Film | News

Right Attacks 'ParaNorman' For Featuring Likeable Gay Jock

ParaNorman

Conservatives are having a fit over news that a jocky character in the new stop-motion film ParaNorman is gay. Nancy French gripes at National Review that "parents who take children to the new movie ParaNorman might have to answer unwanted questions about sex and homosexuality on the way home from the movie theater" after the character, Mitch, casually comes out at the end of the flick.

William Bigelow at Breitbart, meanwhile, takes the gurgling hysteria a step further and presents the plot twist as some kind of trick by nefarious gays.

"ParaNorman" has a character named Mitch, who is, of course, a heavily-muscled jock who seems heterosexual until the end of the movie, at which time a girl named Courtney asks him if he wants to see a movie.

Sure, he says, you’ll just love my boyfriend, who’s into chick flicks.

It’s a time-honored technique of the gay community to hide the fact that a character is gay until the audience has developed a real affinity for him/her, then catch the audience off-guard by divulging that the character is gay.

Yes, gays in film should either be twisted, pathological villains or eccentric outsiders. Never, ever jocky or remotely likeable.

If you haven't seen trailers for ParaNorman yet, I've included one AFTER THE JUMP.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I love gay jocks in fact the quarter back for the High School football team hit on me and I did not even know he was gay until he invited me to his house for a sleep over. Yes Christians there are gay jocks, get use to it, more are coming out these days because it is ok to be gay and play sports.

    Posted by: Mike | Aug 31, 2012 9:03:41 PM


  2. I love that it took them like three weeks to catch on. Also: the entire film is about religious zealots and witchcraft. So the "good Christian parents" are probably staying away from this one, anyway.

    Posted by: JD | Aug 31, 2012 9:25:56 PM


  3. "It’s a time-honored technique of the gay community to hide the fact that a character is gay until the audience has developed a real affinity for him/her, then catch the audience off-guard"

    That's hallmark trait of DRAMA, you frigging moron.

    Posted by: Caliban | Aug 31, 2012 9:44:36 PM


  4. "It’s a time-honored technique of the gay community to hide the fact that a character is gay until the audience has developed a real affinity for him/her, then catch the audience off-guard by divulging that the character is gay."

    Interesting. I believe this is how I came out to EVERYONE! Except... they still love me.

    Posted by: Randy* | Aug 31, 2012 9:50:00 PM


  5. As great as this is, much has been made of "Paranorman" being the first Hollywood animated film with a gay character. I know not many people saw it, but "Happy Feet Two" had one, too.

    http://stalepopcornau.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/happy-feet-two-homosexuality-in-animal.html

    Posted by: Glenn | Aug 31, 2012 11:14:54 PM


  6. I saw this film with my 7 year old. We both loved it, but of course, the gay reference at the end went completely over his head -- unnoticed. On the other hand, and tempering the pro-gay aspect of the gay jock surprise at the end of the movie, are two homophobic comments that occur in the film as well. Norman's father rants against his son, at one point crying that he is a "limp-wristed" liberal. At another point, and it juxtaposition with the gay-jock revelation, Norman's best friend felt the need to reassure Norman that he "isn't weird or anything" after he told Norman he liked him. I was offended at the limp-wristed comment coming so early in the film. And I was taken aback by the "not weird or anything" comment coming almost immediately after the gay jock surprise.

    Posted by: A Steinman | Sep 1, 2012 12:00:59 AM


  7. How are parents going to address the questions about a boy who sees dead people and dead dogs?

    Posted by: Tall Guy | Sep 1, 2012 12:50:21 AM


  8. God, the stupidity of some heterosexuals amazes me. Just amazes me. That THEY get to vote on our rights, when time and time again, heteros prove themselves to sometime be just plain....stupid.

    Posted by: Mendoza | Sep 1, 2012 1:56:26 AM


  9. So they campaign to get Chaz Bono fired. They campaign to get Ellen fired. They campaign against every show Carson Kressly is on. And now they say they don't even want gay people to be represented in media or film. So again, how are they going to argue and say they wouldn't round us up and put us in concentration camps? You know they would.

    Posted by: Star | Sep 1, 2012 1:59:18 AM


  10. So basically...if these religious people knew the person was gay, they'd write them off, shun them, opress them and DISLIKE them. They resent warming up to someone and then finding out they are gay...
    And religious organizations wonder why members of organized religion in this country are at an all time low?

    Posted by: Art Smith | Sep 1, 2012 2:01:09 AM


  11. "Somebody's an OK person but once the gay comes out they immediately become an evil person? F-in unbelievable!!!!!!!!!"

    Actually this was the response from the Religious Right to Anderson Cooper's coming out. One blogger even warned her readers that they should get a pail ready to vomit into before she broke the news. AC changed for them from a respected journalist into a left-wing radical LGBT, and ordered him not to cover LGBT issues since he would be obviously biased. I suppose Christians shouldn't cover Christian issues for the same reason.

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Sep 1, 2012 8:02:47 AM


  12. When this movie comes out on cable or DVD I'll actually seek it out now. I had never heard of this movie before this "controversy". Was that the bigot's intentions?

