criterionforum.org

Michael wrote:How can a straight person tell what a gay person's experience is like?

Well, to be honest, how can anyone really tell what any other person's experiences are like?

Mr_sausage wrote:

Michael wrote:How can a straight person tell what a gay person's experience is like?

Well, to be honest, how can anyone really tell what any other person's experiences are like?

How can a gay person tell what a straight person's experience is like? There is so much straight-bashing in this thread. If I read another post about how hard the gays or any minority groups have it and how no-one but their own truly understands their struggles in life and how hard it is for them, I'm going to scream.

marty, I'm not bashing straight folks. I'm bashing idiots, like you, who keep vomiting puke of sheer embarrassment and ignorance all over.
You're pure tragedy.

mr. sausage, I'm not sure what you're trying to point out. Sure, everyone's experience is different. Sure, every gay person's experience is different. However all gay people have one thing in common which you probably don't bother to recognize.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Campbell Scott and Peter Sarsgaard are biiger names than the much-touted "stars" of Brokeback...

You have got to be kidding me with this statement. They might be considered better actors, but when was the last time any significant audience went to see a movie because Campbell Scott was in it (1990-something). The last film he was in that even generated a decent sized buzz was Roger Dodger. Sarsgaard might be getting more press nowadays, but he is miles away from gaining a bankable fan-base and he's known more for his indy-cred. Meanwhile Jake Gyllenhaal has a decent sized following, but more importantly he has the ability to generate press (based mostly on who he is dating). Hollywood trusts Gyllenhaal to star in some fairly high profile projects, including Zodiac, Jarhead, and The Day After Tomorrow. I would concede that Ledger is more of an "actor" that Hollywood is attempting to create press for, considering his career is filled with bombs, but the idea that Scott and Sarsgaard are "bigger names" than Jake and Ledger verges on delusional. In the last 2-3 years how many magazine covers and feature articles have been devoted to Campbell Scott? Next to none. I don't even like Gyllenhaal or Ledger, but it's obvious they they are more bankable than Sarsgaard and Scott.

A quick look in the crystal ball reveals, "No Way!"

Michael wrote:marty, I'm not bashing straight folks. I'm bashing idiots, like you, who keep vomiting puke of sheer embarrassment and ignorance all over.
You're pure tragedy.

I have taken your advice and have gone through the thread to read some of the wisdom expunged here:

davidhare wrote:Hmmm.... I am getting more and more irritated by this sort of media blather.....I really am sick and tired of queerness being turned into the latest Hollywood/American "discovery" for new found anti-reactionism around about every ten years.

JohnE wrote:Straight people should stay away from making gay films.

Michael wrote: Another thing that is bugging me is how ridiculously well Brokeback Mountain is doing at the box office. How in the world is that possible?

If gay actors were cast in the lead roles, Brokeback Mountain would have been considered a "gay film" and not sold as well at the box office. Pathetic.

davidhare wrote:Michael I would much prefer Bareback (he said totally not PC).

davidhare wrote: Now back to Bareback (BTW Michael were you asking?)

Michael wrote: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.

davidhare wrote:.....some of us (the gay ones, at least) come from a history of politics among other life forming experiences, from which there are inescapable lessons to learnt about film, not only "cinema" but marketing and strategy and cynicism.

David Ehrenstein wrote: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.

David Ehrenstein wrote:If Ang Lee wants to pretend that he didn't make a movie that was about the gay experience, then his next project should be the life and times of the Easter Bunny.

David Ehrenstein wrote: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.

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.

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

davidhare wrote: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.

There is a common thread here. I wonder what it is? This is only in the first 13 pages!

To put my 2 cents in:

This discussion has gone on long enough. This thread is on notice. I'm serious. If you guys continue, many of you are going to be dead to me.

Michael wrote: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.

Ignorant about gay issues? Yes, Michael, I probably am to some extend. How can I not be.

But the "creep" comment? I wonder how I earned that. Does disagreeing with you about a movie make me a creep?

I think Michael is just angry, Invunche.

Timidly I stick my toe in the water....

The points made about good straight actors and directors being less likely to make exceptional films about the gay experience than good gay actors and directors are well taken. But my brain has followed a tangent off these points to a perplexing question.

The basic idea, as I understand it, is that the straight filmmakers will in most (but not all) cases be unable to fully appreciate the experiences of actual gay people. The question that subsequently popped into my mind is, if a filmmaker who has become intimately familiar with the story he or she is trying to tell (and keep in mind I am speaking generically, not about BBM in particular) and the characters he or she is trying to portray, cannot grasp the story after months of wrestling with it for every waking hour, then how can an audience with no foreknowledge of the subject be expected to come to some sort of understanding after watching a film that lasted only two hours, even if it was a masterpiece made by great gay filmmakers and actors who have lived the material every day of their lives?

