BFCA Nominees Announced; "Brokeback" Leads Pack

The Broadcast Film Critics Association announced its Critics Choice Awards, and "Brokeback Mountain," Ang Lee's revisionist western, leads the pack with eight nominations including Best Picture, Best Actor (Heath Ledger), Best Supporting Actor (Jake Gyllenhaal), and Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams).

Paul Haggis' "Crash," a tale of racial conflict in Los Angeles, picked up six nominations, and George Clooney's Edward R. Murrow biopic "Good Night, and Good Luck" scored five.

Here's a list of the nominees in major categories. For the full list, go to http://www.bfca.org/NomineesWinners.asp.

Best Picture

Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Cinderella Man
The Constant Gardener
Crash
Good Night, And Good Luck
King Kong
Memoirs of a Geisha
Munich
Walk The Line

Best Actor

Russell Crowe - Cinderella Man
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
Terrence Howard - Hustle and Flow
Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain
Joaquin Phoenix - Walk The Line
David Strathairn - Good Night, And Good Luck

Best Actress

Joan Allen - The Upside of Anger
Judi Dench - Mrs. Henderson Presents
Felicity Huffman - Transamerica
Keira Knightley - Pride and Prejudice
Charlize Theron - North Country
Reese Witherspoon - Walk The Line

Best Supporting Actor

George Clooney - Syriana
Kevin Costner - The Upside of Anger
Matt Dillon - Crash
Paul Giamatti - Cinderella Man
Jake Gyllenhaal - Brokeback Mountain
Terrence Howard - Crash

Best Supporting Actress

Amy Adams - Junebug
Maria Bello - A History of Violence
Catherine Keener - Capote
Frances McDormand - North Country
Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
Michelle Williams - Brokeback Mountain

Comments

let it go

Charlie Anderson

Brokeback Mountain is doing so great. It has won no less than 4 Best Picture Awards so far, including the Golden Lion (Venice Film Festival), Boston Society of Film Critics, L.A. Film Critics and New York Film Critics Circle. It also won 2 awards from the National Board of Review.

Dec 12 - 03:47 PM

james@insanitysucks

James Michael

[b]Brokeback Mountain is a Great Movie![/b]
I saw the movie this past Saturday and it's excellent!!! I don't think totally "straight" guys will be able to get into it, but straight females may find that seeing two hot guys kissing is a little bit of a turn on. lol

Anyway, go see the movie no matter what.

James

Dec 12 - 04:57 PM

let it go

Charlie Anderson

*Brokeback Mountain Awards*

Los Angeles Film Critics Association:

Best Picture

Best Director, Ang Lee

Runner-up for Best Actor, Heath Ledger

----

Boston Society of Film Critics:

Best Picture

Best Director, Ang Lee

Runner-up for Best Actor, Heath Ledger

Runner-up for Best Cinematography, Rodrigo Prieto

----

American Film Institute:

Named one of the 10 best films of the year

----

National Board of Review:

Named one of the 10 best films of the year

Best Director, Ang Lee

Best Supporting Actor, Jake Gyllenhaal

----

New York Film Critics Circle:

Best Picture

Best Director, Ang Lee

----

San Francisco Film Critics Circle Winners:

Best Picture ? Brokeback Mountain

Best Director ? Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain

Best Actor ? Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain

----

Golden Lion (Venice Film Festvial):

Best Picture

Dec 12 - 04:36 PM

james@insanitysucks

James Michael

[b]Brokeback Mountain is a Great Movie![/b]
I saw the movie this past Saturday and it's excellent!!! I don't think totally "straight" guys will be able to get into it, but straight females may find that seeing two hot guys kissing is a little bit of a turn on. lol

Anyway, go see the movie no matter what.

James

Dec 12 - 04:57 PM

coh

Chase Holland

[b]coh[/b]
I read that there's about a total of 55 seconds, out of 130 mins, of man-kissing in this movie. I wish people, especially straight guys (should I point out now that I'm straight? or would the fact that I'm compelled to state that defeat what I'm about to say and group me in with the immature guys that I'm writing to?), would mature just a little....just enough to realize it's a movie about a couple of characters in a good story. Are they gay? Yeah, but what the hell.

Dec 12 - 07:24 PM

insanemansam5

Samuel Ewing

I heard supposedly there was a gay sex scene in this movie

Dec 13 - 06:55 AM

Aoiboy

Aoi Boy

I'm seeing this movie, first of all, because I'm a huge Ang Lee fan (yeah, I even loved "Hulk" ^_^) and because the response of the critics has been overwhelming so far. I usually don't pay too much attention to what they say, but when they underline so unanimously the quality of the acting, I'm there for sure. In fact, as for the acting, I'm predicting a serious showdown for best actor this year between Heath Ledger and Phillip Seymour Hoffmann...

Dec 13 - 12:16 AM

insanemansam5

Samuel Ewing

I heard supposedly there was a gay sex scene in this movie

Dec 13 - 06:55 AM

synergyred

Nancy Elizabeth

Wow! Now I want to see this even more!

Dec 13 - 06:59 AM

dracus

Cap Nord

Every year Hollywood has an artsy movie with a cause that they want to push to make it look as if it has a social conscience whether the movie is good or not. Looks like this year it's the gay theme. And boy oh boy, they even kiss and have a gay love scene in it. Who cares? If you love that sort of thing then go see it, if not, stay home but don't get on with all the self righteous B.S. that goes with it.

Dec 13 - 10:59 AM

Merlin235

Merlin Ambrosius

[b]Praise for Brokeback?[/b]
It seems to me that every now and then, Hollywood and those associated with it latch onto a film that is so controversial in its subject matter, that it is deemed amazing regardless of its technical merits. Now, I have not seen this movie, and it may indeed be well constructed, acted, shot and the like. However, the real point of the critique of the movie should hinge on it subject. There is still quite a bit of public discourse about whether homosexuality is 'natural' or even 'right', or more of a disorder in someone who is dealing with a lot of pain in their lives. There are a whole lot of people and PhDs on both sides of the aisle, and to me that's where the real meat of this picture is at. It would change the outlook on the movie from one of a saddening love story, to one about two men lost in feelings they shouldn't be having. Either way, it's a tragedy and either way, 'Brokeback' seems to at least minimally be bennefiting from Hollywood's love of everything counter to conservative America.

Dec 13 - 12:16 PM

peterlinas

Peter Vogt

[b]Praise indeed![/b]
I always find conservative arguments against homosexuality humorous. Considering that every major Psychological Association has deemed homosexuality normal -- neither deviant nor abnormal -- kills any argument against homosexuality. When it comes right down to it, homophobes are usually rooted in their rudamentary and misguided religious beliefs -- specifically (for Christians) Leviticus. Scripture also condemns the consumption of shrimp, and sleeping in on the Sabbath. Besides, I would rather listen to experts from this century!

A beautiful love story is a beautiful love story. And when it happens to include Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, it's a HOT love story. What really is misguided is the fact that they didn't dump their wives! Now that's the directors cut I'd like to see!

Dec 13 - 05:34 PM

Merlin235

Merlin Ambrosius

[b]Humorous?[/b]
I don't think there is anything funny at all about arguments against homosexuality. I think putting too much faith in humans with PhDs is a little bit ironic, since PhDs are constantly re-visiting their opinions. Those Psychological Associations you put so much trust in, had homosexuality listed as a psychological disorder until the late 70's. So, for the last 25 years it has been deemed 'normal' by SOME, but for the previous 4,000 years of human existence it was considered abnormal. I also find your term 'homophobes' an interesting use of terminology, since that would indicate someone afraid of homosexuals. I highly doubt that anyone is seriously afraid of someone gay or lesbian. I think we should be careful in todays time before we label people bigots. Such harsh terminology shouldn't be used lightly. In fact, throwing it around in forums such as this is very immature and unwise, and downplays the seriousness of such a charge.
Oh, and you're misusing your Scripture quotes. You have to be aware of the historical context of the text before you can really understand it, and you're using it wrong. But that's a different forum topic.

Dec 14 - 07:23 AM

peterlinas

Peter Vogt

[b]Humorous![/b]
You raised the psychology issue, and I merely wanted to remind you that the advisory bodies of said profession disagree with your statement. Strongly and vociferously. I think that homophobes (and that is an apt phrase since phobia is fear without reason or intellect), continue to use faith as hollow argument for their stance. If we were to take a broad brush and accept all antiquated thinking, one might assume that a camera picture steals your soul! In other words, imperical data is the most sound.

As for misinterpreting the bible, I apologize. We must not have the same edition. I don't believe I am taking them out of historical context, because you can't cherry pick what is relevant or not today. However, every bible I had studied in my seminary years fully support my statement. There is a whole slew of abominations. But it's hard to see them all, or take them seriously, when you're reading passages highlighted specifically by your preacher. And all of these abominations, in these modern days, are obsolete.

I would rather discuss cinematic issues, but felt best to not leave your "psychological" assessment of the movie alone. On the sole merits of quality cinema, however, Brokeback is brilliant.

