brokeback mountain

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:25 pm

El_Gato wrote:BAC,

So, did you get to see it?

Also, did you end up seeing Syriana? If so, don't give it away but just tell me if you'd recommend it for a lifelong conservative oilman or not.

I haven't seen Brokeback yet ... maybe this week sometime.

I really liked Syriana. It has a cynical (realistic?) view of virtually every player in the Middle East, including oil companies. Although, at the same time, it seems like it plays things relatively fairly. It shows the oil companies as being profit oriented (and willing to bend the rules to get ahead in the particular story followed), but also shows the Emirs being the same way, as well as every politician in D.C. and everyone hanging around the Middle East. The oil company story subplot has more to do with our national interests in securing oil resources, and the interplay with the Chinese (who also want the oil) and the Emirs.

It's not a harsh propoganda film by any means -- it makes everybody look bad (and likely deservedly so). The main complaints by people come from the way the film was done from a story telling perspective. It follows four different stories that are loosely intertwined. It doesn't spend a lot of time explaining the back story for any character, and sometimes characters come and go that you have no idea who or what they are. It's kind of like you are a fly on the wall for all of these conversations. As a result, the viewer never fully knows the full story at any given time, and they have to really pay attention to follow the story at all (kind of like "Deadwood" -- lots of very subtle plot points made that can pass you by if you aren't paying attention).

I actually thought these methods made the film better because they gave you a sense of chaos and confusion, which is a good metaphor for the entire region. It furthers the idea that anybody who thinks they know the whole story about what is going on at any given time is probably wrong. It's hard to watch the movie and then think that simple slogans are adequate for framing any discussion on the region.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:50 pm

BAC- if you liked Syriana you need to read if you have not already Barber's book " Jihad vs McWorld". It is a look at the rise of radical Islam as a response to the spread of materialism/capitalism and all that comes with it. Give it a read if you have time, I think you'll like it.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:13 pm

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll have to pick it up during my next book store afternoon. Unfortunately, it will add to the pile of books I have that I still haven't read, but I hope I'll find the time to give it a read.

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:46 am

One thing about this movie perplexes me.

If a homosexual relationship is a normal thing, which is what the gay community is wanting to (rightfully so) accomplish, why is it that the major buzz about this movie revolves around the fact that the two lead characters are gay?

Basically, we have a tale of two cowboys who have an extramarital affair. Yet the accolades keep coming non-stop for this movie. If a homosexual relationship is nothing out of the norm, then why is Hollywood going gaga over what is basically a Western love story?

Seems a bit duplicitous IMO. On the one hand, a gay relationship is completely normal and biological, on the other hand, let's turn a normal love story into something completely out of the norm and trumpet it as some sort of ground-breaking addition to pop culture.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:04 am

I think a bit part of the gaga buzz is over the assertion that it is a uniquely well done movie. The fact that it shows characters in a way that hasn't widely been done before is just the initial attention-getting feature (similar to "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" with Sidney Potier). If the movie wasn't really good past that point, the buzz would fizzle (as it has for hundreds of other indie movies with similar themes, but less artistic merit).

If it turns out to be nothing more than a gay political statement movie, it will fizzle. Only if the story is able to resonate with a wider audience, based on the quality of the movie itself, will it live up to the buzz.

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:19 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:I think a bit part of the gaga buzz is over the assertion that it is a uniquely well done movie. The fact that it shows characters in a way that hasn't widely been done before is just the initial attention-getting feature (similar to "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" with Sidney Potier). If the movie wasn't really good past that point, the buzz would fizzle (as it has for hundreds of other indie movies with similar themes, but less artistic merit).

If it turns out to be nothing more than a gay political statement movie, it will fizzle. Only if the story is able to resonate with a wider audience, based on the quality of the movie itself, will it live up to the buzz.

Still, the buzz has been about the sexual identity of the cowboys and not the story line. In terms of pure marketing it is obvious which message the producers of this movie have been trying to convey to the public. I just find it a bit ironic that those who are supposedly most accepting of this lifestyle woud trumpet this film as being different than any other love story. I suppose it could be argued that marketing it as a gay story will attract the curious to the movie and perhaps boost the box office results, but this tactic smacks a little bit of exploitation.

This stated, I have no problems at all with the movie itself. I'm not a Western fan, I'm not big on love stories, so if I see the movie it will either be on HBO or DVD.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:24 am

Anybody see Letterman's top ten last night. Good stuff

catamaran · Post by **catamaran** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:27 am

found it online
Top Ten Signs You're A Gay Cowboy

10. "Your saddle is Versace"

9. "Instead of 'Home On The Range', you sing 'It's Raining Men'"

8. "You enjoy ridin', ropin', and redecoratin'"

7. "Sold your livestock to buy tickets to 'Mamma Mia'"

6. "After watching reruns of 'Gunsmoke', you have to take a cold shower"

5. "Native Americans refer to you as 'Dances With Men'"

4. "You've been lassoed more times than most steers"

3. "You're wearing chaps, yet your 'ranch' is in Chelsea"

2. "Instead of a saloon you prefer a salon"

1. "You love riding, but you don't have a horse"

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:46 am

PapaG wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I think a bit part of the gaga buzz is over the assertion that it is a uniquely well done movie. The fact that it shows characters in a way that hasn't widely been done before is just the initial attention-getting feature (similar to "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" with Sidney Potier). If the movie wasn't really good past that point, the buzz would fizzle (as it has for hundreds of other indie movies with similar themes, but less artistic merit).

If it turns out to be nothing more than a gay political statement movie, it will fizzle. Only if the story is able to resonate with a wider audience, based on the quality of the movie itself, will it live up to the buzz.
Still, the buzz has been about the sexual identity of the cowboys and not the story line. In terms of pure marketing it is obvious which message the producers of this movie have been trying to convey to the public. I just find it a bit ironic that those who are supposedly most accepting of this lifestyle woud trumpet this film as being different than any other love story. I suppose it could be argued that marketing it as a gay story will attract the curious to the movie and perhaps boost the box office results, but this tactic smacks a little bit of exploitation.

This stated, I have no problems at all with the movie itself. I'm not a Western fan, I'm not big on love stories, so if I see the movie it will either be on HBO or DVD.

I've actually read a couple different articles that heavily quoted the director and others involved with the movie that were very adament that it was not a "gay cowboy" movie, but rather a movie that was a love story that happened to feature two men. They are quite proud of the movie as a story about two people, and were fighting to keep it from becoming a "gay" movie.

The fact that may jump out at people is the gay aspect, but at least from what I have read, those who made the movie aren't emphasizing that part of it.

The marketing I have seen has all been very tasteful and actually seems to focus more on the Wyoming landscapes and lifestyle than anything "gay." I want to see the film because of the story and the setting -- the gay part does nothing for me on its own. So at least in my particular case, the marketing grabbed me in a non-sensational way and attracted me to it for the movie itself and nothing curious. I've seen enough gay stuff so that no movie is appealing based on gay curiosity, and I think most of the country is the same way.

The advance buzz in the major press publications, though, has certainly emphasized the gay aspects, mainly because we are such a soundbite culture now. I guess I will wait to see it to figure out if it really stands on its own as a great film, or if the sexual identity of the characters is what is really bringing it all of this attention.

anacondagriz · Post by **anacondagriz** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:
I love having a gf who doesn't get too pissy when I gently ignore her movie requests ... she hasn't brought up "Pride and Prejudice" for almost a week now, and with any luck, it won't come up again.

If you get a chance to see Pride & Prejudice . . . DON'T. My gf desperately wanted to see it so I humored her & went. 1st of all I find it very hard to follow dialogue w/heavy British accents, 2nd there is absolutely no action & 3rd it is supposed to be a great love story but the characters are so boring you can't even root for them to get together. Now "just friends" w/ Ryan Reynolds & Amy Smart is a funny holiday movie that I would definetly recommend.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:13 am

anacondagriz wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
I love having a gf who doesn't get too pissy when I gently ignore her movie requests ... she hasn't brought up "Pride and Prejudice" for almost a week now, and with any luck, it won't come up again.

If you get a chance to see Pride & Prejudice . . . DON'T. My gf desperately wanted to see it so I humored her & went. 1st of all I find it very hard to follow dialogue w/heavy British accents, 2nd there is absolutely no action & 3rd it is supposed to be a great love story but the characters are so boring you can't even root for them to get together. Now "just friends" w/ Ryan Reynolds & Amy Smart is a funny holiday movie that I would definetly recommend.

I just can't stand any movie that glamorizes the old British snooty rich aristocracy blue blood crap (death to the royals, I say!). And I don't like chick flicks for the most part, so I will add your suggestion to my long list of reasons to not see it. Thanks!

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:14 am

anacondagriz wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
I love having a gf who doesn't get too pissy when I gently ignore her movie requests ... she hasn't brought up "Pride and Prejudice" for almost a week now, and with any luck, it won't come up again.

If you get a chance to see Pride & Prejudice . . . DON'T. My gf desperately wanted to see it so I humored her & went. 1st of all I find it very hard to follow dialogue w/heavy British accents, 2nd there is absolutely no action & 3rd it is supposed to be a great love story but the characters are so boring you can't even root for them to get together. Now "just friends" w/ Ryan Reynolds & Amy Smart is a funny holiday movie that I would definetly recommend.

How many times are they going to try and make this movie, or any movie based on any of this ladies books.

Gay sheephearders love story vs. Classic British love story. Give me sheephearder love any day.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:44 am

10. "Your saddle is Versace"

9. "Instead of 'Home On The Range', you sing 'It's Raining Men'"

8. "You enjoy ridin', ropin', and redecoratin'"

7. "Sold your livestock to buy tickets to 'Mamma Mia'"

6. "After watching reruns of 'Gunsmoke', you have to take a cold shower"

5. "Native Americans refer to you as 'Dances With Men'"

4. "You've been lassoed more times than most steers"

3. "You're wearing chaps, yet your 'ranch' is in Chelsea"

2. "Instead of a saloon you prefer a salon"

1. "You love riding, but you don't have a horse"

Give me sheephearder love any day

Oh my goodness - you boys are killing me

Don't care for those images - any cowboys riding anything other than a horse it should by a woman! That's a good image

No swishing wranglers PLEASE

Stetsons and spurs on straight cowboys - VERY good image

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:48 pm

my saving grace - these aren't Montana cowboys we're discussing

quoting my son (age 5 at the time) when at rodeo in Red Lodge for 4th of July when I begged him to mutton bust "REAL cowboys DON'T ride sheep momma. WE ride Bulls!!!"

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:52 pm

Good interview with the lady who wrote the original story:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryn ... 443414.htm

It did really well this last weekend. It broke into the top 10 in box office gross while still in very limited release.

I still haven't seen it.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:33 pm

I finally saw the movie last night. I liked it, but didn't love it. I won't be buying the DVD, but that is a pretty high bar of accomplishment for a film.

It doesn't treat the relationship with kid gloves, and it certainly isn't a touchy-feely kind of movie (no pun intended). The two guys' relationship is very confusing and actually quite violent at times. For those of us who don't watch a lot of man on man action, some scenes are jarring (which actually adds to the movie), and we find ourselves just wishing they would be happy with their wives. It's not until the very end of the film that I started to empathize with them and their relationship, but it's impossible to see them as heroic due to the pain they've caused everyone else.

In a lot of ways, this movie is like "Walk the Line." There is a romance that we as viewers know on some level is supposed to be a good thing, but we can't help but realize all of the pain they are causing the people that loved them. Brokeback is very sympathetic to the two wives of the guys, and makes you feel bad for the guys on one level, but makes you hate them on another level.

The movie is also an interesting introspective gague for people in terms of their comfort with homosexuality. I don't think many/any straight guy can watch the film and see romance in the gay sex/kissing scenes when they first happen, but at that moment you are so absolutely aware of how foreign the whole thing appears to you. You can be a very open-minded person who is in no way homophobic, but still just not understand the attraction. Because of that, I think that a gay person and a straight person may well be watching two completely different movies even though they are in the same theater. The gay person may well see a love story from beginning to end, while a straight person spends most of the movie trying to understand the characters and wondering why they are doing what they are doing, and then only at the end possibly beginning to understand that it really was a love story they were seeing all along.

All of that said, I am not a love story movie junkie, so although I liked the movie on many levels, the love story didn't ultimately fulfill me like it does many other people (women, mostly).

The scenery shots were amazing, though. And from purely a small ranching town perspective, the movie was very interesting as well. They really captured a lot of the nuances of speech and behavior in a lot of those "cowboy types." While watching the movie, almost every character reminded me of someone I knew while growing up in MT (in terms of mannerisms, not so much in terms of the coupling of mannerisms and choice of lovers).

I would recommend that people see it because it is very well done and very interesting in a foreign kind of way (while at the same time being set in a very, very familiar setting), but it's not knocking off "Smoke Signals" as my favorite movie of all time quite yet.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:03 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:I finally saw the movie last night. I liked it, but didn't love it. I won't be buying the DVD, but that is a pretty high bar of accomplishment for a film.

It doesn't treat the relationship with kid gloves, and it certainly isn't a touchy-feely kind of movie (no pun intended). The two guys' relationship is very confusing and actually quite violent at times. For those of us who don't watch a lot of man on man action, some scenes are jarring (which actually adds to the movie), and we find ourselves just wishing they would be happy with their wives. It's not until the very end of the film that I started to empathize with them and their relationship, but it's impossible to see them as heroic due to the pain they've caused everyone else.

In a lot of ways, this movie is like "Walk the Line." There is a romance that we as viewers know on some level is supposed to be a good thing, but we can't help but realize all of the pain they are causing the people that loved them. Brokeback is very sympathetic to the two wives of the guys, and makes you feel bad for the guys on one level, but makes you hate them on another level.

The movie is also an interesting introspective gague for people in terms of their comfort with homosexuality. I don't think many/any straight guy can watch the film and see romance in the gay sex/kissing scenes when they first happen, but at that moment you are so absolutely aware of how foreign the whole thing appears to you. You can be a very open-minded person who is in no way homophobic, but still just not understand the attraction. Because of that, I think that a gay person and a straight person may well be watching two completely different movies even though they are in the same theater. The gay person may well see a love story from beginning to end, while a straight person spends most of the movie trying to understand the characters and wondering why they are doing what they are doing, and then only at the end possibly beginning to understand that it really was a love story they were seeing all along.

All of that said, I am not a love story movie junkie, so although I liked the movie on many levels, the love story didn't ultimately fulfill me like it does many other people (women, mostly).

The scenery shots were amazing, though. And from purely a small ranching town perspective, the movie was very interesting as well. They really captured a lot of the nuances of speech and behavior in a lot of those "cowboy types." While watching the movie, almost every character reminded me of someone I knew while growing up in MT (in terms of mannerisms, not so much in terms of the coupling of mannerisms and choice of lovers).

I would recommend that people see it because it is very well done and very interesting in a foreign kind of way (while at the same time being set in a very, very familiar setting), but it's not knocking off "Smoke Signals" as my favorite movie of all time quite yet.

i fail to see what is so special about that film other then an attempt to gay-bait people who dont want to see it.

it only is a story about a couple of cowboys who disregard their vows to their wives...

although i will admit it is a pretty well done from what i can tell of the commments about it, but i wont be going to it because i would much rather avoid the butte movie theater

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:53 am

Yeah. That explains the marketing tagline that reads "See this film, Brokeback Mountain, or else we will point at you and scream out 'Hey everybody, check out the gay basher!'"

Honestly, the only "gay baiting" related to the film comes from the people who criticize the film based only on the fact that it has gay themes.

And if marital infidelity (aka "conflict" in storytelling terms) is something so negative that it will force you to avoid a film, then steer clear of "Walk the Line" as well. If it makes you feel any better, as I noted above, Brokeback treats the wives very sympathetically, and in no way glamorizes the fact that their husbands are cheating on them. In fact, it shows it to be very, very bad. On the other hand, Walk the Line actually makes the first wife so unlikeable (much to the displeasure of her surviving daughters) that the audience doesn't mind when Cash cheats on her.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:23 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Yeah. That explains the marketing tagline that reads "See this film, Brokeback Mountain, or else we will point at you and scream out 'Hey everybody, check out the gay basher!'"

Honestly, the only "gay baiting" related to the film comes from the people who criticize the film based only on the fact that it has gay themes.

And if marital infidelity (aka "conflict" in storytelling terms) is something so negative that it will force you to avoid a film, then steer clear of "Walk the Line" as well. If it makes you feel any better, as I noted above, Brokeback treats the wives very sympathetically, and in no way glamorizes the fact that their husbands are cheating on them. In fact, it shows it to be very, very bad. On the other hand, Walk the Line actually makes the first wife so unlikeable (much to the displeasure of her surviving daughters) that the audience doesn't mind when Cash cheats on her.

what are ya talking about cash's first wife was not a witch...comapred to most witches anyways.....

to be fair it showed that she was concerned about making money and actually having a huband, not to mention cash's drug habbit

although to be fair i should have noted that the last time i went to a movie othter then last weeks taking in of walk the line was two years ago.

that being said i just see nothing special with broakback mountain...sorry i just dont. I might *and if i keep hearing very good things about it* change my mind and go to it

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:14 pm

If it doesn't sound interesting to you personally, then don't go see it. I choose that with a lot of movies. I even know that some are great films, but just don't captivate me on a personal level. It's okay.

However, you were panning it without having seen it, which is a bit more proactive than one really needs to be. And you obviously don't mind infidelity in movies (since you went to Walk the Line), so the basis upon which you panned it doesn't even make sense now.