Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee, 2005)

[GringoTex]

You are the most bitter and jaded person I have ever encountered on the internet.

You've obviously never heard him get excited enough about Nicholas Ray to sing duets with Bill Krohn. Like a boy with a new puppy.

[David Ehrenstein]

Yes, I have my soft side too.

[Andre Jurieu]

You are way, WAY out of your depth here, and maybe you should go and practice someother place until you grow up.

Why are we still tolelating juvenilia...

Are you really eight years old

Jesus Fucking Hilary Christ!...

... GET OUT OF THE FUCKING CLOSET.

DECLARE YOUR FUCKING HAND.

(see - he uses his fucking NAME...geez...)

EDIT: Oh and Marty dry up! Youre a total pain. And an imbecile.

Get laid even. Already..

Marty. Get a fucking life. Of your own.

In the meantime you simply take up space. And that might be fine for you but it's damned tiresome for me.

So, are we just fighting fire with fire here? If so, you're setting quite the inferno, David (if that is your real name).

"Brokeback Mountain" is a good film, and was made as a love story by Ang Lee, who had I think no intention of raising controversy or for that matter of accumulating praise and awards.

I seriously doubt that. This film was most certainly created specifically as a prestige Oscar piece and has been marketed quite heavily as a "controversial" movie about homosexuality ever since its initial production started in Alberta. Its entries at film festivals have been done in order to drum up support and gain momentum for its run at an Oscar. I think saying that Ang Lee just wanted to make a good love story is a bit naive. Maybe that was Ang's intention (who knows - I can't say), but the Hollywood machine around him had other plans in mind from day one.

A straight actor is I think just as capable of playing a homosexual character as a homosexual actor. A good performance of any type of character depends on a lot of factors, but sexual orientation I believe is not one of them.

Well, it really depends on the ability of the actors (is the straight actor very skilled while the gay actor is a hack, or is it vice versa?). While a straight actor might be capable of playing a homosexual character, is that performance going to be of equal quality as a gay actor portraying the same role? I think a straight actor is capable of playing a homosexual character, but I have my doubts that the straight actor is just as capable as a homosexual actor. To say so, kind of insults the different life experiences of a gay man/woman, by saying these experiences are easily absorbed, imitated, and re-created. A skilled straight actor can probably bridge the gap between his/her own experience and that of his/her character, but any actor who has more of an intimate knowledge of the character's experience is not going to have as big a gap to make up for. That's why a great deal of actors win acclaim by playing characters that fit their own personality. How many times have we heard actors and actresses claim that they "know this character so well."

"good" being defined as (a) reflecting Malcolm X's struggle and cultural and social background with any kind of authenticity and (b) offering an insight into Malcolm X's thinking and relevance that will be meaningful to a significant black audience. I suspect that Spike Lee wouldn't doubt for a second that a white director would be capable of directing a film about Malcolm X that is "good" by the terms of conventional white cinema.

The problem then becomes when we can define "good" in terms of the general audience, and why the definition of "good" has to be so specific. I assume the term "good" will no longer have qualifiers associated with race attached to it when race becomes less of an issue in society, but I doubt that will ever really happen. Given current conditions, how much of the minority audience has to consider the film to be "good" in order for it to be acceptable (ie. not racist/sexist/homophobic) for the majority audience to consider the same film to be "good". What qualifies as the "significant" portion of these audiences that gets to veto the general consensus? (BTW, I understand this makes little sense in terms of making an actual evaluation of art as an individual).

... at the very least the fact of him directing it would be tantamount to saying that the story can't be told effectively by a black director.

I don't think that is exactly what it would be saying. It might just be saying that he as the best director available or willing to take the project. It might also be that he was the only candidate with the proper qualifications at present (regarding scope of the project, willingness of the actors to work with him, etc.). You could wait until a black director becomes qualified to take the project, after having gained more experience, but then there is no guarantee that the group of qualified black directors would be willing to take the project, or that the cast would be around anymore. Such a move might be saying that the story can't be told by a black director at present, given constraints on the production or greater problems with the system the film is made within, but it's not always saying that the story cannot be told by a black director at all.

I think its a crazy notion that white directors cannot make films about black people and vice versa. Or American directors making films about Chinese people. This is nuts.

Well, then why should Norman Jewision not be able to make a good movie about Rubin Carter, or why should Mann not be able to make a good movie about Ali, and why should Ang Lee not be able to make a movie about two American cowboys, who fall in love with each other.

No one is saying that directors can't make these films. They are simply saying that the films that they make are not of very high caliber when the judgment of quality is limited to conveying authenticity in terms of the experience of the minority group that are being represented within their films. It appears both of you are evaluating these films in a more universal manner, since (at least one of) you view these films to be...

... all about depicting humanity and any decent director can do that despite his race or gender.

The question then becomes what the artist and viewer place more importance upon when evaluating art (this is where Langlois's example of Hawk's Scarface vs Scorsese's Goodfellas becomes key): the universal experience, or the specific experience of the people being represented.

Why do we need to label everyone? Cannot we all be human beings without shouting to the world "I am black and proud!", "I am gay and proud".

It would be great if we all valued each other equally based upon the fact that we are all human beings. That's a great ideal to strive for, but it's never going to happen because we are different, and the differences matter a great deal. Those differences are just as much a part of our individual identity as any other characteristic that makes everyone similar. People have to shout "I'm black/gay and I'm proud" because that difference is valuable, and represents something significant within a world that asks for conformity in order to make existence blander. The problem is doing away with labels that provide excuses for mistreatment. The other problem is willingly becoming blind to our differences and doing away with reality.

Really no-one cares! Just live your life.

A great deal of people care. Especially the ones who are minorities and have to assert their voice to make sure society is aware of their existence.

So and who says that Spike Lee has the ability to make a good movie about Italian Americans and Irish Americans... which he has done...

Yeah, he is kind of a hypocrite. Of course, I don't really think he has made a good movie about either culture (Italian/Irish Americans). Both his films feel overly contrived, fall back on cultural clichés, and just seem to imitate the surface of much better films that are more knowledgeable about the cultures they explore ... which is kind of his complaint about white directors making films about black people. But again the question arises of whether he is examining these cultures with a universal viewpoint (I could maybe see that stance for 25th Hour), or attempting to specifically address the culture he is examining or at least convey something authentic about the culture (this kind of felt like what he was doing in Summer of Sam).

I don't think Ian Mckellan has ever felt what it's like to be a god or a wizard, but he tries to portray one in "Lord of the Rings".

If wizards and gods have something against McKellan's portrayal of their experience, I'd be willing to hear what they have to say.

...is to deny that a filmmaker or actor has an imagination, or to deny that people feel the same emotions... An actor must no matter what method he or she uses also never forget that they have an imagination.

Not really. It's simply saying that someone of the same culture as the character will not have to rely upon imagination in order to portray the character and instead base their portrayal upon reality. The position is not saying that imagination is incapable of satisfying the role, it's just saying reality is probably a more reliable in depicting these characters.

Having said that, I can't see how anyone could suggest Doogie Howser MD play one of the cowboys in Brokeback. In my mind, that would make sense if the goal is to have everyone crying hysterically... from uncontrollable laughter.

... it is simply that these emotions manifest themselves in different ways.

That difference is pretty important.

Although I am not gay, a have dear friend of mine who is and we have been friends for over 12 years.

This sounds like dialogue from Seinfeld.

I think everyone involved including James Schamus and the people at Focus and Universal were trying to defy Hollywood conventions and yet they still get slapped in the face by the people they were innocuously trying to please.

But isn't Brokeback actually a very conventional love story. The filmmakers might be attempting to defy Conservative American conventions, but it seems their actual film is very much a conventional love story with a little twist. Not that the twist isn't something significant, but the film appears very Hollywood.

[David Ehrenstein]

While a straight actor might be capable of playing a homosexual character, is that performance going to be of equal quality as a gay actor portraying the same role? I think a straight actor is capable of playing a homosexual character, but I have my doubts that the straight actor is just as capable as a homosexual actor. To say so, kind of insults the different life experiences of a gay man/woman, by saying these experiences are easily absorbed, imitated, and re-created. A skilled straight actor can probably bridge the gap between his/her own experience and that of his/her character, but any actor who has more of an intimate knowledge of the character's experience is not going to have as big a gap to make up for.

Sanity at last!

Having said that, I can't see how anyone could suggest Doogie Howser MD play one of the cowboys in Brokeback. In my mind, that would make sense if the goal is to have everyone crying hysterically... from uncontrollable laughter.

Sadly followed by a return to form. I certainly wouldn't blame you for giving The Next Best Thing the go-by, but the Doogster was the best thing it. He had a teriffic scene at his lover's funeral where he finds it impossible to say anything -- or even break down and cry -- so exhausted has he become to caring for a lover dying of AIDS. He's really evolved into a quite skillful performer over the years in a number of ways. Currenty on the TV sitcom How I Met Your Mother, he's playing a heterosexual lothario. That's something I couldn't have predicted when I first saw (and dissed) his debut turn in Clara's Heart (a truly egregious Whoopie Goldberg vehicle.)

