Brokeback Mountain

I have no choice but to see it, I must sigh and sniffle over heath :), why didn't we have one of those growing up next door when I was a teenager?
 
carsonshepherd said:
If it would ever open in a theater here, I might one day. :rolleyes:

If it doesn't hit you locally, you must buy it the day it's out on DVD. The entire time I was watching it, I was thinking, I wish I was watching this with Carson.

Excellent film.
 
logophile said:
See it.

That's all. Just see it.

Not likely you will see me there...my family are all ranchers and farmers, and my in-laws are all ranchers in Wyoming. To a person they believe the movie is an insult, and an assault on their way of life...I have to agree with them..
 
drksideofthemoon said:
Not likely you will see me there...my family are all ranchers and farmers, and my in-laws are all ranchers in Wyoming. To a person they believe the movie is an insult, and an assault on their way of life...I have to agree with them..

sorry, but from what I have heard about the picture that is a ridiculous statement...

you may have your own opinion about a love story between two men of course...but an assault on their way of life.? Very reactionary statement at best.

and I'm being way too nice...
 
entitled said:
uuuummm? Am i the only one that has never heard of this?


It's a movie set in Wyoming, circ 1963. About a rancher and rodeo cowboy who meet while driving horses. Something of a gay love story and ground breaking in that it's a mainstream release. It's critically acclaimed, but I don't know how big a commercial success it is.

From what I read, pre rel;eases, the producers were hoping for a box office smash to open up mainstream media for alternate lifestyles tales.

No idea if it has done as well as they hoped.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
It's a movie set in Wyoming, circ 1963. About a rancher and rodeo cowboy who meet while driving horses. Something of a gay love story and ground breaking in that it's a mainstream release. It's critically acclaimed, but I don't know how big a commercial success it is.

From what I read, pre rel;eases, the producers were hoping for a box office smash to open up mainstream media for alternate lifestyles tales.

No idea if it has done as well as they hoped.
OOOOooooohhhh.... Gotcha.

It will never show around here.
 
Belegon said:
sorry, but from what I have heard about the picture that is a ridiculous statement...

you may have your own opinion about a love story between two men of course...but an assault on their way of life.? Very reactionary statement at best.

and I'm being way too nice...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion....you have to realize that this has been their way of life since the 1880's...and they are very simple, very conservative people...

They view this movie as another attempt to force homosexuality down everyone's throat...
 
drksideofthemoon said:
They view this movie as another attempt to force homosexuality down everyone's throat...
The way the crowds viewed the Godfather trilogy as another (long gangster-film history here) attempt to force organized crime and cannolis down everyone's throat?

Drk: do excuse my sarcasm, couldn't help it, first thing that came to mind. I hope you see how very not simple the matter is. The movie's well publicized so if no one's interested in gay male sex/love in general, or gay male sex/love 'twixt all-American cowboys, they simply don't attend.

Here's one pertinent reason people quote Shakespeare: The lady protests too much, methinks. (Hamlet, III,ii)

Substitute whatever comes to mind for "lady".

Perdita
 
perdita said:
The way the crowds viewed the Godfather trilogy as another (long gangster-film history here) attempt to force organized crime and cannolis down everyone's throat?

Drk: do excuse my sarcasm, couldn't help it, first thing that came to mind. I hope you see how very not simple the matter is. The movie's well publicized so if no one's interested in gay male sex/love in general, or gay male sex/love 'twixt all-American cowboys, they simply don't attend.

Here's one pertinent reason people quote Shakespeare: The lady protests too much, methinks. (Hamlet, III,ii)

Substitute whatever comes to mind for "lady".

Perdita

I adore you, 'dita. :heart:
 
To be fair, any movie that depicts gay or lesbian protagonists in an affirmative way is going to draw fire. Whether they would or no, any movie that deals with alternative lifestyles is making a political statement. Knee jerk reactions should be expected.

This movie is breaking ground, working with the recent accepatance of gay/lesbian lifestyles on television. The hope is that the backlash is not strong enough to hurt the economic viability. If it is, you won't see another in this mold for some time. If it isn't, then you will, most likely see a plethora of them.

Holywood is running out of ideas. Aside from bigger booms, cooler cars, hotter women, showing off their CG balls and a few novel ideas, most everything you see is rehash of a tried and true idea. Movies featuring alternative lifestyles are virgin territory, because they have been anathema to the big outfits. There is a lot of gold to be mined in those hills, provided the backlash is minor.

If you are a conservative or very traditional, two guys kissing down at the Bijou probably does strike you as those hollywood liberals trying to force acceptance of homosexuality down your throat. If you have a slightly paranoid bent, you see it as insidious that movie makers are pitching homosexuality in films whose primary audience is the young. Conversely, if you are very liberal, you see it as honesty in filmaking whose time has long been due.

In either case, reactions like Drk's and his relations will be balanced against reactions like Logo's and Dita's. the final arbiter won't be moral or eithical or even political. the final arbiter will be the box office recepts. If it sells, it will be accepted because...well because that's what sells. If it flops, it will be rejected because it isn't a money maker and few production companies are willing to take losses on a film to make a point.
 
I just find it amusing, I suppose, for people to think that a movie is an "assault on their way of life."

It's fiction, for fuck's sake. They need to get over it. I could maybe understand if somehow the movie was putting forth the message that all ranchers in Wyoming are gay, but it has nothing to do with their way of life.

They may be conservative - fine, but you have to deal with the real world at some point.
 
Last edited:
cloudy said:
I just find it amusing, I suppose, for people to think that a movie is an "assault on their way of life."

It's fiction, for fuck's sake. They need to get over it.


I dogged farenheight 911. It was a movie and was fictional, but it still rubbed me the wrong way. And I wasn't shy about saying it was tripe, untrue and had no bussiness being called a documentary.

Some people loved it.

Micheal Moore did nothing to me personally, besides insulting my intelligence, but I got bent out of shape over it none the less.

I don't have a whole lot of room to say build a bridge and get over it to anyone.

You have taken exception to some stories on lit that portray drunken indians or rapacious indians. Those are stories on a porn site, with precious little ability to imact a wide audience. How strongly would you react if that same caricature was depicted in hollywood's newest epic film of the old west? Dita was affronted by the Alamo and the way that small chapter in history is typically portrayed ont he big screen.

I make no apologies for saying Moore is a fucktard. I don't expect you to make apologies when you see your heritage besmirched. I think Dita is well within her rights to find glorification of the mexican-american war as ofensive.

In the same vein, it's hard to know what a particular person will find to be an affront. Is it really fair to say wyoming ranchers ar off their nut taking offense here?

:rose:
 
Colleen Thomas said:
I dogged farenheight 911. It was a movie and was fictional, but it still rubbed me the wrong way. And I wasn't shy about saying it was tripe, untrue and had no bussiness being called a documentary.

Some people loved it.

Micheal Moore did nothing to me personally, besides insulting my intelligence, but I got bent out of shape over it none the less.

I don't have a whole lot of room to say build a bridge and get over it to anyone.

You have taken exception to some stories on lit that portray drunken indians or rapacious indians. Those are stories on a porn site, with precious little ability to imact a wide audience. How strongly would you react if that same caricature was depicted in hollywood's newest epic film of the old west? Dita was affronted by the Alamo and the way that small chapter in history is typically portrayed ont he big screen.

I make no apologies for saying Moore is a fucktard. I don't expect you to make apologies when you see your heritage besmirched. I think Dita is well within her rights to find glorification of the mexican-american war as ofensive.

In the same vein, it's hard to know what a particular person will find to be an affront. Is it really fair to say wyoming ranchers ar off their nut taking offense here?

:rose:

I see your point, however, it's not taking cultural stereotypes and running with it.

I have no problem with them objecting to the movie, if they're honest about why they're objecting to it. Saying it's an assault on their way of life is a little cartoonish, almost, to me. If they flat out said they don't want to see it because they don't want to see a gay couple, I may not agree with them, but at least they're being honest.

edited to add: In thinking about it some more, that whole phrase is what gets me, I guess. Not addressed to you, but just how, exactly, does it assault their way of life? For so long gay people have had to hide how they feel that there may well have been gay ranchers, gay cowboys, and folks around them just didn't know it. In fact, I'd almost guarantee it. I don't understand how seeing it (or not, as they choose) is assaulting anything. It's simply a story of something that may actually have happened.
 
Last edited:
When is Gay Okay?

drksideofthemoon said:
Not likely you will see me there...my family are all ranchers and farmers, and my in-laws are all ranchers in Wyoming. To a person they believe the movie is an insult, and an assault on their way of life...I have to agree with them..

