I actually liked Braveheart well enough, though it was a bit too long and repetitive in parts. The character of Longshanks's son is obviously supposed to be gay, or at most bi with a gay preference, and this is in fact historically accurate: the son was both gay and a nasty, vicious, spoiled weakling, and his presumed lover (they're never shown in any kind of sexual activity; it's just inferred) does come off as something of an arrogant know-it-all. The king arranges a marriage for his son to the princess of France for political reasons, but interestingly both she and the boy's friend are both pushing him to stand up for himself and be tougher. The son's real lover gets tossed out the window because he's expendable from the king's p.o.v., and obviously because the king dislikes their relationship, but it must be said that the kid behaved arrogantly and interfered where he had no business. He should have realized he was treading on thin ice with a murderous monarch and kept a low profile. Anyway, this gay subtext is, I must say, pretty incidental to the main story and is not at all stressed or made much of, and does have an historical basis in fact. I'm sure MG is homophobic but in terms of the story and its period it's a believable, indeed basically accurate, plot element; in fact, the real son was apparently a far worse person than he is depicted in the film, so if anything Gibson made him a slightly more sympathetic character. I could as easily see an unprejudiced filmmaker shooting the same thing, as it's another revelation of the king's own depravity, and it was true. The audience may think the lover was acting like a fool, but their sympathies are clearly with him vs. the king.
Yes, I'd say Cruise is disliked and dismissed more than "hated" in the way Gibson seems to be these days. His arrogance and religious [sic: if one can call Scientology a "religion"] zealotry are bizarre and have obviously (and deservedly) hurt his career and reputation. Just the other day I heard some TV head speaking on this very subject, about how he's had a good run of almost 30 years, but things are slowing down for him now. I never understood how supposedly rational or educated people could believe in Scientology: Cruise, Kirstie Alley (okay, I'm stretching the "rational" point a bit here), Anne Archer, several others. I don't know if you watch South Park, but a couple of years ago they had one of the characters (Stan, I think) stumble into a Scientology headquarters, where the people inside explained the basis of the "religion". As they went on about the beings from the planet whatsit and all that other psycho talk, along the bottom of the screen they flashed the phrase, THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS REALLY BELIEVE, just to make sure the audience knew that the cartoon's creators hadn't made this stuff up! Total insanity. I think the Germans and others in Europe are right in refusing to recognize this scam as a "religion". No one should be persecuted for his beliefs, but neither should they enjoy the protections accorded real religions to be used as a tax dodge or operating a cult. That South Park episode was briefly yanked from being run because Viacom owns both the Comedy Channel and Paramount, with whom Cruise had a contract, and they were terrified of offending him. But this quickly got out and such was the outcry over corporate censorship that they ran it the following week. History has proven that decision right.
No homophobia in Dragnet, though. Interestingly, remember when Anita Bryant was shooting her mouth off against gays in the late '70s? Who of all people should have spoken up in denouncing her but Jack Webb! I knew he was fairly conservative and, considering Dragnet and its macho cop culture, just assumed he would have been anti-gay, or at least not pro-. But he strongly denounced Bryant and her ilk, said he didn't understand how anyone could support any form of discrimination (against gays or anybody), and that he would not permit her group to rent an auditorium one of his companies owned somewhere (I want to say Kansas City, but I probably misremember that). I remember being really (and pleasantly) surprised at his positive attitude, and his stock went up with me right then and there. You never know about people, do you?
While I'm not gay I have a lot of gay friends (and I don't mean that in the condescending Mel Gibson sense of "I know lots of Jews"; it's just a basic fact) -- I own a house on Fire Island -- and could care less about anybody's lifestyle, sexual preferences, whatever. I just hate discrimination and bigotry. So on the subject of never knowing where people stand on things, last year I had some exchanges on another IMDb site with someone who loudly proclaimed he was gay, and who claimed that Gore Vidal was the first openly gay man to run for Congress (in 1960). This was inaccurate; Vidal is gay but he absolutely did not run as a "gay" candidate, nor did he make his sexuality known, which would of course have been suicidal back then; and I guarantee he wasn't the first gay individual ever to run for office in America. I pointed this out and we began an exchange of a couple of months, eventually going the PM route. I quickly learned that this very vociferous gay man, who loudly denounced any form of discrimination against gays, was in fact also a far-right religious bigot, someone who hates Hispanics and is almost violently anti-immigrant (especially illegals), a proto-Tea-Partier, Sarah-Palin aficionado, and someone with a litany of other hates. I told him he held a lot of bigoted beliefs, supported racist or prejudiced candidates for office (far right Republicans), and took him to task for his hypocrisy, pointing out that if someone took off against gays the way he did against illegal immigrants, he'd be out there denouncing them as homophobes. He did not take well to such criticism, and ended up denouncing me as some gay-bashing lefty, an odd confluence if ever there were one. So prejudice and stupidity, just like tolerance and openness, can appear from all kinds of unexpected quarters, can't they?
Added note for visitors to this thread: preppy-3 and I have taken our conversation the PM route, so please feel free to resume any pertinent discussions as to Dragnet (1954)! Thank you. 8/12/10.
reply
share