Brokeback Mountain

[Wiffey]

OK, my husband, sister-in-law & I went to see "Brokeback Mountain" today. I know it may be controvesial, but what a good piece of acting and filmmaking that was...
It was interesting because it was such a character study. Most of the film focuses on the separate lives the two characters lead, and the emotional price paid for living a secret life. There is probably more heterosexual sex depicted than homosexual sex...as the characters struggle to overcome their impulses and make themselves fit in. Heath Ledger will probably be nominated for an Oscar...and will richly deserve to win, too. Michelle Williams' wife character just broke my heart as well. Solid performances all the way around. The cinematography was gorgeous...makes me want to go to Wyoming (or wherever they actually filmed).

We are big film buffs, so we go to a lot of movies, and this was one of the best of 2005.

[MrJim]

Don't know much about the movie-my thought was it is just another step in getting society to continue in more openly "accepting" homosexual behaviour.

Now Wyoming is another tale-lived there for a year-Casper. There was snow on the ground 9 of the 12 months I was there-the wind blew all the time-most people had electrical plugs sticking out of their car grills 'cause they had to plug in the block and oil pan heaters in the winter-summer it once got up to 84 degrees with no humidity. Rugged country for rugged folks--and if you wanted to do any sort of real shopping it was a 200 mile trip to either Denver or Billings.

[rusmeister]

Yeah, I'm with Menno.
The real purpose of all of this noise is to continue to draw attention to "gays" (a real perversion of a good old word) and to get us used to it. Familiarity breeds not contempt, but tolerance. And there are some things that should not be tolerated.
The best response is to smother all publicity; at the very least, so that your kids don't even hear the word "gay". If they are not exposed to the idea, they won't grow up thinking of it as normal.

[InnerPhyre]

I've heard it's a good movie. I just wouldn't see it cuz....to be blunt and to sound immature perhaps....2 guys kissing is....gross.

[MariaRegina]

I've heard it's a good movie. I just wouldn't see it cuz....to be blunt and to sound immature perhaps....2 guys kissing is....gross.

I don't think disgust at seeing two guys kissing (lip smackin) is immature.

Here in Los Angeles and San Francisco, they do it in public and it is gross.

It's even gross when a man and a woman engage in a French kiss in public, but it's often done, and it's wrong.

[Orthosdoxa]

Gross indeed. I can understand how a piece of film can be good cinematographically (is that a word?) yet not something I'd want to see. I'm just tired of things that are wrong being protrayed as right (and that goes for premarital sex among heteros, too).

The best film I've seen recently was "Walk the Line". Just can't get it out of my head.

[ufonium2]

I'm just tired of things that are wrong being protrayed as right (and that goes for premarital sex among heteros, too).


And extramarital sex among heteros, or anybody else. That's what disturbs me about this movie (along with about half of what hollywood churns out).

[HandmaidenOfGod]

I don't care if the cinematography and acting was superb.

The message is wrong.
The film is wrong.

I'll take my money elsewhere thank-you-very-much!

In other news...

Hey, did you hear, Disney's "Cinderella" is out on DVD! My mom got me the special collector's edition for Christmas and I am so psyched! :clap:

Disny's "Cinderella" is my absolute favorite film of ALL TIME!

Love it! Love it! Love it!

~M

[repentant]

I agree with handmaiden of God, everything except the Cinderella thing, lol.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Oh come on! You know you love it!

Who doesn't love Gus-gus?!

http://going24-7.com/pins/images_2a/cinderella_gus.jpg

[repentant]

Oh come on! You know you love it!

Who doesn't love Gus-gus?!

http://going24-7.com/pins/images_2a/cinderella_gus.jpg

I am more of a "Lion King" man myself. Hakuna matata, lol.

[InnerPhyre]

Oh come on! You know you love it!

Who doesn't love Gus-gus?!

http://going24-7.com/pins/images_2a/cinderella_gus.jpg


"Duh.....Happy Birthday!!!"

--Gus

[HandmaidenOfGod]

LOL Exactly!

[Oblio]

Now this is a hijack :D

[Monica, child of God]

The gross ad that I wish they would take off TV the most is for the Jennifer Aniston film that has something to do with her having intimate relations with a man who was also intimate with her mother and grandmother. ICK ICK ICK!!!

But WRT the OP, I haven't heard much about Brokeback Mountain.

M.

[Wiffey]

The story is this: two young men tending sheep one summer are freaked out to find themselves developing feelings for each other. Set in 1963, in the macho, rural west, these guys hate the idea of loving each other and hate themselves for not being who they want to be. They part ways and each marry, and a good deal of the film is about the emotional toll this takes on them and their wives (I must repeat that Michelle Williams pining for her husband while he pines for his friend is a bravura performance).

The two guys continue to try to lead their lives but get together for "fishing trips" as often as they can get away, both of them desperately wishing they had the strength to break it off. It turns out to be more about guilt and longing and the emotional devastation of living a lie when one is not faithful.

I recognize that many people will automatically not see the film due to the subject matter. That is fine. I'm just reporting that my husband and I (and my sister-in-law) saw it, and found it to be a powerful and superbly acted film.

This is just me: I'd rather see an extraordinary film with great acting (even if parts may take me out of my comfort zone), than see a film that doesn't challenge or offend my sensibilities, but is mediocre.

[Maximus]

That is why the devil makes such good use of Hollywood folks: they're really good at what they do, including marketing evil as good.

I have not seen Brokeback Mountain, and I never will.

Satan is behind the homosexual agenda, make no mistake.

[OnTheWay]

When we see movies like this we approve of the messages they send because we are adding to the coffers of the studios the produce them. When a movie like this is produced and meets with fisical success that is simply a stamp of approval. Whether the acting is good should be completely a non-issue. I'm certain when Satan wishes to appear as an angel of light he does his best to make it look very good. That doesn't make him any less evil. At the end of the day Christians should not be seeing movies like these.


Yes it is gross when homosexuals decide to kiss in public. I also don't want to see heterosexuals shoving their tongues into eachother's mouths in public. Society in general has lost all sense of what is and is not apporiate public behavior.

[OnTheWay]

This is just me: I'd rather see an extraordinary film with great acting (even if parts may take me out of my comfort zone), than see a film that doesn't challenge or offend my sensibilities, but is mediocre.

I'd rather see the worst high school play in the world with a positive Christian message than to sit back and invite Satan into my heart through the physical senses just because the cinematography was really well done.

"Sure these pictures are pornograhpic and the models are sex slaves, but the photographer has a great eye for lighting and his use of angles is amazing. I'd much rather look at pornography that is well done than see mediocre photo journalism." :doh:

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Yes, I've heard that the acting and cinematography in this movie are great, but would I see it?

Not a chance. You couldn't pay me to see it.

I often agree with you Wiffey, but I think promoting this movie is not a wise thing to do.

For a good review of the movie, check out this website. I think he hits the nail right on the head.

http://www.decentfilms.com/sections/reviews/2645

[rusmeister]

I'd rather see the worst high school play in the world with a positive Christian message than to sit back and invite Satan into my heart through the physical senses just because the cinematography was really well done.

"Sure these pictures are pornograhpic and the models are sex slaves, but the photographer has a great eye for lighting and his use of angles is amazing. I'd much rather look at pornography that is well done than see mediocre photo journalism." :doh:


I have to agree with OnTheWay. It doesn't matter how pretty it is. If it justifies (glorifies) sin, then it isn't right.
Like I said, it's best to stifle this stuff. Familiarity breeds tolerance.

[BabyLutheran]

My wife and I went to see the comedy The Family Stone. Little did we know, there was a gay couple who were adopting a baby in the movie. If this had been in the trailer or publicized in some sort of way in advance, we would not have gone to the movie. I kind of liked the movie even though it was a chick flick, but should have got up and left when I saw the gay couple Gay couples do not bother me too much,their sin is just more visible than mine, but adopting a baby is another story.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

I have to agree with OnTheWay. It doesn't matter how pretty it is. If it justifies (glorifies) sin, then it isn't right.
Like I said, it's best to stifle this stuff. Familiarity breeds tolerance.

Exactly! :thumbsup:

[HandmaidenOfGod]

My wife and I went to see the comedy The Family Stone. Little did we know, there was a gay couple who were adopting a baby in the movie. If this had been in the trailer or publicized in some sort of way in advance, we would not have gone to the movie. I kind of liked the movie even though it was a chick flick, but should have got up and left when I saw the gay couple Gay couples do not bother me too much,their sin is just more visible than mine, but adopting a baby is another story.

Thanks for the heads-up! :)

[MariaRegina]

I guess we need to have an Orthodox rating system since no church is doing this lately.

[OnTheWay]

I guess we need to have an Orthodox rating system since no church is doing this lately.

Keeping up with every movie that comes out could be a difficult task. I also tend to like the position that I've often heard from Orthodox priests which is that they teach their flocks the moral lessons so that members of their flock can apply them to their lives.
There are vaild reasons why someone might disagree over whether a movie is acceptable to see or circumstances in which it is or isn't apporiate. For example, I thought the Passion of the Christ was a wonderful film. I wouldn't recommend that young children see it due to the realistic nature of the film.

Then there are cases, such as Brokeback Mountain, in which a clearly anti-Christian and anti-moral message is the basis of the film and there is absolutely no justification under which anyone should view it.

[MariaRegina]

Keeping up with every movie that comes out could be a difficult task. I also tend to like the position that I've often heard from Orthodox priests which is that they teach their flocks the moral lessons so that members of their flock can apply them to their lives.
There are vaild reasons why someone might disagree over whether a movie is acceptable to see or circumstances in which it is or isn't apporiate. For example, I thought the Passion of the Christ was a wonderful film. I wouldn't recommend that young children see it due to the realistic nature of the film.

Then there are cases, such as Brokeback Mountain, in which a clearly anti-Christian and anti-moral message is the basis of the film and there is absolutely no justification under which anyone should view it.

It would be neat to have a rating system that lays things on the line so that we can make our own choice in certain cases, unless the movie is outright evil.

[Servus Iesu]

I guess we need to have an Orthodox rating system since no church is doing this lately.

If you did I might read it. The USCCB rating system is worthless.

I must second Innerphyre and Maximus on this one. Not only is it gross but it is an active propagation of homosexual mythology so that we will sympathize with this perversion.

Their partiality witnesses against them; they proclaim their sin like Sodom, they do not hide it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil upon themselves.

I like old movies now, especially Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Perhaps I've become an old codger before my time.

Mel Gibson is working on a new movie to be released in summer 2006: Apocalypto. I'll definitely go to see that.

[MariaRegina]

If you did I might read it. The USCCB rating system is worthless.

I must second Innerphyre and Maximus on this one. Not only is it gross but it is an active propagation of homosexual mythology so that we will sympathize with this perversion.



I like old movies now, especially Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Perhaps I've become an old codger before my time.

Mel Gibson is working on a new movie to be released in summer 2006: Apocalypto. I'll definitely go to see that.


Will Apocalypto be out on June 6, 2006 (6/6/6) like it's competitor?

[Servus Iesu]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/touchstone/apocalypto/

[Wiffey]

If they want to have a rating guide so people can make informed decisions, great. But some kind of draconian system where a priest tells grown adults what they are allowed to read or watch? No thanks...

[OnTheWay]

Yeah, because you know all the submitting to authority and not engaging in rebellion is just so out of date. We are adults and we have legal documents telling us if we want to watch homosexual porn 24 hours a day that's our right. God forbid a priest should ack like a pastor to his flock and tell them something is immoral, because that's just so oppressive.

[Rilian]

A priest is not there to micromanage our life, but if there are times when we have questions about whether something is appropriate or not we should seek his blessing before doing them. Most of us don't have access to monastic elders, so for the majority of normal parishioners our priest is our spiritual Father. He is not just somebody we see on Sunday and who baptizes our kids.

In most instances we really have to use our own judgment as to what is right and what isn't. In the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew it says that it is not what goes in our mouths that defiles us, but what comes out. In the same vein, when we give in to evil thoughts or accept the celebration of what is evil, we defile ourselves. Even if this evil appears quite ordinary, mundane and acceptable.

My priest says the adversary generally does not win us wholesale, but gets us in small chunks with all of the compromises we make.

This is not to place myself above others, as I acknowledge as I do during the communion prayers that I am chief among sinners.

[Wiffey]

Nobody is talking about porn. Obviously the purpose behind porn is exploitation and objectification...and I definitely do not view porn or defend it in any way. I'm talking about deciding to see a critically acclaimed film. I am an adult, and if I choose to see a film with my husband, it is my business because I live in a free country and not a theocracy, thank God. Because who will be making these dandy choices about what I can and cannot read or view? There are many pieces of great literature that would not exist if censorship had triumphed over artistic freedom. Censorship is a slippery slope that can be used to eliminate divergent viewpoints. There is a difference between saying "I choose not to see a film" and saying "Nobody else has a right to see a film".

I may be Greek Orthodox, but I am glad I don't live in a society where the Church has that level of control...I would leave such a country as fast as my little feet would carry me. Separation of church and state is not a terrible thing, IMO. It guarantees religious pluralism and ensures that no one church group gets to dictate their view to the whole society at large.

[Maximus]

I don't think censorship is what anyone here is discussing.

The best way to "censor" films like Brokeback Mountain is to refuse to go see them. Then those Hollywood types who want to make them will realize they do so at their own expense and at the risk of going broke.

Just refuse to subsidize evil.

That won't make it go away, but it will make it far less profitable.

[Wiffey]

Then there are cases, such as Brokeback Mountain, in which a clearly anti-Christian and anti-moral message is the basis of the film and there is absolutely no justification under which anyone should view it.


This was what I was speaking about WRT censorship. If an individual chooses not to view a film, fine and dandy. But to tell others (especially adults) that they have no right or business seeing a film= an attempt at censorship, at least in my view.

Like I said, I think a rating system that gives folks a heads up WRT content is wonderful. Fully informed choice is a good thing. I have in the past paid ggod money to see films that I have walked out of because of excessive violence and graphic, gratuitous sexual content (having no clue beforehand that those things would be included- foreign films w. no real ratings system). That is great.

The way our ratings system is in the US is weird. A movie can get an R rating for language or theme and have no nudity or very brief nudity. Or there can be a graphic rape scene and it will still be an R in some cases. That's the problem: it is hard to tell. And folks should know what they are getting into when they buy a ticket or rent a DVD.

BTW, I'm not advocating that anyone who is remotely uncomfortable with it see this movie. In my own way I was trying to convey exactly what the film contained and what it didn't. That way folks can know and decide for themselves. It isn't my place to tell anyone they should see a film, just like nobody has any business telling me I shouldn't.

[Servus Iesu]

I may be Greek Orthodox, but I am glad I don't live in a society where the Church has that level of control...I would leave such a country as fast as my little feet would carry me. Separation of church and state is not a terrible thing, IMO. It guarantees religious pluralism and ensures that no one church group gets to dictate their view to the whole society at large.

Not to completely derail this thread, but how do you good people view separation of Church and State? What is the EO teaching on the relationship between government and religion? This could be a good topic for the RC v. EO thread over in Christian Ethics, or perhaps another thread here.

God bless.

[Maximus]

Not to completely derail this thread, but how do you good people view separation of Church and State? What is the EO teaching on the relationship between government and religion? This could be a good topic for the RC v. EO thread over in Christian Ethics, or perhaps another thread here.

God bless.

I for one have not done a lot of deep thinking on that issue. Perhaps I should.

While I don't believe there is a definitive EO teaching on the subject of Church and State, it is pretty plain from history that the Orthodox Church has no Jeffersonian doctrine of "a wall of separation."

My own leanings are against Enlightenment pluralism and secularism. I think it is possible to declare that the religion of the State is Christianity while extending tolerance to other peaceful and tolerant religions.

The adjectives peaceful and tolerant make it likely, it seems to me, that Islam would be excluded from those religions to which tolerance would be extended.

[OnTheWay]

Because we all know that seeing a "critically acclaimed" flim could never ever be a bad thing. Hollywood is overwhelming pro-Christian and movie critics would never approve of a movie that is inapporiate. You are absolutely correct, if you want to finiance the devil's work that is your business and we live in a country that is morally bankrupt enough not to care.
For some however, paying studios to produce flith like Brokeback Mountain is an immoral act. Perhaps that's not very progressive, but then I'm not very progressive. In fact I'm so "un-progressive" I'm troubled by the fact the US is the world's number one producer and exporter of pornography. You've just got to love that first amendment. High school students can't pray at lunch but if I want to film some woman trying to set a record for sleeping with the most guys in 24 hours that's protected speech. :doh:
Working the homosexual pornography into a story is so much different than the overt pornography. :doh:

[Maximus]

Because we all know that seeing a "critically acclaimed" flim could never ever be a bad thing. Hollywood is overwhelming pro-Christian and movie critics would never approve of a movie that is inapporiate. You are absolutely correct, if you want to finiance the devil's work that is your business and we live in a country that is morally bankrupt enough not to care.
For some however, paying studios to produce flith like Brokeback Mountain is an immoral act. Perhaps that's not very progressive, but then I'm not very progressive. In fact I'm so "un-progressive" I'm troubled by the fact the US is the world's number one producer and exporter of pornography. You've just got to love that first amendment. High school students can't pray at lunch but if I want to film some woman trying to set a record for sleeping with the most guys in 24 hours that's protected speech. :doh:
Working the homosexual pornography into a story is so much different than the overt pornography. :doh:

True enough, but I was not allowed to give you rep points, although I tried.

There were several recent cases in which middle schoolers(!) who posted death threats and filthy insults regarding their teachers on internet web sites were suspended from school. In each case, the ACLU sued on behalf of the students and won!

The ACLU currently represents NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Lovers Association, which advocates sexual relations between grown men and underaged boys.

The ACLU also recently won a case in Oregon for the owners of striptease clubs. The case involved an Oregon law that regulated the placement of such clubs in or near residential areas and churches. As I understand it, if you live in Oregon, a striptease club could be built right in your neighborhood or even nextdoor to your church.

[OnTheWay]

Not to completely derail this thread, but how do you good people view separation of Church and State? What is the EO teaching on the relationship between government and religion? This could be a good topic for the RC v. EO thread over in Christian Ethics, or perhaps another thread here.

God bless.

On one hand the Church being too closely tied to the state prevents the Church from exercising it's full role and chains it to politics. For example a Bishop or clergy may have their hands tied in criticizing military actions as a ministry of the state.
On the other there is nothing in Scripture or Tradition that would imply anything close to creating the "separation" of Church and state. Whether it's gun rights or the right to produce and view filth there are no shortage of Americans that have worked the bill of rights into some sort of quasi-scripture. In doing so many have declared their "rights" place them above morality and the Truth of the Living God. Nothing wrong with the Church and state working together to ensure common decency and morality in soceity.

[OnTheWay]

True enough, but I was not allowed to give you rep points, although I tried.

There were several recent cases in which middle schoolers(!) who posted death threats and filthy insults regarding their teachers on internet web sites were suspended from school. In each case, the ACLU sued on behalf of the students and won!

The ACLU currently represents NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Lovers Association, which advocates sexual relations between grown men and underaged boys.

The ACLU also recently won a case in Oregon for the owners of striptease clubs. The case involved an Oregon law that regulated the placement of such clubs in or near residential areas and churches. As I understand it, if you live in Oregon, a striptease club could be built right in your neighborhood or even nextdoor to your church.

The situation in Oregon goes much further than that in reality. The court's ruling was to the effect that live public sex shows are protected speech. Taken to its fullest possible reading it would mean that the government cannot ban public sex acts anywhere for any reason.

As far as NAMBLA goes I see it as a criminal organzition, and I'm not even going to go into the ACLU. We'd have a fifty page rant on our hands. The founding fathers could not possibly have envisioned modern society and these issues. If they could the first amendment would have been writen much differently. I do find it endlessly interesting that the same people that argue to endlessly balloon the first amendment use the same "the founders couldn't have envisioned AK-47's" argument in order to limit the second. If the founders couldn't envision AK-47's then they couldn't have seen the billion dollar porn video business. As such we should be free to regulate both as needed.

[xenia]

I will not be going to see this movie.

[Servus Iesu]

I for one have not done a lot of deep thinking on that issue. Perhaps I should.

While I don't believe there is a definitive EO teaching on the subject of Church and State, it is pretty plain from history that the Orthodox Church has no Jeffersonian doctrine of "a wall of separation."

My own leanings are against Enlightenment pluralism and secularism. I think it is possible to declare that the religion of the State is Christianity while extending tolerance to other peaceful and tolerant religions.

The adjectives peaceful and tolerant make it likely, it seems to me, that Islam would be excluded from those religions to which tolerance would be extended.

So far as I have learned, the best exposition of the Catholic Church on the role of Christ in the State is the letter of Pius XI Quas Primas. Therein he discusses the nature of Our Lord's Kingship. You can read it here http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11PRIMA.HTM

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the subject. You can PM me if you would like. I think that it is a marvelous teaching, but one which has been almost entirely discarded today.

[rusmeister]

Then there are cases, such as Brokeback Mountain, in which a clearly anti-Christian and anti-moral message is the basis of the film and there is absolutely no justification under which anyone should view it.


This was what I was speaking about WRT censorship. If an individual chooses not to view a film, fine and dandy. But to tell others (especially adults) that they have no right or business seeing a film= an attempt at censorship, at least in my view.

Like I said, I think a rating system that gives folks a heads up WRT content is wonderful. Fully informed choice is a good thing. I have in the past paid ggod money to see films that I have walked out of because of excessive violence and graphic, gratuitous sexual content (having no clue beforehand that those things would be included- foreign films w. no real ratings system). That is great.

The way our ratings system is in the US is weird. A movie can get an R rating for language or theme and have no nudity or very brief nudity. Or there can be a graphic rape scene and it will still be an R in some cases. That's the problem: it is hard to tell. And folks should know what they are getting into when they buy a ticket or rent a DVD.

BTW, I'm not advocating that anyone who is remotely uncomfortable with it see this movie. In my own way I was trying to convey exactly what the film contained and what it didn't. That way folks can know and decide for themselves. It isn't my place to tell anyone they should see a film, just like nobody has any business telling me I shouldn't.

There are 2 separate issues here: One is official secular control, what you refer to as censorship. Being told by someone that you can't, because it's illegal or you'll be punished...

The other is whether Christians can tell other Christians that something is a sin and that the Christian (who is ostensibly striving to be like Christ) shouldn't do it. This can include deliberately exposing oneself to that which glorifies sin. (For what purpose? Is it something that you could comfortably seek the blessing of your priest?)

I think Wiffey (rightly) fears the former.

But everyone else is talking about the latter.

Yes, it can be a slippery slope, if people move away from clear teachings of the Church to what "seems right" to them. But the apostle Paul made it pretty clear that if we see a brother in sin, we should pull him aside and say so. (Note this includes only Christians, personally I think Christians that are serious about being so, and not unbelievers.) A person who is not ready to try to "kill the old man and put on the new man" can not be expected to be Christlike.

So, yes, you have a "right" to see this film and no one should try to legally or forcefully stop you.

But no, you shouldn't be quiet if you see a brother or sister in Christ putting themselves in harm's way.

Morality can't come from without (by force). It has to come from within.

[OnTheWay]

The danger here isn't government regulating media, that's a social issue. What is being dealt with is the life of the Church in the world. To express the idea that a priest has "no business" telling adults what they should and shouldn't watch is to competely undermine the roll of the priest as pastor and shepard of his flock.

The second danger that wiffey continues to engage in is the idea that a movie which is well done in terms of artisitic values can and should be divorced from content. In other words it's okay to see an immoral movie if the critics like it and the production values are good.
If we apply this standard across the board we could easy find ourselves on a very dark path. One of the greatest films of all time, easily the greatest documentry (if we use our standard of art divorced from content) of all time is Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will). Leni Riefenstahl's masterpiece documents the 1934 NSDAP congress in such a compelling manner that Michael Medved (a Jewish talk radio host and movie critic) remarked that while watching it he wanted to be a NAZI. However highly it is regarded for its art the film is infamous and rightly so, the content is evil. When content is divorced from art instead of a documentry of one of the most evil governments in history all we have is a beautifully crafted documentry that has the power to capture the mind and move the heart.
Just as no matter how well the artistic aspect of "Brokeback Mountain" may be the content is evil and is unacceptable for viewing. If you took a bowl full of Strychnine and put it in a room full of children they'd be perfectly safe. Strychnine, like the evil of the dark one, in it's natural state is so bitter, ugly, and foul smelling virutally no one would ever go near it. To get someone to eat it you'd have to hide just enough of a dose to be lethel in something that was good and pleasent to the senses. Just as Satan must wrap his evil in what is pleasing to the senses or he'd have little if any success in leading men astary. The false teachers and workers of Satan are not going to proclaim that man become evil, quite the opposite. They offer what on the outside seems good but on the inside is poison.
This is why movies like "Brokeback Mountain" are so destructive. It is an immoral message wrapped in pretty cinematography to ease down the guard and open the heart of the viewer to the poison.

Wiffey is absolutely right, she is an adult and she can watch as much of this poison as she deems fit. However, I don't think it is too much to ask that one not write positive reviews of a film that is clearly immoral in an Orthodox Christian community.