    Posted by: Brian in Texas | Sep 1, 2012 10:59:31 AM


  13. When this movie comes out on cable or DVD I'll actually seek it out now. I had never heard of this movie before this "controversy". Was that the bigot's intentions?

    Posted by: Brian in Texas | Sep 1, 2012 10:59:33 AM


  14. One of our visitors recently recommended the following website

    Posted by: chanel j12 watches | Sep 1, 2012 12:04:48 PM


  15. Projection much? When they say:

    "It’s a time-honored technique of the gay community to hide the fact that a character is gay until the audience has developed a real affinity for him/her, then catch the audience off-guard by divulging that the character is gay"

    aren't they really just revealing their own sour grapes about how much they've been stung by the many, many anti-gay preachers, politicians, etc., who made them feel like "the most popular bigot belle at the prejudice prom," but then ended up getting caught with a rent boy or with their mouth at the receiving end of some glory hole?

    Posted by: bobbyjoe | Sep 1, 2012 12:36:06 PM


  16. "Yes, gays in film should either be twisted, pathological villains or eccentric outsiders. Never, ever jocky or remotely likeable."

    Point taken, but what this actually leaves out is what the breitbart.com fella was getting at: gays should announce their gayness with stereotypical gay flamboyance. I think that's what you mean by "eccentric outsiders," at least in part. Putting that insinuation together with the commentary "never ever jocky or remotely likeable," are you suggesting that non-jocky, non-"masculine" (whatever that means) gay men are not likeable?

    To be picky, if you are to understand the breitbartian perspective correctly, such eccentricity is actually quite standard and "central" to the "gay character - not ex-centric (= eccentric, outside the center, literally).


    "It’s a time-honored technique of the gay community to hide the fact that a character is gay until the audience has developed a real affinity for him/her, then catch the audience off-guard"

    This is strange. I thought that having a "masculine" character, who doesn't put his personal life front and center, would be the epitome of "not flaunting it in their faces" which I have understood to be the main problem that most homophobes have with "eccentric" gay men. Now it seems they don't like it when we "hide" it - or at least don't let on.

    So, how's about we all try to live by the homophobes' standards: you must somehow let on that you are gay, not by your clothes or anything too flashy. Maybe just a lilt in your speech or a slight swish in your tush as you walk. You can't hide it, and you can't flaunt it. Figure it out, gays: the onus is on you.

    Posted by: Andalusian Dog | Sep 1, 2012 1:15:13 PM



  17. "It’s a time-honored technique of the gay community to hide the fact that a character is gay until the audience has developed a real affinity for him/her, then catch the audience off-guard by divulging that the character is gay."

    Well, we gays do love a "big reveal"!

    Posted by: OKEYDOKEY | Sep 1, 2012 1:45:53 PM


  18. Isnt this film about re-animating a dead creature? And they're worried about answering tough questions about one gay character?

    Posted by: Gregoire | Sep 1, 2012 2:15:27 PM


  19. these same people have been furious for years at film portrayals that show that black people are no different from white people.

    and wait...Breitbart? as in "glad you're dead Breitbart"? the one GOProud loved and mourns?

    typical

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Sep 1, 2012 2:38:40 PM


  20. "OMG! They tricked me into liking a gay character by not making him an easy to spot flaming stereotype! You're not supposed to like gay characters because that automatically makes you gay!"

    Posted by: FuryOfFirestorm | Sep 1, 2012 2:39:00 PM


  21. I bet this guy expects all gay character to wear a sign that says "I AM GAY!" on it in giant letters.

    Maybe he'd prefer them to all wear an easy to spot pink triangle? If it was good enough for the Nazis...

    Posted by: FuryOfFirestorm | Sep 1, 2012 2:42:40 PM


  22. People can be tolerant and still not like what it is they're expected to tolerate. There are people I don't like and I can manage to tolerate them. If you openly don't like somone, thats okay, so long as you don't villianize them in a way that hurts them. Subjectivity must be kept in perspective when determining what hurting somebody actually means.
    Liberals don't like conservatives, and yet don't mind hurting their chances of employment by calling them racists just to politicize a topic for their own gain.

    Posted by: Rich | Sep 1, 2012 6:54:44 PM


  23. The revelation that the character ( who up to that point is just a muscle bound dumb jock) is gay is a throw away final joke aimed at the adults in the audience. If he were a life action person he would probably have a career in gay porn.

    Posted by: jaragon | Sep 1, 2012 9:00:44 PM


  24. I had no intention of seeing the movie, until now that is. I WILL be going to the cinema as soon as possible.

    Posted by: Chutney | Sep 1, 2012 9:52:13 PM


  25. RICH:

    "Liberals don't like conservatives, and yet don't mind hurting their chances of employment by calling them racists just to politicize a topic for their own gain."

    What is that supposed to mean? You just rying to get a dig at liberals (Very tolerant bts), or are you saying Conservatives are much more tolerant? Please elaborate for us?

    Posted by: DAN | Sep 1, 2012 10:10:00 PM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Minnesota Archbishop Spreads The Discrimination He Laments« «