The Hot Blog

Wait a minute. GLAAD is involved with it and defending it from reviews and critics???

But, hey, its not a Movement, right?

Let's just ignore Shalit and the idiots.
ALL the idiots.

Although, David, would you feel as complacent if it was Munich and someone made reference to the characters as money-grubbers? Just a rhetorical point.

Gene Shalit. Maybe the best stache ever. Close call between him and Rollie Fingers.

It takes a really willful misreading of the film to say that Annie Proulx naming her character "Jack Twist" is more offensive than Shalit calling him a "sexual predator" with his scared eyes wide open.

You may not take Gene Shalit seriously, but he has a widely-watched pulpit on the Today Show. If GLAAD didn't protest the idea of gays being called "sexual predators," what the fuck would they protest?

Well J-MC, are you now saying that all gay men are stereotyped as sexual predators? I hope not. And I think by responding to a comment about one gay character as though it was an attack on all gay men, the "defender" empowers the stereotype for those supid enough to believe it.

(Many, many men - sttraight or gay - are sexual predators and many more would be if they had the nerve. I don't like that, but I believe it to be true. We are prone to piggish sexual behavior.)

I was a little taken aback, actually, by the complaints that the Israelis were too preoccupied with the receipts in Munich. That is the same kind of stupid, reflexive thinking to my mind's eye.

So it's not all that rhetorical.

Well, DP, yes, the stereotype about gay men as sexual predators is a general stereotype in our culture. You make a good point about giving it currency by attacking it, but surely you can understand why some would feel the need, right?
And I brought up the Munich thing because it was the first thing I could think of, and because Spielberg defused it by making it funny. I certainly hope you aren't calling me stupid and reflexive.

Well JL... you tell me. Do you think there was more than 10% of the audience that didn't play word association with the name "Jack Twist?"

How many people listened to Shalit? How many people care what he says about the movie at this point? Does anyone actually think he has insight into sexual sociology?

Actually, I would guess that Ms. Proulx gave Jack that name because it was reflective of how people see/saw a gay man. But if a straight man called him twisted, there would be a protest. No?

No, not calling you anything, J-Mc. But my point is my point. There has been complaining about the receipts in Munich. Insane!

Well, that's coming from people who don't get the joke. Best to ignore them.

A better analogy might be made to the whole Passion of the Christ brouhaha. Dave found the movie anti-Semitic and spoke about it, as he should. He didn't pull his punches because it would "empower the stereotype for those stupid enough to believe it."

If people feel the same about Gene Shalit, why should they not do the same?

Many people listen to Shalit. He's on the highest-rated morning show and has been there for decades. Do film-literate types tend to respect him and his godawful punning? No, but for a whole hell of a lot more people, Gene Shalit and Roger Ebert are the only movie critics they will ever know.

It's GLAAD's job to point out comments that can be construed as homophobic as it is the jobs of other minority representation groups to defend themselves. I'd call it a "movement" if it were 10,000 angry letters being delivered to Shalit, but this sounds like something minority representation groups do everyday. I don't think they're so much defending the movie here as much as criticizing the phrase "sexual predator," which is extreme for a character who endures a long drive just to go "fishing" with his prey.

DP, you don't find it creepy that Shalit -- however lightly a serious film fan takes him -- would refer to Twist's character that way? Envision the same lead-up to a sex scene with a heterosexual couple, and then try to envision Shalit calling the male a "sexual predator" in that situation (which, objectively, would have to be described something like "quiet, tenuous friendship turning abruptly to sexual passion").

The examples you list from the other movies don't really match up. You describe, for the most part, *facts* about the characters in other movies (it can't be argued that Matt Dillon does what he does in Crash, for example, or that some of the characters in Match Point are cheaters/cheats/whatever). Even if it's the simplified version, they are pretty literal descriptions. Maybe there's a similar stretch in arguing that a character in Squid is a sexual predator, or that Tom Stahl is... but I don't think it's the same kind of offensive stretch that Shalit is making in calling Twist a predator.

OK, take that Denzel Washington movie a few years ago, John Q., where his character holds a hospital hostage out of desperation when his son needs a transplant or health care or something, I forget. If a reviewer described Washington's character as a hardened criminal or a gangsta or something... that, to me, is a closer equivalent to what Shalit said.

Now, do I always agree with what GLAAD chooses to make a big out of? Not particularly. But the argument that no one should be upset about this because it's "only Gene Shalit"... well, I think that assumes everyone who watches the TODAY show is thinking, "hey, I should take this with a grain of salt; Gene Shalit isn't exactly Anthony Lane or David Thomson!" To me, Shalit's remarks are offensive precisely because they're aimed at an audience that might *not* know better. If someone more "serious" raised that point, it would probably be in a more serious and thoughtful context.

I hope this means that Horatio Sanz with parody Shalit on SNL again to mock Shalit's comments on the movie.

James, to clarify, Shalit didn't call "gays" "sexual predators"... he called ONE gay character in a fictional film a sexual predator. This is a very important distinction.

Watching the footage of his review on the GLAAD website, I will say that he had a very different take on the film's relationship than I did (though he's entitled, as a film critic, to characterize a film's relationship (which is what he did) as opposed to all gay relationships (which is what people seem to be accusing him of)).

At first, when I saw that he called Jack Twist a "sexual predator," I thought he was talking about the beginning of their physical relationship, not where it progressed to. And I have to say, I don't consider myself homophobic in the least, but I would consider a man who put my hand on his penis while I was asleep to be a "sexual predator."

Did misread this opening salvo? Why does nobody else seem to be upset by the fact that this "groundbreaking love story" begins with what essentially ammounts to hand rape? Wouldn't people have been outraged if Leo took Kate's sleeping hand and placed it on his junk?

My beef with Shalit is that the whole conversation about "sexual predator" has little to no bearing on whether Brokeback is a good movie. It felt more like social commentary. What was interesting to me was seeing Couric's reation after the review -- she had this expression of "Oh my God, what did he just say ..." That was priceless.

What I also find baffling is that Shalit has spoken openly about his gay son. Not that this would have any bearing on his remarks, but it does seem odd.

I used to think of Gene Shalit as this fun, likeable critic with this funny mustache but when he uttered the "sexual predator" word, I realized that he's just another insensitive man who clearly doesn't understand homosexuality. At least Katie Couric had the courage to retort back: "Well, I liked it." Go Katie!

Perhaps someone's head was blocking my view, but I'm pretty sure nobody put anyone's hand on anyone's genitals in that scene in the movie. I believe it was a simple 'i'm going to make you spoon me' movement.

Although later on the genitals are involved, yes. But at first, just a hug.

On this issue of whether BBM is a "Movement", this is what Ms. Proulx had to say of her hopes about what the film would accomplish:

"I hope that it is going to start conversations and discussions, that it's going to awaken in people an empathy for diversity, for each other and the larger world. I'm really hoping that the idea of tolerance will come through discussions about the film. People tend to walk out of the theater with a sense of compassion, which I think is very fine. It is a love story. It has been called both universal and specific, and I think that's true. It's an old, old story. We've heard this story a million times; we just haven't heard it quite with this cast."

Unfortunately, given its subject matter, what BBM awakens in some people is deep-seated malevolent homophobia, and I certainly think that it is appropriate that GLAAD and other gay organizations respond to those people.

I do think that BBM is an old fashioned "message" picture in the sense that "Lillies of the Field" and "In the Heat of the Night" were also message pictures. However, people who argue that BBM is only a "Movement" generally either state directly or imply that BBM has been well received by the critics and others only because of its subject matter. I strongly disagree with this. Some critics who have had no hesitation whatsoever in panning other gay themed movies--Joe Morgernstern of The Wall Street Journal comes to mind--love BBM, and I don't think that they've become shills for the "gay agenda" overnight.

Now Shalit is going to have the BBM Movement all over him. They're out, literally, in force.

You can't have it both ways BBM Movement supporters. You can't be saying it's a movie and it's by its lonesome than have groups and people like GLAAD defending you at all costs.

Maybe this was Shalit's interpretation of the character. If it was man and woman instead of two gays would anyone care that he said this? Just because one character might be a sexual predator doesn't mean every homosexual out there is and he never even hinted at that. Why do we need press releases about this? Get over it.

I'm sure after "Basic Instinct" no one called Stone's character a sexual predator. They all just called her a nice girl who was just looking for love.

Well this discussion is slowly drawing out a few underlying thoughts within society. The above few comments seem to conclude something else separate from Brokeback -- that women would never be called sexual predators because they're the "weaker sex" and hence simply "sexy" when the wanna screw him, her or whatever.

"If it was man and woman instead of two gays would anyone care that he said this?"

It never would have been said in the first place if it was a man and a woman instead of two men.

"I'm sure after "Basic Instinct" no one called Stone's character a sexual predator. They all just called her a nice girl who was just looking for love."

She was a psycho killer though.

Well.
I suppose I can understand the concern; his offhanded view of this particular relationship misses the mark of how it's actually portrayed that it does sort of make you wonder if maybe he watched the film thinking, "Ennis rejected you, Jack, because he's not really fully gay; stop being such a sexual predator who wants all of this potentially straight man for yourself."

That said, the press release goes so far in the opposite direction in asserting that he "used the occasion to promote defamatory anti-gay prejudice to a national audience" when it seemed to me that he wasn't promoting so much as relying on an assumed prejudice to make that strange characterization, that I think both sides are firing blanks.

