Really low quality trailer available here. (http://www.savefile.com/files.php?fid=6230490)
This is one of my most anticipated films of the year. This is also one of the worst trailers I've seen in ages. The only thing that would make it worse is if they had used the 'Dragonheart' score that was in every trailer from 1997 to 1999 instead of whatever almost-as-eqaully cliched piece of sappy trailer music they chose instead.
HOWEVER
Having read the novella this has been adapted from, it's clear that the movie is entirely faithful to the story; and there are glimpses of things or excerpts of dialogue that lead me to believe that this is simply a terrible trailer for a very good, very possibly great film.
Yeah.
The only thing missing is a shot of them eating pudding.
P.S. Thanks Ghostboy for helping me find a good site to load files onto! I've never heard of that site before.
As mentioned, it reeked of bad trailer cutting. Even if you haven't read the material, like GB, you can tell the trailer's a terrible representation. They're obviously scared of this film being gay-themed. It seemed every shot of them together was cut short, and every implication made in a hurry.
the first half of the trailer wasnt that bad. the second half...yeah. it seemed pretty gay to me. it clearly wasn't about anything else. what did you want, a rainbow flag behind the titles?
Quote from: GhostboyThe only thing that would make it worse is if they had used the 'Dragonheart' score that was in every trailer from 1997 to 1999 instead of whatever almost-as-eqaully cliched piece of sappy trailer music they chose instead.
I love when you have thoughts like this about trailers. This one about the Finding Neverland trailer is a gem:
Quote...and now promoted with a trailer specifically designed to make people think its directed by Lasse Halstrom.
:) :-D :yabbse-grin: :bravo:
theatrical poster:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv720%2Fithica45%2Fbrokeback_mountain.jpg&hash=aff64786a742cd0467bbbe8bfa74d7797ebaed0f)
My Dad's been waiting for a western movie, so I told him about this minus the gay. He's gonna be so pissed cause now he has high hopes for this one. He even told his buddies at work about it. :twisted:
Quote from: POZER!My Dad's been waiting for a western movie, so I told him about this minus the gay. He's gonna be so pissed cause now he has high hopes for this one. He even told his buddies at work about it. :twisted:
My God.
AUSTIN, TX: Episcopal High School Promotes Gay Sex Book
Parents threaten to withhold $3 million if book not pulled
By David W. Virtue
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2932
AUSTIN, TX (8/30/2005)--An explicit short story about two homosexual male cowboys featured as part of the Senior English program at St. Andrew's Episcopal High School in Austin, has caused a furor with parents complaining and some threatening to withhold $3 million dollars to the school, if the Episcopal institution does not pull the book.
The short story used in the English class was Brokeback Mountain by Annie Proulx. It is a pornographic story of two homosexual cowboys that is being made into a major motion picture. The book which is set in Texas and Wyoming features the romantic tale of two male cowboys from very different backgrounds who meet and fall in love while working together as sheep ranch hands near Wyoming's Brokeback Mountain during the summer of 1961. The movie was shot in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and is due to be released in December, 2005.
VirtueOnline received a letter written by one irate contributor Mr. Cary McNair, son of Bob McNair, owner of the Houston Texans, who threatened to withhold a significant amount of money if the school did not pull the book from the classroom. A VirtueOnline source said the amount was in excess of $3 million.
The McNair's (Cary and Kate) wrote the Board of Trustees of St. Andrew's School (SAS) on August 17 concerning their support of the school.
"In early May, Kate and I met with [Lucy] Nazro (the school's headmistress) to voice our initial protest of SAS's participation in the National Day of Silence (NDS). [NOTE to readers. NDS is a national youth-run effort using silence to protest the actual silencing of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people due to harassment, bias and abuse ...] Why would SAS recognize the National Day of Silence, yet not recognize the National Day of Prayer? The NDS brought the short story "Brokeback Mountain" into the discourse. Why would a school that promotes a Christian education environment in its mission statement, and lists moral behavior as one of its core values, have such a story in its senior English literature class, past, present or future? Why would SAS promote classroom discussion on pornographic material concerning deviant behavior? An apparent agenda at the Upper School is developing that is detrimental to SAS's future. Along with pleading that we not publicize the issues, Nazro promised to look into the facts of the situation. Nazro had not read the story, and did not seem very flustered following her brief review of it in the meeting. She noted that she had not had any other parents express concerns. And, Nazro had only received positive feedback from students about how they all cherish the environment that (the English teacher) creates in the classroom that allows such warm and open discussion."
On May 16th the McNair's had a second meeting in which they discussed their contempt for the short story in light of the plethora of other, more appropriate literature available. "Why not use other stories to relate tolerance and acceptance issues? Are students best served by having an English teacher directing the discussion on such issues? Nazro stated that NDS was a mistake, and that SAS would not have NDS again."
However Nazro defended the story saying it had been approved by the "committee" consisting of a UT professor and that the author was an award winning author. "
Another person said that Nazro was the "final authority" on SAS operations and curriculum. "My claim," said McNair, "is that the parents, the 'customers' are the final authority."
On July 25, the McNair's had a third meeting with Nazro in which they relayed to the Board and SAS their concerns to have the book removed and a search begun to find a replacement that handles issues of acceptance and tolerance, but Nazro said almost all the parents and students were satisfied with the material.
McNair responded saying, "Although disappointed with SAS's decision, I was not surprised. My family would reflect upon the school's decision."
On August 1, Kate McNair told a board member in the parking lot of the Upper School that the McNair family had decided that it did not want its name on the school building and that alternate funds should be pursued to supplant their past commitment.
The McNair's then wrote to say that SAS had broken its promise to deliver on its "Mission and Values" (see www.sasaustin.org) and that the family did not want its name on the SAS building and suggested the SAS find alternate funding.
The McNair's wrote: "Support from parents and donors are given on the premise that SAS will deliver what it promises. If SAS, in its final decision and continued conduct, chooses to not follow its declared "Mission and Values" then SAS, by its own action, has removed the McNair funds from the campaign effort, and accepted the potential risk for other support departures."
The McNair's then blasted Nazro and SAS when they learned that students who wanted to form a group for "Fellowship of Christian Athletes" was turned down along with several girls who wanted to form a Bible study group.
"A SAS Trustee suggested we try Regents, rather than SAS. Last year's Upper School play contained adultery between a father and his children's female babysitter as entertainment. This year's play has a happily divorced couple, who continue to live together, discussing the man's desire for an experimental gay affair, to which he proclaims, "Don't knock it 'till you've tried it!" These main characters are drunks, do drugs, and spew forth the virtues of such an altered life. Despite Nazro's assertion to the contrary, we found several other parents that have previously expressed to Nazro, their unequivocal disdain for SAS giving credibility to deviant behavior and non-Christian attitudes."
Nazro later announced to the faculty that the McNairs had pulled their funding due to "debatable issues" but that she still retained the full support of the Board.
The McNair's concluded their letter saying that their support of the school was predicated on the school's intent and delivery of that which was, and is, promised. "With no accountability, defiant defense of faculty and no deference to the "customers" of SAS, we must leverage our resources in hopes of a demonstrative change in attitude and conduct at SAS. We are not dictating curriculum or inventing restrictive demands merely requesting SAS to follow its Mission and Values."
The headmistress of St. Andrew's, Ms. Lucy Nazro refused to return repeated calls from VirtueOnline for comment. Despite repeated efforts the McNairs could not be reached for comment.
END
:spits on ground while hiking up overalls:
i'm also sick a dem books wit dose negroes. we should get ridda those after we put dem faggots in their place!
I'm disgraced to be from Texas and to have ever gone to a Houston Texans game, and I am very much looking forward to seeing this in the theatre.
I hope the fundies won't make a big deal out of this movie because these jokes about them aren't what they used to be.
About the school funding thing, well, I think it's his right to put his money where he wants to though. It's not like it's the government refusing to fund the school or whatever. He's in his plain right to invest money where he wants.
Quote from: Pas RapAbout the school funding thing, well, I think it's his right to put his money where he wants to though. It's not like it's the government refusing to fund the school or whatever. He's in his plain right to invest money where he wants.
i agree with you pas. it just kind of sucks. that's a lot of money to deprive a school of simply b/c he's got a problem with homosexuality.
this movie is gay
hey man, you're the cowboy that wears bright neon pink diamond studded silk shirts.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.x-entertainment.com%2Fpics3%2Fpee18.jpg&hash=2c36881d8b131d6805154c02667f74661b15a3a9)
i just calls em like i see em.
Quote from: matt35mm
My God.
sorry, bad joke.
So were those of you who saw the trailer in the theaters surrounded by snickering and "my God's" as well? Someone yelled out "yaaay!" and everyone laughed.
Anyone have this experience?
Quote from: POZER!Quote from: matt35mm
My God.
sorry, bad joke.
Oh, no need to apologize. I just imagined how that whole thing would go down, and "My God" were the words that came to my head.
Kung Fu Oscar-Winner Tackles Other Genre
Ang Lee, the Taiwanese-born director of mega-hit "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," has leaped into another genre, the American western, but his "Brokeback Mountain" is no classic cowboy tale.
His new film, with hot young male stars Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, has sweeping Western vistas, lonesome roads, lonesome men, bucking broncos, smoldering campfires and as many sheep as can fit on a screen. It also has explosive sex scenes between two men whose lives are changed, disturbed and entwined after being hired as sheep tenders for a summer in the Wyoming back country in the early 1960s.
Lee knows he was treading on delicate ground in two ways: making a Western outside the conventional formulas, and telling a romance outside social conventions.
"The love story has good vibes. I hope it will penetrate prejudices," Lee told reporters Friday, a few hours before the premiere to the public of the movie at the Venice Film Festival.
Setting the story in the 1960s in the conservative West "helped set up the obstacles, especially to gay love, affection."
Lee said that more difficult than interpreting a love story between men virile cowboys at that was getting beyond cliche perceptions about the American West.
"My biggest enemy was the (cowboy) movie genre which was invented," said the director, who met with ranch hands and cowboys in preparing his work.
The sexual, romantic story is stitched onto an authentic rendering of small town, often bleak, American West lives, complete with people who also eke out a living stocking grocery shelves and not just by lassoing steers.
The stars spoke openly of their nervousness of having to make love on the screen the first sex scene is a sudden rush of passion in a tent on a frigid hillside.
"I just knew that the theme of sexuality would be secondary and that the primary theme would be that of love...the real idea of love, not cliche. I knew Ang would protect us," said Gyllenhaal.
Ledger told APTN: "I was really lucky that my character was uncomfortable with it and knew it too. So I could use my own level of discomfort, because it was new and strange for me, and that worked for me."
Said Gyllenhaal in the APTN interview: "When it came time to doing it, it was, like, 'Are you ready?' 'Yeah, are you ready?' and then 'Jump.'"
"There was definitely anxiety involved," Gyllenhaal recalled.
The film by the maker of Oscar winner "Crouching Tiger," the most popular foreign film in U.S. history, is one of 19 contenders for the Golden Lion, the top festival prize which will be awarded on Sept. 10, the closing day.
The film is based on the 1997 short story in the New Yorker by Annie Prouxl.
"Brokeback Mountain" cowboys cry, trade bloody punches, marry, have children, dance to country music, swig from the bottle and wrestle with what is true and what lies they can live with.
Across a span of a generation, Ledger, as man of few words Ennis Del Mar, and Jake Gyllenhaal (of cult classic "Donnie Darko" fame), as ex-rodeo rider Jack Twist, keep their bond. But one is more willing than the other to risk bucking conventions, and the emotional and psychological toll of that unevenness lends the story a workable tension.
Asked about homophobia, producer James Schamus said the film was not made to be a political statement.
"We are using the codes and conventions of romance that are applied to straight people," Schamus said.
That "Brokeback" is about love between two men "makes it all the more romantic, if you're willing to take that fall," said Lee.
The movie lasts 2 hours and 15 minutes, with a lot of that time, it seems, spent on the men's packing for the old-fishing-buddy trips they tell their wives they are taking.
The majestic mountain that becomes a kind of "Same Time, Next Year" rendezvous venue for the cowboys is actually in western Canada, and not in the Wyoming Big Horn Mountains as in Prouxl tale. The movie was filmed in Canada because of financial incentives and a better exchange rate.
Quote from: AstrosticI'm disgraced to be from Texas and to have ever gone to a Houston Texans game, and I am very much looking forward to seeing this in the theatre.
Fine, we don't want you.
You should be proud. The school didn't back down.
If these dudes have a problem with homosexuality, maybe they should stick to the backwoods... Austin probably isn't the place to be.
i dont mind watchign gay stuff. like um, my own private idaho..or stuff like that..btu seriously, this film looks fuckign stupid. haha, exspecially w/ gyllenhaal and ledger....and i dotn think an oriental director is capable of handling the gay cowboy sex western genre
Quote from: NEON MERCURYand i dotn think an oriental director is capable of handling the gay cowboy sex western genre
New marquee. Get to it.
Quote from: NEON MERCURYi dont mind watchign gay stuff. like um, my own private idaho..or stuff like that..btu seriously, this film looks fuckign stupid. haha, exspecially w/ gyllenhaal and ledger....and i dotn think an oriental director is capable of handling the gay cowboy sex western genre
i think it looks pretty brilliant. then again, i hav no hang ups about gay ppl, or oriental ppl for that matter.
if this really is a great movie, it will be the one to judge ppl's character by. the previews are already doing that as Pozer noted with the various reactions.
I'm heartened by how awful the trailer is.
The awful trailer suggests the marketing department didn't know how to sell the movie, which suggests the movie doesn't fit into a tidy little box, which suggests that Ang Lee didn't puss out on the subject matter, which suggests a lot of people I don't like and don't understand are going to be very angry about this movie, which suggests that I will like it quite a great amount.
If the trailer had been really, really good, I would be convinced it's going to be "Pearl Harbor" with implied sodomy.
You guys realize how bad this movie is going to bomb, don't you? The only thing that this movie has got right now is the "controversy," so maybe that will help at the box office.
Who will go see this movie but us?
Quote from: PwaybloeWho will go see this movie but us?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speak.com%2Fimages%2F8842.jpg&hash=dc9af568d39652433dd859bac99e14c73ab06d45)
Quote from: PubrickQuote from: PwaybloeWho will go see this movie but us?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speak.com%2Fimages%2F8842.jpg&hash=dc9af568d39652433dd859bac99e14c73ab06d45)
I won't see it though so he is just replacing me
Better quality Quicktime Trailer here. (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1377812&sdm=web&qtw=480&qth=300)
Ang Lee's gay cowboy film wins Venice Golden Lion
Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain," a tale of homosexual love in the wilds of Wyoming, won Venice's Golden Lion on Saturday, beating film festival favorite George Clooney in the race for the top prize, festival officials said.
The latest film by the director of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" is adapted from a short story by Annie Proulx and stars Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal as love-struck cowboys whose forbidden affair begins in 1963 and ends 20 years later.
Critics had predicted Clooney's black-and-white McCarthy-era tale of broadcasting courage, "Good Night. And, Good Luck," would win the Golden Lion, beating the 19 other films in the main competition.
Clooney, adored in Venice, did not go home empty-handed, winning an award for best screenplay while his star David Strathairn won the best actor prize for his intense portrayal of journalist Edward R. Murrow.
Italy also took home a consolation prize thanks to Giovanna Mezzogiorno winning the best actress award for her role in Cristina Comencini's "La Bestia nel Cuore" ("Don't Tell"), a moving tale of adult siblings scarred by child abuse.
She beat France's Isabelle Huppert, a frontrunner for her role in the emotionally intense "Gabrielle," and Gwyneth Paltrow, a contender for her performance as the daughter of a mentally unstable mathematician in John Madden's "Proof."
Huppert was instead given a special Lion for her "outstanding contribution to cinema."
U.S. director Abel Ferrara won the Jury Grand Prix for "Mary," starring Juliette Binoche as an actress haunted by the figure of Mary Magdalene after having played her on screen.
Ferrara told reporters this week that his film was possible thanks to the interest in religion generated by Mel Gibson, who struck gold with the ultra-realist "The Passion of Christ."
France's Philippe Garrel won the Silver Lion prize for best director with his "Les Amants Reguliers" ("Regular Lovers"), an austere story of love in bohemian Paris after the May 1968 riots.
The three-hour film, which also won a prize for its photography, was well received by critics but little appreciated by the public at the Lido.
