MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

There's Got To Be A Morning After…

It’s 2:15am… I’ve burned through 5 hours of American Idol audition episodes on Tivo… The Gurus o’ Gold were kind enough to make best guesses in every category, which meant laying out 24 categories… I got pissed off, pissed on, and pissed around for a day of near-singular focus…
Tomorrow, it’s on to the Santa Barbara Film Festival, next week The Floating Film Festival, followed by The Oscars, SXSW and The Bermuda International Film Festival. I know it sounds like fun… and it will be… but I am tired just thiking about it.
After a long day of mishegas, it occures to me that I am thrilled for Street Fight‘s Marshall Curry, nominated for his film film… thrilled for Rachel Weisz, who is s kind, funny, smart, interested participant, now 5 1/2 months pregnant, glowing, and ready for the next level… thrilled for Terrence Howard, who has matured in the heat of the season and whose next steps will be fascinating… thrilled for William Hurt, who will hopefully parlay this into the second act of his career that could be legendary… thrilled for Team Capote, who are really the biggest underdogs in a season of underdogs… thrilled for Hany Abu-Asad, who always has a smile and a good word for everyone – not to mention as assload of talent – as he makes his awards journey… thrilled for Amy Adams, who has a long, lovely future ahead of her and the chance to be a female Rip Torn cycling through all kinds of characters and three full acts of an acting life…
There are many things I am not so thrilled about… but I want to go to sleep with a smile on my face.

Be Sociable, Share!

119 Responses to “There's Got To Be A Morning After…”

  1. Terence D says:

    Capote is the little movie that could right now. What happend to Clifton Collins though?

  2. waterbucket says:

    Personally, I’m thrilled for Brokeback Mountain.
    I hope visions of Jack and Ennis are dancing in your dreams right now.

  3. Terence D says:

    You’re thrilled over “Brokeback Mountain”??? I would never have guessed.

  4. Bruce says:

    William Hurt disappeared for what seems like a decade. I assume he did it on purpose. Maybe something happend and his penance was doing “Lost in Space”.

  5. BluStealer says:

    The American Idol auditions this year have been really hilarious. It’s like watching a comedy special. It is amazing how these people think they’re good singers.

  6. waterbucket says:

    Well, Terence D, you should have.

  7. LesterFreed says:

    Are BBM fans geeks now? I see a lot of similiarities between them and Rings/Star Wars/Star Trek fans.

  8. waterbucket says:

    No, BBM fans are not geeks.
    Because we get laid. =p

  9. Goulet says:

    With dudes. Good for you!

  10. PetalumaFilms says:

    Check out my friends super low-budget film THE HAMILTONS at Santa Barbara. I really, really think it’s great.

  11. ManWithNoName says:

    A serious question not asked — anyone think the ratings are going to suffer even more this year? There aren’t any huge films, and some segments of Middle America will (wrongly) be turned off by the prohibitive frontrunner and probably not tune in.

  12. Josh says:

    Let’s see about the ratings.
    No big films. No big stars. A host who appeals to a small segment of the market. Equals not good.

  13. Eric says:

    If people are disinterested in the show, it’s because the nominees are all small movies they haven’t seen, if they’ve even heard of them. It would be too easy to attribute it to bigotry or ignorance.

  14. Angelus21 says:

    Women are going to watch no matter what. They’re always Oscar fans. It is getting the casual channel flipper to tune in. With this crop this year? I doubt it.

  15. Sandy says:

    It’s all about the red carpet fashions and the occasional cute guy! I doubt the show will bring in any big numbers but it’ll still be better than Desperate Housewives!

  16. Mark Ziegler says:

    If they wanted a high rating they wouldn’t have hired Jon Stewart. I think they know they’re in for a tough year. So when not experiment?

  17. jeffmcm says:

    I’m sure the ratings won’t be huge but people are taking as if people will turn off their TVs in droves, which I find hard to believe. Also, all five of the nominees have certainly had wide distribution at this point. Crash has even been out on DVD for months. I’m sure that people who want to watch the Oscars have at least _heard_ of all five films by now.

  18. Hopscotch says:

    Same concerns last year…no real big hits for audiences to root for. Gimmie a break. People who watch the Oscars, tune into watch no matter WHO is nominated. If the ratings slide a little does ABC who’s got the Superbowl this year and Desperate Housewives and Lost REALLy concerned? don’t think so.
    And there’s this growing consensus that Jon Stewart isn’t going to be a funny host. Which might work in his favor. The disappointment about Rock and Letterman is that they weren’t as funny as people hoped. If Stewart is surprisingly funny, that’ll hook in more people.

  19. palmtree says:

    With such a politicized crop of films this year, Stewart is an appropriate choice.

  20. joefitz84 says:

    No one is tuning in because Stewart is hosting. It’ll hurt. The lack of big stars/movies will hurt too. But it’ll do what it usually does in terms of ratings. It sells itself.