The same question would then apply to a white audience watching a masterpiece about black people by black filmmakers, a male audience watching a masterpiece about women by female filmmakers, etc. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but it seems like this line of thinking could eventually lead us into a "stick to your own kind" mentality that would only fuel further misunderstanding and contempt. I don't agree with the notion that we should simply forget our differences and rejoice in being human beings, nor do I believe any story can ever be truly universal, nor do I believe that all "souls" are after the same basic principles in life. But I do believe a much greater level of cultural understanding can be established than has been achieved so far.

Likewise, I think that any good filmmaker or artist should be able, perhaps after a great deal of meaningful dialogue, to come to enough of an understanding about the experiences of different cultural group to make a film that does a pretty good job of conveying a significant aspect of that group. (I say "significant aspect" because it is unrealistic, even ridiculous, to ask a single film to sum up the whole of life for an entire group of people.) At the very least, he or she could make the audience feel the same sympathy he or she feels for said group without resorting to the comfortable conventions that BBM falls prey to.

"What you're filming, if you're attentive, will itself suggest how it should be filmed, and then the very environment will enter the screen, with all the dimensions of truth which it brings to your narrative." - Otar Iosseliani

So I guess my question then becomes, should straight filmmakers be discouraged from making films about gay people on the likelihood they'll fuck it up, or is it worth it to suffer many previous missteps when something like Happy Together comes along? I am actually asking this question rather than trying to make a point.

The Invunche wrote:

Michael wrote: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.

Ignorant about gay issues? Yes, Michael, I probably am to some extend. How can I not be.

But the "creep" comment? I wonder how I earned that. Does disagreeing with you about a movie make me a creep?

Why is it always the gays in this thread that are calling people names like "creep" and "idiot" and "pathetic" and basically insulting any "straight" poster who actually has a different opinion to them.

marty wrote:Why is it always the gays in this thread that are calling people names like "creep" and "idiot" and "pathetic" and basically insulting any "straight" poster who actually has a different opinion to them.

That is the Ehrenstein effect.

SISTER!!

The thing that's ridiculous about this thread are all the generalizations. If you like BBM, you clearly haven't seen any authentic films about gay people. If you dislike BBM, you're a militant separatist. I'm a gay cinephile who enjoyed BBM immensely. I posted a couple of times much earlier and got childishly attacked by David E. When he couldn't argue with my logic, he took personal shots.

A lot of very good films have been recommended on this thread, but every single one is of very limited appeal. Come Undone by its very nature and design is never going to appeal to a mass audience. Neither is a film like Happy Together or Mysterious Skin. Or for that matter Breaking the Waves or Elephant or 2046. It's rare for an “indie/artâ€

Thank you very much Carson. One of the few gay-posters to make some sense. The fact that BB has been a commercial success is like really eating away at some "gay" posters here. It's like "how dare they make a film about only gay people know". Pleeease! Gay cinema to them should always be marginalised and only entertain truly gay audiences as if they will only be the one who "get it". They seem to oversee the fact that many men and women are flocking to BB which only five or ten years ago would have been unthinkable. If any great film gay film like Come Undone should suddenly be embraced by the mainstream, they will still find some lame excuse for it and demean the film. Unless BB was more like Cum-Soaked Cowboys, they will always be against anything accepted by the mainstream.

Edited

Carson, yeah I agree with you that BBM succeeds as a tragic love story done in the best Hollywood fashion..it works only if it's taken in that aspect. I happen to be one of those people who find the movie mediocre.. I don't exactly hate it and I tried my hardest to present my points which I now realize have become way too personal and emotional. People like the tragic marty accuse me for not liking BBM because it is not "cum-soaked" enough. How ridiculous, offensive and shallow is that! There is a lot of very hurtful things expressed on here that I've lost sleep and been neglecting my partner and pets at home for days.

It seems like some people here can't seem to understand why some gay people don't care for BBM so they jump in treating them like they are the "militant separatists". They seem to expect every gay person to embrace and love BBM, like we're expected to shower the film with thanks for going "mainstream", breaking the ground, briding the gap between straights and gays, etc.

