Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

A not untypical conversation between a gay male couple re: "Brokeback Mountain":

Gay Man #1 (reading newspaper review): "Honey, did you see this? Someone made another attempt at a mainstream movie about gay people."

Gay Man #2: "What's it about?"

Gay Man #1: "Gay cowboys. No, wait - I guess they're actually a couple of sheepherders who fall in love with each other, then marry women."

Gay Man #2: "Just what we need, another 'sexual confusion' movie. Funny how when they try to mainstream us it always ends up being about heterosexuality anyway. So who's in it?"

Gay Man #1: "Heath Ledger and that Jake guy with the funny last name - you know, the one with the pretty eyes."

Gay Man #2: "Hmm. Might be worth a peek when it comes out on cable, but I can't see spending $8.50 to watch a couple of guys kiss and then turn straight."

Fairly typical lesbian response to the movie:

Lesbian #1 - "Have you heard about this gay cowboy movie?"

Lesbian #2 - "Yeah, big deal. When is someone going to make a movie about us?

-----

I don't buy all the hype surrounding this movie. Only true film buffs will watch a movie based on the awards it receives.
Plus it has 'chick-flick' written all over it. When was the last time you heard the average straight guy get excited about a 'love story'?

Why do people go to movies and what kind of films do they go to see in large numbers? Well, obviously they want to be entertained. Few want to be preached at, so if there's going to be any moralizing it should be disguised with a really gripping story. Many people want escapism, but they don't necessarily want to feel 'challenged'. They've come to expect spectacular special effects or breathtaking vistas, but neither will save a movie that doesn't have a clear story with convincing portrayals.

Does Brokeback Mountain offer us any of these things? I haven't seen it, so I can't say for sure. It might be a visually stunning film, but I'm not so sure about this storyline. Gay people may reject it as just another 'boy meets boy, boy dumps boy for girl, everyone ends up miserable' story. Nor am I convinced that a mostly heterosexual American audience is going to buy the idea of these specific characters having this kind of relationship, because it doesn't reinforce the stereotypical images of gay men to which they've grown accustomed. This movie is being hyped in some circles as the catalyst that will get some people to rethink their preconceived notions about gay people, but I'm very skeptical of that since I don't think very many people are going to actually see it.

Most people are going to be put off by the rumours of gay sex scenes. Heck, most of them won't even be able to handle two guys kissing without feeling extremely uncomfortable. And people just don't go to the movies to feel challenged in this way.

It probably won't be a total flop, but I expect it to become yesterday's news fairly quickly.

[StrangerWitCandy]

i really dont care if its a flop or not, i want to see it. however it affects other people isn't going to affect my opinion. as a gay man, i think i'll be able to relate to some of the issues the characters go through in the film. but of course i have a very different life, so it will also be a very different context. i've also heard its actually a good movie too with great performances. and i've heard the "graphic sex scenes" are way overhyped and not even that graphic. im also a big fan of ang lee's "The Ice Storm", and this film is supposed to sort of be a return to form in terms of direction and storytelling. i've heard the cinematography is amazing, and i consider myself sort of a film buff anyways. i also happen to like jake gyllen-- um... you know, the one with the pretty eyes. :wink: though heath ledger is supposed to be the one giving the oscar-worthy performance. all in all, its definately on my long list of movies to see this season.

[F'losrix]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: i really dont care if its a flop or not, i want to see it. however it affects other people isn't going to affect my opinion. as a gay man, i think i'll be able to relate to some of the issues the characters go through in the film. but of course i have a very different life, so it will also be a very different context. i've also heard its actually a good movie too with great performances. and i've heard the "graphic sex scenes" are way overhyped and not even that graphic. im also a big fan of ang lee's "The Ice Storm", and this film is supposed to sort of be a return to form in terms of direction and storytelling. i've heard the cinematography is amazing, and i consider myself sort of a film buff anyways. i also happen to like jake gyllen-- um... you know, the one with the pretty eyes. :wink: though heath ledger is supposed to be the one giving the oscar-worthy performance. all in all, its definately on my long list of movies to see this season.
I'm pretty sure we'll watch it eventually, but we're debating whether or not to see it in the theatre. I don't want to see it at the cineplex 'cuz I don't want to deal with the juvenile behavior that goes on there. That means waiting for it to come to the local art theatre, which is hit or miss. I could drive an hour away to see it sooner, but not that motivated.