  21. Wrecktum says:

    Oscar ratings go up or down every year. This has been attributed in the past to the popularity of the films nominated in major categories. For instance, the highest rated Oscar telecast in the past 20 years was 1998 when Titanic won 11 awards.
    Ratings were up in 2004 when Return of the King swept the awards but dropped significantly the following year, when no blockbusters were nominated. Expect the same this year; ratings will tread water or dip from last year, which is certainly not what ABC nor the Academy want.

  22. joefitz84 says:

    It makes sense. Titanic and Rings had huge numbers of fans since they both made about a billion dollars. Those people are going to watch out of curiosity.

  23. Nicol D says:

    Brokeback Mountain (or insert PC film here) will never win. It is still the underdog and faces an uphill battle due to the older generation of conservative academy members who will never vote for it!
    err…Someone trots out this tired cliche workhorse line every year…so I just thought I would be the first to say it this season.

  24. frankbooth says:

    Tell us more, Petaluma Don. What’s it about?

  25. waterbucket says:

    The older generation will be crushed by the power of Brokeback’s awesomeness.
    Could this movie BE anymore awesome? No, the answer is that it couldn’t.

  26. Nicol D says:

    “The older generation will be crushed by the power of Brokeback’s awesomeness. ”
    Yes, that stodgy old generation of Academy voters with arcahaic values like…
    Jack Nicholson, Jane Fonda, Warren Beatty, Shirley MacLaine,Mike Nichols,Dustin Hoffman, Susan Sarandon, Ian McKellan…
    All of them…stodgy up-tight prudes! Brokeback’s overwhelming success oughtta show them!

  27. waterbucket says:

    Oh Nicol baby, you’re very right. Those are truly prudes, especially that NRA president Susan Sarandon.
    If only they’ve experimented a little in college like Dave Poland, then they’d understand Brokeback.

  28. grandcosmo says:

    waterbucket, you are a little slow on the uptake aren’t you? Go to and look up the word irony.

  29. waterbucket says:

    grandcosmo, thanks for the kindness. But please take a good long look at yourself first before calling other people slow.

  30. Fades To Black says:

    Who in Hollywood doesn’t get Brokeback? Are the members of the Academy living in Kansas or Alabama? No, right?

  31. Cadavra says:

    Actually, grandcosmo, he was being sarcastic. But it’s ironic you didn’t know that.

  32. Terence D says:

    Irony goes right over a lot of heads sometimes. It’s ironic.

  33. Nicol D says:

    I didn’t call it a moment too soon. Nikke Fink just put out an article where she laments that BBM is the underdog becuase the geritol generation won’t see it.

  34. Bruce says:

    Nikki Finke? No one would have guessed she would do that. No one!!
    I bet she threw in a Bush bash in at least one paragraph too.

  35. Melquiades says:

    Actually, Finke says it isn’t (just) the geezers avoiding Brokeback:
    “But, jeez, I’m not just talking about the geezers. I’m talking baby boomers and younger Academy members who are sketched out about seeing Brokeback.”
    I don’t buy it for a minute, though.
    While I accept that homophobia is rampant across the U.S., I think it’s safe to say Hollywood is one community where anti-gay bigots are an extreme minority.

  36. Frink says:

    Cadavra, I think if you look in a dictionary you will find that grandcosmo is correct. Nicol D was using irony.
    irony – The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

  37. palmtree says:

    I don’t think you need to be an anti-gay bigot to not want to watch BM. I personally know some who have worked with gay people and seen some pretty intense gay cinema, but they won’t watch this. It’s strange and baffling, but it’s true. I don’t get it either.

  38. DannyBoy says:

    I wonder if Fink’s Academy member friends are the same few people that Dave hangs out with.

  39. Melquiades says:

    I don’t mean to suggest that homophobia is the only reason somebody wouldn’t see Brokeback. A lot of people dislike Westerns, or Ang Lee, or “slow” movies, etc.
    But her column suggested a large group of people wouldn’t see it specifically because of the gay content. That’s homophobia.
    Just like if somebody refuses to see Something New because they don’t want to watch an interracial couple. That’s racism.

  40. Frink says:

    As Mickey Kaus said today at Slate, being adverse to watching gay sex, even simulated, is not homophobia as much as it is people’s genes.

  41. jeffmcm says:

    Is that the same argument that says that homosexuality is against peoples’ genes as well, because gays don’t reproduce?

  42. DannyBoy says:

    Kaus’ comment is idiotic. It’s conditioning that makes people squeemish about gay sex. In the past people would get vicerally upset at seeing a black man with his arm around a white woman (maybe some still do in some places), and they might have thought it was their proper instincts causing that reaction. Now people can look at THE BODYGARD and not even really think that it’s an interracial couple. Same thing will eventually happen with homosexuality. It’s called social progress.

  43. PandaBear says:

    I thought social Liberals were above this kind of stuff????

  44. palmtree says:

    $53 million worth of tickets for BM. That’s a lot of genes that were violated.

  45. Nicol D says:

    The argument over homosexuality and its acceptabliity in society is actually philosophical and worthy of discussion. Sadly, I do not think we live in times that would allow that discussion to take place. It would mean both sides would have to ask tough questions of their own positions and not resort to name calling to silence the opposing side.
    It really leads to a discussion of what is ‘natural law.’ Is natural law defined as anything which occurs in nature or is natural law defined as what is necessary for the survival of the species.
    If we define it as the former than homosexuality is natural. If we define it as the latter than it is not.
    A true discussion would require people of religious faith to ask the question, “If homosexuality is not of God, than why are there so many people who claim to have homosexual feelings at such a young age?”
    It would require social liberals/secular types to ask the question, “If homosexuality is natural than why was the human body not designed for accomodation of the homosexual act of love?”
    A true discussion would require religious people to not use the word ‘sin’.
    A true discussion would require secular people to not use the word ‘homophobe.’
    The true position would not have to use these words to win.

  46. James Leer says:

    “It would require social liberals/secular types to ask the question, ‘If homosexuality is natural than why was the human body not designed for accomodation of the homosexual act of love?'”
    It’s not?

  47. Nicol D says:

    “It’s not?”
    What do you think and why?

  48. Melquiades says:

    I haven’t had any gay sex, but it would seem to me the parts fit pretty well.
    I assume you’re suggesting it’s not “designed” for gay sex because gay sex doesn’t lead to procreation? By that rationale, every sex act heterosexual couples enjoy outside of vaginal intercourse is unnatural, too.

  49. Melquiades says:

    Taking it a step further, are heterosexuals who are incapable of having children commiting an unnatural act when they have sex? Or heterosexuals who use contraception? (The Catholic Church would say yes, but would most people who call homosexuality unnatural?)
    Finally, I have to chuckle at your choice of words… the “homosexual act of love.” Do you mean anal sex? And is the “heterosexual act of love” vaginal intercourse? The thing I’d describe as an “act of love” in my marriage is the kiss. When he have sex, love isn’t always the first thing on my mind. 🙂

  50. jeffmcm says:

    Here’s another shocker: not all gay men have anal sex!!! In fact, I don’t have any statistics, but I would wager that, sheerly by their larger share of the population, more heterosexuals indulge in anal sex than homosexuals.
    Anyway, humans have an appendix. It’s an evolutionary remnany. It doesn’t serve any ‘natural function’ either.

  51. jeffmcm says:

    That was supposed to be ‘remnant’.
    In other news, why is it that every time David Poland mentions Rachel Weisz, he has to remind us that she’s pregnant? Speaking of ‘natural laws’.

  52. DannyBoy says:

    Nicol D. You make a good point. I wish more people were as thoughtful as you seem to be. To respond to one of your questions, maybe what is “necessary for the survival of the [human] species” in this epoch of overpopulation is a deflection of the sexual drive away from procreation for a significant number of people. I vaguely remember reading an article by a biologist claiming that homosexuality actually increases in species that are dangerously overpopulating, that it

  53. Joe Leydon says:

    Maybe so, Danny. But the last time I tried to have anal sex with a lady without lots and LOTS of lube — synthetic, not “natural” — she very nearly went medieval on MY ass.

  54. DannyBoy says:

    Last time I tried to have vaginal intercourse with a lesbian she went medieval on MY ass. Oh the experiments of collage days!

  55. jeffmcm says:

    Why does something have to conform to ‘natural law’ to be acceptable in society anyway? Every time I eat a Twinkie it’s pretty friggin’ unnatural.

  56. Joe Leydon says:

    Danny: No, no, you got it all wrong! You don’t actually have intercourse with lesbians. You simply watch them getting frisky with each other. We straight dudes know that.

  57. DannyBoy says:

    I’ll tell you a secret, Joe. We gay guys have sex with lesbians all the time. We do it at what we like to call “Jack and Jill” parties. Ha!

  58. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Isn’t it against the Academy rules to vote in categories you haven’t watched all the eligable films for? Which would mean, or so you’d think, that everyone who votes for BP has seen Brokeback. Hmmm?
    Anyway, the amount of disguised homophobia on places such as this is getting startling. It’s almost as if Brokeback is having an adverse effect on certain people. “I hate gays even more now because they are taking over the realm of cinema and that is clearly for heteros!” or something. Strange.
    The ratings usually fluctuate about 5million people or so every year. People make it sound like that last year’s ratings here in the dungeons, but it still had a rating share of around 40.0, i believe.

  59. jeffmcm says:

    I believe that only in certain categories does the Academy enforce the watching of movies: the Shorts categories, Best Documentary, and I believe that in the Sound categories the films show special reels of their best sections of work.
    Otherwise, it’s the honor system.

  60. Joe Leydon says:

    Danny: So, if I understand what you’re saying, if I pass for gay, I’ll actually get laid (by women) more often? You wouldn’t be pulling my, uh, leg, would you?

  61. Josh says:

    That theory has been used by many guys before. The whole “appearing and acting gay so you seem less harmless and more friendly to females” thing. I don’t think it works though. Women don’t want to sleep with their buddies who like shopping. Real life isn’t like a Matthew Perry movie.

