Shalit's Brokeback Review

[Gemini Cricket]

I got an email from GLAAD about Gene Shalit's review on the Today Show of 'Brokeback Mountain'. I'm not sure how I feel about both sides of the argument at hand.

On Jan. 5, NBC News' Today show featured Gene Shalit's review of Brokeback Mountain on his regular "Critic's Corner" segment. Rather than focus on the merits of the film, Shalit — who has been a Today show regular for 31 years — used the occasion to promote defamatory anti-gay prejudice to a national audience.
In the piece, Shalit refers to Jake Gyllenhaal's character, Jack, as a "sexual predator" who "tracks Ennis down and coaxes him into sporadic trysts."

Source

1. I don't think Shalit understood what he was watching. If Jack's the predator, he certainly could have been stopped physically by Ennis at any time. They showed the scene where Ennis decked him... The relationship was concentual.

2. Is it anti-gay to say that you felt Gyllenhaal's character was a predator? Althought I appreicate their organization, I feel that GLAAD is overreacting a bit.

3. Shalit focused a lot on this and only this in his whole review. I thought he was a film critic? What about the script, the actresses playing the wives, the cinematograhy, the dialogue etc? He mentions Ledger's performance but the review lacked alot...

4. Is this a publicity stunt to generate some controversy about the film? Being that Shalit has a gay son, he wrote about it in this article and he's doesn't sound anti-gay in it. Were the producers of the film hoping that some sort of controversy about the subject matter would help promote the film and when none surfaced they tried to develop some? (It's a stretch but it does happen.)

At one point, Shalit says he doesn't praise the film. But he never says why outside of his impression of the Gyllenhaal chatacter.

Watching it a second and third time, he does sound anti-gay, but is he?

Watch the review and see what you think. It's in the Source link above...

[scaeagles]

There are organizations that consider criticism of Pat Robertson to be criticism of Christianity in general. Calling Pat Robertson an idiot does not mean that all Christians are idiots. I would liken that to this situation. Criticism of what Shalit said by GLAAD certainly follows along the same line.

Calling the character a sexual predator does not mean - nor do I even think it is implied - that all gay men are sexual predators. He called a character in the movie one.

I think GLAAD is overreacting. The problem with overreacting is that most people know you are, and then when something deserves legitimate criticism and you offer such, the memory of your previous overreaction is there and can lessen the impact of the legitimate criticism.

[Ponine]

I also think GLADD is over reacting, but in a way I agree with Shallit.

Though, I think that he saw the movie through his vision.

I agree, I think Jack was a sexual predator.
I think Ennis was the physically stronger of the two men, and that Ennis had problems dealing with rage, and they manifested physically.
But, when matched with Jack, I dont know that he had the power to physically over power him.

However, a predator does not mean gay. Not at all. There are plenty of straight predators.

I want to go forth with that comment, but... I'll just sound like a total dork. All in all, I think plenty of folks are over reacting.

[innerSpaceman]

Pfft, Shalit's fag son should have explained to him that the no-nonsense approach to sexual courtship common among gay men (who all know that their potential partner shares the male libido) is not the same style as is commonly practiced among breeders (where one half is the oft-demurrer [or demurrer for the sake of not seeming a slut] female).

As such, perhaps Jake's move to grab his paramour's hand and place it squarely upon his hard <o<k would seem predatory in such dainty romances as "Pride & Prejudice" or "Titanic," but is merely standard man-style courtship in a gay romance such as 'Brokeback.'


The approach will simply not work in male/female romances (even of the unusual kind ... imagine this approach in "King Kong," for example) ... but is perfectly appropriate for male/male tearjerkoffs, er, tearjerkers.

[MickeyLumbo]

hmm. and i always thought Shalit was gay, wore bare-bottom leather chaps at home on the weekends and groomed his walrus mustache in front of the mirror.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Well, there's a mental image that will be hard to erase.

[innerSpaceman]

Which? Gene Shalit in chaps grooming his walrus? Or Kong grabbing Ann Darrow and placing her entire body squarely on his hard <o<k?

[Gemini Cricket]

Shalit clarifies himself.

"I certainly had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone in the gay community or on the community itself. I regret any emotional hurt that may have resulted from my review of 'Brokeback Mountain.'"

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, that's great. Now if he would only go back and watch the film called "Brokeback Mountain" instead of whatever freaking movie he thinks he saw. Ya know, the one where it's Ennis who is the more sexually aggressive of the two, notwithstanding that he didn't make the very first move.

[scaeagles]

I find it ridiculous that he had to apologize anyway.

I honestly do not understand what the problem was with it. I'm not trying to be stupid, but I don't get it.