Friday, May 11, 2018

Stupid Mail

The Boys In The Band.   You're kidding.  They revived that piece of shit?  Oh, yeah, it would be fifty years this year, wouldn't it.  Gee, what are else are they going to revive from 1968?  Assassinating liberal icons?  The Vietnam War?  They don't have to revive electing Nixon, not while Trump is there.  Why stop with that year? They could revive Zip Coon and it would have about the same artistic and political effect. 

I hated it from not long after it was premiered.  I hated the movie that much times ten because so many more people would see it.  I hated everything about it, the disgusting pathological depiction of gay men and the revolting plot.  It was a boring series of stereotypes.  I don't know if anyone ever called it that but it was gaysploitation to titillate a straight audience who were predisposed to hate us and sneer at us with a really awful and cheaply sentimental tragic ending tacked on.  Mart Crowley and his shitty play can go to hell.  


20 comments:

  1. "I hated it from not long after it was premiered. I hated the movie that much times ten because so many more people would see it. I hated everything about it, the disgusting pathological depiction of gay men and the revolting plot. It was a boring series of stereotypes."

    So, Sparkles -- which of the characters did you most identify with?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I figured it was one of your socks who sent me that.

      Not surprised you'd like it. You're the one who got so upset when I slammed white supremacist classics, afterall.

      Delete
  2. Are you the guy who figured out that GONE WITH THE WIND might be an unobjective portrayal of slavery? Good for you, Sparkles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You had the vapors when I pointed out that Birth of a Nation inspired the revival of the KKK and that Judge Priest was a pretty horrible and racist movie which made jokes about lynching in a year which saw a number of real ones. You know, the kind that Billie Holiday sang about.

      Boys In The Band is a thoroughly awful play and movie, it had little to do with the live of most gay men in 1968 as it provided a number of destructive stereotypes not much different from those your beloved Hollywood produced. But I guess you'd have had to be a gay man or a person who didn't think in stereotypes to know that so you're disqualified on both counts. Your entire thought process consists of stereotypes, the kind of prejudices you rearrange in lieu of real thinking.

      Delete
  3. "Boys In The Band is a thoroughly awful play and movie, it had little to do with the live of most gay men in 1968"

    Oh fuck you, Sparkles. I lived in NYC in 1968 and I was working in theater. I personally knew a lot of the characters in BOYS IN THE BAND. I haven't seen the play since it ran on Bway originally, and I suspect it's melodramatic and overheated, but anybody who tells you it had no relation to reality as it was being lived by gay people back then is, frankly, selling something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You knew imaginary characters. Um, hum, I see.

      Let me break this to you, dumbpling, most gay men in 1968 didn't live in the gay theater ghetto of New York city and most of them would have thought you were a total idiot and asshole. I know because I was a gay man in 1968 and you weren't.

      Delete
  4. Keep selling something, Sparkles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, Simphead. It's Ducan who sells stuff. I haven't made a cent off of blogging. How many units of your garage band retreads have you peddled?

      I looked at Playbill after you sent me that thing, geesh, Boys In The Band? Aaron Sorkin doing a retread of To Kill a Mockingbird, sued by Harper Lee's estate for taking too many liberties with her novel? A musical of that dreadful play The Royal Family? Another friggin' production of Carousel? Theater's getting as stupid as the movies.

      I can't imagine what Sorkin is going to do with that story that hasn't already been done to death and decay. Maybe he'll West Wing it. I hated that show. Never did see the one about what was reported to be a ridiculously idealistic fiction of a news show. I have a feeling I can imagine exactly how big a lie it was.

      Yeah, I'll stick with audio theater. You stand a chance of hearing something you haven't heard a hundred times already.

      Delete
  5. "Let me break this to you, dumbpling, most gay men in 1968 didn't live in the gay theater ghetto of New York city and most of them would have thought you were a total idiot and asshole."


    Let me break this to you, kreplach, you can criticize me about this shit when you admit you know exactly dick about Jews. Until then, shut your illiterate piehole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll admit I know a Jew who's exactly a dick.

      Delete
  6. ME: Keep selling something, Sparkles.

    YOU: It's Ducan [sic] who sells stuff. I haven't made a cent off of blogging.

    Look, you illiterate yutz, as the world knows, the concept of metaphor eludes you, as does vernacular English, but "selling something" in the context of what we were arguing about, clearly does not fucking mean vending goods for money.

    It means, obviously, having a dishonest ideological agenda or axe to grind.

    Now please go get hit by an asteroid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A. A fact can't be considered to be ideological. It is a fact that only a tiny percentage of the gay, male population of the United States lived in the theater ghetto of NYC in 1968, so you don't know what ideology means.

      B. It's a fact that most gay men didn't live in the theater ghetto or even the wider gay population of New York City, so what I said wan't dishonest, it was the truth.

      C. I wasn't selling anything, for money or ideologically, I was pointing to the truth. I have a strong feeling that you're not really very clear on what a metaphor is, either.

      D. You and Boy Duncan are the ones who are selling stuff, that's true, too.

      E. I think you might mean "go get hit by a meteor, asteroids are a different class of minor objects until they might, by catastrophic chance, become meteors. It's a common error among the ignorant and stupid. That's you, all over.

      http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/comets-meteors-and-asteroids

      Delete
    2. Oh, and F. You are a dick, that's true too.

      Delete
  7. And you continue selling something, precisely as I explained.

    You really are the most obtuse person on the planet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dopey, you clearly don't understand what "obtuse" means either. Someone who can't make accurate distinctions is certainly more obtuse than someone who can navigate complexity. The dictionary says that someone who is obtuse is slow to understand, your only defense against an accusation of obtuseness is that someone who never understands isn't slow to understand. Slow implies getting there eventually, you never do.

      Delete
    2. For example, an old man who grew up in the space age who doesn't yet know the difference between an asteroid and a meteor. I'll bet you still don't know it, though I pointed it out to you .

      Delete
  8. For the purposes of the joke, which of course sailed miles over your empty noggin, asteroid is the better word precisely because it suggests a larger size than a meteor. Humor is an interesting concept, Sparky -- you should look into it.

    Jeebus, every time you say the shit you say, I'm reminded of the great early MAD MAGAZINE parody of the Shadow, where the protagonist, confronted by a brainless criminal henchman, exclaims "Good Lord -- this man doesn't have a mind to cloud."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Stupy, I'm here. I'm not in outer space, I have no intention to go into outer space. If you got hit by a meteor (thus, for your information, Stupy, making it a meteorite) you'd find it plenty big enough. But likely not for long.

      I see you took full advantage of that innovation of the 1980s, such "comedians" as Andrew Dice Clay, humor and comedy that isn't funny. Call me old fashioned but I only like humor that is funny.

      You know, Stupy, I used to think that you had the same mental defect as Susan Stamberg, not being able to open your mouth without a cliche coming out, now I think you also can't open it without something stupid and untrue coming out.

      MAD Magazine is something I outgrew a long, long, long, long, long time ago. Too long ago to fit into your short attention span. And speaking of such distinctions, your "miles over" is my "beneath notice".

      Now, when are you going to admit you come over here to fight with me because the Eschatots are either so boringly predictable that they're boring or such mean girls that they scare you. You're addicted, Simps, admit it.

      Delete
  9. You don’t find ANYTHNG funny, Sparkles, because you’re the most literal-minded clod in Christendom. And I come over here because you invite abuse and it would be impolite of me not to oblige you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dopey, I'm the one who on Friday when you said," you can criticize me about this shit when you admit you know exactly dick about Jews," replied

      "I'll admit I know a Jew who's exactly a dick."

      Let's ask NTodd to judge if that wasn't funny. Or anyone else who read the exchange.

      I'm also the one who said, "I thought I'd slob a plutocrat" when one of the Eschatots asked why Chris Matthews was known as "Tweety". I wonder how many times you might have stolen that one.

      I wouldn't claim it's the most sophisticated of humor but it's clearly above your level of comprehension. To risk a tautology.

      You come here because the house consensus at Eschaton is so frickin' predictable and boring. A bunch of geezers going there to agree with each other. It's as dull a Power Pop.

      Delete