criterionforum.org

Edward II, absolutely. Actually I was directing that statement to jcelwin.

I challenge you to find a single common denominator between any two of them.

Ok, a couple of things that they all have in common: Firstly, I doubt that any have had as much discussion as Brokeback Mountain (in as short a time). Secondly, I don't think I have seen any of them (I know I'm horrible).

I guess most 'gay' themed movies don't greatly appeal to straight males like myself. Too bad. But I want to see Brokeback. Perhaps because Ang Lee directs it. Perhaps to see what all the fuss is about. Or, perhaps because it seems like something that straight males can still empathies with.

Might I suggest that's because while you've got an ideological hook you have nothing to hang it on.

Go ahead. But, at least come up with something substantial than my lack of cinematic knowledge.

Michael wrote:If Shakespeare had written Romeo and Julio, then tell me if it would be any different than Romeo and Juliet. Now really think about it.

I guess thats one of my points, the characters would still be portrayed as tragic instead of glaringly 'gay'. It really wouldn't make that much difference to the story.

Maybe I should have rephrased that. A bit mentally exhausted from studying all morning long.. anyway, let put it like this: Romeo & Juliet vs Romeo vs Julio. If both were written at the same time, which one of them would be more "tragic"?

Michael wrote:If both were written at the same time, which one of them would be more "tragic"?

Neither in my opinion. I'm not sure I understand your point? But it's late here an I'm tired also.

Romeo & Juliet = Montague vs Capulet

Romeo & Julio = Montague and Capulet and Verona and Italia vs Romeo & Julio


Edit: I couldn't think of a better way to make this point across at this moment... I'm sure I will come up with one eventually. Right now, nap time.

But, at least come up with something substantial than my lack of cinematic knowledge.

Sorry, but that's the beating heart of the matter. You refer to a presumably understood entity you call "a gay movie" and you don't know what you're talking about.

Brokeback Mountain is specifically designed for those who don't know what they're talking about but think they do.

Enough! People, as Alfred Hitchcock would say, "It's only a movie." I love a spirited debate about a movie, but come on!!! You guys are now just taking cheap shots at each other. If you like this movie, it does not mean you are gay and like only art films. And if you don't like this movie, it does not mean you are a homophobe and like only dumb films. Aren't there more important things in the world to focus on? Come on people. Lighten up!!!

I would have thought:
Romeo & Juliet = Montague vs Capulet, and Montague vs Romeo & Juliet, and Capulet vs Romeo & Juliet
Romeo & Julio = Montague vs Capulet, and Montague vs Romeo & Julieo, and Capulet vs Romeo & Julieo

But that's just arguing semantics. I see what you mean (perhaps it is difficult for me to look at it from viewpoint of someone that has never been is such a situation). But I'm not sure I find it any more tragic.

And, that is just beside the point any way. All I meant is that in either case the characters would be tragic firstly, and [in the later case] gay secondly. Which makes it much more 'accessible' and easier to empathies with for those whom are not gay. Brokeback Mountain is meant to be an accessible film, and it is proving to be very accessible.

pzman84 wrote: If you like this movie, it does not mean you are gay and like only art films. And if you don't like this movie, it does not mean you are a homophobe and like only dumb films.

Whew! I'm glad we got that clarification of what this discussion was all about. I guess I've completely misunderstood everybody's position up to now. David E must be thrilled to hear he's not a homophobe!

jcelwin wrote:I would have thought:
Romeo & Juliet = Montague vs Capulet, and Montague vs Romeo & Juliet, and Capulet vs Romeo & Juliet
Romeo & Julio = Montague vs Capulet, and Montague vs Romeo & Julieo, and Capulet vs Romeo & Julieo

I vote for this as the silliest argument of the year, but what the hell. I reckon Michael's right: if anything would have brought the Montagues and Capulets together it would have been their shared outrage at a gay romance between their marriageable sons. Can someone suggest this idea to George Kuchar?

David Ehrenstein wrote:Brokeback Mountain is specifically designed for those who don't know what they're talking about but think they do.

Like I said earlier, perhaps you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.
You are right though, I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to most issues that have come up in any gay movies I have seen. At no point have I said I did. The main reason for this is that I don't relate. And, that is probably one of the reasons that I can't think of any gay [themed] movies at the moment, because they don't stay with me, they just aren't close enough. One thing that every one can understand though, is the themes (and the way they are presented) in brokeback mountain, and that is why most people are talking about it.

I vote for this as the silliest argument of the year, but what the hell. I reckon Michael's right: if anything would have brought the Montagues and Capulets together it would have been their shared outrage at a gay romance between their marriageable sons. Can someone suggest this idea to George Kuchar?

Hey, I was going to use parenthesis and perhaps a few other mathematic symbols, I think I should have now. It would have been much better. What I meant was just that you could have made the same story with Juliet being... Julio... and you could still have the same story (with only minor differences. But again, that's not my point. My point is: tragic first and foremost, making it more accessible to 'straight' viewers.

One thing that every one can understand though, is the themes (and the way they are presented) in brokeback mountain, and that is why most people are talking about it.

And that's because they're very familiar soap opera themes done up in "Western" drag.

David Ehrenstein wrote:And that's because they're very familiar soap opera themes done up in "Western" drag.

Perhaps. Thats your opinion. But if you agree that it is familiar, what is your problem with what in my initial post that you replied to?

Or, perhaps you don't like the movie and therefore you don't think that anyone should like the film? Because it obviously doesn't have any worth if you don't like it.

jcelwin wrote:What I meant was just that you could have made the same story with Juliet being... Julio... and you could still have the same story (with only minor differences.)

