Gay child - Everybody's Fine (2009) Discussion

Hah. ;)

reply

[–] tony-bell 14 years ago

Always having to stick someone gay in the script, have you heard yourself, why does almost everyone in films have to be straight, why put a black guy in there, it is very offensive to say what you did and I think you should only watch macho action movies where you probably won't get any gay characters to appall you.

reply

[–] vk-miesbach 14 years ago

ivi25 merely remarked upon the supposed disproportional representation of a certain part of the general population in movies. How is contemplating the reason thereof offending you? Or is it just the slightly hyperbolic phrasing that you find offense in?

I myself am more struck by the abundance of artists in general or writers, directors and actors in particular among characters. Though both ivi25's and my puzzlement can probably be explained away by the banal reasoning that script writers tend to write about what they themselves know and consider relevant. Likewise producers and everybody else involved in making a movie, who has a choice, select on the same criteria from their own pov. How this combined with having a predominantly liberal and progressive artistic crowd in key positions in Hollywood could lead to said phenomena should be painfully obvious.

reply

[–] darkforces_2002 14 years ago

because virtually everyone knows or is related to and in most cases it is plural somebody gay...its good that we gay people are finally being represented in films like this where it shows a normal person who happens to be same sex attracted or bi.. i hope this didnt come off rant like but while watching the movie i was expecting some sort of gay character... i was so happy when it was just sort of mentioned and not overly done she was just a daughter who happened to be questioning her sexuality and at the christmas scene it wasnt made a deal of like ohhh your the 'partner' i didnt feel like they done it cheaply and melodramatic.

reply

[–] netgrazer 14 years ago

I also liked the fact that it wasn't overdone, no dramatic coming out scene or anything.

Also, if you have 4 children, the chances of at least one of them being gay approaches 50% on average. If they're all artists, that number will only go up I guess.

===
That's Numberwang!

reply

[–] peter-260 14 years ago

Actually, statistically about 4% of the population is homosexual. So statistically if you have 4 kids, the odds of one of them being gay is only about 15%.

I am in no way homophobic, but I do agree that the representation of homosexuals within modern film is disproportionately high (ie films make it seem like more people are homosexual than actually are).

But then again, who wants to watch movies about regular people?

reply

[–] netgrazer 14 years ago

Actually, the homosexuality lemma on wikipedia mentions numbers between 2 and 14%, so with 4 kids, you have a chance of 8 to 56% that one of them is gay. I suspect the probability is closer to 0% in countries like Iran.

But math was never my strong point, so I'm probably wrong again :)

I'm not bothered by their uneven representation in media in general, I guess it's just a cultural counter-movement. When there is enough acceptance people will grow tired of it and we'll probably see the frequency drop to more realistic levels.

In other words, when homosexuality is being viewed as regular, script writers will focus on other "abnormalities". Because, as you suggest, normal people are less interesting (unless abnormal things happen to them).

===
Rare things happen all the time.

reply

[–] audg45 14 years ago

"I suspect the probability is closer to 0% in countries like Iran."
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/iran-set-execute-three-young-men-convicted-homosexuality
There's at least three Iranian homosexuals mentioned in that article. That alone is enough to push it above 0%. Just because homosexuality isn't tolerated in a certain country, doesn't mean it isn't there.

reply

[–] netgrazer 14 years ago

Maybe you missed my attempt at cynicism. :)

If you were to ask anyone in Iran directly during a street interview, while holding a clipboard or a camera, you probably won't find many homosexuals. Close to 0%, like I said.

Put 10,000 average iranians in a relaxed, safe environment, hook them up to a plysmethograph (sp?) or MRI and show them "culturally neutral" gay porn (if there is such a thing), and I bet you'll find the same numbers as anywhere else on the planet. On average.

===
Rare things happen all the time.

reply

[–] Moriarty88 14 years ago

um yeah like 10-15% are gay. but what about all the bisexuals?
More people are gay then u know. plus the 10-15% thing is people who are OUT. do u know how many people secretly are gay and never act on it. coz of family, religion, countrys they live in etc etc.

i know familys where ALL the kids are gay. its not as uncommon as u think.

