From the report:
Not everyone agrees. Exodus International, a Christian group that works to “cure” gays, is urging people not to see the movie.
“It’s something that’s absolutely being marketed towards kids who will take away: ‘Oh, I can be like Jake Gyllenhaal; I can be like Heath Ledger. That’s what our relationship can be like,’ ” said Alan Chambers, Exodus International’s president.
Incidently the press release Exodus just issued is 370 words, which sort of dwarfs Chambers’ sound bite on GMA.
Update: MSNBC.com to the rescue with an article perfect for Alan if his wife drags him to Brokeback Mountain titled, “The straight dude’s guide to ‘Brokeback’.” Now seeing as how we’re on the subject at poking fun at Alan how about nominating him for the upcoming “Mr. Hetero” pageant.
Does ABC consult the KKK for their thoughts each time Spike Lee unveils a new film? They do not.
Why then do they pick Exodus International for the conservative viewpoint? Exodus are not conservatives, they’re Christian fundamentalists, and there’s a world of a difference.
And lets face it, most Americans have never heard of Exodus International; and the few of us who have know they’re a rabidly anti-gay group, roundly condemned by the American Psychological Association.
How is a rated “R” movie targeted to kids? I have a problem understanding that one.
fastlad, I think it’s because the media loves a controversy and no one else is willing to make it one.
The producers of the movie have basically said if you don’t like the subject matter, fine. They aren’t going to argue with you and they aren’t out to make a point. It’s a small budget movie that’s already recovered its production cost from foreign distribution deals so if you don’t like it, don’t go.
The writers, McMurty and Ossana, worked on the project out of love for the story. Ossana was staying at McMurty’s when the story came out in the New Yorker. She couldn’t sleep and read the story and cried. The next day she showed McMurty and they immediately contacted Proulx and purchased rights (Proulx has said she wouldn’t have sold the rights to anyone else).
Lee did it as catharsis after the overly commercial Hulk bombed; when he signed on he thought it would be limited to an arthouse gay audience. Ledger agreed to act to try and recover his career (good move, lots of Oscar talk). No one cares if the right wing hates it.
All along, this was supposed to be a small movie. Now that it’s been made and is getting rave reviews, that’s just icing on the cake. And while they’d love to have a hit and are marketing it to the Titanic audience, they have no interest in going on talk shows making some political point (you might notice that no one involved tends to be political).
The other rabid anti-gay folks have wised up and said they aren’t going to picket or protest because that will only bring attention to the movie and increase sales.
So the media is sitting there with a potential controversy but no combatants. Chambers is the only one they could get to play along.
Of course there’s always someone so desperate for a spotlight that they’ll push theirselves forward even when it isn’t in their interest. Oh, hello Alan.
Funny, if you have read the story you know these guys are EXACTLY what Exodus wants gays to be – repressed and shameful, trying to live a life of lies to cover up their true feelings, but they are not able to do it. Doesn’t that sound like a typical “ex-gay”?
Well, for starters its an R rated film and actually being marketed to women, so the fear-mongering can stop on that point. (Seriously – where do they pull this stuff from?)
But what is this movie showing? I’ts not a circuit party movie, no orgies, no promiscuity or rampant, unprotected sex. It’s not materialistic, its not drugged up. Exodus betrays themselves in their own quote; focus on that last statement – “That’s what our relationship can be like.”
That’s what our gay relationships can be like – true.
That’s what our gay relationships can be like – loving.
That’s what our gay relationships can be like – committed.
That’s what our gay relationships can be like – life-long.
That’s what our gay relationships can be like – passionate.
That’s what our gay relationships can be like – edifying.
That’s what our gay relationships can be like – caring.
That’s what our gay relationships can be like – real.
That’s what our gay relationships can be like – validated.
That’s what our gay relationships can be like – accepted.
That’s what our gay relationships can be like – inspirational.
That’s what our gay relationships can be like – accepted.
I think the point of Exodus’ last line– “That’s what our relationship can be like.”– is that, at least in their eyes, gay relationships cannot be like that, because they believe they are flawed in nature. What they’re saying is that the message behind the movie is dangerous because it purports to exist a kind of love that isn’t real. Not saying I agree with them, just that I think that’s more of what they’re getting at. But its clear that Chambers doesn’t know what the movie is about, anyway– he seems to think that the movie portrays life as all happy and wonderful for Jakey-poo and Heath, and it obviously portrays the two enduring through considerable hardship.
Has Alan even seen the movie? Does he plan on seeing it in the future so he can honestly comment on it?
Should we send him tickets?
I see for national media attention, Alan brought his ex-gay numbers down to “thousands.”
I am pretty surprised by Good Morning America. Did they have someone from a gay group out there talking about what they thought of this movie and how this is what happens when gay people hide their orientation? Maybe I’ll write a letter.
I would think that ex-gay men would not be able to go see this movie in good conscience. If (as I understand it) the Ex-gay male, is still prone to struggling with homosexual feelings, which he must continually renounce, is would be extremely unwise to go see a rated R movie with two handsome men in scenes of love and some nudity. This, of course, leaves any ex-gay who chooses to talk about the movie with only one (unfortunate) option of foolishly commenting on something about which they obviously know very little.
Without giving away the plot, the movie isn’t about Ennis and Jack (the characters) eduring through hardship or having a relationship that is real, valid, caring, accepted, whatever.
What the short story (and from reports, the movie) is about is the incredible tragedy of discoving what is the most important thing to you after it’s gone and can’t be retrieved. It’s about being conflicted by a love that is so strong it defines your life but which you don’t even have words for much less the ability to embrace. It’s about the power of fear and culture and your environment and the tiny moments of transcendency over them.
This is not a western, or a cowboy story, or strictly-speaking even a gay story. This is a love story. But not of the fluffy happy-ending romantic comedy genre. This is a story about the kind of love that grabs you, takes hold no matter what you want or what is good for you, and settles into your gut. No one will walk away saying “I wish I had that relationship”.
But, if what i’ve heard is true, you will find yourself unable to forget this movie and months later will find the characters suddenly lurking in your thoughts.
“Chambers, himself a former homosexual, says that while some of the themes explore the unhappiness, pain and promiscuity in gay life…”
Wait, these are both closeted gay guys that get married and presumably live the ex-gay life, do they not?
I haven’t seen the movie, but to me this sounds more like exploring the unhappiness, pain, and promiscuity (?) of ex-gay life.
Does ABC consult the KKK for their thoughts each time Spike Lee unveils a new film? They do not.
The media does not seek out a comment from the American Nazi party for their comments each time Spielberg unveils a new film. And I doubt very seriously that they will be seeking out comments from secular humanists on the release of the Chronicles of Narnia based on Christian CSLewis’s book.
I have made comments similar to your’s on other forums.
In case you can’t tell 🙂 I’m a fan of the story and am eagerly awaiting the movie’s release this weekend.
One interesting side note I read the other day: Annie Proulx got the idea for the story while sitting in a Wyoming bar one evening. She noticed that even though the bar was full of attractive women, one of the ranch hands in the back wasn’t looking at the women but the men with a sort of subdued hunger.
She didn’t anticipate the story having much audience and was surprised when the New Yorker snapped it up. A year after it came out, Matthew Sheppard was killed not far from where she lives. Proulx was called for the jury but wasn’t selected.
“Wait, these are both closeted gay guys that get married and presumably live the ex-gay life, do they not?”
I think you misunderstand. No one in this movie is “ex-gay”. To be “ex-gay” you have to have first been “gay” and in some way reject it. These guys don’t move in the direction from acceptance to denial.
Watch the movie or read the story.
Timothy,
I mentioned in my post that I hadn’t seen the movie (and I have not read the story).
My point was that these guys had a gay love affair and then tried to live a straight life. My point was similar to Mike’s a while back about this same topic (I can no longer find my post).
I’m not really sure why you fired back so harshly at me, especially since I let my ignorance of the story be known and I asked for opinions/thoughts.
Brady… sorry, wasn’t trying to be harsh. I reread my last sentence and it does sound that way, though. I apologize.
But, nonetheless, your comments are off-base. 🙂
It’s clear from reading the Exodus press release that whoever wrote it had neither read the story nor seen the movie. They got the facts and the feel of the story wrong. No offense, but, well…
I think it generally best to be at least somewhat familiar with a story before you criticise it. Otherwise, as is the case with Chambers, you may look like an ass. (Although, to be fair, I make judgements all the time about movies and books without seeing or reading them – I just don’t send out a press release).
Brady, I highly recommend the story. It’s quite short and you can get through it pretty quickly. I look forward to hearing if your opinion about it changes after you read it.
The self-hyping ex-gay rush is on to criticize this movie. Now Stephen Bennett has jumped on the “look at me – I have no idea what I’m talking about” train.
https://www.earnedmedia.org/sbm1208.htm
My favorite quote:
“Stephen concluded, “In the end, don’t be fooled. This movie is not a ‘love story’ at all. Ask the real wives, children and families whose lives have been destroyed, as they have ‘lived’ Brokeback Mountain. Personally, I would have made the movie from the wives’ and children’s perspective and appropriately called it Heartbreak Hotel.””
Good ol’ Stephen. Does he even know that Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway are in it? But I agree; the wives of gay men are definely full of heartbreak. And that, Stephen, is why gay men shouldn’t marry women.
You know to me that’s the most striking thing about this “ex-gay” thing: the idea that men who don’t want to be gay will knowingly seek to marry women. When I was struggling with accepting my own sexuality (and I spent a good decade fighting it) I was absolutely sure that I would not subject any woman to the vagaries of my own attractions. Such selfishness and misogyny! So that I…I…can feel straight and right with god! Never mind how a woman deserves to be loved. Never mind how she deserves to be with someone who finds her erotically appealing.
The plight of Ennis’ wife was one of the many sorrows in Brokeback Mountain. But worse for those women whose husbands know full well what they are doing, and have no problem subjecting them the role of “beard.”
Personally, I think the attention from the ex-gay community is just going to make the movie that much more popular. As they say in show biz, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.”
The segment on GMA was a hoot! Did anybody else notice the misspelled Alan Chambers’ name?
I also got a kick out of the banner on the bottom of the screen: “AMERICA READY FOR GAY COWBOYS?”
Hello?! America? You mean the country where The Village People play the county fair circuit every Summer?
I can remember how long it took for mixed couples to be sensitively, (not sterilely) portrayed on the silver screen.
Movies had to be specially shot so as not to offend the Bible Belt/Jim Crow market so that discreet editing could be done.
Let Chambers and all the rest have conniptions, Annie Proulx knows the human condition and writes beautifully about it.
I love her books and BBM, the last part of the story, the very last paragraph, is devastating and beautiful at the same time.
Like the WY landscape itself.
Does Chambers have a thyroid condition? His eyes are bugging out of his head.
Or is that his head about to explode over the subject?
In reference to Timothy’s link to SB’s comments:
Straight Talk Radio is the very first daily national radio program strictly focusing on the issue of homosexuality and the homosexual agenda, featuring a former homosexual man and his wife as the hosts.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this thing is still a podcast, right? If so, “national radio program” certainly conveys a degree of legitamacy that just isn’t there. I could start a podcast tomorrow and call it an “international radio program” I suppose, as long as I didn’t mind stretching the truth until it snaps.
I just spoke with a married man on the telephone who is contemplating leaving his wife and children. He’s says he’s gay – and Brokeback Mountain has influenced his decision.
I don’t say this often, but I believe that is a lie. I realize there is no way to prove this either way, but considering his track record and the sheer improbability that anyone would be influenced to leave their wife and children – even in part – due to a cowboy movie is just to great. I think it’s too easy to make up material to prove one’s point by saying someone called your ministry and told you this or that. It’s similar to Ake Green (the Swedish pastor) and his crisis line experiences. In this case, I would sooner believe Ake Green.
Sorry if that veered OT, but I have little tolerance for snake oil.
David
I don’t say this often, but I believe that is a lie. I realize there is no way to prove this either way, but considering his track record and the sheer improbability that anyone would be influenced to leave their wife and children – even in part – due to a cowboy movie is just to great.
Yeah, Bennet doesn’t say, but the implication is that this married guy has seen the movie – which means he had to attend one of the film festivals or very few previews that have happened in the US. That makes it even more unlikely.
Timothy, your analysis about the story, that it’s not just about Jack and Ennis, is exactly right.
I have no idea how I feel about the film’s Hollywood treatment. But I sure felt the story as I read it.
I cry for strange reasons for scenes on film.
Not always for the usual reasons.
Like the re-entry scene of the movie “Apollo 13”.
Cried at that.
Maybe because I knew that the capsule was the size of a minivan, and what human genius it took for those astronauts to blast off, and come down safely.
BBM is like that to me. I am overwhelmed sometimes by how our society and world won’t let gays and lesbians be welcome in the family and be themselves.
And so much unnecessary hurt and heartbreak happens because of that wrongful indictment.
The endurance of gay and lesbian love, DESPITE what straight people try to do to pervert it, speaks of it’s purest meaning-
Always has and will be, meant to happen.
This movie is an outrage to Real Cowboys everywhere. This is not what the western lifestyle is.. I wish Hollywood would take there movie and there homosexual views back to CA…We don’t want them here on the Range…
A Real Cowboy
P.S. if you want to know what a real cowboy is, check what he files on his income tax
Jared, the real cowboy (just check his income tax return) knows what the western lifestyle is.
Annie Proulx and Larry McMurty, who have made a living observing such lifestyle, have no clue. The fact that the story was inspired by Proulx (who lives in there) watching a ranch hand in a bar in Wyoming is irrelevant. Just ask Jared.
Hi Jared,
Oh…real cowboys are in movies?!
Like Ronald Reagan and John Wayne, or Gary Cooper and (gasp!)
Tab Hunter, Rock Hudson and Montgomery Clift?
There is an article in last week’s LA Times about the male centric, homoerotic world of the cowboy.
And that a gay mystique around that lifestyle isn’t news or unusual.
What tumbleweed have YOU been under all this time, Jared?
for an ex-gay, the opposite of gay isn’t “straight” or “married.” the solution is jesus. however, as an ex-gay, i disagree with the focus on the family “ick factor” headline. that’s demeaning and a moronic statement. it demeans the very people they claim they’re trying to “reach.”
in every “ex-gay” thread that i’ve read the man who becomes an “ex-gay” first lives a life of utterly extreme sexual compulsion; not to say morbid erotomania; and then he eventually repents of his spectacularly dysfunctional ways and embraces Christ.
well, if those are your two choices, no wonder, really.
why do we never hear of a well adjusted, monogamous gay man in the tenth year of his blissful homosexual partnership becoming an ex-gay?
can you guess?
(meanwhile, for the poster above: if the solution is Jesus, what was the question?)
Regan DuCasse at December 14, 2005 12:35 PM
Oh…real cowboys are in movies?!
You might also wonder whether the current US president GWBush is a real rancher. Have you ever seen him on a horse? I haven’t. When I was a boy scout at 13 years old, I literally had a horse eating out of my hand, before I hopped on the saddle and went riding off.
And that ranch of his (it’s a prop, of course) must be one of the filthiest places on earth, given the amount of time he spends down there clearing brush.
“for an ex-gay, the opposite of gay isn’t “straight” or “married.” the solution is jesus.”
Ah, fun with definitions.
To every other breathing entity on earth, the opposite of gay would surely have something to do with being attracted to the opposite sex. But not to Alina and friends.
No, to Alina the opposite of “gay” is “Jesus” (presumedly knowing, serving, loving, worshiping Jesus or some combination thereof).
So then, Alina, is the opposite of “Jesus” then “gay”?
I think the problem with your logic, Alina, is that you try to redefine words to have no meaning and then wonder why rational people don’t agree. You redefine “gay” to mean something other than what everyone else on the planet means when they say “gay”. To everyone else, it means being attracted to the same sex.
So when you tell the media and churches and congress that you are “ex-gay” or a “former homosexual”, what they hear is that you are no longer attracted to the same sex. I could almost be tolerant of such statements except, Alina, almost all the time they are deliberately couched in such a way as to deceive the listener. In other words, to lie.
Nearly every ex-gay will admit – eventually – that their attraction to the same sex has not gone away, just their “identity”. The ex-gay movement plays a game in which they deny the existance of a sexual orientation. The disavow the recognition that they have a distinction from Casanova or Elizabeth Taylor – and that distinction is that their primary attraction is (and in almost all cases remains) to the same sex. Instead they change the subject to be about religous conversion.
You never hear any ex-gay ministers say “I still am attracted to the same sex but now can live celibate through the power of Jesus” (except sometimes Courage, the Catholic group). That would be honest, but not a very compelling campaign.
And if you go around saying “I’m not gay, I’m just attracted to the same sex”, people tend to catch on pretty quickly that you’re just in denail.
So, no Alina, you aren’t truthful. In reality, for most “ex-gays” the opposite of “gay” isn’t “straight” or “married” (or “Jesus” for that matter), it’s “celibate”. And that’s fine, just don’t try to deceive either us or yourself.
Alina said:
for an ex-gay, the opposite of gay isn’t “straight” or “married.” the solution is jesus.
As a Christian, I would agree that the solution to all is Jesus; a straight-laced, heterosexual is in just as much need of Him as anyone else on the planet. But what you say seems to indicate that accepting Christ will somehow make one “not gay” and I don’t believe that to be true.
Taking your post as a whole, I think you probably just meant to add your voice to those against what FOTF was saying while staying true to where you are in your own struggle. You need to understand, however, that some of us have been hurt by those who dishonestly use the “ex-gay” issue in the most hypocritical way. Expect some heat 😉
Fastlad said:
in every “ex-gay” thread that i’ve read the man who becomes an “ex-gay” first lives a life of utterly extreme sexual compulsion; not to say morbid erotomania…
Good point! Perhaps if the repentance was based on their sexual addiction (or whatever the root problem is), instead of orientation, they might have more success. This might actually be a significant part of the ex-gay equation; not that they are so unhappy with being gay but rather with their pathologic sexual habits. This can happen in both heterosexual and homosexual alike. Maybe the correct term should be “ex-sexual addict”.
Raj said:
You might also wonder whether the current US president GWBush is a real rancher.
Raj, I’m really beginning to suspect that you have the hots for our President. You seem able to bring him into just about any conversation 😉
When I was a boy scout at 13 years old, I literally had a horse eating out of my hand, before I hopped on the saddle and went riding off.
You’re a virtual Hemingway of experiences Raj 🙂
And that ranch of his (it’s a prop, of course) must be one of the filthiest places on earth, given the amount of time he spends down there clearing brush.
Just to maintain the quality of discourse, do you have any reliable references to back up your claim that the President’s ranch is a “prop”?
Posted by: Timothy at December 26, 2005 01:56 PM
Excellent summary! You said what I was thinking but couldn’t relate nearly as well.
David
(who’s tax return does not qualify him for “cowboy status”)
ReasonAble at December 26, 2005 03:55 PM
Raj, I’m really beginning to suspect that you have the hots for our President. You seem able to bring him into just about any conversation 😉
Actually, not. I have the hots for political discussion. And, no, I don’t bring GWBush into “just about any conversation.”
>>>And that ranch of his (it’s a prop, of course) must be one of the filthiest places on earth, given the amount of time he spends down there clearing brush.
Just to maintain the quality of discourse, do you have any reliable references to back up your claim that the President’s ranch is a “prop”?
There has been a lot of discussion about this over the Internet over the last few years. It was bought in 1999, just as GWBush was preparing for his run for the presidential nomination on the Republican ticket. He had been a resident of TX for decades, and its governor since 1994.
Prop? Yes. Rancher? No. Some of us can actually read between the lines.
Raj said:
…I don’t bring GWBush into “just about any conversation.”
Actually, since we are reading between the lines, I said you seem able to bring him into just about any conversation, not that you did. There is a difference 😉
There has been a lot of discussion about this over the Internet over the last few years.
There is a place where people actually take time to debate such a thing? This sounds more like the kind of petty political minutia that people remember on those occasions when we do bring genuine issues concerning this Administration to light.
It was bought in 1999, just as GWBush was preparing for his run for the presidential nomination on the Republican ticket. He had been a resident of TX for decades, and its governor since 1994.
It was my understanding that statements made as fact were to be accompanied by reference(s) to back them up. I don’t actually care one way or the other if the prop story is true – it may well be – but it was made as a statement of fact. Since no reference was given, even after my request, I will assume this is just your opinion.
As an attorney, you should be used to using cites to back up the statements you make. This one should be a piece of cake, but it’s a good practice to maintain. People link to articles here at an increasing rate. I think it’s important that they find the balance and reason so greatly lacking in other such sites (and which is almost a trademark of XGW). Otherwise, XGW won’t stand out against the noise.
David
ReasonAble at December 27, 2005 10:25 AM
There is a place where people actually take time to debate such a thing?
Um, there have been a number of websites for political discussion over the last few years. You are not aware of that? They come and go, consolidate and so forth. I don’t recall the website on which I first read that about the Bush ranch, and it probably doesn’t exist any more.
It was my understanding that statements made as fact were to be accompanied by reference(s) to back them up. I don’t actually care one way or the other if the prop story is true – it may well be – but it was made as a statement of fact.
Do you really want links to the 1999 ranch purchase? I had thought that it was well known. I could give you lots of links to the fact that the ranch was purchased in 1999, but I would just suggest that you could find them yourself doing a search on https://www.google.com using the keywords “bush crawford ranch” If I were to post all of the links that I turned up during my google search, it would seriously extend this page more than is warranted.
Given that GWBush had been a resident of TX since about 1977, was governor of TX since 1994, and was gearing up for a run for the presidency in 2000, I can read between the lines, too. Otherwise stated, regarding your comment “(a)s an attorney, you should be used to using cites to back up the statements you make” as an attorney, I also make inferences from the facts, hence my reference to the ranch being a prop.
Raj said:
If I were to post all of the links that I turned up during my google search, it would seriously extend this page more than is warranted.
Even one link to some authoritative source would be fine – no need to post them all. You tend to be extremely lax in this which is why I asked. A little practice might make a good habit 🙂
I also make inferences from the facts, hence my reference to the ranch being a prop.
Yes, but there are no “facts” to infer from here, just your assertion. That’s my point. The onus is on you to provide substantiation for what you want us to believe.
Again, the particulars here are of little importance, but since you often fail to substantiate your assertions, even on much more significan matters, it seems worthwhile to point this out. Can we agree that it would be best practice (for us all) to do so?
David
ReasonAble at December 27, 2005 01:57 PM
I infer from this that you are too lazy to do a google search.
As you wish. I also infer from the foregoing that you are nothing more than a twit who should be ignored.
Schluss mit dir.
Raj said:
I infer from this that you are too lazy to do a google search.
Not at all, but these are your assertions – I’ll research my own but the onus is on you to back up yours.
David
Now girls, you’re both pretty…
Now girls, you’re both pretty…
A girl does need to hear that now and then, thanks 🙂
David
Here’s how it works:
1. If you’re stating something that all agree is true (“the sky is blue”) there’s no need for support.
2. If you’re stating your opinion, it should either be clear from the context (“Peanut M&M’s are better than plain”) or from your wording (“I think …”) that it’s your opinion.
3. If you’re stating a fact (“Bush’s farm is a prop”) you need to provide basis for your claim. The more outlandish the claim, the more credible the support needs to be.
4. If you are inferring something, you should give the basis of the inference (“Because Bush didn’t own a ranch before he purchased one at the start of his Presidential campaign 1999, it’s my opinion that…”). Otherwise, just let us know that you are making it up in your head and we can ignore it.
4. If you are make personal attacks (“you’re lazy” or “you’re a twit”) you run the risk of being removed; I distinguish this from criticism of opinions (“your position is not credible”) or of process (“you’re being lax”). Removal is also a possibility if you are snarky or rude; the anonymity of the intenet does not give you carte blanch to be unpleasant on this site.
While I’m at it, let me also suggest that not every opinion that flutters through one’s brain needs expressing. I know we all like to have attention and I know that I, for one, am inclined to opine; but sometimes it’s best to think before you click “post”.
Folks, if you haven’t seen any of the movies or read any of the articles or heard of any of the people under discussion, your opinions about them really aren’t worth much. In general, proudly proclaiming your ignorance doesn’t make you more credible.