Brokeback Mountain

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Well I'd like to think you are biased as well based on faith BUT if I post a poll and hear differently from a broad spectrum of people (BW pay attention its a statistics thing again) I could deduce that I am in the minority on this.

I have nothing whatsoever against gays. I was active in theater groups during high school. I lived in NYC for several years and enjoyed mingling with the queers and the pervs. It's true that I am more prudish than most of my age group, but I don't think I'm biased against anybody.

It's a terrible show because it has terrible actors, terrible writing, and all the jokes have one of two punchlines, either "somebody is gay" or "somebody is desperate for sex." I don't particularly respect the sitcom genre, but I bet I have seen 100 sitcoms that were better than Will and Grace. I don't usually use language like this, but it's success makes me worry for our future.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

... who meet while watching sheep

Okay, pardon the pun but ... that's one of the best "straight" lines I've heard in a long time.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Wow, Bubba and Jon are upset at about a movie about gay people. Will wonders never cease?

Fellas, so long as there are folks like you around

Also, there are plenty of movies about gay people released every year that don't get any media hype at all. Anyone remember "Boat Trip"? Does the gay cowboy angle makes this movie unique? Sure it does. It's taking the American symbol of tough-guy masculinity - cowboys (see, eg, John Wayne and Clint Eastwood) - and giving it a bit of a... twist.

Now, I haven't seen the movie, but by all accounts it is incredibly well-made, which is not surprising given that it Ang Lee is directing it, and very well-acted, which is surprising given Heath Ledger is a lead, but not so surprising given that Jack Gyllenhall is the other.

All that said, so long as their are folks like Bubba and Jon in the world, a film like Brokeback Mountain will continue to get media hype. Keep on keepin' on, fellas...

ESPN's Playmakers did it better without all the excessive hype and fawning.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Nor at any point have I argued whether the film has "technical merit" or whatever the appropriate phrase would be. To me, that's largely beside the point. It may or may not be well-written/well-acted/well-directed/ beautifully photographed, don't know & don't care.

Point is, this isn't the only movie that would fit any/all of those descriptions but those received lower levels of "mainstream" hype. And I believe the subject matter plays the biggest difference in that. The hype is meant to drive audiences & the audiences are meant to legitimize the lifestyle being portrayed. That's the agenda in play here, not some noble effort to get people to "see a good movie" or anything so benign.

It is what it is, and it really shouldn't be that big a shock that it's happening.
The aforemention Will & Grace benefitted from some of the sort of thing, just on a slightly lesser scale. But there's more prestige attached to film than sitcoms, so that's not surprising either. I guess what puzzles me still is why, when the Right has an agenda, there's not all that much denial about it but when the Left does it, the denial almost overshadows the agenda itself.

I can't really find much here that I disagree with.

My only addendum to the conversation started by Bubba is that while it may be inflated, there is also buzz coming from the fact that it is, by all accounts, a quality movie with good pedigree. It is also unique in its presentation. While that may not account for all of the push by Hollywood and critics, it can't be ignored either.

The other thing I took issue with was his assertion that the only reasons movies are made are to sell. I think films are also about the expression of ideas, popular and not-so-popular.

I think it's kind of a given that those ideas tend to be, more often than not, fairly left-leaning.

[Easy Mac]

You know, I was just thinking the other day, there was no hype for Playmakers.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I have nothing whatsoever against gays. I was active in theater groups during high school. I lived in NYC for several years and enjoyed mingling with the queers and the pervs. It's true that I am more prudish than most of my age group, but I don't think I'm biased against anybody.

It's a terrible show because it has terrible actors, terrible writing, and all the jokes have one of two punchlines, either "somebody is gay" or "somebody is desperate for sex." I don't particularly respect the sitcom genre, but I bet I have seen 100 sitcoms that were better than Will and Grace. I don't usually use language like this, but it's success makes me worry for our future.

Its looking more and more like you were right re: the W&G thing and I am wrong. Damn I hate it when Im the only one who thinks a show is good, like 3 wishes. Phooey!!

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Its looking more and more like you were right re: the W&G thing and I am wrong. Damn I hate it when Im the only one who thinks a show is good, like 3 wishes. Phooey!!

