Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Orionthehunter:
But ironic that people “think” it should be reviewed as “O” but haven’t seen the movie, haven’t entertained the idea that “L” also is a different and actually a more intelligent distinction of criticism
Click to expand...
We are going by what the reviewer reported and find it contradictory with the rating.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
Gravely sinful for the artist, yes.

However, that is just another example of how God uses his artists even though they don’t know it.

On the surface a piece like that would be all Satan’s doing, but it’s quite possible the project started out as God’s work (selecting Mary),

Satan, as usual, takes advantage of the opening to do his manipulating (the feces **and **finding someone to display the work as ‘art’)

and yet God still retains the upper hand because the display results in a rally by all Christians in defense of their Mother. Rosaries get prayed (just think about the number of rosaries we’re talking about here and the impact that must have on the souls in purgatory, on our nation!), Mary gets placed in the forefront of many peoples’ minds and hearts who otherwise were forgetting about her.
Click to expand...
Catholic teaching is do no wrong to make a right.
 
40.png
fix:
Yes, that is a fair point. If they are simply art reviews with a tip of the hat to the moral issues as if they all balance out perfectly, why bother at all?
Click to expand...
EXACTLY 👍
 
Yin,

I do not agree. Many people simply have their consciences become hardened to such horrible images and turn their mind away. This leaves the less formed people to just go along with the sinful images, which is why we see entire cultures slowly slide into moral decay…people get attacked slowly and over time they are no longer aware they are being attacked. It is sort of like the boiling frog. You place a frog in boiling water and he jumps away, you place him in a cold or a lukewarm pot of water and turn up the heat slowly and he will alow himself to be cooked to death. Our culture oftens allows itself to be that slow cooking frog. We are allowing ourselves to slowly decay when we allow such filth into public areas.
 
Orion,

I do not need to see the movie to know it is morally offensive. All I need to do is the review a few reviews and that tells the tale.
 
40.png
fix:
I did and was unmoved to change my position.
Click to expand...
What position? The question was asked ‘who’ these limited adults might be. That was my response. NO WHERE have I suggested anyone rush out to be one of those “L” types. Some are, some aren’t. That’s ok.
I do not get that from the review. It was nuanced to say the least.
Click to expand...
Not nuanced by us or the reviewer for the USCCB so it doesn’t belong in the discussion.
One of these reviews mentions bare breasts in some scene. I can’t recall which review.
Click to expand...
Well this one certainly mention gratuitous sex. I think you might be mixing up the secular ‘promo’ with this USCCB review.
 
joyfulmess said:
**MORAL ISSUES ** THAT CONCERN OUR FAITH OTHERWISE FOR WHOSE BENEFIT ARE THEY REVIEWING FILMS FOR? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I’ll repost for the umpteenth time. The review was concisely clear on the moral issues.

“It treats the subject matter – which a Catholic audience will find contrary to its moral principles – with discretion. 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”

or this section:

"The adulterous nature of their affair is another hot-button issue. But the pain Jack and Ennis cause their families is not whitewashed. (The women are played with tremendous sympathy, not as shrill harridans.) 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. "

The last section displays a moral story that adultery causes pain and suffering to those not directly involved in the adultery and their failure to put the relationship in its proper place (to be terminated in total- in fact and in their mind) results in tragedy.

Maybe this wasn’t clear enough for some, but it is quite clear to me on what to expect if I were to see this movie.
 
Just an observation - in a world where trivial things are labelled as offensive, truly offensive things are not. 😦
 
40.png
fix:
Please take that about with the posters who embrace the USCCB review.
Click to expand...
Just for clarification…I’m not ‘embracing’ the USCCB review. I accept it for what it is - a review. I appreciate the direct manner in which they presented the review and I am saying the reviewer did his job according to the guidelines: artistic merit AND moral issues.

I’m still not going out to spend $8 in support of the film, though I will consider renting it on DVD at $1.99 some day. I would not spend $15-25 to buy the DVD either.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
What position? The question was asked ‘who’ these limited adults might be. That was my response. NO WHERE have I suggested anyone rush out to be one of those “L” types. Some are, some aren’t. That’s ok.
Click to expand...
Why the category and why place this movie in that category?
Not nuanced by us or the reviewer for the USCCB so it doesn’t belong in the discussion.
Click to expand...
I think that is central to the discussion. The two issues that everyone is focusing on are the final rating and the way the film was portrayed.
 
40.png
joyfulmess:
there is no dignity in 2 men nude bodies lusting after each other
Click to expand...
This movie doesn’t emphasize 2 men nude bodies lusting after each other. It portrays the damage SSA has on all people, especially those afflicted with it…or so it seems to me based on this review.

You imagine this movie has multiple nude sex scenes between two men (which is what I had originally presumed myself). According to the reveiw that isn’t the case:

“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, …”
 
40.png
fix:
I think one poster made the point they should be looking at the morality of it.
Click to expand...
Hey, maybe we should start a new thread - as a poll…
I’m sure most people here would agree with you.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
This movie doesn’t emphasize 2 men nude bodies lusting after each other. It portrays the damage SSA has on all people, especially those afflicted with it…or so it seems to me based on this review.

You imagine this movie has multiple nude sex scenes between two men (which is what I had originally presumed myself). According to the reveiw that isn’t the case:

“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, …”
Click to expand...
From another review:
The USCCB’s reviewer enthused about the film’s depiction of “love and loss,” calling it “a serious contemplation of loneliness and connection.”…
Click to expand...
The film offends not only Christian moral sensibilities, however, but those of anyone who believes in the sanctity of marriage. The two characters separate and marry, have children and make themselves and their wives miserable by the life of “denial” so denigrated by homosexual activists.
Click to expand...
Years later they meet again and revisit their passions, this time betraying their wives. The final sop to the homosexual mythology comes when one of the men suggests they leave their wives and set up house together. The other refuses not out of respect for his wife or for love of their children, but because of a traumatic childhood memory of a man beaten to death with tire irons for living with another man.
Click to expand...
“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,” the USCCB review says.
Click to expand...
lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121503.html
Click to expand...
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
This movie doesn’t emphasize 2 men nude bodies lusting after each other. It portrays the damage SSA has on all people, especially those afflicted with it…or so it seems to me based on this review.

You imagine this movie has multiple nude sex scenes between two men (which is what I had originally presumed myself). According to the reveiw that isn’t the case:

“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, …”
Click to expand...
OK then. Years ago Hollywood was able to get acrosss their message without resorting to the above scenes. The same discriminating adult can and will use their imagination to complete the scene. We definitely don’t need the explicitness to understand the message.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Catholic teaching is do no wrong to make a right.
Click to expand...
But the artist isn’t Catholic.
We Catholics find the good in all things.
God works through everyone.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
But the artist isn’t Catholic.
We Catholics find the good in all things.
God works through everyone.
Click to expand...
Catholics do not find the good in evil. or Satan! They are tricked into thinking they see good in evil.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Yin,

I do not agree. Many people simply have their consciences become hardened to such horrible images and turn their mind away. This leaves the less formed people to just go along with the sinful images, which is why we see entire cultures slowly slide into moral decay…people get attacked slowly and over time they are no longer aware they are being attacked. It is sort of like the boiling frog. You place a frog in boiling water and he jumps away, you place him in a cold or a lukewarm pot of water and turn up the heat slowly and he will alow himself to be cooked to death. Our culture oftens allows itself to be that slow cooking frog. We are allowing ourselves to slowly decay when we allow such filth into public areas.
Click to expand...
And yet, none of this changes my point, that our dismay and frustrations should be directed at Catholics and Christians who are allowing themselves to be swayed by all this instead of remaining firm in their faith and helping to counter the attempts by the other side to erode our society.

I still firmly believe that if all US Christians would behave and spend their money as true faithful Christians we would never have seen this story make it to film.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Orion,

I do not need to see the movie to know it is morally offensive. All I need to do is the review a few reviews and that tells the tale.
Click to expand...
You are so right. But morally offensive doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t without merit. “Silence of the Lambs” (rated A-IV), “Mississsippi Burning” (rated A-IV), “Deliverance” (rated A-IV), and many others are movies that their subject matter and the plot always give me great consternation and the are about matters that I find morally offensive. But just because the subject matter is morally offensive doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t see it or the movie is not without merit.

Let me be clear. I have no intention of seeing the gay cowboy movie. But just because I consider the subject matter and storyline about a subject that is abjectively wrong (and the review said so), it doesn’t make the movie necessarily an “O” like “Pulp Fiction” or “Million Dollar Baby” were rightly categorized.

Since neither of us have seen the movie (and are unlikely to do so), I don’t think either of us are qualified to make the distinction between whether this movie is in the class of Pulp Fiction or Deliverance.

Edit: it looks like they have now determined that the movie is in the class of “Pulp Fiction” by giving in an “O”.

Now that it appears we all agree this is proper (even though none of us have seen the movie. 😃 ), can we also agree that it was improper for those original linked sites who commented on the USCCB’s review as characterizing the USCCB’s view of the movie as “love” and “glowing.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top