A Liberal Reveiws A Movie. This Is Why I Hate Liberals.

[Disir]

I would like to point something out.



This is a clip from A Florida Enchantment. It came out in 1914.



This is Algie the Miner. It came out in 1912.

Gender-bending in American cinema. Pre-(Hays) Code. Back when Hollywood was in New York. Hollywood moved to California and began self censorship to keep from having it imposed. Yet, it existed in a myriad of ways and showed up in many movies before and after the code.

This is Hays Code:
The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 Hays Code

It lasted until the sixties.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I would like to point something out.



This is a clip from A Florida Enchantment. It came out in 1914.



This is Algie the Miner. It came out in 1912.

Gender-bending in American cinema. Pre-(Hays) Code. Back when Hollywood was in New York. Hollywood moved to California and began self censorship to keep from having it imposed. Yet, it existed in a myriad of ways and showed up in many movies before and after the code.

This is Hays Code:
The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 Hays Code

It lasted until the sixties.

What did that have to do with anything in the thread? Oh, here you go.

 

[Samson]

I would like to point something out.



This is a clip from A Florida Enchantment. It came out in 1914.



This is Algie the Miner. It came out in 1912.

Gender-bending in American cinema. Pre-(Hays) Code. Back when Hollywood was in New York. Hollywood moved to California and began self censorship to keep from having it imposed. Yet, it existed in a myriad of ways and showed up in many movies before and after the code.

This is Hays Code:
The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 Hays Code

It lasted until the sixties.

What did that have to do with anything in the thread? Oh, here you go.

Queers are entertaining.

Was there another point?

 

[Two Thumbs]

they are fueled by hate.

You mean the OP I guess.

no, leftist are fueled by hate

 

[Disir]

I would like to point something out.



This is a clip from A Florida Enchantment. It came out in 1914.



This is Algie the Miner. It came out in 1912.

Gender-bending in American cinema. Pre-(Hays) Code. Back when Hollywood was in New York. Hollywood moved to California and began self censorship to keep from having it imposed. Yet, it existed in a myriad of ways and showed up in many movies before and after the code.

This is Hays Code:
The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 Hays Code

It lasted until the sixties.

What did that have to do with anything in the thread? Oh, here you go.

Queers are entertaining.

Was there another point?

Yes.

Rikurzhen said:

Oh really? Clearly there was no market then for introducing homosexual characters into cinema. Homosexuals comprise 1%-2% of the population, their normalization was opposed by the vast majority of the population and yet Hollywood didn't care, they starting featuring homosexuals prominently to the point where now 50% of the Americans believe that homosexuals represent 20%-25% or more of the population.

It was already normal. The normalization of straight/hetro only in cinema films is recent. If you wanted to-you can locate the division via definition in society beyond media. Homosexuality as defined by a single act occurs after the Kinsey Reports. As an aside, we are pretty much the only area in the world that utilizes this definition.

Even so, after the Code was enforced (1934-1936) you could find characters within the films (featured prominently) by sexual innuendos in the script. These can be very subtle and not easily recognizable today because the script would contain language/slang known during that time period that fell out of use.

You can't introduce something that was already in existence. You could, but it would be redundant. You would have to pretend that it was never in existence at all. Since many of us hetero folks know or are related to LGBT folks it is merely art imitating life (not life imitating art).

The implications from another worthless Gallup Poll are only correct in a vacuum.

 

[Disir]

they are fueled by hate.

You mean the OP I guess.

no, leftist are fueled by hate

Actually, who the heck reads reviews by an activist?

 

[ClosedCaption]

You've hated liberals because of a Movie review you just read?

 

[Rikurzhen]

I would like to point something out.



This is a clip from A Florida Enchantment. It came out in 1914.



This is Algie the Miner. It came out in 1912.

Gender-bending in American cinema. Pre-(Hays) Code. Back when Hollywood was in New York. Hollywood moved to California and began self censorship to keep from having it imposed. Yet, it existed in a myriad of ways and showed up in many movies before and after the code.

This is Hays Code:
The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 Hays Code

It lasted until the sixties.

What did that have to do with anything in the thread? Oh, here you go.

Queers are entertaining.

Was there another point?

Yes.

Rikurzhen said:

Oh really? Clearly there was no market then for introducing homosexual characters into cinema. Homosexuals comprise 1%-2% of the population, their normalization was opposed by the vast majority of the population and yet Hollywood didn't care, they starting featuring homosexuals prominently to the point where now 50% of the Americans believe that homosexuals represent 20%-25% or more of the population.

It was already normal. The normalization of straight/hetro only in cinema films is recent. If you wanted to-you can locate the division via definition in society beyond media. Homosexuality as defined by a single act occurs after the Kinsey Reports. As an aside, we are pretty much the only area in the world that utilizes this definition.

Even so, after the Code was enforced (1934-1936) you could find characters within the films (featured prominently) by sexual innuendos in the script. These can be very subtle and not easily recognizable today because the script would contain language/slang known during that time period that fell out of use.

You can't introduce something that was already in existence. You could, but it would be redundant. You would have to pretend that it was never in existence at all. Since many of us hetero folks know or are related to LGBT folks it is merely art imitating life (not life imitating art).

The implications from another worthless Gallup Poll are only correct in a vacuum.

You are so fundamentally wrong and you're wrong because you're engaging in motivated reasoning. You've reached your conclusion and then you seek out only confirming evidence. You cite a movie based on a dream sequence in which women and men switch sexes and there is cross dressing. You ignore the mob chasing the cross dressing man, which signals that society disapproved in very strong terms, even in a DREAM SEQUENCE. Dream sequences give literary license to explore forbidden topics by telling the audience "this isn't real, it's imagination" in a movie based on imagination.

Secondly, cross dressing is a long honored acting tradition. Uncle Milty used to wear a dress, or so I read. People thought it was funny. What Berle didn't do was wear a dress in real life. People gave him license to wear a dress in order to make the audience laugh, not to wear a dress as his statement that this was a normal thing for a man to do in his real life.

You're ignoring all the disconfirming evidence and only focusing on minor evidence and then twisting it to fit your pre-determined conclusion. This is revisionist history you're trying to write here.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You've hated liberals because of a Movie review you just read?

Every little bit helps.

 

[Disir]

I would like to point something out.



This is a clip from A Florida Enchantment. It came out in 1914.



This is Algie the Miner. It came out in 1912.

Gender-bending in American cinema. Pre-(Hays) Code. Back when Hollywood was in New York. Hollywood moved to California and began self censorship to keep from having it imposed. Yet, it existed in a myriad of ways and showed up in many movies before and after the code.

This is Hays Code:
The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 Hays Code

It lasted until the sixties.

What did that have to do with anything in the thread? Oh, here you go.

Queers are entertaining.

Was there another point?

Yes.

Rikurzhen said:

Oh really? Clearly there was no market then for introducing homosexual characters into cinema. Homosexuals comprise 1%-2% of the population, their normalization was opposed by the vast majority of the population and yet Hollywood didn't care, they starting featuring homosexuals prominently to the point where now 50% of the Americans believe that homosexuals represent 20%-25% or more of the population.

It was already normal. The normalization of straight/hetro only in cinema films is recent. If you wanted to-you can locate the division via definition in society beyond media. Homosexuality as defined by a single act occurs after the Kinsey Reports. As an aside, we are pretty much the only area in the world that utilizes this definition.

Even so, after the Code was enforced (1934-1936) you could find characters within the films (featured prominently) by sexual innuendos in the script. These can be very subtle and not easily recognizable today because the script would contain language/slang known during that time period that fell out of use.

You can't introduce something that was already in existence. You could, but it would be redundant. You would have to pretend that it was never in existence at all. Since many of us hetero folks know or are related to LGBT folks it is merely art imitating life (not life imitating art).

The implications from another worthless Gallup Poll are only correct in a vacuum.

You are so fundamentally wrong and you're wrong because you're engaging in motivated reasoning. You've reached your conclusion and then you seek out only confirming evidence. You cite a movie based on a dream sequence in which women and men switch sexes and there is cross dressing. You ignore the mob chasing the cross dressing man, which signals that society disapproved in very strong terms, even in a DREAM SEQUENCE. Dream sequences give literary license to explore forbidden topics by telling the audience "this isn't real, it's imagination" in a movie based on imagination.

Secondly, cross dressing is a long honored acting tradition. Uncle Milty used to wear a dress, or so I read. People thought it was funny. What Berle didn't do was wear a dress in real life. People gave him license to wear a dress in order to make the audience laugh, not to wear a dress as his statement that this was a normal thing for a man to do in his real life.

You're ignoring all the disconfirming evidence and only focusing on minor evidence and then twisting it to fit your pre-determined conclusion. This is revisionist history you're trying to write here.

No, I'm not rewriting history. If anything you're attempting to erase it. They played visible characters.The elite squad attempts to dictate what life should be. It's not representative of what it is. Thus, socially acceptable to what class? The films and characters within films during the early part of the century were part of the reason that Hollywood moved to California. The do-gooders were attempting to impose their morality via legislation. In an effort to escape this, self censorship was imposed through the Hays Code. There were ways around it as I already noted.

1895-1919
List of lesbian gay bisexual or transgender-related films pre 1920 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
1920s
List of lesbian gay bisexual or transgender-related films of the 1920s - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
1930s
List of lesbian gay bisexual or transgender-related films of the 1930s - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
1940s
List of lesbian gay bisexual or transgender-related films of the 1940s - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
1950s
List of lesbian gay bisexual or transgender-related films of the 1950s - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Interesting portraits found here:
Luminous-Lint - Online exhibition - Portrait Cross-dressing gender switching and related issues


Homosexuality in England and the US

Sex Sexuality in the 19th Century - Victoria and Albert Museum

glbtq social sciences New York City

 

[boedicca]

So Richard Linklater has made a new movie and it took him 12 years to complete it because he followed the same characters/actors as they aged over the years. A very innovative technique. Here's what the Atlantic's film critic has to say about this innovative movie:

Not Everyone's Boyhood

Extraordinary as it is, Richard Linklater's film avoids the topic of race in ways that are all too common for its genre, for Hollywood, and for America.

. . . . . . . Because in this otherwise sprawling exploration of a boy’s life in America, there is an essential aspect of the present-day human experience that goes unexplored: race. . . . . .

But the fact that this particular film omits the topic of race almost entirely, underscores something insidious about our movies and the society they reflect.
​

This is the guy I hate. I can't watch anything on TV without formulaic racial representation crammed onto the screen. I watch Continuum, a sci-fi show actually set, not just filmed but set, in Canada's Vancouver, a city with a 60% white population and 28% Asian population and 1% black population and there's black people running all through the series and hardly any Asians. This contrived ramming of race into cinema is to please guys like this. He goes to see this movie and complains that it stands apart from ALL OTHER CINEMA because it doesn't jam racial issues onto the screen. The one movie that's an exception to racial bean counting has to be taken to task for breaking ranks with all the racists in liberaldom.

Why do liberals have to politicize everything? Every damn thing.

Damn. Fine. Post.

Yep. Sometimes a movie is just a movie, not a piece of Racialist Propaganda.

 

[boedicca]

I had a flat tire yesterday, fucking liberals.

ONLY liberals make movies.
ONLY liberals are teachers and members of school boards
ONLY liberals....fill in the blank.

What we see here is victim-hood...

What we see here is how stupid partisanship can be.

Imran Siddiquee and the OP and yourself are excellent examples of the brain damage that can be caused when partisans believe the sun orbits their agenda.

Movies and TV are different media, but they are both dependent on SALES. Movies make money off ticket sales. They are often targeted toward narrow demographics (gender, age, race). TV shows make money off advertising sales. Advertisers are trying to reach large audiences, thus you find that TV shows are typically more diverse, even are the expense of bending reality. The purpose is to Make Money, not to conform to whatever ridiculous notions partisans have regarding their imaginary conspiracies.

Imran Siddiquee

Oh really? Clearly there was no market then for introducing homosexual characters into cinema. Homosexuals comprise 1%-2% of the population, their normalization was opposed by the vast majority of the population and yet Hollywood didn't care, they starting featuring homosexuals prominently to the point where now 50% of the Americans believe that homosexuals represent 20%-25% or more of the population.

What sort of nonsense are you blithering away about now?

Listen you ninny: Hollywood makes movies. They make movies about Queers. They make movies about cartoon mermaids. They make movies about whales. Why? Because Queers, Cartoon Mermaids, and Whales are ENTERTAINING, and movies about them sell tickets: NOT because there is some vast conspiracy to make Queers, Mermaids and Whales acceptable sexual alternatives, for christssakes!

What if the movie is about Octopii?

 

[Samson]

I would like to point something out.



This is a clip from A Florida Enchantment. It came out in 1914.



This is Algie the Miner. It came out in 1912.

Gender-bending in American cinema. Pre-(Hays) Code. Back when Hollywood was in New York. Hollywood moved to California and began self censorship to keep from having it imposed. Yet, it existed in a myriad of ways and showed up in many movies before and after the code.

This is Hays Code:
The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 Hays Code

It lasted until the sixties.

What did that have to do with anything in the thread? Oh, here you go.

Queers are entertaining.

Was there another point?

Yes.

Rikurzhen said:

Oh really? Clearly there was no market then for introducing homosexual characters into cinema. Homosexuals comprise 1%-2% of the population, their normalization was opposed by the vast majority of the population and yet Hollywood didn't care, they starting featuring homosexuals prominently to the point where now 50% of the Americans believe that homosexuals represent 20%-25% or more of the population.

It was already normal. The normalization of straight/hetro only in cinema films is recent. If you wanted to-you can locate the division via definition in society beyond media. Homosexuality as defined by a single act occurs after the Kinsey Reports. As an aside, we are pretty much the only area in the world that utilizes this definition.

Even so, after the Code was enforced (1934-1936) you could find characters within the films (featured prominently) by sexual innuendos in the script. These can be very subtle and not easily recognizable today because the script would contain language/slang known during that time period that fell out of use.

You can't introduce something that was already in existence. You could, but it would be redundant. You would have to pretend that it was never in existence at all. Since many of us hetero folks know or are related to LGBT folks it is merely art imitating life (not life imitating art).

The implications from another worthless Gallup Poll are only correct in a vacuum.

Oh so the blind leading the blind.

Neither of you seem to have a grasp on the motive that encourages the entertainment industry to include queers in TV or movies.

 

[Samson]

I had a flat tire yesterday, fucking liberals.

ONLY liberals make movies.
ONLY liberals are teachers and members of school boards
ONLY liberals....fill in the blank.

What we see here is victim-hood...

What we see here is how stupid partisanship can be.

Imran Siddiquee and the OP and yourself are excellent examples of the brain damage that can be caused when partisans believe the sun orbits their agenda.

Movies and TV are different media, but they are both dependent on SALES. Movies make money off ticket sales. They are often targeted toward narrow demographics (gender, age, race). TV shows make money off advertising sales. Advertisers are trying to reach large audiences, thus you find that TV shows are typically more diverse, even are the expense of bending reality. The purpose is to Make Money, not to conform to whatever ridiculous notions partisans have regarding their imaginary conspiracies.

Imran Siddiquee

Oh really? Clearly there was no market then for introducing homosexual characters into cinema. Homosexuals comprise 1%-2% of the population, their normalization was opposed by the vast majority of the population and yet Hollywood didn't care, they starting featuring homosexuals prominently to the point where now 50% of the Americans believe that homosexuals represent 20%-25% or more of the population.

What sort of nonsense are you blithering away about now?

Listen you ninny: Hollywood makes movies. They make movies about Queers. They make movies about cartoon mermaids. They make movies about whales. Why? Because Queers, Cartoon Mermaids, and Whales are ENTERTAINING, and movies about them sell tickets: NOT because there is some vast conspiracy to make Queers, Mermaids and Whales acceptable sexual alternatives, for christssakes!

What if the movie is about Octopii?

That's the exception to the rule.

Octopus movies are made to encourage social change so that octopi can be used as sexual stimuli.

 

[Disir]

I would like to point something out.



This is a clip from A Florida Enchantment. It came out in 1914.



This is Algie the Miner. It came out in 1912.

Gender-bending in American cinema. Pre-(Hays) Code. Back when Hollywood was in New York. Hollywood moved to California and began self censorship to keep from having it imposed. Yet, it existed in a myriad of ways and showed up in many movies before and after the code.

This is Hays Code:
The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 Hays Code

It lasted until the sixties.

What did that have to do with anything in the thread? Oh, here you go.

Queers are entertaining.

Was there another point?

Yes.

Rikurzhen said:

Oh really? Clearly there was no market then for introducing homosexual characters into cinema. Homosexuals comprise 1%-2% of the population, their normalization was opposed by the vast majority of the population and yet Hollywood didn't care, they starting featuring homosexuals prominently to the point where now 50% of the Americans believe that homosexuals represent 20%-25% or more of the population.

It was already normal. The normalization of straight/hetro only in cinema films is recent. If you wanted to-you can locate the division via definition in society beyond media. Homosexuality as defined by a single act occurs after the Kinsey Reports. As an aside, we are pretty much the only area in the world that utilizes this definition.

Even so, after the Code was enforced (1934-1936) you could find characters within the films (featured prominently) by sexual innuendos in the script. These can be very subtle and not easily recognizable today because the script would contain language/slang known during that time period that fell out of use.

You can't introduce something that was already in existence. You could, but it would be redundant. You would have to pretend that it was never in existence at all. Since many of us hetero folks know or are related to LGBT folks it is merely art imitating life (not life imitating art).

The implications from another worthless Gallup Poll are only correct in a vacuum.

Oh so the blind leading the blind.

Neither of you seem to have a grasp on the motive that encourages the entertainment industry to include queers in TV or movies.

Sure I do. Today's films are all about the cash and most of them aren't worth the time or money. Kind of like trying to combine history and romance to target two different audiences.

 

[Samson]

Oh so the blind leading the blind.

Neither of you seem to have a grasp on the motive that encourages the entertainment industry to include queers in TV or movies.

Sure I do. Today's films are all about the cash and most of them aren't worth the time or money. Kind of like trying to combine history and romance to target two different audiences.

 

[Disir]

Oh so the blind leading the blind.

Neither of you seem to have a grasp on the motive that encourages the entertainment industry to include queers in TV or movies.

Sure I do. Today's films are all about the cash and most of them aren't worth the time or money. Kind of like trying to combine history and romance to target two different audiences.

Pearl Harbor.

Gangs of New York. Would have been way better had the romance been dropped.

 

[NoNukes]

they are fueled by hate.

You mean the OP I guess.

no, leftist are fueled by hate

Actually, who the heck reads reviews by an activist?

If I want to see a movie, I will not read the reviews until after I have seen it.

 

[Disir]

they are fueled by hate.

You mean the OP I guess.

no, leftist are fueled by hate

Actually, who the heck reads reviews by an activist?

If I want to see a movie, I will not read the reviews until after I have seen it.

That's better than me. I won't read them at all.

 

[NoNukes]

they are fueled by hate.

You mean the OP I guess.

no, leftist are fueled by hate

Actually, who the heck reads reviews by an activist?

If I want to see a movie, I will not read the reviews until after I have seen it.

That's better than me. I won't read them at all.

I sometimes like to see if they got it right.