RSS
Spilt Milk!
In reviewing Sean Penn's performance in the new gay bio-pic, Mark Hemingway asks "Got Milk?"
His answer, nah!
Penn's performance is excellent, writes Hemingway, but the film's scriptwriter misses the real and mixed character of the assassinated San Francisco mayor.
It will make no difference to liberal reviewers or the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. (Hemingway predicts Oscar nods galore.) But it will to viewers who get cheated with a white-washed, saintly version of a much more interesting, flawed but ultimately admirable, historical figure.
His answer, nah!
Penn's performance is excellent, writes Hemingway, but the film's scriptwriter misses the real and mixed character of the assassinated San Francisco mayor.
It will make no difference to liberal reviewers or the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. (Hemingway predicts Oscar nods galore.) But it will to viewers who get cheated with a white-washed, saintly version of a much more interesting, flawed but ultimately admirable, historical figure.
posted by Spencerblog at
12:48 AM
10 Comments:
Gil - I read your column about the stadium in Chester, your post Holy Toledo You're Fired, and now this story on Milk.
Just two words for you buddy - GAY SOCCER! You want to put asses in those seats? HAHAAA! The side line shows alone would be worth the admission!
Oh yes, Harvey Milk. (Liberals: not condoning his assassination or the stupid "Twinkie Defense" that followed..)
But I do wonder if his constant praising of Jim Jones will be mentioned in the film?
Or will Jones' links to the Democratic party be left out like in CNN's recent Jonestown documentary?
Mark Hemingway is an NRO and political hack. What credentials does he have as a film critic?
He does seem pretty good at bashing gays by claiming they are overly promiscuous and raising the question of whether homosexuality is immoral.
Spencer, you seem to have an unusual fascination with gay themed news stories.
It is, as Hemmingway points out, a standard tactic of the gay left to suggest that anyone who is critical of the gay social agenda is probably gay themselves.
If that is what Mr. Not-So-Anonymous is suggesting by saying Spencerblog has a "unusual fascination with gay themed news stories," he should just COME OUT and say so, if you know what we mean.
My question is does "Anonymous" have a pink axe to grind?
He seems to get unduly snippy and upset when anyone mentions a gay man in anything but the most flattering of ways.
In any case, Hemmingway's review is thoughtful, informative, and in many ways positive about the film, if not about the liberals who will honor it beyond its value.
Once again we have an Anonymous critic who doth protest too strongly.
Hiding one's identity while taking cheap shots at others isn't gay. But it is sissy boy.
Time to come out of the closet.
Spencer-
No. I was suggesting that your fascination is because you are obviously an anti-gay bigot. That's why you "moderate" and publish the homophobic and scientifically discredited rantings of Scott and "limp wrist" slurs by R, rather than post a single blog entry yourself of any current scientific article supporting the consensus that sexual orientation is inherent biological attribute. Instead you post articles portraying prominent gays in a negative light.
It's you that appears to promote the idea that every believer in gay rights is themselves gay by implying I have a "pink axe" to grind. You are just like the white supremacists that question the genetic purity or racial loyalty of those supporting minority rights.
Protection of civil rights and fighting against discrimination is the responsibility of every real American.
Not implying, asking.
But typically you didn't answer the question and you remain an anonymous sissy boy.
Okay, since you are claiming you were just "asking". I'm not gay. Nor am I a boy.
However, thanks for showing your bigotry by using terms like "sissy boy".
I won't bother asking your "orientation". Ignorance doesn't have a direction.
at what point does anonymous-iano take a step back and tell the story in his life that leads to his over-the-top defense of gay rights? There's something there and its not just on "the goodness of his heart" Family member?
The Barney Frank story and susequent accusations/complaints to the almighty Herron a few months ago is still nonsense, IMHO.
Anonymous said...
Okay, since you are claiming you were just "asking". I'm not gay. Nor am I a boy.
Hey Anonymous, we know one thing: You're not a man.
Steve - You've read a bit about my story in the "holy toledo" post.
My reasons for supporting gay rights and civil unions are based on personal experience, and I dont mind talking about it. I was my X wife's 3rd husband. None of us knew she was gay when we married. She came out about 5 yrs ago, after we had been married for 7 yrs. She said she remembers realizing she was attracted to women at the age of thirteen. It caused her great feelings of guilt. Her marriages didnt work out because she couldn't settle down and be happy with a man. She told me that she hated her attraction to other women, and that she didnt want to be gay, but its something that she just couldn't turn off in her mind. She married me with the hopes that I would be the man who would change her . Obviously it didn't work. She was 41 when she came out. At the time of the breakup, I was devestated. I certainly wasnt prepared to start life over at the age of 50. People like C. Scott Shields and Randal do everyone in society a diservice by trying to convince gay people that they can convert. So many marry, have children, and live lives that are miserable lies. When they do come out, quite often in mid-life, they end up doing serious damage to the lives of their chldren and their spouses. Just because they were raised to believe that being gay is a bad thing. The attitudes of the Scotts and Randals of this world hurt gay people. But they hurt straight people even more.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home