Quote from: MacGuffinThe three-hour film
:shock:
Quote from: modageQuote from: MacGuffinThe three-hour film
:shock:
Wow. That's possibly a greater stigma to general audiences than the gay thing. I mean, it's more than twice as long as Deuce Bigelow.
But hey, the award is proof that the "crappy-trailer-equals-movie-gold" theory was true in this case.
Quote from: modageQuote from: MacGuffinThe three-hour film
:shock:
That's in reference to
Les Amants Reguliers, not
Brokeback Mountain, which is like 2:15 or so.
Quote from: GhostboyQuote from: modageQuote from: MacGuffinThe three-hour film
:shock:
That's in reference to Les Amants Reguliers, not Brokeback Mountain, which is like 2:15 or so.
Oh thank God.
Ang Lee Wins Golden Lion at Venice
Taiwanese director Ang Lee was honored with the coveted Golden Lion award for his latest movie Brokeback Mountain at the climax of the 62nd Venice Film Festival in Italy on Saturday. The Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon movie-maker's adaptation of an E. Annie Proulx's novella, which tells the story of a gay love affair between two cowboys, played by Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger, was chosen by the jury as best film. Accepting the golden lion at the Veneto canal city, Lee enthused, "(My film is) a great American love story. I'm so glad it's prevailed here and was received so warmly here." This year's festival was triumphant for the French, with Paris-born director Philippe Garrel picking up the Silver Lion prize for directing Les Amants Reguliers (The Regular Lovers), which also won in the Outstanding Technical Contribution category. Isabelle Huppert was given a Special Lion for her career, which has spanned four decades. Meanwhile, George Clooney's second outing as a director - Good Night, And Good Luck, was named Best Screenplay and Best Actor for leading man David Strathairn.
Yep, that's exactly what Page 2 says.
Ill never step on your toes again.
I kind of wish this film would be marketed as simply a Cowboy film, so I can see some of the reactions to people when they realize that there is homosexuality involved.
Yep, that's exactly what POZER did.
Love, nervousness, commitment
"People call it a gay western…. For me, it's a love story...," says Ang Lee, the director of "Brokeback Mountain."
By Rachel Abramowitz, Times Staff Writer
"People call it a gay western…. For me, it's a love story. It has very little to do with the movie genre, the western," says Ang Lee, the director of "Brokeback Mountain." This certainly isn't a film in which the good guys ride off and trounce the villains à la John Wayne. Rather, it's the tale of the dying West of the late 20th century, where the cowboy life has grown increasingly obsolete while the traditions of machismo nonetheless linger. The film is a portrait of love denied, of two impoverished cowboys who hide their love for decades, leading lives of increasing desperation.
Taut, desolate, heart-wrenching, the film (which opens Dec. 9) is generating awards buzz. It has already won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival. Based on a short story by Annie Proulx, it stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Jack Twist and Heath Ledger, in a career-making role, as Ennis Del Mar.
"He's always battling his genetic structure," Ledger says of Del Mar. "He was battling the traditions and morals and fears and beliefs that had been passed down to him, and they've been embedded in him so deeply, he couldn't get past them."
Lee decided to cast up-and-comers in the film, which spans 20 years. "Instead of taking middle-aged or older actors, I choose the young, the innocent. Their fresh faces will carry the audiences a long way and will make the movie a lot more poignant at the end."
In preproduction, both Gyllenhaal and Ledger went to cowboy camp to practice their riding — though this was more for Gyllenhaal's benefit, because Ledger grew up riding in western Australia. They holed up with Lee to rehearse, meticulously going through the scenes, line by line.
"We'll do exercises until we have the feeling or taste of that person, the way he speaks, pauses, poses," Ledger said. Yet once filming started, the director — as is his way — barely spoke to the actors. "They're all supposed to know what they're doing. If I talk to them too much it loses the freshness," Lee said. "It should remain fresh for me to photograph."
Lee says that neither Gyllenhaal nor Ledger seemed anxious about playing explicitly gay characters, though they did seem concerned about the film's potential impact on their burgeoning careers. "They care very much what the movie will do for them," says Lee, noting their respective faces as they finally walked in to see the finished film. "It looked like they're nervous."
My theatre went into hysterics after they screened the trailer.
People started to really laugh when two guys got up in front of the theatre and started having sex.
It was a great night.
I kind of wish this film would be marketed as simply a homosexuality film, so I can see some of the reactions to people when they realize that there are Cowboys involved.
Quote from: onomabracadabra on November 10, 2005, 07:49:52 PM
I kind of wish this film would be marketed as simply a homosexuality film, so I can see some of the reactions to people when they realize that there are Cowboys involved.
Personally, I think it'll be more satisfying to see people's faces after they've paid ten bucks to see a movie about cowboys and find out halfway through that there's gay involved.
It'll be the biggest "what the fuck?" since Salma Hayek turned into a vampire.
Can I brush your hair?
Ang Lee's 'Brokeback' explores 'last frontier'
There's no doubt that a $13 million quality movie like Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain," which has wowed festivalgoers and reviewers in Telluride, Venice and Toronto, will play well in big movie markets around the country. The question is, how broad will it go?
No one knows that answer, because no one has ventured into this territory before. The movie is a groundbreaker. There's never been a homosexual cowboy movie, and while the indies have been supplying gay romances to the art house circuit for years, and gay series like "Queer as Folk" and "Will & Grace" have been pulling big numbers on TV, there hasn't been a mainstream gay love story since 1982's "Making Love," which bombed and was blamed by many for damaging Harry Hamlin's career. "It's the one last frontier," says Lee.
So what took Hollywood so long to make a gay love story?
It's been 12 years since Jonathan Demme's "Philadelphia," which starred Denzel Washington as a homophobic lawyer defending AIDS patient Tom Hanks, who won the Oscar; the movie grossed $77 million in North America. But "Philadelphia" was less a romance (the gay couple didn't kiss) than a courtroom drama about fighting for justice. Last year's "Alexander" was an epic adventure with a gay subplot, but Oliver Stone's movie didn't disappoint at the box office just because of its candid depiction of a bisexual conqueror. It was a badly reviewed muddle of a movie.
In an industry that happily explores the outer limits of gore and violence, movies that smack of realistic intimacy are taboo -- especially between men. Gallup polls have shown Americans as growing increasingly tolerant of homosexuals, but movie audiences have never been confronted with a gay western. Conservative blogger Matt Drudge has already weighed in on "Brokeback Mountain," asking, "Will a movie even Madonna calls shocking sit with the heartland?"
"Brokeback Mountain" could be the mainstream gay romance that many people have been waiting for. One Toronto wag called it "the gay 'Gone with the Wind'."
"Of all the gay-themed films I've watched," says Damon Romine of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), "this is the first one I've seen about two men in love, told in a way that straight people can relate to. People don't have to be gay to understand loss and longing and unrequited love. Hollywood churns out endless variations on the theme of forbidden love. This is a new take on that genre, a film that has tremendous potential to reach and transform mainstream audiences."
In the end, a Hollywood studio didn't greenlight "Brokeback Mountain." It took a studio specialty division, Universal's Focus Features, to back the movie. New York veteran indie producers James Schamus and David Linde, accustomed to setbacks in making challenging material, had been trying to make "Brokeback" for years. When they took over Focus in 2002, they brought along the script, which had been adapted by Western author Larry McMurtry ("Lonesome Dove") and screenwriter Diana Osana from Annie Proulx's 1997 short story.
As soon as Lee, who has collaborated with writer-producer Schamus on many of his movies ("The Hulk," "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon") agreed to direct the movie, Focus went ahead with the production, which was filmed near Calgary, Alberta. It helped that ever since 1997's "The Ice Storm" Lee's strong support from foreign markets has given him "more creative freedom," he says.
"Brokeback" got made because of the emotional power of the material. A tragic romance set in the '60s and '70s, "Brokeback" is about two lovers who can't overcome the obstacles to achieving a permanent union. The two rough-hewn ranch hands can express themselves physically, in secret, but they have no words for their feelings. They both suffer. And they ruin their lives. "The cultural obstacles to this kind of romance," says Osana, "are within each one of us."
Osana and McMurtry's script became known in the film community as one of the great unproduced screenplays. "It's a story of doomed love that is clearly about two homosexual men," says Osana. "It's also a story about the women who marry homosexual men," adds McMurtry.
Director Gus Van Sant ("Elephant") and producer Scott Rudin ("The Hours") tried to make "Brokeback Mountain" at Columbia Pictures, but they couldn't get any actors "to commit," says McMurtry. "They'd say it was the best thing they'd ever read, and then they'd waver and anguish. Their agents were afraid and steered them away from it." Eventually, says Osana, "Gus had to take a paying job."
Schamus and Linde took it over, and finally Lee decided to go forward with "Brokeback" in 2004 with young actors who are "innocent in the beginning." This time, Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger jumped at the chance.
"Actors want to have juicy parts," says Lee. "Heath is the brooding, macho, shy man whose temper holds a lot of fear. There is a lot of self-denial, guilt and twisted psychology in that character, a bit like the Hulk. Heath carries the elegiac mood, that sense of loss you read in cowboy poetry. Jake is a good counterpart. He is the more brave one who comes to accept the romance."
When the time came to shoot the first love scene, Lee was moved by the "exposed private feelings" shown by the two actors. "It's rare to see," he says.
For his part, Lee has always refused to play by the rules of any culture, be it his native Taiwan or Hollywood. His breakthrough movie, 1993's "The Wedding Banquet" a touching story about a gay man coming out to his family, broke box office records in his native country. In 1995, Lee directed Emma Thompson's script of Jane Austen's romantic comedy of manners, "Sense and Sensibility," which earned seven Oscar nominations and won for best screenplay. "Repression is a main element of my movies," says Lee. "It's easier to work against something than along with something."
2000's Chinese action adventure "Crouching Tiger" mixed Western and Eastern movie aesthetics, grossed more than $213 million worldwide, scored 10 Oscar nominations, including best picture, and won the best foreign-language Oscar.
"People say I bend or twist genres," Lee says. "I think I'm twisted. It's a tricky thing for foreigners. You're not molded to cultural convention. You can do it as authentic as you want. That's the advantage of the outsider."
Talk about genre bending. The movie Western has long defined iconic American masculinity, from Gene Autry and John Wayne to Clint Eastwood.
"You have Montgomery Clift. It's always there," says Lee, who insists that "Brokeback" is "not a Western. No gunslingers. I don't want to undermine the sanctified image of the American Western man. It's a love story of real people in the West."
Lee leaned on documentaries about rodeos, the photography of Richard Avedon and Western experts Proulx and McMurtry, who took the director around their haunts in Wyoming and Texas. The only Westerns Lee cared about were the ones based on McMurtry's books: "Hud" and "The Last Picture Show" "Everything he needed to know about the West," says McMurtry, "was in the screenplay."
Schamus is on a mission to prove that there is pent-up demand for this material. "We have never made an apology from the beginning for making this movie," he says, "which we believe will deliver an emotional experience to a larger audience than the art house. The movie gives us the tools to create that appeal. We're saying, 'Here's the movie, here's what it looks like, come join us."'
Focus will release "Brokeback" in limited situations through the holidays -- as the big studio guns play themselves out -- and widen it in January. Since the trailer went out, Focus has placed a registration page for advance sales on the "Brokeback" Web site. The initial marketing push is to women and younger moviegoers. "You're looking for people who are empathetic," says Schamus, "and able to reach their emotions. And younger folks are way out ahead on this stuff. Overall, they are not worked up about gay issues." Becoming an Oscar contender should push "Brokeback" into must-see territory, as it did "Philadelphia."
Middle America will have plenty of gender-bending diversity to choose from this holiday season, from the big-budget studio musical "Rent" to Neil Jordan's "Breakfast on Pluto," starring Cillian Murphy as an Irish cross-dresser. "These are the movies with all the buzz," says GLAAD's Romine, "which should send a clear message to Hollywood that gays and lesbians are interesting people with interesting stories to tell. Films like 'Capote' and 'Brokeback' and 'Transamerica' show that the time has come for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender characters to come out on the big screen and take center stage."
Moviegoer response to these movies will finally give Hollywood the wealth of market data it so sorely needs.
What? There's never been a gay cowboy movie before? So it just existed in Eric Cartman's statement that all independent movies are just about gay cowboys eating pudding?
South Park is even more ahead of its time than I thought. It looked into the future and saw Brokeback Mountain. And added the pudding part.
Quote from: matt35mm on November 11, 2005, 03:46:10 PM
What? There's never been a gay cowboy movie before? So it just existed in Eric Cartman's statement that all independent movies are just about gay cowboys eating pudding?
South Park is even more ahead of its time than I thought. It looked into the future and saw Brokeback Mountain. And added the pudding part.
Its also the reason to even watch TV these days. Including, of course, Pardon the Interruption.
OK, my off topic-ness is over.
Quote from: hacksparrow on November 10, 2005, 10:48:09 PM
Quote from: onomabracadabra on November 10, 2005, 07:49:52 PM
I kind of wish this film would be marketed as simply a homosexuality film, so I can see some of the reactions to people when they realize that there are Cowboys involved.
Personally, I think it'll be more satisfying to see people's faces after they've paid ten bucks to see a movie about cowboys and find out halfway through that there's gay involved.
It'll be the biggest "what the fuck?" since Salma Hayek turned into a vampire.
personally, did you ruin the joke?
bareback mountain
boondock mountain
it's too easy
Chokecock Mountin'
backdoor mounting
Cold Mountain
Two guys, a mountain, and the rest writes itself
Yeah... Cold Mountain
The Gay Mountain
I didn't realize how many repressed homosexuals posted at xixax...
sodomy mountain
I don't think I've posted in this thread yet... which is surprising because I am incredibly excited to see this movie. Yes, the pervert in me is A-OK with Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal getting it on. I simply cannot wait! :bravo:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg529.imageshack.us%2Fimg529%2F7004%2Fbo0512050jx.gif&hash=978906683ea820ec6aa655bf465d346e7764f8b3)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg529.imageshack.us%2Fimg529%2F6471%2Fbo0512061zr.gif&hash=17a40d6475e4c7e7ab6ec5e7ab99eaec2af24096)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg470.imageshack.us%2Fimg470%2F1497%2Fbo0512076fs.gif&hash=852c4705f9992a605a780fd9d8091d75b1eaf02f)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg470.imageshack.us%2Fimg470%2F4946%2Fbo0512085bf.gif&hash=f54f500bd648adac6d8bafc79497bf240050370c)
this was good, but nowhere near great. i have to believe that critics are just so starved for a decent movie this year that films like this and History Of Violence are getting a little more attention than they might've in a better year. heath ledger is sort of a vacuous character with very little personality whatsoever (and a voice like Sling Blade and Dale from King Of The Hill), so it's a litle hard to understand why ANYone would fall for him, but whatever. when i really thought about it, the film itself really isnt that great. it's basically an average melodrama at best if you take away the fact that it's about two men which is the only thing that really makes it interesting. much of the film probably would've been pretty ridiculous had it been played between 'straight' characters because of how melodramatic it gets at times, but the film did manage to draw me in after a slow beginning and make me care about the characters. however, it really bugs me when films span a 20 year or greater period of time and have a young actor playing through the old stuff with a tint of gray in the hair and like, liverspots. its never convincing and always takes me out of the movie. i prefer to cast an older actor and suspend disbelief over playing a little younger than have to believe that gyllenhaal practically my age is actually 40 because he has sideburns and a mustache. in regards to the 'gayness', the impression i had was that the film would be about their lives apart and various reuinions of how they could never recapture the love they had on brokeback mountain but SPOILER it really wasnt that. they snuck off to have sex a few times a year with each other and so it really wasnt about the forbidden love. just that they couldnt fully give into it and live that way openly. END SPOILER the best part was the score that plays in the trailer and a few times in the film. C+
i completely agree with you about the aging process. especially anne hathaway. they didn't even try to cover her up or anything.
anyway, i really enjoyed it, mostly. the first hour and 15 minutes was just perfect filmmaking. then it kind of meanders and has no idea where it wants to go. so the end was kind of a let down, b/c yes, it is incredibly melodramatic. heath ledger and michele williams give the best performances in the entire film. there's not one false note coming out of them. gyllenhall and hathaway are also very good, but nowhere near as good as ledger and williams, who both deserve many, many awards. plus, the gyllenhall stuff isn't as well written. and the ending just felt like a cop-out b/c they had no idea how to end it effectively. but whatever.
of course it has great cinematography. beautiful wide shots of wyoming and lots of really intimate close-ups.
sorry, this review is pretty dry b/c i saw this a few days ago. it lingers with the viewer for a few days afterwards, it just should've had a stronger, less tearjerky ending. i just wish they could have written a better draft of the script and worked some of the kinks out or made a stronger cut of the film, b/c ang lee's direction and prieta's cinematography are both just so good. definitely one of the better if not best movies i've seen this year (and yes, the other great memorable movie i saw this year was history of violence).
