01/05/2006
Gene Shalit's NBC review of Brokeback seen as defamatory.
GLAAD: "In the piece, Shalit refers to Jake Gyllenhaal's character, Jack, as a "sexual predator" who "tracks Ennis down and coaxes him into sporadic trysts." Shalit's bizarre characterization of Jack as a "predator" and Ennis (Heath Ledger) as a victim reflects a fundamental lack of understanding about the central relationship in the film and about gay relationships in general. It seems highly doubtful that Shalit would similarly claim that Titanic's Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) was a "sexual predator" because he was pursuing a romantic relationship with Rose (Kate Winslet)." CLIP.
As a huge Edward Hopper fan I was excited to see his rarely opened studio photographed by Duane Michals, also one of my favorite artists. Though the photographs are not particularly dazzling, the portfolio and accompanying post are still a treat for Hopper fans: "...the studio remains locked out of time, a window onto a man who was indifferent to the changing world around him. Hopper was a poet of the abyss, a chronicler of discontinuity and disruption, who seemed to need a static environment from which he could take inventory of what was emotionally solid and measure the distance to the nearest patch of null. Whether he represented the void with naked space, naked light, or naked flesh, it never lay far away. It fact, it was right in the neighborhood."
The NYC maple syrup chronicles continue with a NYT investigation.
The conclusion? It came from New Jersey.
Posted 4:13 PM EST by Andy Towle in Elsewhere | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Nothing smells that good can come from New Jersey
Posted by: Donald | Jan 5, 2006 4:28:24 PM
Just be glad it isn't paper mill. That has a sweet but acrid stench, that can drift for miles (easily 15 miles) on a warm humid night. Or the smell you get going from Toms River to Seaside Heights, there's a small bridge inbetween that the odor of rotting sea grasses will choke you to death.
Posted by: john | Jan 5, 2006 5:35:32 PM
When I was a kid in the early 70's in southern NJ suburbs of Philadelphia, every once in a while we would be downwind of the old Publicker whiskey distillery on the Philadelphia waterfront when one of the pressure-relief valves would open. Even at five miles away, there would be the sharp-scent of moonshine in the air that would fill the whole town.
Posted by: Ted B. | Jan 5, 2006 6:20:05 PM
When I worked at Epcot at Disney World years ago, it always smelled like maple syrup there too. But that couldn't have been from Jersey.
Posted by: Steve | Jan 5, 2006 6:23:03 PM
All this NJ bashing in regard to its air? Have you guys never been to Tacoma? It makes Elizabeth, NJ, smell like a fine pear liqueur.
Posted by: Jacko | Jan 5, 2006 7:05:41 PM
Sooo... dey tenk Nah Joisey fahted?
Posted by: HisHolynessDPope | Jan 5, 2006 7:39:33 PM
Interesting. I must say, my first reaction was the same as Shalit's - that this movie could be used by the Right because Jack does come across as "recruiting" Ennis. The difference between Titanic and Brokebak is in the storytelling and art; I never quite bought that Ennis was a willing accomplice. Maybe that's why the movie just didn't resonate with me.
Posted by: Cyd | Jan 5, 2006 11:29:50 PM
Did Gene Shalit not see the same movie that I did? How on earth was Jack a sexual predator when it was obvious that Ennis had strong feelings for him as well? (but was just unable to deal with them, because of his 'upbringing' -- the lesson taught to him by his father, and the times themselves -- mid 60's).
Was Jack a predator when after being reunited with Ennis after 4 years, Ennis couldn't contain his feelings for him? When Ennis and Jack said goodbye after that first summer, was Ennis crying and doubled over because Jack was a predator? When Jack had the flashback to when Ennis came out of the tent, and put his arms around Jack from behind him, was he hugging a sexual predator? I don't get it.
Ennis had strong feelings --ones he couldn't deal with. He loved being with Jack -- it was obvious. He was a victim of the homophobia that was all around him, and within himself, to a certain extent. And this is understandable. To reduce the character of Jack to that of a sexual predator is insane and misguided. I guess everyone is allowed to have their opinion, no matter how shallow.
Posted by: randy | Jan 6, 2006 1:24:41 AM
This is an egregious example of outright homophobia and DEMANDS that we take action. Shalit would NEVER make those kind of comments about a straight situation with similar dynamics. A sexual preditor? For christ sake--Jack RAPED him? People get a grip on your own internalized homophobia!! Let the brainwashin go!
Posted by: eddie | Jan 6, 2006 2:08:29 AM
Hmm, one would think that Gene Shalit would be more aware of gay issues. His son Peter is a Dr. specializing in the HIV treatment and care here in Seattle.
Posted by: Jeff | Jan 6, 2006 2:27:40 AM
Randy -
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Cyd -
Ennis wasn't a willing "accomplice" because there wasn't a "crime." There was a romantic relationship. See Randy's comments.
Posted by: JOE | Jan 6, 2006 2:49:24 AM
Just adding my thanks for Randy's comments.