  62. Nicol D says:

    My asking the questions I did was not to necessarily engage in a discussion about the natural or unnatural origin of homosexuality.
    My point was to establish what parameters would be necessary for a true discussion to take place. Some had mature responses, others like Melquiades, responded with juvenile condescension.
    I of course used the language I did out of sensitivity to others who might read this and the fact that I like to keep my ‘post’ language at level that does not extend the invitation to vulgarity and respects all sides.
    I suspect Melquiades would be the first to not question his own assumptions.
    As for the overpopulation question, that is a myth. Some parts of the world are overpopulated while other parts are vastly underpopulated.
    Does this mean AIDS in Africa is a result of ‘nature’ trying to weed out the overpopulated? I do not believe so but if we follow this ‘overpopulation argument’ to its logical conclusion, that is where we go.
    My point was that every argument comes with it a series of assumptions.
    The natural vs. unatural argument ultimately is about what does society aspire to.
    As for this line…
    “And please: don’t offer the “what if everyone were to turn gay” retort. I think everyone here on the hot blog is too smart for that line.”
    I was not going to use this line although now I am tempted to. Remember, if you are too smart for it, you should not be telling others not to use it. You should use it as an ivitation to deconstruct why you believe this.
    Again, I would have no problem taking this discussion further, I just do not know that this is the forum for it.
    In other views…I just watched The Road Warrior again last night. I think if I was an action film producer right now and I wanted to make an event film I would produce a big budget actioner with absolutely no use of CGI and promote it as a spectacle that had all human stunts. I think that would go over well.

  63. Melquiades says:

    Nicol, I’m sorry if you found my comments juvenile. For my part, I think it’s juvenile to avoid words like “anal” and “vaginal” when discussing specific sex acts. It makes the discussion that much harder.
    Regarding your statement that “If homosexuality is natural than why was the human body not designed for accomodation of the homosexual act of love?”
    … it’s simply incorrect. First of all, your use of “design,” though metaphorical (right?), is loaded. Second, the body DOES easily accomodate all manners of lovemaking, both heterosexual and homosexual.
    So, do you have another argument the “liberal/secular” types need to confront in a discussion of homosexuality? Because that one is invalid.

  64. palmtree says:

    I thought we aspired to freedom….life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And imposing one person or group’s ideals for society on the rest of people is not how I envision freedom.
    That is very different however from having personal ideals and achieving them in your life and work. It’s when those ideals are forced on people like one size fits all that it gets hairy.

  65. DannyBoy says:

    Nicol, I was wrong to imply that I was speaking to you when I wrote: “And please: don’t offer the ‘what if everyone were to turn gay’ retort.” I was thinking of other, less thoughtful posters. I can’t imagine you saying something that dumb. It’s no different from someone telling there kid, who was going to be a doctor, but has changed his mind a year into med school: “what if everyone in medical school decided to drop out and become artists? There’s eventually be no more doctors. What good would art be if everyone was dying because of lack of medical treatment.” I’m sorry but it’s an idiotic like of arguement.
    As for your point about some places being overpopulated and others underpopulated, one has to factor in our lack of social structures to move people from the populated areas to the underpopulated areas. Who here, who is against family planning wants to volunteer to be the first to start a colony in outer Siberia?
    It all comes down to ideological presuppositions. Why should it be a human value to have a huge human population? Wouldn’t it be better to have a billion people on the earth, some gay some straight, some bi, but all free to pursue their own form of happiness, than 20 billion people on the earth obliged to live according to some abstract (and ultimately socially constructed) idea of “natural law”?
    And Joe, of course I was kidding. I think Jack and Jill parties are an urban legend. I’ve never actaully heard of one. Still, there are a lot of women out there who find the idea of a nice bi-guy sexy. Maybe if you did start sleeping with some men, you’d get more women, though I imagine you get plenty as a big-shot published author. 😉

  66. Nicol D says:

    “Second, the body DOES easily accomodate all manners of lovemaking, both heterosexual and homosexual.”
    How is this comment correct? Please be tasteful.

  67. DannyBoy says:

    Oral sex “works” and anal sex “works”. What else is there to say?

  68. Melquiades says:

    Exactly. The parts fit.

  69. Nicol D says:

    “Who here, who is against family planning wants to volunteer to be the first to start a colony in outer Siberia?”
    This is the same type of comment as the one about “What if everyone was gay” that you said was not valid. It is a comment that says unless someone is willing to do x they cannot say y.
    Truth is truth by definition regardless of whether one has done or not done something. If the earth is or is not overpopulated that will be true regardless of whether or not someone wants to go to a colony.
    Also, and this is just a question. We must always be able to ask questions…
    If we assume that anal sex is ‘natural’ and that all concepts of ‘natural law’ are societally conditioned then this leads to other questions. If the human body easily accomodates both heterosexual and homosexual acts equally, why is it that right now on the planet earth one of the top three ways of spreading the HIV virus (which I think we agree does not help mankind) is anal sex?
    Again, it is just a question.

