Homophobia doesn't sit well with me.
They made sure to cast the bad guy in the worst way homophobia could protray a man: a rapist, a paedophile, violent, irrational, diseased...
It fits all of the evil stereotypes of the ignorant.
Maybe I'm just being too sensitive here, but I'm surprised that some of these actors (DaFoe & the other big names they got) agreed to do this movie.
What has homophobia got to do with it? The villain was a peadophile... unfortunately peadophilia is not something invented by our sick minds but it is something which exists in this world. Recently a seminary in Austria was closed down due to the fact that it was apparently linked with child pornography (link: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/12/austria.seminary/index.html ).
They call me MISTER Jinx
actually, the article says that the seminary is being closed down because the students are gay. "homophile" was the word they used. Only one of the thirty-six students there has any connectinos to child pornography.
It just goes to show how homophobic things still are. It's a shame.
hastalo
You've missed the point, Jinx. To CREATE a character that is "homosexual" (remember, this was a world before the luxury we have of labeling and sexual freedoms) who is a Child Molester & Murderer and "gets his" by getting both a dread PLAGUE and getting "GAY BASHED" while the movie audience cheers the death of the villian is the HOMOPHOBIC part. The, as the movie tells us, is God's will for the un-natural sinner.
The manipulation of the audience to cheer for the Count's death reminded me of the manipulation of the audience in "Braveheart" to cheer when the King throws his son's lover out the window.
Meanwhile, the "Hero" of "The Reckoning" committed his murder in self defense, was having a "straight" adulterous relationship, and was redeemed in the end.
So, sure the Count was a villian, but why draw such an inflamitory gay stereotype?
Excuse me??
Are you mad?
The man wasn't GAY! If he was that would be different, we was a pedophile! He raped and then killed young boys!
That is not typical behaviour for gay men and the fact that you would confuse the two makes YOU the most homophobic person I have ever encountered on this boards!!!!
lol, right, /I/'m homophobic. You wouldn't say that if you knew me.
Anyway, my point wasn't that the guy was an accurate protrayal of gay people, which of course you're right, he's not, but when I watched this film it felt like the writerss were trying to make being gay a bad thing.
hastalo
No, you obviously were not paying attention, he was not portrayed as gay!
Do you understand??
They can't make it sound like being gay was a bad thing because there were NO GAY characters in this film!
There was only ONE pedophile.
The mind boggles at your daftness!!!!!
I wonder if English is your first language, because you certainly don't seem to understand it. You just reek of 4ssholism.
I don't care if the guy is gay, straight, a pedophile or what. That's NOT what I'm talking about. It's not important. Stop talking about it.
What I'm saying is that your average movie-goer isn't going to be able to see the difference between real homosexuals & this movie's villain.
If you can't understand that, then you can at least do me the favor of shutting your face.
hastalo
I saw this movie with some other people. None of the other people or myself thought that the villain was gay. We figured out he was a paedophile. Why do you presume that the average person cannot distinguish between the two? I have some friends who are gay - and I know they are not peadophiles. They love their partners and have regular lives. In today's world I think that most people can distinguish between a peadophile and a gay person. I never heard about Michael Jackson being gay - everyone knows he is a paedophile which is different. Don't get paranoid about this movie nor offended by it. It is not the case.
They call me MISTER Jinx
English not my first language??
I cannot believe how pathetic you are, let me give you a clue as to my first language, I was born in 51:30:31N 0:07:35W if you can get that, you will realise how stupid that question was.
>What I'm saying is that your average movie-goer isn't going to be able to see the difference between real homosexuals & this movie's villain
As Mr. Jinx has already said, most people CAN tell the difference, I don't know what backwater, inbred, trailer town you come from but most ordinary people can tell the difference, perhaps when your community starts to introduce new genetic material, their IQ will grow enough to allow them to distinguish the two as well?
[deleted]
OMG! What a waste of my time.....
Do you have a bad case of spouting cr*p or what?
Now READ carefully (and if I was talking to you I would talk very slowly because it is obvious you need it!)
Just because YOUR friends are stupid, does not mean EVERYONE who visits a cinema is!!
Can you possibly understand that??
Also, 'Poof' is a word only people over the age of 80 use now, but I guess your understanding of any culture except your own is minimal.
2) I was not saying all Americans are inbred, only your community (reading the last post pretty much confimed that assumption).
3) Two films and you think you know the 'average movie-goer'!! I think you are perhaps one of those people who meet a German and then exclaim 'Now I know Germany and its people!!!'
Is that all you have because hurling rather sad insults about 'IQ Penis envy' (wtf??? snort!)was pretty pathetic, I know infants with a better ability to insult!!
I bloomin well hope you are NOT gay because if you are you certainly let the side down! Gay men know a good insult when they see one, YOU my dear would not know a good insult intimately if it came at you from behind!!!!
TTFN
lol that was pretty funny. I especially like the last line.
So now you think I'm homophobic, & I know nothing of other cultures? Well, i'd tell you where I live, but i can't be arsed to find the coordinates.
Keep typing
go on, do it
I really wanna read more, it just keeps getting better & better. You're really starting to convince me that most people will see the villain in this movie was only a pedophile. I just can't wait to read what else is going to come out of your dainty little fingers. It is sure to be loquacious, elegant, & to the point. Not to mention the sagacious wisdom that just pours from that witty mind of yours!
hastalo
MY GOODNESS!!!
It thinks it is sarcastic!!!
Wonders never cease....
Yawn...
Try harder!
Riiiiiiiiight...
So how does that prove you're any less wrong than your last four posts?
I mean, come on. Your post from 5 hours ago just proves you can't read. You need to go back & reread my post, then doublecheck points 1, 2, & 3 from your previous post. Because, you in no way refuted what I said. In fact, you completely misunderstood most of it.
hastalo
>So how does that prove you're any less wrong than your last four posts?
Mummm, now you are a little slow aren't you? Although this film was FAR from a box office smash, that fact has never stopped a major whinge by labotomised morons before (as you have so delightfully proven!) and as we have THE most major Gay Rights whinger on the planet living on our little Island and we have not heard a peep from Mr. Tatchell regarding this film I can say with some assurance that he did not take offence to it either, thus, I am quite happy to state that you are indeed the most confused soul I have seen on this board in a long, long time!
Let me just put it this way:
MrJinx is not your average movie-goer. He is better than them.
He...
...is smart. He disagreed with my opinion, did research, posted the link, & explained why he disagreed. This was a smart thing to do.
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258816/board/thread/10803541?d=10907139#10907139)
(most people aren't "smart" that's kind of the definition of the word "of above average intelligence")
...is highly regarded. Other people reference him in there remarks.
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258816/board/thread/10803541?d=11172772#11172772)
(most people aren't highly regarded, again, it's a definition thing)
...is friends with gay people. He should surely know what a homosexual person is, right?
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258816/board/thread/10803541?d=11159677#11159677)
(I'd say most people are rather homophobic. If this weren't the case, why aren't there more countries that allow homosexual marriages? I can only think of one that grants actual marriages & only a handful of others that grant lies designed to placate homosexuals)
And yet, MrJinx, as smart as he is, confused 35 homosexuals for pedophiles. Read the article in the link he posted. The school was not closed down "due to the fact that it was apparently linked with child pornography." It was closed down, because "a Vatican investigator ... found evidence of homosexual relations."
Granted none of those homosexuals were in the Reckoning, but if such a smart person as MrJinx could make a mistake like that, I think it would be very, VERY easy for someone who isn't smart or friends with homosexuals to confuse the villain in the Reckoning for homosexual.
I'm glad this movie isn't popular. It would breed hatred.
hastalo
ps- MrJ, I wasn't being sarcastic. Sorry if you got angry about being used as an example.
I disagree. I guess you have never been to a movie in middle America or in New York City. People see what they want to see. They hate who they want to hate.
If he was a Japanese villian or Black and did what he did, you would say the movie was racist. Why can't you see that people equate Pedophilia and gay lifestyle. (remember Anita Bryant's campaign to save the children from gay teachers who molest and recruit?)
Furthermore, he was directed to gaze into the hero's eyes and look at the men lustfully... And the high voice and the leather clothes.
It wasn't like he could be a gay man in the 1300s. There was no such thing. Married "straight" men committed homosexual acts because they couldn't be gay men.
Absolutely ridiculous. And if you equate raping boys with homosexuality, then you are the one doing homosexuals a disservice, even if you are gay. I don't need to know you to see that. The fact that you don't see it is just pathetic.
"Lots of FAMOUS people can't read!"
Wow, what an interesting thread. In response to the initial post, I highly disagree. When I watched this movie the first time, and then when I watched it the several times after that, I never once thought the word "gay" or "homosexual". The characters in the movie not once said anything that alluded that they were after Lord De Guise because he was having sex with men, or with the male sex in general, they went after him because of what he did to a child, a young boy. He brutually raped and then murdered these boys and left them without proper burial. Young Wells was only buried properly because his body was found. The other boys had simply disappeared. Would you have had a problem with this movie if it was young girls? No, because then he'd just be a pedophile and a rapist, right? To me, he is only a pedophile and a rapist. De Guise choosing young boys doesn't necessarily mean he is gay, he could be bisexual, or he could just choose boys because it is a twisted sense of power and dominance, one greater than if he'd been raping girls.
I think this was a wonderful story with an excellent cast (I'm a huge Paul Bettany fan, and this so far ties with my favorite of his movies, the other being M&C: FSotW. My favorite scene is toward the end when he and Lord De Guise are talking in the sanctuary, and right before the scene outside) and was told in splendid cinematic form. I wouldn't change a thing about this movie.
Btw, I think you are being a tad too sensitive about it. I don't think most people would think of it as being derogatory to homosexuality, because they won't see it that way. I think they'll be more focused on that this happened to a child. If it had been about a violent lord who was gay, with a male partner of appropriate age (and a willing partner, at that), and have no on else in the community be gay, and have him persecuted for being gay (and showing that persecution as a positive thing) then you would likely have a convincing case here to say that this movie promotes homophobia. But it doesn't, so you really don't. One more thing, he was only diseased because the boy he raped had had the plague. Otherwise, he likely would not have been since he wasn't before raping and murdering Thomas Wells.
I applaud your commonsense (and your patience which is far above mine) I07A
of course he doesn't have a case, but I really feel that the nature of the internet allows people to spout off about all their irrational prejudices without the shame that comes from making a public fool of (him/her)self that would happen in face to face conversations.
Yes, it is rather unfortunate that anything (well mostly anything on public boards) can be said on the internet, things that can influence those that have not had the time nor education to learn to think for themselves, and believe whatever they hear and read. Not a whole lot one can do about it, except try to make other points heard in hopes of allowing one to come to their own conclusion. Ha, as for patience, that's probably the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. None of my friends would say I'm very patient. But perhaps it's because they are my friends and know me very well. I think I'm slightly more restraint when it comes to those I don't know or have a professional relationship with. In any case, I hope the thread creator posts in response to what I said. I'd like to know what he/she thinks.
share> None of my friends would say I'm very patient. But perhaps it's because they are my friends and know me very well
Then you hide it well, I am impressed!!
>think I'm slightly more restraint when it comes to those I don't know or have a professional relationship with.
I guess I have been hanging around the boards too long to show such restraintm I am so used to seeing silly comments from mindless individuals to hold back my tongue (or indeed my fingers!!).
>In any case, I hope the thread creator posts in response to what I said. I'd like to know what he/she thinks.
Indeed so do I, perhaps he is tired of his trolling, or maybe he(she?) has started to realise what a silly thread topic it was in the first place.
One can only hope....
Anyway, I am impressed!
[deleted]
OMG!!! Has someone got their little knickers in a twist?
