« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
02/24/2009
Conservs mad at 'Milk'? We say: Liquidate your own movement's story!
Social conservatives have been furious over this year's "culture war"-centric Oscar bait:
Our suggested retaliation? They should convince a conservative studio exec to produce this:
The Anita Bryant Story
These folks can tell their side of the '70s gay rights fight, and see what happens. Will the results be seen as inspiring? Will Anita's push for discrimination have as much artistic flare as Harvey's? Will Marie be able to woo the Academy the way Sean did? We say: Get it made and let the Carter era chips fall where they may!
Oh, but please don't show any man-on-woman kissing. Children are not ready to see something like that!
*****
*Note: We don't at all mean to liken Marie Osmond to Anita Bryant. In fact, we don't even know her gay rights views. We just know that she skews conservative, seems willing to take gigs, and seems like a nice fit for Anita's wigs.
Your thoughts
I'm sure they thought that's (more or less) what they were doing when they produced that "Silencing Christians" infomercial made by the AFA: presenting their "side" of the story.
Granted, it's not apples-to-apples with a big-budget Hollywood movie like "Milk" nor does it chronicle the life of just one right-winger, but in their eyes, I'm sure THEY see it like this:
Oh, those filthy perverts! They get to have this pro-homosexual big-budget movie made by all their friends down there in queer Hollywood, and it wins Oscars, yet we try to air OUR little film on one TV station and they manage to censor us! It's just not FAIR! Waaah, waaah, waaah!
Posted by: JWSwift | Feb 24, 2009 12:44:56 PM
Jeremy,
Marie's hair isn't big enough. LOL
Posted by: a. mcewen | Feb 24, 2009 12:48:34 PM
Oh, Jeremy, please stop!!! - you've got me rolling on the floor all over again!
Posted by: Richard Rush | Feb 24, 2009 1:03:24 PM
That turd-muffin would go straight (no pun intended) to DVD! Where it would probably languish in the ether of televangelistic junk-scienc-o-mercial-ism as a cheap fund raising (flock fleecing) prop for a suggested donation of five bucks - plus the hidden 19.95 shipping and handling charge.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 24, 2009 1:14:27 PM
I find it very odd that the "writer" Ted Baeher quotes himself in his own article. I suppose that eliminates the need to check out your sources.
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 24, 2009 1:33:13 PM
If the acting is anything like the performances in "Fly Wheel" there isn't much hope for this having any success.
Posted by: Craig | Feb 24, 2009 1:34:29 PM
As a somewhat related aside, there was an interesting story on NPR Weekend edition this past weekend about the Christian film industry:
Christian Filmmakers Creating An Industry Of Faith
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100927647
From the story:
"Fireproof, starring former teen idol Kirk Cameron,... earned $33 million at the box office, and cost only half a million dollars to make. "
Posted by: spalding | Feb 24, 2009 1:48:13 PM
Spalding, the religious are extremely adept at fleecing their faithful out of hundreds of millions of dollars every year. No one ever accused them of not knowing how to turn a buck!
Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 24, 2009 3:16:20 PM
I think the point is that Baehr is using Fireproof to make an illogical claim that movies with lgbt issues make less money than movies like Fireproof. This just isn't true.
I support anyone's right to make movies and from the African-American motion picture perspective, Christianity figures greatly in our movies (i.e. Tyler Perry) but what I don't like is Baehr's need to play the sides against one another. I mean isn't Chad Allen coming out with a movie that looks at lgbts of faith? Where does that movie fall in Baehr's claims?
Posted by: a. mcewen | Feb 24, 2009 3:21:36 PM
comments powered by Disqus
