Well i was gonna post this under westerns but then got to thinking that since this is more of a love/romance story it would do better here.

This is the touching tale of two cowboys who meet in the sixties during a sheep herd job and fall in love. They then try and deal with the problems this creates and the movies spans the next 20 years of their lives where they try and hide their liove from the family and world who wont understand. (I know that sounds bad but it is a paraphrase of how IMDB describes it)

Wow. I am surprised that a movie like this was made in the culture of hatred, discrimination and intolerant narrowmindedness america has developed. It is good to see that there are a few people in entertainment who are not afraid to tell a story like this. It stars Jake Gyllenhal and Heath Ledger so it does have a pair of rather big name stars in it. WHo actually do kiss on screen and apparently if the rumors are true repeatedly for different takes as well as offscreen for heath's wife to react to during another scene.

Somehow it is sad to say that I doubt the christian taliban will approve or even try and understand this movie or go watch it. Like usual instead of trying to understand or open their minds they will probably protest, picket whine and cry like little babies

I haven't seen this yet, but it will go into my Netflix queue the moment the DVD is released.

Have you seen Big Eden? It is set in present-day Montana, and was mostly filmed in Glacier National Park. Because a lot of the plotline is influenced by '40s "Womens Movies" romance melodramas, it comes off as a little schmaltzy and unrealistic, but it is a good movie to "break the ice" with friends who can "intellectually" accept that homosexualty exists, and that gays are entitled to live normal, happy lives, but who would feel uncomfortable being too close to one.

To be honest I had never even heard of Big Eden until now.

Good to see that there are movies with positive portrayls of homosexuals, or at least portrayls that are just as normal as the rest of hollywood. However normal that is.

R, I'm not surprised they made this movie. Movies are made by Hollywood, which is not controlled by the Religious Reich (although they do make concessions to them at times).

True but Mainstream Hollywood also goes where the money is and usually likes to stick with comfortable cash cows they can milk dry. This is somewhat outside the usual stuff.

And with Ang Lee directing (crouching tiger, hidden dragon) and Heath and Jake in it and all it just seems odd given how "unpopular" homosexuality appears to be with a lot of people to have a mainstream hollywood movei (at least AFAIK) come out with a subject like this.

Or maybe the CT are over playing exactly how many people agree with them. I dunno. We'll wait and see what happens I guess. Though I do wonder what Heath and Jake's female fan base will do when they see the two of them Kiss on the big screen.

They will probably feel the same as most guys do when two ladies get together...

Whenever I hear/read this title, I can't help but think it's "Bareback Mountain". I don't know if the title was chosen for that reason, but it's a little too darn close.

R: True but Mainstream Hollywood also goes where the money is and usually likes to stick with comfortable cash cows they can milk dry. This is somewhat outside the usual stuff.

I'd say that's true until awards season. This is the time that you get movies like this.

I guess so Josh.

Influx:Maybe that will help the take on the movie. Their lady fans wanting to see that.

As for the title I hadn't thought of that until you mentioned it.

Maybe that will help the take on the movie. Their lady fans wanting to see that.

Well, I doubt it would get the same acclaim, or be as "hot" if it were Dennis Franz and Danny DeVito...

Still, it's a start of something I think we will be seeing with much more frequency, and much less fanfare in the coming years.

No somehow I doubt the same demographic would be as excited by that pairing influx...

Well thats not a bad thing. Seeing homosexuals as somethign other than flamboyant fashion designers, hairstylists or dancers would be refreshing.

From what I understand, the characters in this movie are not exactly "homosexual," at least regarding what we typically think of as homosexual (purely purusing same-sex relationships). In my reading of reviews, it seems that one character is basically a heterosexual who has engaged in a homosexual act, while the other one is more or less bisexual. Calling it the "gay cowboy" movie is an incredible simplification. (not that anyone here did)

Actually from what I have understood the story is that the two of them fall in love with each other but knowing what society expects of them they try to forget about their love for each other and develop relationships with women even going so far as to ahve a family only to realize that their lvoe for each other is too strong to be forgotten and broken.

I got this from IMDB and the site of the movie not from any reviews thoughas I try not to read reviews, spoilers yes, reviews no.

There were movies in the early 1980's with gay themes, such as Making Love and Cruising, which were critically panned. Cruising, in particular, was so critically reviled, and bombed so badly, it's all but disappeared now.