I presume so seeing the torrent of verbal diarrhoea that you posted, hate being shown up eh? Or perhaps you just missed your old Trolling life?
Either way, I don't care, and you have just shown the forum what a foul mouth attention seeking ignoramous you are, so congratulations for that, perhaps it is time you should get up from the computer and go cry into your cocoa ok?? Leave the conversation to the adults!
..............
*Told you I don't suffer fools gladly I07A*
lol, well done! Well done, sir! Another glorious example of your wisdom!
hastalo
I don't have much time at the moment, got to get to work, but I just thought I'd ring in on what you said real quick.
You're right about the movie never using the words "homosexual" or "gay," but then they never use the word "pedofile" either (& I'm not too sure they ever actually said the word "rapist," but it's been a while since I've seen the movie), & that's what you think of Lord De Guise. My point here is just that you don't have to say something to communicate an idea.
And I don't know if either the movie or the book aims to frame homosexuals as pedofiles, but I don't think the average viewer is even going to care.
Basically, I don't think alot of people out there know or even want to know the difference between a homosexual & a pedofile. Hell, I don't think most people out there even know what a pedophile is.
Exactly what percentage of the population graduates high school? Not as high as it should be.
Is "pedophile" a common vocabulary word? I think not.
How many people go on to college? Way too few.
I think the majority of the population know what "gay" is, but don't know what "pedophile" is. And I think it's extremely easy for people to mix the ideas up.
Case in point: MrJinx (see above)
And I never denied I might have been a little sensitive about this. Just read the first post again, & you'll see what I wrote.
hastalo
And I never denied I might have been a little sensitive about this. Just read the first post again, & you'll see what I wrote.
I think the plague thing parrallels AIDS in today's world. The most common method of transmision of the AIDS virus by far is through sexual contact. By saying that "[De Guise] was only diseased because the boy he raped had had the plague" is a clearly stated example of exactly why the plague resembles AIDS.
The writer didn't have to include the plague. It's a fictional story. The writer had a purpose for the plague in this story.
Ask around about the AIDS virus, & you'll find that a significant portion of the population believes that AIDS is God's revenge on fags.
This movie had heavy religious overtones. It's only just that De Guise caught the plague. He was a filthy pervert, & he deserved a filthy life & a filthy death. You don't think that most people won't make a connection with homosexuals & AIDS?
all in all, I just think that this film would be confusing for most people.
I don't think that it shouldn't have been made. I don't think that the story or the acting might not have been interesting, but that's not my point.
I felt the director & writers had made a confusing statement, & I was voicing my own response.
And ana, if you don't like it, then go f*ck yourself.
Icthus, you & MrJinx have both posted interesting rebuttals. Thanks :)
hastalo
Re: the plague
I disagree that it parallels with AIDS. Here's why: When they have arrived into this town and have settled in, there is a scene in the place they are staying (looked like a barn) where Defoe's character, Martin, and Beattany's character Nicholas are talking about the plague and who they lost. Martin's mother died, and Nicholas lost his sister. Two women, who in this time period were more than likely not having sexual relations outside of marriage. I'm not saying it's not a possiblity, but a good bet. The plague wasn't passed around like AIDs and HIV are, it was contagious. I think the writer included the plague to 1) what the people of this time had to suffer, 2)to date the movie's plot, and 3) to give to DeGuise something that slightly betters the situation. By giving him this horrible, suffering disease as punishment for what he did to those boys.
That's all I've got for right now, I've got to run.
> Two women, who in this time period were more than likely not having sexual relations outside of marriage.
No to mention the fact that they ARE women, which of course runs against the idea of this (male) homosexual parallel.
Let's face it, s/he (thewaever, otherwise known as ignored) HAS no argument, it is that simple.