I simply don't care for BBM because there's nothing new or refreshing about it. It's been done so many times before. But this time with two gay cowboys. Being gay becomes the Issue with them and how internalized homophobia can destroy every opportunity to be a stable, happy person. That's what make BBM a very "queer" story but somehow, the mainstream seems to gloss over it and generalize it as a universal love story. That's exactly the gripe I have with the whole thing. It's a very specific love story. The mainstream acts like the cowboys don't know a thing about "queer". Of course they do or otherwise they wouldn't be suffering like the way they do throughout the film.

Other than the stunning cinematography and Michelle Williams' lovely performance (which strangely moved me more than anyone else's performance), the best thing I can say about BBM is that it makes me realize how smart, brave and strong I am for stepping out of the closet when I was 17 (in the height of the AIDS scare when 3/4 of my family didnt want me to come around my cousins in fear that I would transmit the virus to them.. that was way before my first gay kiss!) and also that Pedro and I are fortunate that we can live an openly gay life and feel safe and comfortable.

I'm simply concerned about how people outside the gay world perceive the gay characters portrayed so tragically in BBM. How hard is that to understand?

Ultimately the public is going to see what the public wants to see. And the reason they want to see BBM is because it's a well-made tragic love story.

No, they're going to see it because it's "the film everybody's talking about." And its attainted this status not thorugh rave reviews but a publicity machine pimping profiles and op-eds about what a "breakthrough" it's supposed to be. It's a publicity breakthrough, not an artistic one, and not for gay culture or politics. That's because it's a film made by and for straights to deal with gay culture and politics ie. tame it.

That some gays like it is simply "collateral damage."

[quote] So instead of hauling out The Dying Gaul as the anti-BBM, it seems to me that Big Eden or Trick, two very entertaining gay romantic comedies, would be more apt comparisons. They're both “crowd pleasers.â€

Michael wrote:There is a lot of very hurtful things expressed on here that I've lost sleep and been neglecting my partner and pets at home for days.

For real? The only name calling has been coming from "your side".

Michael wrote:It seems like some people here can't seem to understand why some gay people don't care for BBM so they jump in treating them like they are the "militant separatists".

I don't think that is true. The seperatist issue was pretty much started by those who said straight people can't make good movies about gays.

"Hurtful things" means some people's ignorance, like yours.

David Ehrenstein wrote:

Ultimately the public is going to see what the public wants to see. And the reason they want to see BBM is because it's a well-made tragic love story.

No, they're going to see it because it's "the film everybody's talking about." And its attainted this status not thorugh rave reviews but a publicity machine pimping profiles and op-eds about what a "breakthrough" it's supposed to be. It's a publicity breakthrough, not an artistic one, and not for gay culture or politics. That's because it's a film made by and for straights to deal with gay culture and politics ie. tame it.

That some gays like it is simply "collateral damage."

When I saw BROKEBACK back in September, I told my friend at Focus that he has himself a Best Picture Oscar winner. He was stunned. When asked about what I thought of the film though, my reply was mush less adulatory.

In other words, I totally disagree with the whole "publicity" angle. Focus didn't spend a dime on publiticy until December - well after all the hype was already in place.

The truth is that the film is just an Oscar-bait type film that will appeal to all the low-to-middlebrowers. And we shouldn't be surprised that it's those types that are hyping the film to death. For those well-acquainted with gay cinema, we should know that this film is not really for us, but we shouldn't be vindictive about the masses liking it either though.

Michael wrote:"Hurtful things" means some people's ignorance, like yours.

Then you need thicker skin. Seriously.

[quote="Carson Dyle"]So instead of hauling out The Dying Gaul as the anti-BBM, it seems to me that Big Eden or Trick, two very entertaining gay romantic comedies, would be more apt comparisons. They're both “crowd pleasers.â€

When I saw BROKEBACK back in September, I told my friend at Focus that he has himself a Best Picture Oscar winner. He was stunned. When asked about what I thought of the film though, my reply was mush less adulatory.

Your friend must have been out of the loop. The publicity bandwagon was reved up fromthe moment Ossan and MacMurtry penned their script -- whcih is to say years before Ang lee was brought on board.

In other words, I totally disagree with the whole "publicity" angle. Focus didn't spend a dime on publiticy until December - well after all the hype was already in place.

As you may recall the film played venice where it won the Gold Lion Grand Prize and then played Montreal. That was in early September.

Come on, people, go watch LOGGERHEADS - THAT is a much better study in comparison.

Loggerheads DVD is coming out on March 21st.

http://www.loggerheadsmovie.com/

When Grimfarrow first brought up Loggerheads last year, I requested a local theater to book it. It's coming this weekend!