February 22nd, 2005

Filed under:
Television
9 Comments »

Everyone is Gay

Is the American Christian right getting desperate? Their latest target for anti-gay shaming is none other than Shrek 2.

The hit feature Shrek 2 joins the ranks of animated films to be “outed” by some Christian fundamentalists in the U.S., who charge that cross-dressing and transgender themes have made their way into the beloved kids’ movie and warn parents to beware.

Although many people see the Oscar-nominated film as a humorous story about a green ogre and his true love, the Traditional Values Coalition has a different take on the animated feature.

Practically speaking, I really don’t see the value in their approach. What’s the upside in coming out against innocuous mainstream entertainment like this? Their fellow Christian conservatives may take them at face value, but that’s preaching to the choir. Their real target market–the average American–is going to shrug his shoulders and head down to Best Buy to pick up the DVD. In fact, the Traditional Values Coaltion may have inadvertantly improved sales of Shrek 2–any press is good press, after all.

John Dvorak points to this story, saying “this story is getting play in Canada as the skittish US media avoids anything that may be confrontational.” He appears to be right–all the Google News hits are Canadian.

On a related note, how funny was the gay marriage episode of The Simpsons this weekend? Springfield, after all, is for gay lovers of marriage.

Comments: 9 Responses so far

'nee
February 22nd, 2005
7:22 pm

What I can’t fathom is how they even get press. These people are, like, a miniscule percentage of even the ravening right-wing. How is this news? “Stupid People Still Stupid.” Wow, that’ll sell papers. Don’t they have a car crash to go and photograph or something?

[Reply]

Richard
February 22nd, 2005
9:06 pm

Finally FOX registered a domain that they cited in a show, well before they aired the show no less. (January 13th evidently. Yes, I looked it up.) Usually shows just say a funny domain but somebody registers it quickly and it becomes an unofficial site of some sort.

[Reply]

Marc Vandersluys
February 22nd, 2005
9:38 pm

They are preaching to the choir, but the choir isn’t conservative Christians in general. Rather, it’s their particular brand of conservative Christianity. And as ‘nee says above, they form a tiny percentage of total conservative Christians. I’d be considered a conservative Christian and I think it’s an embarassing venture.

[Reply]

Arwen
February 23rd, 2005
12:30 am

I went and read their complaint, and they’re not wrong about the content of Shrek 2. Shrek 2 is innocuous based on my own values, but I will say this for their protest: I doubt that a man dressed as a woman and hitting on another man would have passed the censors of the 40s.

Will it work? Change anything? Nope. But they’re reacting to a shift in programming that’s certainly happened over my parent’s lifetime. I’d be surprised if there were NO ONE noticing and reacting to such a big cultural swing. Remember when all kisses were closed mouthed and all beds were single bed sets?

Any major cultural swing is a big event, and in that is not entirely “innocuous” to people invested in the previous cultural norm. If our culture was going the other direction, I’d be protesting the demonizaton of gay folks if there was a perspective shift in innocuous children’s movies. Relatively silly cultural icons (ie: Amos n’ Andy) do have larger contextual power.

I hope and believe that they’re losing this particular culture war - but although I disagree with their particular philosophy, it’s not entirely ridiculous that Shrek 2 is ‘dangerous’ to that philosophy.

[Reply]

donna
February 23rd, 2005
10:59 am

Can we say “Bugs Bunny”? How often did he put on a skirt and hit on Elmer Fudd?

Cross dressing animated characters is hardly new. Only the uproar is.

[Reply]

'nee
February 23rd, 2005
11:44 am

Bugs looks hot in a skirt. Woo, mama.

[Reply]

-j.
February 23rd, 2005
12:17 pm

I actually liked one of Keil’s comments, which seems to be an important point glossed over by the article: that the transgendered groups may have the occasion to feel offended by the parody. “Hey, see the man who looks vaguely like a woman? Men who look like women are funny!! Men hitting on men - how absurd!”

Heaven forbid traditional family values be challenged by untraditional abstracts…like oh, say, acceptance. Don’t even get me started on the “Buster the Bunny” furore.

And pre-code Hollywood films often made reference to homosexuality and other topics that weren’t all that taboo until decades later. The first “gay bar scene” (in Hollywood, at least), for instance, is widely accepted to be in “Call Her Savage”. In *1932*. It even features a drag show.

[Reply]

Ross
February 25th, 2005
11:50 pm

I would definitely describe myself at a Conservative Christian. And the Simpsons is my favorite show on TV - the only show that comes close is Seinfeld. My kids, who are quite young, LOVE watching Shrek 2, and it never even occurred to me that the scene in which we see the men dressed efeminitely (sp?) was “gay” in anyway. As “donna” mentioned, its just like Bugs Bunny dressing up. No big deal. It’s funny.

To counter this, we’ve got the “Christian right,” which apparently I am a member of, which I feel completely over reacts to somewhat comical or amusing situations: Shrek 2, Bert and Ernie on Sesame Street sharing a room, Tinky-Winky with the purse, and other I’m sure.

The problem I have is the US media and their insistence that everyone accept homosexuality NOW. There is a homosexual character on almost every sitcom these days. Seems far more frequent than any black or asian or hispanic character.

There’s a Borders bookstore in my town. And they’ve got a rainbow flag hanging from the ceiling in the store. I guess it just bothers me that I can’t just go shopping without being exposed to this “advertisement” for the gay lifestyle.

I don’t have a problem with someone who has a gay lifestyle, but I don’t necessarily need the media reminding me of the gay community all the time. I particularily don’t need homosexuality activities (men kissin men etc) shown on tv, exposing it to my kids. I will teach my children acceptance of all people, regardless of race, religion or sexual preference. I oppose the the pressure of the media, acting in the name of “political correctness” that I teach them in accordance with their thoughts and views, and on their timeline.

Finally - how come the Gay community gets the rainbow!? No fair. Rainbows are pretty, and now they’re just gay. I need to design a Hetero flag maybe. Hmm… maybe just boring black and white stripes. Hahaha

[Reply]

Darren
February 26th, 2005
12:42 am

Ross: Thanks for your comments, but I’m afraid I disagree with you. I suspect yours is a complaint as old as tolerance. I wasn’t alive in the sixties, but I’m pretty sure that people were saying:

“I don’t have a problem with someone who has a black lifestyle, but I don’t necessarily need the media reminding me of the black community all the time. I particularily don’t need black activities (singing, dancing, so on) shown on tv, exposing it to my kids.”

For example, the first interracial kiss (on Star Trek, of all places) caused quite a stir in the sixties. The same complaints were levelled at women, decades earlier, as they took the first steps towards equality.

If the last 200 years have taught us anything, it’s that PR (whether in the news or entertainment media) is crucial tool in the fight for equality.

[Reply]

Add a comment