IF tom cruise is gay or bisexual......
Sugarstreetz
fan?
T. Tom Martin
I won't see his movies either way.
Sugarstreetz <sugars...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010503150452...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
rande...@aol.com
a Scientologist than if he was gay.
-Rich
On 03 May 2001 19:04:52 GMT, sugars...@aol.com (Sugarstreetz)
wrote:
Norman Wilner
>
> Personally, I'm more likely not to see his movies because
> he's a Scientologist than if he was gay.
Well, you have to have priorities.
Norm "He's short, you know" Wilner
Starweek Magazine
http://www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd
Sidney Falco
"I don't mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy." -- Samuel Butler
Trevor Gensch
(Sugarstreetz), so I thought I would reply to a post he made on 03 May
2001 19:04:52 GMT:
>if tom cruise is gay, would you still go see his movies? would you still be a
>fan?
I would find it difficult to believe him playing a hetrosexual
character, rather like Anne Heche playing the Harrison Ford love
interest stretches the believability somewhat.
Trev.
--
It is only by cotoyant excesses that one finds freedom
Newsgroup statistics
http://web.one.net.au/~trevorgensch/stats.htm
John Harkness
<tre...@consultant.com> wrote:
>Nobody really reads the posts from sugars...@aol.com
>(Sugarstreetz), so I thought I would reply to a post he made on 03 May
>2001 19:04:52 GMT:
>
>>if tom cruise is gay, would you still go see his movies? would you still be a
>>fan?
>
>I would find it difficult to believe him playing a hetrosexual
>character, rather like Anne Heche playing the Harrison Ford love
>interest stretches the believability somewhat.
>
>
>Trev.
>
>--
Why? Heche had heterosexual relationships before Ellen -- she lived
with Steve Martin before DeGeneres -- and is apparently in one now.
John Harkness
Trevor Gensch
so I thought I would reply to a post he made on Fri, 04 May 2001
04:35:46 GMT:
>>
>>>if tom cruise is gay, would you still go see his movies? would you still be a
>>>fan?
>>
>>I would find it difficult to believe him playing a hetrosexual
>>character, rather like Anne Heche playing the Harrison Ford love
>>interest stretches the believability somewhat.
>>
>>
>>Trev.
>>
>>--
>
>Why? Heche had heterosexual relationships before Ellen -- she lived
>with Steve Martin before DeGeneres -- and is apparently in one now.
I didn't know that. My only knowledge of Heche has been her lesbian
relationship with DeGeneres.
tim gueguen
"Trevor Gensch" <tre...@consultant.com> wrote in message
news:2mb4ft4a3l5t48afl...@4ax.com...
> Nobody really reads the posts from sugars...@aol.com
> (Sugarstreetz), so I thought I would reply to a post he made on 03 May
> 2001 19:04:52 GMT:
>
> >if tom cruise is gay, would you still go see his movies? would you still
be a
> >fan?
>
> I would find it difficult to believe him playing a hetrosexual
> character, rather like Anne Heche playing the Harrison Ford love
> interest stretches the believability somewhat.
I always find such claims rather peculiar. After all, we're talking about
actors, whose job is portraying people they aren't. No one would find say
Clint Eastwood unbelievable in the role of a US Marine simply because he was
never a marine.
tim gueguen 101867
Trevor Gensch
<ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca>, so I thought I would reply to a post he
made on Fri, 04 May 2001 05:31:43 GMT:
A fair enough comment - but an issue such as sexuality IMO runs deeper
than an occupation.
Lulu The Cow
<tre...@consultant.com> wrote:
>Nobody really reads the posts from j...@attcanada.ca (John Harkness),
>so I thought I would reply to a post he made on Fri, 04 May 2001
>04:35:46 GMT:
>
>
>>>
>>>>if tom cruise is gay, would you still go see his movies? would you still be a
>>>>fan?
>>>
>>>I would find it difficult to believe him playing a hetrosexual
>>>character, rather like Anne Heche playing the Harrison Ford love
>>>interest stretches the believability somewhat.
>>>
>>>
>>>Trev.
>>>
>>>--
>>
>>Why? Heche had heterosexual relationships before Ellen -- she lived
>>with Steve Martin before DeGeneres -- and is apparently in one now.
>
>I didn't know that. My only knowledge of Heche has been her lesbian
>relationship with DeGeneres.
And the question still persists... Why is it hard to imagine Heche
playing a straight character? Is it hard to imagine a straight actor
playing the role of a gay character?
Cheers,
Todd "Mmmmm... I wonder...." McNeeley
.
email: mcneeley at enteract dot com
Lulu The Cow
<tre...@consultant.com> wrote:
>Nobody really reads the posts from "tim gueguen"
><ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca>, so I thought I would reply to a post he
>made on Fri, 04 May 2001 05:31:43 GMT:
>
>>
>>"Trevor Gensch" <tre...@consultant.com> wrote in message
>>news:2mb4ft4a3l5t48afl...@4ax.com...
>>> Nobody really reads the posts from sugars...@aol.com
>>> (Sugarstreetz), so I thought I would reply to a post he made on 03 May
>>> 2001 19:04:52 GMT:
>>>
>>> >if tom cruise is gay, would you still go see his movies? would you still
>>be a
>>> >fan?
>>>
>>> I would find it difficult to believe him playing a hetrosexual
>>> character, rather like Anne Heche playing the Harrison Ford love
>>> interest stretches the believability somewhat.
>>
>>I always find such claims rather peculiar. After all, we're talking about
>>actors, whose job is portraying people they aren't. No one would find say
>>Clint Eastwood unbelievable in the role of a US Marine simply because he was
>>never a marine.
>
>A fair enough comment - but an issue such as sexuality IMO runs deeper
>than an occupation.
The problem is simply that you think it is an issue at all...
Cheers,
Todd "Hmmmm... Still wondering..." McNeeley
tWD
<tre...@consultant.com> wrote:
>Nobody really reads the posts from "tim gueguen"
><ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca>, so I thought I would reply to a post he
>made on Fri, 04 May 2001 05:31:43 GMT:
>
>>
>>"Trevor Gensch" <tre...@consultant.com> wrote in message
>>news:2mb4ft4a3l5t48afl...@4ax.com...
>>> Nobody really reads the posts from sugars...@aol.com
>>> (Sugarstreetz), so I thought I would reply to a post he made on 03 May
>>> 2001 19:04:52 GMT:
>>>
>>> >if tom cruise is gay, would you still go see his movies? would you still
>>be a
>>> >fan?
>>>
>>> I would find it difficult to believe him playing a hetrosexual
>>> character, rather like Anne Heche playing the Harrison Ford love
>>> interest stretches the believability somewhat.
>>
>>I always find such claims rather peculiar. After all, we're talking about
>>actors, whose job is portraying people they aren't. No one would find say
>>Clint Eastwood unbelievable in the role of a US Marine simply because he was
>>never a marine.
>
>A fair enough comment - but an issue such as sexuality IMO runs deeper
>than an occupation.
How do you feel about, say, William Hurt in Kiss Of The Spider Woman?
Or to pick a less OTT example, Martin Donovan in The Opposite Of Sex?
tWD
Ewan
Gay,Bi,Lesbian,black,asia.....etc
Sugarstreetz <sugars...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010503150452...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
R. Cohen
Yes, in theory you're absolutely correct, but we're talking about an actor and
their "sex" appeal right? It would be hard to imagine an actor as a "romantic"
lead if the orientation was known. It's doesn't mean they're not a good actor
and would still be able to play meaty substantial roles, but as a romantic lead,
it would be tougher to pull off
Reagen Sulewski
<k8l4ft0acgtrmsnme...@4ax.com>:
Or let's go with Tom Hanks in Philadelphia.
Van2bvoom
accept him as an action star if he is gay..
Evelyn C. Leeper
R. Cohen <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
> In article <39rI6.28532$L7.2...@news1.sshe1.sk.home.com>, tim gueguen says...
> >
> >
> >"Trevor Gensch" <tre...@consultant.com> wrote in message
> >news:2mb4ft4a3l5t48afl...@4ax.com...
> >> Nobody really reads the posts from sugars...@aol.com
> >> (Sugarstreetz), so I thought I would reply to a post he made on 03 May
> >> 2001 19:04:52 GMT:
> >>
> >> >if tom cruise is gay, would you still go see his movies? would you still
> >be a
> >> >fan?
