I can see exactly what your saying on this, as it's no secret that if you look back at the history of films there's a lot of movies that have racial, sexist, and sexual orientation stereotypes. Heck, if you read my review of "Birth of a Nation", then you should know that film portrayed African Americans in a bad light making them out to look like nothing more than horny wild savages with no morals. While making the ones that sided with the Klu Klux Klan being aptly dubbed, "The faithful ones." Yes, it's racist and offensive, but it's part of cinematic history. If that film didn't become a hit, then there would be no movies at all today, as that was deemed one of Hollywood's first epic films. Therefore, love it or hate it, there's nothing you can do about it.
To say how this film relates to you and your question, I'll get to that. Granted, "Birth of a Nation" is an extreme example, but it does prove a point. Over the years, it's no secret films have endorsed various stereotypes about various ethnic and social groups, like yours, that are sometimes represented in an unfair light. Is it right? No, but the reality is...somebody is watching it if they're making money. The best thing I can tell you if you want to see movies that don't endorse that stereotype outside of what mega1 suggested, then you can boycott them. Hitting them were it hurts...in their pocketbooks. Just go up to everyone you know, and start a protest over it. Mail letters and call your buddies whether straight, gay or whatever, and boycott the films that promote the stereotypes completely. this will send a loud and clear message to hollywood to reevaluate how they portray homosexuals in films, as its always about making money when it comes to big budget movies.
of course if you want, I don't know if it's any consolation...i do agree with you about "Brokeback Mountain." Great movie. In fact, i had that in my top ten love stories of all time on my myspace page before I deleted my account.
As far as the rest of your query about me being offended by stereotypes and whatnot, I'm going to have to say no with you. You see. Unlike you and everyone else here, I don't associate reality with movies at all. No, when I look at a character in a movie, I don't see a black guy or a white guy. Hell, I don't even assume characters are gay in films unless they flat out say they're gay in the movie. Like "As Good As It Gets", I didn't even know Greg Kinnear's character was gay until Jack Nicholson kept calling him one obsessively. No, when I look at a movie, I usually look at lot of things. One, what's the director and writer's intent?
What most average viewers don't know about movies is that no matter how crappy a film is, there's always two different meanings behind it. One being the surface meaning. Take a film like "X-Men" for instance. What's the surface meaning? the surface meaning is it's based off a marvel comic book, about a rag team of mutants that are banded together to protect the world that hates and fears them from other mutants. These mutants are born that way, and they're shunned by the public eye as freaks.
Whats the underling meaning? Well it's simple, anyone that knows a lot about comic books will tell you that the "X-Men" are basically a symbolic comic book regarding racism. Where you have charles xavier representing symbolically the Martin Luther King jr. perspective of preaching love and togetherness. Thinking that his kind can someday live as equals among the majority. Magneto represents Malcolm X, a man that believes that the only way to achieve equality is through force. That's the underlining theme for "X-Men." Once, I deduce what the surface AND underlining meaning of a film is, then I analyze if that said film accomplished what it was trying to do. To analyze that query, I look at numerous factors.
One being obviously the script. Let's face it, you can have the most intriguing premise in the world but if your story sucks, then the movie will too most likely. To analyze the script, I listen to dialogue, as in how believable does it actually sound. Then the overall story itself like does it make sense? Did the film provide enough information to pull off what the director and writers wanted? Or did it try to do too much? How much was necessary? Did it execute it's point clearly? Or was it a piece of s*** commercialized garbage to make money like "The Matrix trilogy?" Stuff like that.
Of course, this also leads to how the film is edited too, as to whether or not certain scenes were necessary to prove a point, and what should have been there to make the film better.
Secondly, I look at the tone of the film. Does the tone and feel of the movie capture the story that the writer and directors are trying to convey and does it fit with who the character is supposed to be. If it does, then I'll probably like it. If it doesn't, then i'll probably hate it. Take a film like say..."Spawn" for instance. He's a dark superhero based on a guy that dies and gets resurrected to lead hell's army. here's the kicker to that here folks, in the comic book, the lines between good and evil aren't that clear. As heaven and god can be just as evil and corrupt as satan and hell. Or at least that's how Todd McFarlane described it. Watching the live action film, the movie was obviously too light in it's tone. Don't get me wrong, I understand why they made it the way they did. As a true adaptation would've gotten banned from theaters by efforts of the Catholic Church, AND Todd seemed to have wanted the movie to be as commercially acceptable as other comic book films like "Spider-Man" and "Superman." The problem with that here is this...that's not who Spawn is.
Spawn is a controversial and dark character, and to portray him in a lighter tone in liking to Superman is an insult to the established fan base. Then you look at a film like say "inception." that film was a dark film noir sci-fi story that not only talked about the possibility of invading people's minds to steal information. It also went over other concepts like the dream within a dream scenario on how time travels faster in a dream. The warped perception of reality, and the consequences of implanting an idea into someones subconcious. As leonardo dicaprio says in the film, "an idea will either grow to define him, or destroy him." as some of you can tell, it's a dark story, and nolan and his writers played on that beautifully. hence, i give it a full four stars out of four. anyone that says different, obviously didn't understand it.
thirdly, i look at the actors. What's their character's motive? how does the the actor/actress portray said character? is he/she believable in that role? do they add something to the film or do they detract from it? How well is the chemistry with the actors?
Then i look at costumes and set designs. Do they look fake or realistic? What time period was the film made? (yes, i do cut older films slack due to the fact of limited technology). Whereas modern films, I expect perfection.
There's a lot of other stuff I look at, but i don't want to bore anyone heads off. lol. however, im sure you get the gist of it. the point is, i don't look at the stereotypes too much, as i just look at how well the story is told. if it's told right, then i can look past a lot of stereotypes. just look at "machete." that had a lot of racial stereotypes, but i still loved it. Why? because it was a well told story that fulfilled the intent of what the director and writers wanted, and it was executed perfectly. anyways, i hope that answer your question. im sorry for the long winded answer though. lol.
