1) I whole heartedly disgree that the "fags" discussion was some kind of homosexual agenda PSA. it actually made a lot of sense in the film, in that Kristen Bell's character had a doctorate for Stanford. She was an educated woman, and her statement reflect those of someone with that education. She was talking about her interpretations of the connotations of a negative word.
You are taking my post wrong. I am talking about in the context of the film. Yes, in real life I agree that a young woman withholding a PhD would probably discern the use of the word "fags".
BUT, it made no sense in the film. How does the film go from a full-on, high stressful chase scene to stopping the flow of the script to have a lecture about the type of person the car attract and the use of "fags" being a derogatory term? Please explain how it made sense for the screen writers to change the flow of: someone running for their life to having a calm, Sunday round-table discussion about the use of the word "fags"? It just didn't fit the movie anyway you want to try.
3) Uhm... when did "redneck" and "hillbilly" become races, and hence worthy of protected rights?
And homosexuals are not a race either... so by your logic they shouldn't have protective rights?
I am talking about stereotyping a demographic of people. Gays versus "southern" people.
Your logic is essentially that stereotypes are okay because they're not a race. What if the film made jokes about people in the Northeast and started calling them Yankees and dumb Yanks? I'm sure your viewpoint would be completely different. Furthermore, how is Sanders even called a southern, redneck, hillbilly? The entire film takes place in California! The application of the southern slurs was completely wrong to begin with... which is further proof the screen writers thought it was completely okay to use stereotypical slurs about the south.
Pounce App) Did you not feel that Tom Arnold and the gay cop were portrayed as bumbling fools. Heck, Tom Arnold barely went a scene in the movie without showing some kind of lack of basic skills, and nearly kills himself several times over simply by being an idiot. I certainly don't think gay men were made to look the heroes in Hit & Run.
You are so far off.
First off, my post had nothing to do with our gay heroes (and yes they were heroes, but we'll get there in a minute). My post is that the heterosexual male (Charlie) must be completely forming and is never good enough for our Annie; yet both homosexuals in the movie (Randy & Terry), although 'bumbling fools', were completely loved/admired just the way they were by the other characters in the film (i.e. - Charlie really cared for Randy and always displayed care for him; Terry's police partner really cared for him and she tried to help him several times in the film). This is where the double standard comes into play. The homosexuals in the film, while clumsy and 'bumbling' as you say, were loved the way they were. And the heterosexual is never perfect enough for our protagonists' love, Annie.
Although they weren't made to be THE heroes, they were heroes. Randy saved our two protagonist characters (Charlier & Annie) at the end of the move with his that accurate revolver shot, which the US Marshal's both congratulated him for.
The fictional "Pounce App" is loosely based on several real Apps, that are designed for homosexuals to put out 'flirts' (a quick hook-up for gay sex) which give away their position via GPS and other users can see who they are. It's actually a disgusting, perverted application. Yet it was never thoroughly explained in the film and it was also never despised in the film.
reply
share
hedkickboy
11 years ago
If you recall, the "fag" discussion takes place right before Charlie and Annie head to California, so it is before they are being chased and their lives are in danger. The way I read your original post was that you felt the discussion was placed in completely out of context, and was only there as some kind of liberal PSA to further the cause of homosexuals. I completely disagree and feel that a couple who is about to embark on some kind of a long car ride would be very likely to have this conversation givens her educational background and the time they were about to spend together.
You are correct, and being gay is not a race. Your original post says that the terms "redneck" and "hillbilly" were racist terms used to describe David Koechner's character, so I pointed out they were not racist. Perhaps that was just semantics and apologies if that is the case. I do feel that had people in the film been called "dumb Yanks" or even "hippy California's" (I am from California) I would not have had any serious reaction. There is a difference in name-calling and I don't see anything truly wrong with "Hillbilly", "Redneck," "Yankee" or anything the like. And you said it yourself, the film took place entirely in California (which I didn't catch, honestly), so we are not even talking about geographic stereotyping.
As for the "Pounce App" is that app (or any of the ones it is based on) any worse than the dozens of hetero apps and websites for hook ups? Is it worse because gay men are the target demographic? Would you have posted how "disgusting" and "perverted " an app mentioned in a film was if it was something like Adultfriendfinder.com or AshleyMadison.com? Talk about a double standard.
And Randy and Terry and were heroes, but they were both being "asked to change". Randy was a bumbling fool who Charlie was always telling to be more responsible and act better and the whole way through, Terry was being told to be more confident and take more decisive action. Just because no one was telling them to not be gay doesn't mean they didn't have a level of character arc. Also, there were hetero character who didn't have to change to be heroes of the film. Charlie's dad comes to mind. He saves Charlie and Annie and did it be being his rough around the edges self.
We ca debate the film all day long, but it ultimately comes down to this, I felt your original post was saying the film was one long pro-gay propaganda piece (heck, the subject of your post is "Movie is nothing but a PSA"). I completely disagree. Hit & Run was a movie about car chases and things going boom. It was an attempted throwback to the Smokey and the Bandit days of film. Maybe you didn't like it (and that's fair) but it was hardly some Public Service Announcement to be kind to your local gays.
reply
share
scion9
11 years ago
I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't comment on the context but I consider the overblown 'Redneckophobia' in mainstream media to be essentially racist.
Making fun of rednecks isn't really any different than making fun of ghetto blacks. You can acknowledge that not all blacks in real life are from central casting for 'Menace II Society' while making fun of "ghetto" affectations and it would still be seen as at least potentially racist.
Mocking the cultural affectations of 'rednecks' is nothing but tribalism, and you are either against tribalism or not. You can say (as others have said) that people "choose" to be 'rednecks', but if that's the case then we shouldn't have a problem telling blacks to just stop acting so black as a way of deflecting "racist" criticism (this would probably actually work today, but it's still insulting to suggest and those that do so are labeled as racists). To suggest that, would assume a place of moral superiority in choosing the correct model of behavior, which is exactly why preaching from a self-righteous position to so-called 'rednecks' is problematic.
It's even more problematic coming from the bourgeois privileged people who don't even know what real life is for the proles they are thumbing their noses at. Compounding that is that this isn't even really constructive. It's just bullying. The subject of scorn isn't expected to, nor wanted to reform their behavior. If 'rednecks' all became socially progressive tomorrow then people like Shepherd and Bell would have to shift the goalposts to maintain their class distinctions from the proles that they hate on more or less superficial grounds already.
As far as a straight version of Grindr goes, there isn't one. The sites you mentions are phishing and spam sites and always have been, and in general yes those things are viewed as skeevy and disreputable despite being fake.
There have been a lot of articles as of late on Slate and a few other mainstream venues about the lack of a straight version of Grindr.
reply
share