Wednesday, February 1

Blue Gal's Oscar Pix

Film Title: Brokeback Mountain.

Oh, you've been holding yer breath for this, I know.

Just going out on a limb (not) and predicting a sweep, 8 Oscars, for Brokeback Mountain.

One thing that gets overlooked with all the “controversy” is how real the straight marriages are in this movie. (That's why you should see it, Douglas.) The wives and the stresses these people go through are very believeable. Being poor, uneducated, rural, with kids really sucks, and you can see that in Heath Ledger’s marriage. It has nothing to do with his “gay” relationship on the side, it has everything to do with financial pressures and the emptiness of life in Wyoming. The whole movie really depends on those marriages.

We do have an embarrassment of riches in the best actor category this year. Hoffman is fab, but so is David Strathairn in Good Night and Good Luck. But my money is on Heath Ledger.

Jake Gyllenhaal might lose to George Clooney for best supporting actor. Jake apparently made a lot of stupid comments in interviews about how Jack and Ennis weren't "really gay" before somebody told him to shut up.

Betcha Hollywood is going to take this opportunity to send a condescending liberal message to middle America after the Reddi-whipping of the Christ movie. I predict a Brokeback sweep.

My heart votes for Paul Giamatti in Cinderella Man, but this is really just his "honor to be nominated" year. His day will come.

You can predict, and (nice touch) change your predictions as the buzz changes, here.

Memo to Cindy Sheehan: You go, girl. American historians will forget that stupid speech, and the fact that Laura Bush brought a DOG to the Capitol as her personal guest, but they will never forget what happened to you last night. Why do we have to live the mofo sixties all over again?


  1. I blogged on Cindy just now. I am sooo pissed.

    Please, please, tell me how to put the "Impeach Bush" banner on my blog. It's long overdue.

  2. Laura brought a dog? You mean other than W and Martha Alito (aka spud and weepy)? I didn't watch but chose to read the address this morning - I didn't want to puke...

  3. What's also nice about a gay movie winning the big award from the mainstream academy is that all the so-called liberals who use gay and lesbian identities to "punish" Tom DeLay, Bush, Rove and others by using photoshop to alter their images into "gay" (as you do on your sophmoric, ad hominem other "Tom Delay" blog)--what's so nice about a gay movie winning is that "liberals" like you don't have to really care or really [I mean, actually, materially] support gay and lesbian issues. Yep. All you have to do is noncritically endorse whole-heartedly how wonderful this movie is! and that's that. This movie is pastoral--thereby distant, safe, not a true threat to the social order.

    If you'd like to actually support gays and lesbians in their efforts to achieve basic human rights, you could start by not depending on sophmoric "Delay's so Gay, man!" humor, which actually sends a reallyy ugly and divisive message to your readers/viewers. What you've accomplished in disseminating these images is no different than calling someone you don't like or agree with "gay" or "fag," just like a twelve year old school boy who has been enculturated in homophobia.

    -- I wonder, how might you forge a reasonable and meaningful critique without putting those you don't like or disagree with in drag, or photoshopping them into gay situations? How can you support Brokeback Mountain, while photoshopping Abramoff and Delay into the movie poster simultaneously (their so GAY!)...

    Can you substitute thoughtful analysis for this rather infantile ad hominem ease? Or is that asking too much?

  4. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am a Progressive who would not only like to see Brokeback Mountain, which seems a little too sad and gritty to be described as "pastoral", but who does support what you refer to as "gay issues."

    I call "gay issues" civil rights. I would like to see gays have the same opportunity to love, marry and live without fear of people who hate them, as any other American citizen does.

    I think one of the reasons that Tom Delay, Karl Rove, and others of his ilk are portrayed as "gay" is because they do not support human rights for gay people or anyone else. I haven't seen what you are describing, but from what you say, I would perceive it as a satire. Satire is humor last time I checked. Are you familiar with the concept of humor?

    This is also intriguing for another reason. You are very, very concerned that Tom Delay, Karl Rove, and others are being portrayed as "gay", and yet you are not concerned that they have been indicted for serious crimes and that there is serious and pervasive corruption among elected officials of the Republican Party.

    Really, Tom Delay made his own situation. He broke the law, he got caught and hopefully he will be tried and punished like any other criminal defendant.

    Karl Rove is still under investigation, but every indication is that he will also be indicted. Karl Rove also made the choice which put himself in that position.

    We have yet to see all of the fallout from the Abramoff case, which seems to be reaching directly into the White House, or doesn't that concern you either? All of the individuals in the Abramoff case made their own futures as well.

    I never cease to be amazed at the conservative capacity to be worried about who is gay, who is not gay and who is being named as gay, when that is a perfectly natural state of being.

    In the meantime we have a bunch of crooks, literal crooks, who are conservative icons and who are involved in so many fiscal scandals and crimes that it is hard to keep track of them. You say not one word about that. It is as if it does not exist for you.

    I am not even detailing the Fitzgerald investigation which deals with placing an intelligence operative in jeopardy along with the project she had been working on for years for petty revenge. Criminals apparently are fine with conservatives, but you demonize gay people.

    For your information, and because I know this is terribly important to you, I will tell you that I am straight and married. I do not perceive gays or equal rights for gays under the law to be threatening or evil.

    I do think criminals should be put in jail however, and I do think that conservatives should open their eyes and look at a bigger picture than a specific movie, parodies on blogs, or blame gays for every evil in society.


  5. I love Tom is satire. And if you read the satire carefully you will see its position as portraying Tom Delay as a heterosexual stud muffin, rather than gay. Also, I don't know Photoshop. We stole that image from somebody else, an internet tradition I also continue on Blue Gal (always with attribution).

    I don't pretend to speak for the photoshopper, but it suggests to me that it is portraying Delay as having an illicit relationship with Abramoff. If that is "not funny," well, I never claimed to bat a thousand on the funny scale.

    How many knee jerk defensive gays seeking unconditional validation does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

    I know, I know. THAT'S NOT FUNNY.

  6. I understand satire.

    But posting an image as "gay" does not necessarily constitute satire.

    Why is naming these men "gay" a put down, unless you consider gay to be lesser?

    My central point is that in order to create what you too easily describe as "satire," you depend heavily on gay themes, which is tantamount to conflating evil = delay and rove and bush, etc with gay. So, evil = gay in your "satire."

    Here's the lesson from history, if you care to understand it:

    There's no way around this -- here's the facts: you're satirizing "corrupt politicians" as "Gay," just as Weimar once satirized "rich opulent enemies of the state" as "Jews with big noses with hands in the state's pot of gold," or "drunken lazy louts" as "Irishmen." Or are you too deficient in historical knowledge to comprehend this -- and isn't historical deficiency brought about by a lack of education the very weapon you use against "republicans"?

    Remember... Just as blackface was once considered an acceptable form of satire, it's now rightfully known as RACISM. (Aside: just ask Ted Danson.) That's the cultural fact.

    Let's hope that what you right now consider "satire" is one day understood for what it is: homophobic.

    By the way, I am a leftist, lesbian, English and Rhetoric professor and published academic. I understand satire, trust me.

    Am I "knee jerk" for caring about human rights and equality? Am I seeking validation by critiquing a good blog that's in my opinion showing itself to be homophobic, while simultaneously professing to care about liberal concerns? Gays and lesbians aren't allowed to voice serious concerns--they don't have senses of humor? Another homophobe stereotype, that one...old saw...

    Well, then. If you can't accept this criticism, which has merit, then you can't accept it. It's a shame--it's offered in good will, as constructive criticism always is.

    Just one time, "Blackface" too was considered "satire." ...maybe you'll learn to take meaningful criticism. I hope so.

  7. As the co-founder of I Love Tom along with Blue Gal, I'm terribly sorry to hear that there is someone out there who does not enjoy our tribute site. As I always aim to be all things to all people all the time, I'm very sad to have missed someone's exquisitely-tuned funny bone.

    However disappointed I am, I must remind the gentle reader, as did Blue Gal, that "I Love Tom DeLay" is satire. We save the thoughtful analysis for our home blogs. And, as Blue Gal also pointed out, our fictional characterization of 'Leader DeLay', as Scott McClellan insists on calling him, depicts him as the very manliest and most über-macho of hetra-sexshul he-men.

    I do believe that Mr. DeLay is known to have financial relationships on the 'down low', so to speak, and perhaps the allusions speak to that.

    I anxiously await similar responses from the pimps, jailbirds, and rats who we may have inadvertently offended with our mean-spirited Photoshopping. If I were a pimp, jailbird, or rat (and who's to say I'm not?), I'm sure I'd be insulted at being linked to Tom DeLay.

    If our gentle reader is indeed of the lavender persuasion, perhaps that reader would be happier staying away from offensive liberal blogs such as ours - everyone knows that liberals are the real racists and homophobes, with their 'soft bigotry of low expectations', unlike conservatives, who of course are happy to welcome all into their big, inclusive tent.

  8. Okay everybody, just lighten up. AM started her blog today. Sister, welcome to the party. You've got my attention, and you're blogrolled. Maybe I've got something to learn, though I warn you, Richard Pryor taught me a lot more about equal rights than Malcolm X. Ditto Margaret Cho and Ellen DeGeneres, versus Valerie Solanas. Make me laugh, and I'll learn. Eventually.

  9. Apologies as well, and point taken. In the one 'gay' reference that I did myself, the point was an allusion to privately embracing something you publicly reject and attack, which I believe can refer to corruption and cronyism, as well as homosexuality.


I really look forward to hearing what you have to say. I do moderate comments, but non-spam comments will take less than 24 hours to appear... Thanks!