Maybe I'm being charitable, but eeaush, I've laughed at moments like that. It's like you don't know how to react and laughter comes easiest
Yes, this. You see a world of hurt and a world of pain and it's very much an "ohhhhh, fuck" moment, but the contrast between the two portrayed emotions is so great that there's not much room to do anything else.
Do you think Twist was a predator? And do you think having gay kids automatically confers credibility?
I haven't seen the movie. I'm friendly with the Shalits -- he doesn't have a problem with gay people.
I'm friendly with the Shalits.
Then citing your knowledge of Gene carries more weight than any assumption that having gay children automatically confers you with sense or sensitivity, doesn't it?
edited to match edit:
he doesn't have a problem with gay people.
I'd be curious to know why he read the movie so weirdly.
ita, this isn't debate team and I didn't necessarily want to get into a name droppy this is my friend thing.
Eh, its his opinon. He's reviewed movies for forty years, some of them are going to be weird.
At least from me, "I know Gene and he's not homophobic" would have generated
less
debate from me. How the hell can you argue with that?
Done deal.
What I meant was "Then citing your knowledge of Gene carries more weight than any assumption that having gay children automatically confers you with sense or sensitivity, doesn't it?" was sorta... pedantic? bossy? something a debate coach would say? whatever.
I'd rather say the likely googlelable "his kid is gay" than give a personal anecdote, so I tried to avoid it.
I don't care about coaching anyone to argue better, Trudy. That would be weird. I am probably over-invested in finding out why people present the information they do. Because it tells me more about the topic at hand, and that is, after all, what's at hand.
I was trying to work out why his kid being gay was relevant. I still have no idea if it was, but if this isn't something you want to discuss, no matter.
Nah, that's cool. Sorry I got touchy -- I was upset when I read it because I'm fond of them but I didn't want to say that for some reason.
I think GLAAD saying:
"Shalit's bizarre characterization of Jack as a 'predator' and Ennis ( Heath Ledger) as a victim reflects a fundamental lack of understanding about the central relationship in the film and about gay relationships in general"
and
"Shalit has every right as a film critic to criticize Brokeback Mountain, but his baseless branding of Jack as a 'sexual predator' merely because he is romantically interested in someone of the same sex is defamatory, ignorant and irresponsible."
along with demanding retractions and firings etc is a bit much considering if you Google "Shalit son gay" or "Gene Shalit gay" you see the article he wrote for the Advocate, that he's a member of P-Flag, that he contributed to a book called "Out of the Closets, Into our Hearts."
Good God. I didn't even know Uwe Boll had another movie coming out. And it's got Ben Kingsley and Michael Madsen in it! WTF? Hadn't they heard of Boll? (I'm not going to ask if they'd seen his previous work.)