I can see it now, eh?

[Hopper]

As to the Chenoweth babe, she is the co-star in the play where the actor was criticized, and therefor has a financial stake in it's success. She would probably naturally dispute any critical review, whatver it's contents. But I don't think that was her main motive in making her off-the-wall claims.

Having worked with him, it may well be that she is rather fond (and "protective") of him, and that may play a part in her personal motivation, I dunno.

Among her explicit statements is this:

"No one needs to see a bigoted, factually inaccurate article that tells people who deviate from heterosexual norms that they can't be open about who they are and still achieve their dreams."

She sees something she doesn't want to see, so she counter-attacks. I think she too misread the original article, but let's assume she didn't. However you interpret what he did say, he didn't say what she imputes to him.

I think it goes without sayin that an obviously gay actor ("open about who he is") may encounter special difficulties in "achieving his dreams" if those dreams include persuading others that he is not gay. A good actor could do it, and this writer does NOT claim otherwise (although he seems to think it is "rare'). But not every actor can. A movie critic noting that a particular actor failed to achieve his dreams in a particular play is NOT a wholesale condemnation of homosexuality, it it not "horrendous homophobia," and it is not "bigotry," at least not if the critic is competent and sincere (he notes, elsewhere, that other reviews, without any reference whatsoever to homosexuality, have been very critical of this actor's performance).

So how about the "gay blogs?" Heh, that's where we get to the meat of this whole fiasco. I'll save it for a later post.

But anyone who takes the "horrendously homophobic" accusation at face value (as probably every gay activist does) is a damn chump, if ya ax me. Not that the same thing doesn't happen on this very board.

 

[One Brow]

Careless reading does not necessarily imply poor wording, eh, Eric? The original article says things like this: "This is no laughing matter, however. For decades, Hollywood has kept gay actors—Tab Hunter, Van Johnson, Richard Chamberlain, Rock Hudson, etc.—in the closet, to their detriment. The fear was, if people knew your sexual orientation, you could never work again. Thankfully, this seems ridiculous in the era of Portia de Rossi and Neil Patrick Harris. But the truth is, openly gay actors still have reason to be scared."

This could have been followed with an agreement of why this was true or an explanation and disavowal of the truth. "Straight Talk" does nothing to discourage the former interpretation nor imply the latter.

Read all the "horrendous homophobia" or "bigotry" into that that you want, I just don't see it.

I don't recall using the passage you quoted as a justification for determining bigotry.

I gave an alternate explanation. You can agree with it, or not, suit yourself. However, the mere presupposition that "only" bigotry could possibly explain such a thing seems very narrow-minded and prejudicial to me.

The only thing that seems close to an attempt at explanation is your comparison of characters that pretend to be the opposite gender in movies being unconvincing. Neither Rock Hudson nor Sean Hayes are pretending to be a man.

 

[One Brow]

I think it goes without sayin that an obviously gay actor ("open about who he is") may encounter special difficulties in "achieving his dreams" if those dreams include persuading others that he is not gay. A good actor could do it, and this writer does NOT claim otherwise (although he seems to think it is "rare'). But not every actor can.

You forgot the flip side: it's much more common for straight actor to convince people that their characters are gay. So, the divide between acting gay when your straight is mush easier for straight people to cross than the corresponding divide for gay people, even though it is the same divide.

Also, knowing an actor was gay changes a romantic comedy into a farce.

Maybe the author is sharing his perception of popular sentiment, and not his own sentiment. Either way, the sentiment itself expresses bigotry.

A movie critic noting that a particular actor failed to achieve his dreams in a particular play is NOT a wholesale condemnation of homosexuality,

I agree. Note the original review in the Times, by the author's admission, makes no reference to Hayes sexual orientation. The author added that assumption in.

So how about the "gay blogs?"

I can't imagine why they would matter.

 

[Hopper]

The only thing that seems close to an attempt at explanation is your comparison of characters that pretend to be the opposite gender in movies being unconvincing. Neither Rock Hudson nor Sean Hayes are pretending to be a man.

OK, let me say it again, differently. People, after being fooled, will naturally tend to re-evaluate their initial reactions if they later discover that they have been duped. Has nuthin to do with bigotry, homosexuality, or any such things. If you show a kid exactly how the "magic" they saw done by an illusionist was accomplished, they are almost as fascinated with the mechanics of the trick as they were with the trick itself. Either way, they will never again be fooled by, or at a loss to explain, the same trick. This guy is sayin that, once you know Hudson is gay, you tend to see his original trick in a different light. That's to be expected. As I read it, the guy is sayin that Hudson DID (not didn't) do a great actin job. That doesn't mean it wasn't acting. To the extent some people identify actors with the roles they play, they can be very disappointed if they find out that, in real life, the actor is a totally different kinda person than the one they have come to know and love by virtue of his on-screen roles and persona.

 

[Scat]

OK, let me say it again, differently. People, after being fooled, will naturally tend to re-evaluate their initial reactions if they later discover that they have been duped. Has nuthin to do with bigotry, homosexuality, or any such things. If you show a kid exactly how the "magic" they saw done by an illusionist was accomplished, they are almost as fascinated with the mechanics of the trick as they were with the trick itself. Either way, they will never again be fooled by, or at a loss to explain, the same trick. This guy is sayin that, once you know Hudson is gay, you tend to see his original trick in a different light. That's to be expected. As I read it, the guy is sayin that Hudson DID (not didn't) do a great actin job. That doesn't mean it wasn't acting. To the extent some people identify actors with the roles they play, they can be very disappointed if they find out that, in real life, the actor is a totally different kinda person than the one they have come to know and love by virtue of his on-screen roles and persona.

So what you're saying is that if the American Beef Council hired Pamela Anderson (a well known member of PETA) to promote the consumption of beef it would be much less believable than hiring, say, Tom Selleck?

Too add, after Selleck had promoted beef for several years it came to light that he never touched the stuff you wouldn't view his previous work in the same light?

Am I hitting all the right notes here?

 

[One Brow]

As I read it, the guy is sayin that Hudson DID (not didn't) do a great actin job. That doesn't mean it wasn't acting.

Generally, the term "farce", when not literal, is not a used to describe great acting ability. As I pointed out before, I have never heard that the Gere/Winger mutual dislike reduced their movie to a farce, whereas it was a fine movie otherwise.

As to your point that people identify actors with their roles, I agree that does happen. Allowing that to color what is on-screen is bigotry, which can take many different forms.

 

[Hopper]

As to your point that people identify actors with their roles, I agree that does happen. Allowing that to color what is on-screen is bigotry, which can take many different forms.

Again, Eric, I can only note that, to me, you seem to use the word "bigotry" in a way that varies from it's accepted denotation. I get the idea that for you it may be more akin to a generic term to be applied to those who disagree with the perceptions and reactions you WANT them to have.

 

[Scat]

As to your point that people identify actors with their roles, I agree that does happen. Allowing that to color what is on-screen is bigotry, which can take many different forms.

Bigotry is a stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. If I'm watching Star Wars and really like Sir Alec Guinness' performance as Obi Wan and later read that he despised the part and thought the Star Wars movies were trash it will pop into my head every time I watch Star Wars now and I'm going to view him in a different light. As he's portraying Obi Wan fighting Vader on the Death Star is Sir Guinness cursing under his breath that he has to do this? Is he thinking how stupid this whole scene is? I don't hate him for his belief or fault him for having a differeing opinion than I. I simply won't be able to watch his performance in the same light ever again. There is nothing bigoted about it. This is no different than someone watching Hudson in a movie and finding his portrayal of a character less believable because they are privy to new information now.

You calling this bigoted is really stretching the bounds of common sense.

 

[moevillini]

...

OK, see next post.

Will you two (err one) quit arguing with yourself?

I think you took the words right out of his mouth...

...To the extent some people identify actors with the roles they play, they can be very disappointed if they find out that, in real life, the actor is a totally different kinda person than the one they have come to know and love by virtue of his on-screen roles and persona...

well, I figure they're acting regardless.

I dunno Hopper, you seem to have some sort of a problem here. Difficulty differentiating reality from fantasy perhaps?

 

[moevillini]

I think basically what Hopper's trying to say is that he liked it better when he didn't know she was just acting....

 

[Hopper]

Bigotry is a stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own....You calling this bigoted is really stretching the bounds of common sense.

Marcus, I'm often amazed at the degree of bigotry shown by those preachin against bigotry, and at the degree of intolerance displayed by those purportedly preachin tolerance.

 

[Hopper]

well, I figure they're acting regardless.

Well, aint that special, eh, Mo? I bet you're the onliest person on this here message board sophisticated enough to realize that.

I dunno Hopper, you seem to have some sort of a problem here. Difficulty differentiating reality from fantasy perhaps?

Mo, I aint 100% sure just why, altho I have my ideas, but you seem to kinda have replaced guys like Vinny, Trout, and Sharpy who used to comb through threads where I was postin lookin for sumthin to ridicule, baseless or not. At least Trout would often by-pass the charade and simply openly and repeatedy state his personal hatred of me. Redundant, mebbe, but not quite as disingenuous that way, ya know?

 

[One Brow]

Again, Eric, I can only note that, to me, you seem to use the word "bigotry" in a way that varies from it's accepted denotation. I get the idea that for you it may be more akin to a generic term to be applied to those who disagree with the perceptions and reactions you WANT them to have.

Such a definition would make me immune from bigotry. I don't ever recall making that claim. While I try not to be bigoted, I'm sure that I fail in that effort in different ways. You get a lot of ideas that seem to match some person you would be prefer to be disagreeing with.

Bigotry is a stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. If I'm watching Star Wars and really like Sir Alec Guinness' performance as Obi Wan and later read that he despised the part and thought the Star Wars movies were trash it will pop into my head every time I watch Star Wars now and I'm going to view him in a different light. As he's portraying Obi Wan fighting Vader on the Death Star is Sir Guinness cursing under his breath that he has to do this? Is he thinking how stupid this whole scene is?

Does Sir Alec Guinness' opinion change Star Wars from being Action film to Space Opera, or any similar transformation, in your opinion? What is the change to the film itself because of this? Actors hating a role they are doing is a common occurence, and it's just part of the job they have. Why does this one in particular stand out as being significant? Bigotry is not limited to race/religion/orientation/etc. by definition. You can be bigoted for/against Star Wars fans, for example.

More to the point, since you didn't bother to answer it, if Rock Hudson is a straight man not attracted to Doris day, as opposed to a gay man not attracted to Doris Day, how does that change a film from romantic comedy to farce, and why?

I don't hate him for his belief or fault him for having a differeing opinion than I. I simply won't be able to watch his performance in the same light ever again.

Why not? What about his performance is changed?

This is no different than someone watching Hudson in a movie and finding his portrayal of a character less believable because they are privy to new information now.

I agree.

You calling this bigoted is really stretching the bounds of common sense.

Any sort of prejudice can become bigotry. My usage may not be the most common, but it is what the word means.

 

[Hopper]

So how about the "gay blogs?" Heh, that's where we get to the meat of this whole fiasco. I'll save it for a later post.

I can't imagine why they would matter.

Typical, but not surprising, that I see the gay community's reaction as the "meat" and you can't even "imagine" why they would matter at all, eh, Eric?

Let's review: My view is that Chenoweth misstated the writer's claims, thereby creating a strawman to attack, which she did with a vengence, alleging not only mere "bigotry" (which you insist on ratifying, even if the means creating a whole new meaning for the term "bigotry'), but "horrendous homophobia," to boot. Homophobia out of all bounds, see? Homophobia on a scale hard to even imagine.

My view is that she did this because she was upset for reasons unrelated to homosexuality as a "cause," but for reasons stemming from personal disappointment/hurt. Her allegation is that the writer is, due to personal animosity, trying to deprive gays of their "right" to "equal opportunity." At least it sounds good (i.e., bad) that way, and "exposes" the writer for his improper motivation, evil intentiions, and irrationality. What better way to rally support for your side than to adopt, and attempt to promote, the notion that your side is in a position similar (on a very small scale) to that of Jews in Nazi Germany attempting to cope with the prejudice, hatred, and brutality of Hitler and his stooges? Perfect, know what I'm sayin?

Enter bloggers and homosexuals of all stripes to begin their assault on the writer in particular and his employer (Newsweek) in general. The trumpets have been sounded, and the battle is on. Battle for what?

Not so much what it's "for" but rather what it is "against." It is against any suggestion that gays, as a group are not entitled to whatever they want, when they want it, and that it is basically insane (or at least mentally deranged) for anybody to deprive them of that. In is very important, when fighting this battle, to keep the myth of brutal oppression at the forefront (even if it is merely a myth). That way the call to duty brings them out like lemmings, thoughtlessly following the herd for the betterment of the "race." If innocent and well-intentioned individuals, such as the writer here, get trampled in the stampede, so be it. Such tools are expendable for the greater good, even if they are one of your "own."

And, guess what? These tactics usually work. Before too many decades of this, you have people in such seemingly isolated and uninterested venues as basketball message boards for "small market" teams, repeatedly trumpetting the call to blindly fight "homophobia," with the desired results quickly ensuing.

Notions of what constitutes "homophobia," and "anti-gay bigotry," quickly lose all contact with reality and common sense. These are no longer useful, meaningful concepts, but merely poisonous darts the gay advocate can select from his arsenal of weapons when the battle in on (like, 24/7/365, bascially). Honest, sincere, and considered opinions cannot even be uttered without reprisal if they do not unequivocally promote the preset agenda.

 

[TheItinerantSon]

yup.

thats exactly how that works...

must suck to be born 50 years after your time

 

[C l u t c H 385]

My usage may not be the most common, but it is what the word means.

Tee hee, I see what you did there. Did you?

 

[Hopper]

Careless reading does not necessarily imply poor wording, eh, Eric? The original article says things like this: "This is no laughing matter, however. For decades, Hollywood has kept gay actors—Tab Hunter, Van Johnson, Richard Chamberlain, Rock Hudson, etc.—in the closet, to their detriment. The fear was, if people knew your sexual orientation, you could never work again. Thankfully, this seems ridiculous in the era of Portia de Rossi and Neil Patrick Harris. But the truth is, openly gay actors still have reason to be scared." Read all the "horrendous homophobia" or "bigotry" into that that you want, I just don't see it.

I don't recall using the passage you quoted as a justification for determining bigotry.

Of course you didn't. Problem is that you did not you even acknowledge the existence of such passages, which help set the tone for the entire piece, either. Best I can tell, every objection you have made relates to one passage, or, more accurately, one word: "farce."

Perhaps you have an idiosyncratic understanding of this word also which leads you to what you deem to be inescapable conclusions, I dunno. One definition of "farce" which I have found online is this:

"Light, dramatic composition that uses highly improbable situations, stereotyped characters, violent horseplay, and broad humour." https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Farce

There are probably many variant notions of what a "farce" is, and it would hard to automatically conclude that whatever your notion of a farce is, the author of this piece had an identical notion in mind when he wrote the article.

Below I have included a scene where Hudson "feigns" homosexuality, resortin to stereotypical notions of homosexual mannerisms and interests to do so. Obviously Hudson knew he was gay, and presumably so did the "insiders" on the set, such as Doris Day, the director, etc.

So, from that (the private) viewpoint, here you have a gay, playin a straight, who is playin a gay. Rather farcical, doncha think? Could be the kinda thing this author had in mind. But, either way, I see the use of the word "farce" in his piece to be totally subordinate to his primary point, and not the centerpiece of his conclusions, as you seem to make it, Eric.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giS4d78APx4

 

[moevillini]

...well, I figure they're acting regardless.

I dunno Hopper, you seem to have some sort of a problem here. Difficulty differentiating reality from fantasy perhaps?

I think basically what Hopper's trying to say is that he liked it better when he didn't know she was just acting....

Well, aint that special, eh, Mo? I bet you're the onliest person on this here message board sophisticated enough to realize that.

Mo, I aint 100% sure just why, altho I have my ideas, but you seem to kinda have replaced guys like Vinny, Trout, and Sharpy who used to comb through threads where I was postin lookin for sumthin to ridicule, baseless or not. At least Trout would often by-pass the charade and simply openly and repeatedy state his personal hatred of me. Redundant, mebbe, but not quite as disingenuous that way, ya know?

well, I'd say it's a bit presumptuous on your part to think I'm "combing through threads where you post looking for something to ridicule" - not true, but obviously you're free to think whatever you chose.

My point is that they're acting. I don't understand how it would change your opinion to know they're acting perhaps even more than you might initially realize? You know you're watching a performance, if it's a really great performance perhaps you're able to forget that it's just a performance because it seems so real to you, but in the end, it's still a performance. So what's the big deal?

Secondly, and this is perhaps my own weakness, I usually have to stay focused on the action taking place - if my mind wanders, I lose the storyline. So I'm not really able to let my mind drift off and wonder what was "really" going through the performer's mind during the performance. I'm sure other folks may have that ability, but not me. And if, at some point, I realize that the performer was dealing with some heavy **** in their personal life, it would probably make me respect their performance all the more, not diminish it.

Thirdly, I am having a bit of fun with the way you seem to circle a topic and meander about with your little side stories and what-not. But I think I get your point - you don't like homosexual behavior and you're not happy that your comments in that regard are subject to censorship here. And you think it's because the "gay lobby" is conspiring against all right-thinking individuals such as yourself.

I do understand (at least in part) your frustration that the "rules of engagement" can't be clearly defined for you and other posters. But that's the way it is, there are too many variables of content and context for absolutes.

 

[One Brow]

Typical, but not surprising, that I see the gay community's reaction as the "meat" and you can't even "imagine" why they would matter at all, eh, Eric?

Bringing in the reaction of some fraction of the gay community is going off on yet another tangent, and I'm getting a bored of the current tangents.

Let's review: My view is that Chenoweth misstated the writer's claims, thereby creating a strawman to attack, which she did with a vengence, alleging not only mere "bigotry" (which you insist on ratifying, even if the means creating a whole new meaning for the term "bigotry'),

No, the usual definition for bigotry satifies nicely, thank you. I've already acknowledged that the writer's seeming adoption of the views he described may not have been intentional.

...to keep the myth of brutal oppression at the forefront (even if it is merely a myth).

Most of the oppression is not brutal. Are you OK with non-brutal oppression?

Honest, sincere, and considered opinions cannot even be uttered without reprisal if they do not unequivocally promote the preset agenda.

So, you're fearing that you will be non-brutally oppressed, and need to go screaming about it. Has there been some act of oppression you have experienced, or are you just being paranoid?

Best I can tell, every objection you have made relates to one passage, or, more accurately, one word: "farce."

Yes, I'm sure that is the best you can tell. Like any other passage, the one you selected would be capable of multiple interpretations.

"Light, dramatic composition that uses highly improbable situations, stereotyped characters, violent horseplay, and broad humour." https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Farce

So, from that (the private) viewpoint, here you have a gay, playin a straight, who is playin a gay. Rather farcical, doncha think?

It fits a couple of the criteria you mentioned (some drama, stereotypes and broad humor), but I find it dark, very probable, and not violent at all that Hudson was forced to hide who he was. So, the real-life situation was more tragedy than farce. Of course, none of that changes the movie itself.

Could be the kinda thing this author had in mind. But, either way, I see the use of the word "farce" in his piece to be totally subordinate to his primary point, and not the centerpiece of his conclusions, as you seem to make it, Eric.

I see it as neither subordinate nor the centerpiece, but as a primary example.

 

[Hopper]

Well, I guess the main take-home point is this here, eh? Even gay writers are horrendously homophobic. Like I done said, it's plumb rampant.