Plus Extra Bonus Gay Points -- he sings Sondheim!

[viciousliar]

I've been reading parts of this thread lately, and the general atmosphere strikes me as wildly surreal. I can't decide whether it's nightmarish or hilarious. Prabably both - and demons and egos battle like crazy. I'm not sure if this "contribution" makes sense - I'm just thinking as I'm writing. And to consider all the hours people have spent writing -*-*-... the mind boggles. This thread is super-charged with low self-esteem, self-aggrandizement and demons, that's why it refuses to die down. (Granted, there are some balanced posts in between, but as of now - this train has lost control to a degree beyond belief.) I believe an exorcist is called for, if you catch my drift.

[David Ehrenstein]

(Granted, there are some balanced posts in between, but as of now - this train has lost control to a degree beyond belief.)

Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train

[Andre Jurieu]

Sanity at last!

If you would have paid attention to the discussion so far, I've never actually disagreed with the notion that gay actors would probably be able to understand the gay experience of a character better than any straight actors, and it would more likely result in a more authentic portrayal of the character. However, I'm not saying that straight actors are incapable of playing a gay character and having that performance be meaningful in some fashion. I'm also not saying casting some obscure gay actor who has never had a significant role in a big-budget Hollywood picture and does not carry any significant box-office clout would have made sense for the filmmakers of Brokeback Mountain.

Sadly followed by a return to form. I certainly wouldn't blame you for giving The Next Best Thing the go-by, but the Doogster was the best thing it. He had a teriffic scene at his lover's funeral ... That's something I couldn't have predicted when I first saw (and dissed) his debut turn in Clara's Heart (a truly egregious Whoopie Goldberg vehicle.) ... Plus Extra Bonus Gay Points -- he sings Sondheim!

I'm not doubting he is a capable actor. I'm doubting the baggage of his small-screen persona will allow a significant audience to take him seriously while he's wearing a cowboy hat. Notice that his most recognized performances within American pop-culture in the last 10 years have been as "straight creeps" in comedic projects (Harold & Kumar and How I Met Your Mother), pretty much because he is aware he is somewhat of a pop-cultural joke. Ask any person on the street about NPH and (if you get past "huh?") they will automatically say "Doogie".

You're version of of this love story would definitely be uncompromising, but it sure wouldn't be financially successful or gain widespread attention. Of course, this appears to be your definition of artistic success.

[David Ehrenstein]

You're version of of this love story would definitely be uncompromising, but it sure wouldn't be financially successful or gain widespread attention. Of course, this appears to be your definition of artistic success.

Not at all, but apprently financial success is your standard -- as it is for so many these days.

[Andre Jurieu]

Not at all, but apprently financial success is your standard -- as it is for so many these days.

Not at all, but I'm not viewing this discussion only in terms of my own standards and I'm not just limiting the notion of success to my own definition of it. However, financial success is something that matters to the makers of Brokeback Mountain, as is the ability to generate widespread attention. To achieve their goals, they have planned a specific strategy.

[David Ehrenstein]

To achieve their goals, they have planned a specific strategy.

Indeed they have. One part of that strategy was making the film the way the did. The other, in some ways most important part, was pitching it though the kinds of promotion and publicity they've been able to undertake. None of the gay films I rever had a fraction of the promotional budget afforded Brokeback. And when I talk about promotion, I'm not just referrign to critics screenings and festival showings. I'm talking about publicists calling night and day, pitching pitching article ideas to journalists they hope will write them, and ringing up their editors too. In all my years as a journalist I have NEVER seen a full court press like this one.

[Andre Jurieu]

None of the gay films I rever had a fraction of the promotional budget afforded Brokeback.

Well, yeah ... because these films probably don't have as many parties involved with a financial stake in the matter. They aren't the same type of product as Brokeback, probably aren't as marketable, and they probably don't have the same profit potential. Hence, Brokeback is allowed more of a promotional budget. It's basic business, which is what we are talking about when we bring up topics such as promotional budgets.

[David Ehrenstein]

They aren't the same type of product as Brokeback, probably aren't as marketable, and they probably don't have the same profit potential.

They aren't the same type of product, but that doesn't mean they're not as marketable. A number of years back Diva was annointed as the essence of modern French cinema. It wasn't, but its US distributors were willing and able to give it that push , ignoring far better films from Jacques Doillon and a host of other French talents that emerged at the same time.

[Andre Jurieu]

They aren't the same type of product, but that doesn't mean they're not as marketable. A number of years back Diva was annointed as the essence of modern French cinema. It wasn't, but its US distributors were willing and able to give it that push , ignoring far better films from Jacques Doillon and a host of other French talents that emerged at the same time.

So, you're telling me that US distributors of Diva were all set with a bunch of full-page color print ads in everything from the New York Times to the Regina Leader-Post, and had multiple prime-time ad slots filled in between Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy touting their wins at the Golden Globes? Did Letterman and Leno make little jokes about Diva in their opening monologues each night?

Just because something is promoted somewhat more than usual doesn't mean it is as marketable as something that has been attracting widespread mainstream pop-culture attention. Brokeback is mainstream product, and the mainstream is far more desirable to market towards than a niche market with limited profit potential.

[viciousliar]

http://www.youtube.com/w/Sodom-V.-Gommo ... SqeouPi718

[godardslave]

[edit]

[Michael]

marty, you whined about this thread being long and whining and you still keep coming back to whine some more. Hypocrite.

marty wrote:

But then again the film has received tremendous support from GLAAD.

Of course. Why shouldn't it? If Brokeback Mountain is homophobic, then GLAAD would be all over it by now. No one, here and outside, is saying that BBM is homophobic. Those of you who think that we're attacking BBM for being homophobic are missing the whole point. I would suggest you to go over this thread 20 times.. no better 30 times before you spill any more of your ca-ca. Do your homework!

The Invunche wrote:

You are the most bitter and jaded person I have ever encountered on the internet.

I don't blame him for being bitter for having to deal with ignorant creeps like you everyday.

kieslowski_67 wrote:

Judging from the overwhelming positive response the film gets from the gay community (there are lots of worthy blogs, forums that are dedicated to BBM on line)

Absolutely understandable. The majority of the gay community, just like the rest of the world, does not make up mostly of cinemaphiles with incredible knowledge of cinema, especialy queer (like davidhare and David Ehrenstein..those guys are rare and they both get my ultimate respect because I've learned so much from them over the past few months). If it wasn't for them, I would never learned about films such as Come Undone, Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train, Tropical Malady, Wild Side, Bloody Sunday Bloody, and many others. Those films have really enriched my life and made me a better, stronger, happier person with much more self-worth and self-awareness. Unfortunately the majority of the gay community doesn't share the same passion I have for cinema or receive the same education or exposure as I do from people like davidhare and David Ehrenstein. So of course most of them are willing to settle for mediocre crumbs like Brokeback Mountain because of its tremendous exposure, promotion, ec. I asked 32 of my gay friends from around the world and none of them had heard of Come Undone and Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train. Six knew about Mysterious Skin, 1 knew about Tropical Malady. But every one of them had already seen Brokeback Mountain. There were mixed feelings among them. One of them completely loved BBM and I asked him why. He admitted that he has been in love with a straight, married guy with four children and they live 1,000 miles apart for more than ten years. My friend goes to visit him occasionally and last Thanksgiving, he went to spend two weeks with him while the straight guy's wife stayed at the hospital for those two weeks after a life-threatening surgery. In other words, my friend stepped in the wife's shoes and took care of the house, the children, and of course the husband's "needs". After he came home, he became depressed (from being away from the guy) and had to take medications. Then he added that he has a fetish for straight married guys for years and also that BBM "hit it home" (in his words). Whoa, what a reason to love that movie. I simply told him off (he's 47 and openly gay) that there is NO excuse for anyone to be in the closet this year being 2006! and also for any openly gay person to go back to zero.... unless if you live in Iran.

Anyway, when I shared my thoughts of BBM with my gay friends and presented all the points to them like I've been doing on here, not ONE of them objected...they took my points very well unlike some of you unfortunately.

[Michael]

kieslowski_67 wrote:

To criticize BBM for lacking 'gay pride' or 'gay culture' is laughable since the story took place in Wyoming from the 60s instead of in SF or New York, and the two poor guys probably never heard of the stonewall.

What about Maurice (1910s when homosexuality was illegal in Britain)? Far From Heaven (1950s when homosexuality was treated as a sickness)? Before Night Falls (1960s - 1970s homosexuality in Castro's Cuba = jail for life)?

But all those three films manage to have a gay hero. A gay person that finds a way out despite the government, the society, etc.

How can a straight person tell what a gay person's experience is like? I can't imagine telling what a black woman's experience is like.. and why is it okay for you to do that?

And one more thing, kieslowski_67, why are you having such a hard time seeing Ennis and Jack as gay guys? YOu call them loners, social outcasts.. but gay.. no no! PUH.. leeze!

[che-etienne]

I seriously doubt that. This film was most certainly created specifically as a prestige Oscar piece and has been marketed quite heavily as a "controversial" movie about homosexuality ever since its initial production started in Alberta. Its entries at film festivals have been done in order to drum up support and gain momentum for its run at an Oscar. I think saying that Ang Lee just wanted to make a good love story is a bit naive. Maybe that was Ang's intention (who knows - I can't say), but the Hollywood machine around him had other plans in mind from day one.

I agree that the marketing campaign for BBM has been gunning for the oscars since day one, and indeed it may be naive of me to say that Ang Lee is thinking nothing about awards. Still, I think that if he had cared more about awards than making a good movie that it wouldn't have come out as well as it did, but this of course depends on one's opinion of the movie.

Well, it really depends on the ability of the actors (is the straight actor very skilled while the gay actor is a hack, or is it vice versa?). While a straight actor might be capable of playing a homosexual character, is that performance going to be of equal quality as a gay actor portraying the same role? I think a straight actor is capable of playing a homosexual character, but I have my doubts that the straight actor is just as capable as a homosexual actor. To say so, kind of insults the different life experiences of a gay man/woman, by saying these experiences are easily absorbed, imitated, and re-created. A skilled straight actor can probably bridge the gap between his/her own experience and that of his/her character, but any actor who has more of an intimate knowledge of the character's experience is not going to have as big a gap to make up for. That's why a great deal of actors win acclaim by playing characters that fit their own personality. How many times have we heard actors and actresses claim that they "know this character so well."

I totally agree. The skill of an actor is incredibly important, and if one is closer to the role that does make up a lot of the distance. I was just trying to speak in a more general sense in that I believe it is bad to limit it to that.

No one is saying that directors can't make these films. They are simply saying that the films that they make are not of very high caliber when the judgment of quality is limited to conveying authenticity in terms of the experience of the minority group that are being represented within their films. It appears both of you are evaluating these films in a more universal manner, since (at least one of) you view these films to be...

I didn't really mean it that way. I was just asking more rhetorical questions. What I think more is why shouldn't they be allowed to try their hand at making films like those. Also, like you yourself said, the issue then becomes how do you define 'good' in terms of how the experience of the minority group is represented. I happen to think that "Ali" is a far better film than any of Spike Lee's films that try to cover the same territory. Still, that is just my point of view.

It would be great if we all valued each other equally based upon the fact that we are all human beings. That's a great ideal to strive for, but it's never going to happen because we are different, and the differences matter a great deal. Those differences are just as much a part of our individual identity as any other characteristic that makes everyone similar. People have to shout "I'm black/gay and I'm proud" because that difference is valuable, and represents something significant within a world that asks for conformity in order to make existence blander. The problem is doing away with labels that provide excuses for mistreatment. The other problem is willingly becoming blind to our differences and doing away with reality.

You see I just disagree here. I think people are actually quite inherently similar. Differences are the layers over the soul, but the souls are by and large looking I think for the same things from life. Perhaps I'm a transcendentalist. I don't really know what it is. It is just that as I've grown I've found that people very much like to tote their individuality, when perhaps there really isn't as much there as we think.

I don't think Ian Mckellan has ever felt what it's like to be a god or a wizard, but he tries to portray one in "Lord of the Rings".

If wizards and gods have something against McKellan's portrayal of their experience, I'd be willing to hear what they have to say.

So would I! I agree that was kind of stupid of me to use as an example. I apologize for that one.

Not really. It's simply saying that someone of the same culture as the character will not have to rely upon imagination in order to portray the character and instead base their portrayal upon reality. The position is not saying that imagination is incapable of satisfying the role, it's just saying reality is probably a more reliable in depicting these characters.

That kind of depends on how you view culture though, and how time changes it and shapes it. I think Will Smith's cultural experience is probably a lot different than Ali's was. I mean how does one define similarity of culture? On a very general level, or a very specific level? Perhaps it is better to find a happy medium.

That difference is pretty important.

Agreed.

[kieslowski_67]

kieslowski_67 wrote:

To criticize BBM for lacking 'gay pride' or 'gay culture' is laughable since the story took place in Wyoming from the 60s instead of in SF or New York, and the two poor guys probably never heard of the stonewall.

What about Maurice (1910s when homosexuality was illegal in Britain)? Far From Heaven (1950s when homosexuality was treated as a sickness)? Before Night Falls (1960s - 1970s homosexuality in Castro's Cuba = jail for life)?

But all those three films manage to have a gay hero. A gay person that finds a way out despite the government, the society, etc.

How can a straight person tell what a gay person's experience is like? I can't imagine telling what a black woman's experience is like.. and why is it okay for you to do that?

And one more thing, kieslowski_67, why are you having such a hard time seeing Ennis and Jack as gay guys? YOu call them loners, social outcasts.. but gay.. no no! PUH.. leeze!

According to your logic, gays should have no business talking about "Romeo and Juliet" because how the hell the gays know what love between a man and a woman is all alike.

And since straight actors are not the best choice to portray gay characters, Monty Clift, Rock Hudson, James Dean, Jean Marais, Tony Perkins, and to a certain degree, Cary Grant, should not have been allowed to woo women on the screen. That would have been to damn unconvincing. Instead, they should have been busy banging each other and tried to make some thought provoking, ground breaking gay movies for the queer, or if lucky, also the mainstream audience if they can take it.

Why should gay films have to have gay heros? For every Reinaldo Arenas there is one, or more Ennis Del Mar who is just too afraid to come out of the closet.

I have never said that Jack and Ennis are not gays. The point is that the novel and the film are so not just about gay cowboys but about love and isolation and being different. It was not to the interest of the film makers to make Brokeback Mountain a propoganda movie.

BBM is doing great at the box office. It has swept the critics awards and is likely to also win the Oscar (which is nothing to be ashamed of). The critics are cynical, and the AMPAS have different agenda. The only way BBM could have gotten this far is if it was as good as it is. Otherwise, it would have already been written off as an indie darling like Far From Heaven (which does not mean it's not a great movie).

[Michael]

According to your logic, gays should have no business talking about "Romeo and Juliet" because how the hell the gays know what love between a man and a woman is all alike.

Huh? Being gay is so much more than just loving a person of the same sex. That is exactly where a lot, a lot of people get wrong about.

And since straight actors are not the best choice to portray gay characters, Monty Clift, Rock Hudson, James Dean, Jean Marais, Tony Perkins, and to a certain degree, Cary Grant, should not have been allowed to woo women on the screen. That would have been to damn unconvincing. Instead, they should have been busy banging each other and tried to make some thought provoking, ground breaking gay movies for the queer, or if lucky, also the mainstream audience if they can take it.

What the fuck are you talking about? I know that! They are actors. I was talking about regular, everyday people like you and I, NOT actors (they are paid and directed).

I have never said that Jack and Ennis are not gays. The point is that the novel and the film are so not just about gay cowboys but about love and isolation and being different. It was not to the interest of the film makers to make Brokeback Mountain a propoganda movie.

So are you saying that Maurice and Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train (you expressed the dislike of those two films elsewhere on this forum) are propaganda films because they are too gay for you?

[Michael]

=====

[David Ehrenstein]

So, you're telling me that US distributors of Diva were all set with a bunch of full-page color print ads in everything from the New York Times to the Regina Leader-Post, and had multiple prime-time ad slots filled in between Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy touting their wins at the Golden Globes? Did Letterman and Leno make little jokes about Diva in their opening monologues each night?

Yes

Just because something is promoted somewhat more than usual doesn't mean it is as marketable as something that has been attracting widespread mainstream pop-culture attention. Brokeback is mainstream product, and the mainstream is far more desirable to market towards than a niche market with limited profit potential.

Only when it wants to. Campbell Scott and Peter Sarsgaard are biiger names than the much-touted "stars" of Brokeback, but The Dying Gaul isn't getting Brokeback's push because it attacks Hollywood homophobia at its core -- not because the public wouldn't "buy" it. They'll never get the chance.

[Doctor Sunshine]

That D. Scott--and apparently you, too-- feel Brokeback Mountain is furthering an Anti-Gay Agenda Hollywood Agenda.

I wouldn't go that extreme. More like Same Old Shit Gay Agenda Hollywood Agenda. It just keeps staying in the closet.

So you're saying you're a jaded crackpot who's too cool to for this shit. Good talk.

[Michael]

You're the one who brought up the Anti-Gay Hollywood shit. Not me. Don't twist things around, smart ass.

[exte]

Come for the complaints about cover art, stay for the hilarious Brokeback Mountain discussion.