Brokeback Mountain

[MrsSpringsteen]

I'm sure plenty of people will be receptive to it in the suburbs, I'd be willing to bet it will be sold out at my theater. Seems like a bit of stereotyping there..


Brokeback a Box Office Success So Far

By SANDY COHEN, AP Entertainment Writer 46 minutes ago

Who's afraid of a couple of gay cowboys? Not moviegoers, who helped "Brokeback Mountain" post the highest per-screen average over the film-flush holiday weekend.

The Ang Lee film, which follows the 20-year forbidden romance between two roughneck ranch hands, earned $13,599 per theater, compared with $9,305 for weekend winner "King Kong" and $8,225 for "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe."

The big question is whether "Brokeback" can maintain its momentum as it moves from selected cities, where audiences are receptive to the subject matter, to suburbs far and wide, where that might not be the case.

Early numbers — and early awards buzz — establish the picture's staying power, industry insiders say. "Brokeback" earned a leading seven Golden Globe nominations.

"It delivered very strong growth in what is truly a highly unforgiving, competitive, cruel market at this Christmas period," said Jack Foley, president of theatrical distribution for Focus Features. "It showed it has breadth beyond the gay community."

Distributors planned to roll out the film slowly. It opened in just six theaters, where it earned an "unprecedented" $109,000 per venue, said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box office tracker Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc.

The film expanded to 69 theaters the following week, then to 217 over the holiday weekend, reaching suburban audiences in Portland, Dallas, Denver and Atlanta.

The gradual release allows moviegoers to talk up the film's appeal, Foley said.

And it seems to be working.

"This is a film that builds through word of mouth and critical acclaim," Dergarabedian said. "People want to see what all the fuss is about."

Response has been so robust that distributors are expanding the film's rollout ahead of schedule. It will show on 269 screens this Friday, and reach an additional 80 markets the following week, Foley said.

 

[dandy]

it's still not playing in my city.

 

[martha]

1. The tagline for Brokeback Mountain is, "Love is a force of nature." Do you agree? Do we get to choose whom we fall in love with? Do we get to choose our sexual orientation? Why or why not?

2. Scripture says homosexual sex is sinful (Lev. 18:22, 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). How should the church engage those who hold different beliefs about homosexuality? Should Christians expect all people to be heterosexuals? Why or why not? What does this mean for how Christians should treat gays?

3. Ennis' parents died when he was young. Do you think the loneliness he experienced as a child played into his attraction to Jack? If yes, how so? When he got married, why didn't Alma's love satisfy his need for companionship?

4. Do Ennis and Jack love each other because they're gay, or are they gay because they love each other? Explain. Had they never met, do you think one or both of them would have happily lived a heterosexual life? Why or why not? What does that say about the nature of sexual orientation?

5. Ennis and Jack determine that their bond is no one else's business. Can love—gay or straight—stay secret and be and/or remain healthy? Why or why not?

6. How should Christians approach films that depict gay relationships? What, if anything, can we learn from such movies? About the gay culture? About ourselves?

Now that I've seen the movie and (nearly) recovered from it and can (almost) stop thinking about it all the time, I have a few answers for these questions.

It's people like you and your bullshit attitudes that make people miserable, secretive, and unhappy. It also makes people murder in your name. STFU.



On a healthier note, Michelle Williams should win an Oscar for this.

 

[diamond]

I haven't seen the movie diamond but I don't think the "violence" has anything to do with "gay on gay violence" and I don't quite know what you mean by that-as far as I know the vast majority of violence perpetrated against gay people is by straight people.

From what I've read about the movie, any "violence" might have to do with both of them being in some sort of denial about their attraction for each other, thus it is integral to the story and not violence just for the sake of it. Someone who has seen it can explain it much better than I can.

well i know a great many gay ppl and gay guy couples who have fought, when they fight they don't want to report it, because they don't want a spectacle made of their relationship...kinda like like spousal abuse from the wife ..the man is always embarssed etc.

And if gay relationships are normal..why when a male and female being attracted to each other..and if they get flustered, because they 're in supposed denial, why do they not resort to violence, all things being the same, like those frisky cowboys in the movie?


db9

 

[BVS]

well i know a great many gay ppl and gay guy couples who have fought, when they fight they don't want to report it, because they don't want a spectacle made of their relationship...kinda like like spousal abuse from the wife ..the man is always embarssed etc.

