So, how is this treated by this film? Seems perfectly acceptable for Wooley to set up Cole for hot night of *beep* without any negative repercussions or negative judgments. La-dee-da. . . Birds do it, bees do it.. . How perfectly sophisticated. . .
Anyone else repulsed by this aspect of the film?
I find homosexual promiscuity, as depicted in film, to be no more and no less offensive than the depiction of heterosexual promiscuity.
shareAnd how offensive is THAT? Trying to make yourself seem superior, are you?
shareAnd how offensive is THAT?
I didn't find it offensive AT ALL and don't understand why one would be more offensive than the other.
Trying to make yourself seem superior, are you?
Wowsie, you are quite defensive, lol.
Your response drips with a sense of superiority and condescension. If you don't see it you should take another look.
Ha! Agreed 110%
shareWhy don't you just watch the movie and find out for yourself? Or are your tender sensibilities too fragile?
shareI have watched the movie. And yes, my sensibilities are fragile when it comes to stupidity and pointless, gratuitous sexual promiscuity in films. Well, everything about this film was rather pointless.
shareI bet the characters engaged in the 'promiscuity' would not agree that it was so "pointless"... ;>
shareExactly how long have you struggled with your OWN repressed homosexuality???
share[deleted]
Seems to me YOU are the simple-minded product of in-breeding. Answer the question.....How long have you suffered from your self-loathing and repressed homosexuality? Huh? It must be awful to hate oneself to such a degree....You're welcome!
shareSo, let me get this straight (no pun intended) -- you think that it's effective to just repeat what I say. Is this the best you got? How sad. You must be a very angry child.
I came on here asking a legitimate, adult question. You freaked-out. Might want to look at that during your next appointment. Or tell your teacher about it.
Now, let me guess, you're going to follow with: "No, YOU repeat what I say! Bwaaaaah"
As for self-loathing, no one brought that up until YOU did. Um... helloo?
Now you will retort with, "No! YOU brought it up!" and on and on. . .
Enough of this waste of my time.
And yes, my sensibilities are fragile when it comes to stupidity and pointless, gratuitous sexual promiscuity in films.
everything about this film was rather pointless.
[Seems perfectly acceptable for Wooley to set up Cole for hot night of *beep* without any negative repercussions or negative judgments]
Did we watch different films? It is made clear in the plot and the dialogue that Linda disapproves and is hurt by this behavior. They argue about it then she leaves him- first moving alone to Arizona, then to Paris, and refuses to speak to him. It is not until his accident that she returns. After that point we are never again shown his promiscuity.
That seems like a none-to-subtle thematic statement as well. Character does wrong, character is punished, character is redeemed through suffering. Not exactly Shakespearean but definitely tragedy.
Character does wrong? Which part is "wrong"? The cheating,or the homosexuality?
Because what is he supposed to do? Live in denial of his homosexuality? Ooooh!
[Character does wrong? Which part is "wrong"? The cheating,or the homosexuality?]
That conclusion is left for the viewer to draw. It might be one or the other, both, or something more complex than either. But regardless of the specifics his behavior is painted as negative.
[Because what is he supposed to do? Live in denial of his homosexuality? Ooooh!]
He is supposed to do whatever his personal code of conduct tells him is right. But if that proves harmful to another party then I would suggest it should be examined closely.
Okay. I could have gotten this response from a 1st year lawyer. Tell me what YOU think. You do think, don't you? You have an opinion? Tell me what you think the writer's thought.
And elucidate on how his behavior is painted as "negative." Is it only because his wife objects? Suppose she never found out, and he had his little debaucheries in secret? No "negative"?
[Tell me what you think the writer's thought.]
It has always been my opinion that in matters of art that authorial intent should be disenfranchised. Meaning should be a conversation between the audience and the work. And, depending on the audience, more than one meaning can be drawn from the same source. So when I say it could be, one or both or something other, it is because I can see how all three could be valid conclusions depending on the viewer.
One particular reading might be that because of his homosexual activity his wife makes a "negative judgment" against him and his subsequent crippling injury is a karmic "negative repercussion". So I find your reading that the work paints it as "perfectly acceptable" to be flawed.
[Suppose she never found out, and he had his little debaucheries in secret? No "negative"?]
But that's a silly argument. That's like saying, "Suppose Othello never thought Desdemona was unfaithful." Obviously if you change the plot you change the theme.
By the way, you are aware that these were real people, correct? There is only so much latitude that the filmmakers have in painting the "negative" that you reference. They can't give him a lethal venereal disease, or destroy his career if these things didn't actually happen. So within the bounds of what they were accorded I think they were as "negative" as possible.
[Examined by whom?]
My apologies if that was unclear: examined by the individual. In a free society an individual should have the right to exercise that freedom in any way that he or she chooses. The caveat is that when one individual's rights intersect another individual's then that freedom becomes impinged. In some cases these interactions are governed by laws, but for the majority of interpersonal relations it is one's own philosophy that governs.
My personal sentiment is that when one individual is causing harm to another (even if in a manner not expressly prohibited by law) then it requires careful examination of the circumstances and choices causing that pain.
[Maybe he was doing what his personal behavior told him what was right.]
Indeed, perhaps he was. My only point was that if his wife was hurt by those actions then that should be cause for a reexamination.
[Should we then forgive his behavior? And his wife?]
Forgive? I was under the impression that forgiveness was the purview of gods.
[Your response completely lacks moral or ethical commitment.]
Again, I'm afraid I'm going to have to call into question your critical acumen. I believe I clearly stated that the character should follow his ethical code and that in my view such a code that does not account for the welfare of others should be questioned.
Nonsense.
share