:
In Your Box Office . com

reply

[–] netgrazer 14 years ago

Yes, it's actually more of a gradient, although most people tend to force themselves in a particular category. I guess we like our identities well-defined.

I never suggested that homosexuality, in any degree, is uncommon, though. Were you really responding to me?

I do think that (some of the) closeted gays/bisexuals are responsible for a lot, if not most of the hate towards homosexuals. Most "straight" people I know - including myself - couldn't care less who does what to whom, as long as it's consensual. Make love, not war :)

===
Rare things happen all the time.

reply

[–] Moriarty88 14 years ago

hey! nah i prob wasnt responding to u, i just finished reading the whole thread and replyed.

coz some people were giving that opinion that there isnt that many gay people or something that it would be unbelievable 1 out of his kids are gay lol.

and i totally agree!! SOO many homophobes are actually gay themselves.

:
In Your Box Office . com

reply

[–] byteM3 14 years ago

cool thread is coolKilling people is easy...if you can forget the taste of sugar.

reply

[–] SapphEyeR 10 years ago

Also, if you have 4 children, the chances of at least one of them being gay approaches 50% on average. If they're all artists, that number will only go up I guess.

Whatever the percentage, it seems to go up among artists. I think there was more than one gay child in that artistic family. I wondered about Robert. He seemed to make such a point of assuring his father that there were women in the orchestra that he had his eye on. But his chemistry was with the conductor who briefly appeared.

Probably his limited success in his musical profession and his not yet having a family was an issue between him and his father.

reply

[–] rkhen 10 years ago

Plus, it happens. Happened in my family (only 3 children, stat-pounders!), happened among my close high school friends -- more than once --, it happens. Somebody turning out to be gay happens all the time. Us straight folks like to think it's rare, or happens to somebody else. Nope; we're just clueless.

I also loved the way it was handled in the movie. That's pretty much like it happened in my family, too. No dramatics (we were all grown up by then). Just, the straight members finally growing up -- in every sense -- and opening the closet door.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nykug 14 years ago

What's wrong with you people? If a person is a homophobe, that person isn't necessarily racist... look at Eminem....

reply

[–] chimera-21 14 years ago

Actually, having a position on a moral issue has nothing to do with race in any sense. So a person opposing homosexuality may or may not be racist to exactly the same percent as anyone else. There is no correlation. Sadly the propagandists today feel the need to play the race card in relation to every issue. Intimidation, primarily, and yet the end result has been to neuter the issue of racism. It's so over-used nobody gives a damn anymore.

Transformers 2: Revenge of the RoboBalls!

reply

[–] cookiela2001 9 years ago

having a position on a moral issue has nothing to do with race in any sense. So a person opposing homosexuality may or may not be racist to exactly the same percent as anyone else. There is no correlation.

How could someone equate being gay or bi as being a "moral issue" (?)

.

reply

[–] JimHaze37 14 years ago

^ I like to use fancy words like "banal" and "hyperbole" to seem smart.

Obviously featuring gays in movies is once again a part of the liberal Hollywood machine trying to make us all gay.

.....Or My Name Ain't Nathan Arizona

reply

[–] jehuty-2 14 years ago

I think it was a smart move that the writers did. When you think about it, each and every one of his children has problems. Even his gay daughter. I mean regardless if how tolerant the society she lives in is, it's gonna cause problems to her. I am not saying being gay is wrong, I am basically saying it's causes pain. Also, maybe they wanted to show that she never really was close to her dad so she didn't tell him? She even told him you were the talker and mom was the listener.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rfa77 14 years ago

I agree. It's not that gays are represented in movies, it's almost any movie these days. I've started looking up movies I may be interested on IMDB to see if there are possibly gay characters. I won't watch this movie and am sick of Hollywood shoving it in my face.

There is truth to the fact about liberal, progressive Hollywood. There are two methods they use to create mass acceptance for their version of morality and values. 1) "Normalize" the issue, as pointed out above. 1) Disarm your detractors with comedy. Get people to laugh. A form of normalization.

