GLAAD Mad at Gene Shalit's "Brokeback" Review

[Big Dick McGee]

Yahoo! Story

GLAAD Mad at Shalit's "Brokeback" Breakdown

By Sarah Hall Fri Jan 6, 7:44 PM ET
For the most part, the critics agree that Brokeback Mountain is one of the year's most commendable films.
Then there's Gene Shalit's point of view.
The veteran Today show critic has been taken to task by the
taken to task by the

Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation over his negative review of the gay cowboy western, in which he referred to

Jake Gyllenhaal's character, Jack, as a "sexual predator" who "tracks Ennis down and coaxes him into sporadic trysts."
The group claimed that Shalit's statements, delivered during his "Critic's Choice" segment on Thursday's Today show, promoted "defamatory anti-gay prejudice to a national audience," and criticized NBC News for providing the eccentric critic with a platform from which to air his views.
"Shalit's bizarre characterization of Jack as a 'predator' and Ennis (

Heath Ledger) as a victim reflects a fundamental lack of understanding about the central relationship in the film and about gay relationships in general," GLAAD said in a statement. "It seems highly doubtful that Shalit would similarly claim that Titanic's Jack (

Leonardo DiCaprio) was a 'sexual predator' because he was pursuing a romantic relationship with Rose (

Kate Winslet)."
GLAAD demanded an apology from both Shalit and NBC News and urged supporters to contact the network and complain.
In addition to offering his searing analysis of the romantic relationship between the lead characters, Shalit commended Ledger's performance in Brokeback and allowed that the film had a "few dramatic peaks." He concluded that

Ang Lee's much-nominated oeuvre was "wildly overpraised, but not by me."
"Shalit has every right as a film critic to criticize Brokeback Mountain," GLAAD retorted. "But his baseless branding of Jack as a 'sexual predator' merely because he is romantically interested in someone of the same sex is defamatory, ignorant and irresponsible."
The group reported on its Website that GLAAD representatives had spoken with a Today show producer, who promised to bring their concerns to Shalit's attention.
While Shalit may not be a Brokeback fan, his colleagues in critique have clamored to commend the cowboy drama.
To date, the film has been named Best Picture by the

Los Angeles Film Critics Association and the

New York Film Critics Circle and deemed one of the year's 10 best films by the

American Film Institute and the Broadcast Film Critics Association.
The kudos don't stop there--Brokeback is up for eight Critic's Choice Awards, seven Golden Globes, a Writers Guild Award, a Producers Guild Award, a Directors Guild Award and four

Screen Actors Guild Awards, to name a few. And that's before nominations for the

Academy Awards are announced on Jan. 31.

I respect GLAAD, what they stand for, and all the good work they have done to advance the just cause of tolerance for gays in the United States.

But they're way, way out of line here. Since when did GLAAD become arbiters of Free Speech? Why does GLAAD think they can invalidate one person's opinion, simply because it doesn't agree with their own?

Some people have a problem with gay pride marchers shouting, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" in their neighborhoods. But no one is trying to stifle their free speech.

Whether you agree with Shalit's review or not (I personally think he's one slight step above those paid shills you see blurbs on the movie ads), he's entitled to express his opinion on the film. He's paid to do it, actually.

Making this much of a fuss over Shalit's review not only illustrates that GLAAD can be way too sensitive at times. It also supposes way more credibility and influence than Shalit actually has.

Stop being nancy-boys!

 

[Friday]

Well, describing gays as "sexual predators" is a bit slanted, dontch think?

 

[Big Dick McGee]

No, he described an individual, fictional gay character as a sexual predator. If Shalit had said something like, "Like most gays, Jack Twist is a sexual predator who keeps drawing Ennis into an unwanted relationship", that would be harmful, or defamatory (although...can you "defame" a whole class of people?).

What Shalit gave was his opinion of the character gleaned from his interpretation of the characters' motivations. That's all.

 

[Number_6]

Well, describing gays as "sexual predators" is a bit slanted, dontch think?

Sigh. Think for yourself; stop knee-jerk accepting something when the speaker happens to subscribe to a point of view with which you agree.

No gay bashing here. Move along.

 

[Laker_Girl]

I don't care what the pizza guy from Chuck E. Cheese has to say about Broke Back Mountain I totally want to see it. Two hot guys making out, sex-eh, like Interview With a Vampire only better.

 

[SilentBtViolent]

They're mad because he has bad dress and personal hygiene.

He also can't dance.

Or interior decorate.

Or stereotype stereotype stereotype.

BDM is right this time, IMO.

 

[WordInterrupted]

But they're way, way out of line here. Since when did GLAAD become arbiters of Free Speech? Why does GLAAD think they can invalidate one person's opinion, simply because it doesn't agree with their own?

How are they violating his free speech? He exercised his right to speak, and now they're exercising theirs. You may not agree with what they're saying, but it is in no way a free speech issue.

 

[The Question]

How are they violating his free speech? He exercised his right to speak, and now they're exercising theirs. You may not agree with what they're saying, but it is in no way a free speech issue.

No, they're going beyond that -- they're trying to hurt his employment by pressuring his employers. Free speech is telling all and sundry what they think of him. Targeting his employer specifically and convincing others to do the same is retaliation, plain and simple. They don't like what he said, so they're trying to bring enough pressure down on the right people to make sure he loses the forum in which he said it.

 

[WordInterrupted]

In his first post, I think BDM conflates two distinct arguments--one that attacks the content of GLAAD's protest, and another that attacks the method. He attacks the content when he claims that GLAAD's characterization of Gatis's remarks is inaccurate and unreasonable. According to this line of criticism, the problem isn't that GLAAD is violating free speech, but that it's advancing a faulty argument. At the same time as he criticizes content, he also attacks GLAAD's method--that is, the practice of trying to deprive someone of a public forum by getting them fired. He suggests that Gatis's right to free speech entails a right to be employed by NBC, and by trying to get him fired GLAAD is violating that right. This argument operates irrespective of whether the remarks in question were homophobic.

I don't agree with criticism of content, but one can at least make a respectable argument in that regard. To my mind, Gatis was drawing on a vicious stereotype (perhaps unconciously) but his remarks are sufficiently ambiguous that one can make a reasonable case to contrary. The argument that GLAAD is violating Gatis's free speech, however, is just stupid. It's beyond absurd to claim that someone has a right to a job. Gatis has a right to stand on a street corner and shout until he's horse, but he has no right whatsoever to be employed by NBC. If you think otherwise, just say "I have a right to this position" next time you're in a job interview and see what it gets you.

 

[WordInterrupted]

Oops, that should be "hoarse," not "horse." I wouldn't usually bother about spelling mistakes, but with missmanner's new restrictions against animal porn I can't be too careful.

 

[The Question]

The argument that GLAAD is violating Gatis's free speech, however, is just stupid. It's beyond absurd to claim that someone has a right to a job. Gatis has a right to stand on a street corner and shout until he's horse, but he has no right whatsoever to be employed by NBC. If you think otherwise, just say "I have a right to this position" next time you're in a job interview and see what it gets you.

So you don't think that what they're doing is tantamount to punishing the man for exercising his freedom of speech?

 

[WordInterrupted]

Of course not. They're punishing him for making homophobic remarks, not for exercising freedom of speech.

 

[Number_6]

Of course not. They're punishing him for making homophobic remarks, not for exercising freedom of speech.

Why are the remarks homophobic? A sexual predator can be homosexual or heterosexual. He has an objection to the individual character, and the individual character's behavior.

It is extremely dangerous to choose to label this homophobic.

 

[WordInterrupted]

Why are the remarks homophobic? A sexual predator can be homosexual or heterosexual. He has an objection to the individual character, and the individual character's behavior.

I would define a homophobic remark as a statement that promotes a harmful stereotype about gay people. It's often difficult to determine whether a given remark fits this description, but in this case I think it's fairly clear. I don't know if you've seen the movie, but it really is strange to label the character a "sexual predator." It's a fairly mild romance, especially in comparison with other contemporary films, and there isn't even a hint of rape of pedophilia--the activities typicaly associated with the term. At the same time, the notion that gay people are sexual predators is a very present and harmful stereotype in our society. The Vatican, for example, has responded to child abuse scandals not by reforming church bureaucracy, but by purging gay people from the seminaries, as if that will clense the priesthood of sexual predators. This stereotype isn't just an idle opinion, it gives rise to policies that ruin people's lives.

Given the senselessness of Shalit's description of the character and the presence of the stereoptype to which his remark conforms, I think homophobia is the best explanation. I don't understand how your remarks would counteract that conclusion. It's certainly true that both gay people and straight people can be sexual predators, but that doesn't mean that gay people aren't stereotyped as sexual predators. Similarly, Shalit's remark was about one ficticious individual, as you point out, that doesn't mean he wasn't viewing individual behavior through the lense of a stereotype.

It is extremely dangerous to choose to label this homophobic.

Perhaps it is. Promoting any kind of social norm is potentially dangerous, but in this case I think the greatest danger is from bigoted stereotypes.

 

[The Question]

Of course not. They're punishing him for making homophobic remarks, not for exercising freedom of speech.

And he's perfectly free to make homophobic remarks. Unless or until he takes homophobic action, however, their retaliation is the greater of the two wrongs.

 

[Buttons]

Shhh... Wordin might begin to understand why you are free to say whatever you might want, but are not free from the consequences of that, such as say, people not reading your posts, or getting punched in the face with a tire spike.