  70. DannyBoy says:

    Sigh. That’s another question that’s beneath you, frankly, Nicol. That’s like saying “Kissing is one of the top ways of spreading the cold virus, so kissing isn’t natural and should be done away with.” Most plagues have been caused by people traveling from one part of the world to another, (Columbus bringing Syphilis to the Native Americans, etc.) so should it be considered a sacrosanct component of natural law that we should maintain in social law that nobody leaves the town they were born in?

  71. Melquiades says:

    Because small tears are made more easily in the rectum than the vagina. But I imagine you wouldn’t have vaginal intercourse with an HIV-positive man just because it’s relatively safer than having anal sex, right?
    Unprotected sex of all kinds puts you at risk for HIV. And unprotected sex of all kinds existed long before HIV. Why would a virus that’s pretty new to the scene have anything to do with how ‘natural’ something is?
    And besides, the people *least* likely to contract HIV are lesbian women. Does that make lesbian women more ‘natural’ than heterosexual couples?

  72. DannyBoy says:

    Most experts now agree that the HIV virus has been around for thousands of years, maybe even killing a few people here and there in undiagnosed instances. It was the technological advancements leading to world travel quickly via airplanes that caused the “brush fire” spread in the early 80s as much as anything else. So, Luddites are the ones with the solution, according to the “natural law” theory, then, right?

  73. Rufus Masters says:

    Sex was made for procreation. I don’t exactly see men getting pregnant anytime soon. Do you? Not exactly a natural act unless you’re from the school of sex is all fun and games and nothing else.

  74. Nicol D says:

    “Why would a virus that’s pretty new to the scene have anything to do with how ‘natural’ something is?”
    Danny Boy
    “Most experts now agree that the HIV virus has been around for thousands of years, maybe even killing a few people here and there in undiagnosed instances.”
    You both contradict each other here yet you are on the same side of the issue. Each assumption has different ramifications.
    Similarly, the comparison of a ‘cold’ to HIV is not valid. People do not die en masse due to the common cold, nor have they ever in history.
    “Unprotected sex of all kinds puts you at risk for HIV.”
    The assumption of this statement is that all sex itself is unnatural. Rather bizarre. Please explain.

  75. Melquiades says:

    “You both contradict each other here yet you are on the same side of the issue.”
    It’s not a contradiction… “thousands of years” compared to the history of human sex is a blip.
    “The assumption of this statement is that all sex itself is unnatural. Rather bizarre. Please explain.”
    How so? You can commit a ‘natural’ act and contract a disease. It happens every day.

  76. Josh says:

    You can’t debate a homosexual about HIV and AIDS. They won’t listen to you about it. Even right now they’re contradicting each other on it. It is something that defines their group and has since the early 80’s.
    Now AIDS is tragic because its a disease that eventually kills you but I really don’t have too much sympathy. It is a disease that is 99% preventable. The 1% is for babies born into it. It’s really easy. Don’t have anal sex. Don’t use needles and don’t use drugs. Don’t have unprotected sex. Make sure the blood banks are clean on a daily basis.
    You shouldn’t be worried about getting it.

  77. Melquiades says:

    Rufus… sex is certainly for more than procreation. Have you ever had sex without the goal being the conception of a child? God, I hope so for your sake (and your partner’s).
    Sex IS fun, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Having children is pretty wonderful, too.

  78. Joe Leydon says:

    “Maybe if you did start sleeping with some men, you’d get more women, though I imagine you get plenty as a big-shot published author. ;-)”
    I can’t decide what’s funnier: The idea that Jack and Jill parties might exist, or the idea that my book could be an aphrodisiac.

  79. Melquiades says:

    Josh, Nicol brought up HIV as part of her argument as to why homosexuality might be considered unnatural. This isn’t a debate about HIV. Besides, the people most worried about contracting HIV right now are in Africa, and they’re mostly straight.

  80. palmtree says:

    Other species of animals have been shown to have sex for pleasure and not just procreation. Additionally, there is homosexuality in other animals as well. Doesn’t that by definition make it “natural”?

  81. Bruce says:

    I can’t believe Jack and Jill parties are out there.
    You greedy people.

  82. Rufus Masters says:

    Don’t get me wrong. I could care less what you do behind closed doors. Have anal sex as much as you want. Sex for me is fun. I’m sure it is for gays too. My point is a larger one where sex is here for procreation. But if anal is your thing and you love men then go right ahead. It’s not my job to tell you whats what.

  83. DannyBoy says:

    Nicol really is starting to sound like a Stalinist, which is why I brought up my example of Siberia: She/he seems to argue for a sacrifice of individual happiness and freedom for an abstract idea of the common good based on an overarching “one plan fits all” ideological superstructure.
    You can suggest that HIV is the result of “going against nature,” (an argument that was exhausted at least fifteen years ago), but until you force people to diet so that there’s no obesity (leading to all kinds of heath problems), stop them from drinking alcohol (for the same reason), stop international travel which can spread SARS and what not, you’re cherry picking tragedies in order to attack a group of people. Not really ethical, or suggestive of any self-awarness (about what the hell you’re talking about) at all.

