'Today' Show Reviewer Regrets Brokeback Comment January 12, 2006
at 4:03 PM
by Tim Gill
In his January 5 Today show review of "Brokeback Mountain", NBC’s Gene Shalit referred to the character of Jack as a "sexual predator" who "tracks Ennis down and coaxes him into sporadic trysts." An outpouring of passionate emails and phone calls by Today show viewers angered and hurt by Mr. Shalit's assertion was the result.
On January 10, Mr. Shalit responded request with a statement saying, "I certainly had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone in the gay community or on the community itself. I regret any emotional hurt that may have resulted from my review of 'Brokeback Mountain.'"
Below is the full text of Mr. Shalit's statement:
In reviewing the fictional movie "Brokeback Mountain", I expressed my opinion of "Jack", one of the fictional characters. It is my responsibility to my audience to present my views of the film and the actions of the film's fictional characters. My view of "Jack" may be contrary to the views of others, but we are all entitled to our opinions.
In describing the behavior of "Jack" I used words ("sexual predator") that I now discover have angered, agitated, and hurt many people. I did not intend to use a word that many in the gay community consider incendiary. Baron Lytton wrote in 1839 that "the pen is mightier than the sword," and this matter proves again how hurtful words can be. I very much regret using them.
The GLAAD website carried an assertion that instead of reviewing "Brokeback Mountain", which is my job, I "used the occasion to promote defamatory anti-gay prejudice to a national audience." This is untrue. It is unfair to me and must be corrected. Everything in my life and in my family's life demonstrates beyond doubt that I am not homophobic. Indeed, the contrary is true, and everyone who knows me knows it.
I certainly had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone in the gay community or on the community itself. I regret any emotional hurt that may have resulted from my review of "Brokeback Mountain."
Join up or Log on!
You must be a member to comment on articles.
If you are already a member, log on now. If you are not
a member, Join up!
were "just a movie" it would not be provoking the sort of debate in here, which i think is the hallmark of a good artistic and provocative film. and please, gene shalit cannot possibly be a homophobe. he reviews movies in hollywood!
1/15/2006 5:48 PM
SteveO
It's just a movie?!? The events that took place in the movie are all too real in our society. Gene's words were also very, very real. Don't be so passive, you'll get yourself walked on someday. Anyway, it was a combination of Gene's word choice as a public figure, as well as how he made people feel. Some people identified a lot with the characters in the movie, and for him to call one of us a sexual predator for no justifiable reason, hurt - even though it was just a movie character - he played one of us. I'll say it again, this movie was a big deal for the gay community, and Gene knew it. He did the right thing apologizing and he'll do the right thing by being more careful in the future, which he should've already done since his son is gay.
1/15/2006 1:43 PM
SteveO
I was born Catholic too. I'm really disappointed. Especially on the days of the gay parade here in Denver when the Catholics stand in front of the Cathedral and protest with hateful signs.
1/14/2006 8:44 PM
SteveO
I agree. Gene's 'sexual predator' comment was definitely uncalled for and completely deserved the letters he received. I'm glad he apologized.
1/13/2006 8:39 PM
SteveO
Last night, after I finished arguing with Derick (below), he messaged me and said he was just practicing the art of debate. He is relentlessly getting people worked up just for fun and attention with his obscure arguments. His intention is to cause an altercation when he posts a comment. Remember that.
I think his review and response was completely fair. From what I understand, Gene's son is gay and he is quite supportive of gay rights, which is something GLAAD should have looked up before attacking him.
1/13/2006 3:49 PM
Margaret
I agree. I think his words were misconstrued. Many people keep going back to the fact that the characters are gay men. Several comments have said that if the characters were heterosexual, the comment would not have been made. I disagree. I feel the comment would have been made and would have had more support. The actions of the charcter could have been likened to rape. We all have different opinions but personally attacking one another just looks juvenile. We do love a villain in this community, but why make villains out of allies? Do we really need that? Don’t we have bigger battles to fight and bigger fish to fry?
1/13/2006 3:21 PM
Corey
Regardless of Mr Shalit's chosen terminology (which was a bit thoughtless), the bottom line is that he obviously just didn't understand the story and consequently gave a somewhat less than accurate review. Luckily, I think most people who care are capable of making up their own minds about it.
Brokeback Mountain is a love story, it is not the story of a sexual predator. There is a specific definition in psychiatry for a "sexual predator." Whether a critic or reporter accuracy is key. Mr. Shalit's mischaracterization should be corrected.
Hmm. I'm not totally satisfied with Shalit's explanation and pseudo-apology. I still hold that if this movie was about heterosexual characters Shalit would absolutely not have likened either of them to sexual predators. In today's world that term is used for child molesters and rapists. How could Shalit have missed that? I do think it's a good thing that he made a statement of regret, but he still seems to be off-base.
How the pendulum can swing...lol. I did not hear Shalit's review. However, if it is true that he saw Jack as a sexual predator, I still think he totally missed the point of the story (which I actually READ). The two cowboys (Jack having some homosexual experience) and Enis (gay naive) are drawn to each other by a force neither can understand. Initially, it appears to be no more than libido but it turns into a long-lasting love affair. If anyone in the story is the victim, it's Jack...Enis controls all the cards...and doles out his affection to Jack, who craves being with him. I never said Mr. Shalit is homophobic...I have no way of knowing that. What I'm saying is that he just totally missed the point.
1/13/2006 2:49 AM
SteveO
1. You proved my point about manipulation.
2. Gene and Marty do not compare.
3. You are irrational and dishonest with your intentions.
That's why I said it seems like a dead issue.
1/13/2006 2:35 AM
SteveO
I was trying to prove you manipulated Marty's words for the sake of argument. You admitted to that and proved it below. Seems like a dead issue now.
1/13/2006 2:26 AM
SteveO
Exactly what I said, a manipulative headgame. You've proven my point.
1/13/2006 2:20 AM
SteveO
I understand what you are saying you are trying to do. It's sick to manipulate people for your own feelings of self-worth.
1/13/2006 2:17 AM
SteveO
You admittedly forged this argument after attacking Marty and manipulating his words. My argument is that you argue just to argue and are not truthful about your intentions. Comparing Marty to Gene is completely irrational.
1/13/2006 2:09 AM
SteveO
He didn't say, "It's kind of like how ALL southern whites..." You are making it sound like that's what he said, when he was just making an example of people that DO exist, just like there are some people like that in the media who silently detest homosexuals. He didn't say "some southern whites" because he didn't think someone would dissect and manipulate his example. You cannot apply this to Gene specifically calling Jack a sexual predator when there was nothing predatory about him.
1/13/2006 2:05 AM
SteveO
Concisely, you manipulated Marty's words and slandered him in the process of forging this entire argument, simply for the sake of argument, while going off in abstract directions with equivocal explanations.
1/13/2006 1:44 AM
SteveO
Your motives change and so does your argument.
1/13/2006 1:41 AM
SteveO
You certainly slandered Marty and are trying to manipulate my words. That's expensive, in my opinion.
1/13/2006 1:39 AM
SteveO
Your position keeps changing...
1/13/2006 1:34 AM
SteveO
Hmmm. Interesting. I don't see a statement below where I say "THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO INTERPRET THINGS." There you go again. I was simply stating you need to refresh your memory or see the movie because your argument is irrational.
1/13/2006 1:30 AM
SteveO
I must also say that during your first attack toward Marty's comment, you did not state that proving a point about the situation was your motive. You were going off on how you felt offended because your friends are southern, etc, etc. You were describing how you were a victim. Now you change your mind and say you're proving a point by way of manipulating Marty's words. I feel passionately about the situation. I don't think you do. You're playing a head game and flip-flopping. Your intentions are hard to follow, that's for damn sure.
1/13/2006 1:24 AM
SteveO
The only point you proved is that you initially attacked someone for the sake of argument.
1/13/2006 1:22 AM
SteveO
Manipulative, indeed. Have you even seen Brokeback Mountain? Gene's review does not compare to Marty's example until you mold it into something it is not by putting words in his mouth. Go watch the movie [again], then read Gene's review right afterward.
It isn't. You're just looking at a bunch of overly sensitive people who can't handle a negative review of their golden child movie. We get so defensive that we freak out at the slightest hint of possible homophobia and gang up to demand an apology which, when we get it, validates us in some weird way.
GLAAD defamed a man who loves his gay son and supports him in every sense of the word, as well as supports our community. What kind of loving father must he be to pose on the cover of the advocate in support of his son. He could have lost his job at the Today show due to their conservative audience, but he did it anyways. We should all be so lucky to have parents like him.
And we dragged him throught the mud. Just goes to show we can't act out of our emotions and a little bit of research goes a long long way.
1/13/2006 1:13 AM
SteveO
Derick, Gene's comments were very specific. You manipulated Marty's words to turn yourself into a victim. I know what Marty meant, and I know what Gene meant. You are manipulating the entire situation.
1/13/2006 1:10 AM
SteveO
Because Jack was much more comfortable with his homosexuality, he was called a sexual predator for pursing Ennis. If you've seen the movie, there was nothing predatory about him.
1/13/2006 12:35 AM
SteveO
I would think it would feel miserable taking everything so personal and molding situations into a way that you become the victim. You should prioritize how you let yourself be offended.
1/13/2006 12:27 AM
SteveO
You are the one twisting words around. I knew what he meant. Don't make yourself miserable over dissecting something, just so you can feel superior for pointing out what a statement looks like after you put words in his mouth.
1/13/2006 12:23 AM
SteveO
Presence, rather.
1/13/2006 12:21 AM
SteveO
Because I am sure there are southern white people who exist that secretly detest the prescience of non-whites, somewhere in the South. It was a valid comparison, because there are heterosexuals somewhere in the media that secretly detest homosexuals.
