| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Salopian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 04/15/2006 : 20:21:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
"Contemporary, realistic, Western Ang(st)" which I think is the cleverest of my reviews. Think of it.
Contemporary: All of Ang's other films have been set in another time period ("Ice Storm" is set in the 70s), but this one goes from the not too distant past into the present. Its also the only one about a contemporary issue - homosexuality and homophobia.
Um, it only goes up to about 1982, and it's not really a new issue. |
 |
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 20:23:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
The first one "Western storms: internal, heated" I think is a goner. Simply because it's not correct (well, I haven't seen the movie, so a bit of a guess on my part). Are there heated, internal storms in the West in that movie? I suspect not. So it's not correct. I've no idea what an internal storm is, or a heated storm (a storm in the tropics I suppose could be heated). Secondly, even if there were storms in the movie it's still generic, as how many Westerns have storms?
I think that C.L. means that there is internal extreme conflict. However, there could well be other Westerns where this is the case. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 20:27:24
|
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. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 20:30:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
for x-men i submitted 'Fagneto,' in reference to Sir Ian McKellen's orientation. i deleted it while it was still pending. i thought, for someone whose body of work i admire as much as Sir Ian's, it was over the line.
There are not many reviews referring to unrelated information about actors that I am keen on. So do you feel it would not have been over the line if you did not admire his work? |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 20:31:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
A new reviewer, Basselope, just had a review for Brokeback Mountain published that I find to be a distasteful (and innaccurate) review. This was the first Brokeback Mountain review I read that I would categorize beyond a doubt as homophobic.
What was it?  |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 20:33:36
|
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.
Guess it depends on what you take from the word abnormal. When I looked it up, it said it was "deviating from the normal or average"- surely this is the very definition of a minority practice?
Ah... just noticed the word in the review in question isn't abnormal. Granted, perhaps irregular may be construed as the "Not conforming to legality, moral law, or social convention" definition, but that's only one interpretation of the word's intention. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 20:34:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Is 'fag' a highly offensive term then? (I only ask because I don't know, to be honest, plus this is far from the first time it's appeared on the site  )
Yes, I would say so. Some gay people would use it in the same way that some black people have reclaimed 'n****r'. That doesn't make it acceptable for other people to use. The same goes for 'queer' (though that one is unfortunately becoming very common), 'poof(ter)' etc. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 20:34:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I know several homosexuals who often refer to themselves as 'fags'. But you never know. It might be like the term 'nigger'. When a black person calls another black person a 'nigger' its okay, but if a white person says it, its offensive.
Hadn't read this before my previous post. You're exactly right. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 20:37:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
[quote]I had someone emauling me a few weeks ago about how she found the c word offensive. Amusingly (for me at least), the review she flagged was posted by one of the regulars who we know for absolute certainty is a woman. What is one person's offensive term can be another's witty aside. Who's to say which is right?
That one doesn't refer to people, just to a bodypart. So while it is still valid to find it offensive, one cannot be dismissing a group of people by using it (unless one argues that it is the most offensive term entirely because of historical sexism, which is probably true). |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 20:43:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
The truth is that the word means nothing, in and of itself. It is more who is saying it than what is being said that causes the reactions positive or negative.
This point has often been made before when such issues have arisen, and it's just not true. Words do not mean just whatever one wants. As an extreme case, I cannot use 'table' to mean 'serendipitous'. By extension, nor is it the case that only a core of meaning is fixed, and that one can intend whatever nuance or implication one wants. Otherwise, 'vagina' and 'c**t*' could be used interchangeably, and that is patently not the case. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 20:47:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Guess it depends on what you take from the word abnormal. When I looked it up, it said it was "deviating from the normal or average"- surely this is the very definition of a minority practice?
Ah... just noticed the word in the review in question isn't abnormal. Granted, perhaps irregular may be construed as the "Not conforming to legality, moral law, or social convention" definition, but that's only one interpretation of the word's intention.
My point was exactly that. Many minority practices are literally 'abnormal', but that does not make it acceptable to refer to them as such. The word has definite overtones of the deviating being negative (as does 'deviating'), which, say, 'unusual' would not. I used 'abnormal' so that I could discuss it in a more general way. In the context, 'irregular' is pretty much synonymous with 'abnormal'. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 20:56:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Words do not mean just whatever one wants. As an extreme case, I cannot use 'table' to mean 'serendipitous'.
Was watching the wonderful TV programme 'House' a while ago and it featured a man whose brain was selecting the wrong words as he was trying to express things. The odd thing was, after a short amount of time, you kind of understood the gist of what he was saying. It wasn't down to the words, of course, it was things like mannerisms and vocal inflections.
There also used to be this comedian on British TV (his name eludes me for now) whose whole act consisted of using the wrong words in the place of what he really meant. I think the only connection was similar sounds or rhythms to words.
This may be a pedantic and somewhat irrelevant point to add to this conversation, but it does show people can use one word to mean another totally unrelated word  We can put this down to the brilliance of the human mind at being able to fill in the blanks of daily life. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 21:01:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Guess it depends on what you take from the word abnormal. When I looked it up, it said it was "deviating from the normal or average"- surely this is the very definition of a minority practice?
Ah... just noticed the word in the review in question isn't abnormal. Granted, perhaps irregular may be construed as the "Not conforming to legality, moral law, or social convention" definition, but that's only one interpretation of the word's intention.
My point was exactly that. Many minority practices are literally 'abnormal', but that does not make it acceptable to refer to them as such. The word has definite overtones of the deviating being negative (as does 'deviating'), which, say, 'unusual' would not. I used 'abnormal' so that I could discuss it in a more general way. In the context, 'irregular' is pretty much synonymous with 'abnormal'.
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 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 21:06:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Was watching the wonderful TV programme 'House' a while ago and it featured a man whose brain was selecing the wrong words as he was trying to express things. The odd thing was, after a short amount of time, you kind of understood the gist of what he was saying. It wasn't down to the words, of course, it was things like mannerisms and vocal inflections.
He was probably aphasic, most commonly after a stroke. There are also some inborn linguistic disabilities which have the same effect. Someone can have excellent grammar, but be unable to insert the relevant vocabulary items.
quote:
This may be a pedantic and somewhat irrelevant point to add to this conversation, but it does show people can use one word to mean another totally unrelated word
As you say. However, in both medical cases and comedy, I think this can only function at the level of basic vocabulary, and in the latter case where it is changed significantly. Nuances being inherently within words is still the case. Otherwise, there would not be dictionaries, just thesauruses. |
Edited by - Salopian on 04/15/2006 21:06:34 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
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. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Are some 'Brokeback Mountain' reviews homophobic?
