HEATH/ JAKE SAG AWARDS?- Page 3

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 1:35am

"Having watched them in interviews, I think they understand that, but don't want it to be. They never signed up to do a landmark film. I think it just happened. It was a good script, they say? Yes. But I don't think they intended it to be what it is."

Oh c'MON!

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 1:37am

Yeah, I'm sure they had some idea that they were in what what is often referred to as Oscar-bait.

[BSoBW3]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 1:39am

What? They are human.

If they are homophobi, they are homophobic, and that's the way it is. I don't think they are - and I don't think that what they are doing is wrong at all.

I didn't seen what happened - but I'm guessing they are entertaining the crowd as they know best. And they obviously became friends, as they've stated. Who knows what was said just before they walked on stage. Who knows what the teleprompter said.

And who cares. However they are acting must be good enough to get people to see the movie.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 1:40am

I don't think any of the people actively contributing to this discussion right now are arguing that they (Heath and Jake, that is) were acting in a homophobic manner.

Updated On: 1/30/06 at 01:40 AM

[BSoBW3]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 1:43am

I'm sure they know it was Oscar-bait.

I don't know if they knew it would be such a landmark (as it is) film.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 1:43am

BSoBW3, the garbage you're spewing out doesn't even elicit a response.

[BSoBW3]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 1:45am

Well, it IS hard to deal with the OTHER side of the spectrum.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 1:45am

Okay, this discussion has officially entered the Twilight Zone.

What garbage is he spewing? I've got as jerky a knee as the next guy, and I haven't seen him say one thing that could be deemed as offensive.

Updated On: 1/30/06 at 01:45 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 1:49am

What-you didn't see the film NOR the SAG's and you're opining on them? nite, folks

[BSoBW3]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 1:52am

No, Jane.

I have been talking about past interviews - such as Oprah, Leno - that they have done.

I am sure that their feelings are much closer to home on those personal interviews, than a few minutes in front of a large group of people (if that isn't nerveracking enough).

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 1:52am

This is my new favorite thread. I don't think anyone is on the same page as anyone else. I love it.

If Bso would just admit that he's opressing all of us, this discussion could conclude.

Updated On: 1/30/06 at 01:52 AM

[BSoBW3]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 1:55am

In my heterocentric society, I would, without pause, admit to oppressing all of you. But then I'll have to go on and deal with all the anti-Semitism. If we can learn from history, it's that Jews should know their place.

Jewphobia is almost as bad as a minority in office.

/sarcasm

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 1:58am

Do you think the biggest Jewphobes are secretly Jewish?

And don't you dare play Anti-Semite card with me, young man. I was once seriously involved with an Israeli!

Edited to add: I almost converted!

Updated On: 1/30/06 at 01:58 AM

[BSoBW3]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 1:59am

Well, I don't think Hitler was Jewish.

I think the biggest Jewphobes are stupid.

I mean, what's not to like about our species?

Was your Israeli a Zionist?

[HamletWasBipolar]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 2:03am

I totally agree with you camthom, I was like WTF as well. After reading the emotional impact that the film has had on thousands of gay men, it seemed as if he was making a mockery of the whole thing. It was a very serious topic, but they wouldnt get that because THEY ARENT GAY. Anybody can be a good actor with 25 takes to do it in. Everyone was saying how breakthrough that film was. My reaction is that a true breakthrough would have been to have had openly gay actors take the parts and still get major studio funding to do it. I wonder if a film about breast cancer or civil rights would have had an intro like that. Never send a straight guy, to do a gay man's job! Anyone who wasn't offended by that was either in the bathroom when it happened, or straight and ignorant too.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 2:03am

He was pretty ambivalent about Zionism.

Are you a Zionist?

[BSoBW3]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 2:07am

"Never send a straight guy, to do a gay man's job!"

(This isn't directed at you - but a comment I've seen made a lot)

Would y'all have been happier if they had cast two gay men?


KRINGAS - I don't consider myself any type of ist.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 2:11am

Would y'all have been happier if they had cast two gay men?

That's actually a really good question, Bso. I've wondered that myself, and as much as I don't like my answer, I think on some level I actually would have preferred to see two gay men cast. I don't really know why and it's not like there are a plethora of out young gay men in Hollywood who are going to be signed to carry A-List films, but nonetheless, the fact that there's just an apparent lack of visible gay contribution to the making of this film does unsettle me. Would I have liked it more if there were? Who can say? Certainly not I.

Updated On: 1/30/06 at 02:11 AM

[Jyn326]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 5:38am

I was a bit confused at their behavior as well, but I started to think that perhaps the producers told Heath and maybe Jake too, to 'act gay' for whatever reason and they were laughing at the ridiculousness of it. Of course, it doesn't excuse the fact that it was offensive behavior.

And I also agree with the person who mentioned that we don't know what was said right before they walked on stage. They could have 'gotten the giggles' about a completely unrelated topic and couldn't regain their composure.

I thought they gave great performances in BM, but the fact remains they're human. They may give interviews that makes them seem less than comfortable with playing gay men, but that doesn't change the fact that the film was moving.

... just throwing my two cents in there.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 8:22am

Let's all lighten up, okay? They've promoted this film tirelessly, both doing yeoman's work on Leno, enduring the endless spit-swapping questioning from the Big O, and sitting through awards shows where they are touted but don't win. They are 26, they are being revered in this movie, which will live forever on DVD, and they are probably OD-ing on the promotion demands of an endless "The Red Carpet Season."

And all the tea-leaf reading! Today Variety sends out emails suggesting that SAG "snubbed" BROKEBACK, and suggests it's the beginning of a new backlash. How silly (TITANIC and LORD OF THE RINGS won Best Picture without any actors winning.) Nobody was snubbed. This was a year of wonderful performances by male actors. These fellas were great, but the categories are crowded with peak-career work from others. It doesn't constitute "snubbing,". And more to the point -- a year ago, who know Heath (A KNIGHT'S TALE) Ledger or Jake (DAY AFTER TOMORROW) g. would be serious acting awards contenders? They are riding a new wave of respect. Remember "an honor to be nominated?" That will hold true for these guys.

Updated On: 1/30/06 at 08:22 AM

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 8:41am

Poor babies. They've been promoting their hit film tirelessly. That totally allows for unprofessional, disrespectful behavior at a ceremony that is honoring their work. Give me a break.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 8:45am

Oh please. "Unprofessional"? All the lip pursing and foot stomping here is a bit much.

I guess they won't be the first two men of the new century on that gay postage stamp the Gov is contemplating. Let's have a smidgeon of perspective.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 8:48am

You all would laugh if you had to read what was on that teleprompter, too. Give them a break. They made a beautiful movie, and have certainly been pretty damned respectful of it thusfar. They've done nothing but show their pride in being part of this project.

It's like people are *waiting* for these two to do something wrong, so they could be less-than golden and you could delight in it.

Updated On: 1/30/06 at 08:48 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 10:19am

That's basically what I said also, emcee.

As for being snubbed for the awards, did it ever occur to anyone here that the voters (who are actors) truly didn't think their performances were the best of all who were nominated? Maybe this was an honest vote rather than one coming from the agenda of "snubbing them". I for one wouldn't have given either of them my vote.

[mabel]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 10:29am

I don't think their presentation was necessarily offensive as one or two other people on here have pointed out, but I do kind of think it was a touch unprofessional (and this goes for Keener as well; I'm not just singling out Heath/Jake). These are professional actors up there presenting their films, and even if the drivel they've been given to read is on the hokey side, I do think it would have been nice if they'd tried to eak their way through it without totally busting up. I'll give it to you (and them) that in general, they have pretty trashy stuff to read, but it's not as if it's any worse than what the presenters for awards have to read before running off the names, and most of them manage to get through it without too much trouble.