| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Please Kill Me Now |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 04:52:43
I dunno. Personally, I didn't much care for 'Brokeback Mountain' and thought the movie rather sappy and dull and just generally overrated. But some of the reviews on this site make me a little uneasy.
A few examples:
* 'Ledger gets arse pumped' (which, for the record, doesn't actually happen in the movie: Gyllenhaal plays bottom)
* 'Shit packers with shitkickers'
* 'High Plains Poofters'
* 'Homo on the Range'
* 'Cowboys out poop-chutin'
* 'Prairie poo pirate pair'
* 'Flaming Saddles' (approved TWICE by two different reviewers!)
* 'Packing fudge, not guns'
* 'Pistol packin poofters'
* 'Heart-breaking Ass Fuckers'
I don't pretend to be altogether innocent here as I submitted
'Cowpokes poke rectums' and 'Ennis rides rodeo Twist' (the latter which I thought was pretty good myself).
I also don't get all of the disgusted references to excrement in some of these reviews when no digestive byproducts actually appear or are even implied in the movie (apparently, Ennis and Jack were conscientiously hygienic when it came to their anal sex practices).
I dunno. What do y'all think about this?
 |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sludge |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 17:04:03
So..."irregular" suggests abnormal, but "batty" doesn't?
|
| silly |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 14:35:49
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G o 1 f
PS: I love curried goat, too.
I've never had curried goat.
Just thought I'd share. |
| RockGolf |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 14:01:47
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
"Irregular entry into Ledger", is the best FWR review for Brokeback. I don't think there is anything homophobic about that.
Well, for a start, it doesn't happen that we see in the film. Secondly, I do think it's homophobic, because it says that it is abnormal. It's not all right to refer to just any minority practice as abnormal, like saying that eating curried goat is abnormal or praying in mosques is abnormal.
"Irregular" is certainly not homophobic. I took special care to pick as neutral a word as possible. I chose "irregular" because it fits in with the convention accounting vocabularly and has the dual meaning of "not occuring on a a regular basis", which I believe, fits the plot of the story. (There's also a very common accounting term of "queering the ledger" and I chose not to use that, even though it might have got more votes.
PS: I love curried goat, too. |
| Rovark |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 23:43:10
"Irregular Entry in Ledger" is funny, as, in keeping with good puns, it works on 2 levels. Something written in an audited ledger that was suspect would be referred to as an irregular entry. And in terms of this hetero star having a gay relationship, well it works there as well. Abnormal entry would not be a term used by accountants, and so abnormal is being used in a deliberately insulting way.
Fudgepacker is probably not a term used in any generosity of spirit.
I don't like the idea of imposed censorship, prefering to rely on people having the good grace to self censor. Sometimes folk lack these graces.
To say you don't believe in censorship at all, even self imposed is disingenuous. Every day at work when confronted by another fatuous request I don't say "Fuck off, I'm busy, come back in another fucking lifetime shit-for-brains" We all censor our language and behaviour to some degree on a daily basis, unless we happen to be a genuine sociopath.
There's a lot of reviews I don't care for one way and another. I don't vote for them. That's it really.
I'm not sure if I'm tolerant or just apathetic  |
| Sean |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 13:16:51
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
A world where no race, religion, or sexuality of people would be taboo to joke about? Now, that WOULD be true equality.
Good point. By singling out a minority group for exemption from jokes, one is in fact discriminating against them by not treating them as equal. A bad thing.  |
| Sean |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 13:04:38
quote:
Originally posted by bife
My problem is that a major blockbuster film has been reduced to 300 gay cowboy jokes,
Reduced? I wouldn't describe it like that. I'd say 'elevated'. I just read the first 100 for Brokeback (sorted by votes) and they're pretty funny!  That has to be a good thing. Sure, they aren't as good as Chatterbox or Monsturd, but they're still pretty good. quote:
...any casual visitor to the site is likely to believe we are a much more homophobic bunch than we really are.
...or think that we're a funny bunch of witty people, get a username and start writing reviews. It might be worth noting that a lot of users have written 'gay cowboy jokes' and have seen Brokeback as nothing more or less than an opportunity for humour. All good in my opinion.  |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 11:58:23
quote:
Originally posted by bife
My problem is that a major blockbuster film has been reduced to 300 gay cowboy jokes, and as a result any casual visitor to the site is likely to believe we are a much more homophobic bunch than we really are.
Not really. I mean, we make lots of jokes about lots of things, and just making a joke doesn't mean your against or afraid or hateful of the thing you're joking about. Does making Blonde jokes mean we hate, are against or afraid of Blondes? No. Does making jokes about a politician mean we hate, are against or afraid of that political figure? Not necessarily. We see things, we look for humour in those things. Just because we want to make a joke doesn't make us hateful, fearful or against those things that we laugh at.
