The Real Victims: Tom's Parents - Bridegroom (2013) Discussion

[–] stefanheikel 10 years ago

Times have changed and so has the movement. Because we are finally being accepted in major areas of society it makes it all the more heartbreaking what Tom's parents put Shane through, regardless of their motivations. Shane isn't using the documentary for revenge, but to instead honor Tom and also inform others as to what can happen.

Tom's parents are free to come forward at any time, but they choose not to. Their silence creates the assumption that everything Shane has said is correct. The ball is now in their court.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] theoffice11 10 years ago

@erin So there is your real reason for hating the film. Just be honest that you are homophobic and leave it at that. No need to make up lies about the filmmaker and film to try to justify yourself. People can see right through you anyhow.

reply

[–] cinebot727 10 years ago

I don't think demonizing Tom's parents is honoring Tom. Yes, Tom had many disagreements with his parents, but at the end of the day, that is his family.

"silence creates the assumption that everything Shane has said is correct."
- This is only true to the ego. If someone (you don't know) made a documentary about your past mistakes, does that force you to speak up? What if you didn't want to be on television, does that then justify your past mistakes? If someone doesn't want to be on television to talk about their recently dead son, so be it. I understand that. Not everyone wants a CNN special to make clear of their actions.

"Tom's parents are free to come forward any time..."
A boy, they don't know personally, is making a film about their dead son while also talking about them as a family. Instead of grieving their dead son, they are pressured by the media to explain their reprehensible actions exposed by this boy. I don't see how you find that hard to understand why people choose not to put themselves on a public stage.

Instead of trying to consolidate their feelings (which can take years with homophobic adults) Shane decides to make a film that demonizes them. This burns bridges. It's a lose-lose situation. Further widening the gap between Shane and Tom's parents. I don't support the use of shame to change others. We can't always shame homophobic people into changing.

reply

[–] doughgirlsass 10 years ago

So you think if Shane hadn't made this film that eventually Tom's dad would stop with the death threats if he ever visits town? The reason he made the film was to show the importance of the right to marry. I do feel sorry for any parent that loses their child, but nothing excuses what they did to Shane. And Shane is not a "boy they don't know personally" his mother stayed with them and they acted like they accepted Tom and Shane's relationship. You seem to be dismissing Shane's feelings, as though he was "just some guy".

"In France, The Hunger Games is called Battle Royale With Cheese."

reply

[–] cinebot727 10 years ago

@doughgirlsass, I appreciate your response.

“So you think if Shane hadn’t made this film that eventually Tom’s dad would stop with the death threats if he ever visits town?”

Tom's dad would continue to threaten Shane regardless if he made BRIDEGROOM or not. This is not the issue I'm suggesting. This film does not soften their relationship but harden it. It creates a wall of separation between Shane and Tom's family, leaving no room for true healing. Shane did not want Tom's family to get away with what they did so he translated his emotional frustrations in the form of a documentary. He is a naturally gifted video editor so filmmaking was his artistic outlet for his feelings. Shane needs an army of support who will validate his tragic loss. Ultimately, BRIDEGROOM is Shane's cry for help.

“The reason he made the film was to show the importance of the right to marry.”

Yes and no. Although, I agree that the legalization of same-sex marriage is very important especially when it comes to spousal rights when one is injured or killed, I do not agree with using Shane's tragic loss as a direct reference point. This is where I have a problem with how this film is being marketed, at least by Shane. The title is coincidental: it's Shane's last name and it represents his serious relationship with Tom. Plain and simple, Shane and Tom did not get married or attempt to. Shane has only said that he wishes he would have given Tom his promise ring before he died. The topic of marriage had nothing to do with this film yet it's being used to market it.

"You seem to be dismissing Shane's feelings, as though he was 'just some guy'"

I don't see Shane as just some guy. I think I explained quite clearly that these were probably the thoughts of Tom's parents. Although Shane met Tom's parents, that doesn't mean they have a personal relationship with him. He is still an outsider to their family. To them, he IS just some guy. This shows clearly with how they have socially alienated him.

reply

[–] jlgreenlee 10 years ago

I didn't see any demonization going on here. I thought, given what I knew about the story going in, that it would be much rougher on the Bridegroom family. Instead, I think they were treated with relative kid gloves. They don't come off well, but it's not as though they got it with both barrels either.

reply

[–] jlgreenlee 10 years ago

I didn't see any demonization going on here. I thought, given what I knew about the story going in, that it would be much rougher on the Bridegroom family. Instead, I think they were treated with relative kid gloves. They don't come off well, but it's not as though they got it with both barrels either.

reply

[–] FeloniousMunk 10 years ago

Both barrels...great pun...especially since Tom's father threatened to kill his gay son with a shotgun. I love it...even though the idea of it makes me want to puke and fills me with rage.