You're missing my point. I brought up the two women, because they had gotten the plague as well and died from it. Were they lesbians (obviously not with each other) or married to men who were gay? Probably not, yet they got the plague. My point was that I don't really see the plague as being likened to AIDs, thus adding to your belief that the movie has a message linking homosexuals and pedophiles, since it is not just homosexuals getting the plague. The boy was not gay, I think that is a safe bet at his age, so he would not have contracted the plague through sex with a man, and since they didn't really have drugs back then in which to share needles, or have blood transfusions, there is no other possible way you can compare the plague and its role in this movie to what most people perceive as the relationship between homosexuality and AIDs.
I just think you are reading what you want into this movie. Perhaps the media and entertainment you have been susceptible to tends to be anti-gay, and that is why you are trying to find something out of nothing. Perhaps it's what you are used to. I think this topic is pretty much done, at least for me. I don't think you are right, but I can see there is apparently no way to convince you that this movie may just simply be a movie with a good story, and not one with a hidden, yet not hidden, agenda.
<<<You're missing my point. I brought up the two women, because they had gotten the plague as well and died from it. Were they lesbians (obviously not with each other) or married to men who were gay? Probably not, yet they got the plague. My point was that I don't really see the plague as being likened to AIDs, thus adding to your belief that the movie has a message linking homosexuals and pedophiles, since it is not just homosexuals getting the plague.>>>
That's in interesting point about the two women catching the plague. I forgot about that.
<<<The boy was not gay, I think that is a safe bet at his age, so he would not have contracted the plague through sex with a man, and since they didn't really have drugs back then in which to share needles, or have blood transfusions, there is no other possible way you can compare the plague and its role in this movie to what most people perceive as the relationship between homosexuality and AIDs. >>>
That's true the boy wasn't gay, but he was the pedophile's victim, which made the boy a filthy thing by association. It could be seen as a sort of reverse AIDS infection. So, of course the boy had the plague.
I'm not coming at this movie from a realistic point of view, but rather from a metaphorical, or literary point of view. Literature alot of times isn't realistic, but hides meanings beneath the trappings of realism.
I would say that most people think of AIDS as a homosexual disease. Did the boy have the plague before or after he was raped? It doesn't really matter, especially if the plague was meant as a symbol, rather than a realistic respresentation of the midaevil disease.
I think you're right about the author including the plague to infect De Guise, but he didn't live long enough to even start feeling the symptoms of the plague. Where is the revenge if he never felt the pain? To me, that is not revenge, so the plague must've been included for some other purpose.
Perhaps to mark him? Was the purpsoe of the plague to signal the viewer that the man is filthy?
What is the "plague" of modern day? Here it is:
http://www.co.broward.fl.us/mei00269.htm
http://alpha.montclair.edu/~huertaj1/
www.eastchester.k12.ny.us/schools/ms/AIDS/AIDS1.html
And what is AIDS? It's the gay (not pedophilic) disease. If the plague was meant to be symbolic, I'm willing to bet AIDS would be a good choice for its hidden meaning. Why mark the man with AIDS? Possibly to show he's a filthy homosexual?
"Watch out for them homosexuals! They'll steal & rape your sons! They'll take the best & the brightest of us, & turn them into filthy, diseased perverts! You can't trust'em!" says Farmer Joe. Are you telling me that that doesn't sound familiar?
<<<I think this topic is pretty much done, at least for me. I don't think you are right, but I can see there is apparently no way to convince you that this movie may just simply be a movie with a good story, and not one with a hidden, yet not hidden, agenda. >>>
That's too bad. Besides MrJinx's, your posts are the only ones worth reading on this thread.
hastalo
I guess he doesn't get the whole 'ignored' thing!!!
I CAN'T read any purile reply you send silly child, I told you to go away and drink your cocoa, I have not read a thing you might have posted since then so give it up and go away.....
It is like a child, angry and stamping its little feet because it is being ignored, oh poor you......
Go away....
Well, I certainly didn't expect most of what was posted on this thread.
To sum up...
The idea: The Reckoning can be seen as homophobic.
The rebuttals:
1. "homosexuality is not pedophilia"
2. "the plague is not symbolic of AIDS
3. "nu-huh! You a stupie *beep*!"