(Anyway, my gay friends don't find the reviews here to be homophobic, so why should I?)
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 11:40:16
I think another important consideration in this is that you have to make allowances for humour. Since we most typically laugh because we're surprised by where we've been taken, quite often the slightly squewed or different opinion on something is the very reason something is funny.
"Irregular entry in Ledger", whether you choose to believe it's a prejudicial comment or not is undoubtedly a joke and it should be taken as lightly as we do any joke. When it's analysed and pulled apart, you can find offence in almost any joke for the same reason, but that's all it should be taken as: just a silly distraction from the uptight world we live in for a few seconds. Then you move on- make me laugh at something else now.
Let's also not forget humour is probably a large part of the reason homosexuality is now as widely accepted as it is. Humour has traditionally been used as a good way to brooch taboo subjects and it's only through admitting the presence of something as big as this (whether that be seriously or comicly) that something can become more acceptable and mainstream.
Contrary to the general opinion on these fwfrs, they may actually be beneficial to equality: by putting the gay man on an equal par with the regularly joked about (but not protected by any rights groups) straight white male.
A world where no race, religion, or sexuality of people would be taboo to joke about? Now, that WOULD be true equality.
(Bring on the abuse...  ) |
| bife |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 10:53:35
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
Have I posted a homphobic review for BM? I don't think so, though mine does refer to coming out. You be the judge.
I'll try and keep this comment short, after suffering from verbal diarea (not even going to try to spell it correctly) two posts ago
My real problem with the Brokeback reviews is not any review in isolation. Most of them alone are fine, and I wouldn't be ashamed to have my name against them.
My problem is that a major blockbuster film has been reduced to 300 gay cowboy jokes, and as a result any casual visitor to the site is likely to believe we are a much more homophobic bunch than we really are.
|
| Koli |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 10:44:31
I just logged on to do some voting on the FYC treasure chest selections, but got sidetracked into reading the most recent two pages in this thread. Fascinating, and one of the reasons that this is more than a film site and more than a joke site.
By the way, I'm perched here on the fence because I think Salopian has a point (not least because the Brokeback Mountain reviews focus so heavily on one aspect of the story, which others tell me is only hinted at rather than shown, at the expense of the features that make it a fine film), but also instinctively support Sean's demands for free speech and opposition to censorship.
Have I posted a homphobic review for BM? I don't think so, though mine does refer to coming out. You be the judge. |
| bife |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 03:06:40
I feel like salopian's fighting a one-man crusade here, so I'll just add a coiuple of my thoughts.
Anywhere I talk about racism/sexism/homophobia/other-ism - treat them as interchangeable
Firstly - the censorship/what is allowable issue
benj, sean, you are spot on, i would not be deleting many if any of the reviews for Brokeback
I absolutely advocate allowing these reviews on the site
Secondly - despite that, are many of them homophobic?
Tough one. I am with sean more than salopian in that racism/homophobia/sexism is more in the eye of the speaker (to mix a metaphor) than in the words themselves. So, with that in mind:
Do I make racist jokes to my friends? yes.
Do I make sexist jokes to my friends? yes.
Do I make homophobic jokes to my friends? yes.
Do I find them funny? Absolutely.
So do I find it okay for me to post them here? No.
Why not? I do count some of you as 'friends', but most of you I hardly know. And more to the point, you don't know me. Within the space of four words, between strangers, you can't make a judgement about whether I am actually racist or just being 'funny'. Even that might not matter, since you don't know me, I don't really care what you think. What might matter, is that you might be 'borderline racist' yourself, meaning you aren't a raving nazi, but you hold some instinctive discriminatory views - and you can be influenced to hold more.
I will draw a politcal comparison the scares the pants off, and which many of you may be seeing in your own countries.
When I lived in Holland the first time, it was the most open, welcoming, non-racist country I could ever have imagined visiting. To express any kind of discriminatory feelings against immigrants was a social faux pas - it wasn't socially acceptable to do.
Second time I went back, Holland was gripped by the cult of a new political movement, that of Pim Fortyn, a well educated, articulate, respectable man who didn't spout 'rivers of blood', he talked about 'needing more integration', 'holland becoming full and needing more structured immigration policies', 'immigrants needing to fulfil their social obligations just like regular dutch people'.
A relatively gentle form of right-wing racist politics, if you like. So what was so dangerous about this guy? He was certainly no Hitler, nor even a Mosley. What was so dangerous about him was that his very respectability in the eyes of the dutch middle/professional classes, made it acceptable for them to start discussing the 'immigrant problem' in a different way, and it was a slippery slope from there. Holland is no longer the tolerant country is was 5 years ago, and the speed of change has been frightening.