I like 3 wishes. And you should stand behind your convictions: If you like a show or movie, you shouldn't care if other people do.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

The other thing I took issue with was his assertion that the only reasons movies are made are to sell.

Hmm ... sidetracking a bit ... I could go along "all are made to sell", but it isn't neccessarily tickets they're most interested in selling. Sometimes its tickets, sometimes it's a viewpoint/agenda ... but 99.9% are "selling" something.

[Buccaneer]

From Roger Freidman's Top 10 movies of 2005 (he's really into the art and movie scene in NYC, esp. Greenwich Village)

8. "Broken Flowers" — Focus Features has done a good job ignoring this brilliant Jim Jarmusch film so they could give us gay cowboys mumbling and tumbling together in "Brokeback Mountain." I do think that Bill Murray's sublime performance in "Broken Flowers" is going to outlast "Bill and Ted's Excellent Romance," and that video viewers are going to wonder why Murray, director Jarmusch, supporting actor Jeffrey Wright and a trio of Murray's ex-flames — in cameo — Sharon Stone, Jessica Lange and Frances Conroy — weren't shown more respect.

It's like other controversal issues: The social message over the movie (Brokeback Mtn) will overshadow any objectiveness because it has to get out there and be promoted.

cthomer: Look where those $100,000 screenies were.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I like 3 wishes. And you should stand behind your convictions: If you like a show or movie, you shouldn't care if other people do.

oh, I stand by my convictions, but my presumption was wrong.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

That said, I think that Bubba, despite bring this up for his own reasons, does have a good point that there is a pretty big disconnect between the values espoused in this movie and that of most of America.

So? I reckon the majority of movies made espouse values that are a pretty big disconnect between the values espoused in most of America. Ever see Pulp Fiction? Requiem for a Dream? Natural Born Killers? Or any countless other number of controversial films?

It all goes back to hoe shameful it is that a movie about two men in love is considered "a big disconnect between the values of most of America", but movies about gratuitous violence, misogyny, or whatever are right in line with the values of most America.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

cthomer: Look where those $100,000 screenies were.

I didn't look, but I would imagine they were in large urban centers, no?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

ESPN's Playmakers did it better without all the excessive hype and fawning.

Yeah, there was no excessive hype or fawning about Playmakers. None at all...

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I didn't look, but I would imagine they were in large urban centers, no?

In 3 cities specifically: NY, SF and LA.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hmm ... sidetracking a bit ... I could go along "all are made to sell", but it isn't neccessarily tickets they're most interested in selling. Sometimes its tickets, sometimes it's a viewpoint/agenda ... but 99.9% are "selling" something.

Well... While I like to believe there is still some interest in telling a good story regardless of the agenda, the concept of artistic expression, I do understand the typical "expression" is one of a specific societal viewpoint. Most of the time, I hope the art is more important than the agenda. But then again, I've been called naive before.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Yeah, there was no excessive hype or fawning about Playmakers. None at all...

In the mainstream press? I don't recall any noticeable amount. I think we're (FOFC'ers) were sort of "narrowcasted" any hype it received. Remember, only a small percentage of Americans ever watch ESPN.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I'd argue against this. Gyllenhaal has as much range as Chris Kaman. I love Donnie Darko, but its not related to his acting.

Donnie Darko is the only movie I think I have ever seen this guy in, so I'll accept this as true. Just never been impressed with Ledger, who I have seen in far too many films.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

From Roger Freidman's Top 10 movies of 2005 (he's really into the art and movie scene in NYC, esp. Greenwich Village)


It's like other controversal issues: The social message over the movie (Brokeback Mtn) will overshadow any objectiveness because it has to get out there and be promoted.

cthomer: Look where those $100,000 screenies were.

I saw Broken Flowers... didn't really like it. Felt like movies I've been seeing for a while. I thought Murray was good, but the movie itself didn't bring anything I hadn't seen before.

That's the thing, its all about personal preference when liking a movie. I know plenty of people who didn't like Good Night, Good Luck, but I thought it was great. So a reviewer saying he didn't like 1 movie and another should have gotten more press doesn't mean much.

