil, fey bitch, or the way Eddie's alleged lover was thrown out a window (which is total fiction),  or the way Gibson de-gayed "Man without a Face" or his mincing-faggot "gay barber" schtick in "Bird on a Wire," or.....

But nobody -- besides us uppity homos and our loved ones -- gets upset about things like that. It takes open attacks on Jews (and, in Phelps' case, dead soldiers) for the general public to experience genuine outrage.

In the end, I'm always glad to see any 'phobe, of any stripe, brought down, and I can even be grateful regardless of the means it takes to make it happen.

I just wish that the rest of the world would listen to us when we keep trying to tell them: "This guy is mad. This guy is a hater. This guy may be dangerous."

I grow weary of saying "I told you so." And I don't get any satisfaction out of being right.

Kd5000:
I don't know if I'd call Gibson dumb. However he would be #1 on my list of Hollywood's biggest bigots.  Who hasn't he offended?

15 worse bigots in Hollywood. M. Gibson and I. Washington would be #1 and #2 and anyone who refused to watch BBM because of the love scenes and that's just for starters

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page