NEWS: Shalit Offends GLAAD

CULTURE: Shalit Offends GLAAD

Of all the people that I imagine might offend the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Gene Shalit ranks somewhere between Richard Simmons and Clay Aiken. But his harsh review of Brokeback Mountain, wherein he describes Gyllenhaal's character as a "sexual predator", has done just that.

Coming to Shalit's defense was his gay son, Peter Shalit.

Can't a person criticize a member of a minority without it being a criticism of the minority group as a whole? GLAAD ought to observe the distinction between the two.

I'm also annoyed by the fact that I can't find a copy of Shalit's review. Maybe I'd find reason to agree with GLAAD if I could read what he actually said. I personally didn't see Jack as a predator, but I don't think the fact that Shalit's opinion is different than my own qualifies him as a bigot.

[Edited on Feb 05, 2006 by Hooraydiation]

News....as in.....a month-old story?

I can't find the review either...but what’s frustrating is, he didn't even criticize a member of the gay community...he criticized the actions of an individual. The fact that it was a gay relationship seems to be immaterial to the review.

Well, actually, he criticized a fictional character, who's actions could be construed as inappropriate and also happens to be gay. So I guess that means he is really criticizing the actor, or the screen writer, or maybe the producers...? Are any of them gay?

Fuck it. I think I'm going to start the "Anti human being defamation league" so you can't say anything about anybody without getting sued. Ought to be profitable.

Oh, piss off.

Shalit showed class with the letter but it would have cool for him to say, "My son is gay. Fuck you."

From what my google search turned up, people knew his son was gay and just assumed Gene hated him for it (or thought that he was gay because a Jake G. predator got to him).

[Edited on Feb 05, 2006 by Hooraydiation]

Like I said, they're a bunch of pansies.

Why are these even newsworthy anymore?

It's a conspiracy designed to piss you off. Seriously.

It feels like more people are conspiring every day, soon they'll be on my lawn.

I assume there's a history of negatively stereotyping gay people as sexual predators? If so, I can see how it could be problematic regardless of whether that was his intention (or whether the character is in fact a sexual predator or not). It would be like describing a black character as "lazy", "unintelligent", and "a thief". Some people will be offended by it, and some prejudiced idiots will feel vindicated. That's just how things are.

Even given that though, it seems to me that GLAAD massively overreacted.

Am I missing something? They seem to be making the unfounded assumption that Shalit called Jack a sexual predator just because he was gay, rather than because Shalit thought he acted like a sexual predator. I suppose it is GLAAD's sole purpose to call out people for being homophobic, but here they see homophobia where an IMO reasonable person would just see a disagreement about the character. It's like the saying goes, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

It sounds to me sort of like the NAACP criticizing shalet for calling a Samuel L. Jackson character ignorant.

That's one count for the use of non-praise in a review of Brokeback Mountain, and another for the use of "predator" to describe a non-heterosexual. Sorry Gene, you're going to gay hell.

With luck and your prayers he may qualify for gay purgatory, where you're forced to watch The Celluloid Closet in a loop until you start finding homoeroticism where there isn't any.

[Edited on Feb 05, 2006 by Jeff_Fries]

How can you call a Samuel L. Jackson character ignorant when he's trying to save us from some goddamned motherfucking SNAKES ON A PLANE?!?!

If anything they're regarded as slightly desexed but fashion-savvy.

[Edited on Feb 05, 2006 by Jeff_Fries]

and what school district did you attend?

Homophobia is still as strong as it's ever been. Kids casually dropping remarks in the hall, ignorant remarks straight out of teachers/principals/parents mouths.

In the community I work it, one would rather be dead than considered queer. And this is in Portland!

Trends in movies and media in some ways help the steps towards reality-based perceptions of queer and/or homosexual individuals. But the path to true distigmatization is still far in the future.

Listen to your local religious station for an hour. Duck into your school districts and smell out the vibe. It's crazy out there still.

Well, yeah, if your only source of how the public perceives homosexuals is watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and Will and Grace. And if you ignore, you know, how a large percentage of Americans perceive gays.

oh yes, how DARE he criticize the gay community's "Passion of the Christ"

I'm sure they turn off their sets and remark how funny those child molesters are and remember that real gays are child molesters.

Snakes on a Plane is a masterpiece of film, so I'm not knocking it. I'm refering to the incident with Sidius...that was just plain sad.

Oh, and who gets eaten by a shark fifty feet from water?

Or maybe they just don't watch those shows?

Considering that Republician politicians regularly equate homosexuality to beastiality and pedophilia, I would say that we are possibly regarded as desexed and fashion-savvy in some communities but this is not the majority. I regularly deal with homophobia both in Seattle and when I am traveling for work. I have had teenage girls scream things at me in outdoor malls about how disgusting I am, men in cars yell things as they drive past, and a host of other things that I try not to think about. Homophobia is rampant, and I don't know about Shalit's views, but I can say that I certainly don't feel safe in the majority of America.

That seems like all he had to say on the movie. I'm irritated by his poor review which focuses on what I think is a misinterpretation of the character and misses a lot of what made the movie good, but i'm still not inclined to call him a bigot (at least not enough to make a public statement about it).

Let me put it this way, Brokeback was supposed to be a film about forbidden love. Calling Jake 'sexual predator' simply because he pursued Enis is like calling Romeo a stalker cause he came to Juliet's window, and they defied their families for love. Jake knew that Enis loved him and it was only his own fear of the reactions of family and community that kept him from being with Jake.

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I think that GLAAD has a point.