1.30.2006

Dread (Brokeback)

There are times in a life that you dread a certain event so much, that the dread outweighs the actual event.  The bully challenges you to a fight after school.  You stare at the clock all the way through math and English praying for the clock to tick slower.  And then when you show up, he’s not there.  Then there are times like when I worked up the nerve to ask out Gennie Challand on a date in the 9th grade.  I was all hormones and geekiness.  It took a lot of nerve and overcoming of fear for me to ask her out.  She said “No, I want to protect our friendship.”  We weren’t friends.

Seeing “Brokeback Mountain” was a lot more like the latter than the former.  I was physically ill going in, so that wasn’t a good start.  I’m too old to play poker till 4am I guess.  Lesson learned.  

I should warn you that there will be minor spoilers ahead.There were three things that were positive about the movie.  Heath Ledger, I think did a great understated job of acting.  And Anne Hathaway and Michelle Williams were naked in love scenes.  That’s it.Besides the ‘gay cowboy’ angle, the movie was bad on a few different levels.  Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger are completely unbelievable as 40 year olds.  The Ledger character was having drinks with his 22year old daughter.  If you just looked at the screen, you’d think it was his sister.  So much for suspension of disbelief.And Jake Gyllenhaal’s moustache was incredibly awful.  I was like they shaved off Ron Jeremy’s moustache and put it on him.  70’s porn moustache to be sure.  Or…so I’ve heard….

Anne Hathaway’s acting was just plain bad.  And her hair was worse, which is saying something.
More than half the movie is pointless yet beautiful cinematography.  If I needed pointless cinematography, I’d watch the National Geographic Channel.  It would have been less awful if I could get out of this in 90 minutes instead of 135.  For Christ sakes it’s based on a short story.
Finally, there’s the whole thing that gets to the heart of why women love this shit.  DearWife focused on how hard it was for them to be in love.  How many obstacles there were.  How hard it must have been for them.  How sad it was.I focused on how many people they hurt because they couldn’t control their actions.  Hey, I’m not saying that their lives were easy.  Particularly being gay in that environment.  But that doesn’t mean you have to hurt everyone around you too does it?  DearWife can easily separate that from the rest of the story, and for me that IS the story.

14 comments:

tmc said...

my comment is too obvious. ask dw.

Muskyboy said...

Well the fact of the matter is that if you are a homo it means you are immoral and because of that hurting others is really no big deal. Nuff said on that topic.

Dear Wife said...

Musky, I don't even know where to begin. You can't be immoral for who you are, only the choices you make. I could really go off on a rant here, but I am sure it would fall on deaf ears (or in the blog sense, blind eyes). So, I will just hope that our next generation will be more tolerant than the current one.

Muskyboy said...

Tolerance leads to decline, injustice and a general lack of morals. But you go ahead and believe what you like.

Muskyboy said...

I always enjoy the liberal point of view, thanks for the good laugh.

Dear Wife said...

Musky, just for clarification before the rant begins, are you commenting from a christian stance, or an "I hate homos" stance?

Muskyboy said...

Christian..........let'er rip.

Dear Wife said...

First I would guess you believe people choose to be gay, as that would be the only way you could justify your distain. I am sure I can not convince you otherwise because that would shake the foundation of your prejudice. But just know you are wrong.

So, based on a Christian standpoint, do you find people of other religions immoral based on the First Commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me?” Or do you just pick and choose based on what makes you uncomfortable?

Are you so righteous that you can judge others? Jesus himself taught us about hypocrisy: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Is that you?

Anyway, God is about love and acceptance. Maybe, just maybe, God would like to see a world of more love and tolerance. That seems to be part of his central message.
And, not all Christians feel the way you do about gays. For every verse you can interpret to support your argument, I could interpret differently to support my argument or find a conflicting quote. We have found so many ways to interpret the Bible, through so many languages, over the last 2000 years to support our own theories. So I guess really, an argument can be made to support any opinion. My question is, why translate the Bible into a message of hate? Just because it makes discriminating against a whole group of people more acceptable? I don’t think that is what Christianity is about.

Oh, and about intolerance. It was not too long ago we as an American people were intolerant of other Americans with different skin color. It was during that time of intolerance that we were filled with “injustice and a general lack of morals.” What about Hitler’s intolerance? What about the intolerance permeating Africa and the Middle East? Your point on tolerance may be valid in certain situations, but not all.

Muskyboy said...

Well you have made some very broad generalizations, which is typical of the liberal point of view. For one, Homo's don't make me uncomfortable, but I do not believe in their way of life and yes I believe it to be immoral. I actually have known several Homo's and if they asked me what I thought of their lifestyle I would tell them.

I never said I was without sin, but does that mean I am not allowed to have an opinion? You speak of tolerance, but you are unwilling to understand my point of view? Since my viewpoint is different than yours it is wrong? How hypocritical of you.

But that is fine again, because the liberal agenda is all about lack of accountability and blaming others for the worlds problems.

Don't you think the Hitler reference is a bit over the top? Did I say all gays should be wiped from the face of the earth? I don't think so. But, in the vain of tolerance, I almost expected you to say if he said he was sorry that you would forgive him.

Would you feel uncomfortable living next to a convicted child sex offender? Do you check the listings? Why would you do that?