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1796%2Farticle.jpg&hash=50efafa062ba14862dca67aebe4ac45180620cb3)
Few filmmakers can make a movie about two cowboys falling in love in 1963, like Brokeback Mountain, and have it be considered Academy Award material. But certainly Ang Lee is in a class by himself. He first gained notice in America with his “Father Knows Best” trilogy of The Wedding Banquet, Pushing Hands and Eat Drink Man Woman. Later he gained monstrous international acclaim with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon which was nominated for ten Academy Awards and won four. After that he ventured into big budget studio films with The Hulk.
After that film didn’t do as well as anticipated Lee went back to lower budgeted filmmaking with Brokeback Mountain. It stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger as two ranchhands who have a passionate love affair over 20 years to the detriment of their families.
Daniel Robert Epstein: Had you wanted to do something in the Western genre or was it just this script?
Ang Lee: The script hit me. But when that happens, usually I don’t know why. It could be something I was not familiar with, but it hit core emotions for me. Ride with the Devil was a pre Western and this is kind of a post Western. But both happen in the part of America that most people, certainly a foreigner like myself, don’t know. It’s the other side of America that really was influential to the world and that strikes me as something interesting.
DRE: Did you relate to one character more than the other?
Lee: Heath’s character. He’s the anchor for the movie. Also he carries the theme I always carry in my movie, repression, self-denial, fish out of water. He’s playing it more as inner conflict. Also I relate to him more because he carried that Western theme. He’s more of a macho man prone to more confusion. Jake carried more of the romantic love story part of the movie. Jake is one of the real classic American leading men. He carried that part of the ingredients for me in the movie. But I don’t feel that way. I’m more repressed than outgoing.
DRE: Are they gay or are they just guys that happen to fall in love?
Lee: To me, they’re gay. I think Jack Twist is more obvious about it. In the original short story, it’s very hard to tell if they are gay. But as actors who play them and filmmakers who make them, I think we need to know. They’re attracted to each other even though a particular character denies it. Ennis is more innocent in that way but when it hits, it’s very strong. Intuitively you don’t need a sex manual and he knows what to do so it was very dominant.
DRE: You think it’s the first time for both of them?
Lee: I don’t know if Jack is experienced, but he’s more knowing from the beginning.
DRE: [co-screenwriter] Larry McMurtry has said that your main focus was on the casting, what was the process for this?
Lee: Usually, if not all the time, I always seek good actors. I always want to work with actors that do dramatic type of movies, whether they’re a small movie or a big action. For cinema they have to carry certain things such as how Heath carried that Western thing. I want to make sure the audience can learn about who they are just from seeing them.
DRE: This is your second movie that you chose your main character to be a closeted gay man [after The Wedding Banquet]. What is it about that subject matter you find so interesting?
Lee: I don’t know. But for this one it’s mainly the short story that moved me so much. I wrote The Wedding Banquet myself. I used extreme examples to examine that change in my society. It was a tool for me to get into family drama. This is such a romantic love story, which I’ve never seen. I just fell in love with it and I felt I had to do it. I don’t choose to do a gay related subject matter because they are gay. I would do it again and again if they’re good.
DRE: Recently Jackie Chan that he said that an influence of American films is hurting Asian cinema. Having worked on both sides what do you think of that?
Lee: That’s a big question. That’s a phenomenon throughout the world. You really have to struggle to make your movies. There are always cheaper movies to be made. Independent movies, festival type of movies, art films. But the main industry is being hurt a lot. It’s easier for people to watch Hollywood movies. In the past, people who think they have class see American. If you were lower class, they didn’t want to read subtitles.
Now Korea is picking up. But it’s very hard for Chinese film to survive. Is Hollywood to be blamed? I don’t know. They have themselves to be blamed. It’s very hard to compete with Hollywood.
DRE: Is there something that Hong Kong can do to reclaim where it was?
Lee: They have to get into the Chinese market. That’s three times bigger than English speaking population. It’s hard because it’s been communist for a long time. They block out the commercialism for a very long time. They don’t have that genre. Now Hollywood is ready.
DRE: The range of material you’ve worked with is very broad, how do you choose what you do?
Lee: Different material hits me. I think I’m fortunate enough to have enough success to jump to different things. After the first three or four movies, I think I do have a need to break away from being stereotyped into a certain genre. Making movies is the best film school for me. I never get tired of it.
DRE: You’ve said you rediscovered your love of filmmaking making Brokeback Mountain especially after The Hulk. Why is that?
Lee: I know a lot about filmmaking and it’s hard to pretend that I was virginal with this new movie. But that’s what I did because I was just exhausted after doing The Hulk. I got sick and tired of just about everything. Not so much filmmaking, but what comes along with filmmaking. To support the filmmaking part, there’s a lot of social obligation and everything you have to deal with. That’s the part that drowned me. I deliberately wanted to make a smaller film. Movie by movie I can peel through layers and layers. That’s tiresome and quite abusive.
I really connectedwith this movie. An 'I forget where I am' kind of connection. I thought it was beautiful and passionate and tragic.
Quote from: modage on December 11, 2005, 12:01:46 AM
when i really thought about it, the film itself really isnt that great. it's basically an average melodrama at best if you take away the fact that it's about two men which is the only thing that really makes it interesting. much of the film probably would've been pretty ridiculous had it been played between 'straight' characters because of how melodramatic it gets at times
Really? Such an opposite reaction I had to the film. I thought to myself 'I've seen the straight version of this, it was called Age of Innocence, it was great, but it wasn't this great.' Stories about people who can't have what they want for reasons they can't control, societal reasons in particular, really just fucking hit me right in the heart. I felt, through excellent filmmaking, every bit of of these characters and their pain. It wasn't an empathetic reaction either, I have no idea what that would be like you know, it was just pure emotion solicited entirely from the performances, the writing, and the directing.
The characteres and situations weren't black and white either, which makes me disagree with the idea of this film being melodramatic. Again, I would use the word passionate. The reactionary scenes, the family scenes, the trips to Mexico, the upside down wife, the projecting, the clouds and the fields and the girl dancing for your attention.
I really liked the movie. A lot.
I liked it alot.
I was walking in expecting a tragic love story with the male role in place of the female role and instead got something much more complicated. I think I would have ADORED the film had it not been for Ang Lee's bullshit post card nature photography in the beginning... I can't stand that crap. But other than that, story and character-wise this film was entirely engaging, very tragic and memorable... Not in my top ten of the year but certainly a good movie.
dick up tom sizemore's butt mountain
Quote from: clerkguy23 on December 23, 2005, 02:36:12 AM
dick up tom sizemore's butt mountain
what the fuck was that? a retarded response to the joke that died 6 weeks ago?
go back to lurking.
just go back period.
go back mountain.
man, the comment obviously wasn't a serious attempt at making a witty joke about brokeback mountain. it involved tom sizemore and was basically a dick and fart joke. this board is filled with retards.
yey. go back to being elitist movie pricks.
Quote from: clerkguy23 on December 23, 2005, 11:46:52 PM
man, the comment obviously wasn't a serious attempt at making a witty joke about brokeback mountain. it involved tom sizemore and was basically a dick and fart joke.
well THANKS FOR DROPPIN' SOME KNOWLEDGE, clerkyguy23!
Quote from: clerkguy23 on December 23, 2005, 11:46:52 PM
this board is filled with retards.
yey. go back to being elitist movie pricks.
yey. i hope that was a goodbye.
Quote from: clerkguy23 on December 23, 2005, 11:46:52 PM
man, the comment obviously wasn't a serious attempt at making a witty joke about brokeback mountain. it involved tom sizemore and was basically a dick and fart joke. this board is filled with retards.
yey. go back to being elitist movie pricks.
:cry:
:yabbse-cry:
:yabbse-embarassed:
:|
:?
:o
:-D
:lol:
:laughing:
:rofl:
Igonre them, and they eventually just go away, remember?
I'd like to wash my hands of this most recent case of kneejerk reaction against the newbie. I have done some hating before but this instance I was just throwing out a punchline, with no malicious intention. I did exactly what the newb did and what most kids here do: you see a bunch of other kids making jokes and you wanna join in. I didn't think his punchline was that sinful that he deserved to be jumped. obviously he overreacted too, but don't you think it was kinda petty to tell this kid to "go back to lurking" because he was a new kid making a bad joke? I mean, Neon's over there spouting Republican hate for god's sake, I think we can tolerate one bad late joke from a newbie.
fair enuff pete. and i think this board is generally good about newbs, not everyone gets jumped on. i think the lesson learned here (if any) is that if you're a new member you prolly should do more than stupid jokes that are not only late but completely irrelevant (tom sizewho?). otherwise they're asking for a harsh reply until they smarten up and fly right. i stand by my comment, we need more I Love A Magicians and less clerkguy23s.
Quote from: pete on December 24, 2005, 12:09:12 AM
I mean, Neon's over there spouting Republican hate for god's sake
But when he does it, it's cute.
Besides, the newb bashing is all part of the process. We're like the army; if they make it through boot camp, they're fully prepared to fight in the trenches.
i have no problem with getting bashed as a newb. i've made some pretty stupid jokes on here, when generally i'm a pretty funny guy.
EDIT: I just took another stupid joke out of this post.
i get bashed all the time...it must be the fact that
a) i have opinions
b) i am a rupublican
c) i am a Christian
d) i hate godard films
e) i am a loser
btw
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE
f) you have a persecution complex.
Quote from: pyramid machine on December 25, 2005, 11:04:25 PM
i get bashed all the time...it must be the fact that
a) i have opinions
b) i am a rupublican
c) i am a Christian
d) i hate godard films
e) i am a loser
how about F: you're a gimp.
ha! i watched that last night! weeeeeeeeeeeird huh????
Now back to Brokeback Mountain.
Well well... I must say... I'm a little disappointed at the lack of attention the Xixaxers have been giving this movie. What a shame.
Quote from: modage on December 11, 2005, 12:01:46 AMSPOILER it really wasnt that. they snuck off to have sex a few times a year with each other and so it really wasnt about the forbidden love. just that they couldnt fully give into it and live that way openly.END SPOILER
Pssst... this is mini spoiler outrage below................................
I guess I disagree completely with Modage.
This movie was not about the need that these men had for gay sex a few times a year. It was about love. Perhaps the scene that most solidifies my opinion is near the end, when there is a flashback to them when they were younger and Ennis is singing into Jack's ear. This movie wasn't about pure sexual gratification, it was about the connection between two people. It was about the breakdown Ennis has after saying "I'll see you around" to Jack, It was about the look on his face when he writes, "you bet", on the postcard. It is the tears that Jack cries when he realises that Ennis's divorce will not make Ennis accept their love. There is too much between these two to make it about a "high alititude fuck".
This movie had a heartbreaking element that leaves you raw. To be honest, I'm getting teary-eyed as I type this. If you can watch this movie and forget for a minute that it's controversial, and forget that you're watching a flick geared toward Oscar buzz, if you can just let yourself remember the last time you really needed someone, then you'll understand why this movie is amazing. Once again, Ang Lee was dead on. He captured a truth, and I'm glad, because it needed to be seen.
Now I'm off to the theatre to see it again with another friend of mine. :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/opinion/01david.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1136178168-3dkFl1oVMf4XiXjrZvIEXw
Op-Ed Contributor
Cowboys Are My Weakness
By LARRY DAVID
Published: January 1, 2006
SOMEBODY had to write this, and it might as well be me. I haven't seen "Brokeback Mountain," nor do I have any intention of seeing it. In fact, cowboys would have to lasso me, drag me into the theater and tie me to the seat, and even then I would make every effort to close my eyes and cover my ears.
And I love gay people. Hey, I've got gay acquaintances. Good acquaintances, who know they can call me anytime if they had my phone number. I'm for gay marriage, gay divorce, gay this and gay that. I just don't want to watch two straight men, alone on the prairie, fall in love and kiss and hug and hold hands and whatnot. That's all.
Is that so terrible? Does that mean I'm homophobic? And if I am, well, then that's too bad. Because you can call me any name you want, but I'm still not going to that movie.
To my surprise, I have some straight friends who've not only seen the movie but liked it. "One of the best love stories ever," one gushed. Another went on, "Oh, my God, you completely forget that it's two men. You in particular will love it."
"Why me?"
"You just will, trust me."
But I don't trust him. If two cowboys, male icons who are 100 percent all-man, can succumb, what chance to do I have, half- to a quarter of a man, depending on whom I'm with at the time? I'm a very susceptible person, easily influenced, a natural-born follower with no sales-resistance. When I walk into a store, clerks wrestle one another trying to get to me first. My wife won't let me watch infomercials because of all the junk I've ordered that's now piled up in the garage. My medicine cabinet is filled with vitamins and bald cures.
So who's to say I won't become enamored with the whole gay business? Let's face it, there is some appeal there. I know I've always gotten along great with men. I never once paced in my room rehearsing what to say before asking a guy if he wanted to go to the movies. And I generally don't pay for men, which of course is their most appealing attribute.
And gay guys always seem like they're having a great time. At the Christmas party I went to, they were the only ones who sang. Boy that looked like fun. I would love to sing, but this weighty, self-conscious heterosexuality I'm saddled with won't permit it.
I just know if I saw that movie, the voice inside my head that delights in torturing me would have a field day. "You like those cowboys, don't you? They're kind of cute. Go ahead, admit it, they're cute. You can't fool me, gay man. Go ahead, stop fighting it. You're gay! You're gay!"
Not that there's anything wrong with it.
Larry David appears in the HBO series "Curb Your Enthusiasm."
This one has my head spinning a bit.
I don't quite understand how a director from Taiwan and DP from Mexico can So capture America. But looking back it kinda makes sense. Ang Lee has already been here with The Ice Storm, and Prieto with 21 grams. Though I have yet to see The New World this is hands down my pick for best cinematography. The way they used both lush landscapes and intimate intimate close-ups... :bravo:
Everything just seemed so solid. The look, score, story (which i'm not surprised by looking at Larry McMurtrys name) and the performances. I thought both male leads were really great, I guess Ledgers character just stands out more due to being less showy, if that makes sense. Someone please give Michelle Williams a little gold statue. This is the first thing I've seen her in and she was fantastic. Anne Hathaway was great too, that close-up while she is on the phone is Perfect. And it's always nice to see Randy Quaid and Linda Cardellini. Speaking of Cardellini, she is hot, and so is every other girl in the movie. I'm not sure what that means, I just noticed all of the females, including Ennis' daughter are babes.
Mod, I'm going to disagree with you. While this story might not be new, it is told so So SO well.
A
It WAS told so so well! Now... unfortunately... every monkey in the world is saying so too... I'm a monkey... and I feel like the Brokeback Backlash is going to be coming on full force pretty quick. So people, go watch it before you hear way too much.
You said it, sister... best line of the movie: "Brokeback got us good."
i'm going to have to So SO disagree with everyone and say that the movie was merely so so.
and I'm gonna have to so so SO disagree with you... this movie was one of the best of this year.
maybe you're just a homophobe!!!!
just kidding... cheap shot
but really... Ledger makes this film... Hathaway kind of sucks in it... especially when she's on the phone.
I will add to the pile of kudos for this movie. I think it's the best "Oscar movie" I've seen this year. I won't get to see The New World for a few weeks, though.
Ang Lee really is a very emotionally intelligent director. I don't know what to say to people about the movie, though. If they're uncomfortable with the subject matter, I don't know what I can tell them about it.
What I would probably say is that this movie is a fantastic meditation on the various relationships between men. The love, the hate, the need to assert domanance, and how all of that affects their relationships with the women in their lives. It's quite a smart movie in this department, and I found it fascinating.
The cinematography WAS indeed gorgeous. I forgot who said that they didn't like those picturesque shots, but that's a staple of a western (even though this wasn't quite a western), because these areas are so naturally beautiful. It wasn't distractingly gorgeous; it was simply complementary to the sweeping vistas and the rustic beauty of the towns.
Heath Ledger's performance was indeed heartbreaking. When I first heard of this movie, I didn't really know what to think of the cast. I felt like the financers just wanted some big names, especially for this kind of risky subject matter. All of the performances were good, in my opinion, but the story mostly belongs to Ledger's character.
