MovieChat Forums > FilmFan1983 > Replies
FilmFan1983's Replies
This movie doesn't represent most gay men, just a small minority. It's not surprising that Eichner won't ever learn any lessons from this. His entire career is based on playing the token stereotype. Even if he were to realize that his appeal is necessarily limited, he'll continue to blame others for the movie's failure. The irony is that the reason he still has any career at all is due to wealth and privilege. If anyone else, gay or straight, led such a lifestyle of endless circuit parties, drugs, and disposable relationships in their forties but didn't have the Hollywood career to fall back on, they'd likely be strung out and alone well before old age sets in.
The situation is hypothetical anyway. The poor lady who was actually offered the sandwich (and from all accounts was friendly with Dahmer) actually ate the sandwich. However, in the series, it's very much implied that Glenda already knew about him at the time he offered her the sandwich. Would she have been thought of as crazy had she brought it in as evidence? For sure. However, ultimately it wouldn't have been that hard to determine the source of the meat. After all, it was physical evidence that led to his arrest, so it would've been worth presenting as evidence even at someone's own risk. But it's a moot point as the situation didn't happen in real life as the real lady didn't suspect a thing.
It's definitely worth noting that the cops were incompetent but the series takes it to another level in asserting that the cops were evil and vindictive figures who deliberately harassed victims simply due to their race and that everyone else knew of his crimes when he actually fooled a lot of people, including his neighbor.
The sad reality is that gay acceptance has been declining for the first time in decades, seemingly in direct proportion to the number of letters being added to the LGBT (+). Films like this attempt to show how gay people are different rather than telling universal stories that non LGBT people could relate to.
The vast majority of adults in their forties don't engage in threesomes, do drugs, or attend alcohol infused dance parties which are normally attended by very young and immature people. The fact that people cite Eichner as being totally unlikable can be attributed partly to his arrogant persona and partly to his character complaining about his lack of desirability when he can't obtain the latest supermodel. The scenes of them denigrating straight people in that boardroom meeting is another reason people are understandably pissed off. The film is purposefully exclusionary and reeks of entitlement.
People are also more critical of heavy handed political messaging in their movies which comes across as both insincere and antagonistic. You can certainly tell a gay story without making it overly political. Many gay people don't feel like they are part of a community, especially now when the left has made it a habit of eating its own. For the past few years, gay activists and artists have been targeted for racial bias, racial fetishization, gay appropriation (for casting straight actors in their movies), elitism, and privilege. Likewise, many gay people growing up outside of liberal enclaves feel like they have very little in common with other queer identities and don't normally associate with them even if they are out of the closet. Many gays identify as apolitical or even conservative, to which Eichner told them to stay home. And they did.
I find it fascinating. Reading the media reports, they are blaming the fact that the film was marketed to straight people? After seeing the trailer with lines like straight people had a good run, I have to wonder how any straight person would find this even slightly appealing? Gay people want equal rights, with marriage protections, they don't want to be thought of as other. Yet this film's trailer celebrates a man in his forties pining for the hot jock, doing drugs, going to dance clubs normally populated by older teens and young men in their twenties, being friends with couples in open relationships, and denigrating straight people who don't approve. It's allegedly a comedy but is actually a sad commentary on the gay scene and won't do anything to promote acceptance.
Even more frustrating, people on the left have been blasting this movie for casting a rich white male in the lead. The lesson they take from this movie's failure is that we need gay films that cater to an even smaller minority? Most gay audiences do live in big cities and as even this movie states, are relatively successful compared to their straight counterparts. So that can't be the reason this movie is failing among all audiences.
A film which attempts to make a political message is simply not going to succeed when people are already hyper critical of politics in their movies. Other countries have shown that you can make interesting gay films that don't rely on heavy handed political messaging in order to tell interesting stories.
It's eerie how similar the show felt to the movie, especially in the earlier episodes. I thought Lynch did a fine job honestly. While watching the new series, it becomes really hard to tell the actors apart in certain scenes.
I didn't like that scene at all. It's true that Dahmer expressed suicidal tendencies, but it's hard to believe he so casually accepted his fate of being bludgeoned to death while Scarver went on for minutes doing his wacky sermon.
I didn't like how much screen time was devoted to Glenda. Sure, she was victimized, but can her ordeal really compare to the victim's families? The scene with the sandwich was ridiculous too. If she already suspected he was mutilating bodies, she could've taken that to the police. Her befriending the kid's father and speaking of the tragedy as if she understood what it was like losing a child in such a way was cringe inducing as was all the scenes with her becoming an activist. Who really cares about the memorial? Why even draw attention to capitalizing on Dahmer's infamy when the series itself is exploitative to some degree?
It's even worse when you realize that her character is mostly made up. They were clearly trying to push an agenda even though the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I was going to post the same thing. In the Stone Phillips interview, he's extremely articulate and speaks without a stammer. It's one of the reasons why that interview stayed with me for so many years. In this series, he comes across as borderline autistic like a Napolean Dynamite.
I think Peters almost nailed the accent (somewhat exaggerated) but the awkwardness was way overplayed. I don't know whether to fault the acting or the characterization but it's probably a mix of both. People already have their preconceived notions. If you don't watch any of the documentaries or interviews, Peters portrayal is still believable, but the real life Dahmer was much more chilling.
Yet you're the one arguing along with Phillips that the black Israelites spewing hate speech at everyone who passed by felt threatened by students who responded to their hate with positivity.
Agree with most everything you said here but I'm hopeful that common sense will eventually prevail.
Let's also appreciate the irony of celebrity multi millionaires including Kathy Griffin, who made her fame and fortune as an insult comic, attack these young men living in Kentucky for their privilege.
People can watch the video and judge for themselves. I'm certain that your perspective is the minority opinion. The kid was put in an uncomfortable situation, made worse by the fact that he was aware he was being filmed. The other students could be heard asking what was going on as they clearly didn't understand what Phillips was doing there. What would you assume if someone had walked right up to you and locked eyes? Would you run away or at least attempt to understand them? If Phillips intention was to deescalate the situation, he could have done so by merely talking to the student, or at the very least preventing his friend from starting a confrontation with another student.
The students were simply waiting for their bus to arrive and chose not to engage the black protestors with any verbal or physical violence. The black israelites certainly didn't deserve any better than the jeers and mockery they were subjected to. They definitely did not deserve "protection" as Phillips claims. The fact that you choose to ignore every example I gave of how the young men used restraint just shows that you're trying to cling to your original narrative no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. The fact that Sandmann is getting sent death threats and online harassment for a smirk, when the video shows the students being verbally attacked by two groups of adult protestors spewing hate speech is the height of lunacy.
"When I was growing up, we’d have backed up a respectful distance from one of our elders — of whatever race — or we’d have stepped aside."
Would you follow that advice even if the person approaching you does so in a threatening manner? You have no idea how you would have reacted in that situation if you felt under stress.
"We would have had our parents grounding us if we’d ever been caught being that rude to an older person"
These kids showed more maturity than all the adults that were present. They did not escalate the situation into violence, they did not hurl hatred toward the black israelites, and stood up for their fellow classmate. Sandmann was even able to successfully intervene during an incident where one of the native american men was hurling insults at one of his classmates.
"There was an exchange going on between the black group and the white group when Phillips and several other Native Americans walk in between them chanting and banging the drum which immediately calmed the situation down. The black speaker even states several times that he (Phillips) came to protect them."
I heard the native american who was with Phillips say that the young men should go back to Europe and that they stole his land. I'm sure that calmed things down quite a bit. And singing and banging a drum is much more effective than calmly approaching another person and maybe saying, "the other group is trying to provoke a reaction out of you, maybe we should both move along".
You say your not defending the black Israelites, yet you say that they were having a "civil discussion about the bible" when the evidence clearly shows that they were NOT engaged in peaceful protest. Why would the black speaker need Phillips to protect them when they were constantly provoking everyone walking by?
"The students immediately began chanting and the black speaker says they are mocking Phillips."
Why would you put any weight to what the black speaker says when in the video he can be heard saying that President Trump is a homosexual and that fa***** don't deserve rights? So you would rather take the word of these people, but the teenagers who released several statements that all corroborate each other are liars?
In the CNN Interview, Phillips says he was protecting the Black Israelites because they were outnumbered. Never mind the fact that they were openly harassing the students at that point. The students were sticking up for one of their own who just happened to be black.
Sorry, your post is just plain weird. Despite your claims of objectivity, it's apparent you're excusing the actions of those who were being deliberately provocative, and believing the word of Phillips who either sided with those protestors, or who wouldn't bother to engage the teens in a civil manner. If Phillips is to be believed, why did he allow the person he was with to chant racial epithets at the students? Why did Sandmann have to signal to his classmate not to engage with the other Native American man who was with Phillips and telling the teens to go back to Europe?
What nonsense. I watched the video too. In the initial CNN report, Phillips told the journalist that he was trying to protect the black activists who were not only vomiting anti gay and anti semitic comments, but harassing black students from the group. It was a fellow student, not a chaperone, who was attempting to have the students back off. However, they continued to be provoked by the black activists while standing there on public land waiting for their bus.
If Phillips intention was to calm down both groups, which is not what he said initially, then walking through a crowd (when there was already lots of space to pass through) and banging a drum inches from the boy's face isn't the way to do it. All it conveyed was confusion which can be heard on the tape. The young kids thought it funny at first, but when a fellow Native American started yelling racial epithets at the teens, and telling them to go back to Europe, Sandmann (the boy in the video) actually turns around and successfully communicates to his friend not to engage with him.
It's amazing how you can watch that entire video and be wrong about just about everything.
Wrong. Phillips got into the kid's face. The boy thought it was funny at first or maybe even enjoyed it. In the words of someone else at the rally, they were all confused that some strange man walked up to this kid and started banging a drum mere inches from his face. If it were me I'd probably get nervous and start laughing too.
"Most estimates are around 10-11 million."
The research is flawed. Illegal immigrants would have to be vastly overrepresented in crime statistics relative to their population for these numbers to make sense.
"Not true. Illegal immigration has been going down for years. It's at a 12 year low. The illegal population is also in decline."
They have not gone down dramatically compared to previous decades.
"Most of the areas where illegal immigrants live are cosmopolitan cities therefore likely to be melting pots."
There is less assimilation in cities that are minority majority. It's less of a melting pot and more like a salad bowl.
"Our food is cheap because so many farmers hire them. 53% of hired farm workers are illegal. I know the restaurant industry where I live would collapse. Housing would be much more expensive since they make up 15% in construction."
Those blue collar jobs that "no one else wants to do" used to pay their workers a living wage and helped raise a family. These jobs are now being done for slave wages by illegal immigrants. These same jobs are also likely to be be phased out by automation in the decades to come. There is already a housing crisis in the big cities. Single and elderly people are competing with large immigrant families for housing. Most high paying jobs are concentrated in the large cities yet the cost of living has become too prohibitive for college graduates.
"You're mistakenly assuming there is no wall. There is. And people keep building tunnels underneath it or climbing over it."
There is less migration in areas where there is already a wall. However, much of it needs to be reinforced. It must be said that the wall would not be totally effective on its own. It's only one part of comprehensive reform which would also include better technology.
Nobody knows how many illegals are living in the country since we're not keeping track of them. The estimates are anywhere between 12 million and 36 million. The official estimate of 12 million has been that way for years even though we've had record migration since the 2000s. Border states are the ones mostly affected but nearby states are also affected not only by illegal immigration but by white flight.
Walls do work in other countries so it goes without saying that a wall would at least be effective in slowing down illegal immigration if not eliminating it. The cost of building the wall is very little in the grand scheme of things. The economic argument is weak since American citizens end up paying for illegal immigration one way or another. The moral argument also makes no sense because crime affects both citizens and immigrants alike.
Context is important. Illegal immigration has risen dramatically in the post 2000s.