Posted on 12/20/2005 10:09:17 PM PST by churchillbuff
one key factor in the plot: both men are married, with children, and their long-standing relationship ultimately destroys both marriages.
Would commentators similarly applaud a story of cheating, if the adultery involved a married man and a married woman?
The main problem with "Broke Back Mountain" isn't that it's pro-gay; it's that the emphasis on following your urges rather than honoring your responsibilities is, at its heart, anti-marriage
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
So... how many people have paid to see this stinkeroo?
Isn't that the movie about the sheepherders?
Guess what? I`ll never know about what this movie is all about because they ain`t getting my time or $$!
Like one of the writers at Polipundit said, if this is the best Hollywood has to offer it's no wonder why nobody wants to watch their movies.
I disagree with his statement that the problem isn't that it is pro-gay. That is precisely the problem, because it becomes part of the canon of lies that characterize the gay rights movement. The lie is they can't help themselves.
If any readers here have the chance to listen to michael medved on talk radio I encourage you to give him a try.
I'm very grateful to read and hear some in media finally get this most significant offense about this film and to start addressing it.
I've been writing this all along and that is that the film features the adulation and commemoration of very bad character and immorality and that's even before they enter the issue of homosexuality.
With cunning, this wretched writing by Annie Proulx that was adapted to the screen, manipulates people into sympathizing about terrible lack of ethics and worse, attempts to adulate that which is very corrupt.
The film features two people who are responsible for committing with intention and lack of remorse, cruelty and bringing about suffering for those who they seem to "stalk" -- women they marry and then betray without so much as a tear, themselves even, their children, and then one another.
And it's coasting through as being called something it isn't because it engages the acts of male homosexuals.
The film really is a very ugly thing that no one should so much as pay a dime toward. I'm just glad that some among media are now writing about the real issues involved in it.
I heard a fanatical, liberal "film/gossip" columnist earlier on O'Reilly (FOX) who was so shrilly insistent that it was a "wonderful film," that I thought she'd bite someone.
I hear there aren't any cows, no drives of the Herd to Dodge City, no gunfights, no Marshall Dillon or Josie Wales. It's no cowboy movie.
They do have sheep.
So...this is a gay sheep herder movie.
I think the people of Sodom and Gomorrah herded sheep.
So why say it unless you think some here practice violence against homosexuals?
It goes without saying that we don't practice cannibalism here either but you didn't feel the need to mention that.
Let me be the first person in FR to condemn the practice of cannibalism.
You bring up an angle I hadn't considered.....yes, typical Hollywood always has their hidden (and not so hidden) agendas.
I have no intentions of ever seeing this movie....haven't since it was first advertised.
Who are you to force your morality down the throats of cannibals?!
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.