Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]Dorso wrote:
Forget the gay stuff for a minute. What makes you think that all marriages exhibit these notions. I am not saying that I disagree with these notions, ideals, values, or whatever you want to call them. But that is not the reality with many marriages. Maybe we would all like it to be but it is not so. Should we then ignore any movie or book that is about reality rather than our ideals? Should I not have watched Boyz in the Hood because it depicts violence?
[/quote]
I can listen to the G-Unit all day long and be discerning enough to realize what their message and their motives are while someone uneducated and/or brainwashed by their environment and society may listen to this music, get amped up, throw on a bandanna, buy a plastic gun, paint it black, and try to pull a heist at the local liquor store.

People get swept away by various arts forms and themes if the forms are seducing to the senses. If there is a secret motive behind the art form, that’s known as propaganda. The theme within the art forms may gradually become part of a culture. That is a fact. Art forms like movies and music can elicit positive and/or negative messages. From what I’ve reviewed, the homosexual characters are being glorified despite their corrupt lifestyles and these characters are portrayed as heros in the public scope. I find that quite ridiculous.

[quote]Do you think making people aware of violence is the same as promoting violence?
[/quote]
The vast majority of Americans are aware of homosexuals in our population. I saw two on the train on my way home tonight. So what - that’s not the big deal. It’s not like, “Hey look, here’s a film where there are men who like having sex with other men in the world!” If Dr. Winfield’s views are accurate, I do believe the film is attempting to promote homosexuality and possibly other anti-religious trends however.

I re-iterate that I didn’t watch the film, but I do find it unsettling if the theme of marriage is being assaulted. Marriage is something honorable and venerable. Even some homosexuals agree with me on that point. I don’t think people should avoid watching the movie simply on the grounds that marriage might be attacked, but I definitely have the right to say, “You know what? I didn’t appreciate the message on marriage in this film”, or “I didn’t like the way marriage was villainized while the care-free spirited and sexually immoral lifestyle was glorified”. You see, one will inevitably come at the sacrifice of the other.

The homosexual encounters could conveniently be stamped with approval by a segment of our society because the marriages these characters experienced failed for whatever reasons. You can’t be deemed respectable and dignified in this country as both a persistent adulterer while still married with children unless the marriage is empty and malfunctioning. The promotion of homosexuality or the reduction of religious ethics needs a starting point of introduction sometime, somewhere.

Maybe in a few years, these characters will still be esteemed and raved about in a sequel having sex with children and animals. As long as we can learn to be tolerant, anything goes…

Abba Anthony said: A time is coming when people will go mad and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, “You are mad, you are not like us.”

42

God gave man free will.

And it is our job to make sure he can’t exercise that free will.

…

FightingIrish I love your post.

I’ve seen the movie, it was OK. The feelings it aroused in me was “you bloody idiots, get up and move to San Francisco, stop living your life like shite, you are not happy DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.”

I thought it was more of a movie about living a crappy life not the way you want, rather than a “love” story, or a story about gays.

I couldn’t give a rats’ arse if someone is gay, it is their business.

I think it is a much worse world where someone who is gay is not allowed to be so, because other people don’t like it. I don’t think that is particularly kind, fair, noble or holy.

I don’t think being gay is a disease to be cured, or a sin to be punished. Since animals exhibit gay behaviour as well as humans, it seems likely it is a natural state in a percentage of the population. If that is the case then it isn’t particularly humane to be cruel to people or try and change them if they are the way they are and cannot help it (and don’t want to).

These are my opinions and I realise some people here will get angry at them because some people just hate gays and the whole idea of gay.

I’ve worked with farmboys and personally I’d prefer they like the other boys, rather than like the animals, if you get my drift. So I guess I have my own limits of tolerance.

In the movie I found it far more aggravating that they were cheating on their wives, than that they were gay.

Also I didn’t find their performances convincing, I didn’t feel they were in love, not really. I think you need to be a great actor to fake the chemisty of love in a movie, and I think usually, the actors are not faking it (and how many lead lady-gentlemen end up as couples in real life because of that chemistry).

Our society these days is such a mixture of peoples, yet some would prefer a homogenous culture … where everyone is the same as them.

In the past there were many cultures who abhorred anything gay - most Germanic tribes, and the vikings - in viking society clothing had to be male or female, no woman to wear pants, no man to wear anything like a dress.

And yet in Sparta, it was COMPULSORY to be GAY. ALL MALES had to have sex with older men and live with and love with them, or they could be admitted to the spartan warrior class. And the women slept with women. Some nutcase thought that up when he founded Sparta.

I don’t know if there is any genetic memory we have but perhaps some of the intolerance was passed down through the generations. Who knows. More likely it is drummed into people’s heads.

