MovieChat Forums > Taking Woodstock (2009) Discussion > What is up with all the gay stuff?

What is up with all the gay stuff?


Why did we need to see the gay kiss or the gay man dressed like a woman so much? I thought it was about Woodstock. The movie bored me from start to finish.

reply

Boring and Brokeback Mountain needlessly inserted. Ang Lee is the pits.

reply

Gay alright. Gay gay gay gay gay. Gay.



_____________________________________________________________________
Something clever and witty to impress and amuse the reader.

reply

[deleted]

No kidding. The movie started out mildly amusing -- following the adventures of Elliot as he arranges getting the festival to be held in his small village. But then, when the hippies arrived and Elliot "discovers his gayness," the movie went right into the toilet.

And what about that LSD-trip, bi-sexual encounter in the van?

Of course, Elliot finally leaves to "find himself" in San Francisco at the end.

BE WARNED. This is another gay-themed movie by the director of "Brokeback Mountain!"

reply

The movie's based on the book by Elliot Tiber. Why wouldn't it have some homosexual encounters, which weren't even the main focus of the movie.

reply



battletar,

Not to mention the fact that Tiber is gay ... I mean, please

And, all sorts of folks went to Woodstock, too, as you and I know.

______________________
R.I.P., Brittany Murphy

reply

[deleted]

Actually, yes I do.. You folks are just greedy. I mean, come on, pick a side, hopefully not mine, so us regular people have more options.. :)

reply

Elliott doesn't "discover his gayness"... Elliot was at the Stonewall riot, and as made clear by other dialogues had had a boyfriend (Steven) back in New York... Plus he chats up the DJ guy right at the beginning. So he's no chicken, baby.

*****
With the newspaper strike on, I wouldn't consider dying! /Bette Davis/

reply

Homophob are ye?????????

reply

Who are you warning, the conservative republicans? They weren't part of Woodstock and probably won't see a movie about hippys anyway. Leave them to their reality TV. The gay theme is incidental to this movie, and so what about a gay kiss. Grow up.

reply

Why do all arguments eventually go the political route? I'm mostly conservative and I don't have a problem seeing 2 men kiss, or for that matter it wouldn't bother me if 2 men were allowed to get married. Why can't we just say he's warning other closed-minded idiots like himself.

reply

Yes, BE WARNED to avoid watching any movies that might have some sort of "gay theme" to it. Grow up. Deal with life's differences. Oh, and do a little bit of research on the movies you plan to watch if you are so offended by stuff like this. This is the IMDb, by the way, and it has lots of information available for you. Doy!

reply

You needed to see the Gay themes because the film is based on the book Taking Woodstock. Your question is redundant. If you went to see Macbeth you wouldn't ask the question why do we have to see all the stuff with the witches! By the same token you see the gay themes because the book is a personal account of the events by Elliot Tiber who happened to be gay. THe film is based on that book. A more interesting and poignant question might be 'Why am I so disgruntled by the gay themes?" That would be a question worth answering by yourself and for yourself. For Elliot Tiber the Character of Vilma acted as a go between for him and his parents and as such was an important role in the development of his burdgeoning sexuality and the feelings he had around how he imagined his parents might percieve his sexuality and their attitudes to it. The same was true of the Gay kiss - after which Elliot worredly looked around the bar for his father. Remember this is an account of a gay man who wrote a book and then Ang Lee decided to make it into a film. You needed to see those themes because they were written. The film wasn't as you imagined because you didn't do your research. No ones fault but your own. Sorry.

reply

Snap!! You go chorando!

reply

:0)

reply

*sigh*

reply

Homophobe I not be. I be of the belief that as long as you do it behind closed doors, that your business. You can do it with a dog for all I care, but then the animal rights activists will say the dog didn't "consent". LOL. I liked the movie until I realized it was the gay Mafia, or the "Pink Glove of Hollywood" trying to steal the already coolness of Woodstock and use it as a justification for decadent behavior. If thats what you were into, us hippies looked the other way. But we were all about baggin babes man. So this guy was a homo. I got no beef with that. The filmmaker could've mentioned it, but to make it all about that is just revisionist history. Everyone at Hollywood Video said "Don't rent it, it's disappointing" I said well I see this is the Brokeback MTn guy, there's not any of that *beep* in there is there? They said not really. I will give them a piece of my mind when I get back there. I'm a regular there so they know me, I don't even need to show a card. I live not far from the town of Bethel now. Across the Rip Van Winkle bridge, my kitchen overlooks the Hudson. I don't mean to knock gays. Some of my best friends are. It's just that they're always looking for justification. The rights, the gay marriage. The gays I know don't like that. They prefer privacy, too many closed minds out there. Worse than some of you think mine is. It's like they really want the rights as a way of approval of their lifestyle. If they wanted to live like the Cleaver Family they would've. We'll you can't have it both ways. No Bi jokes now. Really though. If you want to be "alternative" to the norm. The norm being heterosexual. Just be that way. You're choosing an alternate lifestyle. I know some of you think it chose you. Well from the guys and gals I know in the gay underground Upstate NY. They'd rather just do their thing, and not be bothered with pushing a baby carriage down the street, because then you get caught up in the whole, which one is the butch and which the Mary? This is what I get from them. I've spoken at length about it all with them, and I mean about 10 or 11 I know who all go to the same bars and stuff. I met them doing sound at a club up here I won't mention, where I got to know them. They're all cool people and would take a bullet for me, and forgive my not completely understanding them. I would do the same for them. Just let me know up front that it's a gay movie, so I can waste my money on something else.
I just got off the phone with one of them and told them I was writing this. They said, listen to his guy, he gets us. Also said, "Doesn't the star of the movie look like a young Ray Romano, he's so cute" I had to laugh, and agree, holy *beep* it does look like him as a kid, but cute? Yeah I can see that. I'm a parent after all. I can see kids as cute, and not be a pervert, just be a parent that understands children, because he used to be one. I experimented with everything, now in my 50's I can appreciate the life we had. The freedom we had.What surprising is these guys don't like Obama. They tell me, he's more into being Big Brother than George Bush! They said he's scary. Well I'm not into politics. I don't even vote, for privacy reasons. I think it's good a Black Man got in the White House, but I have to agree, I don't like the government telling me what to do. Must be the hippie in me. Less Government, More mom and pop businesses. They told me, they voted for him, but realize it was a mistake. They just wanted Bush out, but this guy is too much of a control freak. I trust them, since they're the political ones. I just want to be left alone. Watch movies, and look out at the Hudson everyday to see what floating. Lately it's a lot of ice. See ya in the lobby! Don't eat too much popcorn

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Well thanks for all the honest responses. I think I was little tipsy when I wrote that. I still stand by it though. I'm almost 50, so those younger than me are more accepting of that lifestyle. Again, I accept it, just don't flaunt it. It isn't the norm, as much as they try to brainwash us into thinking it is.

I'm more tolerant than most people I know. I live upstate now in a rural area, and homosexuality is rarely seen around these parts. If I do express that it's ok with me to some of my "he-man" neighbors, at the bon-fire after we've been shooting trees all day, they ask me if I'm really gay. So it's king of funny to be accused of being homophobic. I'm not afraid of people who have sex with their own gender, I just don't think it should be treated as someones nationality. It's not "who you are". It's just something you do to get your rocks off, and I wouldn't want my straight friends to walk around talking about their particular fetish any more than I want to hear about a gay persons.

No matter what, I will still get a response using the "buzz-words" created by the progressive-fascists, who scream for tolerance of everything, except straight, Christian, Conservative males. I'm apolitical, and pretty much becoming asexual, but my beliefs are my beliefs, and you have to respect them just as you respect anyone elses. If not, then you're guilty of the very thing you accuse me of.

reply

Like most of the people on here you are homophobic and dont even realise it. To say you dont care what pple do behind closed doors suugests that you find something inherently wrong with what they are doing but as long as you dont see it, thats ok. Also you like most other pple make the vast assumption that hetrosexuality is the norm while homosexuality is in some way abnormal and therefore has no place in mainstream cinema. If you feel uncomfortable watching two men kiss then that is your problem.(just a quess but had the story involved two hot lesbians we wouldnt even be having this discussion)And to say there were no gay or lesbian hippies it was somehow a movement created by and followed by only hetrosexuals is completely mental.

reply

Well said! You wanna see a film about Woodstock, go see Woodstock. Or one of a billion documentaries made about it. This is a fictionalized account of one guy's memories of it. Geeze. Hey, OP, get over your straight self.

reply

Amen!

reply

because the book is a personal account of the events by Elliot Tiber who happened to be gay.

"happened to be gay"... That phrase never ceases to amuse me. Comedians have pointed it out, but you never talk about someone who "happened to be straight." As in "I saw this film about this guy who 'happened to be straight' and it had scenes involving him and a woman. Imagine that."

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!

reply

It was an elaborate conspiracy created solely to piss you off......and you in particular.

reply

Why did we need to see it? Are you simple? Because it's part of the story, moron.

reply

Well, I'm not thrilled with seeing guys kissing. But that's me. There are a lot of things I'm not so thrilled with these days, and somehow I survive... ;> And, I assumed it was part of the story. Thanks for confirming that.
This wasn't MY Woodstock they were filming, but the authors.
Never much of a Leiv fan, I thought WTF! when he appeared, out of the blue. But he never overplayed it, and made the character work. (as did the crazy mother)
I was at Woodstock, and San Francisco in 1967 - and I'm not sure how joyful the cheer would have been when the boys were locking lips. People might have cheered, but more in amazement.

reply

[deleted]

I didn't do any research. I just thought it was a movie about Woodstock which I thought would be interesting. If I had known it was about a homosexual discovering his gayness, I wouldn't of watched it. .....not that there's anything wrong with that of course! I have nothing personal against the gays, but I don't want to watch movies about them. That's my preference.

reply

[deleted]

Funny, you would think a film about this subject would attract more open minded people.