And if gay relationships are normal..why when a male and female being attracted to each other..and if they get flustered, because they 're in supposed denial, why do they not resort to violence, all things being the same, like those frisky cowboys in the movie?


db9

Men are naturally more aggressive, seems like a no-brainer.

But then I guess those don't exist here in FYM, because there's always one.

 

[martha]

like those frisky cowboys in the movie?

Diamond, go see the goddamn movie, then talk about it.

 

[diamond]

Diamond, go see the goddamn movie, then talk about it.

NEW STUDY SHOWS URBAN GAY MEN AS LIKELY TO BE BATTERED
AS HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN

HIV DIAGNOSIS OFTEN TRIGGERS VIOLENCE



A new study shows that one in five urban gay men is battered by his partner, showing that homosexual men are just as likely as heterosexual women to be victims of domestic violence. This new NIH-funded study, the first of its kind, appears in the December issue of American Journal of Public Health

 

[BVS]

^It's no wonder Bush got re-elected...

People are still stuck.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

And if gay relationships are normal..why when a male and female being attracted to each other..and if they get flustered, because they 're in supposed denial, why do they not resort to violence, all things being the same, like those frisky cowboys in the movie?

I assume you're being serious and not just goofing around..are you honestly judging how "normal" gay relationships are by what happens in a short story/story made into a movie? I believe the cowboys being "violent" was probably written by Ms Proulx for character purposes, and in the context of the time period/the place/the attitudes towards homosexuality. I haven't read the short story yet, I'm waiting to see the movie-so I am assuming that the "violence" is also in the book.

If you think the "violence" is any sort of important part of this movie, I think you're really missing the boat.

 

[AttnKleinkind]

Some women actually get hot watching two men.

Two horses being saved at once...

 

[martha]

Diamond, you're still basing things on the trailer. What you posted doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the punches thrown in the movie.

 

[diamond]

Diamond, you're still basing things on the trailer. What you posted doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the punches thrown in the movie.

well when i see the movie, i will be able to determine the reason those fellows were throwing punches.

if they were really in love and throwing punches than that is a form of domestic violence and not suitable in any shape or form ,gay straight or otherwise and gay cowboyz shouldn't be doing this.


db9

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

well when i see the movie, i will be able to determine the reason those fellows were throwing punches.

Then why are you already having opinions as to why before you have seen it? I'm confused.

 

[diamond]

Then why are you already having opinions as to why before you have seen it? I'm confused.

if you read my statement in context, in which i saw the 2 gay guys slugging it out in the trailer you wouldn't be confused.

db9

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I read it (in context, no need to instruct me on that ), I'm still confused

 

[Irvine511]

1. male/male couple violence is a real thing, and what often happens is two men will beat the hell out of each other and, like, throw TVs at each other whereas (usually) a woman will simply take a beating from a man (until she gets a gun or something) -- also, in a place like DC where lots of people have military jobs, the abused CANNOT file a domestic violence report because that would be a violation of "don't ask, don't tell" -- he'd be outing himself and would lose his job. fucked up.

2. diamond -- see the movie.

3. "heartwrenching" is, indeed, a perfect term for the film

4. going to be in absentia for most of january -- got a great freelance gig for a few weeks that will keep me away from any serious computer time, and it sounds like the hours are going to be intense.

but i'll be back, perhaps just lurking for a while.

happy new year, y'all.



ps -- yes, michelle williams broke my heart. oscar! oscar!

 

[joyfulgirl]

It finally opened here yesterday and I saw it. It was a beautiful film. The performances as everyone has said were just incredible and one of the gay men I saw it with--a nice Jewish boy from Long Island who had it relatively easy coming out--said that despite the vast differences in his life and the characters', that there was nothing in the film that he couldn't relate to as a gay man. We had dinner afterwards and talked about the film for a long time. The scene with Jack's parents was one of the most powerful I've ever seen, with so much communicated with so little dialogue.