[st.cronin]

Looking at Bubba's original thesis, I think he may have a point, but I think there's more to it than just 'Hollywood pushing a gay agenda.' First of all, Hollywood is not some monolithic entity like the Elders of Zion. Mel Gibson, Steven Spielberg, and Tim Burton are a fairly diverse trio in terms of values. Secondly, Ang Lee and Heath Ledger are pretty big stars - their names are at least partly responsible for the hype this movie has gotten.

But there is a kernel of truth there - that our moviemakers, producers, actors, etc. are not at all representative of America. Note that I don't necessarily see this as a problem.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In the mainstream press? I don't recall any noticeable amount. I think we're (FOFC'ers) were sort of "narrowcasted" any hype it received. Remember, only a small percentage of Americans ever watch ESPN.

99% of the people I know don't read the New York Times, read self-important critics, or most of the other things where movies are promoted. I haven't read anything about Brokeback Mountain in any paper, the only reason it's in EW is because of Gyllenhaal and Ledger (smart casting move, best way to draw an audience), and I've seen 1 commercial for it. Yet I see a Syriana commercial every other break. So I'd say the group that discusses movies here is more savvy than the general public. I'd say if I went up to normal moviegoers 75% wouldn't have heard of this movie.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Donnie Darko is the only movie I think I have ever seen this guy in, so I'll accept this as true. Just never been impressed with Ledger, who I have seen in far too many films.

I enjoyed A Knight's Tale for what it was, but I'd agree I've been unimpressed with his acting.

But he did bag Naomi Watts and impregnated Jen from Dawson's Creek, so he gets a pass from me.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Nor at any point have I argued whether the film has "technical merit" or whatever the appropriate phrase would be. To me, that's largely beside the point. It may or may not be well-written/well-acted/well-directed/ beautifully photographed, don't know & don't care.

Point is, this isn't the only movie that would fit any/all of those descriptions but those received lower levels of "mainstream" hype. And I believe the subject matter plays the biggest difference in that. The hype is meant to drive audiences & the audiences are meant to legitimize the lifestyle being portrayed. That's the agenda in play here, not some noble effort to get people to "see a good movie" or anything so benign.

It is what it is, and it really shouldn't be that big a shock that it's happening.
The aforemention Will & Grace benefitted from some of the sort of thing, just on a slightly lesser scale. But there's more prestige attached to film than sitcoms, so that's not surprising either. I guess what puzzles me still is why, when the Right has an agenda, there's not all that much denial about it but when the Left does it, the denial almost overshadows the agenda itself.

There certainly is an agenda in the promotion of this movie, but I disagree that the "technical merit" of this film plays a significant role in that agenda. Like I mentioned early, there are likely dozens of movies about gay men released each year. Where is the hype for those movies?

Brokeback Mountain, however, by all accounts has significant "technical merit", so it then becomes a perfect vehicle for the agenda. The Left sees about gay people that is well crafted and does a good job with the subject matter and therefore it becomes that a good vehicle to say "Hello, America. Here is a well made movie about gay people. It treats their relationship with respect and is a good, accurate serious portrayl of two men in love."

Still, while I dont watch commercials on TV or listen to the radio, I haven't seen where all this hype is coming from. I think certain folks are just pre-disposed to see hype about issues they care deeply about.

[Daimyo]

You guys are really claiming this movie is getting more hype than previous "indies"? Every year a very good, small movie is picked up by the hype machine... you don't remember the hype for Sideways or Supersize Me over the last two years? Do Million Dollar baby, Chicago, and Crouching Tiger count as "indies" too? I haven't seen anything near that level for Brokeback Mountain yet and I live in Chicago in a pretty gay-friendly neighborhood.

[Buccaneer]

I think the hype refers to all of the early award nominations as the movie was just being released.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I think the hype refers to all of the early award nominations as the movie was just being released.

That always happens with movies released in December though.

[Buccaneer]

Yes, but why this particular one when there are so many mixed reviews?

[Buccaneer]

Example, picking up 7 Golden Globes nominations.

[clintl]

I've read one article on the MSNBC web site a couple of weeks ago about Brokeback Mountain. I think I might have seen one in Sacramento Bee that I didn't read.

