Posted on 12/28/2005 8:48:09 AM PST by presidio9
In case you've been hunkered down on Mount Kenya, "Brokeback Mountain" recently opened. No hurricanes destroyed Orlando. No meteorites were reported in Los Angeles.
In fact, the film quietly attracted record-breaking crowds in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. And so it seems that Ang Lee's film about two cowboys in love is — at minimum — surviving. The reason for this is hard to figure out.
Could it be that all three opening cities have hefty gay populations? Another option is that right-wing groups, such as Focus on the Family, are all but keeping silent, in hopes that the film just goes away. Or it might have to do with Hollywood hunks Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal and their huge female fan bases.
Whatever the reason, Exhibitor Relations Co. reports that over the first weekend, Dec. 10-11, the film brought in the highest per-screen average for any film release in 2005.
And if that's not enough, "Brokeback Mountain" has already landed awards from the Los Angeles Film Critics Associations and the New York Film Critics Circle.
Even some real-life cowboys applaud the flick. "I think it's something that's now just being more understood," seven-time world-champion cowboy Ty Murray, who is straight, recently told ABC's Good Morning America. "Hopefully, this movie helps people further understand it."
But as a gay man from a small town like the one in "Brokeback Mountain," I find that the beauty of this film lies in its navigating away from stereotypes to convey the power and randomness of love. A welcomed change, I'm sure, for many— especially gay Americans.
Two years ago, I published a column, "Queer TV: Advancing Tolerance or Fostering Stereotypes?" In it, I questioned whether such shows as "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Queer as Folk" were anything more than ratings ploys. And I wondered what viewers, once they found themselves uninterested, might come away with.
Would these programs help in showing the normality of being gay? Or would many viewers come away thinking that we were indeed "different"?
Hollywood has featured gay characters since the 1930s, usually as the effeminate best friend of the leading man. Their orientation was understood, though not discussed. This continued through the '50s, when gay characters were portrayed as emotionally troubled and often suicidal.
By the '70s, both cinema and television started to discuss real-life gay issues.
And during the '80s and '90s, gay characters and gay-themed programming moved to the forefront. Still, the way in which they were depicted — in most cases — cultivated dated stereotypes.
Now, through movies such as "Brokeback Mountain," Hollywood is shedding light on the fact that not all gay men are fashion gurus, hairdressers, interior designers, and superior in the arts, but that some might — God forbid — be cowboys, herding sheep in Wyoming. And, more important, capable of love-based relationships.
Not all of us gay folk are comfortable with the flamboyance of gay-pride parades. And many would rather sip a Killian's in an Irish pub than dance to techno in a noisy gay bar. "Gay" has nothing to do with lifestyle. And rather than coming out of the closet to make a declaration of individuality or identity, most of us "come out" so that we can share the gift of love openly with another individual.
So when the numbers are tallied and the awards dispersed, my hope is that "Brokeback Mountain" is seen not only as a monumental moment in cinema history but also as a daring and original attempt to prove that love is not bound by interpretation or stereotype.
Because it's fun to make fun of...
People are more comfortable with the stereotypical gay characters, they don't try to pretend they are "normal." That explains why all those other movies and shows are not that big of a deal.
Which is it ? Record-breaking crowds or barely surviving ? The author says both. I bet the box office numbers, which are suspiciously absent, say barely surviving.
Wha Wha What! WTF is he talking about?
You know, the holiday's, er Christmas, is over, so now they need a new thing to whine about.
I may have to rent this movie when it comes out, just to see what all the durn fuss is about. After all, I know that I'M secure in my sexuality, I don't think watching a movie about two closet-homosexual sheep herders is going to steer me into other pastures.
In other weirdness, I was doing a little surfing on NNDB.com, and came up with this interesting little factoid.
http://www.nndb.com/people/929/000043800/
Freaky, hunh?
Do you think that within a certain portion of the population of women, it will help to make it acceptable, or even desirable for three way sex the other way? That is the point of all of this gay agenda. To make it easier to swing back and forth. I really never understood the appeal of two women, but now that it is so mainstream (ask anyone under 30 about that), the logical place to "expand our horizons" is M-F-M, along with F-M-F. By next summer or even sooner, we will see stories about this in the mainstream press. Maybe the person of the year will be a menage' trois because of their contribution to the dismantling of America.
What you're sharing isn't love. It's a perversion of that emotion, confused with sex. And "most of us" is an exaggeration. Most homos don't even pretend to love anyone. They just want permission to indulge the vilest vice known to man. The only "declaration" they make is against normalcy, convention, and restraint. If they focus their "identity" on what orifice their penis goes into, then they are truly pathetic.
... my hope is that "Brokeback Mountain" is seen not only as a monumental moment in cinema history but also as a daring and original attempt to prove that love is not bound by interpretation or stereotype.
First of all, Brokedick Mountain won't be seen as anything. The people who are going to see it already have. It's over. It won't survive the decade, let alone carve any niche in cinematic history. Because it is NOT "monumental," "daring", or "original." It is simply another Hollywood repudiation of conventionality, a wedge that can be driven into the bedrock of American values. There's nothing new there. And certainly nothing worth remembering.
"I find that the beauty of this film lies in its navigating away from stereotypes to convey the power and RANDOMNESS of love."
Randomness is a very revealing word to use.
Reminds me about this boy that came up from San Fran to ride range with an old hand.
Riding along they come across a ewe with her head caught in a fence.
The old hand steps off his horse, gets up behind the ewe and violates her.
He explains the new boy from San Fran, "That's just the way things are out here; you take it where and when you can get it. You wanna try?"
At that the SF boy gets off his horse, goes over to the fence, and sticks his head through.
This is not a love story about cowboys. This is about a couple of young men who are hired to work as sheepherders.
Range ridin' cowboys don't spend all day workin' cattle on horseback so they can spend the night curled up with each other in a pup-tent. Hollywood produces movies about this subject matter in settings that are so clearly masculine and pristine because they can't deal with the reality of contemporary homosexual lifestyle. The latter is most commonly a decadent, urban-based orgy of self-destructive behavior, that if truly depicted on the big screen, would leave most of us running into the street to throw-up.
Record breaking... as in 'record low'? This is a clever way to spin that!~
Macho Cowboys ride bulls not each other!
What do you make of that? 'record breaking crowds' ? huh???
This is precisely the same argument pedophiles would use to justify their actions. "We can't help it, it's 'random.'"
That is a good point. I can't wait until this movie is in the bargin bin for two dollars because the talk will be over. I know I can skip over the posts, but it is fun to watch a train wreck...LOL.
"I don't think so, but they have, unfortunately hi-jacked a Roger Miller tune. Go to amazon to see who's on the sound track. Interestiingly, no big country names."
Which Roger Miller tune? King of the "Fudge" Road?
That should be:
Does the Cattlemen's Accosiation have to put out a press release...
By the way, is Ty Murray nuts? I think his words must've got twisted around, because Ty is better than that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.