Unfortunately, this was the opening matinee so the theatre was packed and the audience around us was surprisingly rude and immature for a gay-friendly, sophisticated city. There was a girl sitting down from us who giggled loudly all throughout the movie and, worse, there were three gay men behind us (of the queen variety) who laughed really really loudly throughout. They laughed when the characters fought, they laughed when the girl cried, they laughed when anyone showed pain. It was the weirdest fucking thing and really created a distance between us and the film so that, as my friend said, we didn't even get to have our breakdowns because of the distractions. So I'll have to see it again in a less crowded theatre after it's been out for awhile. On a positive note, there was also wild applause at the end so it was just the few annoying people around us, not the audience as a whole.

On a picky note, it was just wrong to hear Steve Earle on the jukebox when he didn't even record his first record until 1986 and the song "Devil's Right Hand" that was in the movie came out in 1988. I knew this immediately because my boyfriend at the time was in the band. When I said this, one of the guys I was with--a racecar driver and car expert--said the cars were all wrong, too, for that time period and it really bugged him. Then we all at the same time said, "Yeah, and Heath Ledger had a pierced earlobe." Little nitpicky things that 4 ordinary people noticed right away--seems like someone on Ang Lee's team would have, too.

Still, a beautiful and deeply moving film.

 

[martha]

-said the cars were all wrong, too, for that time period and it really bugged him.

Those Ford trucks were from '63.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Those Ford trucks were from '63.

My friend commented specifically on vehicles in the background, not the ones the main characters were driving. He's probably the only person who would ever notice. His secret dream job is to work on films, picking out the vehicles, so he is really tuned in to all that.

 

[Doozer61]

and, worse, there were three gay men behind us (of the queen variety) who laughed really really loudly throughout.

i had this experience too in our theatre. especially when Michelle Williams saw them kissing from the upstairs apt. how anyone can laugh at someone else's pain is beyond me.

 

[joyfulgirl]

i had this experience too in our theatre. especially when Michelle Williams saw them kissing from the upstairs apt. how anyone can laugh at someone else's pain is beyond me.

Yes, that was one of the exact scenes when laughter erupted behind me. I think perhaps these particular men were seeing the unresolved pain in their own past and this was how they handled it.

 

[diamond]

im excited to see this movie, as long as they're not trying to sell me an agenda.

i will let u know how it goes after viewing this movie- if i felt manipulated or not etc.

db9

 

[BVS]

im excited to see this movie, as long as they're not trying to sell me an agenda.

i will let u know how it goes after viewing this movie- if i felt manipulated or not etc.

db9

And what "agenda" would that be?

 

[martha]

His secret dream job is to work on films, picking out the vehicles, so he is really tuned in to all that.

I have a friend who does this for a living, mostly with motorcycles. (Surprise.)

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I still haven't seen it, damn my stupid theater

This is an, um, interesting perspective. This guy tends to write that way anyway, I think he's just cranky

By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist | January 5, 2006

''I'm highly skeptical that a movie about gay cowhands, however good, will find a large mainstream audience. . . . When the film's national box office fails to live up to its hype and to the record attendance at a few early screenings, prepare to be subjected to a tedious round of guilt-tripping and chin-scratching by Frank Rich and every metropolitan daily entertainment writer who yearns to write about What the Movies Say About America Today."

-- Slate columnist Mickey Kaus,Dec. 12, 2005

''I'll rashly predict that the big Hollywood question posed on the front page of The Los Angeles Times after those stunning weekend grosses -- 'Can ''Brokeback Mountain" Move the Heartland?' -- will be answered with a resounding yes."

-- New York Times columnistFrank Rich, Dec. 18

''I claim that it will not be a resounding success. So we'll see in a few weeks who's right and who's wrong."

-- Kaus, Dec. 18

It looks like Mickey Kaus was right and Frank Rich was wrong. After opening strongly in New York and Los Angeles a month ago, ''Brokeback Mountain" is now the 13th most popular movie in the country, according to Variety. It's no failure, but it's not headed for resounding success, either. Ticket sales roughly equal the movie's slim, $14 million budget. The heavy breathing from mainstream critics virtually guarantees several Oscar nominations, and more revenue, for this ''study of love under siege," as New Yorker critic Anthony Lane calls it.

Why will ''Brokeback" fail to break out? First and foremost, outside of major cities, many Americans remain jittery at best and disapproving at worst of homosexuality. Even in oh-so-tolerant Hollywood, it's amusing to see ''Brokeback" stars Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal play up their home-on-the-range heterosexuality in publicity interviews. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Newspapers like the Globe and The New York Times often write about the world as they would like it to be -- a world resembling, say, Manhattan or Cambridge -- not the world as they find it. (A world, for instance, where a right-wing Catholic can make $370 million on a movie about Jesus Christ.) Hilariously, the Times dispatched a reporter to Lusk, Wyo., to round up a few gay cowboys, as if to say: ''See? They're really out there."

''There has always lurked a suspicion," reporter Guy Trebay sonorizes, channeling the late literary critic Leslie Fiedler, ''that the Red River crowd may have gotten up to more than yarning by the campfire whenever Joanne Dru was not around." What's next? Will the Times send a team of stereotype-busting reporters south of Houston Street to find heterosexual party planners? I can't wait.

Another explanation for the limited appeal of ''Brokeback" is that millions of moviegoers don't want to see men making love to each other on the screen. ''If heterosexual men in heartland America don't flock to see 'Brokeback Mountain' it's not because they're bigoted," Kaus writes. ''It's because they're heterosexual."

To be fair, the movie's studio, Focus Features, isn't selling anything other than a gay cowboy movie. But the critics have gone them one better. It's not a gay cowboy movie, writes Roger Ebert: ''It could be about two women, or lovers from different religious or ethnic groups -- any 'forbidden' love." It's not a gay cowboy movie, writes The New Yorker's Lane; it's ''an elegy for tamped-down lives, with an eye for vanishing brightness of which Jean Renoir would have approved." Right. And ''King Kong" is about cognitive dissonance among the higher primates.

The movie has its moments -- of unintentional hilarity, that is. Starting with Ledger's dead-on George W. Bush imitation, proceeding through the pretentious, useless soundtrack, directly to this Great Moment in Movie Dialogue: ''I used to wonder how come you never brought any trouts home," Ledger's screen wife says of her husband's regular creekside rendezvous with Gyllenhaal. Silly girl; she thought they went on those trips to go fishing.

If this were a routine boy-girl oater, you could laugh at yourself for spending $9 to ogle sexual disport in the sagebrush. But, alas, it's so much more: a story of men ''crippled by a society that tells them how a man must behave and what he must feel" -- Ebert again. So endure the heavy-handed morality play; just don't plan on having a good time.

 

[Irvine511]

i think this critic is getting at something very important -- no, "brokeback mountain" is not a good time. if you want that, as most people do, go see "king kong" or that "narnia" movie. his anti-art, anti-intellectual attitudes are indicative of the majority of moviegoers anywhere and everywhere. art does not sell, much; entertainment does. and fair enough. i'm happy to pay $9 to watch lightsaber battles in a galaxy far, far away. i'm also happy to see what was easily the most heartwrenching movie i can remember. we all go to movies for different reasons, and i wish the author above would remember than instead of taking cheap shots at people -- the mentioned critics -- who were deeply moved and wrote emotional reviews. it's very easy to sneer, especially in print, at emotion.

"brokeback" is without question an art movie, intended for arthouse theaters with sophistocated cosmopolitan audiences. the movie is already in the black, thanks to it's small budget at $13m -- compare that with the nearly $200m that peter jackson spent on "kong."

i would guess it would make in the neighborhood of $40-50m. perhaps more, depending on how it does at the Oscars. that's a huge cost-to-profit, and Kong would have to make better than "titanic" numbers to do as well in comparison. i also don't think the critic above understands just how slow the roll out of the film is. it hasn't opened in many markets; give it time.

besides, if box office receipts were indicative of a film's quality, we'd all be doomed.

 

[Doozer61]

Got four SAG nominations!!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060105/media_nm/leisure_sag_dc

 

[joyfulgirl]

http://www.heathbaby.com/images/

 

[Doozer61]

kinda cute for a boy

 

[U2democrat]

kinda cute for a boy

You bet he is!



I'm going to wait for this movie to come out on DVD before I see it. I'm cheap