RECENT  POSTS:  » No, you really don't seem to know what tyranny is, Jerry Cox » Vatican's #Humanum event meant to paint gay families as 'evil' and 'obscene,' admits invited guest » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/02/2008

'cock' tease riles GLAAD

by Jeremy Hooper

 Images Hancock-PosterThe folks at GLAAD are issuing a warning against the film Hancock, saying the surefire box office hit contains an unchecked anti-gay slur. This from GLAAD's CineQueer blog:

At approximately 24 minutes into the film, while Jason Bateman’s PR whiz works to rehabilitate the superhero’s tarnished image, he shows Hancock three comic book images in an effort to inspire him. But Hancock rejects the traditional image of costumed superheroes as he responds to each one: “Homo. Homo in red. Norwegian homo.”

The audience is prompted to laugh and there is no response to or retribution for Hancock’s remarks. Bateman’s character, the father of a young son, could have easily spoken up instead of giving Hancock a pass

How annoying. Though mostly we're just shocked that it's the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation that's having to lash out against this, as we would've thought the International Federation Against Lame LowBrow Jokes in Which the Sole PunchLine is the Implication That Someone is Gay would have already nipped the sophomoric, pandery attempt at comedy in the bud. But then again, you of course knows what everyone says about the IFALLJIWTSPITLTSIG organization: They're just too focused on throwing celeb-filled awards ceremonies these days to do any actual activism.

It remains to be seen if those involved with Hancock will see a need to address GLAAD's concerns. That very much depends on whether or not the massive mounds of cash they'll be sitting on this weekend have phone or Internet service.

Hancock's 'Homo' Blunder [GLAAD CineQueer]

**Now, it should be noted that the premise of the film is that Hancock is a total jerk who engages in all sorts of anti-social behavior. So it could've been assumed that filmgoers will already have reason to not get behind anything that comes out of his mouth by the time these "homo" quips appear. Again, we mostly just think they're lame.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Must we be hyper-sensitive ALL the time??

Posted by: Musicguy | Jul 2, 2008 4:37:34 PM

I think that's a little unfair, MusicGuy. This is what GLAAD is designed to do -- raise consciousness on the power of words. And if the scene plays out like they describe, then they're right -- not expressing any disgust at the comments give them a pass.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 2, 2008 4:41:59 PM

Concur, lets get the IFALLJOINTSPITITFAG right on it.
On vacation...alone..with SMOKE from fires outsside..too much time on hands but how about this group instead. I Fall Joint Spit it Fag.

International Federation Against Lame LowBrow Jokes on Inane News the sole Punchline is the Implication that folk are gay.

Posted by: LOrion | Jul 2, 2008 6:16:50 PM

It may seem like a little thing, and in the grand scheme of life altering mind blowing shit it is, but GLAAD is doing what it does.

It's the small things that matter the most. You just can't call someone a homo and get an automatic laugh anymore. Not even Will Smith. Well, maybe if we were naked and he said it real whispery .....

Posted by: taylor siluwe | Jul 2, 2008 11:16:03 PM

But wasn't this character Hancock also calling women the b-word, throwing children into the air and being an all-around BAD person? Isn't the context, then, that homophobia, misogyny and child abuse BAD?

Posted by: Robert Jones, Jr. | Jul 5, 2008 9:32:00 AM

Good point, Robert ...
but still, GLAAD is just doing its job. No one really thinks child abuse is acceptable, or funny. No one thinks misogyny is cool or funny either (okay, maybe a rapper or two) ... however, when it comes to gay jokes its full steam ahead and everybody laughs.

So, yeah, I'm glad GLAAD is doing what its doing.

Posted by: taylor siluwe | Jul 5, 2008 12:22:54 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails