Centerfield

It suggests to me that a successful Centrist Platform should include something along the lines of "live and let live".

Shame that BROKEBACK's such a depressing movie, with such ham-handed symbolism. But those are pretty much Ang Lee's trademark. Still, one of the best-made films I've seen in quite a while, with a great script and some fantastic performances.

This is, in fact, the most sinister gay agenda of all. Normalcy. Lack of fear. Happiness. The right to be miserably in love just like everyone else and have it recognized by the culture as, well, no big deal.

Bingo. What nerve, wanting to be people! How dare they?

Heh...I blogged on this too:

Item #42 on the gay agenda can be checked off the list.

I do have a bone to pick with the promoters of this flick, though, a point of gross misrepresentation. Those boys are NOT "cowboys." They're freakin' sheepherders.

NO self-respecting cowboy would be caught dead herding sheep. He'd rather steal cars or rob liquor stores. Hell, he'd rather turn street tricks in Hollyweird and die of AIDS. I mean, everyone knows about them shephards. Being gay ain't nothin'...if they're doin' each other at least they're not as preverted as most shephards.

I can hardly wait for the internet spoof films, where the man and the sheep keep meeting back up every few years, just to say "I love ewe!"

LOL! Reminds me of what used to be said about mine auld sod;
"Scotland...where men are men and the sheep are nervous."

Of course, they also tell the old one about "Dead? I thought she was English!" but that's another story.

the wild west version is:

The wild west (or Iowa), where mem are men and sheep are scared.

Of course then the observation is: are teh pant legs tucked into the boots or not?

hmmm...21st century version,
The Wild West, where men are men and PETA has camcorders?

Those boys are NOT "cowboys." They're freakin' sheepherders.

You mean it should have been titled "Baaback Mountain"?

Yeah, Marcus & Jean, we better stop there before we really devolve. Full disclosure--in my youth I worked a winter season on a cattle ranch in the high country. If there was any gay rendezvousin' going on, it was kept very quiet indeed, because I sure never heard about it. The "nervous sheep" joke is universal (and always about a neighboring state). And cattle ranchers purely hate sheep. Goes back to the range wars.

If two sheepherders walked into a cattleman's bar and called themselves cowboys, they'd be laughed out the door with a chorus of "Baaaa's." If they were lucky. Seriously. But they wouldn't. They'd call themselves "ranch hands." Nowadays they probably wouldn't be ridiculed, just somewhat shunned. Unless they kept coming back. Kinda like sailors who insist on visiting Army bars, it's a self-correcting thing.

Anyway, to veer back to the thread, that's just nitpicking at the clueless promoters and pundits. I'm not in the least surprised the movie is playing well in the 'burbs. It's edgy and serious and original, a quality film, all my whining about Lee's ham-handed symbolism aside. After years of blow-em-up pablum and poorly-written poorly-produced regurgitated Hollywood crap, serious movie audiences are positively starved for quality original films. Look how well Master and Commander did. It would've won Best Picture if not for Lord of the Rings. (And Paul Bettany remains one of the most under-appreciated actors working today.)

The American movie-going public is a lot more serious and sophisticated than the pop-culture moguls and political pundits assume. The moguls and pundits have been in their own echo chambers too long. The only major demographic really psychically threatened by BROKEBACK is the 18-34 hetero male, and only that portion insecure in their masculinity and/or sexuality. Not a he-man buddy movie (audiencewise, that is!). But since it's essentially a depressingly tragic "love story," it wouldn't be anyway. So the only adult demographic that's lacking is one that it would be lacking anyway if it were a depressingly tragic hetero love story, like Romeo and Juliet. Good litmus-test "date" movie, maybe.

In the public chatter, of course, the wings heterodyne each other with their moron memes, both personal and projective, and then are shocked when the public at large doesn't fit into the nice little stereotypes.

Marcus, are you sure "affluential' is a wprd? After all, affluent is already an adjective.

Since there's been some crabbing about Brokeback, I'm sort of surprised that there hasn't been any about the Aristocrats. For those of you unfamiliar, it's about a longstanding joke that uses a very simple bookend as a device for any comedian to improve as extended an exploration of utter depravity as possible.