> >>
> >> I would find it difficult to believe him playing a hetrosexual
> >> character, rather like Anne Heche playing the Harrison Ford love
> >> interest stretches the believability somewhat.
> >
> >I always find such claims rather peculiar. After all, we're talking about
> >actors, whose job is portraying people they aren't. No one would find say
> >Clint Eastwood unbelievable in the role of a US Marine simply because he was
> >never a marine.
>
> their "sex" appeal right? It would be hard to imagine an actor as a "romantic"
> lead if the orientation was known. It's doesn't mean they're not a good actor
> and would still be able to play meaty substantial roles, but as a romantic lead,
> it would be tougher to pull off
Silly me, I thought we were talking about their acting.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
Just because the person who criticizes you is an idiot does not make him
wrong. -- Roger Rosenblatt
Jeffrey Davis
>
> i think tom cruise and his team are more worried that the male audience won't
> accept him as an action star if he is gay..
Akilleus says Hey.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> I'm covered with beeeezzz!!
Dawn Taylor
<no_spam@my_server.com> wrote:
>And the question still persists... Why is it hard to imagine Heche
>playing a straight character? Is it hard to imagine a straight actor
>playing the role of a gay character?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Todd "Mmmmm... I wonder...." McNeeley
I know that when I saw "Flawless" I just couldn't get the horrible,
nasty, disgusting thought out of mind that Phillip Seymour Hoffman
really prefers sex with girls.
Dawn
(oh the horror)
----------
Portland, Oregon: Where it rains frequently, the coffee is
plentiful, and drivers merge as if they're being paid to be stupid.
-- KNRK-FM DJ Daria O'Neill
http://www.ourtownmag.com/film.html
http://www.dvdjournal.com
Sawfish
>Personally, I'm more likely not to see his movies because he's
>a Scientologist than if he was gay.
>-Rich
But what if he's a gay Scientologist?
What then, huh?
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wha's yo name, fool?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish
I don't think that there's a logical answer to that in part because logic
doesn't enter into the suspension of disbelief we extend to an actor's
efforts to portray his/her role.
Let's see: let me translate that so that even I can understad it:
We don't logically question that Mel Gibson can be a suicidal cop in
Lethal Weapon. There is no basis for thinking that he might ever be such.
There is also no real basis for think that he is not at least suicidal, or
has been at some point, if not interested in police work. That sort of
stuff doesn't "show". Look at the Robert Downey thread if you need food
for thought.
So, at some level we conclude that Gibson may not be a policeman, and
might not have ever entertained a single suicidal thought, but drawing
upon our own life experiences and projecting them upon Gibson, we figure
that he thought about the issue of suicide, and what a polcieman's lfe
must be like, enough to be able to convincingly imagine them and their
impact on the character he portrays.
The case of sexuality is at least *perceived* by the general viewership
not to fall in this category. The viewership may think that having a known
lesbian in an intimate heterosexual embrace is not convincing because they
don't think that she can imagine that the film embrace could be an
expression of passion. Rather like a known vegan being asked to portray
King Henry VIII at table. The actor can succeed at this to the degree that
his actual life preferences are NOT known by the viewers.
For those who wish to point out yet again that Heche has had multiple
heterosexual relationships, I'd plead that most viewers don't know this:
if they did, perhaps they'd find her portrayal as the main heterosexual
love interest more believable. And of course, if the viewers knew nothing
at all about her personal life, she could rely entirely on her acting
skills, with the viewers bringing no preconceived baggage to the theatre
with them.
In parting, I'd like you to consider if the viewers who watched Ned Beatty
being sodomized in Deliverance would view his performance differently if
he was well-known as a homosexual before his portrayal.
Sawfish
Eveything is an issue, Todd. Everything is subject to individual analysis
and interpretation. The only question being what methodology is used in
the analysis, how consistently it is applied, and by what cultural norms
the result is judged.
Sawfish
If I knew for sure that Hurt was not gay, I'd find his portrayal
laughable. He pulled it off because his private life is private enough so
that he can rely on his skills, alone. How would it have been to have
Warren Beatty portray this role, as side from the fact that he's probably
not adequate for the task? Remember, in Shampoo he could easily have
given the protagonist a gay slant, but didn't. Could he have carried it
off?
>Or to pick a less OTT example, Martin Donovan in The Opposite Of Sex?
Didn't see it.
Sawfish
>No one should hate somebody (or dislike somebody) just b/c he/she is
>Gay,Bi,Lesbian,black,asia.....etc
Damned right! Those are not good reasons for hating someone. Good reasons
would be dietary choice, political affiliation, or bilateral dominance.
Seriously, the actual axis for like/dislike for me is behavior, not
affiliation. A loud, abrasive heterosexual is just as obnoxious as a loud,
abrasive homesexual.
ANIM8Rfsk
Clint Eastwood unbelievable in the role of a US Marine simply because he was
never a marine. >>
Um, people make that claim about John Wayne playing a military man all the time
. . .
****************
QWest - the worst phone company I've ever been stuck with.
We've been waiting MONTHS now for tech support to even get back to us.
ANIM8Rfsk
HEY
You leave John Travolta OUT of this!
:-)
ANIM8Rfsk
playing a straight character? >>
Well, I have problems picturing her as a romantic lead just because I find her
so overwhelmingly repulsive. But I felt like that long before I knew anything
about her sexual orientation or personal life.
R. Cohen
The question was, "would you still see his movies", it has nothing to do with
his acting. I just think some people would find it hard to look at Cruise as a
romantic lead if he were gay.
ruthy
> "Ewan" <sci...@ms51.hinet.net> writes:
>
> >No one should hate somebody (or dislike somebody) just b/c he/she is
> >Gay,Bi,Lesbian,black,asia.....etc
>
> Damned right! Those are not good reasons for hating someone. Good reasons
> would be dietary choice, political affiliation, or bilateral dominance.
>
uh...bilateral dominance??
Ruth, wondering if she shouldn't go there<g>.
ruthy
> In parting, I'd like you to consider if the viewers who watched Ned
> Beatty
> being sodomized in Deliverance would view his performance differently if
> he was well-known as a homosexual before his portrayal.
> --
> --Sawfish
God, I hope it wouldn't change folks view....rape is rape.
ruthy
Sawfish
><< But what if he's a gay Scientologist? >>
>HEY
>You leave John Travolta OUT of this!
Wow!
Those recent script choices...yeah. Scientology would go a long way toward
explaining that.
Here's a though: what if Tom Cruise had been gay all along, and his PR
guys decided that he should come out as a Scientologist first, since if
people could accept him as a practicing Scientologist, no one would
consider being gay as anything but a secondary issue?
Sawfish
Bonnie Douglas
looking hair. (Mind you, I grew up in the 60's and long hair doesn't offend me,
just stupid looking badly-styled hair.)
rande...@aol.com wrote:
> Personally, I'm more likely not to see his movies because he's
> a Scientologist than if he was gay.
> -Rich
>
> On 03 May 2001 19:04:52 GMT, sugars...@aol.com (Sugarstreetz)
kgamble
> Nobody really reads the posts from "tim gueguen"
> <ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca>, so I thought I would reply to a post he
> made on Fri, 04 May 2001 05:31:43 GMT:
>
> >
> >news:2mb4ft4a3l5t48afl...@4ax.com...
> >> Nobody really reads the posts from sugars...@aol.com
> >> 2001 19:04:52 GMT:
> >>
> >> >if tom cruise is gay, would you still go see his movies? would you
still
> >be a
> >> >fan?
> >>
> >> character, rather like Anne Heche playing the Harrison Ford love
> >> interest stretches the believability somewhat.
> >
> >I always find such claims rather peculiar. After all, we're talking
about
> >actors, whose job is portraying people they aren't. No one would find
say
> >Clint Eastwood unbelievable in the role of a US Marine simply because he
was
> >never a marine.
>
> than an occupation.
>
>
kgamble
"Ewan" <sci...@ms51.hinet.net> wrote in message
news:9cu1nj$e...@netnews.hinet.net...
> No one should hate somebody (or dislike somebody) just b/c he/she is
> Gay,Bi,Lesbian,black,asia.....etc
Well, duh, but people do anyway, so thats something of a weak argument.
It's just the antithesis of "I dislike them becuase they are (choose your
hang up)". Doesn't really get the argument going in any good direction.
John Reilly
"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:98899219...@q7.q7.com...