I was under the impression after reading all the posts here that Shalit said that all gay men were sexual predators and weird deviants and sinners. Than I actually read Shalit's words and realized he was talking about one character in a movie who does go after sex with a friend. WOW.

My bad. Really almost messed up there.

Some movie critic characterizes a fictional character in a film as a sexual predator, and GLAAD issues a real-life press release? Way to pick your battles.

By the way, why does DP refer to Shalit as "aka The Voice of the Right Wing"? What did I miss?

Well, here is one BBM supporter who happens to wish GLADD would leave well enough alone.

BBM is a MOVIE, not a propaganda piece for gay right's groups. Gene Shalit, is a MOVIE CRITIC. As a critic, he had a problem with a movie character that he thought was a sexual predator. He did not have any issues with the characters being gay nor did he malign gay people in general.

I've heard other people who love this movie refer to Jack in almost the same terms. He does take the hand of the very drunk and sleeping Ennis and put it on his penis (Proulx makes that clear in the story and it obvious in the film where Jack is placing Ennis'hand). Some can see that a very predatory move. Shalit did and called it as he sees it. Personally, I don't agree with him, but a movie critic is allowed to give his honest opinions about movies, even movies with gay characters.

What is really ironic (and no one has mentioned) is that BBM is ultimately a movie owned by NBC/Universal, the same folks that pay Gene Shalit. So, people are protesting to the same people who own the movie! Go figure.

BBM needs to be allowed to stand on its merits as a movie. BBM supporters can't be hyper sensitive to every critic with a negative review and accuse them of homophobia for how the discuss the characters. That type of behavior will do nothing in the long run but harm the movie and prehaps cause an Academy backlash.

Excellent points peteinportland. Well said.

First, it's important to note that Shalit did NOT makes the "sexual predator" remark about Jack's putting Ennis' hand on his crotch. That act, which I agree could be called predatory, isn't what he was talking about. He's describing Jack's pursuit of Ennis over the years as predatory.

So, is that a fair characterization? I don't think so. Shalit implies that the sex is something other than completely consensual. It's not. Ennis, in fact, makes the aggressive first move when they're reunited four years after the initial tryst. And Ennis is completely willing to have sex when they do meet up.

I don't think the "he's just one fictional character" argument works at all. Remember the redneck family in Million Dollar Baby? Do you want to say that their portrayal as completely awful, stupid people was okay because they were fictional and it's just one family who don't represent all poor southerners? Or do you say that they represented, in the world of the movie, a broader attitude on the part of the filmmakers?

The discussion seems to be going along smartly without me throwing any more pennies into the fountain of ideas right now... but to answer the "(aka The Voice of The Right Wing)" question... absolute absurdist sarcasm.

The problem with Gene Shalit (excluding his bizarre taste in movies in the first place) is the forum he's offered. His puff reviews are seen by far more people than will read a thoughtful positive or negative essay on the film in The New York Observer or Village Voice or by Ebert.

Jack was an agressor on the mountain, not a predator. And, besides, Heath kissed him first during their reunion.

Quickly, the rednecks in Million Dollar Baby almost sank the movie for me; a real misstep in an otherwise good film.

Finally, Shalit has an openly gay son. Wonder what he thinks of dear old dad's characterization.

Yes, I took the portrayal of the redneck family in MDB as a contruct of the story, and not some overarching attitude toward poor southerners on the part of the filmmakers.

Support for the movie is separate from criticizing what a critic says. Plenty of critics haven't liked the film but didn't face the wrath of GLADD. If it were truly a movement, Shalit would receive thousands of angry letters and calls for boycotts of his show, etc.

And the defintion of sexual predator: A sexual predator is a person who preys on people for the intent of commiting a sexual assault crime. When did Jack Twist commit assault?

There's a lot of discussion about BBM being a 'movement', and the discussion keeps going on because that's such a poorly-defined term. If you want to say it's a movement because it's a movie with a lot of buzz that has been widely embraced with a lot of vocal supporters, some of whom may go overboard, then sure. But to say that a 'movement' is defined as some kind of mass conspiracy to promote 'the gay agenda' then that's essentially an absurd paranoid fantasy.

Mysteryperfecta, you do realize that the filmmakers are the ones who constructed the story? So that therefore, they agreed with the portrayal of that family, and didn't see anything wrong with how one-sided it was?
In movies, nothing happens without a reason.

I took the rednecks in Million Dollar Baby as the product of a lazy screenwriter who didn't want to take the time to flesh out the characters.

But the Million Dollar Baby argument is different from this Shalit one. Their portrayal in MDB is stereotypical and offensive -- that's pretty much accepted as fact at this point. Jack Twist is not depicted as a sex predator, yet Gene Shalit describes him that way. Why?

Shalit not only has an openly gay son, he's written an essay about what a fine man he is, and how much he loves him. I'd link to it if I knew where it was, I only ran across this contretemps (at another board) late last night, and in short I'd say Shalit may have spoken out of turn, but sincerely doubt he meant any real harm. (Of all the idiotic things Shalit has said over the years, people pounce on this one? And now GLAAD is involved? This reminds me of when they pointlessly humiliated Kevin Smith, of all people.)

The family in Million Dollar Baby was portrayed as villians because of their actions, not their southern heritage. Greed and heartlessness are universal character flaws.

Are you saying that the ethnicity/cultural background of a movie villian is always seen as a driving force in their actions?

By the way, aren't we forgetting that Hilary Swank's character was also a poor southern "redneck"? Her character was quite sympathic, despite her background.

This nonsense about the "offensive" rednecks in "Million Dollar Baby" struck me as crap last year, and strikes me as crap right now. Excuse me, but how many of you folks who claim to be so bent out shape actually live in the South? Have ever lived in the South? Even know a lot of Southerners? Do you have any earthly idea how NON-caricaturish those characters seem to us Southerners?

It was a conscious choice to make her family Poor White Trash. It didn't happen by accident and it wasn't just some kind of big coincidence. Melquiades is correct: it was lazy screenwriting and cheap stereotyping, and Clint Eastwood and Paul Haggis should have known better.

The point is: characters often represent groups. We don't always have the luxury to say that a character's depiction is unproblematic because 'it's just one guy'. Films live and die on their subtexts.

Just read your post, Joe. Fair enough.

Jeff:

Sorry if I sounded like I was personally attacking you. I didn't mean to, and if you took it that way, I am sincerely sorry. BUT: I was born and raised in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans, and have lived, worked and vacationed all my life in various parts of the South (Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Tennnessee). In fact, I would be willing to bet that I am the White Trashiest person who ever posts on the blog. And you know what? I've seen people like the family in "Million Dollar Baby" all my life. Hell, I saw them even before I was a welfare worker.

I guess it all depends on perspective. I might look at, say, "L.A. Story," and think it was filled with caricatures. (Even though it has one of the most prooifundly moving romantic gestures in the history of cinema at the end.) But if you live in L.A., you might tell me that the movie was a freakin' documentary.

No no, no offense taken. In fact, I was wondering if what you said wasn't actually more of a slam to your fellow white trashizens, because if that's what people are like...jeez!

Er, make that PROFOUNDLY moving...

And we're arguing Million Dollar Baby again. Joy.

Back to BBM and Shalit. As others have said, it's not that he didn't like the film - as GLAAD has said "Shalit has every right as a film critic to criticize 'Brokeback Mountain, but his baseless branding of Jack as a 'sexual predator' merely because he is romantically interested in someone of the same sex is defamatory, ignorant and irresponsible."

And that, I think, is why people are so upset. Shalit described Jack as a sexual predator despite the fact that he was simply a man who was attracted to another and proceeded throughout the years to have an affair with him. It definitely isn't a one-sided affair. Predator makes it sound like he's raping Ennis or something, which he clearly is not. It is clearly within Ennis' realm to not continue to see Jack, but he does voluntarily and is even the one that grows the fondest heart.

And that Shalit did this on national television was irresponsible. And, to me, it comes off as a bad low-punch to the film. As if Shalit knows that a lot of people are interested in the film and will see it so the only way he can go about changing that (other than just giving a negative review, which he is in his rights to give) is by catalogueing characters and acts in the film as nothing else but sexually deviant.

It's like all these people who dislike the movie because it advocates men having affairs and destroying their marriages. But, you'd think that all these religious and family groups would want these men to divorce their wives as to not continue to bring unnecessary hurt to them.

GLAAD getting involved. Great job!

But it's not part of an agenda or a movement or anything. Sure thing. You gotta be joking.

BBM has become the Cause of the Left Wing and Gay Rights. Even if it doesn't want to. It has become that. And it will cost it a lot of votes come Oscar time.

If you hate Brokeback so much, why do you spend so much time thinking about it?

i've seen the movie and never thought of jack being a "sexual predator" thought it was more of he was interested in someone and wanted more..the same from ennis..he wanted more and was awakened to his inner thoughts and desires.....let's face it...eventually someone has to take the lead and make a move ...while ennis could have said "no"...but he didn't..now my question is this....

I understand the Mr. Shalit has a son....would one call him a "sexual predator" as well?....obviously he had to insert "d" into slot "v".....or maybe is wife was the "sexual predator"...again insert "d" into slot "v"...

I was at the 7:00 showing at the Esquire Theater in very conservative Cincinnati. The theater was packed and all shows have sold out quickly. In fact, there were WAY more hetero couples at the film than gay people. This film has become an event - something that has broad appeal more for the quality of the filmmaking than the quietly revolutionary subject matter. No one - certainly no Gene Shalit could speed bump this film into obscurity. Expect it to post very high numbers at the box office this weekend...which should invalidate the theory that middle America is not ready for it.

