criterionforum.org

The Village Voice's coverage: Gary Indiana's review, J. Hoberman's take, and an interview with author E. Annie Proulx.

I agree with Hoberman on this - it is ultimately a straight film about gays. But that said, it's still a well-made love story, and, like he said, its closest antecedent is TITANIC, for better or for worse.

Which is why I'm still calling it as Best Picture winner, and all the women will go in droves, weep their eyes out, and go again.

David, I don't know what I would do without you! Just finished watching Wild Side (based on your recommendation)...WOW. I get goosebumps just thinking about it now. There is NO way a straight person could direct a film like Wild Side.

Have you ever seen Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train? If yes, what do you think of it?

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:Gary Indiana's review

Wow- that has to be the most condescending piece on cowboy culture I've ever read.

That review went nowhere. It wasn't even about the film really...

che-etienne wrote:That review went nowhere. It wasn't even about the film really...

If you're talking about Gary Indiana's piece, it wasn't even really about the film because it wasn't a movie review. Indiana is a man of many trades who often writes about film. In this case he's kind of (sorry bunuelian) acting as a culture-critic and just writing a piece of criticism based upon the film and what it represents in the greater context.

As always, I find I'm interested in a great deal of what Indiana writes, but then I find parts that are simply exasperating. It's like I agree with the basic idea of what he's saying, but I'm left shaking my head at the little details. I also agree he's rather condescending.

Hoberman's piece is a movie review and it is certainly focused on the film itself.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Making a Mountain Out of a Molehill

Very good piece, David. But citing "Andy Warhol's ... even more radical gay western HORSE" as an example of well-known mythbusters that came before would seem to give comfort to the enemy. The link to the IMdB for Horse you include lists NO plot information, reviews, viewer comments, or anything. So when a film like BROKEBACK comes around, and the mainstream media are lauding it as groundbreaking, it's because it IS groundbreaking to the mainstream audience. I'm curious to see the film, and so will a lot of other people, and there will be those who will see it and want more films of similar subject matter. They'll turn to some of the films you listed, perhaps; MAURICE sounds like a good choice. Isn't that a positive outcome of mass-media hype over a straight-sourced-and-directed, gay-themed movie?

The link to the IMdB for Horse you include lists NO plot information, reviews, viewer comments, or anything.

Only going to show the IMDB isn't perfect. Horse was one of a great number of movies Andy made in 1965 when he bought an Auricon sound camera. Made to film newsreels this camera took 35 minute loads of live sound film. Two 35 minute reels = one feature. Horse was shot at the Silver Factory from a script by Ronnie Tavel. A Horse was rented for the occasion and brought up in the old Factory elevator. Tosh Carillo, Gregory Battcock and their merry men proceeded to enact a western charade around the horse, which mainly involved a lot of S&M horseplay (pun intended) while wearing nothing more than jockstraps.

As for Maurice --

Isn't that a positive outcome of mass-media hype over a straight-sourced-and-directed, gay-themed movie?

E.M. Forster was gay. So is James Ivory and so was his partner in art and life, the recently-deceased Ismail Merchant. [/i]

To think Peter Finch and Murray Head snogged and fucked out in the open, and Finch's voiceover-monologue retires the movie in Sunday Bloody Sunday 35, fucking years ago!

Sunday Bloody Sunday is still ahead of its time.

As for gay love round the old campfire, give me River and Keanu in My Own Private Idaho

Andre Jurieu wrote:

che-etienne wrote:That review went nowhere. It wasn't even about the film really...

If you're talking about Gary Indiana's piece, it wasn't even really about the film because it wasn't a movie review. Indiana is a man of many trades who often writes about film. In this case he's kind of (sorry bunuelian) acting as a culture-critic and just writing a piece of criticism based upon the film and what it represents in the greater context.

As always, I find I'm interested in a great deal of what Indiana writes, but then I find parts that are simply exasperating. It's like I agree with the basic idea of what he's saying, but I'm left shaking my head at the little details. I also agree he's rather condescending.

Hoberman's piece is a movie review and it is certainly focused on the film itself.

I see. Still, it is quite a stream of consciousness piece in a way, and has little direction even as a kind of social criticism or assessment. I found some parts interesting, but I tend to agree with you that it is in parts "simply exasperating" and "condescending."

davidhare wrote:As I say I haven't even seen BB but I clearly don't need to - life is too short

Now you disappoint me. After all the commotion you went through about it on this thread, you owe it to yourself and mostly to us to at least give it a go and see what you think about the whole business.

And don't tell me you didn't hate those negative criticisms about Last Temptation of Christ made by the very people that didn't actually see it. You of all people shouldn't fall in that category.

How? I like the film.

gay vs straight authorship and ownership

is the beating heart of the manner IMO. As I have said there's a list of truly important gay films as long as your arm. But the relentless pimping for Brokeback demands we ignore and/or forget all about them and put this film in their place -- the better to make straights happy.

Well I say it's spinach and to hell with it.

Sorry, but I really disagree about the Chereau and Lifshitz being "unrecognised". THOSE WHO LOVE ME is a classic, and WILD SIDE won the Teddy at the Berlin Film Fest. maybe it's different because I programme a gay film fest, but those two titles are considered quite "common" and well-known. Heck, this is not a case like THE TIME WE KILLED, a truly terrific film by Jennifer Reeves that has been summarily ignored.

Precisely. That's why Brokeback Mountain is being pimped as a one-size-fits-all Instant Enlightenment Pill, that will enable the blinkered consumer to speak authoritatively on Gay Film History without knowing jack shit about it.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Precisely. That's why Brokeback Mountain is being pimped as a one-size-fits-all Instant Enlightenment Pill, that will enable the blinkered consumer to speak authoritatively on Gay Film History without knowing jack shit about it.

Hogwash. The blinkered consumer doesn't even know there's a Gay Film History. You're trying to apply micro-reception studies to mass media. If you want to blame the average American consumer for a lack of cinephilia, then take a number. Maybe you'll be called before the German New Wave advocates.

Speaking as someone who has actually seen BB, I can tell you that it's an accomplished piece of filmmaking. This isn't Philadelphia or Titanic or whatever other piece of mainstream twaddle all the coverage is leading you to believe it is. Nor is it an affront to our gay lives, as others are trying to convince us. The film it most resembles is probably The Last Picture Show.

I saw BB three days ago, and I still can't get it out of my head. The last new release to effect me this deeply was Talk to Her. Sure, I wish an out and proud gay filmmaker had made it or that out and proud gay actors had starred in it. But that didn't happen.

Yes, the media coverage of BB is homophobic and annoying. What does that have to do with the film itself?

And if you take the “only gay people can make gay moviesâ€

[quote]And if you take the “only gay people can make gay moviesâ€

It's perfectly fine to attack the ignorant media coverage and all that stupid hype but that's not the film's fault.

Oh yes it is. The clearly conveyed sense that the publicists had a gay critic like myself "in their pocket" was truly terrifying. And I'm going back months on this to the very beginning of the campaign.

It's fine with me that Ang Lee directed this film because he had already proved to me with his wonderful, beautiful The Wedding Banquet that he could handle gay characters with tremendous respect and love.

And that's the heart of my disappoint. As I said earlier The Wedding Banquet was teriffic. This time he made a gay film

that I could watch with my grandma. Sitting through Wild Side or Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train with her is unimaginable. That's a big difference.

Tant pis pour grandma!

Sure, I wish an out and proud gay filmmaker had made it or that out and proud gay actors had starred in it. But that didn't happen.

And you're willing to sit quietly by and eat whatever's dished out.

I'm not.

Here's an article I wrote a number of years back that elucidates my position on straights making films about gay life more fully.

I'm trying to understand the whole point. For those of you who are disappointed, is it because:

a) a straight man made a gay film.
b) the media coverage isn't helping.
c) a gay film has gone "safe" or "mainstream" or Hollywood.

a) a straight man made a gay film.

Wong Kar Wai is a straight man who made one of the very best gay films I know of -- Happy Together

b) the media coverage isn't helping.

Yes

c) a gay film has gone "safe" or "mainstream" or Hollywood.

No. Hollywood has decided to "mainstream" gay film -- thus destroying it in a vast number of ways.

[quote="Carson Dyle"]And if you take the “only gay people can make gay moviesâ€

Amen to Annie Mall.

And as for gay directors handling gay stories, well - Todd Haynes didn't strike me as particularly kind in his treatment of gay behaviour in his Far from Heaven. In fact, I found it to be extremely condemning of the whole deal and you don't come away at the end of it with a better understanding of the reasons behind the husband's decision to seek other men regardless of his marital status.

The fact that you call being gay a "behavior" says it all. Likewise the notion of a "decision to seek other men."

Straight women think they have magical powers that can turn gay men straight -- and those who won't go along with them are just stubborn.