But you can't: that one gender change opens a whole world of problems -- you've got to change the gender of Paris as well, because even if you want to try and believe that the Capulets would accept a gay son, they t'ain't pushing for a same-sex marriage; the change of Paris' gender starts a ripple effect of changes to make the politics of the play make sense; and Friar Laurence marrying Romeo and Julio in secret? Fuhgeddabouhdit! And that doesn't even scratch the surface.

This isn't just a cut and paste job, there's historical context to take into consideration.

And I swore to keep my yap shut and observe... Damn it all to hell!

-Toilet Dcuk

Or, perhaps you don't like the movie and therefore you don't think that anyone should like the film? Because it obviously doesn't have any worth if you don't like it.

I have absolutely no control over what anyone likes or doesn't like. All I can do is state my reasons. And even in disliking the film I certainly wouldn't stand in anyone's way from seeing it. It's simply that there are other far more siginificant gay films that have been sorely neglected by the moviegoing public (gay as well as straight) because they haven't been promoted and publicized the way this one has.

Point taken, toiletduck! But like I have already said before, that really isn't my point.

So David what is your problem with what I initially posted?

Or, were you just getting me to further define what I meant by 'gay lovers' and 'tragic lovers' hoping to find something else to argue about instead of discussing something in my original post?

Lighten up?

Thanks Michael, Nice try.

Or, were you just getting me to further define what I meant by 'gay lovers' and 'tragic lovers' hoping to find something else to argue about instead of discussing something in my original post?

You were the one making the distinction, thus leaving yourself open for serious questioning. Moreover you're not alone in this. Practically everything that's been said or written about Brokeback Mountain makes note of its being something other than "a gay movie" without defining what "a gay movie" might be.

I think my biggest problem with what you're saying, jcelwin, is that you're putting the burden on the film if the main characters are perceived for being "gay first, tragic second." In my view, this is very much prejudice on the audience's part if they are perceived as such (except where the film may make a point of doing this, but I've not heard of any). David, when you watch those films on your list, do you see them as being gay first, [tragic/comic/etc] second?

My second concern is that you blame the fact that you haven't seen these films on the films themselves, or their marketing. I don't agree with Ehrenstein that a film's marketing is completely inseperable from the film itself (they are to some extent seperable, though it is not possible to completely seperate oneself from prejudgements one makes based on marketing), but the much of the problem (insofar as there is a problem) in your particular case (and in mine) is that you haven't tried. Probably most of the films in Ehrenstein's list haven't even been marketed to you, and of the ones that have, you have undoubtedly dismissed them based on assumptions that are based on stereotypes that came from lord knows where. I have certainly done the same thing, and it's only natural, but it's important to recognize it for what it is.

A filmmaker can make the best film that he can possibly make, but if only the niche distributors want to distribute it and they want to market it a certain way, you may never hear about it, or you may never think to give it a chance.

I didn't make a distinction between the two. I said that the lovers are being portrayed firstly as 'tragic lovers', who happen to be 'gay lovers'. I thought I made that clear in my reply (although it should have been clear in the first place).

And, I said that it is being shown as more a love story that a "gay [themed] movie".

gay
tragic

gay wins.

David, I'm curious what you thought of Boys Don't Cry, and in particular, the casting of Swank in a gay role... Was Kimberly Peirce wrong in doing this?

David, when you watch those films on your list, do you see them as being gay first, [tragic/comic/etc] second?

It depends. One of the most wonderful experiences I've ever had at the movies, never to be repeated, was seeing My Beautiful Laundrette for the first time. Being a film critic I get early "long lead" screenings for many films, so I saw it well before anyone had written a single review. I knew nothing about it save for the fact that I greatly admired the work of its director, Stephen Frears (particularly for a film he made for British television in 1980 called Bloody Kids, which should have been released theatrically as My beautiful Laundrette was, but sadly wasn't)
Anyway I'm sitting there watching Laundrette , and getting very much taken by the gorgeousness of Daniel Day Lewis and Gordon Warnecke thinking to myself "Gee it would be so great if these two got it on." And BANG! -- they did! Well I practically levitated out of my seat. But it just goes to show what gay audiences have been led to expect in the very recent past -- nothing. Laundrette , which was a big hit across the board, provided a big break for films with gay characters and themes.

Jun-Dai you're right that the films probably have had less marketing and this is probably the main reason that I haven't seen most of them. But you are also right that the marketing can not be totaly separated from the film.

In the case brokeback the casting decisions and marketing decisions are integral to the film, but also important in supporting the films success. And, from what I have seen from interviews with Ang Lee, the promotion of the film as more of a love story is because that is what he intended to do with the film in the first place.

Using google for pages? I hope you are joking.
Besides, love wins (that sounds so stupid).
Anyway, a really silly argument.

David, I'm curious what you thought of Boys Don't Cry, and in particular, the casting of Swank in a gay role... Was Kimberly Peirce wrong in doing this?

I liked it quite a bit, particularly for her very sensitive performance.

About casting it's not that I'm demanding gay actors play gay role, it's just that I wish more gay actors were given breaks. Some straight actors are teriffic. I can't imagine anyone better than Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Capote, likewise Joseph Gordon Levitt in Mysterious Skin. But there are several gay actors who would have been superior to Heath and Jake in Brokeback , and all the articles about how "brave" and "daring" they were for doing these parts made me want to vomit.

If you want REAl daring see Swoon, Tom Kalin's film about the Leopold and Loeb case in which Craig Chester gives one of the greatest perfomances I've seen in a motion picture.