I wonder if Drk and other males would be so aghast and repelled if the movie were about two attractive women in the same situation.
 
cloudy said:
I see your point, however, it's not taking cultural stereotypes and running with it.

I have no problem with them objecting to the movie, if they're honest about why they're objecting to it. Saying it's an assault on their way of life is a little cartoonish, almost, to me. If they flat out said they don't want to see it because they don't want to see a gay couple, I may not agree with them, but at least they're being honest.


When I say cowboy, the image most will see is John Wayne or Rowdy Yeats or someone from a Louis L'amour western. The word conjures a certain stereotype and most folks who consider themselves to be cowboys try to emmulate that stereotype. I cannot think of a cowboy or rodeo rider I know who wouldn't consider being called a fag fighting words.

So you are, in this film, messing with a cultural stereotype in a sense.

I do not believe the story would carry the same impact if your protags were both hair dressers from the village. So the author/screenwriter is conciously or unconciously attempting to make the work more forceful by selecting a sterotype for the leads whom people do not generally assocciate with being gay.

To someone who is attempting to live up to the ideal of the cowboy, the work might well be seen as an assault on him or at least on his self perception.

I am not saying this is the case. Merely saying when you broach subjects that are controversial, like this one, the issues involved are highly perceptual and rarely cut and dried.
 
Just an aside after reading the above 'dialogue'.

It seems we (and the public in general along with the film industry) are dealing with and among large cultural/social attitudes and populations here. I think it's because of this dynamic that there is such bluster about now, in the news and here on this thread.

It's also due to the medium of film. I.e., the short story the film is based on (by notable author Annie Proulx) made no headlines, seemed to upset no particular state or population. But now we have straight male moviestars acting up all bent and tragic on a giantic Dolby-sound in-your-face screen bigtime so all options are go.

As to my simple logic earlier, I do know that Italian anti-defamation leagues have been protesting godfather and goodfella films for years. And as Colly reminded me, I had deepseated protestations about the last fucking Alamo film. (E.g., Fuck the Alamo!)

I tried only to respond with some sarcastic logic to Drk's post. I would not dream of entering into a real conversation with his Wyoming relations unless invited.

Perdita
 
Colleen Thomas said:
When I say cowboy, the image most will see is John Wayne or Rowdy Yeats or someone from a Louis L'amour western. The word conjures a certain stereotype and most folks who consider themselves to be cowboys try to emmulate that stereotype. I cannot think of a cowboy or rodeo rider I know who wouldn't consider being called a fag fighting words.

So you are, in this film, messing with a cultural stereotype in a sense.

I do not believe the story would carry the same impact if your protags were both hair dressers from the village. So the author/screenwriter is conciously or unconciously attempting to make the work more forceful by selecting a sterotype for the leads whom people do not generally assocciate with being gay.

To someone who is attempting to live up to the ideal of the cowboy, the work might well be seen as an assault on him or at least on his self perception.

I am not saying this is the case. Merely saying when you broach subjects that are controversial, like this one, the issues involved are highly perceptual and rarely cut and dried.

Okay, I get that.

But then, aren't the people that would see it as an assault on their self-perception the ones that aren't as secure with themselves? And what does that say about that whole cowboy thing?

(gettin' deep now ;) )
 
ArrogantAuthor said:
I wonder if Drk and other males would be so aghast and repelled if the movie were about two attractive women in the same situation.


I write lesbian themed erotica. And some folks do get offended, gender irrespective. Like the movie's author, I often cast my protags in roles not normally associated with being lesbians.

My lesbian bull rider garnered me some hate mail. Ostensively from female rodeo riders. I get more than my fair share of men castigating me for using all female casts. I get a lot of positive feedback too.

Like the screen writer and their production company, I balance the good and bad. thus far, the good far outweighs the bad. Should that be the case here, I expect you will see more. I use feedback as a guage, they will use the box recepts.

You rpoint is valid, in some cases, but I know women who are as dead set against homosexuality gaining mainstream acceptance as any man.
 
cloudy said:
Okay, I get that.

But then, aren't the people that would see it as an assault on their self-perception the ones that aren't as secure with themselves? And what does that say about that whole cowboy thing?

(gettin' deep now ;) )


I'm not qualified to psycho analyze folks :)

I think the factors that decide if people will take offense or not are very personal. the best solution is to simply not see it if it offends you.

Att he same time I know from my own not so distant history that the advice is sometimes easier given than taken :)
 
Back
Top