posted
Please don't "keep me up" any longer before bed, Ganesh... I must retire, but I get the sense you're suggesting I'm giving you harsher treatment because I know you're gay. That isn't the case. It's more that I believed you could take my criticisms and respond in an interesting way to them.
As for humour it is acceptable when I find it funny, if you look at my posts you will find some hearty funny stuff and by copying that "Style" you may raise a chuckle though perhaps not a full, "honest" belly laugh like what my own writing affords Me.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Fuck It: The Wife Has Brought Me A Cup of Tea So I Might As Well Battle On
God, that's sooo written as a straight man. Etc.
quote:What you're "reminiscent" of, with this sort of comment, is a PADAWAN OF HAUS -- I'm sure I've seen that titan of Barbelith frequently using this dismissive tactic, ie. "you seem to assume the ability to see long-distance into others' heads and tell us what they are thinking on any given point."
... none of which diminishes its validity, though, does it?
(At what point does saying, "that's just like Haus" become in itself a "dismissive tactic"?)
quote:To try to sum up what you see as someone else's position in a debate is not to pretend telepathic insight into their minds.
To persistently tell other people what motivates them is, however, to assume and patronise.
quote:Neither is identifying a "strategy" in someone's rhetoric ... equivalent to labelling them with a "Gay Agenda".
And "not unreminiscent of" doesn't map onto "equivalent to". You're not always so good on the nuances, Kovacs.
quote:Either you have some notion about gayness being tied up with strategy and agenda, or you think I have. I would say I had an "agenda" and a "strategy" when I seek to attack or undermine something, and I'm as straight as they come, not gay at all.
The term "strategy", in the context of discussion of Brokeback Mountain, is a loaded term. It is commonly used by those who believe in a global Gay Agenda to suggest that Ang Lee is advancing said agenda. A lot of the 'battlefield' language you've employed here ("strategy", "attack", "strikes", "tactic", etc.) to describe to me my motivations sounds not unreminiscent of that. Surely not your intention, but there we go.
quote:I was initially irritated by what I saw as an easy attack on broad, false, caricatured representations, which were not true strikes because they failed to engage with the actual nature of the Stormfront or conservative Christian website communities -- which dealt in stereotypes ("if you hate gays, you secretly are one") that I found tired and pointless -- which told us nothing much about those websites' actual reasons for fear, distrust or dislike of this film and what it represented.
If you're moving towards some idea that I feel threatened by you, that's a dull avenue that I don't recommend. Why not look at it more positively. I replied to your post partly because I like to discuss things that interest me. And now we are engaging in a worthwhile conversation.
It's more of a DO YOU SEE? point. You suggest that the fact that I've elected to criticise Christian sites means I'm "offended" or feel threatened by said sites. I point up the problematic nature of such a suggestion by suggesting that you've elected to negatively critique my use of humour because you are "offended" or threatened by it. Equally possible, equally absurd.
quote:I hope others here will swiftly back up my assurance that I have challenged very many people on this forum over the years, not that it's always a good thing by any means, but you are probably #507.
Not consistently, and not that I've seen - but hey ho, I'll look more closely.
quote:That is the sense I meant.
In the broad sense, then, that any expressed personal opinion is a political one, yes, I was being "political". I was not, however, consciously making a "political case" as I would understand the phrase.
quote:Then I would say that was also "poaching", forming new and "resistant" (perhaps progressive, radical, challenging) meanings from the texts of the dominant culture.
If you're using "poaching" in a neutral sense, as with "trespass", then fine. I have no problem with this.
quote:I suppose concepts of power on the internet are also relative (though a usual workable measure would still be the one above). If you frequent the Comic Book forum on Barbelith you may see people going on "guerilla raid" type visits to the bulletin boards of reactionary John Byrne and his reactionary fans.
On that board, those individuals are outnumbered and liable to be shouted down, so they are relatively powerless.
When they troll up an exchange, goad someone on JB board into looking stupid or prompt an argument, and paste that into Barbelith, the power structure has then changed: the raider is back among his own community and the quoted posters now represent a laughable minority opinion.
So "power" would also seem to equate to one's status within one's 'home community'. Okay.
quote:i) the people on the Stormfront and Christian websites seemed a bit stupid ii) I didn't think you were representing them accurately
These things may be linked. I cannot claim my own position here is without internal contradictions.
Well, no. I would question
a) your ability to blanket-label whole communities of posters "stupid",
b) if stupidity is indeed pervasive, whether it confers immunity to criticism or ridicule,
c) whether I have a specific responsibility to represent entire communities accurately when I take the piss out of particular elements of those communities
and
d) if I were to try to represent organisations like Focus on the Family or Stormfront accurately within the context of a flippant posting, how I might feasibly go about this.
quote:Well, I don't remember that... it sounds unlikely given that I am not really King Rollo on this board, and half the folk here openly hate my guts.