To paraphrase Billy, “methinks thou dost protest too much.”

43

Why do people who haven’t seen “controversial movies” seem to be the loudest voices against those movies? If you haven’t seen it, why complain about it? Hostel, anyone?

44

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:

Listen dude. I have a strong faith in god and his works. Religion is where I develop a problem. Do you think that people are gay against God’s will, and that there’s nothing he could do about it? Think about it. All things happen for a reason and all things exist because God allows them to. Period.

If:

-God has a plan for us all and we all interweave together in that plan

-God has a reason for everything

-God doesn’t make mistakes

Then:

-God’s plan includes the homosexuals

-There’s a reason he allowed homosexuals to come into this world

-God doesn’t make mistakes. Period.

To think that anyone, including the homosexuals, could do anything but god’s will is vain indeed.

Very, very nice post Flamer.

There was a part in Gettysburg where the old Irish guy says, “Any man who judges by the race is a pee-wit. You take men as they come- one at a time”. To be coming out like this and putting up a post where you pretty much equate gays with all the problems in America…well thats just uneducated.

Wasn’t the chick in Titanic engaged or something? Wasn’t she an adultress?

Wasn’t Johnny Depp in “Blow” a deadbeat dad and a drug dealer?

Wasn’t Tim Robbins in “The Shawshank Redemption” a murderer? Or Nicholas Cage in “Con Air”? We’re being awful selective here…

To the original poster, get a goddamn life. It seems like everywhere on here everyone is preacheing against gays and is claiming these radical religious messages about America being the great evil and how the world is ending. Your making Zeb here look like almost secular :wink: Live and let live.

Did you guys climb the gates of the asylum, or did you tunnel out?[/quote]

Irish,

Being a rebublican and a Catholic, these views often get me into trouble, especially with dear old mom :wink: But hey, those are my beliefs. I believe that God’s will is God’s will, and to think that any of us could ever deviate from that is wierd IMO.

I post on another forum for home inspectors quite regularly. On this forum is an inspector who is openly gay and talks about his life partner all the time. This guy is one of the most helpfull, knowledgeable, and inspirational people on that forum. I couldn’t even begin to count everything that he has taught me about marketing, business, and inspections in generall. He truly would be a great role model for anybody.

Yet I’ve already heard someone in this thread compare homosexuals to rapists and perverts and that they shouldn’t be considered role models, simply for being gay. To me that’s wierd.

BTW, I loved your line a while back about “Not catching the gay”. I’ve actually used that a few times on my homophobic brother. Pretty funny.

45

Brokeback sucked. Its a love story with two gay guys. It hasent been done before (with high calibur actors) thus the hoopla. Its seriosuly nothing more than a cookie cutter hollywood movie. I’ll sum it up…

Two guys bang each other while watching sheep. They marry women and hide their love for one another from them. They cheat on their wives with each other for 20+ years by claiming they’re going fishing. One gets lynched for being gay. Other guy gets sad. Roll credits…

46

[quote]sovereign wrote:
Bigflamer, I know where you are coming from with that argument, there is a problem with my argument, perhaps in the interpretation that God is all Loving. God does love us all, God also put Adam and Eve on the planet knowing full well what they would do.

There are many more contradictions throughout the bible and any other religious writings. It is said, he gave us Free Will, he may not know the outcome of humans. It would be plausible that God may have given up some of the omnipotence to see how his creations would act without his hand guiding them, but merely the scripture.

I know it’s thin, but it’s the best I could come up with. Onto what you said, his foresight may extend infintley beyond our mortal sight, and things that might seem contradictory may pan out just the opposite. [/quote]

He works in mysterious ways for sure.

I hope that you don’t read into my post that I have all of the answers, because I really don’t. We are all on a journey in search of god and this is just part of my journey. People will travel different paths on this journey as all of us need to learn different lessons.I just don’t believe in all the fire and brimestone stuff that alot of other christians believe in. I think that religion in generall puts way too much emphasis on guilt and fear, and not enough emphasis on love and tolerance.

The last couple of years have brought me closer to buddhism than any other religion, but I truly believe that no one souce of God is the answer, and that no one religion is right. Rather everybody and everything is just a piece of the puzzle in our search for God. Anyways, I didn’t mean to get all preachy, just my .02

-Bigflamer

47

[quote]zarathus wrote:
i saw the movie, and the bit abound the kids is simply not true. ennis (heath ledger)'s daughter is portrayed sympathetically, and both jack and ennis stick up for their kids in different scenes (anybody who screams at his father in law to turn the tv off during xmas dinner has my vote). [/quote]

Ennis? The main characters name is Ennis? Why not just name him Penis?

The other characters name is Jack? What is his last name, Off?

I don’t have time in my life to watch all this crap Hollywood spews out. This will be one I won’t get to see.

48

Many movies are propaganda or have an agenda.

Much of Hollywood has been pushing a pro-gay and anti-religion agenda for quite a while.

When Mel Gibson made Passion of the Christ he got no support from Hollywood so he made it on his own. (which I did not see)

There are countless examples of this.

Since I am neither gay nor religious it really doesn’t bother me, but if you don’t see it you are not paying attention or are kidding yourself.

49

For the 12th time, who is “Dr.” Winfield and what organization/website is he affiliated with?

50

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Many movies are propaganda or have an agenda.

Much of Hollywood has been pushing a pro-gay and anti-religion agenda for quite a while.

When Mel Gibson made Passion of the Christ he got no support from Hollywood so he made it on his own. (which I did not see)

There are countless examples of this.

Since I am neither gay nor religious it really doesn’t bother me, but if you don’t see it you are not paying attention or are kidding yourself.

[/quote]

You do realize there are many movies that Hollywood won’t get behind that are made anyway? Friday didn’t get much support either. Crash was made at the expense of many of the actors (one of the best movies I have seen) and there was no pure religious intent in the movie. Hollywood is about making money, period. Why act as if it is just the religious movies that don’t get made?

I have seen Passion of The Christ but may never watch it again. It was filled with torture scenes and, given my upbringing, it was incomfortable to watch a man playing someone credited with so much get beat to death for two hours. I probably wouldn’t have funded it either.

51

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
When Mel Gibson made Passion of the Christ he got no support from Hollywood so he made it on his own. (which I did not see)
[/quote]

Where do you get this information? Television? Interviews with Gibson? I follow the trades daily, and when Gibson announced he wanted to make this film a few studios were very interested, but he demanded that the film be made without subtitles. No one would touch it because he wanted it to be a “mosaic of imagery” where the audience inferred the meaning of the langauge, and the studios felt no one would want to see a movie where they couldn’t understand what was being said. Stop spreading misinformation.

52

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why do people who haven’t seen “controversial movies” seem to be the loudest voices against those movies? If you haven’t seen it, why complain about it? Hostel, anyone?[/quote]

Don’t you get it? He’s protecting us from the propaganda. Without his warnings some of us might be tricked by this movie into treating homosexuals as human beings…

53

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
When Mel Gibson made Passion of the Christ he got no support from Hollywood so he made it on his own. (which I did not see)

Where do you get this information? Television? Interviews with Gibson? I follow the trades daily, and when Gibson announced he wanted to make this film a few studios were very interested, but he demanded that the film be made without subtitles. No one would touch it because he wanted it to be a “mosaic of imagery” where the audience inferred the meaning of the langauge, and the studios felt no one would want to see a movie where they couldn’t understand what was being said. Stop spreading misinformation.[/quote]

Thanks for the info. I didn’t even knowthat. The way it was presented by several talking heads was as if Hollywood was the Anti-Christ and Mel was being crucified.

54

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
When Mel Gibson made Passion of the Christ he got no support from Hollywood so he made it on his own. (which I did not see)
[/quote]

And just to be complete, I know someone is going to bring up his failure to find distribution. After he announced he had decided to put subtitles on the film, distributors flocked to distribute this film:

[quote]
Distributors Vie for Gibson’s ‘Passion’
26 August 2003 (WENN)
Mel Gibson’s controversial new movie The Passion has garnered interest from a gang of distribution companies - even though they’ve yet to see it. The movie, about the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ’s life before his crucifixion, has attracted the attentions of a number of distributors, including Newmarket, Paramount Classics, Sony Classics and Lion’s Gate. The companies are hoping to clinch North American rights to the flick, which was filmed in Aramaic and Latin. The Passion was recently screened for select religious leaders and the result was far from positive. Anti-defamation League officials believe if the movie is released in its present form, it will fuel hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism.[/quote]

Again, stop spreading misinformation…this particular lie has been told so much on this forum it’s now taken as fact.

55

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Be aware of the propaganda in Brokeback Mountain

ARTICLE START

By Dr. R. Winfield
1-31-06

Contrast this with the scenes of marriage. Every time marriage is depicted in the film, it is shot in a tiny dark squalid hovel, with screaming children and absolute pandemonium.

The house is a mess, the wife never communicates on any kind of meaningful level. Wives in fact, are portrayed as a constant annoyance, and more irritating than understanding. But children receive the worst treatment in this slanted rant against family. They are usually crying, often two at a time, or smashing things. The general feeling the film presents, is that these joyless hellions are an intrusion into life, an encumbrance and a terrible burden.

[/quote]
Propaganda? I imagine to most guys pussy is worth it!

56

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why do people who haven’t seen “controversial movies” seem to be the loudest voices against those movies? If you haven’t seen it, why complain about it? Hostel, anyone?[/quote]

I don’t need to see a homosexual in action to know I don’t agree with what he does.

57

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why do people who haven’t seen “controversial movies” seem to be the loudest voices against those movies? If you haven’t seen it, why complain about it? Hostel, anyone?[/quote]

Not sure if this comment was directed at me, but…

b[/b] Because even without actually watching the movie, they may have observed a small clip from the preview trailer or relied upon second hand accounts to extract relevant information and details about the story line. b[/b] Or, they saw the local news and realized the fact that cinemas throughout the country have censored the film. b[/b] Or, perhaps people want to share a civil dialogue about something before they witness or experience it for themselves. For instance, how many times does a T-Nation author post a revolutionary article on training or nutrition and receive a ton of questions and responses from members that very first hour?

And Professor X, just because I haven’t borne witness to something on a first hand basis doesn’t mean I can’t extrapolate upon the conditions, ramifications, or consequences thereof. I can’t say I’ve been to Vietnam, but I can draw my own conclusions about the war from second hand resources. I haven’t been to Puerto Rico, but I can draw my own conclusions about the country as a vacation destination from second hand resources. I’ve never eaten Thai food, but I can draw my own conclusions about the cuisine from second hand resources.

You see, much of the information humans attain in this world is second hand. Simply because a topic is controversial doesn’t mean we can’t apply second hand knowledge in assessing it. I know that experiencing something on a first hand basis is much more effective so that I can derive my own interpretations and perspectives, but since I’ve been forewarned that the film emits an agenda which I disagree with, I refuse to financially support its distribution.

Peace be with you.

58

[quote]dukefan4ever wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Why do people who haven’t seen “controversial movies” seem to be the loudest voices against those movies? If you haven’t seen it, why complain about it? Hostel, anyone?

I don’t need to see a homosexual in action to know I don’t agree with what he does.

[/quote]

Why do you feel the need to agree or disagree with what he does? What if someone disagrees with your use of “warming lotion” on the bedroom? What if I employ the use of leather whips and a chain, do you disagree? I used some handcuffs once and was trapped in bed because she stole the key. Do you disagree? I do.

59

I do find it ironic though that a film about the savior of the world garners no Oscar nominations but a movie about homosexual cowboys racks up.

I will bet that BM won’t come close to making the kind of money that Passion made or touch as many people.

60

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
b[/b] Because even without actually watching the movie, they may have observed a small clip from the preview trailer or relied upon second hand accounts to extract relevant information and details about the story line. b[/b] Or, they saw the local news and realized the fact that cinemas throughout the country have censored the film. b[/b] Or, perhaps people want to share a civil dialogue about something before they witness or experience it for themselves. For instance, how many times does a T-Nation author post a revolutionary article on training or nutrition and receive a ton of questions and responses from members that very first hour? [/quote]

This makes little sense to me. Do you know how many times I have seen Bridgette Jones diary? Not once. It looked like a chick flick from the beginning. I was tricked into seeing Bring It On because the girl I was going out with was an ex-cheerleader and REALLY wanted to see it with me. Therefore, my dick chose to see the movie. These guys could have been straight and I still wouldn’t go see it because I didn’t see one gun or an ounce of blood in any posters for it.

[quote]
And Professor X, just because I haven’t borne witness to something on a first hand basis doesn’t mean I can’t extrapolate upon the conditions, ramifications, or consequences thereof. I can’t say I’ve been to Vietnam, but I can draw my own conclusions about the war from second hand resources. I haven’t been to Puerto Rico, but I can draw my own conclusions about the country as a vacation destination from second hand resources. I’ve never eaten Thai food, but I can draw my own conclusions about the cuisine from second hand resources. [/quote]

It is a movie about two gay guys. Did you know Will Smith’s first movie role was as a gay guy? I read it somewhere but never saw the movie. That is what started his “film career”. Guess how many people care right now. Was his film “propoganda”? Are you now filled with desire to be gay in hopes of making black suits look good?

[quote]
You see, much of the information humans attain in this world is second hand. Simply because a topic is controversial doesn’t mean we can’t apply second hand knowledge in assessing it. I know that experiencing something on a first hand basis is much more effective so that I can derive my own interpretations and perspectives, but since I’ve been forewarned that the film emits an agenda which I disagree with, I refuse to financially support its distribution.

Peace be with you.[/quote]

What agenda and exactly what is with the “peace be with you”? Didn’t Spock used to say that on Star Trek? It’s a movie about two gay guys. That would change my world view about as much as watching someone open a can of mayonnaise would…and I hate mayo.