Bill O'Reilly is an entertaining clown. He used to know it, but I think that, starting in about 2003, Al Franken's attacks really got to him, and his mind has since snapped. I think he now believes his shtick.
Anyway, he's
written about Brokeback Mountain. There's really no point in responding to his specific ideas, because, well, they're so stupid. For example:
According to friends of mine who have seen "Brokeback," the key scene takes place in a pup tent. Apparently, two shepherds "bond" in said tent. If I do see the movie, I know what will run through my mind during that scene: What would Clint and Lee and Eli [from The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly] have done, had they stumbled upon the tent? I believe gunfire might have been involved.
Later, of course, he completely contradicts himself and pretends to be oh-so-tolerant:
So how should we process the current Hollywood award process? Well, I don't have a problem with it. Certainly, it is wrong that some gay Americans, especially teenagers, are made to suffer because of their predilections. Every American should be able to pursue happiness on an equal basis, including gays.
There's one idea of his, however, that I simply have to respond to:
So that's what's in play this year at the Academy Awards--a social and political statement. And that's why Star Wars and Harry Potter and Narnia, the three largest grossing movies of the year, are not in the best picture running. Spectacular movies often make tons of money, but they do not advance any cause. Gone are the days when Gone With the Wind-type entertainment ruled the Hollywood day....But I also think the entertainment industry should be up front in explaining what films it values and why it finds them especially worthy. Most Americans are not gonna see Brokeback Mountain because they don't relate to the subject, and if Hollywood is now in the "culture-shaping business," it should admit it.
Uh, hello? How is "Hollywood" (a completely monolithic group, of course) not being up front about its "agenda"? Is there a more written-about movie in the last ten years?
And since when has Hollywood ever
not been in the "culture-shaping" business? That's what films
do: they question or reinforce or satirize or condemn contemporary social and political issues. Is Bill O'Reilly really so stupid to think that
Gone With the Wind doesn't have a cultural or social message? Blacks are stupid and subservient, for example, and the Civil War was a "noble" cause for the South? Almost every movie sends a message about GLBT characters too: namely, do GLBT people exist or not.
Brokeback Mountain is anything but a political movie, but even if it was, Hollywood has been making these too, for decades--
Gentleman's Agreement,
In the Heat of the Night,
The Best Years of Our Lives,
Rambo,
Mrs. Miniver,
Platoon,
Dr. Strangelove--and they're some of the most beloved, and highly praised movies, of the last fifty years. They're not "controversial" anymore, mostly because the then-explosive issues at their cores aren't so explosive any more. In ten years,
Brokeback Mountain won't be controversial either.
Dammit, I said I wouldn't take Bill O'Reilly seriously, and I did! Forget I wrote all that, and just ignore his essay, please.
Cross-posted from
The Big Gay Picture (with lots more GLBT-related media commentary!)