Now, I don’t believe for a second that Shalit believes that in every gay relationship, one person is always a predator. And it is clear that the characters are morally flawed. Also, I don’t have a problem with a gay character being characterized as a predator if that is the case. And I do think GLAAD went overboard demanding an apology. I simply don’t see how Shalit or anyone could characterize Jack’s behavior as a predator.

Most people I know who saw the movie were touched by the love between Ennis and Jack. Clearly there were flaws, and I wished they didn’t get married and all, but in the context of the times, most were able to understand why it would happen. But to add “predator” to the relationship, adds an inaccurate negative connotation to the relationship. I could see people who haven’t watched it say something like, “how could anyone think that was a beautiful love story, when one of them was a predator.” I liken this to Romeo and Juliet. I thought that was also a beautiful love story, even though Romeo was more flawed than Jack or Ennis (i.e., he was a murderer). But if I never saw or read the play, and a critic said, “Romeo, who strikes me as a sexual predator…,” I would wonder how anyone could characterize Romeo and Juliet as a beautiful love story. I realize I’m making a tempest out of a teapot here, but I could see how some people could piggy back on Shalit’s words, and make it so people think that gay people condone predatory behavior. I’m cautiously optimistic that most people will be able to see through it though.

Wrong, cmoney. One gay person in a movie being called a “sexual predator” does not equate into Shalit calling ALL gays “sexual predators”. Do you apply the same rule to ANY criticism of a gay person — if you call one gay person a thief, that means you’re calling ALL gay people thieves?

North Dallas, show me one review! Just one where he
used the term sexual predator! C’mon, I challenge you.

Only if you promise to use the same rule for it as you do for Brokeback — that Shalit calling one heterosexual character a “sexual predator” means that Shalit is calling all heterosexuals “sexual predators”.

What I think, Dan Cobb, is that the problem here is that Shalit criticized a gay person based on their behavior and did not give them a free pass because they were gay. I fail to see why you can’t separate criticism of a fictional character from criticizing all gays; I suspect it is because you are one of those “homo fundamentalists” to which I refer, who have made of Brokeback a gay Passion of the Christ and consider anyone who dares criticize it to be antigay.

Find something more meaningful in your life to be proud of as a gay man than a character portrayed in a movie.

North Dallas, show me one review! Just one where he
used the term sexual predator! C’mon, I challenge you.
AND, if you find one, how much you want to bet is a
slasher who rapes, binds and kills women (or some such sicko).

I’m sure you’re willing to equate a horney 19 year old gay guy with that kind of murderous “sexual predator”.

Dan Cobb

Dan

Shalit may be a gentlemen to gay people, and a genuine
defender of gay rights, but ANYONE who can walk out
of that movie thinking that Jack Twist was a “sex predator” walked INTO that movie thinking gay men are sexual predators. I don’t get the reference to the Jack Twist character as a “sexual predator”. That’s a HORRIBLE term… and I’m hearing gay people on this site defending the use of that term for a character
like Jack Twist. I think we’ve got some serious self-loathing going on here at this red-state site.

Dan Cobb

If Gene Shalit is reviewing a film where one of the characters is a rapist or a murderer fixated on people, then he may have used the term sexual predator. If he was reviewing a movie like 9 1/2 Weeks or Last Tango in Paris, maybe he said the characters only cared about sex. A movie that is supposed to be about two people in love (or who at least care deeply about each other)? I’m not sure if he has ever used a term like “sexual predator” in that context, or dismissed the relationship as only sex.

NDT, I read it very carefully, and I don’t see GLAAD’s statement meaning that at all. My interpretation, which may not be correct either, is that in potential gay relationships when one person pursues another, and the other person accepts the advances, it does not mean the pursuer is a predator. Thankfully, more and more gay relationships are NOT like Ennis and Jack’s. But apparently we still have a way to go, since we still have gay people who get married and cheat on their spouses, but I digress.

Again, what this is is a bunch of homo fundamentalists who desperately need Hollywood to “validate” them and are irrationally attached to a movie which, at best, gives a neutral portrayal of gay relationships.

One of the points of the movie is that under more tolerant circumstances, Ennis and Jack could have had an excellent romantic monogamous relationship. Of course, that may be wrong, and they could have married each other but still cheated on each other with 1000 other guys. The tragedy in the movie is that we’ll never know, because they never had a fair chance. Yes, they could have been stronger and less morally flawed, but in their reality they couldn’t be.

Most of us have to face a lot of obstacles in order to succeed, or even to just get by in the world. But why should sexuality have to be one of those obstacles. Straight people do not have to face what Ennis, Jack, and many gay people today have to. So they don’t have to face some of the moral dilemmas that face others…where you have to choose to be moral but miserable, or immoral to have a chance of some happiness. For Jack and Ennis, they had the worst of both choices. I find some parallels to Romeo and Juliet, in that we have a couple that are heads over heels in love with each other, but because of obstacles, the relationship ends up being far from perfect and ends in tragedy.

I admit to having some attachment to this movie. Part of it was the hype, part of it was that I felt it was an excellent movie. NDT, I do urge you to see it, even though I know you’re not a fan of the big screen.

I do not need to be validated by Hollywood or anyone else, because I made it. But I know what it’s like to feel inferior because of the social stigma of being homosexual. And it’s sad that to see other’s still struggling simply because of this, whereas our straight counterparts do not have the same struggle.

(cue music) “What’s it all about, Al-FIE…..” - remade in 2004 starring Jude Law as the emotionally needy predator.

Or what was the big, way over-rated film of last year? “Sideways”? - Saw it when it came out; thought it mildly enjoyable; was then shocked at the frantic, over-wrought praise it garnered.

But anyway, it would be yet another of the zillion films that feature hapless sexual predators - and it would be interesting to know if Shalit was very nice to it; right now I doubt he was.

Sure looks like BBM will be the “Sideways” of early 2006.

Shalit’s apology statement, printed in full on GLAAD’s site (to their credit), rightly puts GLAAD down by name.

But the paragraphs of GLAAD’s own spin ignore that part. Instead, they greatly stress Shalit’s expression of regret (for having mentioned “predator”), try to imply a GLAAD victory, and ask their followers to now “thank” Mr. Shalit for “clarifying” his review.

LOL.

You honestly, honestly believe that Gene Shalit, in all of his years of reviewing films, has never called any other character a “sexual predator” or said a relationship was “only about sex”?

Moreover, since GLAAD, cowards that they are, have removed their original statements, I think it’s time to show their defenders exactly what they said.

First off (added emphasis mine):

The “characterization of Jack as a ‘predator’ and Ennis (Heath Ledger) as a victim reflects a fundamental lack of understanding about the central relationship in the film and about gay relationships in general,” GLAAD said in a statement.

Read that very carefully. GLAAD is saying that Ennis and Jack’s relationship reflects ALL gay relationships “in general”.

Again, Carl and Pat, your hearts are in the right place, but the homo fundamentalists are insisting that all of us are two-timing, lying, cheating louses who make promises and then go fool around with others — because they need some form of celluloid or portrayal to validate themselves.

Next up:

“Shalit has every right as a film critic to criticize Brokeback Mountain. But his baseless branding of Jack as a ’sexual predator’ merely because he is romantically interested in someone of the same sex is defamatory, ignorant, and irresponsible”.

Let me summarize that for you: GLAAD is saying that Shalit considers Jack a “sexual predator” because Jack is GAY, not because of Jack’s actions. As Calarato points out, that is virtually an impossible conclusion to reach when one actually watches the review.

Again, what this is is a bunch of homo fundamentalists who desperately need Hollywood to “validate” them and are irrationally attached to a movie which, at best, gives a neutral portrayal of gay relationships.

As I posited elsewhere, Gene Shalit’s major sin may have been in being too comfortable and normalized towards gays; he reviewed Brokeback in the same fashion that he would have a normal film,-

NDT, how many “normal” films have involved Shalit describing one of the major characters as a sexual predator, and saying the relationship is only about sex?

1) Fair enough. It’s possible that he didn’t mean predator when he said it in the context of his review.

2) I have little doubt that Jack listened to Ennis. As far as I saw, he did accept no for an answer for 20 years, and continued seeing other on Ennis’s terms. I think Jack saw the reason for Ennis saying no, wasn’t because of his marriage (especially after it ended), but because of his fear of being murdered for being found out gay.

Anyway, again, it looks like we are looking at this completely differently, and I don’t think we are going to convince the other. I’ll agree to disagree.

Shalit’s reviewed must viewed, to be understood. It intercuts with scenes from the movie itself, explaining his points. And, his personal manner and tone of voice affect a lot of the meaning to be taken away.

2) I saw the whole movie. I’ve also seen many relationships where one person wants more of the relationship, say commitment, or whatever. And many times the issues resurface. That doesn’t come across as predatory, or as a stalker. That’s the way I saw it with Jack. He wanted what he wanted, and he had hoped that over time, Jack would also want them to be together. Further, we only see Jack make this request a couple of times. Still can’t see how that even classifies Jack as a stalker.

Anyway, it looks like we clearly looked at this movie very differently. And perhaps Shalit saw it the way you did. Heck, maybe Jack and Ennis really tended elephants.

#34 - Shalit’s apology is of the “I’m sorry you’re so offended by something I happened to say in passing as I did my job” variety. Correctly so.

#37 - “…the cult of gay fundamentalists have made of this a homo version of The Passion of the Christ.” - Yeah. There’s that ineffable “meaning of Brokeback” we were supposed to have grasped.
I expect it has to do with the following.

What is the Brokeback storyline, really? - Two lonely, confused, needy guys, obsessed with the postures or paraphenalia of gender identity, have a destructive relationship as one of them is sexually confused and emotionally frozen, while the other is a borderline stalker who could not care less about the 3 kids involved.

Does that not provide, oh, 60-70% (maybe more) of all gay men with something they can identify with?

Yet in BBM, it’s dressed up real purty. Beautifully filmed. Cute actors. Breathtaking scenery. Reflective music that tries to rip off the famous song “Blackbird”, but not too hard (or it would be too obvious.) A tearful, tragic ending, blaming a cruel and uncaring society.

So the average gay narcissist goes, not only “That’s my life up there!”, but also “It’s their fault! Because I’m noble.” In a word: Validation. That’s the product being sold here. Shalit’s refusal to go along made them angry.

(1) Have you personally viewed Shalit’s review?

(2) Did you miss the parts of the movie where Ennis (in his silent way) makes it unmistakable that he does not want to live with Jack and is never going to, and the relationship is just a series of sporadic get-togethers and Jack ought to leave Ennis alone in terms of demanding or desiring more?

As I posited elsewhere, Gene Shalit’s major sin may have been in being too comfortable and normalized towards gays; he reviewed Brokeback in the same fashion that he would have a normal film, not realizing that the cult of gay fundamentalists have made of this a homo version of The Passion of the Christ.