To which I have replied:
1. But, it's easily confusable. Even when it's written down in black & white such as with,
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/12/austria.seminary/index.html
even smart people confuse homosexuality with pedophilia.
Nothing that has been posted so far that has provided a convincing argument that your average movie goer will see De Guise as a pedophile & not a homosexual. I think most people will see him as a homosexual.
2. With the two women catching the plague, & the fact that the plague was "contagious" (actually it was transmitted through flea bites), rather than sexually transmitted, this is probably the strongest rebuttal.
It's pretty much agreed that the purpose of including the plague in the story was to get a kind of revenge on De Guise. Much like how many people in today's world see the relationship between AIDS (aka the Modern Day Plague) & homosexuals. If the plague was intended to be symbolic, the symbolism pretty much points to AIDS.
3. Last & also the least. Thank you, ana, for such well thought out & loquacious replies. <sigh> Personally, I am rather embarrassed I ever considered this person's ideas important enough to consider & reply to. That'll teach me for thinking that people's opinions are worth something rather than the "irrational prejudices without the shame that comes from making a public fool of (him/her)self that would happen in face to face conversations" they are.
Thank you, ana, for teaching me a most needed lesson. You are godlike in your wisdom, how could I not have seen it before?
Goodnight, everybody!
hastalo
[deleted]
I've read all the arguing between thewaever and anitja and I have to say you both have it wrong. The fact that DeGuise was a pedofile, though demented and sick (to say the least) was not the main reason (for that time period) that this man was portrayed as a vile character (though it certainly buried the needle). It was because he MURDERED these boys when he was done with them. I'm not in the least possible way condoning pedofilia, but DeGuise's real crime and for that which he had no remorse or felt no guilt was that he murdered them senselessly, when he didn't need to. He enjoyed the murder as well as the rape and for THAT he was beaten (probably to death) and caught the plague.
As far as being so overwhelmed that these actors would play in this movie since it portrays homosexuality in a bad light; I'm not sure, but I don't think either Betany or DeFoe are gay, therefore not too surprising to me. However, I think we've pointed out that this movie doesn't have much (if anything) to do with homosexuality, but maybe the darker side of any sexual orientation and that is rape, which even gay people don't do. Murder is different from all of that, however, and that's what made DeGuise so evil.
Here... Is a good-bye present. Go clean. But not with me! I work alone.~Leon share
I think they edited out the scene where Brian Cox tells Dafoe that they can't do his new play and save the girls life because it might be offensive to gay people and the peasants are too dumb to understand the finer distinctions of rape, murder and the relationship to an individuals sexuality.
There was an alternate ending I think where that happened and the movie ended after 20 minutes.
In the end they realized that this was absurd and used the completed movie.
"Never met a dead man that bought me a drink."
I can't say much more than has been said. I am not going to repeat the arguments people have said. I only want to point one thing: if you were contracted to direct the movie, what would have you done?
To speak in another form: what is your -say- problem with the movie? Yes, you claim it to be homophobic but what could you quit out of the movie?
Or the movie can't at all be made? Is it homophobic a medieval thriller where a count rapes and murders children? How this movie should have been so as you not to say that this movie is homophobic?
Because after reading all I am starting to think that the film couldn't be made at all.
[deleted]
I can see the OP's point about some people not being able to distinguish between homosexuality and paedophilia, even in these more enlightened times. Of course in those times the great majority of people would have thought that homosexuality was abhorrent and against God. But its clear that the movie itself does not advocate any of this.
Deguise was villified for abducting, torturing, raping and murdering several young children.
Thomas Wells was not seen as filth or less of person because of what was done to him - if anything the people seemed to want to avenge his death (and the other boys more.
They used the infections Plague as a writer's device - it was a way to get Deguise to confess...If you remember it was this revelation that opened Deguise up say "Do you know why I did it? Because..."
[deleted]
If you see homophobia in this story, you're just severely deluded. It's not there.
DeGuise was motivated by the desire for power and control - he was a rapist, not a homosexual.
"Lots of FAMOUS people can't read!"