As does knowing that this same sorry bastard also threatened to stalk Shane and murder him in Los Angeles--for "making Tom gay."

They got off easy...they should have gotten a lot worse...and they deserved whatever they got. Especially Tom's two-faced, conniving, back-stabbing bitch of a mother. Whatta piece of...work...she is.

I think Tom should have gone to the funeral packing heat--and taken his chances. Or, if he was too meek to do that (and he was), hired a couple of friends who were not afraid to pick up a gun...legally or otherwise...in defense of their grieving friend.

I'm sure there would have been more than one corpse before that funeral was over. And probably no movie...just another violent and bloody news story--of revenge and self-defense.

A story that would have been shocking...and forgotten...like so many other gun-violence incidents...in a matter of days.

Every time you make a typo...the errorists win...

reply

[–] stefanheikel 10 years ago

"Especially Tom's two-faced, conniving, back-stabbing bitch of a mother. Whatta piece of...work...she is."

Bitch is too nice of a word for her. She was a total *beep* with a capital C.

reply

[–] fixations_of_a_fallen_po 10 years ago

Okay, stop. Just stop. We get it. They lost a child, which is more than likely the worst thing for a parent to go through. That doesn't justify their reprehensible behavior toward Shane. Threatening violence if he attempted to attend the funeral? And add in the fact the family expected Shane to pay for funeral costs...imagine paying for a funeral for your lover that you can't freaking attend. That family is disgusting and is deserving of all the vitriol they receive. If they didn't want to look bad, maybe they shouldn't have acted inhumane in the first place.

reply

[–] cinebot727 10 years ago

No where in my post did I justify Tom's parent's actions. Let's get that straight.

The whole point of my post was to magnify the long run: Shane vs. Tom's parents. Shane will have an easier time moving on with the circumstances he's been given, Tom's parents won't.

"that family is disgusting and is deserving of all the vitriol they receive."
- This is a prime example of hate. The hate our community fights against. Yes, they did everything that I don't like about homophobic people but they are not monsters. We don't know them. They are people like us. How can we change other people when we are returning the hate they're giving us. This film only burns bridges while claiming a hero and villain. To me that is a lose-lose situation.

I just don't like this documentary representing our LGBT community. We are not weak, we are not whiny, we don't need constant validation from the discrimination we face. We are strong, we understand the situation, and we move on. The film shows that Shane can't move on unless he has the public behind him. Shane is trying to make a good guy, bad guy film. I don't like that. Life is more complex than mere angels and demons.

reply

[–] doughgirlsass 10 years ago

"Shane will have an easier time moving on with the circumstances he's been given, Tom's parents won't. "

Maybe they shouldn't have acted like monsters.

"This is a prime example of hate. The hate our community fights against. Yes, they did everything that I don't like about homophobic people but they are not monsters. We don't know them. They are people like us. How can we change other people when we are returning the hate they're giving us. This film only burns bridges while claiming a hero and villain. To me that is a lose-lose situation. "

I think they are monsters, Tom's father threatened to kill him when Tom came out to him, then he threatened to kill Shane when he wanted to attend the funeral. How should he have portrayed them? Should he have not made the film? He made it to point out that this could happen to anyone.

"I just don't like this documentary representing our LGBT community. We are not weak, we are not whiny, we don't need constant validation from the discrimination we face. We are strong, we understand the situation, and we move on. The film shows that Shane can't move on unless he has the public behind him. Shane is trying to make a good guy, bad guy film. I don't like that. Life is more complex than mere angels and demons."

Is it whiny to cry when the love of your life dies a tragic death? Not everyone in the gay community is exactly like you. What do you think of other gay people who have lost loved ones and then had family members of that loved one come in and take all the inheritance because the gay couple couldn't get married, so the living partner goes to the media. Are they being whiny or are they pointing out an injustice? Tom's parents acted horribly, maybe if they hadn't been such horrible people the movie could've been a fuzzy feel good film about breaking down borders and uniting people and opening minds, but it's showing the truth, that some people are horrible and maybe some horrible person will see this movie and change their mind about being such an a-hole. Actually that's not a maybe, there are a lot of people who WERE homophobic jerks that saw this movie and publicly came out and said they've changed their view.

"In France, The Hunger Games is called Battle Royale With Cheese."

reply

[–] cinebot727 10 years ago

@doughgirlsass, I appreciate your response.

"Maybe they shouldn't have acted like monsters."

So because of how they mistreated Shane, they are deserving of the pain and frustration of losing a son? I don't agree with this response.

"I think they are monsters."

I think their actions were monstrous but I don't think they are monstrous people. I can understand how people will express their angered emotions irrationally when the sudden death of a family member occurs. Responding by calling them monsters won't change them. How can you expect to change the minds of homophobes when you're too busy calling them names and disregarding them as human beings. Aren't we just doing the same thing they're doing? I appreciate your honest opinions of Tom's parents but you are only validating what I implied that hate begets hate.

"Tom's father threatened to kill him when Tom came out to him, then he threatened to kill Shane when he wanted to attend the funeral. How should he have portrayed them? Should he have not made the film? He made it to point out that this could happen to anyone."

Although we both don't know Tom's dad's true intentions, I don't feel he would have literally killed either of them. There was nothing to believe that Tom's dad was a serious psychopath. Tom's dad mostly likely made this empty threat out of an inability to deal with his emotions directly. There isn't really a good way of portraying their actions. In no way did I think their actions were acceptable. Understandable, but not acceptable. The problem I have with Shane making BRIDEGROOM is to use it as a form of catharsis. He really made this film for himself.

reply

[–] cinebot727 10 years ago

"Is it whiny to cry when the love of your life dies a tragic death?"

No, it is not whiny to cry when they love of your life dies. Crying when the love of your life dies is a personal moment you intentionally share with yourself and the ones you are close with. Filming yourself crying during these significant moments of grief is questionable. Doing so, in an extreme close-up is also strange. This is not normal behavior. If you are filming yourself crying in extreme close-up about something very personal you are trying to make a strong point to a public audience: not to your family, not to your friends, but to an audience. You don't film yourself crying to show your friends and family. You would just go to them.

"Not everyone in the gay community is exactly like you."

I never implied such a thing. Presenting an argument has nothing to do with whether others think or don't think like the person who is presenting that argument.

"What do you think of other gay people who have lost loved ones and then had family members of that loved one come in and take all the inheritance because the gay couple couldn't get married, so the living partner goes to the media."

Here is where you are not understanding the argument I initially presented. My disagreement with Shane's documentary does not imply that I have no sympathy for my fellow gay brothers and sisters who lost loved ones that came from homophobic families. Disagreeing with "one" film about lost love, does not mean I have no sympathy for "all" who have lost love.

LGBT film is my thing. I have seen, read, and heard a plethora of stories about gay couples who have been hit with hospital bills, loss of property, taxes, and other hard hitting economic misfortunes from loved ones who have been injured or died. Shane is young and comes from a financial stable family. He doesn't have to deal with that s****t. I go to a few LGBT film festivals every year and have watch countless features, shorts, and documentaries. Many which have pulled on my heart strings. My point is that I am fully aware of these circumstances.

Shane ultimately wants recognition and understanding from Tom's parents. This is respectable. I just don't agree with Shane making BRIDEGROOM as a way to get it. He can also say he made this film to warn others, but really, when you read between the lines, he made this documentary and YouTube video as a form of catharsis for his scorned feelings. I'm guessing he's hoping this film will expose them and force them to communicate with him.

"Tom's parents acted horribly, maybe if they hadn't been such horrible people the movie could've been a fuzzy feel good film about breaking down borders and uniting people and opening minds, but it's showing the truth, that some people are horrible and maybe some horrible person will see this movie and change their mind about being such an a-hole."

If Tom's parents hadn't been such horrible people there wouldn't be a film for Shane to make. Where did this 'making a fuzzy film' deal come from? When you deal with homophobic bullies, publicly shaming them is questionable. This may work great against politicians, business owners, or other public figures who are homophobic but not for those who do not desire to be on a public stage. You are only pushing them further away.

This film may or may not change homophobic people's minds. I hope it does change their irrational fears of gay people. What I am more concerned about is the people in this film who just want to heal.

reply

[–] nihanakcali 10 years ago

While I was watching Bridegroom, I couldn't get rid of the idea of "if Tom had been alive, would he be % 100 agree to make a documentary like that, against his family?" For the respect of his memory, this movie shouldn't have been released in the first place. It wasn't about "love", just hiding the real intention under a love story; it was totally about "revenge" which was making that documentary worse.

If life has taught me anything its that 95% of the people are always wrong!

reply

[–] stefanheikel 10 years ago

If Tom had been alive, he never would have had a funeral which his parents barred Shane from, so therefor no movie would've been made.

reply

[–] nihanakcali 10 years ago

If I were Tom, I would never let that kind of documentary which would cause my parents marked as a homophobic in front of the whole world, I'd rather chose to ban my partner not to attend the funurel. The impacts of the harm is much more bigger...But every hypothetical situation has already meaningless, what is done is done...

If life has taught me anything it's that 95% of the people are always wrong!

reply

[–] doughgirlsass 10 years ago

So you would rather the person you dedicated your life to be banned from your funeral and be threatened with death rather than have a spotlight shone on your parents' bad behavior? Good thing you're not Tom...or his ghost or whatever.

"In France, The Hunger Games is called Battle Royale With Cheese."

reply

[–] cinebot727 10 years ago

@doughgirlsass, I appreciate your response.

"So you would rather the person you dedicated your life to be banned from your funeral and be threatened with death rather than have a spotlight shone on your parents' bad behavior?"

Although I'd initially be upset with my lover being banned from my funeral, I don't think announcing my parents' abhorent actions on a global stage would help their homophobia. I'd be angry at them yet pity them for being publicly shamed. I would disagree with my parents' homophobia but I certainly wouldn't want random strangers calling them monsters. They are not perfect, but at the end of the day they are still my family.

True Story: My mother was very disappointed with my coming out. Till this day she somewhat still has trouble with it but is coping a lot better. At the time, I was very frustrated with her irrational response. I demanded her understanding and acceptance! Would I want that in the form of her public humiliation? Not in a million years. My mom may not fully understand my homosexuality but in no way is she a monster.

My point is that understanding and healing takes time. It may even take years. At the end of the day, Shane ultimately wants understanding and care from Tom's parents. This is what BRIDEGROOM is truly saying, at least subconsciously. My problem is that Shane does not want to wait for their understanding and care, he DEMANDS IT. He will even rally an army of sympathizers to get it. To me this is a desperate solution to a process that truly takes patience.

reply

[–] kay_cee_d 10 years ago

I would really like to see it. I agree with the OP that its easy to demonize the parents, but they're hurting too. It doesn't excuse their behavior but it definitely doesn't mean they should be hounded and treated badly. Maybe it sucks the way they act. Maybe its terrible and it hurts but it doesn't help for us to act the same way. I'm sure Shane's heart is in the right place and he probably DOES see them as being the bad guy, so I don't really blame him. But I definitely agree with the OP. It doesn't mean how they act is okay, but it does say something about them being human and probably having terrible pain in their hearts.

reply

[–] Clothes-Off 10 years ago

Many parents have lost a child; few have reacted like that. Threatening his life if he showed at the service and cutting off all contact left Shane with no other recourse but to see that Tom was mourned and his true self acknowledged. Many of us know of people who've lost a partner whose parents came from a generation before his parents, and just as small a town. Not only is neither factor an excuse, but in fact this documentary could have gone a lot farther. (Imagine sinister music playing along with their images and people from Tom's town dishing on them. They actually took the high road.)

"Well, for once the rich white man is in control!" C. M. Burns

reply

[–] doughgirlsass 10 years ago

Exactly, the majority of the film isn't even about Tom's parents, it's about Tom and Shane.

"In France, The Hunger Games is called Battle Royale With Cheese."

reply

[–] cinebot727 10 years ago

"Many parents have lost a child; few have reacted like that."

I don't think it's wise to assume the collective reactions of all the parents who have lost children in the way you did. Are we talking about parents who lost children in general or homophobic parents who have lost gay children? You don't specify. Tom's family's behavior is specific to their homophobia. I don't think we could compare this situation to all parents who have lost children. You made a broad statement to a specific circumstance.

"Not only is neither factor an excuse, but in fact this documentary could have gone a lot farther. (Imagine sinister music playing along with their images and people from Tom's town dishing on them. They actually took the high road.)"

I don't see this outcome as an actual possibility. It's a bit over-the-top. Mostly because Shane would know he would lose credibility. So no, it couldn't have been done worse because this option is unreasonable. I also don't think Shane would have the balls to interview people in Tom's town. I could safely say they are probably homophobic too.

Using cheesy license-free violin music to force how I should feel was bad enough. I don't need sad music to empathize with other human beings. The story should do the job on its own.

reply

[–] asjchy1 10 years ago

Tom’s parents lost their baby boy?????

Even after Tom died they dint acknowledge his true self. I would rather be an orphan than be the baby boy of such parents... Just bcoz I was born out of them doesnot mean I need to stick with them even when they are wrong. And what Toms parents did was much worse than wrong.

P.S. What Shane did was just try to help other queer people. So stop blaming him! People should speak up when something wrong is done, even when the person who did wrong is your family! Period! And if you dont do that, you are just as much guilty as the person who did wrong.

P.S.S. Whats with this harvey milk, vito russo *beep* Shane is no hero... he is a victim and by telling his story, he is trying to help others not to be a victim again like him..

reply

[–] johnmichael-2 10 years ago

This is not about gay or straight. This is about parents who kept the person who mattered the most to their son away from their son's funeral. This is about parents dishonoring their son's life through a gross action. It doesn't matter whether their son's partner was a woman, someone of another race, or a man. It just doesn't. What matters is how gross their actions were towards the person who was the love of their son's life. And for that, they deserve everything that's coming to them.

reply

[–] cinebot727 10 years ago

So an eye for an eye? Hating Tom's parents and saying they "deserve" their pain is no better than homophobes saying Shane deserved his pain. Are we really no better? I don't know how you can demonize one person or group and praise the other. To me that's not was equality is all about. We all hurt, we all grieve, we all deserve compassion.

Based on your ending statement, you are no better than Tom's parents.

reply

[–] stefanheikel 10 years ago

"So an eye for an eye? Hating Tom's parents and saying they "deserve" their pain is no better than homophobes saying Shane deserved his pain. Are we really no better? I don't know how you can demonize one person or group and praise the other. To me that's not was equality is all about. We all hurt, we all grieve, we all deserve compassion.

Based on your ending statement, you are no better than Tom's parents."

Wow what are you a grade school teacher? Tom's parents cast the first stone, therefore they must be the ones to end it, plain and simple.

As for your other post, yes, Shane has received much support from many sources, which further shows how horrible Tom's parents actions were. Also, it's irrelavent that Shane is "wealthy". Money does not by happiness. I've seen so firsthand.

reply

[–] cinebot727 10 years ago

I don't think you understand the term "cast the first stone" nor did you use it in the right context.

reply

[–] stefanheikel 10 years ago

Yes I did use it in the right context. They cast the first stone by doing what they did to Shane.

reply

[–] kevin-688-714379 10 years ago

I do have some sympathy for Tom's parents. The ache of losing a child is something that never goes away.

But rejecting Shane does nothing to ease their pain. And he wasn't just a stranger that they had never met. Tom's mother had visiting them in Los Angeles many times. There are photos of Shane and Tom's mother together. She knew that Shane wasn't just a fling or a roommate.

And threatening to kill Shane if he showed up at the funeral? How can that in any way be condoned, no matter how much they're hurting?

I have sympathy for them but I do not see them as victims.

I think the documentary showed them in a reasonably positive light, all things considered. I wish they had chosen to respond to requests to be interviewed for it, or at least spoke to the press to give their perspective.

reply

[–] Robdeneil 10 years ago

I have read the entire thread and I understand all the perspectives. For me, personally, I have little sympathy for Tom's parents other than for having lost a child. Grief, however, is no excuse for intolerable cruelty. The Bridegrooms did not even know the son they buried. Worse, they did not care.

My heart and tears are with Shane.

reply

[–] cinebot727 10 years ago

Yes, what Tom's parents did was not the best decision. They are refuse to open up and start the healing process.

But look at the long run. Shane's got a bright future ahead of him: Endorsements from Bill Clinton to Oprah, his amazingly supportive family and friends, the potential to love again, his film did wonderful commercially and has changed a lot of minds of people who formally didn't support equal marriage. Shane comes from a well-off and financially stable background. Tom and Shane vacationed in Egypt for god sakes. He's got money, youth, looks, and media status. Tom's parents, on the other hand, live in the middle of *beep* nowhere trapped in a bitter homophobic bubble with a dead son and media scrutiny.

I sympathize with Shane's story but I do not sympathize with where he is right now.

Life is different when the violin music is over.

reply

[–] Stirchley 8 years ago

Shane comes from a well-off and financially stable background. Tom and Shane vacationed in Egypt for god sakes. He's got money

Shane's parents divorced on the day he was born so I don't know how you come to the above conclusion re money and stability. In the documentary Shane said they were both very frugal - hence their ability to travel. As to Shane having money now, what makes you think that?

reply