The pertinent question being, "why is sexuality" such an issue with some
people?
It does appear that many people seem to have problems suspending their
disbelief when a gay actor plays a straight role, but not the converse. Is
it simply that many people do not really want to see gay actors on screen?
--
John
(Remove NOSPAM) to Reply
------------------------------------------------
"They do say, Mrs Miggins, that verbal insults hurt more than physical pain.
They are of course wrong, as you will soon discover when I stick this
toasting fork in your head."
- Edmund Blackadder
John Reilly
news:20010504124740...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> << No one would find say
> Clint Eastwood unbelievable in the role of a US Marine simply because he
was
> never a marine. >>
>
> Um, people make that claim about John Wayne playing a military man all the
time
And yet he remains one of the most popular stars of all time.
Reagen Sulewski
Well that's an issue of his acting skills not his sexual orientation. Again
I'll point out that Tom Hanks won an Oscar for portraying a gay man in
Philadelphia (-and- the film made 80 million bucks,to boot).
John Reilly
"Reagen Sulewski" <r-sul...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9097AE25D70BE...@24.64.2.57...
The reasoning on this issue seems to head down a one way street don't you
think.
Sawfish
Academy Awards are a popularity contest, so we can discount Hanks' award
on that grounds, alone. But if you want to push it, what we've got with
Hanks' academy award for playing a gay attorney is a heterosexual male's
performance being voted on by a group of predominently heterosexual men
and women, imagining how *they'd* feel if they were gay. This is not the
same as that same group trying imagine how a gay actor would feel playing
a straight role.
Lulu The Cow
Sulewski) wrote:
>Lulu The Cow <no_spam@my_server.com> wrote in
><k8l4ft0acgtrmsnme...@4ax.com>:
>>And the question still persists... Why is it hard to imagine Heche
>>playing a straight character? Is it hard to imagine a straight actor
>>playing the role of a gay character?
>
>Or let's go with Tom Hanks in Philadelphia.
Where were you when I was writing this post? :-)
Cheers,
Todd "Thanks Reagan" McNeeley
.
email: mcneeley at enteract dot com
Sawfish
I don't know, it just is.
Like religion.
>It does appear that many people seem to have problems suspending their
>disbelief when a gay actor plays a straight role, but not the converse. Is
>it simply that many people do not really want to see gay actors on screen?
MIght be, but I just posted a response in which I speculate that Hanks
could win an award for playing a gay attorney because the members of the
Academy, most of whom are hetero, can imagine what it would be like for a
hetero to *pretend* to be gay, but not what it would be like for a gay to
be hetero.
Humans are a strange and terrible species...
Lulu The Cow
wrote:
>On Fri, 04 May 2001 02:09:01 -0500, Lulu The Cow
><no_spam@my_server.com> wrote:
>
>>And the question still persists... Why is it hard to imagine Heche
>>playing a straight character? Is it hard to imagine a straight actor
>>playing the role of a gay character?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Todd "Mmmmm... I wonder...." McNeeley
>
>I know that when I saw "Flawless" I just couldn't get the horrible,
>nasty, disgusting thought out of mind that Phillip Seymour Hoffman
>really prefers sex with girls.
hahaha hohoho hehehe huha ho ho he haha hahaha hohoho hehehe huha ho
ho he haha hahaha hohoho hehehe huha ho ho he haha hahaha hohoho
hehehe huha ho ho he haha hahaha hohoho hehehe huha ho ho he haha
hahaha hohoho hehehe huha ho ho he haha hahaha hohoho hehehe huha ho
ho he haha hahaha hohoho hehehe huha ho ho he haha hahaha hohoho
hehehe huha ho ho he haha hahaha hohoho hehehe huha ho ho he haha
hahaha hohoho hehehe huha ho ho he haha hahaha hohoho hehehe huha ho
ho he haha hahaha hohoho hehehe huha ho ho he haha
It may be a while before I can have another serious thought. :-)
Cheers,
Todd "Goddamn Dawn, that was funny!" McNeeley
Lulu The Cow
wrote:
Ruth. You are missing the bigger picture. Ned Beatty is gay!
Actually, Sawfish has a point, but I think his point serves to defend
a prejudice, rather than explain a reaction. NOT THAT I THINK SAWFISH
INTENDED TO DO THAT! I just want to make that clear.
Cheers,
Todd "I'm not gay, but I play one on TV" McNeeley
Lulu The Cow
wrote:
><< And the question still persists... Why is it hard to imagine Heche
>playing a straight character? >>
>
>Well, I have problems picturing her as a romantic lead just because I find her
>so overwhelmingly repulsive. But I felt like that long before I knew anything
>about her sexual orientation or personal life.
I hate to ask, but what does a woman need to look like to be
attractive to you?
I don't think she's the babe of all time, but she's a cute woman.
Hell, outside of Rockets Redglare, I don't think repulsive people are
allowed in movies.
Cheers,
Todd "Linda Tripp: Now THAT IS repulsive" McNeeley
Lulu The Cow
>>>A fair enough comment - but an issue such as sexuality IMO runs deeper
>>>than an occupation.
>
>>The problem is simply that you think it is an issue at all...
>
>Eveything is an issue, Todd. Everything is subject to individual analysis
>and interpretation. The only question being what methodology is used in
>the analysis, how consistently it is applied, and by what cultural norms
>the result is judged.
There you go again, giving weight to culture. Culture has proven over
and over that it simply isn't qualified to make judgements.
Cheers,
Todd "Mass opinion should be avoided" McNeeley
Lulu The Cow
<jo...@NOSPAMthebigfilm.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>A fair enough comment - but an issue such as sexuality IMO runs deeper
>> >>than an occupation.
>>
>> >The problem is simply that you think it is an issue at all...
>>
>> Eveything is an issue, Todd. Everything is subject to individual analysis
>> and interpretation. The only question being what methodology is used in
>> the analysis, how consistently it is applied, and by what cultural norms
>> the result is judged.
>
>people?
>
>It does appear that many people seem to have problems suspending their
>disbelief when a gay actor plays a straight role, but not the converse. Is
>it simply that many people do not really want to see gay actors on screen?
I'll just say it. HOMOPHOBIA. Racism's ugly cousin.
Cheers,
Todd "John. Did you get the doc I sent?" McNeeley
ruthy
<no_spam@my_server.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2001 13:58:08 -0400, ruthy <Ihavetoom...@no.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <98899198...@q7.q7.com>, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> In parting, I'd like you to consider if the viewers who watched Ned
> >> Beatty
> >> being sodomized in Deliverance would view his performance differently
> >> if
> >> he was well-known as a homosexual before his portrayal.
> >> --
> >> --Sawfish
> >
> >God, I hope it wouldn't change folks view....rape is rape.
>
> Ruth. You are missing the bigger picture. Ned Beatty is gay!
>
> Actually, Sawfish has a point, but I think his point serves to defend
> a prejudice, rather than explain a reaction. NOT THAT I THINK SAWFISH
> INTENDED TO DO THAT! I just want to make that clear.
>
> Cheers,
I am so confused.
Lulu The Cow
wrote:
>The question was, "would you still see his movies", it has nothing to do with
>his acting. I just think some people would find it hard to look at Cruise as a
>romantic lead if he were gay.
And I submit that if the viewer is not a homophobe, sexually insecure,
or otherwise prejudiced, it isn't an issue.
Cheers,
Todd "Because it isn't an issue" McNeeley
ruthy
<no_spam@my_server.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2001 16:56:01 GMT, R. Cohen <nos...@newsranger.com>
> wrote:
> >The question was, "would you still see his movies", it has nothing to do
> >with
> >his acting. I just think some people would find it hard to look at
> >Cruise as a
> >romantic lead if he were gay.
>
> And I submit that if the viewer is not a homophobe, sexually insecure,
> or otherwise prejudiced, it isn't an issue.
>
Hasn't Rupert Whats his name.......you know who...Everett??( oy, I
almost said Murdoch) played straight romantic leads at times?
Lulu The Cow
>"Ewan" <sci...@ms51.hinet.net> writes:
>
>>No one should hate somebody (or dislike somebody) just b/c he/she is
>>Gay,Bi,Lesbian,black,asia.....etc
>
>Damned right! Those are not good reasons for hating someone. Good reasons
>would be dietary choice, political affiliation, or bilateral dominance.
>
>Seriously, the actual axis for like/dislike for me is behavior, not
>affiliation. A loud, abrasive heterosexual is just as obnoxious as a loud,
>abrasive homesexual.
Personally, I think loud and abrasive are virtues.
Cheers,
Todd "Especially in liberals" McNeeley
Lulu The Cow
Unless we were arguing about grammar.
Cheers,
Todd "Who hates people for being Asia?" McNeeley
ANIM8Rfsk
attractive to you? >>
Wasn't just physical appearance - she just gives off icky waves. :-)
****************
QWest - the worst phone company I've ever been stuck with.
We've been waiting MONTHS now for tech support to even get back to us.
ANIM8Rfsk
And I think he's great. Just pointing out people DO make that connection.
Lulu The Cow
wrote:
><< I hate to ask, but what does a woman need to look like to be
>attractive to you? >>
>
>Wasn't just physical appearance - she just gives off icky waves. :-)
Well... Okay... I guess I'll just have to accept that.
Cheers,
Todd "I think I got those waves when she was on Ally McBeal" McNeeley
Lulu The Cow
>Academy Awards are a popularity contest, so we can discount Hanks' award
>on that grounds, alone. But if you want to push it, what we've got with
>Hanks' academy award for playing a gay attorney is a heterosexual male's
>performance being voted on by a group of predominently heterosexual men
>and women, imagining how *they'd* feel if they were gay. This is not the
>same as that same group trying imagine how a gay actor would feel playing
>a straight role.
You know... There is a side to this that I haven't even mentioned. I
can't even imagine trying to imagine what an actor feels. When an
actor is giving a great performance (and Tom Cruise has given a few) I
don't see the actor, rather, I see the character.
Cheers,
Todd "Maybe folks don't appreciate film properly" McNeeley
Lulu The Cow
wrote:
Yes. Like in Cemetery Man. :-)
Cheers,
Todd "Tall grass baby" McNeeley
SLB
<no_spam@my_server.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 May 2001 16:14:20 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
>
>>"Ewan" <sci...@ms51.hinet.net> writes:
>>
>>>No one should hate somebody (or dislike somebody) just b/c he/she is
>>>Gay,Bi,Lesbian,black,asia.....etc
>>
>>Damned right! Those are not good reasons for hating someone. Good reasons
>>would be dietary choice, political affiliation, or bilateral dominance.
>>
>>Seriously, the actual axis for like/dislike for me is behavior, not
>>affiliation. A loud, abrasive heterosexual is just as obnoxious as a loud,
>>abrasive homesexual.
>
>Personally, I think loud and abrasive are virtues.
I think I'm going to have to go with Sawfish on this one. Then again,
I'm a quiet and mellow kind of gal.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Todd "Especially in liberals" McNeeley
What about in conservatives?
slb, who prefers calm political discussions, which is why she doesn't
often engage in them
SLB
What about hating people who think they're Asia? Or should they just
be pitied? :-)
slb, who realizes this makes no sense but is working on very little
sleep
Babe Lust Luster
Ewan <sci...@ms51.hinet.net> wrote in message
news:9cu1nj$e...@netnews.hinet.net...
> No one should hate somebody (or dislike somebody) just b/c he/she is
> Gay,Bi,Lesbian,black,asia.....etc
should not hate Gay, Bi, Lesbian, Black, Asian...
ThePope
>rande...@aol.com writes:
>
>>Personally, I'm more likely not to see his movies because he's
>>a Scientologist than if he was gay.
>>-Rich
>
>But what if he's a gay Scientologist?
>
>What then, huh?
They cancel each other out...
Then i'd see his movies.
SLB
Two small points:
1. The Chinese did not shoot down our plane, the plane made an
emergency landing after a mid-air collision with a Chinese fighter
jet. There was another plane shooting incident that you might be
thinking of, but that was somewhere in South America, I think.
2. Why would the fact that China is responsibe for the above act, if
they are indeed responsible for it, mean that we should hate all
Chinese people?
Or perhaps you were just kidding. If so, then please disregard.
slb
>
>
Norman Wilner
news:idn6ftcm9hvfj581o...@4ax.com...
I do -- I bought two of their frickin' albums, and never got one decent
song.
Norm "But I did it to make Tom Cruise love me" Wilner
Starweek Magazine
http://www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd
rande...@aol.com
Probably that's too strong. But spend time on the roads with 500,000
of them (Toronto) and then venture an opinion. I know EXACTLY
how that American pilot felt.
-Rich
Grimfarrow
Babe Lust Luster wrote:
Idiot post of the week.
Actually, this whole thread is completely worthless.
People should care less if Tom Cruise is gay.
(although it makes Cruise's Magnolia performance
even funnier in hindsight)
Grimfarrow
Sawfish
>On Fri, 04 May 2001 16:14:20 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
>>"Ewan" <sci...@ms51.hinet.net> writes:
>>
>>>No one should hate somebody (or dislike somebody) just b/c he/she is
>>>Gay,Bi,Lesbian,black,asia.....etc
>>
>>Damned right! Those are not good reasons for hating someone. Good reasons
>>would be dietary choice, political affiliation, or bilateral dominance.
>>
>>Seriously, the actual axis for like/dislike for me is behavior, not
>>affiliation. A loud, abrasive heterosexual is just as obnoxious as a loud,
>>abrasive homesexual.
>Personally, I think loud and abrasive are virtues.
As does, apparently, most of New York City.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" --Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ewan
Babe Lust Luster <blu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:SZKI6.1206$Ur6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Sawfish
>On Fri, 04 May 2001 16:03:16 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
>>>>A fair enough comment - but an issue such as sexuality IMO runs deeper
>>>>than an occupation.
>>
>>>The problem is simply that you think it is an issue at all...
>>
>>Eveything is an issue, Todd. Everything is subject to individual analysis
>>and interpretation. The only question being what methodology is used in
>>the analysis, how consistently it is applied, and by what cultural norms
>>the result is judged.
>There you go again, giving weight to culture. Culture has proven over
>and over that it simply isn't qualified to make judgements.
Nor can we stick our collective head in the sand and pretend that,
enlightened 21st century denizens that were are, we *never* bring any
culturally-inspired values with us when judging an issue.
Fer chrissake, even an attitute like the one above is the product of
mid/late 20th C upper middle class American culture.
My point is, like it or not, it's all we've got. And it affects us in all
things.
For example, I'd really like to wear a fez to work, but cultural
constraints make this inadvisable.
Sawfish
>On Sat, 05 May 2001 01:32:43 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
>>Academy Awards are a popularity contest, so we can discount Hanks' award
>>on that grounds, alone. But if you want to push it, what we've got with
>>Hanks' academy award for playing a gay attorney is a heterosexual male's
>>performance being voted on by a group of predominently heterosexual men
>>and women, imagining how *they'd* feel if they were gay. This is not the
>>same as that same group trying imagine how a gay actor would feel playing
>>a straight role.
>You know... There is a side to this that I haven't even mentioned.
You're sure that this is the proper venue to announce this, Todd?
>I
>can't even imagine trying to imagine what an actor feels.
Ahhh. OK.
You had us going there, for a while...
>When an
>actor is giving a great performance (and Tom Cruise has given a few) I
>don't see the actor, rather, I see the character.
There's always baggage, for me. And I suspect that anyone who denies that
at least some baggage comes with each actor who has a stated position on
an issue is being obstinant. For chrissake! Read any thread that discusses
Jane Fonda or Charleton Heston, and you'll eventually see someone knock
their acting ability based mainly on the poster's own position on the
issue.
If an actor is on record as being a strong environmentalist (for example),
I'd have difficulty in seeing him portray a character fairly in any film
that was dealing with environmentalism. Same with any other overt and
passionate political statements. Vanessa Redgrave portraying either a
Palestinian or an Israeli Jew would be problematic (for a number of
reasons) would first have to overcome my perception that she has basically
and vehemently stated that one "side" is entirely at fault and the other,
entirely innocent. I would tend to dounbt her ability to portray either
side against her stated position.
It's possible that she might pull it off, but it would be an uphill
struggle. If she succeeded, it would be a *magnificent* performance.
Now, consider that one of the biggest strengths of indy films is that the
actors are often unknowns, and they bring NO baggage with them.
So, put *that* in your pipe, and smoke it, Mr. McNeely!
Douglas Bailey
> "Lulu The Cow" <no_spam@my_server.com> wrote in message
> > Todd "Who hates people for being Asia?" McNeeley
>
> I do -- I bought two of their frickin' albums, and never got one decent
> song.
Did you buy them in the heat of the moment? :-)
doug
--
--------------douglas bailey (trys...@ne.mediaone.net)--------------
this week dragged past me so slowly; the days fell on their knees...
--david bowie
Dawn Taylor
>Fer chrissake, even an attitute like the one above is the product of
>mid/late 20th C upper middle class American culture.
>
>My point is, like it or not, it's all we've got. And it affects us in all
>things.
>
>For example, I'd really like to wear a fez to work, but cultural
>constraints make this inadvisable.
So there ya go. The only thing that matters is popular opinion.
Criticial thinking - no longer applicable! Individuality - moot!
Ethical considerations - balderdash and hooey!
Hoorah for the lowest common demoninator! I'm off to buy Hamburger
Helper and N'Sync albums - what *have* I been thinking?
Dawn
----------
Portland, Oregon: Where it rains frequently, the coffee is
plentiful, and drivers merge as if they're being paid to be stupid.
-- KNRK-FM DJ Daria O'Neill
http://www.ourtownmag.com/film.html
http://www.dvdjournal.com
Dawn Taylor
<grimf...@excite.combatready> wrote:
>Actually, this whole thread is completely worthless.
>People should care less if Tom Cruise is gay.
Grammatical question: since I already don't care at all if he's gay,
how much less *should* I care?
Dawn
(people should care more about incorrect usages like "should/could
care less")
Norman Wilner
This is my favorite post of the week.
Remember, Rich isn't a racist.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
http://www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd
Sawfish
>On Sat, 05 May 2001 14:43:02 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
>>Fer chrissake, even an attitute like the one above is the product of
>>mid/late 20th C upper middle class American culture.
>>
>>My point is, like it or not, it's all we've got. And it affects us in all
>>things.
>>
>>For example, I'd really like to wear a fez to work, but cultural
>>constraints make this inadvisable.
>So there ya go. The only thing that matters is popular opinion.
>Criticial thinking - no longer applicable! Individuality - moot!
>Ethical considerations - balderdash and hooey!
>Hoorah for the lowest common demoninator! I'm off to buy Hamburger
>Helper and N'Sync albums - what *have* I been thinking?
I hope you inferred a "smiley". I thought it would be so obvious that it
was unnecessary. I only brought up the fez because it reminded me of a New
Yorker cartoon I saw some years back. A guy in a Brooks Bros., button-down
environment is wearing a grey flannel, three-piece suit and a fez. He's
explaining to his boss: "It's a fez, J. P. It's going to be my trademark."
Let's split out the discussion at this point: A - Does each person's
native culture affect/inform his/her perceptions of a given situation; and
B - after taking A into account, are we necessarily constrained to adhere
to these cultural "reflexes"?
"A" is the question I was discussing. My contention is that, short of
having a childhood like Kaspar Hauser, culture shapes how you
*reflexively* react.
Now, it may be that at a certain point in one's life, a person becomes
aware of these cultural veneers, and examines and analyzes whenther
there's still currency in these precepts. If so, then that person
continues in that cultural tradition; if not, they break with tradition,
but they usually still have the "reflex" and must consciously counteract
it, often verbally and, sadly, publicly and stridently.
I have no problem with any of this because it appears to me to describe
the mechanism by which most people I've met react to given situations. But
to deny the existence of this "cultural momentum" is to attempt to fool
one's self. Sort of a "my shit doesn't stink" phenomenon.
Yeah. Right.
So, I guess, a follow-on question would be: how much should we hold
individuals responsible for adhering to culturally informed reactions when
the appropriateness of those reactions becomes, incrementally, marginally
acceptable?
Grimfarrow
Dawn Taylor wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2001 08:46:35 GMT, Grimfarrow
> <grimf...@excite.combatready> wrote:
>
> >Actually, this whole thread is completely worthless.
> >People should care less if Tom Cruise is gay.
>
> Grammatical question: since I already don't care at all if he's gay,
> how much less *should* I care?
My statement wasn't directed at you. It was directed at
people who DO care. They should care less.
>
> Dawn
> (people should care more about incorrect usages like "should/could
> care less")
Or maybe you could read the context I was writing
in? No, I did NOT mean to say "People could
care less". I meant what I wrote.
Trying to correct people's grammar is done better when you actually
read the context of the person you're trying to correct. Otherwise
you just seem incredibly WRONG and nitpicky.
Grimfarrow
Lewis Nguyen
> On 05 May 2001 01:57:58 GMT, anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk)
> wrote:
>
> ><< I hate to ask, but what does a woman need to look like to be
> >attractive to you? >>
> >
> >Wasn't just physical appearance - she just gives off icky waves. :-)
>
> Well... Okay... I guess I'll just have to accept that.
>
What was so icky about her in Donnie Brasco and Wag the Dog (if it was true
that Anne Heche gave off such icky vibes prior to the whole Ellen
broughaha)?
Lewis.
Dawn Taylor
<grimf...@excite.combatready> wrote:
>Trying to correct people's grammar is done better when you actually
>read the context of the person you're trying to correct. Otherwise
>you just seem incredibly WRONG and nitpicky.
Yeah, but I got your panties all twisted didn't I?
Alternate answer: You're right.
Dawn
Dawn Taylor
>dawn...@pacifier.com (Dawn Taylor) writes:
>
>>On Sat, 05 May 2001 14:43:02 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
>
>>>Fer chrissake, even an attitute like the one above is the product of
>>>mid/late 20th C upper middle class American culture.
>>>
>>>My point is, like it or not, it's all we've got. And it affects us in all
>>>things.
>>>
>>>For example, I'd really like to wear a fez to work, but cultural
>>>constraints make this inadvisable.
>
>>So there ya go. The only thing that matters is popular opinion.
>>Criticial thinking - no longer applicable! Individuality - moot!
>>Ethical considerations - balderdash and hooey!
>
>>Hoorah for the lowest common demoninator! I'm off to buy Hamburger
>>Helper and N'Sync albums - what *have* I been thinking?
>
>I hope you inferred a "smiley". I thought it would be so obvious that it
>was unnecessary. I only brought up the fez because it reminded me of a New
>Yorker cartoon I saw some years back. A guy in a Brooks Bros., button-down
>environment is wearing a grey flannel, three-piece suit and a fez. He's
>explaining to his boss: "It's a fez, J. P. It's going to be my trademark."
I like that! But then, I like New Yorker cartoons. And fezes (or
should that be "fezii"?)
>Let's split out the discussion at this point: A - Does each person's
>native culture affect/inform his/her perceptions of a given situation; and
>B - after taking A into account, are we necessarily constrained to adhere
>to these cultural "reflexes"?
>
>"A" is the question I was discussing. My contention is that, short of
>having a childhood like Kaspar Hauser, culture shapes how you
>*reflexively* react.
To a large degree. It's certainly not the deciding factor - one of the
great things about being a human is free will and an ability to
reason.
>Now, it may be that at a certain point in one's life, a person becomes
>aware of these cultural veneers, and examines and analyzes whenther
>there's still currency in these precepts.
One would hope so. T'ain't always the case, however.
>If so, then that person
>continues in that cultural tradition; if not, they break with tradition,
Mmm hmm.
>but they usually still have the "reflex" and must consciously counteract
>it, often verbally and, sadly, publicly and stridently.
"Usually"? I'm not sure that's true. And I'm not at all in agreement
that most people who choose to live other than in lockstep with
cultural precepts do so "often verbally and, sadly, publicly and
stridently".
I think there are far more free-thinkers in the world than you're
aware of - just because they don't shout it from the rooftops or try
to cram their beliefs down anyone's throats, that doesn't mean they're
(we're) not out there.
>I have no problem with any of this because it appears to me to describe
>the mechanism by which most people I've met react to given situations. But
>to deny the existence of this "cultural momentum" is to attempt to fool
>one's self. Sort of a "my shit doesn't stink" phenomenon.
I don't get the connection.
>Yeah. Right.
>
>So, I guess, a follow-on question would be: how much should we hold
>individuals responsible for adhering to culturally informed reactions when
>the appropriateness of those reactions becomes, incrementally, marginally
>acceptable?
I'm desperately trying to parse that sentence. Maybe if I break it up:
"How much should we hold individuals responsible for adhering to
culturally-informed reactions?"
First of all, who are "we," Kemosabe? The government? The great
unwashed masses? The guys at the Elks club? The people who post to
this newsgroup?
Secondly, what does "hold[ing] individuals responsible for adhering to
culturally-informed reactions" mean? Do you mean "making people stick
to the same opinion of the mass populace?" Or do you mean "smacking
people for saying stupid things that they picked up on the street
corner?" Or something else entirely?
As for "...when the appropriateness of [culturally-informed] reactions
becomes, incrementally, marginally acceptable" -- this makes no sense
at all. What I'm reading is "when reactions formed by social
experience slowly become marginally acceptable." When are they not
acceptable - at least in the cultural of record? That's the very
definition of "culturally-informed".
I don't know what you're asking. Are you asking when we, as a society,
should hold people responsible for saying hateful, ignorant things
that stem from the prejudices of their limited background and
experience?
My answer: We're each individually responsible for our own behavior.
Ignorance is not excuse for hateful speech and lack of experience with
other cultures is no excuse for intolerance. It may *explain* it, but
it doesn't *excuse* it.
Sawfish
Well, that would be *my* point: that sort of information is very likely to
color one's perception. Conversely, lack of such information will let the
actor's skills be perceived without baggage.
Babe Lust Luster
>
> Anyway,"Hate" is not a good value.
>
Nah, hate has its own merit. It makes life easier. We all need to hate
someone, some group, or some nation. If you insist otherwise, you are
against the human nature or not speak the truth.
Sawfish
>On Sat, 05 May 2001 17:09:24 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
<SNIP>
>>Let's split out the discussion at this point: A - Does each person's
>>native culture affect/inform his/her perceptions of a given situation; and
>>B - after taking A into account, are we necessarily constrained to adhere
>>to these cultural "reflexes"?
>>
>>"A" is the question I was discussing. My contention is that, short of
>>having a childhood like Kaspar Hauser, culture shapes how you
>>*reflexively* react.
>To a large degree. It's certainly not the deciding factor - one of the
>great things about being a human is free will and an ability to
>reason.
Of course...
>>Now, it may be that at a certain point in one's life, a person becomes
>>aware of these cultural veneers, and examines and analyzes whenther
>>there's still currency in these precepts.
>One would hope so. T'ain't always the case, however.
That right. That's where religious fundamentalists come, not from under a
rock, as many (I'm in there, too) might think. They are merely
reactionarily traditional.
>>If so, then that person
>>continues in that cultural tradition; if not, they break with tradition,
>Mmm hmm.
>>but they usually still have the "reflex" and must consciously counteract
>>it, often verbally and, sadly, publicly and stridently.
>"Usually"? I'm not sure that's true.
I think it is.
I know a lot of people who still react strongly to counteract their
earlist ethical exposure. Now, there's nothing much the amtter with their
early ethical training, but they maybe had too much friction with their
parents, and as a consequence, during college (often the 60's) they found
the peer support to throw the whole framework out. And they did: lock,
stock, and barrel.
This took some gumption, and some comittment. Unfrotunately, the
replacement ethical system was pretty superficially thought through ("do I
*really* like the idea that I'm supposed to share the affections of my
girlfriend with any member of the group? Hmmm... I'm supposed to, but
damn! This doesn't exactly feel right..."). They kinda burned their
bridges though, on leaving the old system, and these poor fucks *still*
are too hardheaded to admit that it was OK to toss part of their folks'
system, but not necessarily all of it.
Since you're from Portland, you'll know what I mean when I say that these
folks tend to live in the Brooklyn/Clinton/Hawthorne area. They still
drive old Volvos and VW buses, and buy their food for 4X the supermarket
price at People's Co-op.
...adn they're only the most visible! There are a heck of a lot of others
like them who have adopted protective coloration, and work for the city or
state government.
>And I'm not at all in agreement
>that most people who choose to live other than in lockstep with
>cultural precepts do so "often verbally and, sadly, publicly and
>stridently".
We'll have to agree to diagree on that one.
>I think there are far more free-thinkers in the world than you're
>aware of - just because they don't shout it from the rooftops or try
>to cram their beliefs down anyone's throats, that doesn't mean they're
>(we're) not out there.
Of course...
>>I have no problem with any of this because it appears to me to describe
>>the mechanism by which most people I've met react to given situations. But
>>to deny the existence of this "cultural momentum" is to attempt to fool
>>one's self. Sort of a "my shit doesn't stink" phenomenon.
>I don't get the connection.
In my opinion, formed by my personal experience and observation, if people
think that cultural underlays are inconsequential, these same people are
also likely to believe that shit doesn't stink...
>>Yeah. Right.
>>
>>So, I guess, a follow-on question would be: how much should we hold
>>individuals responsible for adhering to culturally informed reactions when
>>the appropriateness of those reactions becomes, incrementally, marginally
>>acceptable?
>I'm desperately trying to parse that sentence. Maybe if I break it up:
>"How much should we hold individuals responsible for adhering to
>culturally-informed reactions?"
>First of all, who are "we," Kemosabe? The government? The great
>unwashed masses? The guys at the Elks club? The people who post to
>this newsgroup?
General society, of which I am only a marginal member.
>Secondly, what does "hold[ing] individuals responsible for adhering to
>culturally-informed reactions" mean? Do you mean "making people stick
>to the same opinion of the mass populace?" Or do you mean "smacking
>people for saying stupid things that they picked up on the street
>corner?" Or something else entirely?
That's the issue. What should be the societal sanction, if any, for those
who are on the trailing edge of the cultural norm?
>As for "...when the appropriateness of [culturally-informed] reactions
>becomes, incrementally, marginally acceptable" -- this makes no sense
>at all. What I'm reading is "when reactions formed by social
>experience slowly become marginally acceptable." When are they not
>acceptable - at least in the cultural of record? That's the very
>definition of "culturally-informed".
>I don't know what you're asking. Are you asking when we, as a society,
>should hold people responsible for saying hateful, ignorant things
>that stem from the prejudices of their limited background and
>experience?
Yes. but substitute "outmoded" and "unpopular" for "hateful" and
"ignorant".
It's less emotionally charged and ethically judgemental.
>My answer: We're each individually responsible for our own behavior.
Yep.
>Ignorance is not excuse for hateful speech and lack of experience with
>other cultures is no excuse for intolerance. It may *explain* it, but
>it doesn't *excuse* it.
OK. But *how* to sanction it?
I'm all for letting the miscreant take his chances with getting his nose
flattened, or not being able to get a date, but should we extend that to
not being able to get a *job* based on the obnoxious qualities of
"trailing edge ethics"?
Michael Allred
>>movies? would you still be a fan?
>I would find it difficult to believe him playing a
>hetrosexual character, rather like Anne Heche
>playing the Harrison Ford love interest
>stretches the believability somewhat.
>Trev.
So because Ford is straight, you totally believed he was a space pirate
in "Star Wars"? Boy you've got some sexuality issues to deal with.
It's called ACTING, where if the person is good enough, they can make
you believe they're someone else through their performance. If you're
too narrow minded and allow *who they sleep with* (for god's sake!) to
detract from said performance then it's YOUR problem, NOT the actor's.
John Reilly
--
John
(Remove NOSPAM) to Reply
------------------------------------------------
"They do say, Mrs Miggins, that verbal insults hurt more than physical pain.
They are of course wrong, as you will soon discover when I stick this
toasting fork in your head."
- Edmund Blackadder
"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:98907473...@q7.q7.com...
John Reilly
The big problem I have with this is what about the villains?
Do we think that Laurence Olivier is really a Nazi because of his role in
The Marathon Man, Anthony Hopkins eats people and Anthony Perkins dresses
like his mother and had a thing for showers. I would hope - NO. So why the
hell do so many people object to gay actors playing straight roles. Most
people are perfectly willing, and able, to suspend their disbelief when it
suits them.
If, for instance, you find the idea of Charlton Heston playing an anti-gun
left wing politician (the day you find yourself in a snowball fight with the
devil), it's probably because you find his publicly stated political beliefs
to be objectionable. I.e. you don't like what he stands for. If you find
gay actors in straight roles to be objectionable, it's probably because you
don't like what they stand for.
Todd has already said, and I'll second it - let's stop pissing around and
call it the homophobia that it is.
(Just to make it clear, the "you" in my previous statements are meant in the
general sense, and not directed at Sawfish)
John Reilly
news:20010504215859...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
> << And yet he remains one of the most popular stars of all time. >>
>
> And I think he's great. Just pointing out people DO make that connection.
But it probaly suggest that most of us Usenet posters seem to worry about
these things a lot more than the general population does.
John Reilly
news:SZKI6.1206$Ur6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > No one should hate somebody (or dislike somebody) just b/c he/she is
> > Gay,Bi,Lesbian,black,asia.....etc
> We should hate Chinese. They shut down our plane.
Yes, I can see that shutting down a plane in mid filght is a bit nasty.
Wouldn't blame the whole population though.
John Reilly
"Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> wrote in message
news:QHLI6.19460$2_.66...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> "Lulu The Cow" <no_spam@my_server.com> wrote in message
> news:idn6ftcm9hvfj581o...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 04 May 2001 21:48:11 GMT, "kgamble" <kgam...@home.com> wrote:
> >>"Ewan" <sci...@ms51.hinet.net> wrote in message
> >>news:9cu1nj$e...@netnews.hinet.net...
> >>>
> >>> No one should hate somebody (or dislike somebody) just b/c
> >>> he/she is Gay,Bi,Lesbian,black,asia.....etc
> >>
> >> Well, duh, but people do anyway, so thats something of a weak
> >> argument. It's just the antithesis of "I dislike them becuase they
> >> are (choose your hang up)". Doesn't really get the argument going
> > in any good direction.
> >
> > Unless we were arguing about grammar.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Todd "Who hates people for being Asia?" McNeeley
>
> I do -- I bought two of their frickin' albums, and never got one decent
> song.
I hope you're not looking for sympathy :-) ?
John Reilly
"Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> wrote in message
Lucky he posted that; we almost forgot what he's really like.
SLB
Perhaps, but I think there's something to be said for the difficulty
in separating a person's public persona from the parts they play in
films. I'm not a homophobe in the least, but I can imagine a
situation where someone who is very high profile and always in the
public eye as his or her self and has a public persona separate from
the parts they play, then that is bound to come into play when
watching them in a film, unless they are a truly great actor.
This doesn't just apply to homosexuals but to any actor, really. Most
actors who have that type of celebrity, whose private lives are made
public or who just are always in the press and on television giving
interviews and things like that, tend to bring that type of persona
into their own films and when they break it, it can be jarring. Most
of the actors who I find to be truly great are people who I don't know
a damn thing about, whether it be gay or straight, married or single,
or whatever, because they are never seen giving interviews or on
Entertainment Tonight. They don't let the public know what they are
like and don't create a public persona for themselves; instead, they
let their performances speak for themselves.
If someone is a high profile homosexual, then that becomes part of the
viewing experience. That doesn't mean that I don't think gay actors
should play straight characters, it just means that that high profile
person brings baggage to the film they are appearing in, just like
anyone who has a high profile does, and that being gay is part of that
profile. That doesn't mean they can't be believable; it just means
that certain actors have a type of celebrity that comes into the
experience of watching them act.
I think the real problem here is the amount of attention paid to the
Ellen Degeneres/Anne Heche relationship by the press. I don't think
they created public personas for themselves (in fact I don't think any
openly homosexual actors have done so), but the press sure did pay way
too much attention to their relationship. Then again, the press pays
a lot of attention to many heterosexual couples' relationships too. I
have never had a problem with Heche or accepting her as straight on
film. I think she's a great actress and has somehow been able to
transcend all the attention put on her by the press and the stigma
that came along with that. I am saying, however, that I could imagine
a situation in which a homosexual actor might willingly make that a
major part of their public persona, not that they shouldn't, and that
would then enter into the viewing experience. I'm *not* saying that
it would render that person incapable of playing a straight character,
just that it would then be part of the equation.
slb, who is quite sure the above is very unclear but is too tired to
proofread it and try and make it more comprehensible
Dawn Taylor
<major snips throughout>
>I know a lot of people who still react strongly to counteract their
>earlist ethical exposure. Now, there's nothing much the amtter with their
>early ethical training, but they maybe had too much friction with their
>parents, and as a consequence, during college (often the 60's) they found
>the peer support to throw the whole framework out. And they did: lock,
>stock, and barrel.
>
>This took some gumption, and some comittment. Unfrotunately, the
>replacement ethical system was pretty superficially thought through ("do I
>*really* like the idea that I'm supposed to share the affections of my
>girlfriend with any member of the group? Hmmm... I'm supposed to, but
>damn! This doesn't exactly feel right..."). They kinda burned their
>bridges though, on leaving the old system, and these poor fucks *still*
>are too hardheaded to admit that it was OK to toss part of their folks'
>system, but not necessarily all of it.
>
>Since you're from Portland, you'll know what I mean when I say that these
>folks tend to live in the Brooklyn/Clinton/Hawthorne area. They still
>drive old Volvos and VW buses, and buy their food for 4X the supermarket
>price at People's Co-op.
My my. You really don't have any qualms about pigeonholing people, do
you? That's an unfortunate trait -- assumptions like that usually end
up in embarrassment.
The whole change-of-ethical-foundation thang cuts both ways - more
than that, it cuts sideways and backways and upside-down, too. Mormons
become hedonists. Hedonists become Jehovah's Witnesses. Potheads
become Saab-driving Yuppies. Knee-jerk liberal, coke-snorting, slacker
sluts grow up, buy homes, get married, turn leftish Libertarian, and
become journalists for family-oriented community newspapers (that one
I know in excruciating detail).
Hell, my best friend started out as a chain-smoking punk rocker and
ended up a Christian youth group leader. It's called change
(alternately titled "growth"). People do it. And they usually trade in
their "reflex" reactions for new ones, based on their adopted belief
system. Until they input more data, and *those* reactions change.
>>And I'm not at all in agreement
>>that most people who choose to live other than in lockstep with
>>cultural precepts do so "often verbally and, sadly, publicly and
>>stridently".
>
>We'll have to agree to diagree on that one.
I guess so. Most of the people I know are startlingly individualistic
and almost all of them veer from the status quo in one way or another.
The "cultural norm" is largely a myth, perpetuated by marketers and
lazy journalists - and usually only describes the experience of a
percentage of the white upper-middle class.
<huge snip>
>
>I'm all for letting the miscreant take his chances with getting his nose
>flattened, or not being able to get a date, but should we extend that to
>not being able to get a *job* based on the obnoxious qualities of
>"trailing edge ethics"?
Well, with my old school Liberal/new school Libertarian leanings, I
believe that the individual circumstances should carry the most
weight. If all the guys at the bait-n-ammo shop in Beaver Pond, GA are
uncomfortable with open homosexuality, then the owner shouldn't be
forced to hire a drag queen. On the flip side, the folks at the
neo-hippie Portland food co-op shouldn't have to work with a
hate-spouting, racist/homophobe. And, IMO, all should be allowed to
make those calls for themselves.
Not that it's up to me, of course. Just my opinion.
Dawn Taylor
>"Lewis Nguyen" <l.ng...@home.com> writes:
>>What was so icky about her in Donnie Brasco and Wag the Dog (if it was true
>>that Anne Heche gave off such icky vibes prior to the whole Ellen
>>broughaha)?
>
>Well, that would be *my* point: that sort of information is very likely to
>color one's perception. Conversely, lack of such information will let the
>actor's skills be perceived without baggage.
I have to admit that I also find her icky. But it has nothing to do
with who she sleeps with.
ANIM8Rfsk
I was thinking Volcano actually . . .
Grimfarrow
John Reilly wrote:
> "Babe Lust Luster" <blu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:SZKI6.1206$Ur6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Ewan <sci...@ms51.hinet.net> wrote in message
> > news:9cu1nj$e...@netnews.hinet.net...
> > > No one should hate somebody (or dislike somebody) just b/c he/she is
> > > Gay,Bi,Lesbian,black,asia.....etc
> > We should hate Chinese. They shut down our plane.
>
> Yes, I can see that shutting down a plane in mid filght is a bit nasty.
> Wouldn't blame the whole population though.
Yeah, I'm sure that if Chinese spy planes were skirting along the Californian
coast, the US airforce would just sit there and not try to intercept
it. <rolls eye>
Grimfarrow
Icebreaker
news:2mb4ft4a3l5t48afl...@4ax.com...
> Nobody really reads the posts from sugars...@aol.com
> (Sugarstreetz), so I thought I would reply to a post he made on 03 May
> 2001 19:04:52 GMT:
>
> >if tom cruise is gay, would you still go see his movies? would you still
be a
> >fan?
>
> I would find it difficult to believe him playing a hetrosexual
> character, rather like Anne Heche playing the Harrison Ford love
> interest stretches the believability somewhat.
What kind of sense does that make? He's been playing heterosexual characters
ever since his career began and you've believed his performances. *KNOWING*
his sexual preference would make a difference to you? Just accept that he's
gay until proven otherwise.
--
Icebreaker
David Elliot's bad day at the office begins here:
www.vertical-run.com
Peggy Bundy: "Look, if I stopped your father from doing everything he was
lousy at...well, we never would have had you kids."
Jennifer Hardy
>> Probably that's too strong. But spend time on the roads with
>> 500,000 of them (Toronto) and then venture an opinion. I know
>> EXACTLY how that American pilot felt.
>> -Rich
>
>This is my favorite post of the week.
>
>Remember, Rich isn't a racist.
As a Torontonian, I'm more concerned about sharing my streets with
*Rich* than with anyone else.
Cheers,
Jennifer
Sawfish
>On Sat, 05 May 2001 22:23:50 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
><major snips throughout>
>>I know a lot of people who still react strongly to counteract their
>>earlist ethical exposure. Now, there's nothing much the amtter with their
>>early ethical training, but they maybe had too much friction with their
>>parents, and as a consequence, during college (often the 60's) they found
>>the peer support to throw the whole framework out. And they did: lock,
>>stock, and barrel.
>>
>>This took some gumption, and some comittment. Unfrotunately, the
>>replacement ethical system was pretty superficially thought through ("do I
>>*really* like the idea that I'm supposed to share the affections of my
>>girlfriend with any member of the group? Hmmm... I'm supposed to, but
>>damn! This doesn't exactly feel right..."). They kinda burned their
>>bridges though, on leaving the old system, and these poor fucks *still*
>>are too hardheaded to admit that it was OK to toss part of their folks'
>>system, but not necessarily all of it.
>>
>>Since you're from Portland, you'll know what I mean when I say that these
>>folks tend to live in the Brooklyn/Clinton/Hawthorne area. They still
>>drive old Volvos and VW buses, and buy their food for 4X the supermarket
>>price at People's Co-op.
>My my. You really don't have any qualms about pigeonholing people, do
>you? That's an unfortunate trait -- assumptions like that usually end
>up in embarrassment.
I find that I'm not much different that most people, really; I'm just much
more frank in admitting it. It gets me into trouble sometimes, but I just
normally shrug it off.
But what I did up there was the opposite of pigeonholing! Yes! I was
forming an archetype, to get you into the ballpark as far as understanding
the sorts of folk I was talking about. I was constructing a
hyppthothetical, nameless, identity-less person, and giving that model
*all* of the external traits of the (sub)cultural group I was trying to
describe. Pigeonholing is taking a specific person, and trying to fit
him/her into a group based on their external traits. To me, that's a
no-no.
>The whole change-of-ethical-foundation thang cuts both ways - more
>than that, it cuts sideways and backways and upside-down, too. Mormons
>become hedonists. Hedonists become Jehovah's Witnesses. Potheads
>become Saab-driving Yuppies. Knee-jerk liberal, coke-snorting, slacker
>sluts grow up, buy homes, get married, turn leftish Libertarian, and
>become journalists for family-oriented community newspapers (that one
>I know in excruciating detail).
...or an ex-jock, draft-dodging, S. Cal beach bum can become a software
engineer and father.
The thing is, I'm still the same person, and I've not had to struggle
overmuch because, by great good fortune, my parents gave me no direct
instruction in an ethical system. The whole transmission of ethics was
done almost purely by simple example. I didn't have to "turn away from the
church" because there was no church! Nossir! No rejection of the Kiwanis,
or the bridge club, because there was none of that, either!
>Hell, my best friend started out as a chain-smoking punk rocker and
>ended up a Christian youth group leader. It's called change
>(alternately titled "growth").
This is a good spot to explore.
I'm going to guess that before your friend was headbanging to the Ramones,
he/she had a different upbringing. I'm going to ask: after his/her change
from slamdancing at the drop of a hat, is he/she more like his/her earlier
upbring, or is the Christian thing just as different from his/her early
values as the punk rock image?
What I'm getting at here is that you may have just described people *going
back to* or re-adpoting, parts of their earlier cultural upbringing. This
is real common. My Dad wasn't a beach bum; that was just a rebellious,
experimental phase for me. I find that now, I'm ethically a lot like he
was, with a lot of the same pastimes--and certainly a lot the same way of
viewing the world. Sounds like you may be in the same boat, what with your
change to home-owning, etc.
The folks my age who are having the roughest time are those who are
burning a lot of cycles in trying to deny their similarities to their
parents.
This may not be what you're talking about, however.
>People do it. And they usually trade in
>their "reflex" reactions for new ones, based on their adopted belief
>system. Until they input more data, and *those* reactions change.
BUt to deny that the earliest precepts can be completely erased is not
realistic, I think. I see people that make these kind of changes, soo. I
see people struggling to resolve th tension that they feel in doing the
*opposite* (in some cases).
>>>And I'm not at all in agreement
>>>that most people who choose to live other than in lockstep with
>>>cultural precepts do so "often verbally and, sadly, publicly and
>>>stridently".
>>
>>We'll have to agree to diagree on that one.
>I guess so. Most of the people I know are startlingly individualistic
>and almost all of them veer from the status quo in one way or another.
>The "cultural norm" is largely a myth, perpetuated by marketers and
>lazy journalists - and usually only describes the experience of a
>percentage of the white upper-middle class.
><huge snip>
>>
>>I'm all for letting the miscreant take his chances with getting his nose
>>flattened, or not being able to get a date, but should we extend that to
>>not being able to get a *job* based on the obnoxious qualities of
>>"trailing edge ethics"?
>Well, with my old school Liberal/new school Libertarian leanings, I
>believe that the individual circumstances should carry the most
>weight. If all the guys at the bait-n-ammo shop in Beaver Pond, GA
..would you say that the above is an example of pigeonholing, or are you,
too, creating an archetype?
:^)
>are
>uncomfortable with open homosexuality, then the owner shouldn't be
>forced to hire a drag queen. On the flip side, the folks at the
>neo-hippie Portland food co-op shouldn't have to work with a
>hate-spouting, racist/homophobe. And, IMO, all should be allowed to
>make those calls for themselves.
>Not that it's up to me, of course. Just my opinion.
Not that it matters, but I concur. The problem tends to self-regulate, in
the long run.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish
>Trevor Gensch <tre...@consultant.com> wrote in message
>news:2mb4ft4a3l5t48afl...@4ax.com...
>> Nobody really reads the posts from sugars...@aol.com
>> (Sugarstreetz), so I thought I would reply to a post he made on 03 May
>> 2001 19:04:52 GMT:
>>
>> >if tom cruise is gay, would you still go see his movies? would you still
>be a
>> >fan?
>>
>> I would find it difficult to believe him playing a hetrosexual
>> character, rather like Anne Heche playing the Harrison Ford love
>> interest stretches the believability somewhat.
>What kind of sense does that make?
It is human nature, however.
The big difference between accepting a projected personal, or aura of
expertise or invincibility, etc., or rejecting it, is often what sort of
impressions the observer brings to the situation. This happens all the
time.
>He's been playing heterosexual characters
>ever since his career began and you've believed his performances.
Thinking that he was a heterosexual, let's not forget that part.
>*KNOWING*
>his sexual preference would make a difference to you?
Knowing that he's a Scientologist makes a little difference. Everything
makes a difference; it's just a matter of degree. Knowing that Robert
Downing Jr. is a hopeless heroin addict would give him a benefit if he
were to play in a remake of the Man With The Golden Arm. And different
things that are known about a person affect the observer in different
priorities. There's a guy named Darrin who posts herewho apparently is
influenced positively by the knowledge that certain public figures are
Jews. This is real important to him, apparently. To me, this is fairly low
on my list of perceptual sensitivity.
This is just basic human nature...
>Just accept that he's
>gay until proven otherwise.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Norman Wilner
news:3af54bdd...@news.ca.inter.net...
He should be easy to avoid -- just steer clear of any bug-eyed, ranting
white boy in an ill-fitting suit ...