Netflix twists ‘Anne of Green Gables’ into a queer soirée with 5 LGBT characters

Rate this post

If anyone still needs a reason to dump Netflix, here it is.

Moira Walley-Beckett, a screen writer whose loafers obviously don’t touch the ground, has created a new Netflix series titled “Anne With an E,” based upon Lucy Maud Montgomery’s immensely popular 1908 novel Anne of Green Gables. But the new Netflix series takes a bizarre and twisted turn.

The new series is produced by Northwood Entertainment.

Critic Mark Martin, writing for the entertainment section of the Christian Broadcasting Network July 21, said the Netflix adaptation of Montgomery’s novel has been revised to include multiple homosexual characters. As an example, the beloved character Great Aunt Josephine Barry is now a grouchy lesbian.

“Upon reading (the novel) again as an adult, I was wondering about Aunt Jo,” Walley-Beckett told IndieWire. “In the book, she’s a spinster, and she’s just a bit of a curmudgeon, and that’s kind of it. So I’m like, ‘Well, she’s coming to the Barrys for a month and she’s grieving;’ that’s why I decided to justify why she’s there: Who is she grieving?”

Aunt Jo revealed in Season 1 that she was grieving over the loss of a character known as Aunt Gertrude, Aunt Jo’s partner.

IndieWire reports their relationship is what’s called a “Boston marriage,” when two women live together without being supported financially by a man. But the term didn’t exist during the time period of the novel.

Walley-Beckett said, “And so we touch on that in Season 1, and in Season 2 we get to expand upon it in a way that allows her to provide a forum of acceptance.”

That “forum of acceptance” is known as a “queer soirée.” In Season 2, Aunt Jo holds her first queer soirée since the passing of her partner.

“It was very exciting for me and the writers to create that,” Walley-Beckett continued. “We’ve been talking about the queer soirée, which is how we refer to it, since we all first sat down together.”

IndieWire goes on to say that one of the artists attending the soirée is the show’s creation of the real-life pianist and composer, Cécile Chaminade.

“Cécile Chaminade is really torn from the pages of history. We didn’t invent anything about her really,” said Walley-Beckett. “She was a feminist and a gay icon and a composer, and she travels the world playing piano. So that’s how Jo would know her.”

The new Netflix series also features two homosexual male characters. One is Anne’s good friend, “Cole.”

“It would only make sense that there would be somebody in the class who was struggling with identity,” Walley-Beckett claims. “I was very keen to include a storyline like that.”

And it doesn’t end there. The children’s teacher, Mr. Phillips, is also gay.

“Also, in my mind, their teacher Mr. Phillips has always been an unidentified closeted homosexual,” Walley-Beckett said. “He just has no idea that he was.”

Walley-Beckett said there is an opposing view in the series through the character of “Diana.”

“It is very difficult for Diana confronted with this sudden circumstance about her two aunts, basically,” she said. “I felt like to balance things, it was great to have the kids have a conversation about it, and have conflicting points of view because those are the points of views that are within the families who are watching the show.”

“I am just so proud to be a part of something that can offer this to people, and I hope to all the kids, too, who are struggling with their gender (and sexual) identity, who may not have the empathy or understanding around them that they need,” she said.

Tess Farrand, a contributing writer for Movieguide: The Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment, spoke out against all the prominent homosexual story lines depicted in “Anne With an E”:

“The creators of the series have carefully manipulated the classic story with an agenda that fits their worldview. ANNE WITH AN E’s attempt to also push LGBT in programming that would normally attract more faith-based audiences is utterly unnecessary.

“Moreover, focusing attention on the sexuality subplot of the series detracts from the moral redemptive nature of the story. Obviously, the minds behind the series are jumping onto the ideological bandwagon that already has concerned parents even more worried.

“The discussion of gender and sexuality are in fact discussed ad nauseam. People in 2018 don’t need or want to see political/social debates take place on ‘family’ TV shows; they see enough of it on social media or see it on the 5 ‘o clock news.

“Rather, we should be turning to the ultimate resource for clarification on these pressing topics: the Bible.”

Farrand encourages audiences to know the “power” they have to make changes in the entertainment industry.

“Audiences need to recognize the power of their part in the industry,” she wrote. “We can say no to entertainment choices, and we can pray that the individuals that make up the industry would be shaped by God’s Word, which has the power to transform and renew everyone.”

See also:

Grif

Please follow and like us:
0
 

6 responses to “Netflix twists ‘Anne of Green Gables’ into a queer soirée with 5 LGBT characters

  1. (I tried to give this an ‘excellent ‘ vote, but doesn’t look like it counted…)
    That said- about a year ago (I think) I watched the first installment of ‘Anne with an E’ and found it disturbing- can’t really explain why- but never watched any further episodes. How dare people take a story and ‘expound ‘ on it! Write your own darn story!

     
  2. I first watched “Anne of Green Gables” with Megan Follows, on a Sunday which turned into an unplanned family day, as I watched it with my parents & sister. It was one of those great memories you have from childhood. After watching the long, but wonderful movie, we stayed put for the sequel. I hadn’t yet read the books, rather, i just found it by accident & it just sort of appealed to all of us. It was a very innocent story. When I saw they had a new version called “Anne with an E,” I was thrilled, hoping a new generation would experience the story that I enjoyed so much. . .that was, until I noticed the extremely obvious anti-racism/pro-homosexual/anti-bullying agenda. It was bad enough, the flashbacks of Anne at the orphanage being straight-up tortured by the other girls, even kissed in a very sadistic way by one, in a way that pretty much shouts out the “fact” that the kiss is not the end of what that that older girl wants from Anne. I get it, I read the books- she was not popular, but why would they want to introduce what amounts to rape in a children’s story? While I did not live in 1908, I am QUITE POSITIVE that these kids would not have known about REGULAR sex, let alone gay sex. The books depicted a rural, morally upright,!financially well-off, beautiful town on Prince Edward Island in Canada. This wasn’t Berlin or Paris! When I watched Anne basically tell all the other girls about sex on her first day of school, I cringed. If that wasn’t bad enough, she went on to claim that Prissy Andrews & the 🙄closeted teacher, Mr. Phillips, (who, in the book, were clearly in love. When I read it, I remember thinking that Prissy was the ONLY student he liked.) I should’ve known then & there that it would only get worse. Surely, living in an orphanage, Anne would’ve understood the penalties in those days
    for unmarried mothers, or just what the whiff of scandal regarding a girl’s reputation in the Victorian Age would result in. The fact that, not only did she (by the standards of THAT day) disgrace her adoptive family by speaking like a tramp & going even further by completely callously “ruining” Prissy Andrews by spreading vicious gossip about her in the attempt to gain favor with the others. In the books, Anne was flighty, but bright & empathetic as well. Knowing what it was like to be looked on with scorn, she wouldn’t have knowingly caused someone undue harm like that. I was stunned to see that ridiculous scene, even more shocked that she wasn’t told what the consequences of her actions would’ve been & completely STUNNED by the way they portrayed the quiet but loving Matthew. I can’t believe they changed such a beloved character into a scarily creepy old man who (they invented SO many characters- including a former gf of his) when apologizing for Anne’s lofty ideas of getting them back together, he turns her down again because “Anne just came into my life. . .” In the morality of the day, Matthew marrying his old love & adopting Anne as a married couple, would’ve been preferable to raising a child with his spinster sister. Anne greets him testily & explains that she wanted him to have “true love” in his life. When he looked at her & told her that she was his love or something like that, I’m not exactly sure how the creators meant that to come across. Then again, with all the mention of pedophilia these days- whether in Hollywood, politics, or some lawmakers arguing to make it legal in addition to the liberal man-hating agenda, made even worse by the lying #MeToo Movement, I believe they got him to appear just as they wished him to. After he freaks out & basically says, “you don’t know what she has been through,” ignoring completely, what she put the other girl through, I would’ve thought staunchly-Christian Marilla would’ve explained why she needed to apologize to Prissy or at least the consequences of playing fast & loose with the reputations of others. Then they introduce Aunt Jo, who would’ve been a traditional spinster, & NOT someone who threw parties that were far too mature for children like Anne, Diana, (& another “invented” character) & the “1908 OBVIOUSLY gay best friend, Cole that would probably be pushing the limits in Paris, even considering it looked like a modern LGBT pride parade mixed with Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” type paganism. Even though she lived in the city, it’s not that big. Her locals would’ve tarred & feathered her, but the Barry’s wouldn’t have let it go that far. If they had the slightest inkling that her & her “companion,” (in those days as today, it was a paid position. In that time, a companion would’ve been a little higher status than a servant, like a governess, many times, a poor family member, most times a young
    girl. She would’ve been educated somewhat & had some type of etiquette training so she could bring her around one’s important friends.
    While it would’ve been likely a woman
    of status wouldve been dressed & her hair styled by a lady’s maid, she
    might’ve been responsible for
    preparing tea, keeping her schedule. I
    would think she’d be like a servant/Secretary/ paid friend. Today’s position would be like a home health aide or a live in aid) were sleeping in the same bed, they would’ve put her in a madhouse, straightaway. If she continued her conduct, she would’ve undergone a lobotomy quicker than quick. People institutionalized women for far less than the embarrassment she would’ve brought them. Then there’s Marilla, who was supposed to be a staunch Christian with high moral character falling all over herself because some con artist boarder (a grifter & an obvious one, in league with the second boarder at her house, to create a conspiracy to take down the entire town, financially🙄.) tells her she “shines up like a new penny.” Then, Anne’s antagonist from the book, Gilbert Blythe decides to run off & work on a boat after the passing of his father. (A woman was there, but, possibly, a stepmother, as he claims his mom died in childbirth) they made no mention of where she went as women back then didn’t live alone. He proceeds to travel the Caribbean, deliver a baby, & bring home a new Black best friend & who proceeds to act like a b****y housewife whenever he isn’t getting insulted by the awful white people & their racist ways. Sigh. Why can’t they make anything accurate anymore? They wouldn’t have had blacks & whites living together back then, not because they were mean, because it was a small town in Canada, not in the Deep South of America. Now, after Cole beats up the bully, (yes, 🙄there’s that, too. . .watching tv in this time I’d like the most annoying after school special on the planet. First of all, because they are trying to shove the same thing down your throat. . .back then it was honesty, integrity, & hard work. Now, it’s that the powers that Be think you are stupid & do not know what they are doing, but they are shoving anti-bullying, anti-racism- personally, I know the government doesn’t give a damn about anybody’s feelings, SO, I believe this is about “hate speech,” which is another term for “let’s take away free speech.” Then there is the population control, LGBT, also, this is against Christian values which the powers that be truly are, so, naturally, they area protected caste. If this weren’t bad enough, Miss Stacy shows up looking like an Amelia Earhart look-a-like. The only problem is, at the very least, it is like 12 years too early, & by that, I mean big cities. While, I’ve grown used to this nonsense, everywhere, I didn’t think they would even wreck nostalgic stories by making them inaccurate, unbelievable, & as redundant as everything else. Smh. Am I wrong?, or does everything have the same plot. You can’t judge the social standards of over 100 years ago by today’s agendas.IT DOESNT WORK

     
    • Well said, Stacey. It is only going to get worse–revisionists’ agenda
      with the truncating; eviscerating, and dehumanising children and teens novels and stories. Censorship is about control. A form of communist-era reeducation has been slowly creeping up in the USA’s school curricula; tv shows, books, plays, poetry, tv, movies, and music.
      Much of it is like an inverse of the old morality plays of the pre and medieval period. We are in deep trouble, culturally, creatively and our society is clearly under attack. If the good men and women of the USA, Europe, Canada, etc do not block the revisionism and decadence, the traditional, Christian, heterosexual family will be ruined. It is well on its way.

       
    • I would agree with most of that. I think we need to understand that these “revisionists” really think they can “create reality” simply by writing a new script. The one point I’d make with the analysis (it was a good one), is that people aren’t all that different just because a little time has elapsed.

      People were not as “ignorant” of sex (even perverse sex), as many would like to think. They didn’t discuss it openly. In the case of children, adults would step in and make the “problem” go away.

      There certainly were every variety of depravity we have today back then. It was seen as depravity, however. Just like Christians should see sin. It is something to be overcome, not indulged in.

      Dignity was important in that era. A person earned respect by the way they lived their life. Sex was “risky”, but I assure you, it happened. Twisted sex happened less and it was certainly hidden.

      I think that much of what is believed about the Victorian era is a misunderstanding. People were striving to be more ladylike or gentlemanly than they naturally were. What’s wrong with that?

      Today many are striving to seem more ignorant, poor mannered and crass. They are not looking forward to a brighter future, they are looking at death. Many want to be “gansta’s”.

      The truth is that we don’t improve by aiming low.

       
  3. Just another in the sea of reasons to drop Netflix. The deal with the Obama’s did it for me.

     
  4. More LGBT pedophilia propaganda. Normalizing sex with children in all media. Netflix should be shut down for creating and distributing child porn.

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *