Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Fix, please start a thread where you think the Passion of Christ review is wanting. I find it a very accurate review of one of the best movies ever done.

Buffalo has that thread right now. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=90208 It is here.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

Buffalo has that thread right now. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=90208 It is here.

LOL That review was written by a person trying to find issues where none exist. Sounds to me like a person w/ an agenda to criticize the USCCB.

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

Do you agree with this?:

Originally Posted by oat soda

*now if we define artistic merit as simply the secular notion of reflecting society, then perhaps it does have artistic merit. but, if you agree to this, then you are seperating God from reality and you are going down the wide path to destruction. *

I don’t define artistic merit as simply the secular notion of reflecting society.

Artistic merit to me, goes to cinematography, costume design, location selection, authenticity to the time period/culture represented, music score, screenplay, film editing, sound editing, lighting, effects, acting, directing, and so on. As I stated before, a film is a work of art which is a collaborative effort and as such, should be reviewed in its totality, not just on plot alone.

So apparently I’m not separating God from reality and therefore am not doing down the wide path to destruction.

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

I don’t define artistic merit as simply the secular notion of reflecting society.

Artistic merit to me, goes to cinematography, costume design, location selection, authenticity to the time period/culture represented, music score, film editing, sound editing, lighting, effects, acting, directing, and so on. As I stated before, a film is a work of art which is a collaborative effort and as such, should be reviewed in its totality, not just on plot alone.

So you tell me, do I agree with the rest of that statement?

I was asking because I think Oat made a very good point.

No matter how well a movie is filmed the costume design, location, etc cannot balance out an offensive, degrading message and tone.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

I was asking because I think Oat made a very good point.

No matter how well a movie is filmed the costume design, location, etc cannot balance out an offensive, degrading message and tone.

Nobody has asserted as such. The reviewer stated very clearly:

“It treats the subject matter – which a Catholic audience will find contrary to its moral principles – with discretion. Tacit approval of same-sex relationships. . . .”

What part of this don’t you understand?

If movies were to be deemed “O” because they are about a subject matter contrary to (Catholic) moral principles and has an implied endorsement of non-Catholic principles (ala same sex relationships), the “O” rating would be the predominant rating to the point that it has lost any significance. In fact, using this standard, almost all R movies would be “O” and most PG-13 movies too. But maybe that is the agenda- to make the USCCB irrelevant.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Nobody has asserted as such. The reviewer stated very clearly:

“It treats the subject matter – which a Catholic audience will find contrary to its moral principles – with discretion. Tacit approval of same-sex relationships. . . .”

What part of this don’t you understand?

If movies were to be deemed “O” because they are about a subject matter contrary to (Catholic) moral principles and has an implied endorsement of non-Catholic principles (ala same sex relationships), the “O” rating would be the predominant rating to the point that it has lost any significance. In fact, using this standard, almost all R movies would be “O” and most PG-13 movies too. But maybe that is the agenda- to make the USCCB irrelevant.

Irrelevant, or counter cultural? Should that organization be a sign of contradiction and moral authority or a committee to appease the intelligentsia?

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

LOL That review was written by a person trying to find issues where none exist. Sounds to me like a person w/ an agenda to criticize the USCCB.

Yes, and the USCCB reveiwer has no agenda either?

 

[Brad]

fix:

You mean like this?:

YES!

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

Irrelevant, or counter cultural? Should that organization be a sign of contradiction and moral authority or a committee to appease the intelligentsia?

The Church is not about being politically correct or culturally correct. It is about preaching the good news and reaching out to everyone. If over half the movies are deemed “O”, there ratings will be ignored. This isn’t about appeasing the elites. It is about not being irrelevant to the majority.

Living a homosexual lifestyle and participating in homosexual acts is a grave matter. But so is murder, adultery, fornication, greed, pride, presumption, genocide, racism and others.

IMHO, the movie Wall Street (starring Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheet and rated A-IV by the USCCB) is more morally offensive than this movie. In Wall Street, the protaganist Michael Douglas is rewarded for his sin w/ only nominal consequences. In this movie, the protaganists are never shown to find happiness in their sin.

IMHO those who elevate homosexuality to the level of uber-sin by the homo-phobes do a disservice to the Gospel message that all grave matter removes us from communion w/ God. There are significantly more souls threatened by the other six Deadly Sins and heterosexuals by Lust than homosexuals threatened by their carnal acts.

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

Wow. You read something glowing and I read the same review as recommending that it is unfit for a Catholic audience. Maybe the following is enough information for me to make an intelligent decision. Others must need “Do not see this movie. It is about (gays, rapists, or insert your personal phobia).”

"The film contains tacit approval of same-sex relationships, adultery, two brief sex scenes without nudity, partial and shadowy brief nudity elsewhere, other implied sexual situations, profanity, rough and crude expressions, alcohol and brief drug use, brief violent images, a gruesome description of a murder, and some domestic violence. "

Whether the final rating is “L” or “O”, it is certainly not glowing. Read the review of the Chronicles of Narnia if you want to see something glowing.

I guess I have to spell it out again even though I have already done so on this very thread. Comments such as:

“It’s the emotional honesty of the story overall, and the portrayal of an unresolved relationship – which, by the way, ends in tragedy – that seems paramount.”

AND

“Director Ang Lee tells the story with a sure sense of time and place, and presents the narrative in a way that is more palatable than would have been thought possible. Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana’s screenplay uses virtually every scrap of information in Proulx’s story, which won a National Magazine Award, and expands it while remaining utterly true to the source.”

AND

“The performances are superb. Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time, as his repressed manly stoicism masking great vulnerability is heartbreaking, and his Western accent sounds wonderfully authentic. Gyllenhaal is no less accomplished as the more demonstrative of the pair, while Williams and Hathaway (the latter, a far cry from “The Princess Diaries,” giving her most mature work to date) are very fine.”

AND

“Looked at from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels but few people can articulate, the plight of these guys is easy to understand while their way of dealing with it is likely to surprise and shock an audience.”

AND

“Except for the initial sex scene, and brief bedroom encounters between the men and their (bare breasted) wives, there’s no sexually related nudity. Some outdoor shots of the men washing themselves and skinny-dipping are side-view, long-shot or out-of-focus images.”

AND

“While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true.”

encourage the reader to watch the movie. For what other reason would these positive comments be put in the review than to encourage some to see the movie?

Do you actually think that “shocking” material such as sex and nudity and violence and immorality would imply to a secularized society that they should NOT go? Of course they need to spell it out in today’s culture of depravity. Why are they not?

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

Or since the average Catholic viewer probably doesn’t have any idea how a homosexual fornicator/adulterer does anything, by definition, it is “surprising and shocking.”

Unless of course they have watched other movies endorsed by the USCCB.

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

I was asking because I think Oat made a very good point.

No matter how well a movie is filmed the costume design, location, etc cannot balance out an offensive, degrading message and tone.

Yeah, but define “offensive, degrading message and tone.”

So far, what I’ve read in the reviews about this film is the message is not one which will encourage lots of people to go out and become gay, nor will it do much to help closeted gays find courage to come out of the closet. I’ve read that the film portrays effectively the pain a relationship such as this causes on everyone involved.

Am I offended that the ending is violent? Am I surprised? No.
Is the entire film geared toward the way Jimmy Akin supposes? I DON’T KNOW because I haven’t seen the film.

We cannot deny there is a very strong repulsion towards gays in certain communities…that gays are discriminated against, often times bullied and teased, and sometimes violently beaten or killed. Are you suggesting the Catholic teaching supports a community who treats gays this way? That they are justified?

Why is it that a film which shows the dark side of humanity with regard to how gays are treated is viewed by more people as ‘gay propaganda in support of the gay lifestyle’ than it as a film which shows some of the atrocities gay people have to endure from fellow humans (some, even Christian) as they struggle with SSA.

Where is the Christian disgust toward humans who would treat another person in such a manner? Where is the call from us to stop people like that from treating gays like filth?

Now I bet you all think that just because I don’t want gays to be beaten, killed, discriminated against in any way means I support the gay lifestyle. I DO NOT. I support the dignity of EVERY single human being, just as the Catechism directs me.

Where Jimmy thinks this film’s aim is to get people to embrace the gay lifestyle, I suspect the film’s aim is to open up peoples’ eyes to the atrocities some of us commit toward gay people so that we’ll stop the violence and the discrimination. And yet, many of you consider treating gays with dignity and respect is the equivalent to embracing their lifestyle - supporting gay marriage, gay adoptions, etc. - but it isn’t.

What is wrong with speaking out against the discrimination, bullying and violence people impose on homosexuals? What is un-Christian about that?

 

[fix]

Brad:

I guess I have to spell it out again even though I have already done so on this very thread. Comments such as:

“It’s the emotional honesty of the story overall, and the portrayal of an unresolved relationship – which, by the way, ends in tragedy – that seems paramount.”

AND

“Director Ang Lee tells the story with a sure sense of time and place, and presents the narrative in a way that is more palatable than would have been thought possible. Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana’s screenplay uses virtually every scrap of information in Proulx’s story, which won a National Magazine Award, and expands it while remaining utterly true to the source.”

AND

“The performances are superb. Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time, as his repressed manly stoicism masking great vulnerability is heartbreaking, and his Western accent sounds wonderfully authentic. Gyllenhaal is no less accomplished as the more demonstrative of the pair, while Williams and Hathaway (the latter, a far cry from “The Princess Diaries,” giving her most mature work to date) are very fine.”

AND

“Looked at from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels but few people can articulate, the plight of these guys is easy to understand while their way of dealing with it is likely to surprise and shock an audience.”

AND

“Except for the initial sex scene, and brief bedroom encounters between the men and their (bare breasted) wives, there’s no sexually related nudity. Some outdoor shots of the men washing themselves and skinny-dipping are side-view, long-shot or out-of-focus images.”

AND

“While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true.”

Oh ,and by the way, it is morally offensive. :whacky:

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

The review acknowledges that there is an agenda and it points out that it is against Catholic Teaching. What part of this don’t you understand? I bolded the specific references from the review.

Where is the mention of “an agenda”?

How about even a mention of the movie attempting to legitimize that which has been called disordered by the Church?

or

Using cowboys in a red state to encourgage national sympathy for those decide not to contain their sexual urges?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Brad:

I guess I have to spell it out again even though I have already done so on this very thread. Comments such as:

“It’s the emotional honesty of the story overall, and the portrayal of an unresolved relationship – which, by the way, ends in tragedy – that seems paramount.”

AND

“Director Ang Lee tells the story with a sure sense of time and place, and presents the narrative in a way that is more palatable than would have been thought possible. Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana’s screenplay uses virtually every scrap of information in Proulx’s story, which won a National Magazine Award, and expands it while remaining utterly true to the source.”

AND

“The performances are superb. Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time, as his repressed manly stoicism masking great vulnerability is heartbreaking, and his Western accent sounds wonderfully authentic. Gyllenhaal is no less accomplished as the more demonstrative of the pair, while Williams and Hathaway (the latter, a far cry from “The Princess Diaries,” giving her most mature work to date) are very fine.”

AND

“Looked at from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels but few people can articulate, the plight of these guys is easy to understand while their way of dealing with it is likely to surprise and shock an audience.”

AND

“Except for the initial sex scene, and brief bedroom encounters between the men and their (bare breasted) wives, there’s no sexually related nudity. Some outdoor shots of the men washing themselves and skinny-dipping are side-view, long-shot or out-of-focus images.”

AND

“While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true.”

encourage the reader to watch the movie. For what other reason would these positive comments be put in the review than to encourage some to see the movie?

Do you actually think that “shocking” material such as sex and nudity and violence and immorality would imply to a secularized society that they should NOT go? Of course they need to spell it out in today’s culture of depravity. Why are they not?

If these are accurate descriptions of what happens on the screen, they should be in the review. It is in describing these things accurately that they gain credibility in their criticism.

Maybe I’m naive to believe that people who read reviews want an honest presentation of the movie (good points and bad points) and not shrill condemnation.

I guess for the simplistic the reviews should not summarize the essence of the movie, its plots, setting, and how well the movie was presented and just be:

“See it” or “Don’t see it.”

I have an idea. Maybe the USCCB should have a section for those who have a brain and are able to use it and another for the automatons.

 

[Brad]

YinYangMom:

So apparently I’m not separating God from reality and therefore am not doing down the wide path to destruction.

The problem is not separating God from reality for that is impossible. The problem is legitimization (through the use of sympathetic characters) of that which directly opposes the will of God, along with using art to create images that violate modesty and decency(virtues of God) to gain profit.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

I have an idea. Maybe the USCCB should have a section for those who have a brain and are able to use it and another for the automatons.

Or a disclaimer saying we are Catholic, but not too Catholic?

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

I have an idea. Maybe the USCCB should have a section for those who have a brain and are able to use it and another for the automatons.

I like the automaton approach. I want a no-brain rating according to the teachings of the Church. This idea of always having to be intellectual about everything so we can prove to the world we are not blind sheep is actually blinding the very sheep that claim they want to see.

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

The Church is not about being politically correct or culturally correct. It is about preaching the good news and reaching out to everyone. If over half the movies are deemed “O”, there ratings will be ignored. This isn’t about appeasing the elites. It is about not being irrelevant to the majority.

Evangelization depends upon culturally-sensitive movie reviews?

Orionthehunter:

IMHO those who elevate homosexuality to the level of uber-sin by the homo-phobes do a disservice to the Gospel message that all grave matter removes us from communion w/ God. There are significantly more souls threatened by the other six Deadly Sins and heterosexuals by Lust than homosexuals threatened by their carnal acts.

Please clarify. What is a homophobe?

 

[YinYangMom]

Brad:

I guess I have to spell it out again even though I have already done so on this very thread. Comments such as:

…

encourage the reader to watch the movie. For what other reason would these positive comments be put in the review than to encourage some to see the movie?

Do you actually think that “shocking” material such as sex and nudity and violence and immorality would imply to a secularized society that they should NOT go? Of course they need to spell it out in today’s culture of depravity. Why are they not?

Wait up…those comments came from the USCCB review…which is not directed toward ‘secularized society’…it’s geared toward Catholics who will use all of their catechisis along with the review to determine whether or not they would see the film.