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.
They WERE communists. The term only went out of vogue either when it became apparent how many millions had died of this diabolical ideology, or when the Soviet Union fell. I'm not sure which.
THERE is the truth that dare not speak its name. McCarthy was RIGHT. Oh, and he was sympathetic to homosexuals too, had some on his staff, men who were smeared and blackballed by the so-called tolerant liberals.
And constantly talking about it helps spread it even further.
I've been thinking about the McCarthy stuff a lot lately, I guess because many Hollyweirdos have been screeching about Bush and the war.
They have the same investment the Democrats do, in my estimation. That the poor are the ones who carry them and keep them in furs and ferraris.
But why do the Republicans want Mexico's poor? That I don't understand.
The film's producers and distributors are using that to their advantage. Just as making too few X Box 360's stimulates a desire for them, the limited release of this film while stoking the buzz on it in the major media markets will give it an appeal that it would not have had, if it had been released to two or three thousand theaters all at once.
Anyone taking comfort from the so-far low numbers is only fooling themselves. Not everyone in the US is filled with automatic revulsion at homosexuality as the average FReeper posting on this thread. Some will go out of curiousity, but many will rent this film, especially if they can do so facelessly (Netflix, for instance).
The VCR is responsible for changing a lot of attitudes across parts of flyover country. Folks out in the sticks couldn't often get to a movie house many hours away in a big city, but there was always the convenience store with a supply of R-rated movies, waiting to change the culture. Now, with Internet DVD services, you don't even have to face someone you know in town with an R-rated movie in your hands. Even your mail carrier will not know.
I do think that the timing of this film is to change attitudes about homosexuality in America as we face the issue of gay marriage. It's not necessarily a bad thing, one of the laments of most of the posters I've seen on other threads is that the men in this film left a lot of pain and wreckage in their lives, with their wives and children. If they had been able to just go off and peacefully be with each other, then straight women would not been fooled into marriages with them.
I'd much rather keep gays out of straight marriages, than I'd want to keep gays out of gay marriage.
"What in the wide wide world of sports is a-goin' on here? I hired you men to build a railroad, not jump around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots!!"
>>Perhaps it's a difference of the communities in which we live.<<
Maybe.
I lived in Cleveland for many years. I wish I knew couples who would do everything to avoid being "in your face"!
I am not a big Public Displays of Affection type person. Homo or Hetero. When I was around gays, that was a big problem (after the high school years). I don't slither all over my hubby, I don't want to see you do the same. Or the agenda pushing, "This is my SPOUSE!" from people who are not able to be married. Or "I'm Suzy's OTHER mommy!"
Try explaining that to your five year old.
Honestly, I just try to avoid it.
Look Jeb, he's Brokeback Mountin that other Fella
Man that looks like it hurts
and as i once heard it said... "those that are very comfortable with their sexuality, whether gay or hetero - and sexually free, are usually the biggest screw-ups you'll meet."
Since people are no longer paying money to see this film the last gasp is to write about it, in hopes of building publicity and interest. No one wants to watch gays except other gays, it's that simple.
i.e., "you will not hear differently."
For what it's worth, I just had to make that comment.
Thanks for the link, JEppy:
I'd thought of going to BoxOfficeMojo to comapre notes right after I'd posted #142.
Jack.
You are right about that, I had a beer with a nephew of mine and his friends, they began talking of their conquests, and not only shocked me, but embarrassed me too. Now I am no prude, but the commonality of experience was amazing between them, and they thought nothing of sharing the same "girlfriend"????? Since that time, I have seen that this experience that they related, was not only common, but seen as normal by the females as well. I guess dignity and self respect are mores of the past.
It's the liberal media going ga-ga over this movie, plus the way it is being marketed to flyover country(i.e ads), is one of a hetero love story, instead of a homo story.
They have pulled out all the stops, in trying to shove this movie on the American public, and the false advertising hollyweird is doing is adding fuel to the fire.
I guess we're lucky.
All the couples I know are monogamous (as far as I know), childless (they don't seem to have the need to make a statement) and I have never seen them show physical affection to each other (nor do my husband and I show physical affection around others). My kids have never asked about the particular sexual arrangement of our friends but then again they have never asked about our hetero friends either--just as it should be!
I agree totally with the PDA--I don't care who you are--yuck! :-)
I plan to go and see it myself. If I rented it, I would do so openly. I don't give one flying expletive what people think about me ;-)
She's an actress! That's what actors do, LOL!
So I guess I'm on "your side" here, especially if the role won her an Oscar...would that every actor, musician, sports star and all "famous folks" would just stick to whatever they do well, and stop bloviating about their irrelevent personal issues...
At fifty, its certainly not going to change my orientation.
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.