MikeC, I think it important to be careful with one's characterization of the sexuality of characters in a film one hasn't seen. Both of the characters marry women, yes. Have many gay men married women because it's what is expected? Yes. Does it make them less gay? No. I would advise you not to make the simplification that, because they married women, they must not really be *gay.*

Yes, I apologize for being quick to characterize. I was working on plot summaries from critics I generally trust (James Berardinelli, primarily). I was not implying that if a gay man marries a woman, he cannot be gay at all.

Last week I read the story by Annie Proulx and on Saturday I saw the film. I'll comment on a number of things in my next few posts, including responses to some earlier postings.

There were a lot of scratches on the film. I don't remember any reviews mentioning the scratches, so I wonder if my local theater got a damaged print or if it was an artistic decision to simulate a movie filmed in the eighties and stored in a vault for twenty years until it was safe to release it. More likely the former. Someone would have mentioned the latter.

I was not implying that if a gay man marries a woman, he cannot be gay at all.
Rock Hudson was married briefly in the mid-1950's, in what some people saw as a studio set-up to hide his homosexuality.

I wouldn't go out of my way to see the movie, but a whole host of issues has arisen from this movie. Conservatives are trying to claim that this film is part of Hollywood's "gay agenda". Such ideas, put forth by b.s.-spewers such as O'Reilly and Hannity, feed into the conspiracy paranoia of the right and aren't worth dignifying.

At Kansas State University, Bush nervously responded that he didn't see the film. His reaction is very telling. He is a notorious homophobe and exploits the anti-gay marriage crusade for political gain. On a deeper psychological level, there are some worrisome elements to his reaction. In a famous Harvard study, men harboring strong homophobic attitudes were found to have high levels of homosexual arousal (when studied observing 'gay' porn). I have to wonder what the President's refusal to see the film means. Is he afraid it may arouse him? From the evidence, I must assume that G.W. Bush is a closeted homosexual, so is Cheney.

On Oprah last week, the cast discussed the film. The pretend cowboys Heath and Jake joked that Jake played the "woman" in the film. I must also apply this scenario to real life. Bush and Cheney are also pretend cowboys. SNL has joked that Cheney plays the 'alpha male' role in the White House. In a sense, it must be said that Bush plays the "woman" in that relationship. I must assume that Bush refuses to see the film because he fears seeing too much similarity to himself in the film's gay characters. Honestly, in his personna of the rancher, Bush hardly comes across as particularly 'butch'.

They just mentioned this movie on the news over here, because it'll probably be nominated for an award, and coming into our cinemas in a few weeks. They mentioned how foaming-at-the-mouth the christian fundies were over this, and then showed some viewers who had seen the movie. Interestingly, several women liked the romance aspect of it, the love there, and didn't much care that it was two guys doing the love. The male viewers weren't that offended, either. (I guess there are no real explicit sex scenes.)

Apparently, the (moderate?) success of the movie is a bit of red flag for the fundies, who of course wished everybody to boycott it.

Bush is a closet homosexual, huh? It's nice to know you can determine somebody's sexual orientation by their choice in films.

Nominated for eight Oscars. Including Best Picture.
I had planned to see this with my girlfriend the other day, but her mind was elsewhere, so we tabled it. From what I heard from a co-worker who has seen it, there is little in this film to arouse.

Each of the actors had a scene with the actress who played his wife that was more explicit than the one "explicit" scene (not a skin scene) they had together. (They do have a second strongly suggestive scene a passionate kiss, and one skin scene together and one each alone, but only the one "explicit" scene.) The emphasis is on their romance (or from another point of view, their obsession) rather than on sex.

On ABC's news tonight, right-wing Christians were complaining that Hollywood is out of touch with mainstream America because of such films as "Brokeback Mountain" and "Capote". It's nice to know that right-wing evangelicals claim to speak for the majority. Since when, and what majority? A good example of the critics of these films is a group calling itself the "Concerned Women of America". Apparently, they aren't aware that the largest feminist organization in America is NOW. The former head of NOW, Patricia Ireland, definately wouldn't be offended by films with gay characters. She was married to a man but also had a female lover (since a man couldn't satisfy all her needs). Indeed, most husbands are ignorant and need a brilliant wife to tell them how to do things properly.

What exactly does right-wing America want? Do they want films to go back to portraying gay characters in a covert manner? Many films have featured gay relationships. It's just that the subltey of presentation went over the heads of right wingers. For example; "Star Wars" featured a homosexual couple. As author John Scalzi notes of C-3PO and R2D2; "one is small and sassy, the other tall and fussy- and their relationship is so clearly one of snippy yet devoted companionship that one of the ongoing assumptions about the two droids is that they are a gay couple." Even the complaints about the film "Capote" has earlier film relevance. In "Return of the Jedi", the Emperor clearly speaks in a manner patterned after Truman Capote.