Not for the sensitive or the faint of heart. Scatalogical only begins to describe it. Personally, I found it very fascinating, as it touches upon what the true nature of comedy is and comedians are, in a pretty dark way.

What's pretty interesting was the studious ignoring of the film by some of the more louder mouths on the right until they realized how big this was. Then the insults and crass remarks came and went. They went really fast too when they found that there was little audience resonance with such remarks. No doubt the naysayers and homophobes will be back around the time of the Oscars, but like I said, I think this is one of those social tipping points. What happens after will be one of the few good things to come out of this decade.

Tully, you're right about quality. But even quality films aren't immune to the knee jerk reactions to test audiences by nervous studio execs. Case in point, the current version of Pride and Prejudice - a marvelous film by the way - has the ending of the two lovers at the estate going goo goo eyes by firelight. Yuuuuucccchhhhh!
You will only find that version in the US. Everywhere else it ends w/ the Keira Knightly/Donald Sutherland scene.

Every year since 1980 I've been worked at the Mill Valley Film festival. It's a treat to get immersed in great films, independent videos and of course there's the food and the parties and things like getting Donald Sutherland's autograph or meeting Dick Cavett or seeing Jonathon Winters and Robin Williams on stage during a tribute to the former.

Saw some great movies this past October like "The Lady from Sockholm" a pun filled film noir with sock puppets, Pride and Prejudice and The Matador where Pierce Brosnon totally deconstructs the his Bond mystique, with a vengeance, and Greg Kinnear is fantastic in it. (Ignore the little indy things like an airport in Mexico subbing for DIA).
There's another one from spain that was striking in it's originality and the ability of the director to use some of his friends in the cast - a true sign of an indy flick. The name escapes me and I'll have to look it up.

Festivals are really the best way to see independent movies that will never make it in the US or even on video. A few years back there was a great Italian movie called "The Cyclone" about a troupe of dancers who are stranded on a farm. Buena vista bought the rights and NEVER did anything with it.

If there are no nearby film festival you can always make your own. That's how the Mill Valley Film Festival started.

It is now, and that's the truthiness.

Marcus, can I now post the lunatic rambling e-mails that whacko leftists routinely send to anybody remotely conservative as representative of the entire left? Your San Francisco columnist posts his hate mail, which he then uses to tar all conservatives as "pseudo-Christians," "homophobes", and "sexually terrified". Not only that, but this nasty e-mail was spawned by his oh-so-rational column in which he alleges a "relentless neocon spiritual death wish, as evidenced by the imminent appointment of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, yet another male judge who, by all evidence, will do everything in his power to keep America's spiritual, humanitarian and sexual progress ... locked in the ironclad box of anti-women, anti-gay, power-uber-alles conservative thinking for the next three decades or more."

As far as I am aware, there have been no mass protests of the film, no boycotts, no campaigns to get theaters not to show the film. To me, it looks like Morford revels in victimology. He called his political opponents spiritually dead, intent on keeping this country in the last century, if not the middle ages, and he provoked a response in kind. Boo hoo... and he uses that e-mail from a few hotheads as evidence of the original theorem.\

Brokeback is a good movie, with a strong story and a message I found more understated than Tully did. But Morford would garner more supporters and converts to his side of the political aisle if he wasn't so whacko and antagonistic toward anyone who might possibly oppose any of his ideas. To me, the columns you quote so extensively are simply more evidence of how politically obnoxious much of the left has become.

Well maybe irf there weren't so many smorgasboard Christians there wouldn't be so much lunatic email for Morford to post. Remember, those are the ramblings of the right, not the left. If they write them then posting them is just gravy.

“We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee” Ann Coulter

I kind of have to agree with Marcus on this one. Not a single soul on Fox will admit seeing Brokeback, and on Imus, Chris Matthews referred to it as "Fudgepack" Mountain. Or maybe it was Imus. Whatever.

The point is, those in the journalistic field who portray themselves as "neutral" are doing their damndest to stay away from the flick, for whatever reason I can't fathom, other than that they're afraid they will alienate a small percentage of their viewers.

