nancynall.com » OK, this is funny.

OK, this is funny.

When I first saw “Top Gun,” I came out — of the the­ater — and said, “Jeez, what an incred­i­bly gay movie.”

But when you say that to two friends out­side a movie the­ater in Fort Wayne, Indi­ana, no one lis­tens. You have to be Quentin Taran­tino, and then every­one hails your genius.

Still, it’s good to know I was right all along. The site seems to be get­ting slammed with band­width issues, so you may have to check back. (UPDATE: Peo­ple report they’re get­ting through fine. It may be a Mac-based Win­dows Media Player thing. I finally got to see the whole thing, but it took a cou­ple reloads.)

7 responses to
“OK, this is funny.”

  1. brian stouder said on January 25th, 2006 at 10:38 am

    When IFC ran Bend it Like Beck­ham (a great movie, by the way), the before-the-movie blurb indi­cated that the movie orig­i­nally did have a sec­ondary sto­ry­line about a les­bian affair, which was taken out in the inter­est of stream­lin­ing the pic….but a few ves­tiges remained, which were not overt – but which jump out if you are aware of the backstory.

    Look­ing at all the ‘ves­tiges’ in Top Gun, they would have had lots and lots of film on the floor! And, if you laugh at Nance’s video link, Tom Cruiser will sue your ass, dammit!!

    (and btw — the link worked fine, although I had to click the ‘play’ but­ton every so often)

  2. joodyb said on January 25th, 2006 at 12:40 pm

    thank you, nancy.
    hilar­i­ous. that totally makes my day.

    (the link was fine.)

  3. Ricardo said on January 25th, 2006 at 1:17 pm

    Tom seems to make all of his movies seem gay. http://​www​.tom​crui​seis​nuts​.com/

  4. mary said on January 25th, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    Shhh, Ricardo. The Sci­en­tol­ogy law team is just over the hill from me. No one is allowed to say that Tom is not a vir­ile, woman-loving, undrugged or psy­cho­an­a­lyzed, healthy man.

  5. alex said on January 25th, 2006 at 11:04 pm

    All movies are gay. At least that’s one school of thought that seems more preva­lent than one could pos­si­bly know. Just google “homo­erotic sub­text in pop­u­lar cul­ture” and you’ll find all kinds of schol­arly arti­cles about the true mean­ing of Bat­man and his Boy Won­der, the Skip­per and Gilli­gan, the Lone Ranger and Tonto, Cap­tain Kirk and Mr. Spock the unemo­tional one, just to name a few, not to men­tion all the butt-slappin’ con­tact sports “real” men groove on.

    The the­ory, in a nut­shell, is that men sub­li­mate their homo­sex­ual desires by look­ing at homo­sex­u­al­ity pack­aged as enter­tain­ment – so long as it’s not overtly homo­sex­ual, just tee­ter­ing on the line close enough to let them get their jol­lies with­out any­one accus­ing them of being fairies.

    Yes, it’s just the kind of social sci­ence that dri­ves right-wingers batty. It’s the same kind of Freudian catch-22 where if you deny it, well you’re just in denial. Can’t tell if any of it has any merit, but no won­der the kul­turkampfers are such unhappy kampfers when it comes to Hol­ly­wood. “Blow, Gabriel, blow.”

  6. vince said on January 25th, 2006 at 11:14 pm

    Don’t worry, TC’s lawyers head­ing for Nance’s web­site will prob­a­bly swing around and bee line for Ore­gon now…

    A local Port­land radio gal behind “Sassy’s World” com­mented this week on air and on her web site about the dele­tion of the sex scene from Katie Holme’s lat­est film show­ing now at Sundance.

    Said she,
    “Despite the direc­tors excuse that it was just a “tech­ni­cal glitch” this has prompted many to spec­u­late that Tom used his power in Hol­ly­wood to have the scene cut from the movie out of jeal­ousy. Which is just lud­cacris, when a gay man’s wife is hav­ing sex with another man relief is what he’s feel­ing not jealousy.”

  7. alex said on January 25th, 2006 at 11:16 pm

    Oh, and you can’t leave out such lit­er­ary efforts from such a dis­cus­sion as Moby Dick and all the sea­men and sper­ma­cetti and what­not. Butt pirates, if you’ve read any­thing about pirates, is a redun­dancy used only by the unlettered.