GLAAD has every right to speak up. As does Gene Shalit.

But...consider how whenever Christian or family groups speak out on films they are mocked ridiculed and reviled. The industry does not take them seriously. Even a genuinely well read critic like Michael Medved.

GLAAD however hosts a film awards 'party' that every year gets the biggest and best in Hollywood to take part. Even though GLAAD'S agenda has nothing to do with art and only ideology.

I just find the hypocrisy at how they are taken so seriously purely delicious.

CincyBrad: I'm amazed that the Esquire got "Brokeback Mountain". That theater took it upon itself to censor a sex scene from "The Center of the World" back in 2001. The Esquire is damn lucky that the distributor involved didn't pull the movie and blacklist the theater. The Esquire also banned the Cincinnati newspaper CityBeat when that publication exposed the theater's pro-censorship policy.

Such is life in the city that brought the world Charles Keating.

GLAAD - Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation - they work to improve the image of gay people in the media. Hollywood's biggest and best take part because it's the right thing to do.

I don't take Michael Medved seriously because he filters everything through a "family values" prism, which is fine if he made that his thing, but he tries to be taken seriously as a mainstream movie reviewer.

Christian and family groups being reviled is generalizing -- but there are specific groups that are worthy of revulsion because they condone discrimination. In particular, Focus On The Family.

Hepwa,

So filtering art through a 'family values' prism is bad but filtering through the prism of 'gay rights' is good.

Thanks for proving my point.

You obviously also do not read Medved...he gives plenty of good reviews to films whose ideology he does not agree with due to their artistry. Like BBM.

Does GLAAD?

I don't think GLAAD supports anything other than BBM. You think they're behind the Movement???? Why they so heavily involved with a movie? Don't they have better things to invest their time in unless they're making this movie a Cause.

Michael Medved is a joke. To be fair, it's impossible to view any movie 'objectively' outside the filter of one's particular socio-political context.

Did GLAAD come out with some kind of official endorsement of the film when it came out? Or are they just upset about a gay character being called a sexual predator, which he is definitely not? Those are two completely separate things, which need more thoughtful connecting than just "see? it's the movement."

It's obvious that GLAAD has a stake in this movie being successful and they will support it with everything they have. It has gone past being about the movie. It is now about the message which is sad. It hurts the movie.

I don't think GLAAD goes after anybody who gives the film a bad review. It's a group, like the Catholic League or Anti-Defamation League, that calls attention to what it perceives as bigotry.

All of those groups, by definition, tend to come across as PC Police. Doesn't mean they aren't right once in awhile.

"So filtering art through a 'family values' prism is bad but filtering through the prism of 'gay rights' is good."

But Nicol, GLAAD's sole reason for being is to help bring light towards people or groups who seek to act out towards GLBT things. They celebrate GLBT culture - they have no other purpose than to be ABOUT GLBT. Their annual film and tv awards celebrate GLBT related work. It is their role to bring notice to people such as Gene Shalit and others like him - people who seek to defame the community.

The reason why people don't take most of these family/religious groups serious is because most of the times they are presenting some fanatical view that is beyond the realm of sense. Edit all the scenes of sex and violence from this movie or we will boycott!!! Like that crazy group who recently stopped their boycott against Disney because Miramax decided to leave.

What is so wrong about GLAAD speaking out against Gene Shalit, who actively went out of his way to target, aim and fire at the gay comunitee.

Well this thread’s getting old before I’ve even had a chance to respond. Still…. I'm glad “peevee” pointed out Katie Couric's facial expression after Shalit's review. That's what I noticed when I saw it that morning. She looked kind of stunned and embarrassed. I think it's pretty clear that she thought Shalit was saying something idiotic and wanted to distance herself from it with her comment about how “well done” or “well made” she thought BBM was.

As for the name Jack Twist. I take the last name to mean something like "twisting in the wind," which is just how Jack was left to live his life when Ennis wouldn't commit to him...

As for the “sexual predator” thing, I agree it was a biased statement and totally unjustified by the film itself. Two of the biggest sexual predators in films last year were Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn in "The Wedding Crashers." Did Shalit criticize them in his review? This is sort of the way anti-gay bigotry takes place today. Straight people can do something, like go after someone they’re sexually interested in, and it’s fine, but if a gay man does it, he’s being a letch, or sex-obsessed, or whatever.

And to connect the dots, Shalit made his comments on Thursday morning, a few hours later, the film gets pulled from the theater in Sandy, UT. For all we know, someone sent a video clip of Shalit’s review to the theater ownership and said: “How can you show a film that glorifies a sexual predator?”

Shalit gets paid more than almost anyone in this country, I’d imagine, to sit on his butt and watch movies, and then offer silly reviews about them on TV: “You’ll just LOVE ‘Shakespeare in Love.’”. It's part of his job, really, to know not to say offensive things that connect a reasonable gay man to "predatory behavior." He would have gotten a similar response had he called an Asian character in a movie "inscrutable", and rightly so.

Is anyone else posting here a gay man? If you are, you know how terms like "sexual predator" sting because they are so often used to justify the hatred and discrimination (not to mention violence) against gays and lesbians that is so rampant in the world.

If GLAAD is being too sensitive about these kinds of terms, good for them. It's their job. Every gay person I know who heard these words uttered was equally outraged at their use. Nobody cared whether the guy liked the movie or not. He was using trigger words used in our society that say a lot more about his characterization of gays than it ever would about the character in this movie. This is the reason GLAAD is saying something...same goes for me.

tmpost... I hear you... but I would argue that by taking something like "sexual predator" as an act of verbal aggression against gay men, especially in a climate where the term certainly fits many straight men and priests, it's incredibly empowering of a notion that is not neccessarily a hot button outside of the gay or hard right community.

As I analogized it to the reciepts issue with Munich... it's giving voice to the stereotype instead of really going after the issue. Jack was the sexual aggressor. But Shalit's suggestion that when Jack and Enis reunited it was Jack as the primary driving force is a bad misunderstanding of the film and speaks to the bigger issue, I think, which is the false notion that a man in a heterosexual relationship cannot also be in love with someone else... even someone of the same sex.

That said, I would say that this argument should be in Focus' realm, not GLAAD's.

But we may just have to agree to disagree.

I don't see what Focus would have to say about it...should they make a statement for every reviewer who misinterprets one of their films or gives it a bad review? This is not a movie-related concern, it's a social one.

Challenging a stereotype does not empower it. The thing that empowers it is doing nothing...and, by implication, granting permission to others to further the stereotype without reprisal.

Just for clarification on the issue of the character's names--Ennis Del Mar mean "island in the ocean". Jack Twist refers to a rodeo term that implies staying power and flexibility when riding a bull--"That cowboy's got twist". The name actually isnt a sexual reference about deviance, just obscure cowboy talk. This info is from Annie Proulx directly.

I guess Annie P. should hand out a glossary when people enter the theaters.

JL -

A. Not true.

B. This one is the equivalent of some kid yelling "ugly" or "stupid" in a schoolyard and the entire gay community turning around, embarrassed.

But it's not like (in the realm of fiction) Jack's parents (who would also have the name Twist) are sexually twisted or whatever people think.

Agreed on the fact that it it were a hetero man chasing after a woman, placing her hand on his crotch and such, it'd be a slight slap on the wrist. Or if played by Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn it'd be a "oh, you crazy kidders, you!"

What I found even more objectionable about Shalit's criticism of Jack's character, is he described Jack's discussion of committment and sharing a life together as so much whining...etc. In my experience and understanding, it's quite natural for people in love to want to live together. In the straight world they even have a thing called marriage, which as you all know is an institution that is denied to most gay couples. I also found his "outside the buns" comment quite repugnant. He talks about their sexual relationship, yet the clips he shows, especially the one where Jack is standing up by the fire, and Ennis is standing behind him with an arm around Jack's shoulder hugging his chest, depict two men that are involved in a relationship that is more than just sex. Apparently, he didn't give this film much thought, and certainly no depth of thought.

I think Palmtree touched on a point that hasn't been stressed enough in this debate. "Sexual predator" is a term out of criminal law; it implies abuse of a minor or, where the victim is over the age of majority, a forcible assault or a rape. It was ignorant or impolitic, at the least, of Shalit to use the phrase. His choice of language certainly suggests homophobia, overt or not, and it's particularly sad if his own son is gay, because of what it indicates about how Shalit looks at physical, sexual contact between consenting adult gay men. As many posters have suggested, Shalit would never have used the same term, the language of criminal law, to describe identical behavior by an adult straight man towards an adult straight woman.

As for GLAAD's role in the matter, they may not have any brief to defend a particular movie, but when a movie critic with a high profile gig like Shalit uses his pulpit to perpetuate the view that sexual relations between consenting adult gays should be viewed as criminal or deviant, I'm sure GLAAD believes its institutional mission requires it to criticize that characterization.

Gene Shalit isn't much of a film critic to begin with, but how many millions watch the Today Show?

KamiCam - If a man treated a woman like the girl treats Vince Vaughn in Wedding Crashers and it was a played as a comedy, there would be no end to the protests.

If a man and a women with no sexual history were in a tent and the man grabbed her hand and put it on his schlong and she got so turned on that she screwed him raw, there would be protests (see: The first response to 9 1/2 Weeks).

Of course, these things subside... if the movie is funny enough... if a lot of women find 9 1/2 Weeks hot even if it is about a woman's subjugation. But they do not go uncommented on or unprotested.

Then you have a movie like Secretary which was about sexual role playing, but the woman somehow empowers herself by playing the role of the subjugated. It would have been interesting to see how the film would have been received if you had someone who felt more submissive as an actress in the role. I think that Maggie Gyllenhaal really made the movie work because you didn't believe she was that self-abusive... even when cutting, it seemed like an aggressive act.

And for clarity, this is not a call for a protest of BBM. Just saying...

I hate the PC Police. They may have good intentions but it distracts from the movie.

Gene, Gene, Gene,

What was he thinking? To call the Character "Jake" a sexual predator, is like calling Halle Berry's character in "Monsters Ball" a sambo or Billy Bob Thorntons character a nigger lover. Now if Gene had done that would people say the NAACP has no right to protest? I think not!

Now in my opinion it's the same thing right now. Reason being a large amount of people see Gay and Lesbian persons as sexual deviants (sp?). This is the mold GLAAD and other groups are out to break. So to have the character Jake in BBM called a Sexual Predator is insulting. So it's not silly for GLAAD to be up in arms about it.

Joefitz84, what are you refering to as a "movement" GLAAD or BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN? GLAAD would be a movement, Brokeback Mountain would be a movie.

Dave Poland, I'm glaad (lol) you don't see Gene's comments as anything much, but, give an inch, and they take a mile. Comments like his are just fuel for the fire of ignorance some people have. That's why there are people LIVING what BBM only shows in fiction. I'm a Christian, I'm a gay man, and I am the product of a black father and a white mother. Some battles are worth fighting. When a man has a soapbox the size of Genes....they should use more umm...style, like you! I don't always agree with you, but I'll be damned if you don't always make a very good point! You should've been a Lawyer (lol).

Thanks for reading people, peace out!

Actually, Brokeback is part of the Movement. It has stopped being about how good the movie is. It's now about being about a cause or about gay life. I know that a lot of homosexuals see this movie as a way of reaffirming their lifestyle and choices. The more it does at the BO and the more awards it wins, the better for every homosexual out there.

So, now everytime I see a straight white man on screen potrayed in a bad way, I should round up a group and protest it??? What happend to "art"?

Sometime we'll hang out and I'll explain the concept of "minority" to you.

As for your contention that "it has stopped being about how good the movie is," what would convince you otherwise? Strong box office? Critical awards? Because last time I looked...

And one last note (which I'll try to be as polite as possible in delivering): what is it with you and your aliases always grumbling about how "homosexuals are using Brokeback to justify their lifestyle"? Are your views really that retrograde?

Hi'ya Joe,

"So, now everytime I see a straight white man on screen potrayed in a bad way, I should round up a group and protest it??? What happend to "art"?"

No Joe, nor should I feel that everytime I see a movie that portrays A white family, a straight man, or a man and woman coupling should I feel that it's a "movement".

Thank you but, I must go now "Brokeback Mountain" just won the Critics Choice Award for Best Picture. That should answer your question of "Art".

It doesn't answer his question. It just means the Critics are part of The Movement. That's the great thing about conspiracy theories is that they're impossible to disprove.

Hello Jeffmcm,

"It doesn't answer his question. It just means the Critics are part of The Movement. That's the great thing about conspiracy theories is that they're impossible to disprove."

OK?

What?

"Sometime we'll hang out and I'll explain the concept of "minority" to you."

Exactly!

And, Joe, believe me, people aren't going out and seeing this movie because it advances the view of homosexuality or something, they're seeing it because it's a great movie. But, alas, you will never see it because you don't wanna see two guys getting it on - can we call THAT a movement of HOMOPHOBIA!!!!!!!!!evil!!!

lol, get over it.

What I think some are missing is the issue is NOT 'Gene Shalit had an unpopular opinion' its rather 'Gene Shalit saw something that was decidedly NOT in the film he was watching.

Ennis was checking out Jack before their first sexual encounter.
Ennis was very much into the first sexual encounter.
The spent the rest of the time on Brokeback have wild consensual sex.
Ennis was on pins and needles waiting for Jack to show up after the first absence.
Ennis is the one that made that intial embrace into a totally obvious man on man kissing fest.
Ennis knew they were going to sleep together before he walked out the door that first time - even anticipated his wife asking for cigarettes to bring him home and told her were there were some in the house already.
The final note was sent by Ennis trying to set up the next rendezvous not Jack. As far as we know Ennis was setting up 'fishing trips' as often as Jack was (in fact since Ennis's schedule was more inflexible that most likely was the case.)

Where oh where does a reasonable person get the idea that it was Jack that was some predator and Ennis was some victim? Was Gene even watching the movie? That's where the reaction to Gene's statement comes from.