  84. Josh says:

    Do you even know what a Stalinist means and is all about??? Because you’re really very far off.

  85. DannyBoy says:

    By the way, the reason Melquiades and I may contradict each other is that we’re individuals with occasional differences in terms the theories we subscribe to (about how HIV came into existance. Nothing in this regard is known for absolute certainty.) Despite what others might think, there isn’t some “Gay Agenda” playbook that we’re all reading out of. It’s the conservative right-wing Christians all singing out of the same hymn book and repeating the same talking points all day. God, this is getting tiresome, huh, Melquiandes? Some people haven’t learned anything in 25 years.

  86. DannyBoy says:

    No, Josh, I’m not. Some of us actaully paid attention in college. Okay, I’m outta here for a while. You’re all giving me a headache.

  87. Josh says:

    Actually, it gets tiresome hearing two contradicting viewpoints try to defend something. Maybe there should be a Gay Agenda/Playbook. At least you would be more coherent.

  88. BluStealer says:

    Aids talk, movies, Eddie Murphy, film theory, Santa Barbara’s restaurants. You can get everything at the Hot Blog!!

  89. palmtree says:

    At least if they contradict each other we know they’re not the same person posting under multiple names.

  90. PandaBear says:

    I tried reading this thread but my eyes hurt after ten minutes.

  91. Mark Ziegler says:

    When people have contradicting viewpoints, yet, are trying to argue for the same thing it means they’re just confusing everyone.
    Like in this case here.

  92. Nicol D says:

    A few points…
    You called me a ‘Stalinist’. If that is what you believe I will not try to dissuade you. This was what I really was trying to prove in the first place. That a true debate could not even take place in our current culture. As soon as someone resorts to phrases like ‘God hates gays’ or ‘homophobic bigot’ we have devolved into rhetoric.
    I’ll safely file ‘Stalinist’ in that category.
    Some points I would just make in passing…
    Natural Law is not a social construct. It is reality and quantifiable whether you accept it or not.
    Natural Law is why a stone falls towards the earth when you drop it from a higher source.
    Natural Law is why the earth was proven round even when all known ‘science’ at the time said it was flat. This leads to the concentric nature of the universe.
    Natural Law is why geese flock south for the winter and why bees help polination in flowers.
    Hence, natural law does exist. It is not a societal construct. And human beings fit into this as we are part of this Natural Law. Once one accepts this we must then try to determine how we fit into it.
    It is not as simplistic as ‘it exists therefore it is natural’ or ‘it fits therefore it works’. It is a question of whether or not it is a facet of nature that
    A) moves us forward
    B) is neutral
    C) actually takes us back
    This is the discussion that I was trying to have. If we cannot ask these questions without being accused or name-called, I have to fear for our culture. This, after all is what free speech is all about…not Howard Stern saying ‘poo-poo’ which is what too many people believe nowadays.
    “…but until you force people to diet so that there’s no obesity (leading to all kinds of heath problems), stop them from drinking alcohol (for the same reason), stop international travel which can spread SARS and what not, you’re cherry picking tragedies in order to attack a group of people.”
    The difference is this; we do not encourage people to become obese; become alcoholics or travel to spread SARS (which is nowhere near being the crisis HIV/AIDS is).
    Can you actually say we do not live in a culture that does not encourage people to be promiscuous?
    HIV/AIDS is one of the biggest threats to humankind in history. It directly attacks that which makes us survive. Until we can talk about it with openess and honesty and how it is spread it will get the better of us. That means talking about it in a culture of sensitivity and respect but also without fear of people saying you are ‘attacking’ a demographic.
    That is about power.

  93. jeffmcm says:

    Then stop reading, Panda.
    This whole argument is predicated on some assumption introduced by Nicol that there is some “natural law” out there that should govern ‘acceptable behavior’ which I consider to be bogus up front. Animals, being animals, do whatever they want based on instincts. Humans being civilized have the option to restrict socially counterproductive behavior (like murder). The question then becomes, is homosexuality socially counterproductive? And if so, how? And also if so, how do you restrict it without getting incredibly invasive into peoples’ private lives?
    And let’s end the whole discussion on the mechanics of sex. As I said before, I believe that more American heterosexuals engage in anal sex than homosexuals. There’s an entire branch of porn videos dedicated to this notion, and the branch of sex education that says that one should save vaginal sex for marriage has led to a huge upswing in the practice of heterosexual teenage anal sex.

  94. jeffmcm says:

    Whoops, Nicol and I posted at the same time.
    Well, I won’t argue that there is no such thing as scientific laws, such as gravity, but extending “natural law” to human behavior gets into all realms of psychology and behaviorism and it’s way too complicated for blanket assertions.
    And to respond to Nicol when he says that we live in a society that encourages people to be promiscuous, if you believe that then you must also accept that we live in a society that encourages women to be homosexual and people to become obese, because I have to assume your argument is based on the constant power of media and advertising to spread certain messages to society (sex is fun/food is good/women are attractive).

  95. palmtree says:

    Nicol, I don’t think the question is regarding whether natural law exists or doesn’t (though many religious people take pains to tell us that science is based on theories which can be disproven). Rather, it is using natural law to further a specific moral ideal that comes out of specific cultures and times and people.
    “Moves us forward?” Towards what goals? And do things ever move forward or do we just take one step forward and one step back? It’s too complicated a topic to address without first addressing your assumptions.

  96. DannyBoy says:

    As Jeff correctly says, scientific laws and “Natural Law” are not the same thing. The former is just what you think it is: gravity, entropy, evaporation. “Natural Law” is an ideological theory developed by the Stoics from ancient Greek philosophy and finally incorporated by the Catholic Church into their religious theology. Get your facts straight. You act like you’re talking rationally, Nicol, but the theory of natural law is as much of a social construct as the belief in the Holy Trinity, and I’m not going to live my life based on religious superstiton turned into uncritical dogma.
    By the way, it’s been hours, and no one has responded vis-

  97. PandaBear says:

    Umm that was my point Jeffmcm. I really don’t need to read your thoughts on gays and AIDS. You can barely talk film. I need to hear your views on this subject???
    Thanks but no thanks, Jeffmcm.
    I think I just puked reading this line from Danny Boy
    “Why should it be a human value to have a huge human population? Wouldn’t it be better to have a billion people on the earth… all free to pursue their own form of happiness, than 20 billion people on the earth…

  98. joefitz84 says:

    Humans should do everything based on instinct???
    I guess you don’t believe in any laws of any kind. You believe that rape, murder, stealing are all well and good because if you want something, take something. It’s instinct. You’re allowed it. Like animals.

  99. DannyBoy says:

    God, Panda, you’re a dim bulb. All I’m saying is that it’s absurd to argue the OPPOSITE condemn homosexuality because it doesn’t INCREASE the population. Night, all. I’m going to harm the world by going out with my gay boyfriend, rather than inseminate a woman.

  100. Josh says:

    I liked “And the Band Played On” too. But did we have to discuss this in depth?

  101. PandaBear says:

    I’m just asking you a question Danny based on your postings and thoughts. Don’t take offense to it and start throwing insults around. Is there a need for that? It hurts your argument. Be Nice.

  102. jeffmcm says:

    Well, it looks like our nice, rational discussion has finally devolved. All thanks to one guy, who seems to have nothing to contribute except name-calling.
    I don’t see any questions in your posts, Panda.
    Similarly, Joe: I don’t see any source for the conclusion you seem to have jumped to most recently.

  103. PandaBear says:

    Don’t be offended that I think your opinion on the subject matter means nothing. I wasn’t directing anything to you after I already answered you previously. I was asking Danny a question. Unless you changed your login to Danny, you really shouldn’t start insulting me, right? But you have to get involved and in the middle of everything. Why should it change now? Good luck with that approach.
    I think it’s more than fair to ask Danny what he meant by his line in his posting. If it means something than what I think he should say it. That’s how a discussion goes, jeffmcm. I didn’t know everyone agreed with everything where you’re from. Must make for boring dinner parties. Maybe that’s why you like responding like a jerk. Who knows?

  104. Josh says:

    If you believe in morality and morals, Natural Law is for you. Life, Liberty, and Property. The higher power and a right to live freely are above man made laws. The natural law theory is a very interesting study. It goes off in directions you would have no idea about. You can safely say it is the basis for our society today. Flows into human behavior and religion and the law. Really going over boundaries that most theory and laws do not.
    Look what BBM gave us. A discussion about natural law. Now that’s impressive.

  105. jeffmcm says:

    Panda, if you’re going to call me a jerk, then I’m going to have to call you a liar, because you’re not interested in discussion. You’re interested in mocking other peoples’ posts and name-calling. You didn’t ask Danny a question, you made outraged fun of his post. There’s no discussion in that. If you don’t think I have anything to add, please ignore me. PLEASE ignore me.

  106. James Leer says:

    Nicol, I’m afraid I don’t know what you are trying to argue. Do you think that gay people are faking it? That they are not born the way they are?
    If they ARE born that way, wouldn’t that be considered something that occurs in nature? What would you have them do about it?
    And, perhaps most importantly, why should you even care?
    I must agree with Kamikaze Camel, it is truly astounding the amount of barely-disguised homophobia that is allowed in this discourse. I can’t imagine that if Jews or African Americans were being called “unnatural,” DP would be so lenient.

  107. jeffmcm says:

    Hopefully without putting words in his mouth (correct me if I’m wrong, Nicol) I suspect he’s heading in the direction of the idea that homosexual urges are equivalent to pedophilia, in terms of things that undeniably exist, yet are societally unwanted (and against ‘Natural Law’).
    One reason Brokeback is getting the attention it has is because it’s a film about two manly men, and therefore is threatening to the notion of masculinity itself. Gay women don’t face nearly as much overt hostility as gay men because, as I said in another thread, society is much more accepting of Lesbianism, because society would prefer to ignore female sexuality altogether.