Dec 14 - 09:01 AM

Merlin235

Merlin Ambrosius

[b]Interesting[/b]
This is the type of dialogue that a movie like Brokeback should raise. And that was the point of my first statement, that this type of conversation is the important thing to take from Brokeback. Not its technical merit, while I'm sure that is superb. I like Ang Lee, his body of work is great. I apologize for the length here, but to reply:
Logically, it wouldn't be considered being 'righteous' to disagree with homosexuality, since as a society we do it all the time. Is it righteous to tell someone who is bi-polar that they have a problem? Or someone who steals that they aren't allowed to do that? I don't think disagreeing here would fit ther term 'righteous' at all. Using the term 'homophobe' is both demeaning and unwarrented. Labeling people is of no use, either in public discourse or private discussions. No one can peer into someone else's soul to see what is in his/her heart, so it would benefit the conversation immeasurably to avoid throwing around insults like that. It is something that has regreatably crept into political discussions as of late, akin to calling Pro Life' people Anti-choice. Someone may believe they ARE anit-choice, but it would be like Pro Life people calling Pro Choice groups Anti Life baby killers. It's unwise, unfair, adds nothing to the conversation and lessens the meaning of the term 'homophobe,' since there ARE cases when its use is warrented.
It was brought up that some "continue to use faith as hollow argument for their stance." Now, I would agree that faith not shared by all parties does not further anyone's case in a debate. However, saying that it is a hollow reason for remaining steadfast in your stance is not correct at all. Peterlinas, by saying that you are presupposing the conclusion that that person's faith is wrong, which it may well be. However, since you cannot prove it is, it would be outside of the realm of logic for you to say it is a hollow stance, since it MIGHT be correct. You cannot pre-suppose anything in a debate like that. Logic 101. You're welcome for the philosophy lesson, make check payable to Merlin235.... J/K, obviously.
On to Scripture. I'm glad you've been to seminary, your years there should give you the background for this discussion. That's awesome. But the Old Testament to which you refer is above everything else, a historical document. It is the history of the Israelites, written by Israelites, for their own record keeping, by Kings, official court scribes, Prophets, Leaders, etc. The only reason people attempt to discredit this amazing and unparalleled historical masterpiece is because it contains the 'fantastic.' Again, circular thinking is making those people presuppose that b/c it contains God and fantastical things, it must be wrong and filled with innacuracies. There are a couple hundred laws in the Old Test, and we'd have to talk about them all individually to correctly asses what their 'relavence' is today, as you might put it. But the fact that they were written long ago hardly makes them obsolete. That is like saying that b/c Newton discovered gravity so long ago, his theories no longer apply. It is NOT reasonable to assume that age dictates the applicability of anything.

Dec 14 - 10:38 AM

cmsof

Chris Martin

[b]I more think this is the type of dialogue a film l[/b]
What do you think it's porn-counterpart name will be?

I'm thinking something like:

Broke-butt Mountin'

or

Man-Butt Mountin'

Definitely something with the worlds "Butt" and "Mountin'" in it.

Discuss.

Dec 15 - 02:29 PM

lunabar79

Jennifer Petro

[b]very cute[/b]
I like Man-Butt Mountin'. Hee hee. Ride 'em cowboy.

Thanks for lightening up the mood in here!

I myself will wait till the hype dies down. It could be an awesome movie, or it could be an "issue" movie. Or, it could be both. Only time will tell.

Dec 16 - 09:31 AM

Bane Of Anubis

C M

[b]Perhaps being Gay is like being religious[/b]
While I trust a PhD's opinion about as far as I can throw one, I think it's a bit righteous to deem homosexuality a "disease" or say that homosexuals are having feelings they shouldn't. As for the semantics of calling somebody a "homophobe," you're being a bit asinine -- people are afraid of homosexuality, not physically, for the most part, but mentally and to decry people for using that word is silly (sure, bigot works just as well, but homophobe actually implies a bit more).

As for the reasons why someone is gay:
Could it be chemical/biological/genetic? Sure
Could it be due to some traumatic experience endured as a child? Sure
Could it be due to other mental disorders (e.g., bipolar)? Sure

Nobody knows, but I find it funny that I could pose those same questions to someone on the issue of whether someone were religious and all the answers would be the same.

Of course, the difference between the 2 is the fact that one is the outcast minority, shunned by the preponderant other... Perhaps we should take it on faith that homosexuality is fine and move on.

As for the movie, I hate hollywood.

Dec 14 - 09:01 AM

lovelykeira

Ken Schrock

I'm a strait guy and I'm going to go see it, it just hasn't come to my town yet. But my favorite film of the year so far is Crash and I'm damn happy that it got 6 nods from the BFCA, I hope it wins them all. As for best actor and actress I'm going with Phoenix, and Witherspoon, unless I see somthing better before the show.

Dec 13 - 12:19 PM

brave.sir.rob

Brave Sir Rob

Merlin and dracus: right on. Cheers.

Dec 13 - 02:02 PM

scottybarkbark

jonathan watterman

top contendor for the oscars this year
my picks for oscar best picture noms
hustle and flow
crash
brokeback mountain
walk the line
a history of violence *
* my pic for best film of the year

Dec 13 - 03:09 PM

Bane Of Anubis

C M

[b]Ways to garner a best film nod/best actor nom[/b]
If you're an actor be gay, be retarded, or be the curmudgeon with the soft inside, and, preferably, die at the end (or lose someone close to you). (Forgot about this one, but most recently, imitate somebody who's died recently).