I agree that Gene seems to be using a double standard that he has not previously applied ot heterosexual loves. With his off the wall bordering on bizzare characterization I would not be surprised if somewhere deep down inside there's a small part of him who would like to blame some 'predator' for making his son gay.

letter from Gene Shalit is posted at the GLAAD website:

In reviewing the fictional movie "Brokeback Mountain", I expressed my opinion of "Jack", one of the fictional characters. It is my responsibility to my audience to present my views of the film and the actions of the film's fictional characters. My view of "Jack" may be contrary to the views of others, but we are all entitled to our opinions.

In describing the behavior of "Jack" I used words ("sexual predator") that I now discover have angered, agitated, and hurt many people. I did not intend to use a word that many in the gay community consider incendiary. Baron Lytton wrote in 1839 that "the pen is mightier than the sword," and this matter proves again how hurtful words can be. I very much regret using them.

The GLAAD website carried an assertion that instead of reviewing "Brokeback Mountain", which is my job, I "used the occasion to promote defamatory anti-gay prejudice to a national audience." This is untrue. It is unfair to me and must be corrected. Everything in my life and in my family's life demonstrates beyond doubt that I am not homophobic. Indeed, the contrary is true, and everyone who knows me knows it.

I certainly had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone in the gay community or on the community itself. I regret any emotional hurt that may have resulted from my review of "Brokeback Mountain."

link http://www.glaad.org/action/alerts_detail.php?id=3849&PHPSESSID=eaed9b0cf7c9fe534204a987830c5b44

Enlighten up everybody!

I have not read EVERY reply to this post so if I'm repeating something,forgive me.

I read this in an Annie Proulx article: As far as Jack Twist's name is concerned, "twist" is what bullriders refer to as the strength it takes to hold onto and ride the bucking broncos. Jack is also trying to hold onto Ennis through the years and hence his name. Isn't enlightenment wonderful?

Why can't a critic like Shalit comment on what he thinks of the film without the GLAAD/PC police rushing to disparage him and shoot down his character? You would think he said all homosexuals are deviants. Or something to that effect. He just commented on what he thought of the characters and I happend to agree with him. If you saw that with a man-woman we would be having that discussion. But people are so scared to comment on it because they don't want to be called homophobes or worse.

"You would think he said all homosexuals are deviants. Or something to that effect."

That is essentially what he said.

"If you saw that with a man-woman we would be having that discussion."

What do you mean? Is Johnny Cash a sexual predator because he stalks June Carter while he's a married man? Why aren't people talking about that?

The only critics who actually step out against Brokeback Mountain got shot down faster than a speeding bullet. I'd be surprised if they didn't fire Shalit after this or push him into early retirement. You got freaking GLAAD sending out press releases. What other films have that behind them? And you don't think some hold back their tongue?

Who are these critics (aside from Shalit) that you speak of?

Did you happen to read Ebert's piece on the critics of it? He takes some nice shots at a few critics. And we've all read the mail and pieces to David Poland. I'm no expert but that seems to me to be the tip of the iceberg.

Can't critics comment and critique movies anymore? They have to be worried about receiving hate mail and press releases from organizations and pressure from both?

I don't know about any of you but that hurts the industry when our critics are afraid to comment because of pressure.

I do not believe that Roger Ebert has written anything on this subject. However, Jim Emerson, who has a blog on Ebert's site but is not Ebert, wrote something about the backlash against the movie from various non-critics, and the reservations various actual critics have about aspects of the film. None of those things count as critics who got shot down.

There is bound to be a BBM backlash. Just a matter of when and will it effect the voting. Every frontrunner faces it.

I'm not sure it's such a one-way thing with readers. Yeah, a critic should be able to express himself, but the newspaper's job is to know its readership and serve them. For example, I don't think detailed plot summary is absolutely necessary in reviews, but most reviews do it because, let's face it, that's what many people want to read about. And unlike blogs, these writers face limited page space so sometimes you get almost all plot and very little analysis.

And as far as angry letters, it goes both ways, liberal and conservative angry letters come in when they dislike viewpoints. Furthermore, perhaps the critic isn't worried about losing upset readers so much as losing studio kickback for the scoop. It hurts when you're not invited to the party. That's how many positive (and negative) reviews are made.

You must read this one. I don't even know what to say! http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48076

This is beyond crazy!

It seems to me that the critics that dislike BBM only make personal comments. It's like the movie is put aside for their soapbox of personal feelings. Most reviews gave me insight to the movie, but then were over shadowed by the disdain for the subject matter itself. Now I know it's hard to seperate the two, but give the movie some credit. It must have done something right look where it is. And don't give me the ploy of smart marketing. Please give the viewing audience some credit. We are not mindless drones.
I haven't read all the reviews but I think the most even review came from someone called "movie mom" at yahoo's movie site. She didn't rave the movie but her review was well founded and open. Not closed minded at all. But, that's just this guys opinion, and we know what they say about opinions! lol

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)