Part One
After reviewing all the evidence- it appears that Gene Shalit was not being outwardly homophobic. But the choice of the words "sexual predator" did cause harm. Thoughtlessness can be just as hurtful to our community as full on homophobia. Using a word that equates us with pedophiles on the top rated morning show is very harmful. Some people (i.e.. the Catholic church) don't seem to know the difference between a child molester and a homosexual. It was thoughtless and harmful no matter what his intent. If his opinion of a black character in a film was that the character was "shiftless"- no matter what his intent, his use of the word would get him called racist. I don't think GLAAD overreacted. In fact it's nice to see them reacting at all.
1/13/2006 12:17 AM
SteveO
He didn't say, "It's kind of like how ALL southern whites..." If he said "ALL" then you would have a point.
Part II
Luckily for Gene Shalit the mainstream media IS homophobic and didn't really report this story. I think that most gay people who are aware of it will also be aware of the outcome- so his reputation will survive.
1/13/2006 12:14 AM
SteveO
He was just using that statement to make the point that he thought Gene was being fake to protect his image. Don't look into it more than that. I'm certain Marty doesn't agree with those stereotypes, but rather that those types of people do exist, as do people that pretend to like gays. At least that is how I perceived Marty's comment.
I wrote to NBC to complain about the Shalit review and glad to see that they jumped.....I don't really agree with Shalit's response that he's not homophobic...it's kinda like white southern people being nice to non-whites when they secretly detest their presence..
1/12/2006 11:00 PM
SteveO
However, it really does seem crazy that Gene would make such a comment when he has a gay son. In my eyes, Brokeback Mountain was a milestone in the gay movement. It was great to see a gay movie city-wide in big theaters. It's the first time I've seen something like that in my 20 years of existence. The movie was a big deal for the gay community, which his son is apart of, and I don't know why in the hell he felt the need to add in the sexual predator comment. It's so off the wall that you can't help but be annoyed and ask questions about it.
1/12/2006 11:00 PM
SteveO
I'm all about free speech, but he could have been less aggressive in the negative review, seeing as how he is a "supportive father" of a gay son. He must have known this movie was going to be important to the gay community, and furthermore, that the community is sensitive about being misrepresented because of anti-gay organizations and their defamation of homosexuals. When people think of a gay sexual predator, their minds wander to think of child molesters. Personally, that's what really pissed me off. Gene was in a powerful position when it came to commenting on the movie and he didn't use common sense.
1/12/2006 10:15 PM
Dave
Lorenzo: Sometimes straight people JUST DON'T GET IT and they say things they have NO IDEA are offensive. It doesn't make the statement any less offensive, but it does make the offense easier to forgive, though I do wonder why Shalit couldn't have been less clue free about this one.
I will say that Peter's statement is far more eloquent and convincing than Gene's. But now that Gene's gay son has spoken, the matter is done except for GLAAD issuing a gracious withdrawal of its accusations about Gene's motives. They need not withdraw any comment about the EFFECT of Shalit's poor choice of words. That criticism still stands regardless of motives.
Let's get on with confronting the people who truly desire to cause us harm.
1/12/2006 9:01 PM
SteveO
I highly suggest everyone read that just to be informed. I still disagree with Gene's choice of words, but I don't consider him anti-gay.
Lorenzo, I think it's been well illustrated that Gene doesn't participate in the behavior you're describing. He apologized for his wording, and Gene HAS shown a history of not being homophobic, so I don't believe it's fair to now for us to do what he mistakenly did at first - and that is to assign him to that same category.
I am one who wrote in outrage of the use of the word predatory. I am somewhat heartend that Mr. Shalit responded at all. But I must agree with Lorenzo's assement which is also very amusing in his choice of words. Mr. Shalit is way to seasoned to not have been aware of the impact of his choice of words. I found his apology insincere.
Well, let your remorse for the statement be televised to the nation and all who watches world-wide.
JDV,M.D. Denver,CO
1/12/2006 5:54 PM
SteveO
I'm very happy with how this turned out and that one of my letters was one of the many letters that made a difference. Two decades ago I doubt anyone would have made such an apology after those kinds of remarks. I also don't think he's homophobic. I think he just made a bad choice of words. His apology shows he kind of has an ego, but he's a movie critic, that's expected. He didn't have to apologize, but he did - that means a lot and he seems sincere. This definitely shows progress for the gay movement.
1/12/2006 5:53 PM
SteveO
I'm very happy with how this turned out and that one of my letters was one of the many letters that made a difference. Two decades ago I doubt anyone would have made such an apology after those kinds of remarks. I also don't think he's homophobic. I think he just made a bad choice of words. His apology shows he kind of has an ego, but he's a movie critic, that's expected. He didn't have to apologize, but he did - that means a lot and he seems sincere. This definitely shows progress for the gay movement.
I don't think he's homophobic, but he obviously holds prejudices (probably unawares). In the initial love scene, it could be construed that Jack was a bit forcefully seductive, but Enes needed little prompting. Lorinzo is right: If Jack's character was a woman and the scene played out exactly the same, nothing like this would have been said.
I am impressed by Shalit's response. It demonstrates how important it is that we choose our words carefully, regardless of our opinions and how controversial they may be, in an effort to be understood and respected as an honest voice.