For example; "Star Wars" featured a homosexual couple.

Would you care to provide specifics on this?

Indeed, most husbands are ignorant and need a brilliant wife to tell them how to do things properly.

Rona, thank you for once agian proving that closed minded stereotyping is not only a right-wing trait.

Neutral Observer: Indeed, most husbands are ignorant and need a brilliant wife to tell them how to do things properly.
Luigi Novi: It is unlikely that you have any valid knowledge on the nature of "most" husbands or wives, or how "ignorant" or "brilliant" they are.

Neutral Observer: As author John Scalzi notes of C-3PO and R2D2; "one is small and sassy, the other tall and fussy- and their relationship is so clearly one of snippy yet devoted companionship that one of the ongoing assumptions about the two droids is that they are a gay couple."
Luigi Novi: An assumption is hardly a fact, and this description of gay couples is a stereotype. And since when does height have anything to do with gay couples? Are gay couples typically marked by a disparity in height?

Neutral Observer: In "Return of the Jedi", the Emperor clearly speaks in a manner patterned after Truman Capote.
Luigi Novi: In what way is this "clear"? I see no resemblance between the two.

one is small and sassy, the other tall and fussy- and their relationship is so clearly one of snippy yet devoted companionship

That seems to me to be much more like Mutt and Jeff or Abbot and Costello than "a gay couple."

Or Bert and Ernie.

Strangely enough, I saw the news report in question, and I think my main problem with its logic runs like this:

-According to the fundies, Hollywood is rolling out a bunch of movies that center on "non-mainstream" characters/values: Brokeback Mountain, TransAmerica, Capote, etc.

-These films aren't doing well, or at least not as well as expected.

-Ergo, Hollywood is ignoring what The People Want in favor of its insidious liberal agenda.

The problem I see is that... well, the movies they cite aren't tearing up the box office... but I rather wouldn't expect them to. Even if Hollywood wasn't in a slump, would those films be raking in the cash? No! They're not that type of film. And the "Christian" pics aren't really tearing it up at the box office, either.

Maybe this is a new right-wing tactic. A local rw writer in one of our papers ran a column last week saying that shows like The West Wing were losing ground because they were drifting away from the mainstream. Poor writing and bad time slots had nothing to do with it! No, sir!

Uh, who actually thought a movie about a transgendered person or a biopic of Truman Capote would make money? King Kong they ain't.

Some dramas can have widespread appeal and break records if they're not only good, but have the right marketing, critics praising it, etc. Me, I thought that Transamerica was really good when I saw it last June, and even though I admit I haven't seen the performances of the other nominated actresses, I wanted to Huffman to get the Oscar for her performance.

True enough; my point was just that the expectations shouldn't be necessarily high for these sort of films, financially speaking.

I just wish that John Wayne had lived to see this!!!

Also movies like Brokeback Mountain, TransAmerica, Capote aren't exactly getting big releases and huge marketing budgets. They are playing mostly in small arthouse theaters and spreading through word of mouth. Brokeback Mountain will get a wider release because of the Oscar noms and the very strong word of mouth that it is getting.

As for what mainstream America wants those awful christian exploitation films "Left Behind1, 2 & 3" aren't exactly setting the box office on fire. And lets look at TV for a moment; mainstream America made Jerry Springer, the WWE, The Sopranos and Sex and the City into hits.

I just wanted to note the following:

According to IMDB, Brokeback Mountain is open in 1,654 screens as of last weekend, was made on a budget of $14 million, and has brought in just over $51 million in receipts thus far.

This is not a piddling indie movie; this is a runaway success. We should probably keep that in mind in the present discussion.

This film contains too many paralles to the Bush/Cheney administration to be coincidence. Both Jack/Enis and Bush/Cheney are 'cowboys' from Texas and Wyoming. Both couples are married and talk about religion. All have internalised homophobic attitudes and all are presumably Republicans.

A better title for Brokeback Mountain would be "Bush Comes Out of the Closet". Set in the 60s. Jack and Enis were about the same age as Bush too.

Your paralles are fascinating.

N.O.: This film contains too many paralles to the Bush/Cheney administration to be coincidence. Both Jack/Enis and Bush/Cheney are 'cowboys' from Texas and Wyoming.
Luigi Novi: George W. Bush is originally from Connecticut (lating moving to Texas), and Dick Cheney is from Nebraska (later moving to Wyoming). In the film, both characters meet, IIUC, in Wyoming.

N.O.: Both couples are married and talk about religion.
Luigi Novi: Most couples usually do get married, and since couples tend to have conversations with one another, religion is often a topic, especially since religion sometimes plays into whether the two people think they're compatible with one another. Marriage and conversations about such topics are so universal that it's hardly a parallel to Bush and Cheney.

N.O.:All have internalised homophobic attitudes...
Luigi Novi: Again, this is common for many people. It's hardly specific to Bush and Cheney.

N.O.:...and all are presumably Republicans.
Luigi Novi: And what evidence do you provide for this presumption? If you see the two characters are representing the non-enlightened mindset towards people of different persuasions, then they would more likely be Democrats, since the film begins in 1963, when the Democrats were the party that was against civil rights.

I think Rona...er...N.O......is off on one of her tangents again....

NO, Rona, or whoever you are --

Please take your George Bush rants over to PM. Most of us here on this board would prefer to discuss the movie.

I don't know if anyone wants to discuss it there either, Tom.

Though you gotta admit it does make the term "Cowboy Diplomacy" take on a whole new meaning.....

What rock are ya'll livin under? This movie has been very politicised. It's been the topic of discussion on the major primetime political shows. When I mention it in any political context, I'm asked to shut up (however you phrase it). Even down to petty attempts to dispute my points; such as Bush being from Texas. He most certainly is from Texas. He's lived most of his life there and was Gov., for heaven sake! I never said he was born there. He identifies himself as a Texan, not as a Con. man (though he is a 'con-man').

Britain's "Sight and Sound" review of the movie reminds readers of homophobic attitudes in Texas. Some Texans might not approve of Ang Lee for "messing with Texas".

When I mention it in any political context, I'm asked to shut up (however you phrase it).

First, you have not been asked to "shut up." You have been asked to post your comments about Bush in a more appropriate place, one which is still on this site.

Bush was not an actor, writer, or cast member on this movie. He is not a movie critic, and the one comment he has made about the movie is that he has not seen it.

Your comments about Bush are not comments about this movie. They do not belong on this board. They belong on the board about Bush.

Second, your comments are not about the movie (not even "in any political context"). Like Bush, you admit that you have not seen the movie. Your ignorance of the contents of the movie show in comments like "Some Texans might not approve of Ang Lee for 'messing with Texas.'" Brokeback Mountain is not set in Texas.

It is set in Wyoming. One of the reasons it is set in Wyoming is that is where Brokeback Mountain is. Possibly another is because that is where Matthew Sheppard lived and died.

This is the last time I will respond to you on this board unless you choose to comment on the movie. I'm asking everyone else to likewise ignore any future trolls you post (and yes, trolls are what your last few posts have become) as well. For two weeks I've been trying to discuss this movie and you keep hijacking the thread for your rants.

If everyone else ignores you, then I can post around your rants. Otherwise I have to wait until I can bring the post back on topic.

TomM, the short story was written a year before Matthew Shepard died. Somewhat eerie coincidence, but the two have nothing to do with each other.

I hadn't checked the copyright date, but I'm not that surprised. That kind of coincidences crops up often in real life. That is why I qualified my statement ("Possibly another [reason] is...")

---------

While filming scenes of Sense and Sensibilty involving a flock of sheep, director Ang Lee was so discouraged by the difficulty of working with the animals that he swore he would never work with sheep again. He felt the story of Jack and Ennis needed to be told, however, and that it was more important than that promise to himself.

In one interview, when asked "Did the sheep give you any trouble?" Lee replied "What do think? (Laughs) They're not the smartest animal. Nobody had wrangled that many for a movie. We all learned, the wranglers and us. What's the best way to shoot them, the most flattering. It takes a while, plus the weather and the mountains. It can be stressful."

*Spoiler Alert* (Mostly for "Last Day" view)
.
.
.
.
.
.
It is clearer in the book that we aren't certain that we know the true story about Jack's death. The beating with the tire irons is Ennis' assumption. It is based on his memory of the man who was beaten when he was nine, and on the rehearsed and emotionless delivery by Lureen of the exploding tire story.

While, clearly, Proulx intended the reader to understand that Jack was murdered, she deliberately withheld confirmation.

If you read the story before seeing the movie, that same ambiguity holds true. But if you see the movie without reading the story, the focus of the ambiguity changes slightly. Then you are led to wonder if the footage of the beating is of Jack's actual death or whether it is of Ennis' fears.

This is not a criticism of Lee's direction or of McMurtry's screenplay. The only other way I know of to play out those fears is in dialog, and that would mean confronting Lureen, which would be out of character for Ennis

Slightly OT: Willie Nelson, whose cover of "He Was a Friend of Mine" plays under the closing credits has released a cover of a song titled "Cowboys Are Frequently Secretly Fond of Each Other"

The song, originally released on an album by Pansy Division includes lines like

Well small town don't like it when somebody falls between sexes,
No, small town don't like it when a cowboy has feelings for men.

and

Ten men for each woman was the rule way back when on the prairie,
And somehow those cowboys must have kept themselves warm late at night.

Apparently he recorded it two years ago, when his business manager came out, and then got cold feet and sat on it. Now, however he feels the time is right for it to be made public.

One question that keeps coming up is whether Ennis was really gay. It even showed up, in a more innocuous form earlier on this forum.

It is, even on its surface, a ridiculous question. First, it assumes that everyone is either "gay" or "straight" (or in some cases "bi") as if there are only two (or three) degrees of sexual orientation*, when it is a broad-spectrum continuum. Then it suggests that someone can "hiccough" briefly into the opposite orientation.

*(On the other hand, sexual relationships, because they involve specific persons of specific genders are easier to justify classifying. This is why laws were usually written as though it was the act, not the orientation, that the law was concerned with, and even in gay-bashing which is entirely about the victim's orientation, or even just his percieved orientation, the excuse that the perpetrators give is their disgust at what the victims "do" with other men.)

Ridiculous or not, though, there have traditionally been conditions under which homosexual acts by otherwise "straight" men could be forgiven or ignored. Generally they include situations where boys or men spend extended time with no women (Naval ships, prisons, boys' bording schools, etc.) Three months alone on Brokeback Mountain would qualify, barely. Mitigating circumstances such as drunkenness (and Ennis was drunk that first night) are also considered. Another factor is whether one assumed the "male" or the "female" role. Once Ennis realized, or decided, that he'd allowed things to go too far, he took an aggressive stance to ensure that he would enact the "male" role. Before that act, there could be some question as to whether the action Jack initiated, and in which he was the passive partner, really constituted "going too far." The mid 20th century -Jack's and Ennis' generation -- saw first a tightening (the '40s and '50s) and then a loosening (the '60s and '70s) of how far two men could "safely" go.

Altogether, Ennis could convince himself, and anyone who might discover his past, that this was a forgivable incident that did not call into question his "straightness." At least for the first four years of his marriage. Except for the fact that he couldn't forget Jack.

Once Jack came back into his life, however, he no longer could convince himself "I aint no queer." He convinced himself that it was a "thing" that "grab(bed) 'hold of us," something outside himself he was powerless to resist, but he recognized that he and Jack were very much like the two partners, one of whom was killed with a tire iron (possibly by Ennis' own father) when Ennis was nine.

Randy Quaid is suing the producers of this film, saying he was asked to do the film for an unrealistically low salary, and he was told the film was supposed to be a low-budget art house film, with no prospects of making any money. The film has grossed a sweet $160 million so far. More here.
Well, duh. I kind of sympathize with Mr. Quaid, as they probably did secure his services for this film for far less than his usual salary (probably not as much as brother Dennis gets a film, but I'm sure Randy Q makes a very comfortable living as an actor.) But, I think I taste sour grapes here. Think about it (you won't have to think about this too long, though) - The financial backers of this film (including Universal's art house division Focus Features, which released the film) wouldn't have invested one thin dime if they thought the film had no prospects of making money. That's why it's called the movie business, my friend.

Rev. Don Wildmon and his American Family Association are at it again. They're trying to keep Wal-Mart stores from stocking the just-released DVD's of this film. More here.
Every time I think the AFA has gone away, they keep coming back. Sort of like Michael Corleone and organized crime.

Well, they've never really gone away, have they? They've been at it for decades.

Yeah it is rather difficult to get rid of cockroaches like that unless you use heavy artillery.

Randy Quaid drops his lawsuit.

I watched this pic on HBO when they first ran it in late 2006/early 2007. I thought it was one big snoozefest. I liked actor Peter McRobbie in it though; I usually see him as Judge Bradley in the Law & Order series'. (Watch the pretty good flick The Hoax; McRobbie is really creepy in that one.}