But before you go looking for a link and quotes to back yourself up -- can I say I think it's frankly unendearing to have to rummage around old threads to make a point. You'll notice I'm not going through your Barbelith history, trying to see if you've said anything here that contradicts what you said there. We are not dirty lawyers looking through each other's rubbish. That is charmless.
Perish the thought that I might fail to endear! Don't worry, I can't be arsed. I remember it pretty well, though: you misheard "urrgh face" as "whole face", I was facetious with you about it, you returned here and posted about your experiences, linking to the thread and attracting the odd sympathiser. Cultural poaching ahoy!
quote:Thank you for saying I appear to be one, rather than just imagine myself to be one -- but you must stop this "if you attempt to summarise my position you must reckon you can read minds" nonsense.
There's tentatively summarising someone's position and there's making assumptions - then making negative comments on their integrity based on those assumptions. You must stop that nonsense.
It might also be useful for you to go see the sodding film.
quote:What I meant by "honesty" is not that you were being dishonest (ie. a gay man "lying to himself" in another tired stereotype) but that this approach didn't bring us to the truth of what those websites were saying, and why.
... which, again, rather hinges on your personal appraisal of those websites (whether they're "stupid", say), your perception of the accuracy/'twistedness' of my quotes from them, and your assumptions regarding what motivates me to post.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Please don't "keep me up" any longer before bed, Ganesh... I must retire, but I get the sense you're suggesting I'm giving you harsher treatment because I know you're gay.
Oh, for fuck's sake. Yes, I truly am the only Ali Gay in the Village.
I'd no idea why, on contributing to this thread, you seemed to rip into (what I perceived as fairly good-humoured) pisstaking, when you'd apparently ignored other examples of similar 'poaching' elsewhere. I'm not painting you as a homophobe, though. I do think this is, in some sense, about online cock size, however...
quote:As for humour it is acceptable when I find it funny, if you look at my posts you will find some hearty funny stuff and by copying that "Style" you may raise a chuckle though perhaps not a full, "honest" belly laugh like what my own writing affords Me.
In the manner of certain good Christian friends, then, I will ask myself, "what would Kovacs do?" before posting anything that might be construed as overly easy, dishonest, unfair, insufficently decent or unrepresentative of the communities from which I am poaching.
Now.
1) Has anyone else seen Brokeback Mountain yet?
2) Could my tagline be changed to "a happy gay man"? The phrase makes me smile.
Posts: 309
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Modge: It could, but you have to send Darryn a donation, see the link on the left.
I did that, during the Great Barbelith Collapse of '05. Couldn't immediately think of a tagline, though, so he gave me a temporary one that I never got around to changing. Now I'm a "happy gay man" I want my online persona to reflect this!!
Posts: 309
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: [QUOTE]I hope this question wasn't rhetorical, because there is an answer: yes, in my experience they do tend to express such reservations about films featuring (yet not condemning) all other forms of "immorality", and not just gay sex by any means.
Missed this one.
No, it wasn't rhetorical. A quick shuftie around the website didn't tell me whether 'we weren't sure about reviewing this film, but..' was or was not a common way of framing celluloid depictions of 'immorality'.
Posts: 309
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh: I don't think seeing the film is especially vital to unpacking your previous comments.
quote:Subsequently posted by Ganesh: It might also be useful for you to go see the sodding film.
It's a bit unfair that you're now implying I'm overdue in seeing the film -- there was only a day or so between those comments.
I am also a little saddened that I felt all my posts to you yesterday were made in a spirit of enjoyable argument, and that many of them contained explicit remarks about how I respected your ability to respond in an interesting manner, &c -- indeed, because I take pleasure in debate, much of what I wrote was a little overblown, grand, rhetorical, playful or even tongue in cheek. Like a performance. (I would say all this is inherent in my persona on TMO.) Your post above seems to take all of that on a rather flat, literal level -- although perhaps that too is performance, a kind of straight-faced putdown of my attempts to be jocular, who knows! -- and you do seem to be now adopting a "why me" status, asking repeatedly why I'm taking this tone with you when I haven't addressed anyone else in that way. I gave reasons for that. One of which is that I haven't posted this much (I think) in some months.
However, you have raised a couple of interesting points that can be replied to without having seen this film, and I hope I may come back to them later.
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh: No, it wasn't rhetorical. A quick shuftie around the website didn't tell me whether 'we weren't sure about reviewing this film, but..' was or was not a common way of framing celluloid depictions of 'immorality'.
I may not be able to find exactly that in a hurry (I do remember that this website prefaced a review of the South Park movie with remarks that even to discuss it enough to condemn it -- even to mention its title -- was distasteful) but I saw an interesting example recently in the review of Munich:
quote:Before he leaves to begin his mission, Avner and his wife share a moment of sexual intimacy. Their act is a beautiful one—a gift that God freely gives to a man and his bride. The problem is that it is depicted for others to observe.