Hope you enjoy it!

[Rico]

I really want to see this movie, but I do think that Hollywood needs to be careful not to be too bold about homosexuality. I mean, it's great that movies about homosexuals are now finally making their way into the mainstream, but the vast majority of heterosexuals are still getting used to it.

Frankly, I think heterosexuals will come around, but it's a gradual process. They need to become used to seeing homosexuality in movies, and thrusting a huge gay pride movie at them is not the way to go about it. A movie like this, which treads carefully on the subject, is certainly a better way to go about it.

As for gay sex scenes, well...that definitely is a barrier that's going to take time to break. I remember seeing my first gay scene. I was about nine, and it was on television (MTV) between two girls kissing, immediately followed by two guys kissing. My grandmother was watching it with me, and she muttered, "Kids these days...running out of ideas..." I was lucky to have been taught about homosexuality by my parents, so it wasn't a shock to me, but most Americans simply aren't educated on the reality of the topic. It's something foreign to them, and I doubt most adults in this country know a homosexual personally. I'm lucky to know quite a few, including a couple of family members. So, that has made me quite liberal on the subject of homosexuality. Most people are still ignorant to it though, and it's just a big thing to them, which I can certainly sympathize with.

I'll see this movie, probably because Ang Lee is directing it. I loved his work in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and this seems very different from what he usually does. On top of that, critics love this movie.

[ridenrodeo]

i think its a hell of a movie. makes us look at things from a different prospective. mabe we are not all that different.

[John Galt]

There are plenty of movies about lesbians. PLENTY.

[SavannahMan]

I expect it to be a total flop.

I also expect a sequel in which the boys take a liking to the sheep they have been herding. :lol:

[00timh]

Rico wrote: I really want to see this movie, but I do think that Hollywood needs to be careful not to be too bold about homosexuality. I mean, it's great that movies about homosexuals are now finally making their way into the mainstream, but the vast majority of heterosexuals are still getting used to it.

Frankly, I think heterosexuals will come around, but it's a gradual process. They need to become used to seeing homosexuality in movies, and thrusting a huge gay pride movie at them is not the way to go about it. A movie like this, which treads carefully on the subject, is certainly a better way to go about it.

As for gay sex scenes, well...that definitely is a barrier that's going to take time to break. I remember seeing my first gay scene. I was about nine, and it was on television (MTV) between two girls kissing, immediately followed by two guys kissing. My grandmother was watching it with me, and she muttered, "Kids these days...running out of ideas..." I was lucky to have been taught about homosexuality by my parents, so it wasn't a shock to me, but most Americans simply aren't educated on the reality of the topic. It's something foreign to them, and I doubt most adults in this country know a homosexual personally. I'm lucky to know quite a few, including a couple of family members. So, that has made me quite liberal on the subject of homosexuality. Most people are still ignorant to it though, and it's just a big thing to them, which I can certainly sympathize with.

I'll see this movie, probably because Ang Lee is directing it. I loved his work in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and this seems very different from what he usually does. On top of that, critics love this movie. Funny to me that those who view themselves as progressive and open minded are actually in many ways the more ignorant ones. I would say a vast majority of adults in this country know some homosexuals personally. Even in my tiny little town, we all do, unless your definition is to have one as your best friend. Not to mention most of us have family members who are gay.

Movies about gay people have been around a long time. How about dog day afternoon?

I have no problem with this movie being made. It may even be a really good movie. What bothers me about all of the critics is that they are not being honest about their critique of this movie. I'll admit that I have not gone out of my way to find reviews of it but in the main stream media is there even so much as one negative utterance of any facet of this movie? So far I haven't seen one. All movies have their weak points and movie critics are always trying to one up each other to point them out. Remember when Titanic came out and almost all the movie critics said this movie was horrible? I would be more likely to believe these critics if they actually critiqued this movie, even if they did all give it good reviews if they were at least honest about it instead of either being affraid to say anything negative about it or are pushing their elitist pro gay agenda on the public. I see the snippets of the reviews from the major msm publications and it almost seems to me that they are saying to the "average person" This movie is too good for you, it is a great movie but don't bother seeing it because you can't handle the content. I know that is a stretch but honestly that is sort of a feeling that I get.

I don't base what movies I see on the critical reviews. Being that they usually give negative reviews on the movies that do best and positive reviews on movies that do horribly. Not saying that this is the case here. If there is any actual critiques of this movie I stand corrected but I haven't seen any yet.

[StrangerWitCandy]

00timh wrote: Rico wrote: I really want to see this movie, but I do think that Hollywood needs to be careful not to be too bold about homosexuality. I mean, it's great that movies about homosexuals are now finally making their way into the mainstream, but the vast majority of heterosexuals are still getting used to it.

Frankly, I think heterosexuals will come around, but it's a gradual process. They need to become used to seeing homosexuality in movies, and thrusting a huge gay pride movie at them is not the way to go about it. A movie like this, which treads carefully on the subject, is certainly a better way to go about it.

As for gay sex scenes, well...that definitely is a barrier that's going to take time to break. I remember seeing my first gay scene. I was about nine, and it was on television (MTV) between two girls kissing, immediately followed by two guys kissing. My grandmother was watching it with me, and she muttered, "Kids these days...running out of ideas..." I was lucky to have been taught about homosexuality by my parents, so it wasn't a shock to me, but most Americans simply aren't educated on the reality of the topic. It's something foreign to them, and I doubt most adults in this country know a homosexual personally. I'm lucky to know quite a few, including a couple of family members. So, that has made me quite liberal on the subject of homosexuality. Most people are still ignorant to it though, and it's just a big thing to them, which I can certainly sympathize with.

I'll see this movie, probably because Ang Lee is directing it. I loved his work in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and this seems very different from what he usually does. On top of that, critics love this movie. Funny to me that those who view themselves as progressive and open minded are actually in many ways the more ignorant ones. I would say a vast majority of adults in this country know some homosexuals personally. Even in my tiny little town, we all do, unless your definition is to have one as your best friend. Not to mention most of us have family members who are gay.

Movies about gay people have been around a long time. How about dog day afternoon?

I have no problem with this movie being made. It may even be a really good movie. What bothers me about all of the critics is that they are not being honest about their critique of this movie. I'll admit that I have not gone out of my way to find reviews of it but in the main stream media is there even so much as one negative utterance of any facet of this movie? So far I haven't seen one. All movies have their weak points and movie critics are always trying to one up each other to point them out. Remember when Titanic came out and almost all the movie critics said this movie was horrible? I would be more likely to believe these critics if they actually critiqued this movie, even if they did all give it good reviews if they were at least honest about it instead of either being affraid to say anything negative about it or are pushing their elitist pro gay agenda on the public. I see the snippets of the reviews from the major msm publications and it almost seems to me that they are saying to the "average person" This movie is too good for you, it is a great movie but don't bother seeing it because you can't handle the content. I know that is a stretch but honestly that is sort of a feeling that I get.

I don't base what movies I see on the critical reviews. Being that they usually give negative reviews on the movies that do best and positive reviews on movies that do horribly. Not saying that this is the case here. If there is any actual critiques of this movie I stand corrected but I haven't seen any yet.

here's someone who didn't exactly rave about it. of course its hard to argue that politics hasn't influenced him either. i guess critics on both ends of the spectrum can be guilty of this

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47906

[StrangerWitCandy]

SavannahMan wrote: I expect it to be a total flop.

well you might be right. but if the success of its limited release is any indication, you might be wrong.

Quote: Over the weekend, the movie dubbed the "gay Western" took in a staggering $109,000 a screen playing in just five theaters in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

"Based on the strong reviews, the awards it's already won and the explosive box office, Brokeback Mountain is the early front-runner in this year's Oscar race," says Gitesh Pandya of boxofficeguru.com.

link

SavannahMan wrote: I also expect a sequel in which the boys take a liking to the sheep they have been herding. :lol:

You would enjoy that, wouldn't you? :wink:

[00timh]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: 00timh wrote: Rico wrote: I really want to see this movie, but I do think that Hollywood needs to be careful not to be too bold about homosexuality. I mean, it's great that movies about homosexuals are now finally making their way into the mainstream, but the vast majority of heterosexuals are still getting used to it.

Frankly, I think heterosexuals will come around, but it's a gradual process. They need to become used to seeing homosexuality in movies, and thrusting a huge gay pride movie at them is not the way to go about it. A movie like this, which treads carefully on the subject, is certainly a better way to go about it.

As for gay sex scenes, well...that definitely is a barrier that's going to take time to break. I remember seeing my first gay scene. I was about nine, and it was on television (MTV) between two girls kissing, immediately followed by two guys kissing. My grandmother was watching it with me, and she muttered, "Kids these days...running out of ideas..." I was lucky to have been taught about homosexuality by my parents, so it wasn't a shock to me, but most Americans simply aren't educated on the reality of the topic. It's something foreign to them, and I doubt most adults in this country know a homosexual personally. I'm lucky to know quite a few, including a couple of family members. So, that has made me quite liberal on the subject of homosexuality. Most people are still ignorant to it though, and it's just a big thing to them, which I can certainly sympathize with.

I'll see this movie, probably because Ang Lee is directing it. I loved his work in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and this seems very different from what he usually does. On top of that, critics love this movie. Funny to me that those who view themselves as progressive and open minded are actually in many ways the more ignorant ones. I would say a vast majority of adults in this country know some homosexuals personally. Even in my tiny little town, we all do, unless your definition is to have one as your best friend. Not to mention most of us have family members who are gay.

Movies about gay people have been around a long time. How about dog day afternoon?

I have no problem with this movie being made. It may even be a really good movie. What bothers me about all of the critics is that they are not being honest about their critique of this movie. I'll admit that I have not gone out of my way to find reviews of it but in the main stream media is there even so much as one negative utterance of any facet of this movie? So far I haven't seen one. All movies have their weak points and movie critics are always trying to one up each other to point them out. Remember when Titanic came out and almost all the movie critics said this movie was horrible? I would be more likely to believe these critics if they actually critiqued this movie, even if they did all give it good reviews if they were at least honest about it instead of either being affraid to say anything negative about it or are pushing their elitist pro gay agenda on the public. I see the snippets of the reviews from the major msm publications and it almost seems to me that they are saying to the "average person" This movie is too good for you, it is a great movie but don't bother seeing it because you can't handle the content. I know that is a stretch but honestly that is sort of a feeling that I get.

I don't base what movies I see on the critical reviews. Being that they usually give negative reviews on the movies that do best and positive reviews on movies that do horribly. Not saying that this is the case here. If there is any actual critiques of this movie I stand corrected but I haven't seen any yet.

here's someone who didn't exactly rave about it. of course its hard to argue that politics hasn't influenced him either. i guess critics on both ends of the spectrum can be guilty of this

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47906 Good find, except that really doesn't count. No, I'm thinking of an actual movie critic who talks about the movie in the same sense as any other movie and has the good and bad of the acting, the sets, etc. etc.

[StrangerWitCandy]

^ you are right. here's one that seems pretty fair, although its still a positive review. he does have some actual criticisms. btw i do agree with you that a lot of the "flawless" kind of reviews are influenced merely by the film's subject matter. but still not having seen the film (still waiting in DC) i really have no way to tell just how biased they're being

Quote: That said, it's not quite the movie it wants to be. Though impeccably acted by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, under Ang Lee's solid direction, "Brokeback Mountain" is, nonetheless, overlong and, just as some hetero couples lack chemistry on screen, the same is true here. While they are believable as men in love, Ledger and Gyllenhaal just don't strike sparks off each other.

link

and here's another one that seems to have some criticism, though i can't actually read the full review without registering :? . i got this little blurb from yahoo movies:

Quote: This is one of the best serious films about homosexuality ever made, but though it's sad and sobering it's still only a rough draft of a great movie.

link

i saw a few critics giving it 3 out of 4 stars. still good reviews, but obviously not perfect raves. and some were mentioning things like:

Quote: Alma is as tragic a character as they come, and she has to live with the ghost of a memory that will haunt her, yet we only see snippets of her life. I realize this is Jack and Ennis' story, but director Ang Lee (Crouching Tiger, Hulk) causes us to be so interested in all the characters - even the secondary ones - that there are times when the singleminded focus of the primary plot can make viewers feel cheated.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

It didn't affect me as deeply as either The Bridges of Madison County or The Remains of the Day (both of which offer similar themes in different settings), but it evokes some of the same feelings.

link

i admit i'm finding it hard to come across any real negative reviews that don't seem tainted by political opinion. but thats probably because as a film, it seems well made and the actors apparently give worthy performances. but yea, at least some people are actually trying to critique the movie, rather than just blatantly promote it or tear it down

[00timh]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: ^ you are right. here's one that seems pretty fair, although its still a positive review. he does have some actual criticisms. btw i do agree with you that a lot of the "flawless" kind of reviews are influenced merely by the film's subject matter. but still not having seen the film (still waiting in DC) i really have no way to tell just how biased they're being

Quote: That said, it's not quite the movie it wants to be. Though impeccably acted by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, under Ang Lee's solid direction, "Brokeback Mountain" is, nonetheless, overlong and, just as some hetero couples lack chemistry on screen, the same is true here. While they are believable as men in love, Ledger and Gyllenhaal just don't strike sparks off each other.

link that is exactly what I was looking for.

[Rico]

Quote: I would say a vast majority of adults in this country know some homosexuals personally. Even in my tiny little town, we all do, unless your definition is to have one as your best friend.

I don't mean homosexual aquaintances, I mean homosexual friends. Like friend as in, "You and your partner are invited to my barbecue." Having a gay co-worker doesn't really count, or anything like that.

And I have seen plenty of reviews for gay films that were negative, because a lot of them are really bad. This one just happens to be really good, especially if it's going to be contending for Oscars.

[StrangerWitCandy]

wow and here are two largely positive reviews from the Catholic News Service and Christianity Today

[00timh]

As I said I would, I stand corrected. I actually like both reviews here. Something to note... Is it really surprising to homosexuals that unlikely media outlets (religious ones) especially the catholic one have done more than just refute this movie based on it's sexual orientation? I've ben saying all along that the problems are the deptiction form the msm and their sensationalism of issues with homosexuality. In real life, there is not as much hatred and paranoia as many of you feel there is. Not saying that it isn't there and the general sentiment about homosexual marriage still exists in this country and for the purpose of Democracy I feel that when taken to a vote states should be allowed to dis allow gay marriage. Anyway, good finds, I hope that this also brings an understanding to gay people that things are not always as bad for them in terms of society as they are led to think.

[StrangerWitCandy]

00timh wrote: As I said I would, I stand corrected. I actually like both reviews here. Something to note... Is it really surprising to homosexuals that unlikely media outlets (religious ones) especially the catholic one have done more than just refute this movie based on it's sexual orientation? I've ben saying all along that the problems are the deptiction form the msm and their sensationalism of issues with homosexuality. In real life, there is not as much hatred and paranoia as many of you feel there is. Not saying that it isn't there and the general sentiment about homosexual marriage still exists in this country and for the purpose of Democracy I feel that when taken to a vote states should be allowed to dis allow gay marriage. Anyway, good finds, I hope that this also brings an understanding to gay people that things are not always as bad for them in terms of society as they are led to think.

i agree with pretty much everything you said, including letting states decide for themselves on gay marriage. and i don't feel really oppressed by people in general, especially in the area i live. but i have gone through a lot of problems because of homosexuality in the past, and there are many people who like to make our lives difficult just for the sake of it. and it only takes just a few experiences for it to really affect you, and moreso if they occur when you are at a younger age. and when they happen to be people you care about a lot, or that you assume care about you (family), it can affect you even deeper. though i still believe gays have progress to make in this country, by comparison things could be much worse off for us. just go back to the 60s when Brokeback Mountain is set and things were drastically different.

but i am not really into the "gay scene" and i dont attend parades or anything, so i agree with you about the msm thing as well to a degree. the extreme gays don't represent average guys like me. i dont like will & grace, i dont like the typical portrayal of gays in entertainment which usually reduces them to just comical characters that also happen to be obnoxious, annoying, slutty and gossipy. but honestly i am caught between two different things and i sometimes dont know what i can do. for example, i want to support the fact that gays are getting more recognition and are able to have their own shows, channels, magazines, etc. without being completely loathed. but on the other hand i feel representation of average gay guys like myself is suffering due to the inbalance of what is portrayed through most of those mediums. its kind of like the "black media" that sort of builds up an image for blacks to conform to. and then everyone who doesn't know any better can begin assuming that all these pushed stereotypes apply to all or most black people, and suddenly normal black guys who havent sold crack, spoken ebonics, or spit a good rhyme are ridiculed for not being "black enough". the publics perception of their "community" is off because they have been misrepresented by their own media. not that there arent many exceptions, but as a whole i feel that the gay "community" isn't getting a full or honest representation. and hopefully thats where movies like 'brokeback mountain' may be able to help out

[Rico]

Quote: Not saying that it isn't there and the general sentiment about homosexual marriage still exists in this country and for the purpose of Democracy I feel that when taken to a vote states should be allowed to dis allow gay marriage.

No, I disagree with this highly.

Human rights should never be up to a majority vote. EVER. It is a shame this government has yet to legalize something so obviously necessary for the dignity of all the gay people in the country. Telling them they cannot marry is a slap in the face to them.

This isn't like abortion. Unlike abortion, there is a group of people being oppressed here. The Supreme Court should just legalize it and let the backlash happen. Freeing the slaves wasn't going to be pretty either, but it had to be done. In my opinion, it's the same thing here. I see no reason why legalizing gay marriage should not happen today.

[00timh]

Rico wrote: Quote: Not saying that it isn't there and the general sentiment about homosexual marriage still exists in this country and for the purpose of Democracy I feel that when taken to a vote states should be allowed to dis allow gay marriage.

No, I disagree with this highly.

Human rights should never be up to a majority vote. EVER. It is a shame this government has yet to legalize something so obviously necessary for the dignity of all the gay people in the country. Telling them they cannot marry is a slap in the face to them.

This isn't like abortion. Unlike abortion, there is a group of people being oppressed here. The Supreme Court should just legalize it and let the backlash happen. Freeing the slaves wasn't going to be pretty either, but it had to be done. In my opinion, it's the same thing here. I see no reason why legalizing gay marriage should not happen today. Remember that I was stating that it should not be federalized. also stop with the history revisions, a majority of people in this country were not trying to keep slavery legal. It was mainly in the south and the vast wealth of the southern plantations which were hold outs.

[John Galt]

Rico wrote: Quote: Not saying that it isn't there and the general sentiment about homosexual marriage still exists in this country and for the purpose of Democracy I feel that when taken to a vote states should be allowed to dis allow gay marriage.

No, I disagree with this highly.

Human rights should never be up to a majority vote. EVER. It is a shame this government has yet to legalize something so obviously necessary for the dignity of all the gay people in the country. Telling them they cannot marry is a slap in the face to them.


I am getting married soon. My fiance is moving into the place before me and my parents are telling me they find it morally objectionable for me to move in there.

My Baptist mother then tells me that if I went and got legally married by a justice of the peace I can live there.

I stood back and said, "what? Is that all marriage is to you?" It was insane. The government's blessings shouldn't even matter. My point is it is not eroding anyone's dignity, and not slapping anyone in the face to tell them the government will not bless their marriage. Government marriage is a racist policy that the tyrannical Supreme Court forced upon all of us.

Quote: This isn't like abortion. Unlike abortion, there is a group of people being oppressed here. The Supreme Court should just legalize it and let the backlash happen. Freeing the slaves wasn't going to be pretty either, but it had to be done. In my opinion, it's the same thing here. I see no reason why legalizing gay marriage should not happen today.


We should go back to the Crown and be under just one tyrrant instead of nine.