It isn't the skinheads who have changed, holland always its fair share of those. What changed was the prevailing middle-of-the-road respectable position.
So to come back to Brokeback. Do I think some of the homophobic reviews are very funny? Yes I do, I laughed at a lot of them. Do I think they should be removed from the site? No, I don't, there's minimal place for censorship on this site. Do they nonetheless make me feel very uncomfortable? Yes, they do. Would I likely take an even stronger stance if, like salopian, i was gay and more personally affected - yes I think I would.
Thirdly - am I being entirely hypocritical?
Yes, surely. I have posted equally homophobic reviews for 'Gay parents' and 'gay animals' (can't remember the exact film titles)> Am I begining to feel increasingly uncomfortable with my reviews for those films? Yes.
Will I remove them? Maybe.
Do I think Brokeback is a bigger problem? Yes - for the very reason that, like Pim Fortyn, it is mainstream, high profile and acceptable.
One last language comment on defense of Rockgolf - I find 'irregular entry' to be far less offensive than 'abnormal entry' would have been. As salopian says, despite its dictionary definition, 'abnormal' clearly has negaitive overtones. I wouldn't have had the same negative association with 'irregular', which I would equate much more closely to 'unusual'. This is not one of the reviews I would feel uncomfortable with.
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 00:37:01
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Can one even say "Redheads are abnormal" as a genuinely simple statement of fact, for example? I don't think so.
I dunno- I still wouldn't have any problem posting that as a review We live in a far too overly-sensitive society as it is and there's a darned sight worse ways to describe a group of people than 'irregular' or 'abnormal'. |
| Sean |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 00:25:13
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I suppose the way I look at it, if I come up with a controversial review that I think might be funny for 10 people and unpleasant for 10 people here, I won't submit it, but if I think it's funny for 50 and unpleasant for one, then I will submit, and it's tough for the one who doesn't like it.
But don't you see that that is exactly the main context in which racism etc. has been propogated throughout history - by the majority subjugating minorities. If keeping the majority happy at any expense were the criterion, then the Holocaust would have been fine.
No way. There's simply no way were the majority of Germans in 1940 psychopaths (the only people who could be happy with genocide). Much has been written about how they allowed this to happen, the best answer IMO is that the majority either didn't know what was happening or were extremely adept at filtering out any information that this was indeed happening. And, let's not lose sight of the fact that it was censorship and absolute control of media that allowed this situation to arise. But let's not get sidetracked.  quote:
One should where possible not be detrimental to anybody, not just less than half of people.
Herein lies the problem. If the objective when speaking/writing was to ensure that nobody was offended, then nobody would ever say anything. I don't want the mullahs in Iran to decide what can and can't be said. Similarly I don't want 'mullahs' in the USA (e.g., the ones who arranged the ceremonial public burning of Dixie Chicks CDs after they said they were embarrassed by their president) deciding what people can and can't say, in this case some people were profoundly angered and upset by what the Dixie Chicks said. And, I don't want 'christian mullahs' in New Zealand who recently tried to get an episode of South Park banned because it was disrespectful to the Blessed Virgin Mary (they failed) in charge of censorship either. And, no disrespect intended Salopian, but I don't want to see you as global language censor either, your bar is soooooo much higher than mine and most people I know.
If someone was appointed Global Censor then there will be 6,500,000,000 possible levels of censorship depending on who was chosen. Sure, if I was chosen for the job then there will occasionally be casualties (i.e., upset people) but IMO it's a lot less dangerous than someone deciding that they know what's 'right' for people to hear and what's not.
I think I'll butcher Churchill's famous cynical comment on democracy:-
"Freedom of speech is not the best form of social communication, it is in fact the worst form of social communication... apart from all the other forms of social communication that have been tried from time to time." |
| Sean |
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 23:50:19
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
I totally separate humour from seriousness.
You have said this many times. However, you have never said why this a valid thing to do.
It's valid because a large number of people think and live this way, as I do. The advantage of this is that one gets to laugh at a lot more things than people who are oversensitive to 'policital correctness' and afraid to laugh at controversial humour. Laughter is the best medicine. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 21:08:58
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Fair enough. However, personally speaking, I don't take offence from the word abnormal (I should stress I've been called it on more than a few occaisions just because I don't like football or I play the banjo or whatever). I guess some people take it as offensive and others don't 
I wouldn't be offended by it either, when referring to me as an individual. However, it is a different matter when referring to a group, and in the context of there being prejudice against that group. Can one even say "Redheads are abnormal" as a genuinely simple statement of fact, for example? I don't think so. |
|
|