Ok, Marcus, just remember that principle next time somebody quotes one of the Kossacks or some other moonbat as representative of the left in general. If the right is stuck with their lunatic fringe, you are stuck with your lunatic fringe.

Pat, I dopn't think the right ever passed up such an opportunity.

As for the rest of this particular subject - a whole segment of American society slowly emerging from second class citizenship - I wonder if the right will look back at all the gay bashing with pride?
Take a look at what the GOP is trying to do in Virginia and other state, outlaw not only gay marriage but domestic partnerships as well.
They want to outlaw the ability of private firms to provide marriage style benefits to their employees. Do you know what that is? Savage bigotry, pure and simple. A bunch of fucking homophobes in the state legislatures feeding off the hate of religious bigots - feeding off their money, their political machines, their votes. Now in this country that is their right. I acknowledge that. But you know what? Imagine if the Traditional Values Coalition spent 20 million dollars on teaching new mothers and fathers how to cope with the stresses of parenthood, how about a few bucks spent on prenatal and post natal care? How about a few dollars spent on 4 nurse's visits to new parents and old parents to check up on the kid(s)? How about real family issues?

Because bigotry sells and motivates the desired voting population. You know how sick that is?

Marcus,

I actually agree with you. It sounds like what's happening in Virginia is purely the Right's attempt to fire up the ultra-conservative base and get them excited for the next electoral season. That was very much their same position with the Harriet Miers nomination. Obvious legitimate doubts about her qualifications notwithstanding, they wanted a nominee who would excite the Right and infuriate the Left, thereby instigating the "culture war" that noth sides have desired. If they would dedicate the same amount of energy and resources to other matters, there would be much greater results for the American people.

Not that the Left doesn't do the exact same thing. Who knows how much money Planned Parenthood and NOW spent on "Stop Souter Or Women Will Die," but if that money had been better applied to, say, providing contraception or birth control education, then maybe there wouldn't be the need for a million abortions a year... Not that Souter turned out to be the right-wing ideologue they expected, but it was never really about that-- it was about firing up their extremist base and getting them excited.

Also, I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain (I'm currently in Korea, so I'm pretty much still watching whatever movies are out on DVD), but if it was a part of some ultra-liberal conspiracy to "mainstream" the gay agenda (as Bill O'Reilly has flat out said), someone forgot to let the Screen Actors Guild in on their role in the conspiracy-- Brokeback was just completely shut out at the SAG Awards...

And that's the problem with ideological politics, Marcus... "They do it too". and "I'll stop if they'll stop". And "the whole f**king lot of them are just evil." Because you refuse to recognize any differences among those with different politicial thinking than you, you lump them all together. Just as many people lump all of the left together.

If you ever want to succeed in actually changing people's minds, instead of just bitching, then chill out a bit and stop insisting that "the right" is some nasty monolithic entity, hell-bent on the destruction of anything which has ever been labelled "progressive". People can be persuaded by argument... even people who seem "ignorant" or "stupid". But not if you call them that.

Ok, guys, it's another CPD skirmish. Comparative Political Demonology. Your side is worse than our side because even though our side's zealots do the same sorts of things that your sides zealots do, your side does them more often and has more zealots who are fundamentally ignorant and mean-spirited.

The more I think about it, the more often I see it, the more convinced I am that an important first step in being a centrist is recognizing CPD, pointing out when others are playing it, and railing about its ultimate pointlessness. Or at least challenging the person who started it to come up with an objective scoring system. :-)

Isn't that what I said?

Brokeback is a good movie, with a strong story and a message I found more understated than Tully did.

I was speaking of the symbolism that most would never notice, Pat. The stunning glory and purity of the wilderness as backdrop for the original love between the characters (the "Garden" meme) corrupted by the return to society and civilization. The destruction of same and the inability to recapture the innocence and purity of the Beginning by returning to the Garden. The need that drives them to try. The sheep-as-society metaphor, with the lovers initially rising above the conformist flock, superior to it, but eventually being dragged down by it to their destruction. The descent into inevitable chaos.

