… would be a better title for the new cowboy movie. There has been much talk on the film review of this movie from the USCCB’s Office for Film and Broadcasting which is rather sympathetic to say the least. Cosmo-Litury-Sex does a nice job highlighting parts of their review. Though I guess now I know why Willy Nelson warned mothers not to let their kids to grow up to be cowboys.
14 comments
How ’bout Bareback Mounting?
Too easy and too graphic.
Growing up in Colorado I heard this phrase in reference to our neighbor to the north: “Wyoming — where men are men and sheep are nervous.” I just could not help thinking about that when I heard that this movie was about two “cow”boys herding sheep. (Ought they not to be called shepherds? Real cowboys don’t herd sheep.)
If there is an unspoken message in this film (and I strongly suspect that there is) that the fate of these two characters would not be tragic except for the fact that society does not ‘accept’ homesexual behavior, then, well-acted or not, I won’t be seeing this film.
Would it still be considered a “great” film by the chattering classes had the struggle that these two characters engaged in been one of fear of God rather than fear of societal taboos? Ah, then, the film never would have been made —
I’m very disappointed in that review. It basically says that the “homosexual acts” are wrong, but continues to gush over the wonderful acting and such. I don’t read the USCCB reviews to see if the acting is good! All they need to comment on is the MORAL character of the film. This review basically endorses the film whole heartedly. It almost reads like they were forced by some bishop to note the morally offensive parts, but they quickly get over that and talk about Heath ledger for an Oscar. So should we see the damn movie or not?!?!?!?! Come out and say it! I’m so fed up with the USCCB.
Too easy and too graphic.
Well, I’m not nearly as clever as I like to think I am. And certainly not as clever as the Curt Jester.
A couple of things to consider when reading the review in question: movie reviews are written by movie reviewers, not bishops. They look at the film making and write reviews based on what they see, which is what they’re supposed to do. The film was classed O-Morally offensive, which is the bottom of the barrel.
I’m a little disgusted with the USCCB, too, but not for this review.
Am I going crazy? I am sure when I looked at the USCCB review this morning – it had an “L” rating which is limited adult audience. It should have been “O”…and now it is!!
Can anyone confirm this?
Marybeth,
See Jimmy Akin’s guestpost on Mark Shea’s blog about that very issue.
Not a movie you’ll see me going to. Wouldn’t find it entertaining, and I could care less about the acting.
The review classifies the movie as a love story. Shouldn’t the word love be in quotes, or prefixed by “so-called”, since homosexual love is a perversion of true love?
Why this movie was even reviewed is a mystery. Bareback Mountain is bombing. Even my gay coworkers have not expressed any desire to see it.
A common lay person can write a review and appear to carry the full authority of the member bishops. Does this seem like a problem to anyone else?
Happens all the time, Mike. There have been many other things coming out of those offices that were not endorsed by the whole body of bishops. Many people don’t make the distinction–they should!
It’s not a “love story.” It’s a story about perversion and mental illness, in the context of a couple of failed marriages and some really screwed up lives. Not worth seeing. Right up there with “Springtime for Hitler.”
Comments are closed.