If you do notice, Hollywood likes to use minorities in many positions of leadership - police captains, military leaders (in fictional accounts), court judges, fire chiefs, etc. Again, the problem isn't that in real life aminority wouldn't be in this position. It's the over-representation thats false.

BTW, for the other poster who said there's a 50% probability that 1 in 4 kids in a given family are gay. It sounds like you're trying to use the old discredited figure that 10% of the population is gay. Sounds like a case of wishful statistics. The more inflated the number, the more "acceptance" you believe is out there for the lifestyle. That said, you're saying there are upwards of 30 million gay people in the US. Don't think so. I read that the number is more around 3%.

One last thing. Of all the movies I've seen the past 10 years or so, I noticed that the trailers rarely, if ever, give a hint of a gay character. Is this intentional? Rather, yes, it is intentional. They want to draw in as big an audience as they can, then hit them over the head with their message.

Ok, flame away (no pun intended). I'm sure many of you have me sized up by what I wrote in one post.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nisa_26 14 years ago

I find this thread a bit funny because when the film started I thought something similar, probably one of the kids (likely the artist) will be gay. I am a bisexual and about as pro-gay rights as a person can be, but I am also a huge film buff and hollywood has become a bit predictable in this area, its always the same story a parent struggles to understand/accept their long suffering gay child, that's not to diminish the reality of the problem in the lives of young and even older gay americans who struggle to find that harmony with their loved ones (especially parents), but I think its time to move on from this storyline, we've seen it and there are absolutely sooo many more facets in the lives of a gay person and most of them don't have anything to do with their sexuality, I like to see gay people portrayed as normal human beings just like the rest of the population with all their strengths, shortcomings, triumphs and heartbreaks...we are here, we are as normal as anyone and our lives are amazingly similar to the rest of the population, its time for it to be a non-issue...if you ask me (which I know you didn't..hehe) but that's my two cents anyway!!!

Oh, dats de lemon joose for de tea!!

reply

[–] chickskickass 14 years ago

You are right that Hollywood is progressive and liberal, and the movies they make reflect their ideals and agendas. Not as much as independant movies, of course, but those generally don't see a wide release. On the other hand, Hollywood is still about the bottom line, and having a movie feature a gay character is not the box-office suicide it once was. Now the "Gay character" is the new "ethnic character" they put in to make someone seems more interesting, or to utilize the stereotype in lieu of actual characterization.

I don't think that 30 million is an exaggeration. Human sexuality is rarely 100% this way or 100% the other... most people fall somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale. So you won't have 30 million people being out n proud and marching in pride parades, but you will have a lot of people who perhaps have had one meaningful same-sex relationship, or perhaps even just had homosexual feelings they've never acted on.

I wouldn't say that a Hollywood movie does not reveal the gay character in the trailers as a purposeful subterfuge to indoctrinate the world. It may be a "reveal" in the plot. It may not be trailer material. Or it may just be Hollywood trying to get as many people out to the movie as possible, and that includes any possible bits that seem too "racial" or "racy" or "politically un-correct" so as not to offend ANYONE enough to not see the show. It's business.

And I agree with you a little bit in terms of over-representation of minorities in movies and TV shows. I think it speaks of a laziness in story-telling, that you borrow from someone's skin color or sexual history in order to tell half their story. I appreciate media in which the character, no matter what, is well characterized, not stereotypical, and draws from their experiences, which we experience with them. Or even the reverse of over-minority use: how about under-minority usage? You know all those shows based on doctors and hospitals should have waaaay more East Indians and Asians, right? Ah well, pleasing everyone makes for boring TV, I guess. ^_^

reply

[–] tennvolsgirl 10 years ago

I totally agree with you! Great post.

reply

[–] chickskickass 14 years ago

I agree with you on one thing: it does seem to be "in style" in Hollywood right now to include some arbitrary gay person in the movie, to inject it with something "hip" or to have some random "reveal" moment that's supposed to be shocking, but, as the originator of this message thread would attest, isn't really all the surprising.

The thing that makes your post difficult to read is your comparison of homosexuality to a virus. While I can see how well you've used rhetoric to compare the two, especially in your use of strong words such as "sickening" and "perverse", any metaphor aligning the gay lifestyle to a virus falls apart. Simply put, the gays are not out to harm your body. The gays are not hunting you. They aren't contagious.

I can stand by your decision not to watch movies pertaining to the subject, because that's your right as a consumer. But you really picked the wrong movie to bring this topic up. It's such a "blink-and-you'll-miss-it" sort of thing that it barely registers in this movie, especially amidst the more difficult elements of drug use and infidelity that plague two of the other siblings. The two gals don't even touch each other. There are many more movies where the gayness means a lot less but is played up a lot more, especially for comedy... I'm thinking the big reveal at the end of Bridget Jones' 2, specifically.

This movie, and a few more like it, are "normalizing the gay lifestyle" because that is what is happening. There is no greater force in the world than making things normal, and the homosexual lifestlye is not immune. It's not a lie or an overblown statistic to say that there are millions of people just like Drew Barrymore's character, lying to their parents because they don't want to disappoint them. And as DeNiro's character shows in his acceptance--I infer this from Kate Moennig's character's appearance at Xmas--so too shall parents of the world learn to accept their gay children. Because it's not pride, or fear of a "virus", that is the underlying feeling, but love, and of course, worry, and the hope that your children are safe, and happy. In short, are they fine?

reply

[–] Kariann1964 14 years ago

"I can stand by your decision not to watch movies pertaining to the subject, because that's your right as a consumer. But you really picked the wrong movie to bring this topic up. It's such a "blink-and-you'll-miss-it" sort of thing that it barely registers in this movie, especially amidst the more difficult elements of drug use and infidelity that plague two of the other siblings. The two gals don't even touch each other."

I agree, it is such a "blink-and-you'll-miss-it" sort of thing that it barely registers in this movie. We hear that she doesn't know if she likes girls or boys. The issue is tastefully done.

This is a movie for anyone who has raised children, is in the process of parenting, or plans on becoming a parent. There are clear messages here, and it may be food for thought. I think some should reconsider and give this movie a chance.

I will admit that I thought the artist son may be a gay person. I was waiting for it to come. In the end, there are two Grandchildren who will be a part of his life. Acceptance for a child as they are goes a long way.

reply

[–] audg45 14 years ago

Am I in the twilight zone here? "The Gay"? "A virus"? How old are you people? I guess I'm just from a different generation. Us younguns(even the religious ones) just don't care about that like the older folks do. I think eventually, it will be a non-issue (as someone else said). We just have to wait for all the old-school homophobes to die off.

Anyway, I do understand what the OP is saying: that it's a fad now and I'd have to agree. And because of that, the portrayals of gays in movies and TV shows are getting a litte forced/disingenuous and just plain silly. However, I DO feel that this movie did it in a believeable way.

reply

[–] ciami6 14 years ago

MTA.

kill your bill

reply

[–] Moviebuff8889 14 years ago

i have to say your comment is *beep* gay and all my life ive watched the same stuff year after year....what I have to say it is about time......there isn't enough gay characters in movies.....theres all different kinds of people out there...get used to it....I'm sick of all the straight roles...how about that

reply

[–] eminem5074 14 years ago

completely unnessacary to throw a gay person in for "the hell of it" just because its hip and modern

just like how in the 90s separated parents was all the rage in sitcoms and whatnot

reply

[–] Moviebuff8889 14 years ago

who said its about being hip and modern? Hollywood is making this attempt to show realistic views to movies....not everyone is straight, get over it...

reply

[–] rogue-jc 14 years ago

it's not irritating because it genuinely reflects our homophobe culture.. Hollywood is just being realistic...Think about it! even in 2010 America, our culture is still extremely anti gay from a societal/family standpoint.
The current and constant debate about gay marriages or adoption etc. is a prime example on why we still have a loooooooooong ways to go when it comes to that....

Hollywood is just playing into it.. is all.

reply

[–] chanlj 14 years ago

I think gay people are more interesting than straight people perhaps because they have had to stand up to a lot of homophobic silliness in order to live out their lives in a way that is normal for them. Unfortunately the power people in Hollywood are over-represented by horny middle-aged heterosexual males who like their female characters buxom, blonde and stupid. But they also like money and people are willing to pay to see films with lesbian characters.

Nonetheless the lesbians do seem to be given the same plot situations over and over again. And they often appear in ensemble films where one person in the crowd or family is gay and the MAJORITY are heterosexual because that's the way it is in real life.

A few of the above comments seem intolerant and hostile toward gay people. Indulging in this sort of hate comment is morally wrong and you know it is. You are simply using gays as scapegoats so you can give vent to all the hate that is in you. Make something of your own life and you won't need to.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] whocanitbenow75 14 years ago

Wow...someone posted that if you have 4 kids there's a 50% chance that one will be gay? Do you know that 98% of statistics are made up? Sheesh...I know so many kids, my own, nieces, nephews, cousins, close to 100 in the immediate family...1 is gay.
As far as the whole thing goes, I really don't see why anyone's sexuality has to be showcased in a movie like this...it doesn't add anything to the story, it really doesn't matter so why mention it?
And also, the person that said writers and directors go by what they know and that's why there's so much homosexuality and artists...I disagree. A smart writer or director will give the audience what they want, for the most part, because that's how they make money. Occasionally someone will go independent and go with what they know or believe, but they probably realize that this is for fun or personal reasons, not to make money.

reply

[–] audg45 14 years ago

"it doesn't add anything to the story"

That's arguable.

If people are SO sensitive to these kinds of things then maybe they should look up each movie before they see it to make sure that there's nothing to offend them in it.

reply

[–] dyannone 14 years ago

I see the argument on both sides here. The movie itself does not need to include a gay person to be effective, yet it does. The question is why? Everyone has their opinion but we will likely never know the answer – we can only speculate. If we assume the writers are trying to normalize being gay, and that is what you perceive when you view the film, then two polarizing positions can be taken. Either you applaud it as an artistic representation of what is happening around us in the real world, or you take it as a form of propaganda that is being pushed down your throat. At the heart of these two opposite views depends a great deal on where you hail from and your life experiences. If you live in the Midwest in some small town where you and the town’s people are almost entirely straight or hide their true sexuality, then yes some Hollywood films will seem like blatant propaganda. If you live in New York, California, or other major metropolitan areas around the world then films with aspects of homosexuality become more realistic. Since Hollywood is based in the heart of Southern California, this makes sense to see many gay people represented in their films.

The problem is culture. I was raised in California and have lived there a couple times throughout my life – I can tell you that the culture is unlike any other part of the country IMO. By this I don’t mean just homosexuality, but the general attitude and vibe of the area. It is a place of opportunity, open to new ideas, and a haven for those who have left other places that did not accept them. I for one felt more accepted in this part of the country than any other I have lived. California’s vibe is what allows so many creative people to thrive. It is generally a good place to be whoever you want.

To argue that gays in film are an inaccurate account of reality and should not be in films is ignorant to the fact that homosexuality has existed in many forms for as long as we can trace history. If you argue for no homosexuals being depicted in films, you are therefore arguing for just the opposite spectrum of propagandized media. This is the repressed and slanted view that we were used to seeing in past generation cinema. The truth is that it exists and has for a long time. If a movie’s players are supposed to be depictions of all the combinations and complexities that represent human beings, then portraying homosexuality is REQUIRED, assuming reality is the desired goal. Yes, it may be overrepresented in film today but that could just be compensation for all those years of us acting like it did not exist.

The bottom line is that at least we are making progress. These films aid our self discovery process and our realization of what it means to be human. At the very worst, they prepare you for a non-reality. No real harm can come from a film portraying homosexuality, just an expanded understanding of what could be. If you don’t like what you see just move on to something else.

reply