RENT is confirmed to be selectively homophobic- Page 7

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:03pm

What other sources besides the Blade do you have, art?

The people in your head? They don't count.

ONE professional opinion versus dozens of others who disagree with yours...does not an arguement make.

[art2]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:09pm

FOAnatic,

I would rather take one independent assessment than a hundred biased ones.

[MeleeQ]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:09pm

Why are people still carrying on this argument? I think it's pretty obvious that Art isn't going to change his opinions (as delusional as they may be). Let him scream at an empty thread for a while. All he wants is attention. Maybe when he stops getting it he'll realize that NOBODY CARES.

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:10pm

But, you know...

...this is outraging to many, many, MANY people. We shall scream if we want to!

[Craig]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:12pm

"I would rather take one independent assessment than a hundred biased ones. "

That's your right. But don't think that makes your statements any more valid. You can have an opinion. That doesn't make it a fact.

And just because people differ with your opinion does not make it biased. If that were logical - I could call you biased.

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:14pm

Okay, did you even READ Wilson's quote, Art?

NOTHING was done to "flesh out" or "sexualize" Maureen and Joanne's relationship that was not already in the play. Which, as we all know, you've never seen, so you wouldn't know. The gay marriage subplot is a VERY small part of the story that ONLY exists to set up the scene for Take Me Or Leave Me. They needed a way to incorporate that fight into the story, and that's the idea they had. That's it. It's nothing more than a segway that had no extra meaning at all. It wasn't an "extra story line." It was a plot contrivance to get the story set up and moving for things that were already in the musical. Stop making it into something that it's not just because you can't admit you're wrong.

You keep acting as though Maureen and Joanne's relationship is the same as Collins and Angel's. That is your first mistake. You think that both should be portrayed the same way. It's apples and oranges. The two relationships were created and written by Jonathan to be TWO. DIFFERENT. THINGS. and therefore not portrayed with the same levels of emotion. Maureen and Joanne's relationship was ALREADY extremely sexual and lustful/passionate in the musical. It wasn't "sexualized" or "fleshed out" for the film. THAT is the way that it was ALREADY in the play. Jonathan wrote it that way. It was a hot, sexual affair with hot tempers and constant, passionate fighting. Go to 41st Street and see the show. You'll see what we mean.

Collins and Angel, on the other hand, were written an ENTIRELY different way. If you'd actually watch the videos that have been posted recently that have interviews with Jesse and Wilson, you will see that Jonathan and Michael Grief themselves TOLD THEM FLAT OUT that Collins and Angel's relationship was simple, uncomplicated, and honest. It was written and directed to NOT be overly sexual and hot. It was written to be intensely romantic, pure and yes, I guess we could say even chaste. It's a given that they have sex, but their relationship, like Wilson and Michael and Jesse and Jonathan have said, is not about sex. Maureen and Joanne's, on the other hand, is. That is why they are portrayed as more sexual in the movie. Not because it was added in, or fleshed out. Because that is the way IT ALREADY WAS IN THE PLAY, WHICH YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN. End. Of. Story.

"We don't resile from what we've said." All of the facts, including direct information from THE CAST AND CREW THEMSELVES, the ORIGINAL BROADWAY CAST, and THE LARSONS THEMSELVES, confirm that you are 110% completely and totally wrong. If you HONESTLY THINK that Jonathan's friends and family (who were on set EVERY SINGLE DAY and saw EVERYTHING get written and filmed) would allow Collins and Angel to be de-gayed, that is just pathetic, presumptuous, and exceedingly arrogant.

It's hysterical that you think that one film critic vindicates you, but THE LARSONS THEMSELVES being on OUR side, for some reason, doesn't vindicate us. Let's see...who's the more reliable source here? Mr. Washington Film Critic, or the OBC and the Larsons? Hm. Tough question.

So before you preach about double standards, confront your own. The fact that you've resorted to personal attacks on people proves that you know you have nothing substantial left to fall back on, and are now just lashing out. You don't like the fact that all the evidence is against you and that you've been proven wrong multiple times. You don't like that the facts, plain and simple, support us and not you. And you certainly don't like the fact that you're too prideful to admit you were wrong.

You're a coward.
Updated On: 11/19/05 at 09:14 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:15pm

Right. It's all about the sex. What happened to attempted smashing of stereotypes? Perhaps the relationship should be *entirely* sexual, as if only to further the stereotype that society is *finally* beginning to move away from -- it's NOT all about sex; and if you, sir, believe that THAT is the only thing that can portray the legitimacy of a relationship, you've far more of a problem than I thought.

I doubt you'd take this to heart at all, art, but I offer you something from a piece that has taught me invaluable lessons:

In Larry Kramer's play, The Normal Heart, Bruce, the chosen President of what would become Act Up, says that "the entire gay political agenda is f*cking."
The scene continues:
Ned: You make it sound like that's all that being gay means.
Bruce: That's all it does mean!
Mickey: It's the only thing that makes us different.
Ned: I don't want to be considered different.
Bruce: Neither do I, actually.
....
Ned:...You know, Mickey, all we've created is a generation of guys who can't deal with each other as anything but erections...

Earlier in the play, Ned writes that he is "sick of gays who only think with their c*cks." (Appologies for the profanity; I'm making a point.)

Would you rather those stereotypes be portrayed? The stereotypes organizations like that work against? That Collins and Angel be looked at that way? That gay men are so sexual that they've not even the ability to think? Sure. That must be better than a relationship that's about LOVE and not sex, in a major motion picture that has the ability to reach a lot of people. Sure, that's what they should think. That it's all about who you f*ck becuase that's "weird." They shouldn't be exposed to the notion that it's normal and it's okay. We wouldn't want that.

Don't use the fact that the movie isn't the show to forward this; that relationship was NO MORE sexual on stage than it is in the movie. You've probably not even *seen* Rent on stage. There wasn't anything to de-sexualize, so don't you dare fault the creators of this movie. The point that this relationship is not only about sex IS what validates it and makes it real.

Updated On: 11/19/05 at 09:15 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:15pm

Nah, we tried ignoring him before. He just kept coming back and starting new threads.

Ooo, good use of The Normal Heart. I'm halfway through my umpteenth reading of it right now.

Updated On: 11/19/05 at 09:15 PM

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:17pm

Can we just ban this guy's IP from this site?

What a heartless coward you are, art.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:17pm

to be so young and for this to be his cause, is so pathetic......

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:20pm

skittles, I could hear the lines in my head, but it took me like ten minutes to actually find them in the script. Talk about frustrating.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:23pm

He shouldn't be banned for voicing his opinion--even if we disagree. This IS America.

I'm not a Renthead and I am very passionate about gay issues, so I think my opinion is rather objective.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:24pm

Emcee, when I was reading it, I wanted to stop before I reached the scene Bruce tells Ned about Albert dying. I didn't realize I was already there until I got to the line "Ned, Albert is dead." I literally gasped and slammed the book shut. I was in the student center surrounded by people and I had a class in 10 minutes- I couldn't go there.

Updated On: 11/19/05 at 09:24 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:26pm

I don't read the whole thing very often anymore; I can't sleep if I do.

[Craig]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:26pm

All things aside - Art2's opinion holds no water if only after watching the well directed and edited "I'll Cover You" scene between Angel and Tom. If that's not the biggest love letter to a MEANINGFUL and loving gay relationship I don't know what is.

And actually - Angel and Tom's relationship is the only FUNCTIONAL one in the film. If that's selectively homophobic - we need more selectively homophobic films then. Lord knows we don't want people thinking male-male relationships are functional and loving.

You'd ALMOST have more people agreeing that the film was more sexually heterophobic...

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:26pm

Wow, that's a pretty amusing story, skittles.

Hm...should I wait until I'm older to read The Normal Heart? I kind of want to now.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:28pm

Given that they're issues I suppose you're exposed to, I'm not sure. It's very, very vulgar, though.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:29pm

Em, I know, I couldn't concentrate all through class. Someone left a copy of the NYTimes on the desk next to me and every time I glanced at it, I kept getting frustrated and like wanted to throw something.

gav, wait a few years.

Updated On: 11/19/05 at 09:29 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:30pm

Well, now I can say that knowing it upside down and inside out has proved a useful thing. Sort of.

[art2]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:34pm

I am not here to quibble about the RENT stage production. Consider that if I had bones to pick with the stage production, I would have been on broadwayworld.com arguing about it years ago.

Fundamentally, you need to remember that Sony and Columbus have constructed a vision that elaborates on the stage production. But they have been selective in the way they've done this, elaborating on those things that are considered to be less offensive to middle America, such as a female-female relationship as opposed to a male-male relationship. Sony and Columbus shouldn't get a pass for the differing treatments they themselves have applied.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:36pm

I agree Craig. Maureen and Mark didn't last, Roger and April didn't last, Roger and Mimi was on and off again more times than anyone can count. I only saw the show once but even listening to the OBCR, I have cared more for Collins and Angel than I have for any other couple in that show. There is a reason they sing, "I'd be happy to die for a taste of what Angel had. Someone to live for, someone to say 'I love you.'" The relationship between Collins and Angel is one that all couples should take their example from. Even though there are differences between the two of them and they know they are eventually going to die from a horrible disease, they love each other more than anything and will move mountains for each other. That is what true love is and if that is homophobic then we should all be a little homophobic then.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:37pm

Not to mention Collins-Angel is the only couple where no one has cheated on one another.

Updated On: 11/19/05 at 09:37 PM

[Craig]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:38pm

Art. You are making assumptions you can't back up because you don't know the source material nor have you seen the film. It's quite simple. YOU can't compare things you haven't experienced - nor can you enter into a debate about whether or not SONY or Columbus did or did not create scenarios of which you describe.

Again - I have seen both the stage show and the film. And you're wrong. 100 percent wrong. More screen time is given to the male-male relationship which is far more meaningful than the female-female one.

All you do is repeat yourself, failing to address ANY issues that other posters have brought to your attention. And the reason that's so is because you can't address it. You have NO frame of reference except your shortsighted opinion and a few paragraphs written by one individual.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:40pm

True . . . I think Maureen and Joanne need that sex drive and bickering to make their relationship work but Collins and Angel love each other just for themselves that they don't need to be tonguing each other and get down to the nitty gritty. All they have to do is look at each other and you know that those two were meant to be.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:44pm

I'd like to know where one comes up with the idea that female homosexuality is less offensive than male homosexuality. Looks to me like something our buddy art made up to further his inane cause in which he plays victim. It's these sorts of things that irritate me; why would that be? Surely you can't explain it.

Updated On: 11/19/05 at 09:44 PM