Saying it's one of the best love stories ever is pushing it. There are a lot of great love stories, and this is but one of them. Even then, the love part is debatable, although I think that there is love there. In addition to that, there is an addiction to the one person that has understood the pressures of always having to be a MAN, an addiction to the few times a year that they didn't have to be so damned manly all the time.
What this movie has is a genuine and tender soul, and that's what defines it more than the love story, to me. That's in the performances and Lee's direction. The potency and it's ability to haunt the audience long after the movie is over is the power of the fine screenplay. Many audience members were crying at the end (helped by the fantastic end credits music selection), which was earned by the movie, and not done through cheap manipulation. I appreciated that.
I don't have much in the way of criticisms. As has been said, it's extremely well told. I would say it wasn't mindblowing, but just exactly what it needed to be. I wouldn't be against this winning Best Picture, as I suppose it's the current frontrunner. I personally thought it was better than Kong and Munich. A-
oh, the movie was pretty good. didn't know where Ang Lee was going 'til the very last shot, good for him. That took guts. That was way more plain and in ways less contrived/ plotted than all of his previous works. He really had to direct very specific performances and emotions for all of these elements to come together. my favorite thing to do in the cinema these days is to be overwhelmed, and Ang Lee did that in the end, so good for him.
now onto some babbling...
so weird, all of my favorite American actresses are in the same film together. I knew about Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway, so I was psyched enough as is. Then freaking Lindsey from Freaks and Geeks and then Anna Faris! Anna Faris! I met her in person once and she was so freaking hot. When she widens her eyes I wanna eat her like a candy bar. And Hathaway's funbags! Who cares about her cankles? I wanna punch them.
I share not one of your reasons for why I love this film
admin edit: spoils
This movie was great. Heath Ledger's performance is in fact really great, kinda like Pacino to Gyllenhaal's Caan. Gyllenhaal is great, but he has the burden of talking so damn much. I thought the women were all great, and Hathaway was good, but I agree with mod's complaints about the aging process. It's almost absurd, but what the hell, I still bought it. Gyllenhaal's scene with his father-in-law was fucking great, he's at his best when he's pissed off. The ending was the kicker, it totally did it for me. I didn't find myself crying, but I really wanted to. The idea of this long-forgotten, past summer that never happened again. That idea always gets me.
There was a strange aggression to their sexuality that made it very unique. In fact, the first sex scene might be hard to take if it weren't so violent, in a sense. Man, those shots with the sheep were absolutely incredible. Damn good movie. I don't know if it's one of my favorites from this year, but still really great. At least now, I'll understand why it'll win all these awards.
spoilers I guess
wow, I didn't elaborate much on why I liked it last night because 1) I was caught off-guard by all of my American crushes in one film and 2) I thought everyone talked about it already. Now I realized more than half of this thread was just kinda empty jokes, and I myself was a big contributor.
I thought Heath Ledger was an amazing actor, that guy had a good face. It wasn't one of those "soulful cowboy with a lotta stories to tell" faces (like the lebowski cowboy), it was more focused, just one guy haunted by one memory, and I really liked what he said to Jake in their last scene together. He thought he was mutilated by their love and at that moment it hit me that he was behaving like a mutilated man, unable to cope with life after the tragedy. That scene was not very well-written or put together (the music was just too much) but it had a strong core and I reacted to it viscerally. Whatever Lee was lacking in his technical knowledge he definitely made up in directing those performances, all of them felt very precise their emotions connected the scenes together. Maybe it was because I'd read Ang Lee's memoir (which taught me so much about directing actors) I was more aware, or those performances were just that genuine. I liked how the movie focused mostly on the reactions of the men as they went through their lives: Jack was more normal and Ennis evaded everything for some reason. I didn't think the ending was a copout, 'cause I thought Ledger's face and that very last shot was so haunting. It was one of those movies in which the plot didn't lead the characters anywhere and there weren't that many "arcs" and nothing really "developed", it was trying to get to the core of a melancholic, regreful longing, and trying to devastate you with it, and the movie ended as soon as you felt it. Ennis was such a repressed character it took 30 years/ two hours of screentime to capture that one moment in which he showed his true emotion unabashedly.
That, I feel, is more of an Eastern way of filmmaking--instead of linear story telling and arcs, it has one core message/ emotion and leads the audience into the core through the scenes. Ironically, Ang Lee's only attempted at this type of storytelling in his American period films like Brokeback Mountain and The Ice Storm.
I share every one of your reasons for why I love this film
I am soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo glad you guys liked this too. :)
Every guy I've talked to about seeing this film has gotten all macho about it. I'm so happy that you guys let yourselves realise how great it was, because it was great.
This was a great date movie actually.
Quote from: pozer on January 07, 2006, 03:29:57 PM
This was a great date movie actually.
Yeah, the girl I was with didn't even cry (but I almost did....)
So for various reasons, I haven't actually seen a movie in a theatre since summer with The Wedding Crashers. Ended that streak tonight with what was supposed to be a quadruple feature (Narnia, Syriana, Harry Potter, this). Got short-changed into a triple feature because, surprisesurprise, both remaining showings of this flick were sold out. Streams of guys, well-groomed, fit (okay, maybe a few wine-cooler bellies), strolling out with smiles on their faces. Good to see even here in the Bible belt, our homersexuals are fuh-laming. Or they just really love cowboys.
saw it tonight...very good.
question...includes spoilers...
did anybody else have an audience that laughed when ledger's wife caught them making out? i thought that was a very odd reaction to a very not funny moment.
The way my theater was laughing I thought perhaps the film had been billed as 'feel good comedy of the year.'
In reply to laughing....Spoilers
Luckily, the closest theater is in between suburbia and the city, so the crowd had the maturity to not laugh all the time. There was a lot of "ohh errr" like when they did get caught and had sex, but that was the same reaction I had, just typical "whoa what's going on here" kinda reaction. I was actually proud of the audience.
Utah Theater Cancels 'Brokeback Mountain'
A movie theater owned by Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller abruptly changed its screening plans and decided not to show the film "Brokeback Mountain." The film, an R-rated Western gay romance story, was supposed to open Friday at the Megaplex at Jordan Commons in Sandy, a suburb of Salt Lake City. Instead it was pulled from the schedule.
A message posted at the ticket window read: "There has been a change in booking and we will not be showing 'Brokeback Mountain.' We apologize for any inconvenience."
Cal Gunderson, manager of the Jordan Commons Megaplex, declined to comment.
The film, starring Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, is about two cowboys who discover feelings for one another. The two eventually marry women but rekindle their relationship over the years.
The movie's distributor, Focus Features, said that hours before opening, the theater management "reneged on their licensing agreement," and refused to open the film.
Gayle Ruzicka, president of the conservative Utah Eagle Forum, said not showing the film set an example for the people of Utah.
"I just think (pulling the show) tells the young people especially that maybe there is something wrong with this show," she said.
Mike Thompson, executive director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah, called it disappointing.
"It's just a shame that such a beautiful and award-winning film with so much buzz about it is not being made available to a broad Utah audience because of personal bias," he said.
Quote from: MacGuffin on January 08, 2006, 02:29:10 PM
Gayle Ruzicka, president of the conservative Utah Eagle Forum, said not showing the film set an example for the people of Utah.
"I just think (pulling the show) tells the young people especially that maybe there is something wrong with this show," she said.
they are, however, showing Hostel.
Quote from: abuck1220 on January 08, 2006, 01:53:35 AM
saw it tonight...very good.
question...includes spoilers...
did anybody else have an audience that laughed when ledger's wife caught them making out? i thought that was a very odd reaction to a very not funny moment.
I saw the film for the first time on Boxing day... so it was all the people who wanted to see it before Christmas but never had time... there was no laughing and there were tons of tears.
The next time I saw it, there was a ton of snickering... The audience must have been feeling a little childish that day. Not gonna lie, I couldn't help but think that everyone must be some sort of an asshole. But that's just me being judgmental...
No, you're right.
they were laughing like you'd expect an (stupid) audience to laugh at the kid from american pie getting caught fucking the pie. as if there was going to be some three's company-esqu hijinx stemming from it.
Much snickering in my showing, too.
I cant beleive it but this film deserves the accolades its getting and then some. Quite possibly my favourite film of 2005.
Ang Lee continues to amaze...I can't imagine a film as stylistically different from Hulk as this one. I thought the film was wonderful. I don't know that I want to watch it again any time soon, though. I found it incredibly sad. My wife was a faucet.
Ledger's performance came out of nowhere for me. He showed glimpses in Monster's Ball but this performance was a kick in the chest. You can feel everything that is going on underneath from his eyes alone. Incredible.
Also, my audience was great. Total silence. It was a sparse, mature crowd, which is probably the best for viewing the film.
I saw this not too long ago, and was actually kind of diappointing. In many ways, I thought that it really was this "beautiful film" that people keep describing, in the way it looked and the story it told. I think the thing that I didn't like is how it's being advertised: as a great love story. I see the love story, but it feels like when Ang Lee made this movie, he wanted to make this movie about sexuality, not love. It seemed like the sexuality was just overused, kind of, or too self conscious to really show a true love. Looking back on it, I liked the movie, and I think it was an important movie to be made, but when I was watching it, it just wasn't the kind of movie I was expecting to see at the time. Maybe if I get to go see it again, I'll like it better, but it isn't playing anymore. But I also thought that it dragged a bit, in the middle/ending when it was just going on over time. After a few years, the same thing kept happening and I was just starting to lose interest. But I don't want this sounding like I'm saying this is a horrible movie, because I did like it, but I just keep hearing people say that it's the best movie of 2005 and how amazing it is, and I guess I just think there are different movies that deal with the same subject matter that do it much better. At least this got more of a mainstream release.
Quote from: Figure 8 on January 19, 2006, 04:02:12 PM
I see the love story, but it feels like when Ang Lee made this movie, he wanted to make this movie about sexuality, not love. It seemed like the sexuality was just overused, kind of, or too self conscious to really show a true love.
But 99% of all the love stories ever made have used sexuality as a signifier for true love. The only reason it sticks out more in this case is because you're not used to seeing it with two men.
Quote from: polkablues on January 19, 2006, 07:13:20 PM
Quote from: Figure 8 on January 19, 2006, 04:02:12 PM
I see the love story, but it feels like when Ang Lee made this movie, he wanted to make this movie about sexuality, not love. It seemed like the sexuality was just overused, kind of, or too self conscious to really show a true love.
But 99% of all the love stories ever made have used sexuality as a signifier for true love. The only reason it sticks out more in this case is because you're not used to seeing it with two men.
Yeah, I know. I've wondered if that's what made me feel that way when watching it, but it just kind of felt to me that Ang Lee felt that way too, and that was his focus, rather than when someone is just writing a generic love story, I think the directors motivation is a bit different.
Quote from: Figure 8 on January 19, 2006, 07:50:26 PM
Quote from: polkablues on January 19, 2006, 07:13:20 PM
Quote from: Figure 8 on January 19, 2006, 04:02:12 PM
I see the love story, but it feels like when Ang Lee made this movie, he wanted to make this movie about sexuality, not love. It seemed like the sexuality was just overused, kind of, or too self conscious to really show a true love.
But 99% of all the love stories ever made have used sexuality as a signifier for true love. The only reason it sticks out more in this case is because you're not used to seeing it with two men.
Yeah, I know. I've wondered if that's what made me feel that way when watching it, but it just kind of felt to me that Ang Lee felt that way too, and that was his focus, rather than when someone is just writing a generic love story, I think the directors motivation is a bit different.
Are you saying that that's a bad thing, though? I agree, it's not directed like one would direct a generic love story, and I think directing it like one (where it JUST HAPPENS to be two men) wouldn't do justice to the complexities of the situation. Homosexuality is specifically a major theme, it's not meant to be a love story that just happens to be homo. I don't think that removes from the power of the relationship, even if they wanted to spend most of their time together having sex.
Quote from: matt35mm on January 19, 2006, 10:41:35 PM
I don't think that removes from the power of the relationship, even if they wanted to spend most of their time together having sex.
My impression was that they didn't necessarily
want to spend most of their time together having sex, but their time together was so very (heartbreakingly) limited and pressured that they wanted to connect in the most powerful way possible.
I was scared by the cheesy trailer, but I really loved this movie (which, as per usual, was absolutely nothing like the trailer). In the Ang Lee oeuvre, it makes a great pair with
The Ice Storm in the same way
Wedding Banquet and
Sense and Sensibility make a great pair--or
Crouching Tiger and
Hulk. I didn't understand why everyone hated
Hulk so much. I liked it at least as much as Nolan's
Batman Begins. I'm not a comic-book person, though. . . maybe there was something about
Hulk that wasn't "true to the source?"
Quote from: godardian on February 01, 2006, 04:55:44 PM
maybe there was something about Hulk that wasn't "true to the source?"
nope. people just didn't get it, besides me and JB
i liked the hulk a lot.
Quote from: Pubrick on February 01, 2006, 10:32:22 PM
Quote from: godardian on February 01, 2006, 04:55:44 PM
maybe there was something about Hulk that wasn't "true to the source?"
nope. people just didn't get it, besides me and JB
and me
AMAZING.
http://www.youtube.com/w/Brokeback%20to%20the%20future?v=KgK0IoMKWZc&eurl=
Quote from: modage on February 02, 2006, 06:48:57 PM
AMAZING.
http://www.youtube.com/w/Brokeback%20to%20the%20future?v=KgK0IoMKWZc&eurl=
Wow, that was great, but not perfect like The Shining trailer. But goddamn, so smart.
Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on February 02, 2006, 08:57:15 PM
Quote from: modage on February 02, 2006, 06:48:57 PM
AMAZING.
http://www.youtube.com/w/Brokeback%20to%20the%20future?v=KgK0IoMKWZc&eurl=
Wow, that was great, but not perfect like The Shining trailer. But goddamn, so smart.
True, not as well edited as The Shining trailer, but at least it's not treading the same ground. This was smart in another way, making fun of how bad the Brokeback Mountain trailer was. So we can say that they're both great at what they do.
I'm glad it was smart enough to approach it differently, making fun of a specific actual trailer. If this were just like all the other trailer re-cuts, it wouldn't be half as good.
whoa, weird, that was from chocolate cake city, an emerson comedy troupe founded by this kid Rob I knew. The troupe was never that funny and we used to make fun of Rob in class, though Rob was a nice guy and took everything in.
Now they're internet celebrities...
that's awesome, i know those guys.
'Brokeback' a Hit in Montana
Contradicting predictions by commentators that Brokeback Mountain would not attract ticket buyers in red-state strongholds like Montana, the film has actually performed strongly in many of those areas, distributor Focus Features has maintained. (Fox News commentator John Gibson remarked: "I think most people do not want to go into a darkened room with a tub of popcorn and munch away watching two guys get it on." His colleague Bill O'Reilly has opined that the film has received critical praise because the media "want to mainstream homosexual conduct." And he predicted, "They're not going to go see the gay cowboys in Montana.") However, the online magazine Salon today (Thursday) quoted the manager of the Wilma Theater in Missoula as saying that the film grossed $33,006 in its first four weekends there -- "one of our best starts for a movie we've ever had." In the conservative town of Kalispell, the film opened last Friday with $3,656. In the town of Whitefish, it took in $2,312 and beat out the three top national draws, including the No. 1 film, Big Momma's House 2. Salon indicated that the film is also a hit in Great Falls, Bozeman, and Helena, where it also opened at No. 1. Meanwhile, L.A. Weekly entertainment columnist Nikki Finke has observed that Brokeback Mountain could be passed over at the Oscar ceremonies. "That's because this year's dirty little secret is the anecdotal evidence pouring in to me about hetero members being unwilling to screen Brokeback Mountain. For a community that takes pride in progressive values, it's shameful that Hollywood's homophobia may be on a par with Pat Robertson's," Finke wrote.
That's wonderful. :bravo:
I'll simply say this for now: Best American Film of 2005.
A review is to follow, but the portrait of Americana, the seclusion, the largeness of life around a love story. A magnificent film that draws one to identify with the characters even if the obvious facts are different. (Only film better this year so far for me is Downfall)
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on February 04, 2006, 05:20:56 AM
(Only film better this last year so far for me is Downfall)
are we still talking about 2005?
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on February 04, 2006, 05:20:56 AM
I'll simply say this for now: Best American Film of 2005.
(Only film better this year so far for me is Downfall)
And that's his top ten list right there folks - ooooh snap!
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on February 04, 2006, 05:20:56 AM
I'll simply say this for now: Best American Film of 2005.
A review is to follow, but the portrait of Americana, the seclusion, the largeness of life around a love story. A magnificent film that draws one to identify with the characters even if the obvious facts are different. (Only film better this year so far for me is Downfall)
Looking forward to your expanded thoughts. I still haven't polished my review. Are you going to post your Telos article on the film or do separate thoughts for xixax and the student mag?
Finally finished up some thoughts on Brokeback Mountain. Hope ya'll find them semi-interesting...
It took "Brokeback Mountain" a long time to find its way to my hometown. Since it was first released, Ang Lee's "gay cowboy movie" has become the odds-on Oscar favorite, meriting as much attention for its meticulous construction and sweeping scope as it has for its content. In what seemed to be an effort to diffuse controversy before the vast majority of the public even saw it, many critics seemed to de-emphasize the fact that this is a gay love story in favor of stressing the universal applications of longing and unrequited love. This strikes me as a backhanded compliment. "Brokeback Mountain" is an unmitigated breakthrough for gay cinema into the mainstream and should be celebrated as such. That's not to say that straight audiences won't find it accessible, moving and brimming with universal relevance. On the contrary. But central to this film is the fact that it is about two men and their long-suffering relationship and the fears and prejudice that prevent it from fully flowering.
On the one hand, I don't want to contribute to the marginalization of the gay community by insisting that "Brokeback Mountain" belongs to gay cinema; on the other hand, what good is the film if the homosexuality of the protagonists is made incidental by the critical reception? The film is about love, yes. It is also about identity in the American landscape and the isolation that comes with being outside the comforting embrace of the mainstream.
Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) meet in the summer of 1963 as hired hands for a sheep magnate in Wyoming (played by Randy Quaid). Over the summer on Brokeback Mountain, as they share meals and shepherding duties, they fall in love. When the summer is over and the return to their routine lives, their forged connection remains unbroken. Ennis marries his longtime sweetheart, Alma (Michelle Williams), doing odd jobs wherever he can find work. Jack marries the daughter of a wealthy farm equipment salesman (Anne Hathaway) and gives up his rodeo dreams. The solace they take from scraping by on the outskirts of society is to escape from it altogether on "fishing trips," during which they drink, smoke, make love and talk of how things used to be, should be and, sadly, can never be.
Both men struggle with the yearning for each other in different ways. Jack is more willing to accept who he is; he's as lonely as Ennis but unwilling to be a loner. Jack seeks solace in the arms of other men while maintaining a stable, if icy, marriage. Ennis lashes out, sometimes violently, getting divorced from his wife and estranged from his youngest daughter. Yet Alma Jr. (Kate Mara) keeps in touch with her father and their relationship is tender, if distant, a redemption that Ennis is almost too hurt to accept.
Ennis retreats into the persona of the cowboy. When we first meet him, he's the spitting image of the Marlboro man, hat tucked low over his eyes, cigarette dangling from his lips, elbows crooked at his sides as he leans, waiting, against a trailer. After that summer on Brokeback Mountain, Ennis uses the "cowboy" as a shield; he's not a father, not a homosexual, not a husband. He uses his job as an excuse. Only at the end does he begin some semblance of integration, lowering his shield and reaching out towards himself through those he loves, be they alive or dead. Ledger's performance is masculine and vulnerable in the necessary psychological aspects and fully cultured, fermenting to slow-burn perfection over the course of two hours on screen.
"Brokeback Mountain" gives lost dreams and silent pining the shape and distance of a specific place and time long ago but just over the mythical next horizon. By making this a cowboy movie, Lee inserts an too-long unspoken reality into the manufactured legend of the American west just as its grandeur seemed in danger of dying out. The elegiac tone (established by breathtaking cinematography by Rodrigo Prieta and composer Gustavo Santaolalla) contrasts with the fiery passion of the amour of Ennis and Jack and the optimism that the success of the film (both artistically, critically and commercially) brings to our future. If there is a place for the gay cowboy in the American mythos, we can hope that there will be an acceptance of the gay community in mainstream society; not a place manufactured by political correctness and or minimal standards of "tolerance," but a genuine acceptance that will make the film's haunting image of two bloodstained shirts hanging inside a closet door as triumphant as it is poignant.
In response to this beautiful review, I can only say:
:salute:
Quote from: Split Infinitive on February 08, 2006, 10:55:30 AM
Finally finished up some thoughts on Brokeback Mountain. Hope ya'll find them semi-interesting...
It took "Brokeback Mountain" a long time to find its way to my hometown. Since it was first released, Ang Lee's "gay cowboy movie" has become the odds-on Oscar favorite, meriting as much attention for its meticulous construction and sweeping scope as it has for its content. In what seemed to be an effort to diffuse controversy before the vast majority of the public even saw it, many critics seemed to de-emphasize the fact that this is a gay love story in favor of stressing the universal applications of longing and unrequited love. This strikes me as a backhanded compliment. "Brokeback Mountain" is an unmitigated breakthrough for gay cinema into the mainstream and should be celebrated as such. That's not to say that straight audiences won't find it accessible, moving and brimming with universal relevance. On the contrary. But central to this film is the fact that it is about two men and their long-suffering relationship and the fears and prejudice that prevent it from fully flowering.
On the one hand, I don't want to contribute to the marginalization of the gay community by insisting that "Brokeback Mountain" belongs to gay cinema; on the other hand, what good is the film if the homosexuality of the protagonists is made incidental by the critical reception? The film is about love, yes. It is also about identity in the American landscape and the isolation that comes with being outside the comforting embrace of the mainstream.
Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) meet in the summer of 1963 as hired hands for a sheep magnate in Wyoming (played by Randy Quaid). Over the summer on Brokeback Mountain, as they share meals and shepherding duties, they fall in love. When the summer is over and the return to their routine lives, their forged connection remains unbroken. Ennis marries his longtime sweetheart, Alma (Michelle Williams), doing odd jobs wherever he can find work. Jack marries the daughter of a wealthy farm equipment salesman (Anne Hathaway) and gives up his rodeo dreams. The solace they take from scraping by on the outskirts of society is to escape from it altogether on "fishing trips," during which they drink, smoke, make love and talk of how things used to be, should be and, sadly, can never be.
Both men struggle with the yearning for each other in different ways. Jack is more willing to accept who he is; he's as lonely as Ennis but unwilling to be a loner. Jack seeks solace in the arms of other men while maintaining a stable, if icy, marriage. Ennis lashes out, sometimes violently, getting divorced from his wife and estranged from his youngest daughter. Yet Alma Jr. (Kate Mara) keeps in touch with her father and their relationship is tender, if distant, a redemption that Ennis is almost too hurt to accept.
Ennis retreats into the persona of the cowboy. When we first meet him, he's the spitting image of the Marlboro man, hat tucked low over his eyes, cigarette dangling from his lips, elbows crooked at his sides as he leans, waiting, against a trailer. After that summer on Brokeback Mountain, Ennis uses the "cowboy" as a shield; he's not a father, not a homosexual, not a husband. He uses his job as an excuse. Only at the end does he begin some semblance of integration, lowering his shield and reaching out towards himself through those he loves, be they alive or dead. Ledger's performance is masculine and vulnerable in the necessary psychological aspects and fully cultured, fermenting to slow-burn perfection over the course of two hours on screen.
"Brokeback Mountain" gives lost dreams and silent pining the shape and distance of a specific place and time long ago but just over the mythical next horizon. By making this a cowboy movie, Lee inserts an too-long unspoken reality into the manufactured legend of the American west just as its grandeur seemed in danger of dying out. The elegiac tone (established by breathtaking cinematography by Rodrigo Prieta and composer Gustavo Santaolalla) contrasts with the fiery passion of the amour of Ennis and Jack and the optimism that the success of the film (both artistically, critically and commercially) brings to our future. If there is a place for the gay cowboy in the American mythos, we can hope that there will be an acceptance of the gay community in mainstream society; not a place manufactured by political correctness and or minimal standards of "tolerance," but a genuine acceptance that will make the film's haunting image of two bloodstained shirts hanging inside a closet door as triumphant as it is poignant.
Please tell me you wrote that review for something other than Xixax (not that we don't deserve good reviews). Thank you. This film deserves more than a cliche and a trendy-film review.
Quote from: Thrindle on February 09, 2006, 02:45:22 AM
Please tell me you wrote that review for something other than Xixax (not that we don't deserve good reviews). Thank you. This film deserves more than a cliche and a trendy-film review.
but apparently it's not worthy of your 1000th post, you passive-aggressive homophobe.
i finally saw this today. i thought that it was very, very good in parts and very, very mediocre in others.
the super wide shots showcasing the clouds made me think of george carlin's bit about clouds in books, but that's just about all i have to say that hasn't already been covered in the previous 9 pages.
i could be mistaken but i dont think anyone else here except me found parts mediocre so i'd be curious to find out what you didnt think was spectacular about it.
i didn't like the repeated use of jake gyllenhaal's all-purpose pout, present in all of his roles that i've seen. some of the dialogue seemed canned, and i remember thinking that more could have been done with shot framing to pull the viewer into the story at a few points in the film, but specifics aren't coming to mind right now.
in spite of those things it still gets a solid 7-8 skulls. i don't want it to sound like i didn't like the movie. i did. a lot.
Quote from: permanent username on February 12, 2006, 12:04:16 AM
and i remember thinking that more could have been done with shot framing
Whuuuuuuuuuuut?
man this movie was sooooo good and sad. the cast was FANTASTIC. i thought jake was just as good as heath.
SPOILERS BELOW FOLKS
my only complaint, and i'm still on the fence on how i feel with this one, is that when they first hook up, does it come too abruptly? i felt we were short one scene before this that needed to show that these dudes were curious about eachother sexually (perfect time for this woulda been when heath gets naked by the river in the background and jake is in the foreground. all we need is for jake to catch a glimpse of heath in his birthday suit (and vice-versa)). but that didn't happen. jake never saw him naked, and i wasn't really feeling much sexual chemistry (or curiosity rather) before the tent scene. furthermore, you would've figured the first time they hooked up they would've exchanged hand jobs or something equally meaningless. but no, they really jumped right into full-blown sex, which seemed unusual given their mindset at the time—nervous, hesitant, embarrassed.
again, it's a minor complaint. it just felt really rushed (they go from sharing a tent on a cold night to going all the way without even a kiss or a little foreplay in between). however, i did like how rough the sexual interaction(s) were.
Spoilers
I completely disagree... one, I feel like there was chemestry present before that scene and two, I think one of the strongest things about the film is the immediate passion the two are drawn into. If they had started off light, it wouldn't have worked as well for the relationship.
I thought the implication during the Ennis-strips-in-the-background scene, with Jack's face relatively well into the foreground, was that there was definitely some interest, some out-of-the-corner-of-the-eye glimpse being caught. The visual there was really perfect to make us aware of at least some interest, I thought. . . . As someone who's been there, I can vouch for this being the case: The more you really want to get a full-on look, the more wary you are of being caught staring (perhaps this is true of anyone, but the situation probably occurs more often for same-sexers). It's no longer casual, but awkward, and I saw the framing there as capturing both the desire and the awkwardness.
I agree, cBrad, about the movie being so good and so sad. I haven't felt that way for that exact reason since the campfire scene in My Own Private Idaho, except this time the feeling lasted for the whole movie (at least Ennis and Jack got to be together, though, however inadequately).
i'm pretty sure that there's a lot of boyish playfullness (them wrestling each other) before the sex scene that defintiley creates a chemistry. i wonder if i would have felt that way if i didn't konw going into the movie that they were going to hook up. cause i was definitley subconciously looking for the "chemistry" up to them first...y'know...
Quote from: ©brad on February 13, 2006, 06:20:59 PM
when they first hook up, does it come too abruptly? i felt we were short one scene before this that needed to show that these dudes were curious about eachother sexually ... i wasn't really feeling much sexual chemistry (or curiosity rather) before the tent scene. furthermore, you would've figured the first time they hooked up they would've exchanged hand jobs or something equally meaningless. but no, they really jumped right into full-blown sex, which seemed unusual given their mindset at the time—nervous, hesitant, embarrassed.
As indiscreet as you were on their sexual advancements, I do agree. I can't say that I've seen the film but I read the script last night. Maybe the sexual tension went over my radar but I didn't really notice any sexual curiosity either. Again, I haven't seen the film so my observations very well may be misled. And about the "hand job" ordeal, I understand what you mean. How did they suddenly know how to have anal sex? Was the sexual tension mounting so much that one forbidden touch sparked such a fire in them? This leads me to believe that they had experimented in homosexuality before or with at least with anal sex. I would imagine that for a man to cross the boundary from women to men, he would forego an unprecedented amount of sexual attraction. Anyway, I felt the dialogue was very real and genuine considering my Being from Arkansas and having gone to college in Texas.
Quote from: Crash on February 14, 2006, 02:00:09 AMHow did they suddenly know how to have anal sex?
Because it's pretty much the same as vaginal sex but with an asshole instead.
Quote from: I Love a Magician on February 14, 2006, 02:25:12 AM
Quote from: Crash on February 14, 2006, 02:00:09 AMHow did they suddenly know how to have anal sex?
Because it's pretty much the same as vaginal sex but with an asshole instead.
you keep it classy, black beard.
Quote from: Crash on February 14, 2006, 02:00:09 AM
As indiscreet as you were on their sexual advancements, I do agree. I can't say that I've seen the film but I read the script last night. Maybe the sexual tension went over my radar but I didn't really notice any sexual curiosity either. Again, I haven't seen the film so my observations very well may be misled. And about the "hand job" ordeal, I understand what you mean. How did they suddenly know how to have anal sex? Was the sexual tension mounting so much that one forbidden touch sparked such a fire in them? This leads me to believe that they had experimented in homosexuality before or with at least with anal sex. I would imagine that for a man to cross the boundary from women to men, he would forego an unprecedented amount of sexual attraction. Anyway, I felt the dialogue was very real and genuine considering my Being from Arkansas and having gone to college in Texas.
just so you know, there's only so many times you can cop out by pretending you're joking before people start believing you really are a retard.
Quote from: Pubrick on February 15, 2006, 09:16:15 AM
just so ypu know, there's only so many times you can cop out by pretending you're joking before people start believing you really are a retard.
Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet.
Do you hate me or something? Cuz it sure sounds like it.
I threw a disclaimer before I said anything. What's your point?
so did you hav to practice on a pie or something before you had sex for the first time? did you try (and presumably fail) your first attempt with a real person and have to go back to the drawing board?
oh you mean you were being sarcastic about that part.. then why is it wedged between the rest of your legitimate review? or did you mean the whole thing was a joke. like i said, at some point the "joke" excuse becomes invalid. i don't hate you, i just think you've reached that point.
Quote from: godardian on February 13, 2006, 07:07:03 PM
I thought the implication during the Ennis-strips-in-the-background scene, with Jack's face relatively well into the foreground, was that there was definitely some interest, some out-of-the-corner-of-the-eye glimpse being caught. The visual there was really perfect to make us aware of at least some interest, I thought. . . .
I thought exactly the same thing. I haven't seen the movie again lately but I remember thinking about the way he swallowed hard, and seemed slightly uncomfortable, that his desire translated well. I don't know how chemistry is between two men, because I am female and we are way more open with our emotions, but Ennis's ability to express himself to Jack was evident from the get go.
I too thought the initial sex scene was a little hurried, but it was also filled with a tacit desire, alcohol, and need. Actually, as I write this, I second guess myself... it wasn't hurried, it was filled with passion.
As for the dude who said, "How did they know how to have anal?"... yes that's a stupid question (Heath's hand spit implies the common sense you might just lack)... but it is a good question in the pondering of... "Did Jack ever do that before?"
I'm guessing yes. Or is that too blatantly obvious?
Quote from: Pubrick on February 15, 2006, 10:41:43 AM
so did you hav to practice on a pie or something before you had sex for the first time? did you try (and presumably fail) your first attempt with a real person and have to go back to the drawing board?
I'm not asking how did they know what anal sex was. I definitely worded it wrong. -234324 points for me. My question was how did they
both know they wanted it? How did they know to move on to full on sex? From nothing to the maximum. How did they both so quickly drop the "not-attracted" facade. I believe this is a legitimate question.
