Shawshank Redemption
Firebird
I my Sunday paper there was an article about the film "The Shawshank
Redemption" enjoying an unusual resurgence in video sales and rentals - even
though it did poorly with the critics and at the box office when it was
first released. (The paper is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - I tried to find
a link to the article on their web site, but none exists - sorry.) The gist
of the article was that it topped rentals last year or something like that
(I don't have the paper in front of me right now.) A commentator attributed
that to it having a positive message in a time when so many movies are
negative, but I think he missed the boat.
The movie is about a man falsely accused of killing his wife finally finding
his way to freedom in the midst of a very corrupt legal system solely by his
own efforts and after decades of never giving up. Besides being a damn good
story (adapted from a Steven King novella), I think the movie strikes a
chord with many men who have been forced to endure twenty years of having
their good names dragged in the mud culturally and having their rights as
fathers and husbands decimated legally. I saw the movie when it first came
out and was knocked out by it. I thought it said tremendous things about
the human spirit, but I also thought I was pretty much alone in that
feeling. This article lets me know that I am not.
Have any of you guys seen this film? Of those of you who have, did you get
a similar impression from it. I'm curious. I'm wondering if this little
phenomenon is about people finding their way to a positive message about men
through the current dense cultural fog of anti-male chaff. Wouldn't that be
a great thing?
Firebird
Pargeon
>Have any of you guys seen this film? Of those of you who have, did you get
>a similar impression from it. I'm curious. I'm wondering if this
little>phenomenon is about people finding their way to a positive message about
men>through the current dense cultural fog of anti-male chaff. Wouldn't that
be
>a great thing?
>
I'm not sure that this film had anything to say about men in
general. The film could just as easily had two female stars and it would have
been a great film. However, it is one of my favorite movies, and there's not
one woman in it. It was a noble film about perserverance and comradery; it
was one of my top ten.
>Firebird
>
>
></PRE></HTML>
Pargeon: "No Biblical Hell could be worse than the state of perpetual
indifference."
from "The Honest Courtesan" by Margaret Rosenthal.
alic...@my-dejanews.com
> I'm not sure that this film had anything to say about men in
> general. The film could just as easily had two female stars and it
> would have been a great film. However, it is one of my favorite
> movies, and there's not one woman in it. It was a noble film
> about perserverance and comradery; it was one of my top ten.
I enjoyed the picture as well but one line sticks with me that really
detracts from the movie. It went:
Andy: Tell me something. Would it help if I explained to them
I'm not homosexual.
Red: Neither are they. You have to be human first. They don't
qualify.
The writers were so paranoid of offending gays that they had to point
out that only heterosexuals can be inhuman and that this band of
male-rapping nuts where straight not gay. Yea, right. The movie had
to keep with the standard Hollywood theme: only heterosexual, white
males can be portrayed as criminal.
> Pargeon: "No Biblical Hell could be worse than the state of >
perpetual indifference."
> from "The Honest Courtesan" by Margaret Rosenthal.
O'Reilly Enright
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Pargeon
>From: alic...@my-dejanews.com
>Date: 5/17/99 7:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7hp93o$g0o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <19990516234010...@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
>
>> I'm not sure that this film had anything to say about men in>> general.
The film could just as easily had two female stars and it
>> would have been a great film. However, it is one of my favorite> movies,
and there's not one woman in it. It was a noble film
>> about perserverance and comradery; it was one of my top ten.
>
>I enjoyed the picture as well but one line sticks with me that really>detracts
from the movie. It went:
>
>Andy: Tell me something. Would it help if I explained to them I'm not
homosexual.
>
>Red: Neither are they. You have to be human first. They don't qualify.
>
>The writers were so paranoid of offending gays that they had to point>out that
only heterosexuals can be inhuman and that this band of>male-rapping nuts where
straight not gay. Yea, right. The movie had
>to keep with the standard Hollywood theme: only heterosexual, white
>males can be portrayed as criminal.
>
you apparently did.
To me, the "inhumanity" would have had nothing whatsoever to do with being
"male", and everything to do with be being brutal.
alic...@my-dejanews.com
par...@aol.com (Pargeon) wrote:
> >I enjoyed the picture as well but one line sticks with me that
> >really detracts from the movie. It went:
> >
> >Andy: Tell me something. Would it help if I explained to them
> > I'm nothomosexual.