Even the sanctified sexual love married, heterosexual couples sometimes practice, then, is problematic if depicted on screen.
Similarly, Walk the Line's implication of straight sex outside marriage is frowned upon:
quote:Johnny and June ultimately racked up three wrecked marriages between them, and that makes it pretty hard to rejoice with them when they finally fall into each others arms seconds before the credits roll.
And here's the report on Grandma's Boy, a film I probably won't see -- again, the sexuality is mostly hetero-, but the review is horrified.
quote:Jokes, comments and verbal gags involve male and female anatomy, foursomes, bondage, prostitution, homosexuality, masturbation, manual stimulation, oral and anal sex, and STDs. When Mr. Cheezle hires a young woman (Samantha) to manage game production, she instantly becomes a target for leering come-ons and misogynist outbursts. Naturally, since this is an R-rated sex comedy, she's perfectly fine with such obscene treatment and eventually falls for Alex's nearly nonexistent charm. While high, and seconds before passing out, she performs an extremely sexual dance.
A statue of a nude woman's torso is seen mounted over a fireplace as if it's a hunting trophy.
A dozen or so s-words. More than twice that many f-words. A multitude of other crudities and a few obscenities assail viewers. Characters make obscene gestures and profane God's name.
And the disastrous result is now available for all to see. Or not. A recent nationwide study of more than 6,500 children and 532 movies reports that 38% of smokers ages 10 to 14 started their cigarette habit after seeing it on the big screen. And that those who witnessed the most smoking onscreen were two-and-a-half times more likely to smoke than those who saw the least. I can only wonder if the same statistics apply to marijuana. Because we already know that lots of 10- to 14-year-olds see R-rated movies.
These brief extracts may start to indicate why I think this is an interesting website whose attitudes, fears, dislikes and so on could be examined further, beyond simple caricature. (NB. I now accept entirely that you can be excused for making jokes and not going into deeper analysis on what was a jokey section of thread).
Is it really so bad or laughable, for instance, that this website worries about 10 year-olds seeing a film that glorifies drugs? Isn't its concern about "sexual" content mostly a condemnation of sexist content? Is it so ridiculous and outdated if a Christian website bemoans the amount of casual swearing in teen-oriented movies?
My point is that I often find quite valuable, though traditional, viewpoints on that website's review page, and at least part of me agrees with at least some of their opinions.
posted
I would be interested to discuss how "that gay cowboy film" fits into the Western genre, but I will have to go and see it first- probably not until the weekend.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
posted
"Hey, hey, newbie, stay away from the edge. You wanna get washed away on your first day? Don't look at me like that, ya damn chip, I'll shave you down to a splinter soon as look at you. OK, that's better, get in closer, there's safety in numbers, ya understand me? We there? Damn right. You wanna stay alive in this place then you listen to Uncle Wedge here. Ah ah ah, questions will be answered when I say the word. We there? We there, little fella? Good. Now, old Wedge has been lining this pit since your were a tickle in ya momma's trunk. When you were nothin' but a bud, I was a beefy slab of two-by-four heading for the blades of our Lord the Carpenter. Chopped me up real good he did, but not that good. You wanna know my secret? Wanna know where ole Wedge gets his Loooong Jevity? I mean, I ain't boastin' kid but, you wanna know? Sure you do. Well, that day I went through the blades, the blades didn't wholly go through me, you see. We there? Nosiree, didn't go through me at all. All them other blockheads closed their eyes and thought of Sherwood but not old Wedge. Kept my damn eyes open every step of the way and you know what I saw? What? Don't answer that, splint, it's Ret Oracle, we there? It's the kinda question don't need no answer. Of course I saw those blades spinning like a goddamn iron twister, not three inches from my smooth edge, but I kept my eyes open all the same. Of course I saw my friends and family, my own mother, go through ahead of me, from table leg to powder in less time than it takes to sand down a knot. Damnit if I didn't see my brother caught in a gust and scattered to the four corners of the workshop. Bud to dust. God rest his wooden soul. But what else did old Wedge see, eh? He saw it all, son, he saw it all. He saw how the gate of that there mincing machine was kinked to the southwest and one tooth of that gyrating blade was as loose as a bandit's backdoor. And I don't mean a Mexican, kid, we there? We there yet, little fella? Well I saw my chance, my boy, and I took it. Pushed a pair of wall shelves to one side, jumped over a fat bedknob crying for his life and shimmied myself into that very spot. Blade jammed real good and the conveyor belt to the afterlife was, how shall I put it, temporarily out of order. OUT OF ORDER! Ha ha ha. Shoot, even the good wood weren't goin' nowhere that day. 