As I said, depression and an atmosphere of impending doom and self-destruction via character flaws are Ang Lee's trademarks. For once he didn't put me to sleep with them. Seriously--I never could finish watching THE HULK, I thought ICE STORM was well-made but boring, and CROUCHING TIGER was overwrought, to be kind. BROKEBACK is his best film to date, IMHO, but I think a lot of that credit goes to the actors and to Ossana and McMurtry for a wonderful script. (I read Proulx's story when it first came out, and was completely unimpressed.)

I'd still swap five Ang Lees for one Tim Burton, any day--especially if the one Burton was BIG FISH. If I wanted to watch something depressing, I'd head straight for Clint Eastwood's serious directing efforts, like UNFORGIVEN or BIRD or MILLION DOLLAR BABY.

Oh, that symbolism... I tune all that sort of thing out when I go to the movies. If I want to think, I read a book. If I want to not think that deeply, I go to a movie... (oversimplifying my attitude a bit) These days I'm grateful when movies don't try to pound me over the head with some political talking point. Like every movie in which Alec Baldwin has played a "conservative" in full conspiracy-theorist mode.

Tully, we ought to start a weekly movie review post here. Make it a regular thing, maybe on Saturdays.

Weekly? LOL. We'd be lucky to get four movies a year worth more than a one-word review! "Sucks." "Ordinary." Etc.

There were and are some percentage of gay rights activists with radical agendas--those that dislike bougeous sexuality and see gays as being a subversive force against that. These are the people that oppose gay marriage because they think it's too bougeous (I can never spell that right!)That's a very, very small part of the gay community, of course, as the vast majority are bougeous to a fault. But, of course, it's the radicals on one side that inflame the radicals on the other.

When we see stories about hate crimes, does that mean that the country is racist or homophobic? Or just that there are racists and homophobes in the county?

Bourgeois

Oh, those dreadful masses, how terrible they are! All popular opinion must be wrong, simply because it is popular! We are better because we are DIFFERENT from the masses! We are more unique than everybody else.

It does rather put one in mind of all the rebellious kids at school, all being very non-comformist... in the very same way.

Pat--yeah, I think you were trying to do that. I guess the problem is that when one person starts up with CPD without being aware of what it is, any sort of response attempting balance either starts with or includes "what about your guys who also...blah blah. I'm still at a loss as to what approach is especially effective...

Bourgeois is a red flag word for me...it's usually a good signal that some sort of defense of an elitist anti-populist point of view is coming. When it rolls off someone's tongue as part of a critique, you can expect insensitive and derisive stereotypes to follow.

(kidding) Pat, I try not to use this word when I'm around you, so as not to reveal my ultimately paternalistic predilections.(end kidding) You might be surprised to know that I once got an editorial published (in the Globe I believe...long story...I never saw it in the Globe but I got a Vanity publisher's solicitation about it...) which asked why it was supposed to be fair to the notion of "public" art that art insiders and the intellectual elite got to act as the gatekeepers choosing virtually all of the public art that gets mandated and paid for on taxpayer dime. My argument is that the "council of eggheads" approach was in large part responsible for the prevalence of public art that baffled, failed to inspire, and even angered the average Joe, and that putting up more public art that everyday people liked might go some ways to restoring public confidence in government.

The piece you quoted had the film doing well in "Red-state strongholds like Pearl, Miss.; Lubbock, Texas; Ames, Iowa; and Ogden, Utah." I don't know about Pearl, but the other three are college towns; Texas Tech, Iowa State and Weber State respectively. College towns have more of an art-house atmosphere even if the state they're in's conservative.

By the way, Marc, in case my sarcasm was not working well today, I was definitely agreeing with you.

About the funniest takes on the Sheepherder/Cowboy controversy came from official gay cowboy advisor Randy Jones. Among his tips for Ledger and Gyllenhaal: "keep [your] hats and boots on in bed. The boots are for traction."

Monday morning is a good time for movie reviews, since most movie-watching happens on weekends. I am Ok with talking about 'em even if the connection to centrism is tenuous to nonexistent.