If you're an actress, be ugly (Hilary Swank -- come on, it's a souther accent, Meryl Streep -- she's alright), or ugly yourself up (Charlize and Nicole, this one's for you) .

If you're a director, make a movie that shows strife, conflict, and "emotion" of "life." (Don't get me started on how contrived Crash was -- if you're going to make a movie that explores "emotional reality", you better make it a bit more real).

And for the best movie, it's got to either be something with a "conscience", something maudlin (but not treacle, for those critics out there -- Million Dollar Baby, this one's for you) or an epic.

Dec 13 - 03:50 PM

peterlinas

Peter Vogt

[b]Praise indeed![/b]
I always find conservative arguments against homosexuality humorous. Considering that every major Psychological Association has deemed homosexuality normal -- neither deviant nor abnormal -- kills any argument against homosexuality. When it comes right down to it, homophobes are usually rooted in their rudamentary and misguided religious beliefs -- specifically (for Christians) Leviticus. Scripture also condemns the consumption of shrimp, and sleeping in on the Sabbath. Besides, I would rather listen to experts from this century!

A beautiful love story is a beautiful love story. And when it happens to include Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, it's a HOT love story. What really is misguided is the fact that they didn't dump their wives! Now that's the directors cut I'd like to see!

Dec 13 - 05:34 PM

Merlin235

Merlin Ambrosius

[b]Humorous?[/b]
I don't think there is anything funny at all about arguments against homosexuality. I think putting too much faith in humans with PhDs is a little bit ironic, since PhDs are constantly re-visiting their opinions. Those Psychological Associations you put so much trust in, had homosexuality listed as a psychological disorder until the late 70's. So, for the last 25 years it has been deemed 'normal' by SOME, but for the previous 4,000 years of human existence it was considered abnormal. I also find your term 'homophobes' an interesting use of terminology, since that would indicate someone afraid of homosexuals. I highly doubt that anyone is seriously afraid of someone gay or lesbian. I think we should be careful in todays time before we label people bigots. Such harsh terminology shouldn't be used lightly. In fact, throwing it around in forums such as this is very immature and unwise, and downplays the seriousness of such a charge.
Oh, and you're misusing your Scripture quotes. You have to be aware of the historical context of the text before you can really understand it, and you're using it wrong. But that's a different forum topic.

Dec 14 - 07:23 AM

peterlinas

Peter Vogt

[b]Humorous![/b]
You raised the psychology issue, and I merely wanted to remind you that the advisory bodies of said profession disagree with your statement. Strongly and vociferously. I think that homophobes (and that is an apt phrase since phobia is fear without reason or intellect), continue to use faith as hollow argument for their stance. If we were to take a broad brush and accept all antiquated thinking, one might assume that a camera picture steals your soul! In other words, imperical data is the most sound.

As for misinterpreting the bible, I apologize. We must not have the same edition. I don't believe I am taking them out of historical context, because you can't cherry pick what is relevant or not today. However, every bible I had studied in my seminary years fully support my statement. There is a whole slew of abominations. But it's hard to see them all, or take them seriously, when you're reading passages highlighted specifically by your preacher. And all of these abominations, in these modern days, are obsolete.

I would rather discuss cinematic issues, but felt best to not leave your "psychological" assessment of the movie alone. On the sole merits of quality cinema, however, Brokeback is brilliant.

Dec 14 - 09:01 AM

Merlin235

Merlin Ambrosius

[b]Interesting[/b]
This is the type of dialogue that a movie like Brokeback should raise. And that was the point of my first statement, that this type of conversation is the important thing to take from Brokeback. Not its technical merit, while I'm sure that is superb. I like Ang Lee, his body of work is great. I apologize for the length here, but to reply:
Logically, it wouldn't be considered being 'righteous' to disagree with homosexuality, since as a society we do it all the time. Is it righteous to tell someone who is bi-polar that they have a problem? Or someone who steals that they aren't allowed to do that? I don't think disagreeing here would fit ther term 'righteous' at all. Using the term 'homophobe' is both demeaning and unwarrented. Labeling people is of no use, either in public discourse or private discussions. No one can peer into someone else's soul to see what is in his/her heart, so it would benefit the conversation immeasurably to avoid throwing around insults like that. It is something that has regreatably crept into political discussions as of late, akin to calling Pro Life' people Anti-choice. Someone may believe they ARE anit-choice, but it would be like Pro Life people calling Pro Choice groups Anti Life baby killers. It's unwise, unfair, adds nothing to the conversation and lessens the meaning of the term 'homophobe,' since there ARE cases when its use is warrented.
It was brought up that some "continue to use faith as hollow argument for their stance." Now, I would agree that faith not shared by all parties does not further anyone's case in a debate. However, saying that it is a hollow reason for remaining steadfast in your stance is not correct at all. Peterlinas, by saying that you are presupposing the conclusion that that person's faith is wrong, which it may well be. However, since you cannot prove it is, it would be outside of the realm of logic for you to say it is a hollow stance, since it MIGHT be correct. You cannot pre-suppose anything in a debate like that. Logic 101. You're welcome for the philosophy lesson, make check payable to Merlin235.... J/K, obviously.
On to Scripture. I'm glad you've been to seminary, your years there should give you the background for this discussion. That's awesome. But the Old Testament to which you refer is above everything else, a historical document. It is the history of the Israelites, written by Israelites, for their own record keeping, by Kings, official court scribes, Prophets, Leaders, etc. The only reason people attempt to discredit this amazing and unparalleled historical masterpiece is because it contains the 'fantastic.' Again, circular thinking is making those people presuppose that b/c it contains God and fantastical things, it must be wrong and filled with innacuracies. There are a couple hundred laws in the Old Test, and we'd have to talk about them all individually to correctly asses what their 'relavence' is today, as you might put it. But the fact that they were written long ago hardly makes them obsolete. That is like saying that b/c Newton discovered gravity so long ago, his theories no longer apply. It is NOT reasonable to assume that age dictates the applicability of anything.