'I'm sorry you pious pulp, the stairway to heaven is officially closed. Please try again tomorrow….if you ain't been dumped in a landfill to meet the Devil or thrown on his bonfire to have your soul burnt out at the end of Satan's Garden.' Ha ha ha. Oh my. And old Wedge here? Well, kid, he just rolled into the afterlife as fat and firm as a dollshouse doorstep. He aint no shredded whsiper, no shaved down dust mite, he's a loud, proud bellowin' piece oh solid pine, you there? Old Wedge is a boney fidey, card carryin' chunk of kindlin', child. He ain't no sawdust, chip, he's a goddamn piece of wood! What do you say to that? Hmm? You there? Look around you, son, folks here at TMO ain't no bigger'n you. Hell, some of 'em are even smaller. And this aint no afterlife like the scriptchers say. Does this look like a ballroom floor to you? Does that drippin' wet sack of despair over there look like he's makin' to be recycled into a bespoke sideboard? Do you feel like you're in the pages of a classic work of art? No, no and Hell no! This ain't what you were promised, you lil splinter, but it could be worse. Once you're washed away from here, you're gone for good. It's the pits, fella, but it ain't over till it's over. And old Wedge been here for years. So, hows about I show you the ropes. First rule, eyes up, splinter. Always gotta watch the skies. That's where it comes from, see. That's why we're here. When the gods get to afightin' well, that's when the skies burst. I seen it rainin' so thick with god goo you wouldn't recognise your own mother if she was a giant redwood steppin' on your toe. I seen balls of hot sexxus fizzin' through the air and burstin' in puddles so thick on the ground they suck up entire families of matchin' bedroom furniture and are still as wet as you are behind the ears. See that big fella over there? Damn fine sliver of oak he is too. Well, he weren't the only one. Once upon a time that guy had a whole family down here in the pit - the Tallboys, as they was known. Big argument up there amongst the high and mighty and a bead of cream the size of a ripe horse chestnut done make him the last of his kind. Damn shame. That's why we here for, son. You there yet? That's all we are. Open your eyes, chip; you there yet? Holy Mahogany, here they go again. Keep sharp, kid, when this Kovacs and Ganesh set to a cockfightin' the skies open up like the balls of a blue whale. Yeehah! Lookit that kid. Look at' em dance. 'Lectric tadpoles, I call 'em. See how they come together in shoals? See how hey wrap 'emselves together like they were dancin' or, pardon old Wedge's language kid, like they were fuckin'. Well, I tell you, boy, when those lil fishies get too excited you're gonna know what fear is because when they explode… hell, you'll find out soon enough. What? What the hell you talkin' about kid? You mean to say you ain't there yet? Sweet Jesus and the wood he was nailed to, kid, ain't you been listening? We here to keep things clean, son. We the lino of the gods; the goddamn X pendables; the silent audience; the idiots; God's janitors, boy. We there now? We there? Look out! Look out now! Look to the skies. We there? In the name of Black and Decker, listen up kid! Where the hell are ya? We're here to soak up the spunk! There's them up there, the Chosens, and then there's the Forgottens, there's us. We're….the….sawdust….who….soak….up…. the spunk! We there yet, kid? We there?
Kid…kid…..kid, you there? Kid!
Damnit, kid, why didn't ya just listen?….God damnit!
Hey you, hey newbie, get your arse into the crowd before they start again up there."
quote:Big argument up there amongst the high and mighty and a bead of cream the size of a ripe horse chestnut done make him the last of his kind. Damn shame.
lol - him am teh deranged.
Chin up, Ganesh - I'm off to see Brokenbacked Milmcowl tomorrow night. I will endeavour to provide a D'Artagnanesque gay blade of my own to the spume-flecked cut-and-thrust over this film. En garde!Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: It's a bit unfair that you're now implying I'm overdue in seeing the film -- there was only a day or so between those comments.
A day or so, but a whole loooad of analysis of the Western genre blahdeblahdeblah when only one of us has seem enough to know this ain't a Western.
Assuming that 'it'd be useful' = 'you're overdue', of course.
quote:I am also a little saddened that I felt all my posts to you yesterday were made in a spirit of enjoyable argument, and that many of them contained explicit remarks about how I respected your ability to respond in an interesting manner, &c -- indeed, because I take pleasure in debate, much of what I wrote was a little overblown, grand, rhetorical, playful or even tongue in cheek. Like a performance. (I would say all this is inherent in my persona on TMO.) Your post above seems to take all of that on a rather flat, literal level -- although perhaps that too is performance, a kind of straight-faced putdown of my attempts to be jocular, who knows! -- and you do seem to be now adopting a "why me" status, asking repeatedly why I'm taking this tone with you when I haven't addressed anyone else in that way. I gave reasons for that. One of which is that I haven't posted this much (I think) in some months.
Perhaps you're just not terribly good at "jocular"?
It's all well and good to raise a glass to the wonder of "performance" at this point, but this is a relatively recent development in the thread. Until then, you'd taken more than a few swipes at me, some of which might now be laughed off as overblown playful tongue-in-cheek JOKE!!!1!ery, some of which seemed a little snarkier, at least at the time.