Posted by: Darren | Jan 6, 2006 4:05:59 AM
Maybe Shalit thought about using the DeCaprio 'Jack' of TITANIC to corroborate his point. Then he realized that 'predatory twink' is kind of oxymoronic.
Posted by: Jacko | Jan 6, 2006 4:56:18 AM
it was offensive for Shalit to assert that the popularity and support for brokeback was ONLY due to paranoia from gay backlash.
wondering what Willard Scott thought of the film.
Posted by: A.J. | Jan 6, 2006 8:35:36 AM
I clicked on the Today show email link and sent them a polite but unhappy message. I hope everyone else does the same.
Posted by: Anna | Jan 6, 2006 8:51:21 AM
Wait just one minute. As a pretty seasoned fag hag, I know a gay when I see one. And I see one.
Are you effing kidding me with this?
Posted by: Kia | Jan 6, 2006 9:24:26 AM
Shalit is only still on the show because he must know where the bodies are buried. I know that they never take him live and he barely is in the office. Maybe it's not so surprising when you learn that his son is gay and has written a book about gay health.
I wonder if they get along.......
call nbc.....212-664-4444....
Posted by: matt-chicago | Jan 6, 2006 9:38:38 AM
I too sent a comment directly to The Today Show. Thanks for your support as to what I wrote above (sorry about some of the grammatical errors, but it was late)! We'll see if anything becomes of our contacting The Today Show. It is very sad that such a review has been heard by millions of people, for a movie that is trying to be successful in 'mainstream America'. We can only hope that people see the movie and realize that Gene Shalit's comments were completely offbase.
Posted by: randy | Jan 6, 2006 9:54:08 AM
To: NBC / Today Show via email
Email: today@nbc.com
I have long thought that Gene Shalit's movie reviews were inane and of little value to your viewers. Without any doubt, his irresponsible remarks regarding Brokeback Mountain should mark the end of his career, certainly with NBC. His idiotic statement about Jake Gyllenhaal's character, Jack Twist, being a "sexual predator" represents grounds for immediate termination. An apology would ring hollow and certainly would not be accepted those who find this groundbreaking movie a masterpiece. Brokeback Mountain has sent a clear message to Hollywood that a new mainstream genre has been born. Moreover, the public has supported this movie in terms of record ticket sales. Certainly, its nomination for seven Golden Globe Awards, four Screen Actors Guild Awards and its accolade as Best Film of the Venice Film Festival are no accident.
Mr. Shalit has no further credibility in his role with NBC or the Today Show and his ouster along with letters of personal apologies to the actors he defamed should become public domain forthwith.
Posted by: Johnny Lane | Jan 6, 2006 9:58:34 AM
I sent a polite and unhappy note. Thanks Andy and Glaad.
Posted by: david | Jan 6, 2006 12:35:41 PM
Gene Shalit is a hack, always has been, always will be. His critical opinion is worthless as is his credibility. Gene Shalit is no Film Critic, he's a freak with bad hair. The fact that Shalit is still on the air speaks volumes about the quality of NBC under Jeff Zucker. NBC's new slogan should be: "NBC, the network where quality and professionalism don't matter."
Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Jan 6, 2006 12:51:32 PM
Same experience here as Ted B. I grew up in Central Illinois. the Pabst Blue Ribbon brewery (high-class, eh?) was nearly 10 miles from where I lived. There were many days during the summer the entire neighborhood smelled like someone was baking bread...
As far as the maple syrup smell goes, I love this part of the article:
Veronique Ferval, the company's director of fragrance development, said that it was unlikely that her company produced the smell, but said she was thrilled with the idea.
"From our perspective, it's very positive," she said. "It could be a new form of art. Scent is really underpresented."
I've thought the same thing about men for a long time!
Posted by: basis4insanity | Jan 6, 2006 1:00:06 PM
I wrote to NBC demanding that he be removed from the Today show. His comments were not only offensive to me, they were a slap in the face to everyone who has been a victim of a true sexual predator. Being the victim of a sex crime isn't the same as being propositioned by Jake Gyllenhaal, and it's a disgustingly offensive thing to compare the two. The only place Shalit should review movies is the 700 Club.
Posted by: Brian | Jan 6, 2006 1:23:24 PM
It is interesting that Gene Shalit's review has prompted such outrage. He has made very supportive public comments relative to his gay son.
Posted by: Andy | Jan 6, 2006 2:06:35 PM
That's true Andy and I think that's great, but it certainly isn't surprising. Straight people are often much more accepting and affirming when it comes to people they care about. But when they have to think about "the gays" or even worse "gay sex", we becomes a dehumanized abstraction that's easy to target for the kind of scorn and hyperbole that lead eventually to violence and oppression. The kind of hypocrisy that makes it possible for a man who supports his gay son to say things on national televition that only encourage the labeling of OTHER people's gay sons as "sexual predators" should be pointed out unequivocally.
Posted by: Brian | Jan 6, 2006 3:16:32 PM