criterionforum.org

The ads on that site are tons better than the movie!

David Ehrenstein wrote:

The problem with this is it implies the desire make cinema into a medium of social and political reform, a forum for propaganda.

Any reference to social context constitutes "propaganda"?

This at least was worth responding to.

Ok, first off, words or phrases that do not appear either explicitly or implicitly in what I wrote: "any reference," and "context."

As can be seen, I wrote "social and political reform," which is not "social context" (you left out political for some reason) in any sense. In fact I make no reference to context whatsoever. Since there is nothing to do with your "social context" the "any reference to" is no longer applicable to my argument.

In short, no.

So, is the basic problem with Brokeback Mountain that it is an example of gay culture being compromised and rendered bland in order for homosexuality to be assimilated into mainstream American culture, rather than having gay culture integrated into society while maintaining its distinct characteristics?

If so, I'm just wondering how you create social and political change without effecting the mainstream? If you are constantly battling on the fringes of society without a substantial audience (in effect preaching to the choir), how is significant change possible? Isn't a compromise in the delivery of the message almost always required in order to change the perceptions of the mainstream? I would think that what is important is that the essential substance of the message is not lost by the compromise. I don't know if that's the case with Brokeback Mountain since I haven't seen the film, but that's the general attitude I'm hearing in this conversation.

I also do agree it's downright retarded for Ebert & Roeper to say that this film isn't gay, but that's just from my perspective of knowing how Oscar campaigns and Hollywood marketing works. For Ebert & Roeper's mainstream audience it might be just what they need to hear in order to go watch the film that is quite obviously about a gay relationship, which they will probably have to confront themselves with while watching the film. I doubt very many viewers can completely brainwash themselves that it's "just like a straight relationship" and they didn't watch anything gay. However, they probably will have to acknowledge the idea that the gay relationship being portrayed in the film has just as much right to occur than any other relationship, even if it's within a watered-down version of homosexuality that doesn't provoke mainstream audiences as much as other films.

"BBM" has been my favorite movie of the year since I caught it at Toronto months ago. Funny that you compared it to "talk to her", which will be either #1 or #2 on my list of top movies in the 2000s.

So, is the basic problem with Brokeback Mountain that it is an example of gay culture being compromised and rendered bland in order for homosexuality to be assimilated into mainstream American culture, rather than having gay culture integrated into society while maintaining its distinct characteristics?

Close but no cigar. It's a film from which gay culture has been deliberately expunged -- along with gay history. That Jack and Ennis are Big Macho Cowboys rather than Effete Chelsea Opera Queens is the whole point. That Cowboys are gay erotic fetishes (particularly in the Leather World) is something the straights for whom Brokeback was devised have little knowledge outside of The Village People.

If so, I'm just wondering how you create social and political change without effecting the mainstream? If you are constantly battling on the fringes of society without a substantial audience (in effect preaching to the choir), how is significant change possible?

In the immortal words of Carol Burnett's Mildred Fierce, "It's you baby -- don't leave it crying in my arms."

It never fails to amaze me how straight expect gays to do all the work for them -- like socio-political indentured servants. And when we speak up for ourselves, we get smacked down hard.

For Ebert & Roeper's mainstream audience it might be just what they need to hear in order to go watch the film that is quite obviously about a gay relationship, which they will probably have to confront themselves with while watching the film.

But as I've said, the film is designed to alleviate any worries on that score. It's an "impossible love" that we're encouraged to see as "pure" and "true."

Plus there's no oral sex -- which for a gay relationship constitutes science fiction!

However, they probably will have to acknowledge the idea that the gay relationship being portrayed in the film has just as much right to occur than any other relationship, even if it's within a watered-down version of homosexuality that doesn't provoke mainstream audiences as much as other films.

Well that's just dandy if they do. But it doesn't get these blinkered viewers any closer to seeing REAL gay films like Mala Noche, Love is the Devil, Edward II, Brother to Brother, Happy Together, Les Passagers, Three Dancing Slaves, Son Frere, and Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train.

It's my job as a critic to pester and annoy you people into seeing these films and dealing with what they have to say as much as I possibly can.

David Ehrenstein wrote: It's a film from which gay culture has been deliberately expunged -- along with gay history. That Jack and Ennis are Big Macho Cowboys rather than Effete Chelsea Opera Queens is the whole point.

So, what exactly is wrong with this being the whole point? Why exactly must gay culture only be represented by Effere Chelsea Opera Queens? It's as if you are putting constrictions on what type of behavior one must exhibit in order to be considered truly gay.

Isn't the point also to subvert a traditional symbol of macho-American culture - hence the whining from conservatives in Wyoming?

David Ehrenstein contemptuously wrote:In the immortal words of Carol Burnett's Mildred Fierce, "It's you baby -- don't leave it crying in my arms."

You know, that quote would be a lot more effective if you actually wrote it out correctly using the "your" instead of "you". It would also be much more potent if you didn't constantly keep re-using it. If you're going to be condescending, at least use original quotes so I can actually be "frightened" by your depth of knowledge.

David Ehrenstein wrote: It never fails to amaze me how straight expect gays to do all the work for them -- like socio-political indentured servants.

It never fails to amaze me how you constantly misconstrue other people's statements. I don't expect the gay minority to do all the work for the straight majority. It's quite obviously a work-in-progress for both parties, with efforts required from both sides, as is the case with any social and political reform within our society.

But what planet are you living on that doesn't require the unfairly marginalized minority party to work much harder than the majority in order to obtain a position of equality within society? That's the inherent nature of creating social reform - the minority has to work harder to coax the majority to change their stance. Why exactly would the majority change their stance without being persuaded to doing so? When has the majority ever decided to magically change their stance towards an issue based on just waking up and realizing they were wrong? They are the majority, and hence do not see any reason to change or work harder on being more accepting since their view - however misguided it may be - is the dominant one. It's always the minority party's battle to wage and win, since it's their position within society at stake. That's just a reality.

I'm not sitting around saying "racism ain't my problem anymore" and that it would be solved if white people would just make more of an effort to change their behavior. That type of statement would sound absolutely ignorant on my part.

David Ehrenstein wrote: And when we speak up for ourselves, we get smacked down hard.

Who the hell around here has smacked you down hard? You are constantly making the error of thinking the resistance you are being greeted with is because you are gay rather than because your reasoning isn't exactly flawless.

By the way, does speaking up for yourself include painting anyone who disagrees with you as being a homophobe?

David Ehrenstein wrote:It's an "impossible love" that we're encouraged to see as "pure" and "true."

Besides the fact that it isn't really realistic for any relationship, what exactly is wrong with a gay relationship being portrayed as "pure" and "true", since in doing so they are giving the homosexual relationship equal standing as any other contrived Hollywood heterosexual cinematic relationship? From what I've heard and read so far, the "impossibility" of the love is due to the circumstances and culture that surrounds the relationship rather than it being a flaw within a gay relationship.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Well that's just dandy if they do. But it doesn't get these blinkered viewers any closer to seeing REAL gay films like Mala Noche, Love is the Devil, Edward II, Brother to Brother, Happy Together, Les Passagers, Three Dancing Slaves, Son Frere, and Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train.

The problem is that these viewers are never going to see these "REAL gay films" no matter what Brokeback Mountain is actually like. That has more to do with the fact that mainstream audiences do not watch art-films in general no matter what the subject matter. I doubt any film that keeps its artistic integrity and doesn't compromise itself in order to pander to mainstream audiences would ever reach enough of an audience in order to inspire such a large audience to actively seek these types of films.

David Ehrenstein wrote:It's my job as a critic to pester and annoy you people into seeing these films and dealing with what they have to say as much as I possibly can.

Wow. It's great that someone like yourself who constantly complains of his opponents being homophobes is using the term "you people".

Well, you've definitely accomplished the goal of pestering and annoying a few of us. Unfortunately, your ultimate goal in this case was probably useless, considering most of us have already watched those films.

I guess the one thing you can "educate" me on (oh, but I'm sure there is so much more) is whether or not Charles Taylor is going to join the staff at Slate.

Why exactly must gay culture only be represented by Effete Chelsea Opera Queens?

That's not what I said. Read it again. Slowly.

Isn't the point also to subvert a traditional symbol of macho-American culture - hence the whining from conservatives in Wyoming?

Gayness invariabley does that. But not from a "Macho" perspective. Rememebr it was the drag queens who took on the cops at Stonewall and beat the living shit out of them. Not the "Macho" guys.

It's quite obviously a work-in-progress for both parties, with efforts required from both sides, as is the case with any social and political reform within our society.

Nope.Just for you. I'll be 59 in February and have no intention of expending a nanosecond on heterosexual bad faith.

Why exactly would the majority change their stance without being persuaded to doing so? When has the majority ever decided to magically change their stance towards an issue based on just waking up and realizing they were wrong?

Change is possible only when we KICK ASS.

Bareback Molehill just Kisses Ass.

From what I've heard and read so far, the "impossibility" of the love is due to the circumstances and culture that surrounds the relationship rather than it being a flaw within a gay relationship

Read Proust, see Chereau -- then get back to me about those "flaws."

I doubt any film that keeps its artistic integrity and doesn't compromise itself in order to pander to mainstream audiences would ever reach enough of an audience in order to inspire such a large audience to actively seek these types of films.

You've just explained the pointlessness of pandering. Thanks!

Who stole your pink tutu?

Ehrenstein wrote:That's not what I said. Read it again. Slowly.

OK Mr. Erhenstein. Yur so sofistimicated. I try read better but sumtimes wurdz 2 hard for me to make sense ob. Thanx 4 da help. 2morrow is my bertday. I be 3.

Again, David Ehrenstein wrote: It's a film from which gay culture has been deliberately expunged -- along with gay history. That Jack and Ennis are Big Macho Cowboys rather than Effete Chelsea Opera Queens is the whole point.

So, I'm going to ask what is wrong with Jack and Ennis not being Effete Chelsea Opera Queens? I believe the point that the filmmakers are trying to make by focusing upon these cowboys is that anyone - even the most traditional, honored, and romanticized symbols of America - can be homosexual (I'm sure you'll take that statement and contrive it in some way to point out I'm a homophobe - like I think homosexuality is a choice or something equally moronic). It seeks to make the viewer confront their traditional view of some idealized and idolized heterosexual symbol of masculinity. So why exactly is it wrong for the filmmakers to show a masculine figure as being homosexual?

You say the film deliberately expunges gay culture/history and then point out that the central figures are masculine ("big macho"). Hence the implication of your statement is that since masculinity is present and focused upon, and gay culture is deliberately extracted from the film, that masculinity ("big macho") is not a part of gay culture. This statement also implies that Chelsea Opera Queens are definitely part of gay culture. Again, I'm asking why it is so offensive that Jack and Ennis are masculine/macho figures. Is it because they do not conform to your perception of gay culture? Isn't this, in essence a constriction on what and what does not constitute gay culture?

Obviously, the filmmakers did not want to situate their film within an atmosphere that normally associated with gay culture. I would assume that this was done in order to expand the traditional definition of what constitutes as gay culture, and confront the viewer with an image of homosexuality that is not stereotypical.

Also, do you really think it would be believable if Jack and Ennis behaved like Chelsea Opera Queens while they were cowboys in Wyoming? Would such behavior be tolerated within the myopic cowboy culture? Would such behavior be realistic for cowboys who realize they are gay after years of suppression?

Ehrenstein wrote:Gayness invariabley does that. But not from a "Macho" perspective. Rememebr it was the drag queens who took on the cops at Stonewall and beat the living shit out of them. Not the "Macho" guys.

Why exactly does macho men being gay not subvert the traditional viewpoint in a similar (though admittedly lesser) manner to drag-queens displaying macho behavior? Yes, the notion of drag queens beating the living shit out of cops alters the mainstream perception of homosexuality, but how exactly is this not a similar alteration in perception as hearing a professional football player is gay? You are apparently requesting an extreme (and rather violent) example instead of something more restrained.

Ehrenstein wrote:Nope.Just for you. I'll be 59 in February and have no intention of expending a nanosecond on heterosexual bad faith.

So, in essence you are saying "I'm too old for this shit". Wow, didn't expect you to take the Lethal Weapon approach on the subject.

It's disturbing to hear someone just turn rigid on their viewpoints just based on their age. Isn't that what the right-wing does? I always hear that people get more conservative (and that's small "c", not big "C") as they grow older, but it never hurts to see another example.

Ehrenstein wrote:

From what I've heard and read so far, the "impossibility" of the love is due to the circumstances and culture that surrounds the relationship rather than it being a flaw within a gay relationship

Read Proust, see Chereau -- then get back to me about those "flaws."

I love the fact that you took the bait on the term "flaw". I hope everyone else notes that when I used the term I was calling attention to a misguided perception that gay relationships are "flawed". In fact, I was pointing out that it appears the film views the conservative culture that surrounds the relationship as the actual flaw.

As with your tired Carol Burnett quote, I would be more impressed with your knowledge if you didn't keep constantly repeating the same authors' names.

davidhare wrote:Andre you're starting to get it...
... And yes, without seeing BB I am offended by the cooption of OUR matreial, OUR stories, OUR lives and I feel totally pissed off by it.

No, I'm pretty sure I'm not any closer to understanding it. Integration without compromise is a juvenile ideal for any minority, no matter how long and honorable the struggle for legitimacy is.

I respect the fact that your personal struggle has been difficult and unjust to endure, but I can't respect the idea that it's time to become overly rigid and just blame the other side for the lack of progress, no matter how ignorant the opposing party may be.

From my perspective as a minority (and I don't mean to say the struggles are the exact same), I despise Bend it Like Beckam, but I understand the significance and importance of its success within mainstream culture (as is the casting of the lead actress on a major US network TV show). It is a step forward in terms of social significance, however compromised (and misguided) the film may be. The movie makes me groan, while the box-office numbers kind of make me smile a tad. I can point out to other viewers why the film is flawed and recommend something better, but I cannot say its financial victory isn't important.

So why exactly is it wrong for the filmmakers to show a masculine figure as being homosexual?

Cowboys are homoerotic cliches. One of The Boys in the Band is, in fact, named Cowboy.

"Cowboy: I got angel's-hair down my shirt once at Christmastime. Gosh, did it itch!"

Jack and Ennis are but a step away from Effete Chelsea Opera Queens -- but never acknowledged as such by a film like this.

Obviously, the filmmakers did not want to situate their film within an atmosphere that normally associated with gay culture. I would assume that this was done in order to expand the traditional definition of what constitutes as gay culture, and confront the viewer with an image of homosexuality that is not stereotypical.

And boy were they wrong. Brokeback is destined to become a camp artifact much on the order of Tea and Sympathy.

Also, do you really think it would be believable if Jack and Ennis behaved like Chelsea Opera Queens while they were cowboys in Wyoming?

In their first scene together they're halfway there.

Why exactly does macho men being gay not subvert the traditional viewpoint in a similar (though admittedly lesser) manner to drag-queens displaying macho behavior?

Beating up the cops is not "displaying macho behavior" -- it's FIGHTING BACK!

Yes, the notion of drag queens beating the living shit out of cops alters the mainstream perception of homosexuality, but how exactly is this not a similar alteration in perception as hearing a professional football player is gay?

One is active the other is passive. All the difference in the world.

David Ehrenstein wrote: Cowboys are homoerotic cliches.

To mainstream audiences? I'm fairly certain mainstream audiences do not automatically view the Western, or its central figure of the Cowboy, as a homoerotic cliche, especially when positioned within such a regular Hollywood movie.

David E wrote:Jack and Ennis are but a step away from Effete Chelsea Opera Queens ...

That last step is just as important if it isn't taken as it would be if it were taken.

Ehrenstein wrote:In their first scene together they're halfway there.

Halfway vs Full is all the difference in the world as well.

Ehrenstein wrote:Beating up the cops is not "displaying macho behavior" -- it's FIGHTING BACK!

In general fighting is perceived to be a trait of masculine behavior.

Ehrenstein wrote:One is active the other is passive. All the difference in the world.

The action might be different, but how is the resulting effect on traditional perceptions so dramatically different? Are mainstream perceptions not being changed either way? Isn't changing traditional perceptions required in order to create social reform?

davidhare, reading your words made me want to come and have some wine with you and discuss lots of things.

davidhare wrote:Andre I am not and never have endured a "difficult personal struggle" because I like who I am. And I have a thick skin and a spine. And I know plenty of folks who feel the same way.

Then I apologize for saying you had. You shared details of your personal life and discussed the difficulties you encounter on a daily basis from co-workers and from your country's current political climate, so I assumed this was an effort to display your personal struggle. However, my point is that the struggle that the homosexual community is enduring is different that the one I have endured and thus I wanted to be clear that I respect your life experience since it is different from my own experience.

davidhare wrote:You don't seem to get at all that things are still far from good for gay people everywhere.

You know David, I'm confident that I don't know the exact details of what it is like to experience this type of struggle since it is different from my own experience. However, this does not mean that I am not aware of such struggles or that I am making them seem insignificant. I am not under some type of dillussion that "gays have it good nowadays". I am not so naive to think that the homosexual community isn't the convenient target of right-wing political movements.

If you honestly believe that my comments during this discussion of Brokeback Mountain prove me to be ignorant of how badly the gay community is treated across the globe, then I can't really help that. I'm fairly certain that, throughout this discussion, I have constantly acknowledged that the gay community is unfairly targeted by right-wing (and just hateful bigots in general) and that they have probably had to endure greater social hardships at present than most other minorities. If anyone honestly believes I am minimizing the plight of the homosexual community across the world, then they should take me to task and prove it through the words in my post.

However, if you honestly make this claim, than what is preventing me from stating that you don't get at all that things are still far from good for ethnic minorities everywhere.

davidhare wrote:The rise of the right wing in various guises - the neanderthal Christian right and the Islamic medievalists. The creeping threat to basic civil and legal rights now loudly enunciated by a handful of politicians in Australia which has been one of the most liberal democracies in the world. My German firends took the civil ceremony because (one of them is a Federal Judge) they were seeing the rise in right wing fascist groups for whom a prime target is gay people. And without the official sanctions, they - like Ken and I - have not a skerrick of legal entitlement as "next of kin" against vengeful family (I assure you this is a regular threat to gay couples, especially when one has died with AIDS and the surviving partner is caught in a period of grief and vulnerability.)

I am aware of these issues. I am aware that gay couples have been marginalized within society by countless governments, particularly during the ongoing debate over gay marriage that is occurring in various countries (including my own).

The knowledge of this (and other) issue(s) still doesn't effect my view that Brokeback Mountain is being judged rather harshly without proper rationale in this case. Let me be clear that I'm am not even really discussing homosexuality, so much as I'm trying to get an understanding of the type of reasoning being used here. It's painfully obvious to anyone who reads through my posts in this forum that my efforts are generally focused upon the notion of reasoning behind an argument. In this case, the bonds between the political and social persecution of the homosexual community and judging how good/bad Brokeback Mountain is, just doesn't seem to add up correctly. I am also not saying that the social and political implications of Brokeback are not important. They very much are important - especially when the film is being marketed in such a manner.

davidhare wrote:The fact that you don't understand at all and talk about "integration without compromise" leaves me speechless.

If you don't believe that I "understand at all" then I really can't do anything about that. Quite honestly, I think I have a descent (though by no means complete) understanding of what the homosexual community is forced to endure at present. I hate to sound as pleased with myself as some do when they make statements such as this on the forum, but I would have to say I'm disgusted by what the gay community has to endure at present.

davidhare wrote:What do you mean?

I mean any minority living within a society has to make an effort to integrate to the society in a similar manner as that majority needs to make an effort to allow for that integration (though the degrees vary depending on the composition and characteristics of minority and the majority). In this case, perhaps you have to compromise your cinematic ideals and sense of gay-film history in order for a larger step forward to be taken within mainstream film culture, so that gay-film is somewhat integrated to the mainstream, but allowed to remain distinct. Somewhere there has to be a compromise made. You can't really expect mainstream audiences to embrace provocative filmmaking (gay or not) that they generally shy away from, and you can't really expect them to acknowledge gay subtext within older films, especially considering they don't read subtext into any film. If you want all gay films to remain distinct and provocative that fine (it generally results in pretty good films), but can you really be so resentful of mainstream audiences not embracing such films if they do not see anything appealing being offered to them in such films. You have to pick where you want this battle to be fought - on the fringes or in the mainstream. If it's the mainstream being battled over, compromises in the delivery of the message must be accepted, no matter how unsavory.

davidhare wrote:compromise meaning "shut up fag"

Not at all. It's slightly offensive that you have interpreted this meaning in my statements.

davidhare wrote:DE to whom you all reacted so violently when he expressed this unspoken truth?

You say "unspoken truth"; I say warped perspective of a paranoid man who is constantly preaching to the choir while thinking they are the heathen.

davidhare wrote:Or the het majority's right to demean us in limited vision as one fetish or another?

Again, this is not what I meant and it's slightly scary to see my words interpreted and twisted in such a manner. It verges on absurd (almost as absurd as this daft right-wing viewpoint). Perhaps you could provide me the courtesy of not assuming I am your opponent on all matters. I am merely disagreeing with your viewpoint during this discussion. I think our viewpoints regarding social reform are very similar.

davidhare wrote:I really am suprsied and saddened by this Andre.

I'm sorry you feel this way, David, but it appears you have misinterpreted my opinion on this matter and exaggerated it to a large degree.

I mean any minority living within a society has to make an effort to integrate to the society in a similar manner as that majority needs to make an effort to allow for that integration (though the degrees vary depending on the composition and characteristics of minority and the majority).

Note that the minority "has to make an effort to integtate" whereas the majority "needs to make an effort to allow." Not an equivalent effort in any way shape or form. And what do I get for it?

In this case, perhaps you have to compromise your cinematic ideals and sense of gay-film history in order for a larger step forward to be taken within mainstream film culture, so that gay-film is somewhat integrated to the mainstream, but allowed to remain distinct.

I'm not about to compromise a damned thing for the sake of the second-rate.

Andre Jurieu wrote:I guess the one thing you can "educate" me on (oh, but I'm sure there is so much more) is whether or not Charles Taylor is going to join the staff at Slate.

Andre, I think that you are getting our guest, blogger David Ehrenstein confused with Slate's brilliant critic David Edelstein.

Edelstein's going to New York Magazine.

I shall never write for Slate. It's editor, Joan Walsh, despises me for having outed Andrew Sullivan's barebacking escapades several years back. She even tried to pull off a "hit" piece against me.

Jeff wrote: Andre, I think that you are getting our guest, blogger David Ehrenstein confused with Slate's brilliant critic David Edelstein.

Absolutely correct. I completely confused the two names. I figured that out about an hour after I typed that, when I started surfing the net for the article I read last week about Edelstein leaving Slate and potentially recommending his friend Taylor (who is also quite insightful at times) as his replacement. You are also correct in saying Edelstein is quite a brilliant critic (usually). I should have corrected that, but I guess I didn't really care too much about the mistake. I should probably pay more attention to the articles I skim through in the morning while my boss is in meetings.

davidhare wrote:The "intergration" you speak of started a long time ago, certainly in film culture with real mainstream groundbreakers like Sunday Bloody Sunday and a handful of other movies - a LONG time ago. All this progress and consiousness raising stopped with a shock in 1982 when AIDS hijacked the etnire gay movement. And public consciousness took a nosedive from which we are still recovering.

Yeah, I'm not questioning the fact that this battle has been ongoing for awhile and we've probably regressed in recent years. However, Sunday Bloody Sunday was merely nominated for an Academy Award (though it did win the BAFTA) while Brokeback is looking like a strong contender for the actual award. As much as it pains me to admit that the Academy has some sway (albeit within the bland mainstream), the difference between a nomination and a win is a big distinction.

A win for a gay film is very much a political statement for the Academy, even if it is brought about through shallow Hollywood marketing and hollow Oscar campaigns that seek to diminish the film's gay quotient. It will invariably lead to a discussion on important topics and issues within the months leading up to Oscar night, even if half of it happens on FOX News and the rest is hype. This discussion may even include addressing how the mainstream press and critics such as Ebert & Roeper have unjustly downplayed the gay aspect of the story in order to have audiences embrace the film as safe for consumption.

Thus an Oscar win for the film would be an accomplishment on some level no matter how watered down the product is. It would be a step towards the level society was at before the AIDS panic and that's not a bad thing in my view. The Oscar (sadly) has influence on the mainstream. Just a few years back, the Academy made a conscious effort to address the issue of race with how they handed out awards, and even though I didn't agree with the individual actors winning the awards (Washington probably should have won for his earlier work), who can really claim it wasn't a meaningful step on some level. It helped reduce the issue of race at last year's awards when Jaime Foxx won (though I really thought he should have won for Collateral and should have been given lead actor status on that one as well).

davidhare wrote:As for mainstream and "cutting edge" films, this is part of the crux of it for me. I don't want to watch Academy friendly pictures about this that or the other. And I don't see the film culture we're ostensibly discussing on this board as remotely related to standard "product". (Or at least evry little of it.)

Well, that's fine if you are talking about your own desire whether or not to watch this film. Also, you are correct that the film culture we usually discuss on this board is hardly related to the standard Hollywood product. However, if you are going to make a distinction between the art we generally discuss and the product that Hollywood puts out, then when we begin to discuss a film such as Brokeback Mountain I think we should be addressing it as "product" since we have already made the distinction. If we are classifying the film as product, we should not be applying the same perspective as we do to what we classify as art. We should probably recognize that its objective is to influence the mainstream, and hence its method of delivery is going to be slightly different than an art-house film.

If you are going to evaluate it as a film and compare it to other film, then we should both probably watch the film before we make our final judgment. However, if we are going to classify it as product, separate it from the film culture we're ostensibly discussing on this board, and attack its marketing efforts then we should recognize that we are probably not its targeted audience. Thus its success as a product should probably be judged on its effect on its targeted audience.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Note that the minority "has to make an effort to integrate" whereas the majority "needs to make an effort to allow." Not an equivalent effort in any way shape or form.

Nor did I say it was an equivalent effort in any way, shape, or form. Didn't I just finish saying the effort of the minority is always greater than the effort of the majority in cases of social and political reform where the minority is attempting to obtain an equal status in society? This is clear even in a portion of the statement you have quoted:

I wrote:...though the degrees [of effort] vary depending on the composition and characteristics of minority and the majority.

I'm still at a loss to understand when in the history of existence a minority has had to put equal or lesser effort than the majority while attempting to overcome the opinions of the majority in order to gain an equal status within a society. It's quite obvious the minority has to put in a greater effort simply due to lack of numbers, no matter how wrong, ignorant, or misguided the majority is.

Ehrenstein wrote:And what do I get for it?

I don't know what you get from it personally (that's for you to determine), but the minority party usually gets a more equitable position within society for their greater efforts. It's never going to be totally equitable, since they remain the minority in numbers, but the society takes a step towards greater equality without imposing another unnecessary barrier.

Ehrenstein wrote:I'm not about to compromise a damned thing for the sake of the second-rate.

Ok, that's your decision, but then don't be surprised if you continue to be frustrated by the outcome.

"BBM" has been my favorite movie of the year since I caught it at Toronto months ago. Funny that you compared it to "talk to her", which will be either #1 or #2 on my list of top movies in the 2000s.

Kieslowski_67,

We have similar taste in film. I love Almodovar. I loved his early work, was bored by the middle period and was then stunned by the later pieces. I can't get over how beautiful Talk to Her is. I always tear up at that brief shot of Cecilia Cruz in the crowd listening to the flamenco singer. Don't ask me why. Maybe it's because I'm happy to see she's still doing okay. (Assuming, of course, she's supposed to be the character from All About My Mother and not Cecilia Cruz the actress.) For whatever reason, Bad Education hasn't gotten under my skin in the same way. Maybe because it wasn't Antonio Banderas being deflowered. =P~

As for Ang Lee, I gather that there are a lot of people on this thread who consider him something of a hack, but I've always loved his films. Sure, there are a couple of duds in the bunch, but I can think of very few contemporary Hollywood directors who have as impressive or wide-ranging a body of work. No, he's not a directorial show off. He tells his stories in a very measured fashion that forces you to pay attention to what's going on underneath the surface. Compare Sense and Sensibility with the overblown Pride and Prejudice re-do that's in theaters now. Or compare it to Age of Innocence. Not a bad film, but Scorcese's approach was too modern for the story. Ang Lee would have done a bang up job on that film.

Which leads me back to BBM. I realize that some of you guys don't like it or aren't going to like it. But I really think that if you BBM haters revisit it in five or ten years after all the hubbub has died down, you'll find much to admire. It's certainly a better film than E.M. Forster's rough trade fantasy Maurice, with it's unearned happy ending.

And before you jump down my throat, David E., I feel the ending is unearned because Maurice barely knows the gamekeeper. Why is he in love with him? Because he's the only guy who'll sleep with him? Considering the masterful jobs they did on Howards End and Room with a View, I'm really surprised James Ivory and Ruth Prawer Jhahbvala didn't do a better job of filling in the blanks on that one. And let's be honest, as cute as Rupert Graves was, he was about as working class as Queen Elizabeth.

I don't remember a shot of Cecilia Cruz in the crowd listening to the flamenco singer. Celia Cruz! Close enough but that would so fantantic if she was in that crowd also. But I think you really meant Cecilia Roth. Marisa Paredes is also in the crowd. Listening to the awe-inspiring Caetano Veloso singing Cucurrucucz Paloma. I love when the luminous Lydia gets up and follows her boyfriend Marco as Veloso's singing floats in the background. That slow shot of Lydia as she walks passing the swimming pool..the color of her earrings matching the pool water. And then embraces Marco standing facing the white picket fence striped in pool-water blue. What a haunting, beautiful scene that is.

It's certainly a better film than E.M. Forster's rough trade fantasy Maurice, with it's unearned happy ending.

And before you jump down my throat, David E., I feel the ending is unearned because Maurice barely knows the gamekeeper. Why is he in love with him? Because he's the only guy who'll sleep with him?

Obviously you know nothing about same-sex love.

Nothing.

No surprise -- there are millions like you.

Considering the masterful jobs they did on Howards End and Room with a View, I'm really surprised James Ivory and Ruth Prawer Jhahbvala didn't do a better job of filling in the blanks on that one.

Ruth Prawer Jhahbvala did not work on the script of Maurice. She opted out on the grounds that it concerned a subject she knew nothing about -- even though she lived in the same building with Merchant and Ivory for years.

And let's be honest, as cute as Rupert Graves was, he was about as working class as Queen Elizabeth.

And let's be honest, you've never fucked anyone outside your class.

Andre's fealty to the Oscars (and their alleged power) is . . .amusing.

David, you're one bitter old queen. You're giving us a bad name. Thanks a lot.. no wonder why we aren't moving ahead.

He really is rude. I'll stop reading this thread until I see the movie.

dvdane, move over - your nemesis has arrived.

Homophobes.