While I'm glad you're now being so benign about it, the "why me?" question remains pertinent. Why did you descend on my comment like fire from TMO heaven, when you've ignored other examples of 'easy targetting', 'poaching', etc.? Initially, I half-wondered whether you had something invested in the right-wing viewpoints I'd 'attacked' but this was never a serious theory.
You say that your main reason for selectively criticising this "upstart" is because you like a good debate and reckoned I'm a good debater. This is flattering, and largely convincing. I still think that, to a certain extent, you decided to selectively criticise my comments - not having seen the film itself - because I dared to unfurl my Kongular online penis in a part of the Internet world you regard as at least nominally your territory. We may be bestest of online buddies now, but I think that, earlier, it was a case of slapping our respective dongs on a virtual table and seeing who flashed his blue-buttocked rear first.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Is it really so bad or laughable, for instance, that this website worries about 10 year-olds seeing a film that glorifies drugs? Isn't its concern about "sexual" content mostly a condemnation of sexist content? Is it so ridiculous and outdated if a Christian website bemoans the amount of casual swearing in teen-oriented movies?
Are these rhetorical questions, or are you wanting/expecting answers?
quote:My point is that I often find quite valuable, though traditional, viewpoints on that website's review page, and at least part of me agrees with at least some of their opinions.
That's nice, and interesting scenery - if not necessarily immediately relevant to the differences between my perception of Brokeback Mountain and theirs.
Posts: 309
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh: a whole loooad of analysis of the Western genre blahdeblahdeblah when only one of us has seem enough to know this ain't a Western.
To be fair (to me)
-- a number of reviews and articles do seem to discuss this film as a Western
-- my post above wasn't really a loooad of analysis of the Western genre based on any assumption that this film qualified as such, but was constantly asking whether it was a Western, and stressing that I couldn't say.
quote:Whether Brokeback Mountain is a Western, or a "cowboy film" either literally or generically (whether it has "cowboys" in it at all; whether it revisits any of the key themes and iconography of the conventional Western), I do not know.
But if it is a kind of Western...
Given that the film's been discussed widely in those generic terms, it didn't seem a pointless question; but it was a question, not some construction of mine based on a misunderstanding.
In fact, whether you feel it's a Western (and I'm inclined to agree) is only relevant up to a point -- it's been treated by (most?) other reviewers in the "public sphere" as a Western, and that's the discourse within which this film seems (perhaps incorrectly) to be circulating.
Discussing masculinity in the traditional Western is also interesting, but you might see it as off-topic.
quote:Perhaps you're just not terribly good at "jocular"?
I am quite good at "deadpan", though?
quote: Until then, you'd taken more than a few swipes at me, some of which might now be laughed off as overblown playful tongue-in-cheek JOKE!!!1!ery, some of which seemed a little snarkier, at least at the time.
I think that was a two-way thing.
quote:YOU Am I "offended"? Is my face "offended"? I don't think so.
Perhaps you can point out where I claimed it was?
Wasn't there that incident with you and that black community forum not so long ago? Was that 'poaching'?
Of course, if you don't feel TMO is an appropriate place for me to ridicule things I find annoying, then let me know.
I mean, look at all the italics there. I take each one as a spit in my eye.
quote: Why did you descend on my comment like fire from TMO heaven, when you've ignored other examples of 'easy targetting', 'poaching', etc.?
I don't see how this is hard to understand really, or why you seem to find it hard to let go of the idea that there's some conspiracy behind it.
I hadn't posted for some time. Your thread was interesting to me and slightly irritating to me in some aspects. My posting on it only seems like thundering down from heaven because I had refrained from any other contribution in recent weeks. In the last few days I can recall that I've
- called one-night stands the province and pursuit of idiots
- blamed anyone who watches Celeb BB for perpetuating a freak circus
- attempted to undermine London's hip and edgy list of bands I'd barely heard of
- parodied Vikram and London's use of an internet board for an exchange of parochial information about the area they live in
- painted an unkind picture of Rick/Norton compiling his list of "entities"
- asked stoneyfaced and unappreciative questions about Benny the Ball's entertaining Chicago story.
This isn't an attempt at a Greatest Hits of Jan 06, though I'm sure future historians will include all those examples under that heading. It's just an apparently-necessary demonstration that after I started posting last week, others apart from you, and threads apart from yours, have received my ungenerous attention.
That your thread was one of the first is just testament to your thread being 1. there 2. interesting. Why respond specifically to you? Because 1. you started the thread and posted most on it 2. I didn't think I would get so much extensive response from Vikram, and as he and I have a history of antagonism, it'd be more likely to read as a jibe in that context, rather than a response to the actual content.
quote:I still think that, to a certain extent, you decided to selectively criticise my comments - not having seen the film itself - because I dared to unfurl my Kongular online penis in a part of the Internet world you regard as at least nominally your territory. We may be bestest of online buddies now, but I think that, earlier, it was a case of slapping our respective dongs on a virtual table and seeing who flashed his blue-buttocked rear first.
I can't and wouldn't want to deny there's an element of that -- that is par for the course in internet debate, and part of the fun. As nobody much is reading the thread apart from you and me, it's not like there could genuinely be much alpha-male sparring to our discussion, but yes if there wasn't any element of competition, of course I wouldn't be so inclined to do it.
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh: Are these rhetorical questions, or are you wanting/expecting answers?
I'm not expecting you to provide answers -- they are I suppose interesting avenues for discussion, but if you think the thread should focus only on talk about the film, among people who've seen the film, they will be "scenery".
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I'm not expecting you to provide answers -- they are I suppose interesting avenues for discussion, but if you think the thread should focus only on talk about the film, among people who've seen the film, they will be "scenery".
I think they're a rather limited backdrop to central discussion of the film itself but, if you insist...
quote:Is it really so bad or laughable, for instance, that this website worries about 10 year-olds seeing a film that glorifies drugs?
Not sure, having not seen the piece in question and not remembering making any point about the badness/laughableness of pre-teens and glorious drugs.
quote:Isn't its concern about "sexual" content mostly a condemnation of sexist content?
Dunno. Haven't spent much time checking it out.
quote:Is it so ridiculous and outdated if a Christian website bemoans the amount of casual swearing in teen-oriented movies?
Depends on one's understanding of what "Christian" means.
If you think the thread should include general discussion of the website to which you refer, among people who've specifically examined the website in question, my answers will be "scenery".
Posts: 309
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: To be fair (to me)
-- a number of reviews and articles do seem to discuss this film as a Western
-- my post above wasn't really a loooad of analysis of the Western genre based on any assumption that this film qualified as such, but was constantly asking whether it was a Western, and stressing that I couldn't say.
Yes - and the "constant asking" is what's making me think, "just go see the fucking thing, why don't you?" There comes a point where the asking seems beyond-the-point. See it and form your own conclusion.
quote:Given that the film's been discussed widely in those generic terms, it didn't seem a pointless question; but it was a question, not some construction of mine based on a misunderstanding.
In fact, whether you feel it's a Western (and I'm inclined to agree) is only relevant up to a point -- it's been treated by (most?) other reviewers in the "public sphere" as a Western, and that's the discourse within which this film seems (perhaps incorrectly) to be circulating.
Discussing masculinity in the traditional Western is also interesting, but you might see it as off-topic.
Yes yes yes yes yes. But there comes a time when one must stop reading second-hand accounts of something and view that thing directly.
quote:I am quite good at "deadpan", though?
Matter of opinion, dear.
quote:I think that was a two-way thing.
Am I "offended"? Is my face "offended"? I don't think so.
Perhaps you can point out where I claimed it was?
Wasn't there that incident with you and that black community forum not so long ago? Was that 'poaching'?
Of course, if you don't feel TMO is an appropriate place for me to ridicule things I find annoying, then let me know.
I mean, look at all the italics there. I take each one as a spit in my eye.
Yeah, because obviously there I'm directly commenting on your penchant for 'easy targets', your honesty shortfall, the weakness of your "strategies", and how uninteresting you are.
As opposed to responding to a charge of 'cultural poaching' by pointing to instances of 'cultural poaching' in the one doing the charging.
quote:I don't see how this is hard to understand really, or why you seem to find it hard to let go of the idea that there's some conspiracy behind it.
Not conspiracy, really (words, mouth, etc.) It's just a question I find worth asking, since your tone seemed, to me, to change in the course of a few posts. Your first appeared to come out of the blue, a rather unexpected 'challenge'. Your second was slightly snarkier. Subsequent posts have been more conciliatory, which makes me interested in the underlying process.
quote:- called one-night stands the province and pursuit of idiots
- blamed anyone who watches Celeb BB for perpetuating a freak circus
- attempted to undermine London's hip and edgy list of bands I'd barely heard of
- parodied Vikram and London's use of an internet board for an exchange of parochial information about the area they live in
- painted an unkind picture of Rick/Norton compiling his list of "entities"
- asked stoneyfaced and unappreciative questions about Benny the Ball's entertaining Chicago story.
My, you're quite the charmer. Point taken, though, regarding needlessly antagonistic posting. I guess my thread offered the opportunity for that plus a spot of dickswingy cult studs theory bitching.
quote:I can't and wouldn't want to deny there's an element of that -- that is par for the course in internet debate, and part of the fun. As nobody much is reading the thread apart from you and me, it's not like there could genuinely be much alpha-male sparring to our discussion, but yes if there wasn't any element of competition, of course I wouldn't be so inclined to do it.
Which is all fine and well and good, and fun once one recognises the dynamic and gets into the swing of things. It wasn't particularly my intention in starting a Brokeback Mountain thread. I was hoping to discuss impressions of the film itself and its wider effect.
posted
If I hadn't done those things you're still snarking at me for, your discussion of Brokeback Mountain would have stalled on page one in a rut of wank jokes. But it would have been broadly "on-topic"!
I think I've been remarkably good-natured towards you on this page, and your showy wasting of a reply with flat, dunno, ho-hum, isn't-this-boring responses to questions that I presented as potentially interesting (to a broader readership, should they turn up), rather than enquiries I insist you answer, is petty & ungracious.
quote:You, in seven hours' time: Heaven forfend I should be ungracious towards you, Kovacs. That would never do. I was merely trying to match your charm in waving your textual dick for three pages rather than talking about Brokeback Mountain. Now. Has anyone seen this film.
IT IS GETTING A BIT PREDICTABLE NOW; I think I have exhausted my contribution to this thread ("I think you did that on page 2, dear") unless anyone else comes along. But, thank you for the good discussion in parts.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: If I hadn't done those things you're still snarking at me for, your discussion of Brokeback Mountain would have stalled on page one in a rut of wank jokes. But it would have been broadly "on-topic"!
Nothing lost, nothing gained, then, in terms of what I actually wanted to talk about. I'd certainly be interested in hearing your impressions as and when you've seen the film.
quote:I think I've been remarkably good-natured towards you on this page, and your showy wasting of a reply with flat, dunno, ho-hum, isn't-this-boring responses to questions that I presented as potentially interesting (to a broader readership, should they turn up), rather than enquiries I insist you answer, is petty & ungracious.
I disagree - but then, it's been established that we find different things interesting (and/or funny and/or 'decent', etc.). The implication that I'm insufficiently grateful for your 'saving' my thread rather hinges on my agreeing with you on the usefulness of your contributions. I might find your views on Brokeback Mountain useful or interesting. The other stuff? Not enormously.
quote:
quote:You, in seven hours' time: Heaven forfend I should be ungracious towards you, Kovacs. That would never do. I was merely trying to match your charm in waving your textual dick for three pages rather than talking about Brokeback Mountain. Now. Has anyone seen this film.
You're so adept at putting words in my mouth, you could probably have this discussion with yourself. Perhaps you should.
quote:IT IS GETTING A BIT PREDICTABLE NOW
YES ISNT IT!!1! Etc.
quote:I think I have exhausted my contribution to this thread ("I think you did that on page 2, dear") unless anyone else comes along. But, thank you for the good discussion in parts.
I'm afraid I see it rather as a detour, a distraction - and, from my point of view, a slightly frustrating, pointless one, in that it's been more about repeatedly correcting your assumptions regarding my personal motivation than in advancing my own understanding of Brokeback Mountain, Westerns or anything else, really. I suppose I'm now acquainted with the cult studs definition of 'poaching' but that's about it.
I like discussion as much as the next man, but not back-and-forth for its own sake. If I hadn't found your assumptions and general tone so itchyscratchy, I doubt I'd have persisted. Call me 'on-topic Nazi' by all means, but Brokeback Mountain's one of the most powerful films I've seen for years, and I genuinely wanted to talk about it here, rather than defend myself at length. I honestly do think you should see it, if only so we can have a discussion from which I'll gain something.
I'm appreciative of those others who did 'come along', discussion-wise.
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I would be interested to discuss how "that gay cowboy film" fits into the Western genre, but I will have to go and see it first- probably not until the weekend.
As I've probably conveyed, I don't really think it does fit into the Western genre. It's more of a classic story of 'doomed love' in a particular time and place. Visually, I guess it's pretty good at evoking certain elements of the old Western myths (wide-open spaces, gruff-but-sensitive cowboys, 'closeness to nature', etc.).
Posts: 309
| IP: Logged
posted
But... lots of westerns weren't 'about' herding cows, or shooting Indians, they were about vengeance, love, baked beans, etc, also in a Western setting.
But... the actual 'Western' parts of BM, with hard-core herding and slightly limp rodeo, take up the minority of the film. So in that way too, it's not really a Western.
I absolutely loved this film. Perfect in every way. I loved the spare language, very E Annie P, and the contrast between the lush and endless possibilities of the Wyoming scenery and the dry, claustrophobic home towns. I blubbered from about two-thirds in, and couldn't speak for 30 minutes afterwards due to the lump in my throat.
I have a question, but it would be spoiler-tastic, so will wait until others have seen it.
Posts: 4537
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by herbs: But... lots of westerns weren't 'about' herding cows, or shooting Indians, they were about vengeance, love, baked beans, etc, also in a Western setting.
Yeah, I get that. It wasn't about "vengeance", though, was it? Brokeback Mountain was primarily about love, the ability to give and receive it and the imperfect compromises one makes in life.
The baked beans were certainly there, though.
quote:But... the actual 'Western' parts of BM, with hard-core herding and slightly limp rodeo, take up the minority of the film. So in that way too, it's not really a Western.
I saw the latter mainly as set-dressing - although its limpness does also establish Jack's relative mediocrity at being a 'real' cowboy (which mirrors his half-arsedness at being a 'real' husband or father).
quote:I absolutely loved this film. Perfect in every way. I loved the spare language, very E Annie P, and the contrast between the lush and endless possibilities of the Wyoming scenery and the dry, claustrophobic home towns. I blubbered from about two-thirds in, and couldn't speak for 30 minutes afterwards due to the lump in my throat.
I was much the same. Went to the pub afterwards, but kept worrying I'd suddenly burst into tears. Agree with you on Brokeback Mountain itself as metaphor for youth, possibility, etc. as compared with the arid harshness of day-to-day life and its inevitable compromises.
quote:I have a question, but it would be spoiler-tastic, so will wait until others have seen it.
Well, I've been comparitively spoilerrific already. Maybe with a big, flashy SPOILER WARNING?
Posts: 309
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by dance margarita: i dont think its a spoiler to say that this film features some very excellent shirts.
And Jack is, literally, a shirt-lifter.
I wondered, at times, whether I was guilty of reading gay in-jokes into the film. As well as the shirt-lifting, closets feature at key plot points - and one of the farming machines we see Jack riding (with his young son) has 'VERSATILE' emblazoned across the front...
Posts: 309
| IP: Logged
When Lureen is telling Ennis about Jack's death by tyre ring, and E imagines a 'queer-bashing', was the film saying that J was really killed by being beaten up, and that L was too ashamed to admit it, or was it Ennis's interpretation, based on his childhood experiences?
L is very tight-lipped during the convo - does she know already about J&E, or is the penny only then dropping about the significance of Brokeback Mountain?
quote:Originally posted by herbs: ++++SPOILER AHOY++++++
When Lureen is telling Ennis about Jack's death by tyre ring, and E imagines a 'queer-bashing', was the film saying that J was really killed by being beaten up, and that L was too ashamed to admit it, or was it Ennis's interpretation, based on his childhood experiences?
L is very tight-lipped during the convo - does she know already about J&E, or is the penny only then dropping about the significance of Brokeback Mountain?
+++++END OF SPOILER. MOVE ALONG+++++++
That's ambiguous in both short story and film. The first time we saw it with friends who hadn't read Proulx's story, they wondered whether Lureen had arranged Jack's death. Initially, I couldn't see how they might've formed this impression but, if one takes the 'phone calls flashback to be happening in Lureen's mind rather than Ennis's, that skewed interpretation would make a certain kind of sense.
In the short story, it remains ambiguous to the reader: did this really happen, or is it Ennis's paranoid fantasy based on that formative childhood fear? In the story, Ennis remains unsure until he goes to the Twists and hears about Jack's longstanding boasts that he's going to return with Ennis one day to do up the Twists' place - with a more recent shift from Ennis to "some ranch foreman neighbour of his". This suggests that Jack began 'fishing' closer to home, and began attracting hostile attention (as in the earlier rodeo bar scene) which eventually resulted in his death.
This confirms, in Ellis's mind, that Jack died from lynching. It's left to the reader to decide on the likelihood of his interpretation being the correct one.
Lureen's chilliness on the 'phone - with hints of bitterness - suggests she's aware that something had been going on ("Jack kept his friends' numbers in his head") and the little noise she makes in her throat indicates she's more emotionally affected by Ennis's revelation (Brokeback Mountain's a real place where her husband spent such 'quality time' with another male that he wants his ashes scattered there) than might be audibly apparent. In that sense, I think the penny's just dropped.
posted
I saw this at the weekend and enjoyed it, although I am aware that I automatically enjoy most "Westerns" because they have horses and nice scenery in. If the story had taken place in some other cinematically distinct setting, say amongst the gangs of 1930s Chicago, I doubt I would have cared so much. The first thing I did when I got home was to look at my Colorado pictures from the summer I worked there. This film was the closest thing in 7 years to remind me of how the mountain air tastes, and how quickly the weather changes, and of what those small towns are like (the way a flimsy door sounds when it's slammed in a cheap building). So the depiction of Wyoming affected me at a deeper personal level than the actual narrative.
I liked the final song on the end credits, but thought the score throughout was a bit lame- I found the twanging gee-tar chords a bit distracting, and kinda lazy. Both leads put in great performances. Who says the pretty boys can't act?
I would actually argue that the film can be fairly confidently classified as a Western, with regard to its setting, iconography and the way it uses a frontier/wilderness location to explore moral conflicts between the individual and society within the greater context of changing American history. I don't know if anyone is interested enough in Westerns to want to discuss this further.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
posted
I love Westerns VP, but you would have to discuss them on another thread just about Westerns (that's not being "itchyscratchy"; I agree it'd be disruptively off-topic) because I still haven't been to the cinema since King Kong. I have watched a film every night at home, though, so I don't think I should be sacked from my job yet.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic