The M Word
In
reaction to Seth Michael Donsky’s story “What’s Love Got to Do With It”
(June 24-30), one reader commented: I commend Mr. Donsky for his take
on this issue. As a gay man in this city, it’s difficult to speak
contrarily about Marriage Equality. And like Mr. Donsky, I am not
against Marriage Equality (I too believe this is where our nation is
eventually headed), and I will do everything in my power to ensure
civil rights for all people, but they are separate issues and should be
addressed as such.” I personally believe marriage to be an antiquated
ritual and I’m not going to fight for it or think that it will
magically solve problems. Dispensing civil rights equally to all,
without this muddy, confusing, religiously co-opted ritual: that’s what
I will rally for, and march for. Luckily, I’ve always had the
confidence and self-possession to not really seek validation in
anything outside myself (thanks greatly to my parents who, by the way,
enjoyed a beautiful 51 year marriage), but thank you Mr. Donsky for
putting something out there that makes us look closer and question.”
Another
reader also added positive support to the piece, writing: “I believe
what this writer has astutely observed is that the issue of rights and
the issue of marriage have become intertwined and might be more
powerful if separated.To achieve rights, there is simply no need
whatever to work indirectly through the institution of marriage. Simply
go for them directly—and that’s where the push initially started until
the Republicans got everything conflated. Marriage is an
entirely different topic, one routed in love, symbolism, etc. Any LGBT
couple that wants the marriage path is seemingly going to be able to
one day, but that’s not a discussion about rights, and rights shouldn’t
depend on marriage. By confusing the two, all kinds of strident,
irrelevant (to the topic of rights) opinions come in to play—religious
views about what marriage means, etc.—and perhaps the benefits LGBT
people have developed by working out meaningful relationships outside
marriage would be lost. So let’s aim for a world where every couple has
the same rights and those that want to get married can.”
Bayformers
Armond White critique of Michael Bay’s Transformers sequel inspired thousands of words of response. A reader calling himself mrman wrote: Resplendent junk... or at least it would be, if Michael Bay could show some damned discipline. Armond, it’s time to stop patting Bay on the back for being a buffoon who can visualize bad scripts with nice camera angles… He can’t do anything that a Spielberg, De Palma or even a Kathryn Bigelow can do, except occasionally stumble on a well-lit shot from a well-chosen angle.Wow. Misguided Hollywood excess strikes again. For this you crushed Pixar?”
Another reader retorted: “Michael Bay? The love of seeing? The love of seeing what? Megan Fox and and stuff blowing up? I get it Armond, this is your shtick, praising garbage and trashing quality or what you think everyone else thinks is quality but in your mind isn’t. It’s already become your formula and is expected from you from review to review. I’m already anticipating the way you are going to trash Public Enemies next week for, one, shooting in High-Def and, for two and three, being directed by Michael Mann (even though Heat is one of the great crime epics ever made) and for having Christian Bale in the cast— both of whom are on your list of pop culture nihilists responsible for the deadening of contemporary film culture. You are beginning to sound more and more like Woody Allen’s loser character in Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The Fauxteurs
But one reader decided it was time to come to Bay (and Armond’s) defense with: “All of you who dislike Bay need to understand that there are no hidden agendas or artsy pretensions when it comes to his work. He is not like Park Chan-wook or Nimrod Antal (whose name is very fitting for his low intellect) because he doesn’t pretend to be an “artiste.”That’s what all these other fauxtueurs do with their action and violence; they try to tie it in with some deep meaning, when there is truly nothing there. If you are going to do action, just do it—just like Nike says. But do not pretend that you are going to create some deep revelation to it by being extra arty.
Sex It Up!
Last week’s Flavor of the Week column, “Making a Comeback,” by Kate Walter triggered a reader calling himself Mike Strodam to prod: “When I read an article on sex, thats what I’m anticipating. Instead I get a 1960s whining, doofus intellectual who wants to get her cunt licked.This babe is sad, and pathetic. My advice: Get some female Viagra, have a few drinks, put on some lipstick and go shopping. And quit writing. Please ,give us some sexual delights NYPress!!!!”