  108. waterbucket says:

    Wow, the discussion here is so heated. I’m not good with this kind of thing since I’m not articulate and good at reasoning. But I volunteer to be in the cheering corner for whomever arguing for homosexuality. You’re my kind of guy. Go get them!

  109. Sanchez says:

    If you disagree with a homosexuals position it automatically becomes “homophobia”. That’s not right either.

  110. Fades To Black says:

    Who or what has been threatened by the success of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN? What people? Do the people you’re implying even care? I certainly doubt it. You think the people you’re suggesting care about some Hollywood gay movie?
    “I can’t imagine that if Jews or African Americans were being called “unnatural,” DP would be so lenient.”
    Homosexuals aren’t a race of people. It’s you’re sexuality. Some homosexuals have become and taken on what they are. But that doesn’t make them a race like African Americans. Even comparing the two is borderline inflammatory. It’s not even in the same league. You can argue choice about homosexuality. You’re either born black or not.
    Questioning the naturalness of homosexual acts isn’t homophobia. It’s called inquiring and trying to be informed. It’s not a natural thing to most people. I know homosexuals can’t understand that but it’s a fact of life. And many people out there believe it is unnatural. Right or wrong they’re allowed to question it without being called homophobes and other names and being called racists.

  111. jeffmcm says:

    I would say that the person who repeated, every day for several weeks, without prompting, that he would not see Brokeback even under pain of something happening to his testicles was threatened by it. For some reason the movie’s mere existence seemed to make him deeply uncomfortable.
    Fades to Black, you’re welcome to take part in this discussion, but two things:
    what is a ‘homosexual act’ according to you?
    how many people do you believe ‘have become and taken on what they are’? Are you aware that most homosexuals do not consider choice to be part of the equation?

  112. Josh says:

    Now we’re forcing people to see the movie and if they don’t want to they obviously hate homosexuals?
    That’s just silly.

  113. Fades To Black says:

    I am well aware that many homosexuals don’t consider it a choice. They are who they are. That’s what I was trying to say in my post. But the fact is most make a choice. And with race? You’re given it. There is not even a whiff of choice involved. I have many gay friends and they all have different theories on it. But that’s a topic for another time and probably another blog board.
    By me saying they have taken on and become means that some homosexuals define themselves as homosexuals. It’s their race. Their creed. Their colors. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it. It’s good to belong and have pride. Maybe it’s like Italians waving around the Italian flag. I don’t know. I’m not gay. Some of my gay friends take huge pride in it. Some just brush it off and don’t let it define them.
    I don’t know the answers. Couldn’t even begin to go into it besides this.
    I’m saying I have read this thread. And all the other ones. And not once has anyone made any inflammatory calls against homosexuality.
    It has been treated with dignity and respect. It seems like some here are just waiting for it to be blasted and bigots to shoot out but it hasn’t happend. It has been discussed rationally and intelligently. By both sides. Because it is an issue. The front runner for the Oscar is a gay movie. It has to be talked about.
    And nowhere here, from where I can see, has any homophobia taken place. And I’m glad you welcome me to the discussion. Did I need an invite?
    I’m winded now. Need some drinks.

  114. jeffmcm says:

    Josh: I don’t know what you’re talking about.
    Fades: Thanks for being honest. Now we know where you’re coming from. Just a question: what percentage of your many gay friends chose to be gay? As a good friend, you should really talk them out of it, because it’s not worth it. Discrimination, bashings…no amount of mind-blowing sex is worth the hassles you get.

  115. Cadavra says:

    “what is a ‘homosexual act’ according to you?”
    How about seeing Liza Minnelli in concert?
    Thank you! I’m here all week!

  116. Sanchez says:

    Everytime I see the title of this thread I think of the song. I can’t get it out of my head.

  117. Joe Leydon says:

    Anyone here going to see the Super Bowl this weekend? I’m going to miss it — I’ll be too busy having anal sex with some groupie who really loved my book — but I usually enjoy watching the commercials. The Super Bowl telecast is traditonally the place where some big summer tentpole pix are launched, for better (“Independence Day”) or worse (“The Hulk”). Maybe Dave could set up a separate thread (hint, hint) so there could be a discussion about what movie ads — or for that matter, what ads, period — were impressive?
    Of course, it will be hard to top Ridley Scott’s classic ad for Apple computers:

  118. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Sanchez, i keep thinkin the same thing. Bloody Poseidon Adventure. That movie freaked me out so much when i was a kid.

  119. DannyBoy says:

    Panda you wrote:
    “I think I just puked reading this line from Danny Boy…” (You’ve said that about one of my comments a few weeks ago, too.) That’s not asking a question. That’s just an insulting, completly gratuitious swipe offering nothing to this discussion. When I responded in kind, you suddenly started playing the victim: “Don’t..start throwing insults around. Is there a need for that? Be Nice.”
    You know we can all go back and read your prevous comments, don’t you?

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon