White Man's Burden butts up against Gay Activism

Lately, the entertainment world has been abuzz with gay folks. The "gay cowboy" movie Brokeback Mountain is racking up the awards and somewhere I read a listing of the gay, gay issue, or gay friendly roles that have been nominated for an oscar this year. Anyone who knows anything knows that Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general has been tolerant and accepting of the existence of homosexuality and homosexuals for several generations -- certainly long before Will and Grace became generally acceptable family entertainment.

Additionally, anyone who knows anything knows that hollywood has traditionally been a vehicle for propaganda. During World War Two, news reels shown with movies depicted the heroics of the fighting men and women and then moved on to movies that were more or less recruiting tools. Happy, tap-dancing and singing men and women fell in love during basic training, week-end leaves, or USO programming. Hollywood has used entertainment to protest wars, reinforce women being professionals while falling in love, women leaving the rat race to raise children they didn't give birth to, men being good fathers, etc.

Well, now the two worlds have come butting up against each other and the result is a bit confusing.

There is a movie that I've seen advertised called "End of the Spear" -- of course from advertisements, it's difficult to tell the true story line but I got the impression it was an issue of the "white man's burden" - namely, bringing Christianity and thus "civilization" to people who were living quite nicely on their own. In this era of the government promoting the "Christian" values as the rule of law (see gay marriage, abortion, "Christian" organizations getting high levels of government money to provide "social services" within smaller communities, etc) it's not hard to see this movie as propaganda. And, the movie, according to a NY Times article, was made by a "Christian" group.

Here's the rub. One of the primary actors (plays the role of a Christian missionary who is killed by the tribe he's trying to convert, and then later plays the missionary's grown son) is openly gay and an activist for gay issues(works with troubled gay youth and advocates for the legalization of gay marriage). This has caused all sorts of mumblings and shock and horror with a select few ministers and their flocks.

The actor was, by his own report, surprised that a conservative Christian group would be offering him a job and expressed his concerns to the director. The director, in an interesting Christian irony, felt that the actor was the best person for the job and felt that this was an opportunity to demonstrate the biblical value of loving the sinner but not the sin.

In a personal blog (which of course means it's totally public), a minister wrote that "it probably would be an overreaction to firebomb these people's houses." Notice the use of the word "probably" -- very clever, very scary -- and of course totally in line with christian values, no?

I am cynical enough to wonder if the director was thinking in the back of his mind that someone in christian right land would throw a hissy fit, and thus create buzz that might mean more tickets sold and more money made.