One recent film that stuck in my head was Kingdom of Heaven, not because it was super good or because it's historically accurate (I hear it's very much NOT), but because it really does have a pretty centrist view on the ages old muslim/christian conflict.

2 I saw this weekend:

The Aristocrats: Fascinating and very funny in some parts, but undeniably perverse and scatological. I expect many will find this utterly appalling and I am not even sure I disagree.

Lord of War: Awful. Avoid at all costs. Utterly predictable yet laughably implausible all at the same time. I couldn't even watch the whole thing....I had to bail when the plot predictably turned to the "just when I think I'm out they pull me back in" twist.

But it got me wondering about how many movies an intelligent person can watch before one becomes practically unentertainable. Spoiler alert......................... ...............................................................................
There's a point where Cage is talking to his uncle the Ukrainian General, and they show a shot of the general's car while Cage is talking about some bribe booty he put in the trunk. As soon as I saw it, I'm like "OK, the next time I see this car it will blow up." I was right of course. It was so ham-handed.

As an aside, what important crook wouldn't have remote auto-start on their Lincoln Town Car?

What Marc said. Both paragraphs.

Ok, Brian, you and I are hereby appointed as the official Centrist Movie Reviewers. Shall we imitate Siskel (RIP) & Ebert with the thumbs, or shall we rate them on a scale of moderateness?

Maybe a leftie movie could be given the pinky while a rightie movie could be given the thumb... Hmm... what would a centrist movie get, then? lol

(Upthread note for Jean: Just remember there's a big diff between calling country of origin "auld sod" and calling a person "old sod"....)

On the movies side - Good night and Good luck is highly recommended. Still showing in some theatrres. Corpse Bride is delicious, a taste of old fashioned stop motion animation that is bot imaginative and colorful.

Pat,
Sometimes passions can't be ignored. In my mind I still see the faces of several gay friends who had their faces bashed around by some deliberately hateful people. So in the course of fighting for what SHOULD be a given, equal rights, I make no apology. Yes I know honey is better than vinegar but you notice jalepenos a lot more than you notice corn starch.

Marcus, I have no problem with passionately opposing beatings and murder. Outright condemnation is the only appropriate reaction to such. The only problem I have is when that justified passion is twisted to use against mere political opponents. Only an extremely small minority of those who oppose, say, gay marriage, would support even quietly beating someone for any reason, including their sexual orientation. Linking the one to the other is counterproductive, rude, and just wrong. That's all I'm saying.

Just rattled off some good news over the past 10-12 years... falling crime rates, falling abortion rates, falling teen pregnancy rates. Nice back-handed acknowledgment of progress begun under the last administration.

Ok, that last post was supposed to have gone in the SOTU open thread...

Pat,

Two words: Emmet Till.

Most everyone acknowledges that if it was not for the Emmet Till murder that the timetable of civil rights for racial minorites would have been extended considerably longer. Passion is what drives change. Mine comes from many sources, not just the beatings of 2 friends. I have friends and neighbors who are restricted like second class citizens from being full participants and full citizens while self righteous religious demagogues clothe themselves in Armani and live the life of luxury spouting hate. That pisses me off.

As for twisting passions to suite political aims, that's directly out of the GOP playbook with guns, gays, abortion, taxes etc. So let's not be so blind as to what the other side has been doing all along.

I don't really care for Americans like those of the religious right who don't get what America is really about: Freedom.
They know the word, they just don't know the meaning. (and I include the fringe left too)
Instead they fight hammer and tong to limit freedom. They did so interracial marriage, saying it was against god's will. Of course segregation was the natural order of things and god's will too. THat's how my girlfirend got to grow up in a culture where it was whites only here and colored only there as late as 1968.

Maybe I can sum it up this way:

What part of 'All men are created equal' does the religious right not get? Is the word "All" beyond their comprehension? Or is there fine print somewhere?

and why are there still gay republicans? The GOP has no sense of fiscal restraint, is bent on government intrusion everywhere, etc. What issue is there left for a gay republican? Tax cuts?
Banning gay marriage? (Maybe they want to have more money and more sex.)

Marcus here teaches us that a zealot for any cause can twist any issue stance into a platform for centrists. With large majorities of ordinary Americans opposed to the innovation of "gay marriage" by activist judges, it is hard to think of any less likely position for a truly centrist stance. To the extent centrists embrace his stance, they will be self-marginalizing.

Marcus engages in savage bigotry, bashing and spouting of hatred of conservatives and religious people. His ignorance and intolerance of the majority with a different opinion, drives him to smear them collectively. He succeeds in stifling honest discussion. Yet the real opposition to "gay marriage" isn't some marginal zealot group, it is a simple majority of ordinary Americans -- especially including minorities such as blacks and latinos, and including large portions of the Democrat party.

If gay marriage is such a political winner, and the right side of history, why are Democrats in Maryland right now scrambling to postpone a vote on it so it doesn't come up during a major election? That's in a very liberal state, almost as liberal as Hawaii which overwhelmingly voted to ban gay marriage in their constitution.

How did the gay marriage issue come up so suddenly in Maryland, was it really opportunistic politicians manufacturing a wedge issue as Marcus accuses? Actually the timing was chosen by an activist Maryland judge, who formented the issue by making a gay marriage decree in the absence of any supporting legislation. 200 years of judges didn't notice the right she just found hidden in the text.

Many states such as Maryland, had avoided constitutional amendments banning gay marriage with the reasoning that defence of marriage laws are enough. Why pass a constitutional amendment, when there was no judicial threat to marriage? The judge in Maryland proves the threat is very real and must be dealt with by constitutional amendment, and not just in Maryland. Inventive judges in other states have acted similarly, in Massachusettes and Washington.

With large majorities of ordinary Americans opposed to the innovation of "gay marriage" by activist judges, it is hard to think of any less likely position for a truly centrist stance. To the extent centrists embrace his stance, they will be self-marginalizing.

ROTFLAO. we've had this argument before. Not if we are patient. I'm confident time will be on our side with this issue. As time passes, it is those who stick to denying the civil rights of homosexuals who will be self-marginalizing.

Like many other centrists, I'm willing to respect the will of the people on such issues if and when that will has been clearly and inarguably expressed and consitently manifested in all places where a states laws can be conceived to apply. But I know that the will of the people may not be stable over time.

I am not in favor of judges making up the law out of whole cloth, but neither am I willing to declare that judges may not make plausible rulings on the basis of the exact wording of a given state's laws and constitution. As we know, these vary from state to state, often by quite a bit. And different rules crafted at different times may even contradict. When such clashes arrive on a court's desk, they DO have to decide. That IS their job.

As Marcus points out, in our nation's past many things we now view as unquestionably wrong were the law of the land. Thank God the "self-marginalizing" minority forced the issue and helped moved the views of the "simple majority of Americans," as you put it.

Marcus, you can continue working to alienate everybody who doesn't agree with your opinion on this (and so many other) subject if you want, but it's not going to help change things very much.

I know very few people who are opposed to some type of civil union concept, to fixing specific inequities with benefits, end-of-life decisions, inheritance, joint property ownership, etc. If you're really concerned about the specific problems caused by lack of gay marriage (rejected by 60% of the voters even in places like Oregon), why not use your political energy to advocate specific policy changes short of that? Worry about the substance, not the label. Even President Bush said he supported civil unions in one of the debates. You may win gay "marriage" in 20 or 30 or 50 years by sticking to your vituperative guns. Mabye. But if you forget about the labels and focus on the substance, though, I suspect you can accomplish the same goals in 5 years or less.

Why I worked so hard on keeping the anti-gay marriage amendment off the ballot here for so long, Pat. I believe the courts will eventually end up throwing it out in my state, as through (very) poor construction it restricts the already-established legal rights of people neither gay nor married.

What's certain is that no progress will be made by fighting bigotry with bigotry, hate with hate. That's the wing problem in a nutshell. Lacking any ability to shift the opinions of their opposites, they are left with nothing but vituperation.

It's always easier to demonize the other wing than to actually work on persuading the middle.