Posted on 12/14/2005 11:22:00 PM PST by Antioch
I don't disagree with your assessment of the flick overall. Mostly eye-candy crap. The cybernetic thing has been around for a while as a theme and is really the grandson of Shelley's Frankenstein. I thought you were refering to the plot rather than the theme.
###"As the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity, Ennis and Jack's continuing physical relationship is morally problematic."###
Change the word "problematic" to "sinful" and you have a banned movie. Saved by the "R" is Hollywood.
The bishops lined the pockets of the producers with that one word and we do not know how many people to sin?
As I said, the plot was stolen from a woman's screenplay, and she won in court. The thematic material was ripped from PKD.
The rating has been changed to Morally Offensive.
The film contains tacit approval of same-sex relationships, adultery, two brief sex scenes without nudity, partial and shadowy brief nudity elsewhere, other implied sexual situations, profanity, rough and crude expressions, alcohol and brief drug use, brief violent images, a gruesome description of a murder, and some domestic violence. The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is O -- morally offensive. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R -- restricted.
Agree -- on both counts.
I think its high time for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to send in a HazMat team into USCCB headquarters.
***
Good one!
Sounds like it will be a boffo hit with all the gay priests. Disgusting.
Now that is more like it. I hope somebody got "re-assigned".
Thank you for that post.
I doubt it...Catholic News Service has this on the change (reformatted for easier reading):
Editor's Note: "Brokeback Mountain," originally rated L (limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling), has been reclassified O -- morally offensive. This has been done because the serious weight of the L rating -- which restricts films in that category to those who can assess, from a Catholic perspective, the moral issues raised by a movie -- is, unfortunately, misunderstood by many. Because there are some in this instance who are using the L rating to make it appear the church's -- or the USCCB's -- position on homosexuality is ambiguous, the classification has been revised specifically to address its moral content.There it is - it seems as if the classification was changed because many could not properly comprehend or understand what was in the glowing review and how it related to the “L” clasiification. Nice!
Over on Bettnet.com, someone is suggesting we all start bombarding more orthodox bishops with requests to leave the USCCB. I have to admit, my first reaction is that it's a great idea. However, I am not sure prudentially - perhaps the move would precipitate a schism of the liberal wing of the American Church (not that **I** would mind, I'm just not sure that's what God wants us to do).
I think what USCCB is saying that they wouldn't want those who can assess movies from a Catholic perspective, to miss this heartfelt and universal theme of two men abandoning their marriage vows and children for the joy of impaling each others backsides. The power of the blogosphere outed these flamers, now they're scrambling to feign orthodoxy, until the next opportunity.
Benedict has an e-mail. Here ya go... Tell him all about AmChurch
benedictxvi@vatican.va
At heart it is. Read Annie Proulx's other books and that's the impression you might get. The plot is more believeable as a lesbian cowgirl love story.
There's some cleverness involved in putting the story in male drag. A heterosexual romance like The Virginian or Oklahoma is pretty much old hat. A lesbian cowgirl film like Desert Hearts or Even Cowgirls get the Blues also wouldn't attract much attention today. Make the characters two cowboys and the romance gay male, though, and people can't stop talking about it.
I think you've hit nail on the head...The problem is, after decades of "problematic" things like coming from the USCCB and its bloated bureaucracy, I don't believe they can even come close to feigning orthodoxy.
Someone needs to clean the Augean stables in Washington, so to speak - or if that task is too daunting (and it very well may be), perhaps the Holy Father might require some other "conference" be established - maybe one more concerned with imparting the Faith and the salvation of souls?
yuck. blech. queers in the usccb offices. ick. like Steve Martin said, all the world thinks hollywood -- and its reviewers are gay.
Wouldn't that be a hoot? I wouldn't be surprised in the least.
If we (the general Catholic faithful) were as sophisticated and learned as Harry Forbes/the reviewer, we would have properly understood the review and accepted the "L" rating... (sarcasm off)
This is a "no retraction" retraction...it blames others. No responsibility for the review and rating is accepted by the editor. Someone there is deluded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.