That's it. No TV commercials (but lots for King Kong and Syriana and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe). Where's the hype?

What little it's really getting seems to me pretty well-deserved, considering it has a highly regarded director, highly regarded lead actor, and is based on an acclaimed short story by one of the best contemporary writers around, Annie Proulx.

[Daimyo]

Mixed Reviews?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Yes, but why this particular one when there are so many mixed reviews?

Right now, it's at 87% positive at rottentomatoes.com, so I would hardly call those reviews "mixed". I don't recall reading anything that slammed the technical merit of the movie, but rather the subject matter. I don't know if there are any Golden Globes for that.

Studios tend to release "award" quality pictures in December that way they are fresh in the minds of those who nominate fims for awards. How many Golden Globes was The Aviator nominated for? Return of the King?

[Schmidty]

If this movie is that great, it deserves all the accolades it can get.

If it's not great, I hope people aren't afraid to say it's not because of political correctness and fear of being labeled a gay-basher.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by clintl

What little it's really getting seems to me pretty well-deserved, considering it has a highly regarded director, highly regarded lead actor, and is based on an acclaimed short story by one of the best contemporary writers around, Annie Proulx.

Come on now, no one cares about that stuff, it's only the Left pushing the gay agenda on America!

Like I said earlier, so long as there are people who get horribly bent out of shape at the idea of two men in love, movies/books/tv shows/what have you that center around such a relationship will cause some controversy and, thus, lead to hype.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

Mixed Reviews?

Good Night, Capote, Squid, W&G, Paradise Now, Passenger all received more positive reviews with Harry Potter, P&P, History of Violence receiving about the same amount. I fully expect that once Brokeback gets into wider release, that number will go down as small and medium size cities add their reviews.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by clintl

...and is based on an acclaimed short story by one of the best contemporary writers around, Annie Proulx.

Do you really think so? I'm not a huge Proulx fan at all, and I've read a lot of her stuff. I think she has had some good stuff and some pretty mediocre stuff. She is certainly acclaimed, but I wouldn't call her one of the best.

But then again, that's a discussion for another thread. The story this is based on is interesting to say the least, but it well-written in my opinion.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

If this movie is that great, it deserves all the accolades it can get.

If it's not great, I hope people aren't afraid to say it's not because of political correctness and fear of being labeled a gay-basher.

true, let it suck on Film making attributes.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Example, picking up 7 Golden Globes nominations.

I just checked. The Aviator also received 7 Golden Globes nominations. Return of the King had 4. Both those movies were released later in December (if I recall correctly) than Brokeback Mountain.

Also, look at the other Golden Globes nominees this year, there are a ton of small, independent movies that got nominated this year and they don't have anything to do with gay people.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Yes, but why this particular one when there are so many mixed reviews?

It has an 87 average score on metacritic and rottentomatoes... that's hardly mixed reviews.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

If this movie is that great, it deserves all the accolades it can get.

If it's not great, I hope people aren't afraid to say it's not because of political correctness and fear of being labeled a gay-basher.

I don't think we need to worry about that. Am I the only person who even remembers "Party Boat"? Not that I even saw it, but still...

[kcchief19]

Looks like another classic case of people seeing and hearing only what they want to see hear. Here's a fact -- a search at google.news.com for "Brokeback Mountain" for me just yielded 4,130 results. A search for "King Kong" yielded 7,190 results. The search results at Yahoo News yielded 5,454 to 2,561 in favor of King Kong. And whereas Brokeback Mountain has great reviews, King Kong has thus far posted disappointing box off numbers and almost no critical acclaim.

What I want to know is where all of these complainers were earlier this summer when Cinderella Man opened to absolutely fantastic reviews and the media coverage was everywhere despite the fact that the movie did horrible business and was a box office bomb? Throughout movie history, well-done films almost always receive more media attention than their ultimate box office warrants. Has "Brokeback Mountain" gained more attention due to its subject matter? Certainly, but as pointed out above so did "Passion of the Christ." The whiners can't have it both ways.

I realize facts are useless here, so it's the last you'll hear from me on the subject. Some people only here and believe what they want to hear, and if they were running the place we'd still be teaching our kids the world is flat.

It's a movie. It can't hurt you. No amount of advertising or media coverage of the movie is going to hurt you.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

You havnt even seen it!! Why arent you railing about Will & Grace. Perhaps cuz its funny? Do you not think gays existed back then? How bout now? You know gays exist right? So do Nazis? So do Christians...So a movie can be made about one group and be hyped and be good but not another, if it isnt on the Bubba scale. You are so biased. What makes you think anyone would actually listen or consider anything you say other than to be simply poisoned rhetoric?

Quite frankly, I have no interest in watching a romance between gay guys, and I sure as hell wouldn't spend what it costs to get into the theatres these days to see it. Now lesbians on the other hand.....

[John Galt]

It must be that vast gay conspiracy. That's why they overpromote a gay movie every year.

What? You mean they didn't do it last year? Or the year before? Or the year before that?

Maybe when you have a sample size of 1, blaming the so-called gay agenda isn't the answer.

[Raiders Army]

I didn't like The Hulk, but that might've been the subject matter more than the director.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It must be that vast gay conspiracy. That's why they overpromote a gay movie every year.

What? You mean they didn't do it last year? Or the year before? Or the year before that?

Maybe when you have a sample size of 1, blaming the so-called gay agenda isn't the answer.

Except this could be the first widely-released movie of the type with a well-known director and lead, as oppose to some art-house indie film.

Personally, I don't watch romantic dramas of any kind.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Except this could be the first widely-released movie of the type with a well-known director and lead, as oppose to some art-house indie film.

Personally, I don't watch romantic dramas of any kind.

The fact that it is a widely-released movie with a well-known director and lead and based off a well-known short story, as opposed to some art-house indie film could also be the reason it is being promoted. It's hard to promote an art-house indie film without any star power.

Do you think this movie would be being promoted like this if it were some no name director and starred a bunch of no name actors?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Except this could be the first widely-released movie of the type with a well-known director and lead, as oppose to some art-house indie film.

And maybe, just maybe because it is the "first widely-released move of the type" is the reason it gets some (but not nearly the most, as kcchief pointed out) attention. That seems like a better explanation than some vast gay conspiracy.

[Buccaneer]

No, but it doesn't make the movie automatically better.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Biggest example of 'media masterbation' I have ever seen. Cannot pickup a newspaper or magazine or entertainment tv show without seeing more news coverage about this movie than you can about the current Christmas retail numbers. And the thing is, nobody cares about this movie what-so-ever. Talk Soup says the per-screen numbers is about a whole whopping $100,000 per-viewing. Then he says 'good luck in the red states!" Not even drawing crowds in NY or LA.

Biggest case of disconnect between media and audience I have ever seen. Can't help but wonder if only because of the high percentage of gays in Hollywood and Hollywood media coverage that this is being driven so relentlessly. BTW, the last is a valid observation (no different than liberals debating the number of Catholics on the Supreme Court and its possible impact on abortion law in the future).

They haven't found a movie theatre in Wyoming willing to show it at all. They did a screening in Jackson Hole specifically for a group of folks, but..beyond that. Nada.

[Buccaneer]

JG, question. Do you want this movie to be popular nation-wide?

Again personally, despite me not watching romantic dramas, I would chose to watch this instead of the awful King Kong, if I had a choice between the two.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Its looking more and more like you were right re: the W&G thing and I am wrong. Damn I hate it when Im the only one who thinks a show is good, like 3 wishes. Phooey!!

Pretty much the only people that I know who like Will and Grace are gay people and females. That does not mean there are plenty of exceptions to who like the show. But, based on that subjective observation, I would say the FOFC crowd is not your best group in which to find W&G fans. If you ran the same poll at the Oxygen message boards, you would probably have a different outcome.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Except this could be the first widely-released movie of the type with a well-known director and lead, as oppose to some art-house indie film.

Personally, I don't watch romantic dramas of any kind.

Ditto, especially if it's about two guys diddling each other. Say what you like about production quality, etc., but I really have no interest in a story about two guys and their man love. I have no problem with someone being gay, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching gay sex, implied or explicit.