![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
![]() |
![]()
The villification of "Brokeback Mountain" in some religious corners really has me mystified. Let's assume for sake of discussion that homosexuality is a thoroughly imoral and indefensible way of life (not my own view; I believe homosexuality is an ummutable characteristic, but that's beside the point here). Heterosexuals can't claim to have much insight into what it's like to be gay. What's wrong with a work of art capturing or attempting to capture that perspective? Isn't that one of the purposes of serious art, to give us insight about what's foreign or strange to us? This reminds me of those people who criticized the film "The Downfall" because it too accurately depicted Hitler's human side (suffering in the bunker, being kind to his dog and such), complaining that he should forever remain simply a one dimensional symbol of unalloyed evil (I haven't read anywhere that the film was not quite historically accurate). Hitler is possibly the most loathsome person who ever lived, but I disagree with those criticisms of "The Downfall," on the same grounds that anyone who disaproves of the gay lifestyle ought still to disagree with condemnation of "Brokeback Mountain" on any grounds except artistic (I'm not equating gays with Nazis here, obviously).
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|