In addition to the article in Christianity Today previously discussed here that addressed religious media coverage of Brokeback Mountain, an article in the New York Times by John Leland addresses the same topic.
M
More wackiness from worldnetdaily:
https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48076
I just read the article from worldnetdaily. It’s quite different from the one in Christianity Today, and frankly, more like what I’ve been expecting. The writer’s premise is that the movie is complete propaganda. I think that the Annie Proulx’s motives as a writer, Ang Lee’s motives as a director withstand the “Propaganda” attack, though. Truth is never propaganda, and neither is the desire to tell a beautiful story.
It always amuses me the way that bigots respond when you point out their bigotry. They want to simultaneously hold onto their biases and hatred and also disavow them as such. “How dare you point at my hatred and call it hatred”.
Kupelain’s biggest complaint about BBM is that hateful people were portrayed as hateful. That’s propoganda!!!
Oh, and since Kupelain thinks BBM “rapes the Marlboro Man”, he might be interested in knowing that at least one of the original Marlboro Men was gay.
https://www.commercialcloset.org/cgi-bin/iowa/?page=column&record=38
Right on Jay. The anti-gays at worldnut daily try to draw the parallel between gay sex and smoking, but the accurate analogy is between gay and straight sex. Both can be wonderful facilitators of beneficial relationships, or in excess can be harmful.
Man, that reads at least in part as a long winded ad for his book. They even offer a deal for it at the end. Talk about “marketers of evil”!
From that article, one would think that when Hollywood produces a movie, no matter what the content, it will seduce the world. While the power of a good movie to sway thoughts and emotions is undeniable, I think it has to resonate in some way with the viewers existing values to have any lasting effect. Otherwise, wouldn’t every movie be a hit?
So, perhaps what Mr. Kupelian most fears is that BBM will unmask bigotry and hate, rather than mask the “evil of homosexuality”. Perhaps he also understands that most people have an innate sense of fairness and decency that will guide them when they understand that being gay is just another part of the human equation, neither good nor evil in and of itself.
David
Jay at December 27, 2005 02:57 PM
Truth is never propaganda
Not exactly. Quite frankly, the word “propaganda” has gotten something of a bum’s wrap. For Timothy:
https://www.m-w.com/dictionary/propaganda
It is interesting to note that, in the US at least, the word appears to have become more associated with the third sense, at least in popular usage. As far as I’m concerned, the broader sense–number 2–is more appropriate. But that’s just my opinion.
NB: Timothy, with regards your slight to me on another page, I can give you links until the cows come home on virtually everything I post. Do you really want that?
As I read the article and the comments at Christianity Today concerning their review, I see so much hate. I grew up in a rural area and have lived in large cities for the last ten years, where I tend to forget that there are many people who fuel their hate with the Bible.
This movie will not change anyone to gay or change anyone’s beliefs,unless they are already open to those feelings or ideas.
I saw BBM today. It’s an excellent movie. It’s difficult not cry all of the way through the last 30 minutes.
It didn’t make me want to reconsider my ex-gay thing. Any ex-gays stuck in Christian boot camp might be persuaded to skip Bible study for a night on the mountain with Jack or Ennis though.