> >
> >Red: Neither are they. You have to be human first.
> > They don't qualify.
> >
>
> >The writers were so paranoid of offending gays that they had to
> >point out that only heterosexuals can be inhuman and that this band
> > of male-rapping nuts where straight not gay. Yea, right. The
> >movie had to keep with the standard Hollywood theme: only
> >heterosexual, white males can be portrayed as criminal.
> I don't get it? I would have taken that line, much differently
> than you apparently did. To me, the "inhumanity" would have had
> nothing whatsoever to do with being "male", and everything to do
> with be being brutal.
My point is that if you encountered a gang of men who were noted only
for gang rapping other men the observer would logically come to the
conclusion that the gang comprised of gay men.
What Red was saying is that to be gay you have to be human first.
I am of the belief that both gay and straight persons can act horribly,
but the writers wanted to go out of their way to make sure the viewer
knew that these men were in fact straight.
Maybe you remember the movies Cruising and Basic Instinct. These movies
had gay characters doing bad things which resulted in huge protests.
The current political climate means that, I would estimate, 98% of all
criminals and generally bad people portrayed in the media are hetero,
white males.
> Pargeon: "No Biblical Hell could be worse than the state of
> perpetualindifference."
> from "The Honest Courtesan" by Margaret Rosenthal.
O'Reilly Enright
Pargeon
>Message-id: <7huj8d$482$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <19990517140851...@ng-fs1.aol.com>,
> par...@aol.com (Pargeon) wrote:
>
>> >I enjoyed the picture as well but one line sticks with me that> >really
detracts from the movie. It went:
>> >
>> >Andy: Tell me something. Would it help if I explained to them
>> > I'm nothomosexual.
>> >
>> >Red: Neither are they. You have to be human first.
>> > They don't qualify.
>> >
>>
>> >The writers were so paranoid of offending gays that they had to
>> >point out that only heterosexuals can be inhuman and that this band
>> > of male-rapping nuts where straight not gay. Yea, right. The
>> >movie had to keep with the standard Hollywood theme: only
>> >heterosexual, white males can be portrayed as criminal.
>
>> I don't get it? I would have taken that line, much differently>> than
you apparently did. To me, the "inhumanity" would have had
>> nothing whatsoever to do with being "male", and everything to do>> with be
being brutal.
>
>My point is that if you encountered a gang of men who were noted only>for gang
rapping other men the observer would logically come to the>conclusion that the
gang comprised of gay men.
>
>What Red was saying is that to be gay you have to be human first.>I am of the
belief that both gay and straight persons can act horribly,
>but the writers wanted to go out of their way to make sure the viewer>knew
that these men were in fact straight.
It is well known that straight men do rape and/or gang rape other
men in prison, right?
>
>Maybe you remember the movies Cruising and Basic Instinct. These movies
>had gay characters doing bad things which resulted in huge protests.
Ah.....I see. Ok.... Well, from what I've heard, the majority
of male prison rape
is done by men who consider themselves straight, but I'm quite sure that some
of those who do so must be gay. IOW, I don't think evil is limited to
straight men or men at all.
>
>The current political climate means that, I would estimate, 98% of
all>criminals and generally bad people portrayed in the media are hetero,>white
males.
>
Nah. I don't think so. However, if you consider that 98% of
the films made are about white people......it would stand to reason, would it
not that a huge percentage of evildoers would be white? I would personally
LIKE TO SEE women portrayed more realistically in the media. Not all women
are whores or madonnas. I guess that's why I enjoy some of the characters on
Ally McBeal.
Ally is a fruitcake.....like the biscuit.....Ling is a wicked witch......the
secy is a tramp......we also have the good wife .....and .....who am I missing?
Pargeon
>From: "R. McPherson" <rjmc...@rigel.oac.uci.edu>
>Date: 5/19/99 10:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Pine.SOL.4.05.990519...@rigel.oac.uci.edu>
>
>x-no-archive: yes
> [discussing Shawshank Redemption the point was made:]
>:[the writers wanted to go out of their way to make sure the viewer]
> [was under the misimpression that the people actively engaging in
> [homesexual sex acts were non-homosexual or non-bisexual] [snipped]
>:
>On 19 May 1999, Pargeon nonsense opens her own can of worms:
>
>: It is well known that straight men do rape and/or gang
rape>other
>:men in prison, right?
>: Ah.....I see. Ok.... Well, from what I've heard,
the>majority
>:of male prison rape
>:is done by men who consider themselves straight, but I'm quite sure that
>some
>:of those who do so must be gay. IOW, I don't think evil is limited to
>:straight men or men at all.
>
homosexual>experience.
So, you must then assume that a person who has one homosexual
union IS A HOMOSEXUAL?
By definition. Prisoners engaging willingly in homosexual sex>acts but also
willing to participate in heterosexual acts are by definition>bisexual persons.
The behavior is the definition. Learn some psychology.
>
I don't agree. For example, if you are raped by a man, YOU
have engaged in a homosexual act, but that does NOT make you bi-sexual. And,
if you have perpetrated one homosexual act THAT does not make you bi-sexual.
A bi-sexual person enjoys and facilitates having sex with both genders....as a
matter of routine. Otherwise you'd have to call Ann Frank a bi-sexual since
she admitted to touching the breasts of another girl. You're just plain silly.
>But by trying to pretend that homosexual sex acts are also
heterosexual>behavior, Parg has opened a can of worms. Let me explain.
>
YOU couldn't "explain" your self out of a plain brown wrapper.
>Point blank. Homosexuality may have several forms.
All sexuality has many forms.
1. There may be a>biological basis due to a mismatch between brain
organization and genitalia>resulting from imbalanced neurohormonal cues that
control brain
>differentiation early during in utero development. This sort of in utero
>developmental anomaly would be expected to occur at about 1% or less and
>could be triggered by many environmental stressors.
.....and that changes MY argument how?
2. There may be
>social homosexuality in that humans have the capacity to over-ride
natural>behavioral programs and do extraordinary behaviors (e.g.
self-mutilation,>piercing, tatoos, altruism, et al). This type of homosexual
behavior
>would be temporary and may be more evident in young persons still searching
>for an identity.
IOW....an act that is not typically het...
does not turn someone into a homosexual.
Isn't that what I said.?
3. Situational homosexuality is the type of homosexual>behavior evident in
prisons.
There is no "situational homosexuality"; there are only
situational homosexual acts. Those acts can be performed by someone who is
heterosexual.
One such act does not MAKE ONE homosexual no matter how McPherson wishes that
were the case. Rape, being an act of power, is not quite the same as willing
sex, being an act of sex.
Both male and female prisoners engage in
>situational homosexuality.
Thedesire for and the pursuit of homosexuality is what makes one
homosexual; raping or being raped in prison does not. Therin lies the
difference.
The situation forces some type of adaptation to>the uni-sex social
environment.
Actually, prison rape isn't about
sexual adaptation as much as it's about power and control. (much like any
other rape). Of course, when inmates enjoy CONSENTUL SEX in prison....that is
another matter. And, of course, that isn't what we were discussing.
In women's prisons almost every single
>female pairs up with another and lives as a lesbian pair for the duration>of
the term.
That's a crock. In women's prisons
.....if you want the truth, the women form groups with common interests. Much
like the mens prisons, groups are often segregated by race and education level.
Lesbians also tend to group together, and there is very little female on
female sexual assault. There are other forms of violence.
Once released, these women can deliberately find and select a>male to marry
and have children with thus returning to their heterosexual>behaviors.
Where do you get your stats? <G>
This must be a het prisoner's fantasy.
The women prisoners engage in the homosexuality more readily>than do the male
prisoners.
All women are more homosexual than all males. Men just haven't
caught onto that yet. <G.>
Some male prisoners deliberately assume female>personas while incarcerated as
a similar adaptation.
Do you have some degree ....or some factual basis from which you
are taking this crappola? Some prisoners HAVE a submissive persona already,
and others may choose to take on such a persona to be protected. That, alone,
does not make that person a homosexual regardless of the acts.
Being paired is safer
>than being unpaired in these situations.
That is true. Groups also have more influence than individuals.
Yet, being part of a pair doesn't make one a homosexual either.
>
>But the point stands, no matter how many deconstructive goofballs try
to>redefine psychology, that willingly engaging in homosexual sex is
by>definition expression of homosexuality and homosexual behavior.
>
Homosexual sex acts may or may NOT BE an "expresion of homosexual
behavior"
.......Rape is an expression of rage...power and control. Even male elephants
"rutt" the dead body of an enemy male they have just killed.
I wonder if McPherson thinks that makes those elephants homosexual? <G>