Why translate the Bibles message into a message of hate? Where have I done that? Stating someone is immoral is hate? Would making the statement that a married invidual has an affair is immoral mean that I hate them? Where does that come from? It is obvious that you have an inability to accept a viewpoint other than your own.

As you state in your final paragraph there are no absolutes, very true...but you have taken two sentences and accused me of being a biggot and a hater of all people. Take a step off the high horse and realize that many people have different views than you and that is what makes the world great, we don't have to agree.

Dear Wife said...

This is my last volley as we won’t change each other’s minds and I don’t enjoy negativity: Which is the heart of the reason I responded at all. Your post was very negative in vein. You can have an opinion, but know that the way you state your opinion can be incendiary.

As I stated in my first post, you can’t be immoral for who you are, but the choices you make. So by you calling gays immoral you are assuming people make the choice to be gay. You can’t equate homosexuality with infidelity. You can equate it with the color of one’s skin, one’s ethnicity, or one’s physical or mental disabilities. Would you feel free to make a disparaging remark about any other group of people? Your “innocent” remark about gays goes toward the intolerance of their group. You can have an opinion, but yours is based on a false assumption. Why don’t you ask one of your gay friends, who you are so comfortable around, whether or not they made the choice to be gay?

My fear, and the reason for my passion, is that only a few decades ago whites were killing blacks because of the color of their skin. We have hate crimes against gays today that are so unnecessary. They may be being prosecuted better than the race crimes years ago, but that doesn’t matter when something like what happened to Matthew Sheppard occurs. You claim to not hate at all, but any negative comments lend credence to the hate.

I don’t understand your paragraph about convicted child sex offenders.

For the record, I was not accusing you of being a bigot or a hater of all people. I was in fact doing the opposite. I was illustrating the point that those finding gays immoral conflicts with acceptance of other whole groups of people.

And I can accept viewpoints other than my own when the argument is based in fact and presented in a constructive manner.

Have your last words.

Muskyboy said...

OK, last words...Here we go.....

Hate is such an ugly word, and I will tell you that through out my lifetime there are very few people who I have hated and in no case did it have anything to do with the color of there skin or their sexual preference. Mostly their point of view. It is very easy for me to have an opinion that is different than others and leave it as just that, a difference of opinion. As a matter of fact I enjoy being able to have differing opinions than others because I find it to be interesting. Just ask your hubby regarding some of our AIM conversations.

While you see negativity, I see an opinion that is neither positive or negative .. it just is what it is. I believe that being a homosexual is immoral, I believe blasphemy is immoral (I am guilty of that one on occasion) I think adultery is immoral, I think.... well you get the point. I am not sure where you prove that being gay is not immoral, but I will leave it at that.

I don't believe that you must tolerate things that you feel are immoral or unjust just because somebody wants to do it, but I also don't believe that the next step is violence. But I think you make that stretch ...that if you are intolerant then you automatically will. Was the U.S. wrong when it was intolerant of England? I'm sure that is different....

I don't believe "it takes a village."

You make a very interesting comment that makes me question your points. With reference to Gays you refer to "their group". Why is there even a "group" in your mind? Why are you setting them apart from others if there really is no difference?

Arguments based on fact? What fact have you used in any of your discussion? Yes, blacks were persecuted, Yes Hitler was a lunatic. We are all aware of our history. Gays don't have a choice? Not sure I buy into that one, but that is what they would have you believe as it justifies there way of life...of course they will make that argument.

You made a comment in your opening volley..."you can't be immoral for who you are" .... it's hard for me to articulate the insanity of that comment (and believe me I have tried). So I will drop it.

You are liberal I am conservative we will infrequently agree on many issues. Was my tone early on a little over the top? Probably, you can ask your hubby about that, he knows I love to get under peoples skin. But that being said, it doesn't change my basic beliefs.

As a final comment and we can put this to rest...or at least I will (but don't get me wrong, I will await your response with anticipation)....I believe in god, I have been fortunate and very unforunate of knowing several people quite well who have made speaking the word of God their life calling (I am not a Bible thumper and rarely do I go to Church - those are issues I will have to deal with when I meet my maker). You can minimize the word of God all you want, you can justify any behavior you like using "tolerance" as your rallying cry, so when the next meeting of the Lindenhurst Muslim Extremist Al-Queda club meets run over there and give them all a big hug and sloppy kiss and tell them you are "tolerant" of their views.

Thanks for your time, I'm out...I'm sure the hubby will have other topics that I can annoy people with in the future.

Khyle said...

Musky:

Respectfully, a couple questions. When you say immorality is not to be tolerated, what does that mean exactly? Does that require you to actively do something, or can you 'not tolerate' immorality by silently thinking that the act is immoral?

Also, morality is generally about what a person does, not what they think or feel. Which I think is what DearWife was getting at. You are saying who they are is immoral, not what they do.

Muskyboy said...

I know I said I was done with this topic, but to respond to Khyle's questions I leave you with this....

1) Khyle, you are a smart guy, think about it. You will probably come to the right answer.

2) This response is only in relation to the first two sentances of your second paragraph....Incorrect.

Khyle said...

You give me too much credit Musky. I really don't know what you mean, that's why I asked the question.

I personally find the moral highground difficult to sustain without hypocrisy. That's why I don't try and claim it like many religious people do.