Can somebody tell me what year we are in? None of this should come to a surprise to anybody but there are still people out there who just don’t get it. They take simple kids properties and turn them into something they aren’t. Remember a couple years ago when some crazy conservatives labeled SpongeBob a homosexual and warned parents to stay away? Firstly, I’ve seen many a SpongeBob tale and I never got that message. Secondly, who really cares what his sexual orientation is? If he is indeed gay, why should we care? Kudos for him! He’s soft and gentle to the touch. Why can’t both worlds get a piece of that?
Thirdly, and I know I don’t have to get into this, but why are people so obsessed with what cock is going where? Or which vagina is rubbing against another? Why is it your business, and better yet, why is it troubling you so?
Fran Eaton, who writes for the Illinois Review (labeled “The Crossroads of the Conservative Community”), wrote an odd blog about the new Shrek film and its apparent tolerance towards transgenderism. When did “tolerance” become such a naughty word? I can understand not tolerating Nazis and what not, but transgender folks? It’s not like they are eliminating a whole race of men or anything.
Eaton begins his piece by praising the film, stating, ” Shrek and his sweet wife Fiona are what’s right with the story. They are large positive role models of common sense, compassion and honesty in a bizarre world of revengeful, evil fairy tale characters.” Okay, that sounds good for children. She (or is Fran a he?) continues, “Shrek’s personal dilemma of overcoming the fears of becoming a father for the first time endears us all the more to the big guy.”
The next part completely baffles my mind. “The ending is happy and prolife, which is great for kids and their fathers to see.” So, if a film has characters getting pregnant and having children, it’s automatically pro-life? Okay…
Eaton then states that Shrek has nothing to do with the film’s inherent problems. Instead, it’s the transgendered character who hangs out with Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella. Let’s pretend the filmmakers behind this Shrek film actually wanted to tackle transgenderism and the tolerance for it. Don’t you think they would have done a better job?
The character in question is a simple background character meant to cause laughter. That’s all. If they were trying for something more, they failed miserably. Fran Eaton shouldn’t be complaining that they are tolerating it, she (or he) should instead be complaining that they simply glossed over such an important detail.
Fran finds the lack of fuss over this issue “disturbing” and feels it needs more light. I now end my blog with the best quote in Fran’s entire article; a punch in the face to everyone who loves tolerance and couldn’t care less who is fucking who. The quote reads:
But I suppose after being reminded this week of Jerry Falwell’s concern about the Teletubbies characters’ sexual orientations and the post-heaven going ridicule and hatred those who dare to question LGBTs tactics are likely to endure in the mainstream media after their passing, some have shyed away from publicly tackling the topic. — Fran Eaton
Make of that what you will…
Posted on June 1, 2007 in Blogs by Michael Ferraro
If you liked this article then you may also like the following Film Threat articles:
- 2010 TRIBECA FILM FESTIVAL TO OPEN WITH “SHREK FOREVER AFTER”
- SHREK THE THIRD
- PREPARE FOR “SHREK!”
- MOVIE MARKETING MADNESS: “SHREK 2″
Popular Stories from Around the Web