The film tied in several events from the summer of 1969, death of Judy Garland, Stonewall, man on the moon, and Woodstock.

Would those who objected to the gay storyline have cared if Eliot fell in love with a woman? Would that have taken away from the Woodstock story?



reply

Absolutely! 'Cause we don't care what people do as long as it's in the absolute secrecy of their bedroom, right? Can't have them falling in love or holding hands or any of that...ick...sex.

reply

[deleted]

Then I suggest you painfully review every movie before you see it. Know exactly how everything will end lest it offend you. BTW, in DaVinci Code, it's the handicapped guy...don't want you to think the whole handicap thing is some random tangent to take away from the art. Oh, and in Avatar, blue = good, in case you have an issue with blue or whatever...

reply

I am so blessed by being gay as I can see the world through a different lens. When 2 people kiss, I feel the joy that they are feeling. I don't see color, gender, etc. I'm glad that I can appreciate the lives of people who AREN'T like me! If everyone was like that, the world would indeed be a better place for all of us!

reply

[deleted]

Ah well, all the usual cliche's about homophobia came out of the closet, as I predicted. I suppose I'm the older generation now, and have to face the fact that things are different now, and will continue to change, as change is a constant.

It really doesn't bother me that much about the gay stuff. In hindsight (no pun intended), I suppose I was more annoyed that the homosexual theme was overplayed. Yes, I get it, he was homosexual, and that was that. It's just that some homosexuals tend to "overplay" the importance of their sexual preference. I grew up in that era, or just post Woodstock. I've seen enough to not be shocked or made uncomfortable by two men kissing.

I can almost guess the age of respondents, by the buzzwords they've been conditioned with by the progressives in the public school system.

I've seen things much more perverted (yes I know-that's a relative term), than this. I was 18 in 1979, and was going into Manhattan (a 20 min train ride from Long Island) every week, sometimes more, to see this new rock scene that was emerging. We called it "downtown", then someone gave it the unfortunate name of "punk". I truly didn't like the majority of it, but was looking for something new. I ended up seeing some historical events. I also saw more depravity, both sexual and otherwise. None of which was homosexuality.

The reason I go to that story, is that in those years, and those to follow, in the 80's, seeing gays or even hanging out with them, was totally normal to me. I had, and still have no problem with it all. What I dislike, as many gay people I know dislike as well, is the politicizing of their sexuality. The "pushing the agenda types". I've met more gay people, men and women, over my lifetime, that abhor the whole "scene", the Halloween parade people, the "activists" etc.

Most of them, it seems to me, were content to live quietly, and not be judged by what they did in the bedroom.

Yes, "behind closed doors" as someone found even that somehow offensive. Why is that offensive? You want to see a hetero couple "doing it" in your city park?

Sex is a private thing, in my opinion.

To make a movie called "Taking Woodstock", without hinting as to what it was really about, is disingenuous. It's as if that was the REAL secret about Woodstock. It was all about the Gay Agenda. While a greater acceptance of peoples differences came out of that generation. A lot of "special interest groups" capitalized on it.

Anytime I see the word "coalition" I already know I'm being scammed, and the US Treasury has sprung another leak.

Say what you will about me. I've seen it all. It's just a movie. Remember?

[fight 9] Sovereign Citizen [fight 2]

reply

Ah well, all the usual cliche's about homophobia came out of the closet, as I predicted. I suppose I'm the older generation now, and have to face the fact that things are different now, and will continue to change, as change is a constant.

It really doesn't bother me that much about the gay stuff. In hindsight (no pun intended), I suppose I was more annoyed that the homosexual theme was overplayed. Yes, I get it, he was homosexual, and that was that. It's just that some homosexuals tend to "overplay" the importance of their sexual preference. I grew up in that era, or just post Woodstock. I've seen enough to not be shocked or made uncomfortable by two men kissing.

I can almost guess the age of respondents, by the buzzwords they've been conditioned with by the progressives in the public school system.

I've seen things much more perverted (yes I know-that's a relative term), than this. I was 18 in 1979, and was going into Manhattan (a 20 min train ride from Long Island) every week, sometimes more, to see this new rock scene that was emerging. We called it "downtown", then someone gave it the unfortunate name of "punk". I truly didn't like the majority of it, but was looking for something new. I ended up seeing some historical events. I also saw more depravity, both sexual and otherwise. None of which was homosexuality.

The reason I go to that story, is that in those years, and those to follow, in the 80's, seeing gays or even hanging out with them, was totally normal to me. I had, and still have no problem with it all. What I dislike, as many gay people I know dislike as well, is the politicizing of their sexuality. The "pushing the agenda types". I've met more gay people, men and women, over my lifetime, that abhor the whole "scene", the Halloween parade people, the "activists" etc.

Most of them, it seems to me, were content to live quietly, and not be judged by what they did in the bedroom.

Yes, "behind closed doors" as someone found even that somehow offensive. Why is that offensive? You want to see a hetero couple "doing it" in your city park?

Sex is a private thing, in my opinion.

To make a movie called "Taking Woodstock", without hinting as to what it was really about, is disingenuous. It's as if that was the REAL secret about Woodstock. It was all about the Gay Agenda. While a greater acceptance of peoples differences came out of that generation. A lot of "special interest groups" capitalized on it.

Anytime I see the word "coalition" I already know I'm being scammed, and the US Treasury has sprung another leak.

Say what you will about me. I've seen it all. It's just a movie. Remember?

[fight 9] Sovereign Citizen [fight 2]

reply

It's Ang Lee.
That's the reason.

reply

Or, you know, based on a true story written by, like, a gay man.

reply

Which is why he picked it....

reply

Then why should anyone be acting so surprised???

reply

Why don't you ask the OP directly...

reply

Might as well ask why someone who can take the time to complain about what he sees cannot take the time to read information available on the same site.

The answer is fairly obvious and unflattering to the OP.

reply

Indeed, how could Ang Lee not include this fact when it is taken from Elliot's book? It is part of the story, so please deal with it.

reply

It was kind of refreshing, actually, to see a movie about a gay person in which the whole story wasn't "GAY GAY GAY GAY!", but rather that was just a part of his life, which included a whole other array of concerns.

One of the biggest obstacles gay people must face is that in its push to normalize gayness, the entertainment industry has tended to overemphasize and fetishize gayness to the point that the propaganda is more overbearing and offensive to many people than the gayness itself.

Here was have a real progressive antisote. Here's a story about a guy involved in one of the major cultural events in American history. Oh, and he's gay. No big deal.

reply

Good point.

reply

Great response. That was exactly what I was thinking. Dug the flick WAY more than I was expecting. I was thinking it was going to a cheese re-creation of Woodstock, but got something deeper. Who cares about the gay stuff...the characters were INTERESTING. Oh and I loved his mom.

reply

Why are you labelled "homophobic" if you don't enjoy watching a movie about a gay guy?

I don't like martial arts movies either so I don't watch them. I have nothing against Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris, the fight movies just bore me.

Taking Woodstock ads made it look like a cool movie about how Woodstock started and I thought it would be cool to see it recreated.

I did not do my research or I would not have watched it.

But, I am not homophobic because I don't like movies about gayness. It just isn't something I want to waste my time watching.

And, by the way...."not that there is anything wrong with that" was a take on Seinfeld....that's all....guess some of you didn't catch that.

reply

Isn't that like watching a Western and then crying about all of the racism towards the Indians? It was 1969 - there was A LOT more gay stuff going on than dudes kissing and dressing in drag.
Don't worry, I'm sure Fast and the Furious 5 will be out soon.

reply

Isn't that like watching a Western and then crying about all of the racism towards the Indians?

No, really it's more like watching a western and seeing the indians take a crap behind a tree everytime they have to go.
We know it happens but it's a completely unnecessary (and abhorrent)sidebar to the actual story.

reply

[deleted]

To me the previews made it seem like a light hearted comedy that might show some interesting background into how Woodstock happened but the actual movie was too long, boring and had no likable characters and no interesting or funny moments.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]


BluLuBoyle,

The word is abhorrent and is defined here:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abhorrent

Just saying.


RIP: ANY Celebrity that dies too soon. Many are perishing, or, close to dying.

reply

The word is abhorrent and is defined here:

Thanks, I really wish they'd incorporate a spellchecker on this site.
Pretty familiar with the definition though...

reply


Actually, I AGREE with you!

I have misspelled words here before and wish that they were auto-checked before my posts were auto-submitted.

Embarrassing to have others correct you, but ... necessary all the same.

RIP: ANY Celebrity that dies too soon. Many are perishing, or, close to dying.

reply

Wow. People are angry here.

I thought it was hot. Opinions are fun.

"You must acquire the trick of ignoring those who do not like you." -John Wilmot, The Libertine

reply



Jen,

I am not angry. No worries .

RIP: ANY Celebrity that dies too soon. Many are perishing, or, close to dying.

reply

[deleted]