Dec 14 - 10:38 AM

cmsof

Chris Martin

[b]I more think this is the type of dialogue a film l[/b]
What do you think it's porn-counterpart name will be?

I'm thinking something like:

Broke-butt Mountin'

or

Man-Butt Mountin'

Definitely something with the worlds "Butt" and "Mountin'" in it.

Discuss.

Dec 15 - 02:29 PM

lunabar79

Jennifer Petro

[b]very cute[/b]
I like Man-Butt Mountin'. Hee hee. Ride 'em cowboy.

Thanks for lightening up the mood in here!

I myself will wait till the hype dies down. It could be an awesome movie, or it could be an "issue" movie. Or, it could be both. Only time will tell.

Dec 16 - 09:31 AM

Bane Of Anubis

C M

[b]Perhaps being Gay is like being religious[/b]
While I trust a PhD's opinion about as far as I can throw one, I think it's a bit righteous to deem homosexuality a "disease" or say that homosexuals are having feelings they shouldn't. As for the semantics of calling somebody a "homophobe," you're being a bit asinine -- people are afraid of homosexuality, not physically, for the most part, but mentally and to decry people for using that word is silly (sure, bigot works just as well, but homophobe actually implies a bit more).

As for the reasons why someone is gay:
Could it be chemical/biological/genetic? Sure
Could it be due to some traumatic experience endured as a child? Sure
Could it be due to other mental disorders (e.g., bipolar)? Sure

Nobody knows, but I find it funny that I could pose those same questions to someone on the issue of whether someone were religious and all the answers would be the same.

Of course, the difference between the 2 is the fact that one is the outcast minority, shunned by the preponderant other... Perhaps we should take it on faith that homosexuality is fine and move on.

As for the movie, I hate hollywood.

Dec 14 - 09:01 AM

haelohm

Sean Collen

[b]YES[/b]
This movie is simply amazing! It deserves every bit of recognition it deserves.

Dec 13 - 07:54 PM

Merlin235

Merlin Ambrosius

[b]Humorous?[/b]
I don't think there is anything funny at all about arguments against homosexuality. I think putting too much faith in humans with PhDs is a little bit ironic, since PhDs are constantly re-visiting their opinions. Those Psychological Associations you put so much trust in, had homosexuality listed as a psychological disorder until the late 70's. So, for the last 25 years it has been deemed 'normal' by SOME, but for the previous 4,000 years of human existence it was considered abnormal. I also find your term 'homophobes' an interesting use of terminology, since that would indicate someone afraid of homosexuals. I highly doubt that anyone is seriously afraid of someone gay or lesbian. I think we should be careful in todays time before we label people bigots. Such harsh terminology shouldn't be used lightly. In fact, throwing it around in forums such as this is very immature and unwise, and downplays the seriousness of such a charge.
Oh, and you're misusing your Scripture quotes. You have to be aware of the historical context of the text before you can really understand it, and you're using it wrong. But that's a different forum topic.

Dec 14 - 07:23 AM

peterlinas

Peter Vogt

[b]Humorous![/b]
You raised the psychology issue, and I merely wanted to remind you that the advisory bodies of said profession disagree with your statement. Strongly and vociferously. I think that homophobes (and that is an apt phrase since phobia is fear without reason or intellect), continue to use faith as hollow argument for their stance. If we were to take a broad brush and accept all antiquated thinking, one might assume that a camera picture steals your soul! In other words, imperical data is the most sound.

As for misinterpreting the bible, I apologize. We must not have the same edition. I don't believe I am taking them out of historical context, because you can't cherry pick what is relevant or not today. However, every bible I had studied in my seminary years fully support my statement. There is a whole slew of abominations. But it's hard to see them all, or take them seriously, when you're reading passages highlighted specifically by your preacher. And all of these abominations, in these modern days, are obsolete.

I would rather discuss cinematic issues, but felt best to not leave your "psychological" assessment of the movie alone. On the sole merits of quality cinema, however, Brokeback is brilliant.

Dec 14 - 09:01 AM

Merlin235

Merlin Ambrosius

[b]Interesting[/b]
This is the type of dialogue that a movie like Brokeback should raise. And that was the point of my first statement, that this type of conversation is the important thing to take from Brokeback. Not its technical merit, while I'm sure that is superb. I like Ang Lee, his body of work is great. I apologize for the length here, but to reply:
Logically, it wouldn't be considered being 'righteous' to disagree with homosexuality, since as a society we do it all the time. Is it righteous to tell someone who is bi-polar that they have a problem? Or someone who steals that they aren't allowed to do that? I don't think disagreeing here would fit ther term 'righteous' at all. Using the term 'homophobe' is both demeaning and unwarrented. Labeling people is of no use, either in public discourse or private discussions. No one can peer into someone else's soul to see what is in his/her heart, so it would benefit the conversation immeasurably to avoid throwing around insults like that. It is something that has regreatably crept into political discussions as of late, akin to calling Pro Life' people Anti-choice. Someone may believe they ARE anit-choice, but it would be like Pro Life people calling Pro Choice groups Anti Life baby killers. It's unwise, unfair, adds nothing to the conversation and lessens the meaning of the term 'homophobe,' since there ARE cases when its use is warrented.
It was brought up that some "continue to use faith as hollow argument for their stance." Now, I would agree that faith not shared by all parties does not further anyone's case in a debate. However, saying that it is a hollow reason for remaining steadfast in your stance is not correct at all. Peterlinas, by saying that you are presupposing the conclusion that that person's faith is wrong, which it may well be. However, since you cannot prove it is, it would be outside of the realm of logic for you to say it is a hollow stance, since it MIGHT be correct. You cannot pre-suppose anything in a debate like that. Logic 101. You're welcome for the philosophy lesson, make check payable to Merlin235.... J/K, obviously.
On to Scripture. I'm glad you've been to seminary, your years there should give you the background for this discussion. That's awesome. But the Old Testament to which you refer is above everything else, a historical document. It is the history of the Israelites, written by Israelites, for their own record keeping, by Kings, official court scribes, Prophets, Leaders, etc. The only reason people attempt to discredit this amazing and unparalleled historical masterpiece is because it contains the 'fantastic.' Again, circular thinking is making those people presuppose that b/c it contains God and fantastical things, it must be wrong and filled with innacuracies. There are a couple hundred laws in the Old Test, and we'd have to talk about them all individually to correctly asses what their 'relavence' is today, as you might put it. But the fact that they were written long ago hardly makes them obsolete. That is like saying that b/c Newton discovered gravity so long ago, his theories no longer apply. It is NOT reasonable to assume that age dictates the applicability of anything.

Dec 14 - 10:38 AM

cmsof

Chris Martin

[b]I more think this is the type of dialogue a film l[/b]
What do you think it's porn-counterpart name will be?

I'm thinking something like:

Broke-butt Mountin'

or

Man-Butt Mountin'

Definitely something with the worlds "Butt" and "Mountin'" in it.

Discuss.

Dec 15 - 02:29 PM

lunabar79

Jennifer Petro

[b]very cute[/b]
I like Man-Butt Mountin'. Hee hee. Ride 'em cowboy.

Thanks for lightening up the mood in here!

I myself will wait till the hype dies down. It could be an awesome movie, or it could be an "issue" movie. Or, it could be both. Only time will tell.

Dec 16 - 09:31 AM

Bane Of Anubis

C M

[b]Perhaps being Gay is like being religious[/b]
While I trust a PhD's opinion about as far as I can throw one, I think it's a bit righteous to deem homosexuality a "disease" or say that homosexuals are having feelings they shouldn't. As for the semantics of calling somebody a "homophobe," you're being a bit asinine -- people are afraid of homosexuality, not physically, for the most part, but mentally and to decry people for using that word is silly (sure, bigot works just as well, but homophobe actually implies a bit more).

As for the reasons why someone is gay:
Could it be chemical/biological/genetic? Sure
Could it be due to some traumatic experience endured as a child? Sure
Could it be due to other mental disorders (e.g., bipolar)? Sure

Nobody knows, but I find it funny that I could pose those same questions to someone on the issue of whether someone were religious and all the answers would be the same.

Of course, the difference between the 2 is the fact that one is the outcast minority, shunned by the preponderant other... Perhaps we should take it on faith that homosexuality is fine and move on.

As for the movie, I hate hollywood.