Quote from: ©brad on February 13, 2006, 06:20:59 PM
you would've figured the first time they hooked up they would've exchanged hand jobs or something equally meaningless. but no, they really jumped right into full-blown sex, which seemed unusual given their mindset at the time—nervous, hesitant, embarrassed.
(they go from sharing a tent on a cold night to going all the way without even a kiss or a little foreplay in between).
Exactly.
Quote from: Pubrick on February 15, 2006, 10:41:43 AM
i don't hate you, i just think you've reached that point.
:yabbse-undecided: Didn't mean any mischief.
Quote from: Thrindle on February 15, 2006, 07:58:24 PMI too thought the initial sex scene was a little hurried, but it was also filled with a tacit desire, alcohol, and need. Actually, as I write this, I second guess myself... it wasn't hurried, it was filled with passion.
i think i'm going to second guess myself as well and agree with you. especially after thinking about this:
Quote from: Thrindle on February 15, 2006, 07:58:24 PMAs for the dude who said, "How did they know how to have anal?"... yes that's a stupid question (Heath's hand spit implies the common sense you might just lack)... but it is a good question in the pondering of... "Did Jack ever do that before?"
I'm guessing yes. Or is that too blatantly obvious?
it wasn't blatantly obvious to me at first, but it makes sense that jack had some experience with men before. i mean, he knew exactly where to go in mexico for a bit of the old in and out, and we know that he had some other guy in the states he was involved with.
This along with Downfall are the best flims I've seen, of course I haven't seen much but still.
The only thing I can think to say is that it affected me deeply, like no other flim has in many years, without a doubt one of the most emotional flims I've seen.
My Pubrick-esque review:
worked
everything
failed
nothing
winner
us
Note to P: If you have had a crush on M. Williams just wait and see her in this, I never liked her before but here she looks so lovely.
i went to go see this last night, piss ass drunk. snuck in two flask sized bottles of whiskey, finished those off within the first hour, got really depressed, and asked my friends if we could leave to go see final destination 3. that movie kicked ASS!
after that ended, we went in to see the last 10 minutes of running scared.
going to big multiplexes drunk rules.
on a monday, taz? :yabbse-angry:
Quote from: bonanzataz on February 28, 2006, 09:54:53 PM
i went to go see this last night, piss ass drunk. snuck in two flask sized bottles of whiskey, finished those off within the first hour, got really depressed, and asked my friends if we could leave to go see final destination 3. that movie kicked ASS!
after that ended, we went in to see the last 10 minutes of running scared.
going to big multiplexes drunk rules.
If only you were gay.
i am.
If only you were black.
i am all minorities. i just can't choose one so i've decided to be all.
Well now we've got something to talk about. Let's dance.
how can the gays be a minority when like, 80% of the dudes in this world are gay?
redirect:
http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=529.0
I loved this film. It was paced really well, the acting was very heart felt and believable, and even though it was about homosexuality, I think it really speaks to love in all situations maintained in the face of harsh adversity. At the end of the film it actually pissed me off to know that Crash beat this. I can see how people could like Crash, but to say it was the best film of 2005 and moreover, to say it was better than this, is purely wrong. In terms of filmmaking, Brokeback Mountain danced circles around Crash.
Also, I think I spotted a continuity error. At the whole "I wish I could quit you" scene, Jake has a mustache (which really does not look right). During that scene, they're in the same spot, wearing the same clothes, but he doesn't have a mustache for a brief duration in the conversation, and then he has a mustache again before Heath leaves. Was this supposed to be a cut back in time and I missed something, or was it an error on the part of the editing?
i believe what you're talking about was a flashback.
All right. It was such a fluid transition, which was probably on purpose, but nothing appeared to have changed.
yeah, i do believe that was part of the point. i think it's one of the best moments of the film actually.
I was thinking it had to be a flashback, I'd definitely give credit to them to not allow a screwup like that.
mtv sucks so much that i thought about jimmy fallon and the video music awards 2006 when jack gives his brokeback mountain speech.
let's pray they don't do it.
it was a beautiful film, i need to see it again because a gay imbecile who was right next to me kept making excitement noises during every sex scene and he acted all rude when a mister asked him to be quiet.
Wait a second, so you're saying gay people can be just as rude as other people?
Somewhere in L.A., Paul Haggis's brain explodes.
There, that's my Crash bash. I'm done, and let's all just be.
Universal has officially announced the DVD release of Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain for 4/4 (SRP $29.98). Separate anamorphic widescreen and full frame versions will be available. Extras will include 4 featurettes (On Being a Cowboy, Directing from the Heart: Ang Lee, From Script to Screen: Interviews with Larry McMurtry & Dana Ossana and Sharing the Story: The Making of Brokeback Mountain).
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx%2Fcovers2%2Fbrokebackmountaindvd.jpg&hash=4aca55a4bcef4700892f63b9c39b0f5f9dc005df)
Wow.... If 4/4 turns out to be the real street date, this DVD and The Morrissey album (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EGFW5S/sr=8-2/qid=1142890366/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-8068443-6518267?%5Fencoding=UTF8) will be released on the same day. :bravo: I will have both on eagerly awaited pre-order, of course.
Quaid Sues Over Payment for 'Brokeback'
Randy Quaid, who plays a tough sheep rancher in "Brokeback Mountain," claims he was fleeced for his work in the movie.
Quaid filed a lawsuit Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging producers got him to work cheap by falsely claiming "Brokeback" was "a low-budget, art-house film, with no prospect of making any money."
"Yet from day one, defendants fully intended that the film would not be made on a low budget, would be given a worldwide release, and would be supported as the studio picture it always was secretly intended to be," the lawsuit says.
Quaid agreed to waive his usual seven-figure fee and share of gross profits in favor of a much smaller payment, the lawsuit claims, although it doesn't say how much he was paid.
The 55-year-old actor was nominated for an Oscar for his role in 1973's "The Last Detail" He played "Colonel" Tom Parker, Elvis Presley's manager, in the TV movie "Elvis."
The lawsuit alleges intentional and negligent misrepresentation and seeks at least $10 million in damages. It names Focus Features LLC, Del Mar Productions LLC, which was formed by Focus to make the movie, and producers David Linde and James Schamus.
Focus is the specialty movie arm of Universal Pictures. Linde and Schamus were co-presidents of Focus when the film was made. Linde was recently promoted to co-chairman of Universal Pictures.
A call to Focus seeking comment wasn't immediately returned Friday.
The lawsuit contends that industry guilds define a low-budget film as having a budget of $500,000 to $7 million, but the budget for "Brokeback" was about $15 million.
The average cost of making a studio picture last year was $60 million, according to the Motion Picture Association of America.
"Brokeback Mountain," which won Oscars for best director, original score and adapted screenplay, has grossed more than $82 million in North America.
I was just about to post this....Randy Quaid is worth seven figures??? That better include the two zeroes after the decimal.
A few things cross my mind at this:
-Quaid is a VERY minor star and was barely in the movie. Seven figures would have represented a ridiculously disproportionate amount of that budget. Focus makes films like Far from Heaven and Brokeback for $13 million, $14 million, and they look like they cost five times that much. It was nothing more than a cameo, really.
-That's the other thing: I think that it's only fair to say that any film that costs $20 million or even $25 million or less should be considered "low budget." I don't work in the biz in any way, so maybe I'm mistaken. Does anyone with more knowledge happen to know how much a bare-bones bottom-of-the-barrel budget would actually be for something like Brokeback? I'm guessing that figure is not much less than what they spent.
-I wonder if this is really Quaid's doing. If it were his own decision, I'd think he was a greedy, conniving asshole. But if an agent put him up to, I'm more ambivalent. You'd tend to take the advice of someone you pay to handle your career, and it comes as no surprise when those people are conniving.
-A mean joke on Will and Grace that would've slipped my mind were it not for this:
Grace: People say [attractive female movie star] and look so much alike, we're practically twins.
Karen: Yes...just like Randy Quaid is Dennis Quaid's "twin."
The thing is that they dont disclose what he actually made... maybe it was TOO LOW... like if the movie was 3-5 million and not 14.
He is definetly not worth seven figures, and I dont think neither one of the actors got paid that much. Usually a film doesnt spend more than 25-35% of the budget total in the talent. There are excepcions of course, but thats like the general rule. That means that the total cost of the movie without talent was lets say 9 million. Then you have to divide 5 million dollars within Ang Lee, Jake G, Heath Ledger, Anne Hathaway, Michelle Williams, and of course Randy Quaid. The rest, do the math...
Quote from: MacGuffin on March 24, 2006, 01:40:26 PM
Quaid Sues Over Payment for 'Brokeback'
going into the film he should've known he was going to get
screwed...
:splat:
:yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-huh:
Because he's a guy and....
bah, it's not worth explaining.
Quote from: Slightly Green on March 27, 2006, 12:41:49 PM
Because he's a guy and....
bah, it's not worth explaining.
The tomato was
very apt, is all I have to say. The comment is ripe for richly deserved criticism and deconstruction, but the tomato says it all, including the fact that the poster very mistakenly thinks he's being naughty and cute. Not funny; sort of sad, really. It should be noted that it's the same person who's acclaiming (and misspelling) Paul Verhoeven, slobbering over Sharon Stone, and dissing Kathy Bates in the
Basic Instinct 2 thread. "Consider the source" is a good rule here, but it really doesn't remedy the annoyance or--more to the point--make it any less embarrassing for the poster.
Quote from: godardian on March 27, 2006, 01:02:31 PM
The tomato was very apt, is all I have to say. The comment is ripe for richly deserved criticism and deconstruction...
:yabbse-thumbup:
Quote from: godardian on March 27, 2006, 01:02:31 PM
Quote from: Slightly Green on March 27, 2006, 12:41:49 PM
Because he's a guy and....
bah, it's not worth explaining.
The tomato was very apt, is all I have to say. The comment is ripe for richly deserved criticism and deconstruction, but the tomato says it all, including the fact that the poster very mistakenly thinks he's being naughty and cute. Not funny; sort of sad, really. It should be noted that it's the same person who's acclaiming (and misspelling) Paul Verhoeven, slobbering over Sharon Stone, and dissing Kathy Bates in the Basic Instinct 2 thread. "Consider the source" is a good rule here, but it really doesn't remedy the annoyance or--more to the point--make it any less embarrassing for the poster.
wow...dude, how could a stupid and rather cheesy comment, which is on the same level of a rejected every body loves raymond line of dialog, be "ripe for richly deserved criticism and deconstruction"???? its not worth anyones time for that...i wasn't thinking that my comment was "naughty or cute" ..but that makes me hot thinking you do...as for vehoeven [sp?], everyone knows that i am grammatically handicapped and i do think that verhoven is an awesome director..showgirls, total recall, robocop, and the highly underrated basic instinct..they are all trashy but entertaining as well...they are masturbatory high-budget b-films....if anyone here doesnt enjoy one of his films, then quite frankly they are a douche and and snob...but i don think we will run into that problem here..i've got faith in xixax....and i have no shame slobbering over sharon stone...its sort of the same thing you get off on kathy bates...i think its cool for a 50+ hollywood starlet to show snatch and tits...she's hot and machine made....just like you think its "magnificent" for kathy bates to get naked in a hot tub...it was quite an undertaking for her..i'm sure...but i still think shes ugly..but an incredible actress, just like my oscar winning stone...theres nothing wrong w/ thinking someones ugly..shit, i am probably considered ugly by people...and as for basic instinct 2 , i am looking forward to it..and it intrigues me that thewlis is in it...i am sorry you found my post "annoying"...but i am not embarrassed one bit by it...you should be embarrassed for writing an eloquently posed rebuttal to my cheesy post to begin with..its doesnt deserve your time devoted ot it...
Quote from: pyramid machine on March 28, 2006, 09:19:32 AM
oscar winning stone
that, uh, never happened.
Quote from: pyramid machine on March 28, 2006, 09:19:32 AM
you should be embarrassed for writing an eloquently posed rebuttal to my cheesy post to begin with..its doesnt deserve your time devoted ot it...
hah, you're right about that.
Quote from: Pubrick on March 28, 2006, 09:27:49 AM
Quote from: pyramid machine on March 28, 2006, 09:19:32 AM
oscar winning stone
that, uh, never happened.
:doh:
damn, i meant globe
well, godardian you win b/c of my ignorance
Quote from: pyramid machine on March 28, 2006, 09:40:02 AM
you win b/c of my ignorance
you need to say that at the end of every conversation on this here board.
Quote from: pete on March 28, 2006, 10:10:08 AM
Quote from: pyramid machine on March 28, 2006, 09:40:02 AM
you win b/c of my ignorance
you need to say that at the end of every conversation on this here board.
hahaha..touche
I politely but firmly disagree with Pubrick, who never hesitates to let go and slam people really hard for what he sees as their stupidity or impropriety. My opinion on the "screwed" comment stands unaltered, and I think where the embarrassment lies will be objectively clear to most.
The comment in question is precisely equivalent to me saying of Sharon Stone's displeasure at being deceived by Verhoeven on Basic Instinct [the first] re the degree and kind of nudity, "Well, she shoulda known she was gonna be screwed--HAR!"The wildly heterocentric implication here is that it's funny in the case of Quaid's complaint because--and only because--it was a male screwing another in Lee's film, and therefore the movie is much more (even primarily--SO wrong) about screwing than it would've been if the couple had been an opposite-sex one. I'm very well aware that that's not what was intended, and I wouldn't go so far as to call pyramid machine a homophobe, but that is how the comment reads to me. If anyone honestly thinks I'm wrong about this, I would appreciate a sincere explanation of how. If someone thinks I'm wrong just to express my opinion of what was posted, I think I've covered that.
I simply found the comment really grim for a joke (and much more revealing than it was intended to be, I'm sure--but the revelation is very clearly there). People can say what they want, and I can say what I want in response. I think people who take advantage of the mere presence of gay sex to have an easy laugh should know that there is a very different view of it--they should at least be prepared for a gay person to have a feeling or two about that kind of response. It has nothing, nothing to do with "winning" for me--I do not view our interactions here as a competition. Some comments I like, and some I don't, and some I feel strongly enough about to rebut. And what it comes down to is that I simply didn't want to have seen a really cheap comment like that in this thread, and no attempt to auto-defuse it could have been sufficient (though I suppose I appreciate the effort as better than nothing). I don't think my opinion counts for more than anyone else's, but that is how I felt about it, and I don't think I'm wrong to express it.
http://imdb.com/news/wenn/2006-03-29/
that top headline just made me laugh. a lot.
Quote from: godardian on March 28, 2006, 01:29:16 PM
I politely but firmly disagree with Pubrick
that's odd. cos i completely agreed with everything you wrote.
Quote from: godardian on March 28, 2006, 01:29:16 PM
I wouldn't go so far as to call pyramid machine a homophobe,
why don't you? he is one. everyone knows he is one. he ALWAYS writes from the perspective of one. the problem here is you have been gone so long you think Neon (pyramid machine's original name) is a worthy target of some great discourse on homophobia when everyone else has already exhausted themselves trying to talk sense to the guy and now just treat him as a joke which is what he is when it comes to these matters. what he was pointing out, and i agreed with, was that you should catch on to this fact.
Quote from: godardian on March 28, 2006, 01:29:16 PM
If anyone honestly thinks I'm wrong about this, I would appreciate a sincere explanation of how. If someone thinks I'm wrong just to express my opinion of what was posted, I think I've covered that.
Quote from: godardian on March 28, 2006, 01:29:16 PM
I don't think my opinion counts for more than anyone else's, but that is how I felt about it, and I don't think I'm wrong to express it.
wow, i feel like when you first came to the board and took everything way too seriously. know this: what you have written on this page and the last will not reach neon. he won't understand it.. not cos he's arrogant like many other jerks we've seen come and go, and whom you would be completely right to talk an earful to, but because he CAN'T.
this whole thing, neon's joke didn't even make sense. he should've said "screwed up the
ass" but he even fucked that up. no one cares what he said. he's a homophobe, we know that, we are all pretty much sick of talking about it in any serious way to him. he also loves Crash if you havn't noticed. and no i don't wish to enter into a discussion of "so stupid kids should never be taught right from wrong?" because for one thing neon is almost 30 years old and i'd consider the damage done. just assume i agree with every righteous thing you hav to say, but that in this case it is useless.
you took my comment as an affront to free speech, when all i'm saying is save your breath. take the time to look at the many pages we've all wasted arguing over something homophobic or otherwise misguided neon has said. you're not the first to be outraged, only the last.
Quote from: bonanzataz on March 29, 2006, 01:50:13 AM
http://imdb.com/news/wenn/2006-03-29/
that top headline just made me laugh. a lot.
:lol:
I've taken to reading the W*E*N*N "news" on IMDB instead of the
Onion. I love their gushy drama-queen style. They might as well have written, "Big Gay Movie Wins Big Gay Honor." The term also kind of hilariously implies that there's like, some special samurai same-sex Code of Gay Honor.
So many glove slaps....
Quote from: Pubrick on March 29, 2006, 04:13:05 AM
he also loves Crash if you havn't noticed.
the most eloquent way to kill anybody's arguments on xixax.
Quote from: Pubrick on March 29, 2006, 04:13:05 AM
Quote from: godardian on March 28, 2006, 01:29:16 PM
I politely but firmly disagree with Pubrick
that's odd. cos i completely agreed with everything you wrote.
Quote from: godardian on March 28, 2006, 01:29:16 PM
I wouldn't go so far as to call pyramid machine a homophobe,
why don't you? he is one. everyone knows he is one. he ALWAYS writes from the perspective of one. the problem here is you have been gone so long you think Neon (pyramid machine's original name) is a worthy target of some great discourse on homophobia when everyone else has already exhausted themselves trying to talk sense to the guy and now just treat him as a joke which is what he is when it comes to these matters. what he was pointing out, and i agreed with, was that you should catch on to this fact.
Quote from: godardian on March 28, 2006, 01:29:16 PM
If anyone honestly thinks I'm wrong about this, I would appreciate a sincere explanation of how. If someone thinks I'm wrong just to express my opinion of what was posted, I think I've covered that.
Quote from: godardian on March 28, 2006, 01:29:16 PM
I don't think my opinion counts for more than anyone else's, but that is how I felt about it, and I don't think I'm wrong to express it.
wow, i feel like when you first came to the board and took everything way too seriously. know this: what you have written on this page and the last will not reach neon. he won't understand it.. not cos he's arrogant like many other jerks we've seen come and go, and whom you would be completely right to talk an earful to, but because he CAN'T.
this whole thing, neon's joke didn't even make sense. he should've said "screwed up the ass" but he even fucked that up. no one cares what he said. he's a homophobe, we know that, we are all pretty much sick of talking about it in any serious way to him. he also loves Crash if you havn't noticed. and no i don't wish to enter into a discussion of "so stupid kids should never be taught right from wrong?" because for one thing neon is almost 30 years old and i'd consider the damage done. just assume i agree with every righteous thing you hav to say, but that in this case it is useless.
you took my comment as an affront to free speech, when all i'm saying is save your breath. take the time to look at the many pages we've all wasted arguing over something homophobic or otherwise misguided neon has said. you're not the first to be outraged, only the last.
whoa!!!!....hold on up here...theres to much shit to quote individually..so, i'll take this bite...
lets clear up this homophobic missunderstanding that you guys are labeling me...and, if ya'll good natured liberals will allow me some free speech and i'll take my stance on certian issues to clear my name from some of these ridiculous accusations against me.........
my feelings towards homosexuals:
simply put i dont agree w/the lifestyle...and its okay to feel like this...as i mentioned i dont agree w/anyone who says david lynch sucks....it's nothing personal to the gay person in question ..just like its nothing personal against anyone here who hates lynch...i am not one of those fucking rednecks who have a sign saying "faggots go to hell"...i do not condone any sort of hate crimes against gays either...i would treat a gay person w/the same amount of respect as a straight person...and i am a nice guy...people who i've PM'ed to should know thats me being honest and 100% genuine...now,a homophobe is someone [imo] is offended in every way by homosexual behaviour AND HATES ANY HOMOS...i dont hate the person at all...so, you guys are way off base w/ labeling me a homphobic...but as we conservatives know......its so easy to label :yabbse-grin:
"going into this film he should've knows he was going to get screwed":
how could such a corny remark start something like this???? godardian, i aplogize if this offened you in a personal way..honestly, i think you are overreacting to this statement..the only people that my statement should offend is people w/good senses of humor...
p, i consistantly name drop you b/c i find you a great poster/person...but, dude, where does this homophobic shit come from..you should be smart enough to know thats not the case!
Quote from: pyramid machine on March 29, 2006, 11:55:59 AM
p, i consistantly name drop you b/c i find you a great poster/person...but, dude, where does this homophobic shit come from..you should be smart enough to know thats not the case!
you're right. replace any occurrence of the word homophobe in my post with "republican". :yabbse-thumbup:
When I went to see this, it was near full (but this was at a theater that plays the films after they've had their run at the more expensive theaters). Not only was it so packed (which is unusual at this theater) but 90% of the audience were senior citizens. I almost felt uncomfortable there, like I was watching it with my Grandma and Grandpa or something. That was only a fear going into the movie, I was pretty engrossed after it started because it was very enjoyable.
The only people that walked out early was a young couple in front of me, which was so strange to me. I heard the old people talking after the film and they were discussing how much they loved it. A bizarre, heartwarming experience.
Quote from: Walrus on March 29, 2006, 01:29:29 PM
When I went to see this, it was near full (but this was at a theater that plays the films after they've had their run at the more expensive theaters). Not only was it so packed (which is unusual at this theater) but 90% of the audience were senior citizens. I almost felt uncomfortable there, like I was watching it with my Grandma and Grandpa or something. That was only a fear going into the movie, I was pretty engrossed after it started because it was very enjoyable.
The only people that walked out early was a young couple in front of me, which was so strange to me. I heard the old people talking after the film and they were discussing how much they loved it. A bizarre, heartwarming experience.
That actually
is heartwarming, and it confirms something I've long suspected: at least here (in Seattle), old people can actually be cooler than young people (of course, in other instances they can be way more reactionary). When I went to see
The Dreamers opening weekend, it was mostly middle-aged/senior moviegoers, and I thought, "Wow--these people were probably around for Bertolucci's heyday, and they remember--they're impassioned and interested about movies in the old-fashioned way." I love that; it makes me feel better about getting older, and also much more generous towards past generations than I have been in the past. Ideally, a lifetime of experience leads to more tolerance and interest, though it could also lead to the more stereotypical fear and intolerance.
pyramid machine, man, you gotta change that font.
Quote from: pyramid machine on March 29, 2006, 11:55:59 AM
my feelings towards homosexuals:
simply put i dont agree w/the lifestyle...and its okay to feel like this...as i mentioned i dont agree w/anyone who says david lynch sucks....it's nothing personal to the gay person in question ..just like its nothing personal against anyone here who hates lynch.
i'm not understanding how you are equating gay-bashers to lynch-bashers. furthermore, i do not really see how a person can be open-minded enough to love lynch's work but at the same time cannot accept the gay lifestyle.
Quote from: JimmyGatorpyramid machine, man, you gotta change that font.
yes please.
http://imdb.com/news/sb/2006-03-29/#film3
...I think Ledger and/or Gyllenhaal need to step up and say something about their pay for the film compared to their pay for any larger-budget films. How much was Jennifer Aniston paid for The Good Girl? This is probably overly alarmist, but I have this feeling that Quaid is a unique case and something else is going on that is not being verbalized. He may just be trying to get his name in the papers with this.
Quote from: ©brad on March 29, 2006, 03:45:27 PM
Quote from: pyramid machine on March 29, 2006, 11:55:59 AM
my feelings towards homosexuals:
simply put i dont agree w/the lifestyle...and its okay to feel like this...as i mentioned i dont agree w/anyone who says david lynch sucks....it's nothing personal to the gay person in question ..just like its nothing personal against anyone here who hates lynch.
i'm not understanding how you are equating gay-bashers to lynch-bashers. furthermore, i do not really see how a person can be open-minded enough to love lynch's work but at the same time cannot accept the gay lifestyle.
yeah, i can see what you mean by this...generally, me being a conservative you would think my favorite directors would be ron howard and jerry bruckheimer...but, i am different in this regard....when it comes to film, literature, and music...and various other creative arts ..i am very open to it and relish it....shit, one of my favorite album purchases have been
morrissey: live at earls court...and the way i equate "gay-bashing" [although i dont bash gays] to lynch-bashing is to show you/xixax how nonchalant i am towards the gay lifestyle..its just a simple matter of dissagreement....and note that i say "lifestyle" and not gay people...b/c i genrally like people....
Quote from: Pubrick on March 29, 2006, 12:23:51 PM
Quote from: pyramid machine on March 29, 2006, 11:55:59 AM
p, i consistantly name drop you b/c i find you a great poster/person...but, dude, where does this homophobic shit come from..you should be smart enough to know thats not the case!
you're right. replace any occurrence of the word homophobe in my post with "republican". :yabbse-thumbup:
:nono:
Quote from: ©brad on March 29, 2006, 03:45:27 PM
Quote from: JimmyGatorpyramid machine, man, you gotta change that font.
yes please.
sure
Quote from: pyramid machine on March 29, 2006, 07:28:06 PMb/c i genrally like people....
right, exactly, straight people. it's fine. really. you're in good company. only stupid people agree with gays and lesbians and their disgusting, filthy lifestyles.
Quote from: Pubrick on March 29, 2006, 04:13:05 AM
take the time to look at the many pages we've all wasted arguing over something homophobic or otherwise misguided neon has said.
see what i mean.
Quote from: Cinephile on March 29, 2006, 07:58:13 PM
Quote from: pyramid machine on March 29, 2006, 07:28:06 PMb/c i genrally like people....
right, exactly, straight people. it's fine. really. you're in good company. only stupid people agree with gays and lesbians and their disgusting, filthy lifestyles.
:saywhat:...and you guys thought
i am hard-headed????
what does it take for you guys to understand?...evidently, i have to take it veeeeery slow for ya'll...
i have nothing against gay people as a whole...here i'll give you an example:
let's say i am walking out to my car after work...and i some gay dude asks me for help jump starting his car..what would i do?
a.) tell him to "fuck off faggot"
b.) say "sure" and help out in any way possible
c.) procede to perform fellatio on him
...if you answered "b", then you are correct,if you answered otherwise..then you are an idiot..and still dont understand my position..
but i have my own theory..i think once somebody mentions that hey dont agree w/the gay lifestyle..you guys immediately think of that person as a homophobe..and that is sad...wake the fuck up... :yabbse-rolleyes:
Quote from: Pubrick on March 29, 2006, 08:03:17 PM
Quote from: Pubrick on March 29, 2006, 04:13:05 AM
take the time to look at the many pages we've all wasted arguing over something homophobic or otherwise misguided neon has said.
see what i mean.
well, if people here can comprehend ..then we wouldn't be wasting time/pages/life...i'm just defending my position.
sorry, i don't agree with a neo-conservative's lifestyle. :yabbse-smiley:
i don't think anyone seriously cares this much at this point. now let's laugh more at this heading..
Quote from: bonanzataz on March 29, 2006, 01:50:13 AM
http://imdb.com/news/wenn/2006-03-29/
that top headline just made me laugh. a lot.
and share some love in the Xixax Womb.. but not the creepy Notes From Sexual Intercourse thread. *shudders*
Quote from: Cinephile on March 29, 2006, 08:29:00 PM
sorry, i don't agree with a neo-conservative's lifestyle. :yabbse-smiley:
a-hah!, :yabbse-grin: ...touche
i guess that ends it...sorry, for wasting anyone's time...
[neon]-----> :embrace: <--------[xixax]
uh, did anyone notice that "gay honor" has changed to "glaad" honor? maybe someone's answered this already. I dunno, I'm drifting in and out of fever.
Quote from: pete on March 30, 2006, 12:36:58 AM
uh, did anyone notice that "gay honor" has changed to "glaad" honor? maybe someone's answered this already. I dunno, I'm drifting in and out of fever.
shit, pete. you're right. some fag must've complained and now it's not funny anymore.
Great Gay Honor awaits the next person who posts something here that is actually about the movie Brokeback Mountain....
Brokeback Mountain wasn't just the setup of a gay joke, it was a movie too?
1. There is an absolutely appalling "remix EP" of Gustavo Santaolalla's Brokeback Mountain theme on iTunes. Long disco versions. Who allowed this? It's terrible aesthetically and kind of an affront. Stupid remixers can't leave anything alone. It's sheer camp in a way the movie thankfully comes nowhere close to being.
2. In the film, did you interpret Jack's death to be certainly at the hands of murderous gay-bashers, or was that conjecture in Ennis's devastated imagination? I thought it was supposed to be maybe what happened, maybe not, and after reading the story, it still doesn't seem like it was definitely true, though the thought on Ennis's part is still there. I guess part of what made it so heartbreaking for me is that he would never even have any way to know what the real circumstances were--but this was me assuming that the flashes of murder were in Ennis's head and not meant to be taken as a direct representation of "actual" events in the film...?
Quote from: godardian on April 05, 2006, 12:52:58 PM
2. In the film, did you interpret Jack's death to be certainly at the hands of murderous gay-bashers, or was that conjecture in Ennis's devastated imagination? I thought it was supposed to be maybe what happened, maybe not, and after reading the story, it still doesn't seem like it was definitely true, though the thought on Ennis's part is still there. I guess part of what made it so heartbreaking for me is that he would never even have any way to know what the real circumstances were--but this was me assuming that the flashes of murder were in Ennis's head and not meant to be taken as a direct representation of "actual" events in the film...?
I agree with you. What we saw was a visual representation of Ennis' guilt. Some part of Ennis was never OK with his relationship with Jack, largely because of that experience as a child that is mirrored in what we see "happen" to Jack. But I think that Jack died exactly as his wife said. What we see is both Ennis taking the blame for Jack's death ("he'd still be alive if he never met me") and seeing Jack's death as his (Ennis') punishment for being gay, as it is a worse fate than being killed for being gay.
godardian, is that written into the screenplay?
Quote from: hacksparrow on April 05, 2006, 01:21:29 PM
godardian, is that written into the screenplay?
:oops: Yes...I suppose I could have just looked there in the first place. It is meant to be ambiguous, but more about Ennis. Here it is:
"EXT: RIVERTON, WYOMING: PAY TELEPHONE: DAY: CONTINUOUS: 1982:
WE'VE left LUREEN, and the screen holds only on ENNIS.
ENNIS can't answer right away. He wonders, suddenly, if it was the tire iron:
SHARP CUT TO
ENIIS'S POV: MIDDLE OF NOWHERE: DUSK: CONTINUOUS: 1982:
A FLASH--JUST A SECOND OR TWO--ENNIS and WE SEE, in the evening shadows,
a MAN [my note: not necessarily Jack] being beaten unmercifully by THREE ASSAILANTS, one of whom uses a tire iron.
SHARP CUT BACK TO
EXT: RIVERTON, WYOMING: PAY TELEPHONE: DAY: CONTINUOUS: 1982:
The huge sadness of the northern plains rolls down upon ENNIS.
He doesn't know which way it was, the tire iron--or a real accident, blood choking down JACK's throat and nobody to turn him over" (87-88).
Wal-Mart Won't Quit "Brokeback"
Brokeback Mountain just rode into Red State terrority.
Wal-Mart has begun selling the DVD of Ang Lee's gay cowboy flick this week, despite vehement protests from the ultraconservative American Family Association.
The world's largest retailer announced it will not only carry the Academy Award-winning film in all 3,900 U.S. locations, but the chain will also prominently display posters of Brokeback stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger in its storefronts.
Such a decision has prompted the Tupelo, Mississippi-based AFA to launch a campaign accusing Wal-Mart of backing a pro-gay agenda. The organization posted a message on its Website asking "concerned Christians to let their local Wal-Mart managers know how they feel and that they are not pleased over the chain's decision to promote and carry the pro-homosexual movie."
"It wasn't even a blockbuster movie, so if Wal-Mart isn't trying to push an agenda, why would they put it at the front door?" Randy Sharp, director of special projects for the association, told the Los Angeles Times.
Apparently Sharp didn't get the memo that Brokeback was the most critically lauded film of 2005, won three Oscars, lassoed $83 million at the box office and became a cultural touchstone
"Wal-Mart is trying to help normalize homosexuality in society," Sharp said. "But how many copies are they going to have to sell to recruit the losses of customers who they've offended and will no longer shop at Wal-Mart?"
But Wal-Mart rejects that characterization. A rep for the company argued that stocking Brokeback is good business.
"Wal-Mart provides movie selections in our stores and online, recognizing that a broad segment of our customer base wants to buy the latest titles," company spokeswoman Jolanda Stewart said in a statement. "We serve a broad customer base and therefore offer an expansive assortment of movie titles to meet the needs of the diverse consumers that shop our stores."
The American Family Association, which claims a membership of 3 million and is one of the leading conservative Christian watchdogs, has a history of pressuring Wal-Mart.
And the retail chain has often been more than accommodating, refusing to carry funnyman George Carlin's bestseller When Will Jesus Bring the Porkchops? and canceling orders of Daily Show host Jon Stewart's America because both included supposedly offensive images that weren't in line with the chain's family-friendly policies. Wal-Mart has also pulled numerous magazines from its racks deemed too racy by the AFA and doesn't stock CDs and videogames that feature "mature" content.
Last month, the AFA issued an action alert against Ford, urging its members to boycott the car company because the car maker wanted to advertise in gay publications such as The Advocate.
Fighting against the American Family Association's anti-Brokeback initiative, the pro-gay Ultimate Brokeback Forum recently announced a Web-based campaign to place the Brokeback DVDs in 2,000 rural libraries in the U.S. and Canada, and has called on fans around the world to donate copies of the DVD to libraries in their area. Members of the online forum also ran an ad in the Mar. 10 edition of Daily Variety, hailing Brokeback as a work that's "transforming people's lives."
They can now add Wal-Mart to their thank-you list.
In keeping with its founder's vision of offering quality products at great prices, Wal-Mart--one of America's largest DVD retailers--is offering Brokeback at the bargain rate of $16.87.
Quote from: MacGuffin on April 06, 2006, 06:45:34 PM
Members of the online forum also ran an ad in the Mar. 10 edition of Daily Variety, hailing Brokeback as a work that's "transforming people's lives."
I really wish I could believe that it's "transforming people's lives" in the way that some people think it is. My mother, for example... she said her boyfriend's eyes were opened to racism because of... you know... The Film Whose Name We Dare Not Speak, but all she could say coming out of Brokeback was, "It wasn't so good. If it was a man and a woman, it wouldn't be interesting at all." Despite my trying to explain to her that a man and a woman wouldn't have the same problems, even if they were married to other people, and that she - regardless of her homophobic tendencies - should have been affected by the universal themes of love and loss, she still wouldn't get it. It's not that she
can't get it, she just
won't get it. She doesn't see it as a similar type of discrimination as racism. Frustrating.
So whenever I hear someone say, "It's so important," "It's changing the way people think," etc., I feel bad because I get this feeling that the only people getting it are the ones who already got it to begin with.
the AFA makes me sick. and i really wouldn't mind shoving a hydrogen bomb up randy sharp's ass.
Quote from: hacksparrow on April 07, 2006, 12:39:34 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin on April 06, 2006, 06:45:34 PM
Members of the online forum also ran an ad in the Mar. 10 edition of Daily Variety, hailing Brokeback as a work that's "transforming people's lives."
I really wish I could believe that it's "transforming people's lives" in the way that some people think it is. My mother, for example... she said her boyfriend's eyes were opened to racism because of... you know... The Film Whose Name We Dare Not Speak, but all she could say coming out of Brokeback was, "It wasn't so good. If it was a man and a woman, it wouldn't be interesting at all." Despite my trying to explain to her that a man and a woman wouldn't have the same problems, even if they were married to other people, and that she - regardless of her homophobic tendencies - should have been affected by the universal themes of love and loss, she still wouldn't get it. It's not that she can't get it, she just won't get it. She doesn't see it as a similar type of discrimination as racism. Frustrating.
So whenever I hear someone say, "It's so important," "It's changing the way people think," etc., I feel bad because I get this feeling that the only people getting it are the ones who already got it to begin with.
I share your concern, here. However--and I hate to say this, because I think massive popularity has zilch to do with a film's commendability or achievement--the fact that SO many people saw THIS film, and not
Jeffrey or
Trick or any of the more insular films marketed to the gay community whose message is "gay=happy, sophisticated, and clever" or "come out of the closet!" instead of
Brokeback's implications that "gay=human" and "homophobia has ruined lives, and not just gay people's lives" makes me feel somewhat better. I'm sure that a lot of the heterosexual people who saw the film weren't as personally devastated by it as I was, but I think that even if it's to a lesser degree (or at least a less PERSONAL degree), a lot of them were moved. I also think there is a generational difference, so that if you have someone under 30 (I'm assuming your mom is older than that), it's more likely they'll understand--or be willing to understand--the film.
As for the AFA, they never understand anything about anything, and it's sometimes difficult to tell whether it comes from unwillingness to understand or actual reactionary stupidity. They are clearly exploiting uneducated, suspicious Mississippians and their ilk around the country, which may be the most sickening thing about them.
I've been reading the essays accompanying the script, and in her essay "Getting Movied," that irascible Annie Proulx wrote something that is clarifying: "The urban critics dubbed it a tale of two gay cowboys. No. It is a story of destructive rural homophobia." It's such an essential part of the film--more so, I think, than in the story--that Alma is so confused and hurt by what she knows but can't understand about Ennis; and the way Williams captures that quality has, I think, earned her all the acclaim she's received.
Prison official punished over 'Brokeback' screening
A Massachusetts correctional officer is being disciplined for showing the gay cowboy movie "Brokeback Mountain" to inmates at the state's largest prison because his boss determined that the film includes content inappropriate for a prison setting.
Massachusetts Department of Correction spokeswoman Diane Wiffin said Saturday that the action was not related to the critically acclaimed film's plot involving a gay love affair.
"It was not the subject matter. It was the graphic nature of sexually explicit scenes," Wiffin said.
She said the officer, whom she declined to identify, failed to follow prison guidelines that require staff who schedule films to review them in advance for excessive violence, nudity or sex, as well as scenes involving assaults on correctional staff.
The officer showed the film on Thursday afternoon, two days after its American release on DVD, to inmates at a prison in Norfolk, Massachusetts, about 25 miles southwest of Boston.
Wiffin declined to discuss his punishment.
Based on Annie Proulx's short story, "Brokeback Mountain" is about two men who meet and fall in love while wrangling sheep in Wyoming in 1963. It won raves from critics and garnered three Oscars last month, including one for director Ang Lee.
bullshit.
so they'll let the inmates do eachother in the showers but they won't let them watch an R-rated movie w/ one sex scene that isn't even really that explicit?
addtional info
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=134137
As far as the bannings, it seems so odd to me about the Bahamas; not so surprising about China.
I haven't watched Oz in a very long time, but I'm not sure I agree with the idea of showing nothing with sexual content in a prison. I guess my question is, "What difference does it make?" Unless they're dancing around the issue of prison rape, which is a completely different issue than prison sex. Do they think Brokeback Mountain is going to inspire more prison rape? Or is it meant to be part of the punishment, the prisoners being denied sexual gratification or anything that might instigate it?
Along those lines, it has often seemed to me that Deliverance and, to a lesser extent, Pulp Fiction encapsulates our culture's basic feeling about sexual practices between two males: it's rape; a way for one male to humiliate, hurt, and defeat another. Obviously, it is rape in both Deliverance and Pulp Fiction; but since it's never really been shown in larger-scale cinema as having the possibility of being anything else (i.e., as desirable to some as vaginal intercourse is to the majority), I think most people cannot imagine that it could be anything but rape or unpleasant. I actually think repulsion and/or confusion about this subject--along with an unwillingness to contemplate it or discuss it, since understanding might "make you gay" even if it doesn't remotely turn you on--is what underlies a great deal of homophobia in our culture.
I don't think it's just male gay sex usually portrayed as rape, godardian. I think it's any explicit sex that involves men - regardless of whether it's gay or straight.
Most sex scenes in the American mainstream are dimly lit montages of romantic gyrations, breasts, and buttocks, ending with a dissolve to the next morning. But how many films, in the mainstream, graphically depict sex with a man as anything but humiliating on the part of the person being penetrated (and I'm not even taking any sex comedies into account here)? Besides Brokeback Mountain, I can't think of any films depicting explicit sex with a man involved that wasn't either rape or other violent practices, exploitative, fetishistic, or any other type of deviant sex. Or even just plain unsatisfying. I'm sure there might be a few in there somewhere but not many, and none that are easily called to mind.
Brokeback is not just a big deal for gay men, it's a big deal for all men. It's about time the male member wasn't shown as a weapon.
Quote from: hacksparrow on April 10, 2006, 02:35:06 PM
I don't think it's just male gay sex usually portrayed as rape, godardian. I think it's any explicit sex that involves men - regardless of whether it's gay or straight.
Most sex scenes in the American mainstream are dimly lit montages of romantic gyrations, breasts, and buttocks, ending with a dissolve to the next morning. But how many films, in the mainstream, graphically depict sex with a man as anything but humiliating on the part of the person being penetrated (and I'm not even taking any sex comedies into account here)? Besides Brokeback Mountain, I can't think of any films depicting explicit sex with a man involved that wasn't either rape or other violent practices, exploitative, fetishistic, or any other type of deviant sex. Or even just plain unsatisfying. I'm sure there might be a few in there somewhere but not many, and none that are easily called to mind.
Brokeback is not just a big deal for gay men, it's a big deal for all men. It's about time the male member wasn't shown as a weapon.
I think that makes a lot of sense. I can think of lots of movies that you would call "sex-positive" (both same-sex sex and opposite-sex sex)--but none of them could be considered mainstream, nor have they been seen by as many people as
Brokeback Mountain has.
Of course, the important thing is that both characters are enjoying it;
Secretary certainly depicts a relatively unusual type of sex--a type the majority of us would consider too violent for our tastes--in a positive light, which I think is a good thing.
Hacksparrow is totally on to something here. It's the underlying "rape culture" that we, as a society, subscribe to. I agree that graphic sex in movies is hugely depicting the male as an aggressor... and that is wrong.
At the same time, 1 in 4 women have been raped, so maybe movies are just telling the truth. By the way, that's 1 in 4 REPORTED. And don't get me started on porn. Gay or straight, one person is always subordinate to the other. Brokeback was brilliant because sex and love were mutually exclusive.
Quote from: Thrindle on April 10, 2006, 07:34:41 PMBrokeback was brilliant because sex and love were mutually exclusive.
how?
Quote from: picolas on April 10, 2006, 10:31:02 PM
Quote from: Thrindle on April 10, 2006, 07:34:41 PMBrokeback was brilliant because sex and love were mutually exclusive.
how?
Maybe she meant mutually
inclusive...? :yabbse-smiley:
I'm mutually excluded from sex and love.
Quaid Drops Brokeback Suit -- But He Totally Won. Really.
Remember a few weeks ago, when Randy Quaid filed suit against Focus Features, trying to get paid $10 million more for his clearly brilliant, pivotal performance in Brokeback Mountain? He alleged that the studio fed him a sob story about how little money they had, and so he generously agreed to appear in the movie for $12.24 (an approximate figure) -- but evil Focus knew they were going to make boatloads of money on the movie, and were deliberately ripping him off! At least, that's what Randy thinks. Yesterday, though, he dropped his suit, proclaiming that the studio had seen the light, and generously agreed to pay him a bonus. That's sweet, right? Sure, except Focus says they didn't do it. According to their statement, "Focus Features never negotiated, offered or agreed to any settlement agreement with Mr. Quaid or his attorneys." Oh reeeeeally?
I try and i try but I just don't remember randy quaid in brokeback mountain. i just don't.
What you all've been saying about sex in movies is something that for years I've been trying to put my finger on. Is this idea that a person having a dick up that person's ass is automatically humiliating. Even enjoying it is humiliating. And that of course, is not necesarilly the case. But this is a deep macho thing that may come from thousands of years...There's a mexican book by one of the country's most respected authors called "The labirynth of solitude / el laberinto de la soledad"; which is a kind of sociological study on mexican character, and its a great read wether you are mexican or not. Anyway it has a hole chapter called "La Chingada". Mexican use the word "chingada" mostly, as americans use the word fuck, fuck you and all those other derivates. "Chingada", which is in feminine, refers to a woman who was fucked (chingada), and it's of course always used as an insult. The author is Octavio Paz, and then he goes on about how to be "chingado" means to be opened, and therefore he talks about a mexican fear of being open (which could also be a masculine fear in general). Well it is pretty interesting and i think it says a lot of things on how in a male dominated world (ughh that sounds like some feminism panflet but i guess its true) we have view on sex as some sort of tragic/humiliating thing...only for the pasive person. However there's a notable difference between english and spanish languages, cause in the US you call someone a dick and you're insulting him, in mexico when you say someone is a dick (verga), it's an r.rated compliment.
Quote from: Alexandro on May 03, 2006, 05:35:24 PM
Anyway it has a hole chapter called "La Chingada". Mexican use the word "chingada" mostly, as americans use the word fuck, fuck you and all those other derivates. "Chingada", which is in feminine, refers to a woman who was fucked (chingada), and it's of course always used as an insult.
I'm admiring the thoughtfulness of the post at the same time I'm laughing because of the most fortuitous (or not, depending on how funny you think it is) misspelling. It would normally have to be "'whole' (entire) chapter," but
hole chapter works just as well here. :laughing:
Anyway, with films like
Y Tu Mama Tambien and filmmakers like Inarritu coming out of Mexico (in fact, on
Brokeback, Lee borrowed at least two main technical professionals--the cinematographer and the composer--from Inarritu), I don't see the culture as quite so outrageously masculinist as I once did. I'll have to read some Octavio Paz at some point. He's always seemed interesting to me, even more so now.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070514/ap_en_mo/brokeback_lawsuit
Lawsuit over Brokeback Mountain in class
Sun May 13, 8:20 PM ET
CHICAGO - A girl and her grandparents have sued the Chicago Board of Education, alleging that a substitute teacher showed the R-rated film "Brokeback Mountain" in class.
The lawsuit claims that Jessica Turner, 12, suffered psychological distress after viewing the movie in her 8th grade class at Ashburn Community Elementary School last year.
The film, which won three Oscars, depicts two cowboys who conceal their homosexual affair.
Turner and her grandparents, Kenneth and LaVerne Richardson, are seeking around $500,000 in damages.
"It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this," said Kenneth Richardson, Turner's guardian. "The teacher knew she was not supposed to do this."
According to the lawsuit filed Friday in Cook County Circuit Court, the video was shown without permission from the students' parents and guardians.
The lawsuit also names Ashburn Principal Jewel Diaz and a substitute teacher, referred to as "Ms. Buford."
The substitute asked a student to shut the classroom door at the West Side school, saying: "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," according to the lawsuit.
Richardson said his granddaughter was traumatized by the movie and had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling.
In 2005, Richardson complained to school administrators about reading material that he said included curse words.
"This was the last straw," he said. "I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith."
Messages left over the weekend with CPS officials were not immediately returned.
I know it makes no sense to bring it up now... but what the fuck is with this country and the financial 'damages'. I mean, they can shut down the school, get everyone fired, make them enforce all the fucking rules they want, and get some counceling or whatever the fuck for the kid... but why do they need $500k so that they will spend it in bullshit that is not educational or good for the daughter?
Quote from: Ravi on May 14, 2007, 12:29:03 AM
The lawsuit claims that Jessica Turner, 12, suffered psychological distress
Was it when Ennis spits in his hand before shoving it up Jack's ass or was it later?
Either way, this film is a masterpiece.
yes, gays DO exist. why, your own father could be one. secretly. how distressful
http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=2.msg242920#new (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=2.msg242920#new)
come on now.
"Brokeback Mountain" to be turned into an opera
New York City Opera has commissioned American composer Charles Wuorinen to write an opera based on "Brokeback Mountain," a love story about two U.S. ranch-hands that won three Oscars when it was turned into a movie.
The opera house's spokesman Gerard Mortier said in a statement on Sunday that Wuorinen had accepted an invitation to compose an opera based on Annie Proulx's short story. It is slated to premiere during City Opera's 2013 spring season.
This would mark New Yorker Wuorinen's second world premiere at City Opera. He also composed "Haroun and the Sea of Stories," an adaptation of a Salman Rushdie novel which opened in 2004.
"Ever since encountering Annie Proulx's extraordinary story I have wanted to make an opera on it, and it gives me great joy that Gerard Mortier and New York City Opera have given me the opportunity to do so," Wuorinen, 70, said in a statement.
"Brokeback Mountain" is the story of two men who meet and fall in love on the fictional Brokeback Mountain in Wyoming in 1963 with their complex relationship lasting 20 years.
The story was made into a film in 2005 which won three Oscars. The late Australian actor Heath Ledger, who died in January this year of an accidental overdose of prescription drugs at the age of 28, was nominated for an Oscar for his role.