Dec 14 - 09:01 AM

peterlinas

Peter Vogt

[b]Humorous![/b]
You raised the psychology issue, and I merely wanted to remind you that the advisory bodies of said profession disagree with your statement. Strongly and vociferously. I think that homophobes (and that is an apt phrase since phobia is fear without reason or intellect), continue to use faith as hollow argument for their stance. If we were to take a broad brush and accept all antiquated thinking, one might assume that a camera picture steals your soul! In other words, imperical data is the most sound.

As for misinterpreting the bible, I apologize. We must not have the same edition. I don't believe I am taking them out of historical context, because you can't cherry pick what is relevant or not today. However, every bible I had studied in my seminary years fully support my statement. There is a whole slew of abominations. But it's hard to see them all, or take them seriously, when you're reading passages highlighted specifically by your preacher. And all of these abominations, in these modern days, are obsolete.

I would rather discuss cinematic issues, but felt best to not leave your "psychological" assessment of the movie alone. On the sole merits of quality cinema, however, Brokeback is brilliant.

Dec 14 - 09:01 AM

Merlin235

Merlin Ambrosius

[b]Interesting[/b]
This is the type of dialogue that a movie like Brokeback should raise. And that was the point of my first statement, that this type of conversation is the important thing to take from Brokeback. Not its technical merit, while I'm sure that is superb. I like Ang Lee, his body of work is great. I apologize for the length here, but to reply:
Logically, it wouldn't be considered being 'righteous' to disagree with homosexuality, since as a society we do it all the time. Is it righteous to tell someone who is bi-polar that they have a problem? Or someone who steals that they aren't allowed to do that? I don't think disagreeing here would fit ther term 'righteous' at all. Using the term 'homophobe' is both demeaning and unwarrented. Labeling people is of no use, either in public discourse or private discussions. No one can peer into someone else's soul to see what is in his/her heart, so it would benefit the conversation immeasurably to avoid throwing around insults like that. It is something that has regreatably crept into political discussions as of late, akin to calling Pro Life' people Anti-choice. Someone may believe they ARE anit-choice, but it would be like Pro Life people calling Pro Choice groups Anti Life baby killers. It's unwise, unfair, adds nothing to the conversation and lessens the meaning of the term 'homophobe,' since there ARE cases when its use is warrented.
It was brought up that some "continue to use faith as hollow argument for their stance." Now, I would agree that faith not shared by all parties does not further anyone's case in a debate. However, saying that it is a hollow reason for remaining steadfast in your stance is not correct at all. Peterlinas, by saying that you are presupposing the conclusion that that person's faith is wrong, which it may well be. However, since you cannot prove it is, it would be outside of the realm of logic for you to say it is a hollow stance, since it MIGHT be correct. You cannot pre-suppose anything in a debate like that. Logic 101. You're welcome for the philosophy lesson, make check payable to Merlin235.... J/K, obviously.
On to Scripture. I'm glad you've been to seminary, your years there should give you the background for this discussion. That's awesome. But the Old Testament to which you refer is above everything else, a historical document. It is the history of the Israelites, written by Israelites, for their own record keeping, by Kings, official court scribes, Prophets, Leaders, etc. The only reason people attempt to discredit this amazing and unparalleled historical masterpiece is because it contains the 'fantastic.' Again, circular thinking is making those people presuppose that b/c it contains God and fantastical things, it must be wrong and filled with innacuracies. There are a couple hundred laws in the Old Test, and we'd have to talk about them all individually to correctly asses what their 'relavence' is today, as you might put it. But the fact that they were written long ago hardly makes them obsolete. That is like saying that b/c Newton discovered gravity so long ago, his theories no longer apply. It is NOT reasonable to assume that age dictates the applicability of anything.

Dec 14 - 10:38 AM

cmsof

Chris Martin

[b]I more think this is the type of dialogue a film l[/b]
What do you think it's porn-counterpart name will be?

I'm thinking something like:

Broke-butt Mountin'

or

Man-Butt Mountin'

Definitely something with the worlds "Butt" and "Mountin'" in it.

Discuss.

Dec 15 - 02:29 PM

lunabar79

Jennifer Petro

[b]very cute[/b]
I like Man-Butt Mountin'. Hee hee. Ride 'em cowboy.

Thanks for lightening up the mood in here!

I myself will wait till the hype dies down. It could be an awesome movie, or it could be an "issue" movie. Or, it could be both. Only time will tell.

Dec 16 - 09:31 AM

Bane Of Anubis

C M

[b]Perhaps being Gay is like being religious[/b]
While I trust a PhD's opinion about as far as I can throw one, I think it's a bit righteous to deem homosexuality a "disease" or say that homosexuals are having feelings they shouldn't. As for the semantics of calling somebody a "homophobe," you're being a bit asinine -- people are afraid of homosexuality, not physically, for the most part, but mentally and to decry people for using that word is silly (sure, bigot works just as well, but homophobe actually implies a bit more).

As for the reasons why someone is gay:
Could it be chemical/biological/genetic? Sure
Could it be due to some traumatic experience endured as a child? Sure
Could it be due to other mental disorders (e.g., bipolar)? Sure

Nobody knows, but I find it funny that I could pose those same questions to someone on the issue of whether someone were religious and all the answers would be the same.

Of course, the difference between the 2 is the fact that one is the outcast minority, shunned by the preponderant other... Perhaps we should take it on faith that homosexuality is fine and move on.

As for the movie, I hate hollywood.

Dec 14 - 09:01 AM

Merlin235

Merlin Ambrosius

[b]Interesting[/b]
This is the type of dialogue that a movie like Brokeback should raise. And that was the point of my first statement, that this type of conversation is the important thing to take from Brokeback. Not its technical merit, while I'm sure that is superb. I like Ang Lee, his body of work is great. I apologize for the length here, but to reply:
Logically, it wouldn't be considered being 'righteous' to disagree with homosexuality, since as a society we do it all the time. Is it righteous to tell someone who is bi-polar that they have a problem? Or someone who steals that they aren't allowed to do that? I don't think disagreeing here would fit ther term 'righteous' at all. Using the term 'homophobe' is both demeaning and unwarrented. Labeling people is of no use, either in public discourse or private discussions. No one can peer into someone else's soul to see what is in his/her heart, so it would benefit the conversation immeasurably to avoid throwing around insults like that. It is something that has regreatably crept into political discussions as of late, akin to calling Pro Life' people Anti-choice. Someone may believe they ARE anit-choice, but it would be like Pro Life people calling Pro Choice groups Anti Life baby killers. It's unwise, unfair, adds nothing to the conversation and lessens the meaning of the term 'homophobe,' since there ARE cases when its use is warrented.
It was brought up that some "continue to use faith as hollow argument for their stance." Now, I would agree that faith not shared by all parties does not further anyone's case in a debate. However, saying that it is a hollow reason for remaining steadfast in your stance is not correct at all. Peterlinas, by saying that you are presupposing the conclusion that that person's faith is wrong, which it may well be. However, since you cannot prove it is, it would be outside of the realm of logic for you to say it is a hollow stance, since it MIGHT be correct. You cannot pre-suppose anything in a debate like that. Logic 101. You're welcome for the philosophy lesson, make check payable to Merlin235.... J/K, obviously.
On to Scripture. I'm glad you've been to seminary, your years there should give you the background for this discussion. That's awesome. But the Old Testament to which you refer is above everything else, a historical document. It is the history of the Israelites, written by Israelites, for their own record keeping, by Kings, official court scribes, Prophets, Leaders, etc. The only reason people attempt to discredit this amazing and unparalleled historical masterpiece is because it contains the 'fantastic.' Again, circular thinking is making those people presuppose that b/c it contains God and fantastical things, it must be wrong and filled with innacuracies. There are a couple hundred laws in the Old Test, and we'd have to talk about them all individually to correctly asses what their 'relavence' is today, as you might put it. But the fact that they were written long ago hardly makes them obsolete. That is like saying that b/c Newton discovered gravity so long ago, his theories no longer apply. It is NOT reasonable to assume that age dictates the applicability of anything.

Dec 14 - 10:38 AM

cmsof

Chris Martin

[b]I more think this is the type of dialogue a film l[/b]
What do you think it's porn-counterpart name will be?

I'm thinking something like:

Broke-butt Mountin'

or

Man-Butt Mountin'

Definitely something with the worlds "Butt" and "Mountin'" in it.

Discuss.

Dec 15 - 02:29 PM

lunabar79

Jennifer Petro

[b]very cute[/b]
I like Man-Butt Mountin'. Hee hee. Ride 'em cowboy.

Thanks for lightening up the mood in here!

I myself will wait till the hype dies down. It could be an awesome movie, or it could be an "issue" movie. Or, it could be both. Only time will tell.

Dec 16 - 09:31 AM

cmsof

Chris Martin

[b]I more think this is the type of dialogue a film l[/b]
What do you think it's porn-counterpart name will be?

I'm thinking something like:

Broke-butt Mountin'

or

Man-Butt Mountin'

Definitely something with the worlds "Butt" and "Mountin'" in it.

Discuss.

Dec 15 - 02:29 PM

lunabar79

Jennifer Petro

[b]very cute[/b]
I like Man-Butt Mountin'. Hee hee. Ride 'em cowboy.

Thanks for lightening up the mood in here!

I myself will wait till the hype dies down. It could be an awesome movie, or it could be an "issue" movie. Or, it could be both. Only time will tell.

Dec 16 - 09:31 AM

What's Hot On RT

Total Recall
Total Recall

Ethan Hawke's 10 Best Movies

The Hunger Games
The Hunger Games

New Mockingjay teaser trailer

24 Frames
24 Frames

Pictures of great movie apes

Gone Girl Trailer
Gone Girl Trailer

New film by David Fincher

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile