Except for the performances, I don't like THE DYING GAUL either.
I'm not at all surprised. It's an exceptionally mean-spirited film -- which is of course why I like it so much. It aims high and kicks hard.
Come on, people, go watch LOGGERHEADS - THAT is a much better study in comparison.
It's a sweet little movie, but far too low-key to stir up much audience excitement. And I'm not sure what you mean about "compassion." It's a film about a young man with AIDS looking for a place to die.
David Ehrenstein wrote:
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.
He's in acquisitions - I doubt he's exactly "out of the loop". Remember, before Venice people thought BBM was doomed because it was rejected from Cannes. And of course I know about the reviews - as I said, I saw it in September. And winning an award does NOT equal Focus spending a dime on publicity. The award itself was its own publicist.
And winning an award does NOT equal Focus spending a dime on publicity. The award itself was its own publicist.
As every publicist knows the best publicity is the kind you don't have to pay for. BM was given a very slow "roll out" of the sort that hasn't been used since the 70's. Very canny on someone's part. Their promotion should be announced shortly.
Except for the performances, I don't like THE DYING GAUL either.
I'm not at all surprised. It's an exceptionally mean-spirited film -- which is of course why I like it so much. It aims high and kicks hard.
Come on, people, go watch LOGGERHEADS - THAT is a much better study in comparison.
It's a sweet little movie, but far too low-key to stir up much audience excitement. And I'm not sure what you mean about "compassion." It's a film about a young man with AIDS looking for a place to die.
What comnpassion? I said comparison - a low-key film about small-town America that is actually directed by a gay man. And it's very good - much better than BBM IMO.
It's not the mean-spirited I mind, it's the fact that it's just another cynical film about Hollywood machinery - it smacks of deja-vu. Except for Peter Sarsgaard's character, everyone seemed like a caricature.
BM was given a very slow "roll out" of the sort that hasn't been used since the 70's.
Wasn't Chicago like that?
I think it was. I remember it taking forever and a day to come to a place near me. And I still didn't see it.
Anyways, saw Brokeback with the wife and all I can say is is it's an above-average chick-flick with decent photography. And heck, I even liked the score. You could throw in a male and female and make them different races or even classes and you'd have the same film, still filled with the same cliches and yada yada yada.
In the end I thought it was "okay" for a chick-flick. That's about it.
Grimfarrow wrote:
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.
Why should he be stunned? It had already won the Golden Lion.
Grimfarrow wrote:
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.
Why should he be stunned? It had already won the Golden Lion.
And exactly how many Golden Lion-winning film has gone on to win the Oscar? (hint: it starts with "z").
And winning an award does NOT equal Focus spending a dime on publicity. The award itself was its own publicist.
As every publicist knows the best publicity is the kind you don't have to pay for. BM was given a very slow "roll out" of the sort that hasn't been used since the 70's. Very canny on someone's part. Their promotion should be announced shortly.
The strategy has been frequently used since the 70s. "Sideway", "Chicago", "million dollar baby" are just a few of the high profile examples in the last couple of years.
Last edited by kieslowski_67 on Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Michael, I respect your opinions 1000%. Frankly, you're the reason I've kept reading this thread.
To explain my POV a little bit further, I think I've always tried to view movies in terms of what the filmmaker intended. (Assuming the intent isn't evil.) Hence, a lot of "flawed" films are among my favorites. My favorite film of all time is Night of the Hunter. It's so-called flaws are among the things that make it so interesting to me. Laughton had a point of view. He overreached in a couple of spots, but I really dug what he was doing.
Maybe because I've seen so many gay films at festivals and theaters (a lot of them really crappy, by the way) I didn't expect BBM to be the end all and be all of gay cinema. I expected it to be a good, old-fashioned weepie done by one of my favorite directors. I wanted to see two gay guys get the Hollywood treatment. It delivered what I expected it to and I enjoyed it immensely on those terms. It will fit very comfortably on my DVD shelf next to Eat Drink Man Woman, Sense and Sensibility, Crouching Tiger and The Wedding Banquet. (Yes, I have way too many DVD's.)
I agree with a lot of what you and the others have said about the politics surrounding BBM, and I'm moritified that Marty seems to think of me as some kind of queer apologist because I liked a movie. But whatever. It's cyberspace, all we have to base opinions on are frenzied words typed in a vacuum.
The Invunche wrote:
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.
This is a complete misrepresentation of the arguments that I've read here. Every anti-BBM poster here has, as far as I recall, specifically cited strong gay films made by straight filmmakers /actors. In fact, they've been far more likely to back up their arguments with specific filmic citations.
The argument you're alluding to - and misrepresenting - is that of posters who think that BBM is not a very good film, or doesn't accurately reflect gay experiences. It's natural to explore whether those perceived flaws with the film might be due to the absence of gay experience behind or in front of the camera. This isn't an argument from the general to the specific, as you assert, but the other way around, and it seems to me perfectly valid.
And let's not forget that the main bone of contention relates to the publicity around the film, and its Pavlovian reception, rather than the film itself.
My favorite film of all time is Night of the Hunter.
Carson, my darling -- all is forgiven! The Night of the Hunter is my third-favorite film of all time and the greatest American film ever made.
Did you know that Laughton kept all the out-takes? Elsa Lanchester gave them to the UCLA film archives and a couple of years back they held a screening of about an hour's worth of them. Amazing! You can see as well as hear Laughton directing the actors. The way he and Mitchum are in sync is phenomenal. And also, breaking with the legend, he's quite nice to the children. Little Sally Jane Bruce adores him, and is very upset with herself for flubbing lines. I hope they're eventually made available in home video for study purposes.
Michael wrote: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.
I was expanding what you said to the logical and very truthful conclusion that none of us can really know what it's like to be anyone else, any other individual. I thought that was rather obvious. What I also hoped was implied by my statement was that, while it may be true, I think we need to at least try to understand things beyond ourselves and not slip into solipsism. This is true of everything, not just sexuality, gender, race, ect.
Michael wrote:However all gay people have one thing in common which you probably don't bother to recognize.
Thanks for the defensive and baseless assumption. It's nice to know that even tho' my points are not fully understood, I can still be accused of some vague form of willful ignorance by strangers.
mr. sausage, I was asking you what you meant by that before taking it in the wrong way but you're right that I shouldn't have said those last few words. Last night by the time I read your post I was very overwhelmed by you know what that I was not in the mood to be nice to anyone. But thanks for clarifying that for me.
zedz, what do I know. It is impossible for me to post an opinion different from (for example) Michael without being labelled an ignorant creep. Because if I don't agree with him then I surely must be one of those homophobes that are spending all their time making sure gay people will never be accepted by society. Should I then go see BBM, which I haven't seen yet, and like it then it's even more proof of what an evil breeder I am.
In a strange way this situation reminds me of when I used to hang out at boards with political discussions and get into debates about homosexuality with conservatives and religious folk. They sure took my diehard opposition to the idea that homosexuality is choice as proof that I was gay.
So the gays think I'm a homophobe and the homophobes think I'm gay. Maybe that's not so bad.
Ignorance and homophobia are two different thing. For the record, I never accused you of being homophobic. Ignorant, yeah. Being ignorant is not so bad as long as you're willing to keep your mind open and learn a thing or two from the other side. I'm ignorant about a lot of things, for instance before I met Pedro ten years ago, I thought Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic were the same - just two islands of different names, neighboring each other. Boy, how wrong I was. Pedro taught me so many things about the different cultures in the Caribbean and also from visiting those islands numerous time with him, I now know better than before. When Pedro and I went to see my grandma in NY, she asked him "Do you speak Puerto Rican?". It was hilarious.
Anyway, when I describe a person who is homophobic, Pat Buchanan would make the perfect example. Being homophobic means you hate or deny gay people period.
One final thing, I shouldn't have said "creep". I was very frustrated when I wrote that.
Michael wrote:I thought Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic were the same
So the stereotype about you people is really true.
Michael wrote:One final thing, I shouldn't have said "creep". I was very frustrated when I wrote that.
That's fine. It's not like I haven't been called worse.
But I gotta wonder how you deal with life if a thread on a messageboard can freak you out to such an extend. Do you really think the straight people here are that bad?
In the words of Spock: Fascinating. A most fascinating discussion; hysterical, impassioned, hilarious and very informative, as all good discussions about films should be. However, the scope of the discussion has extended into the bear-trap infested forest of socio-political hobby-horses, in which, opinions, questions and statements have been presented in vindictive manners. There can be no 'winners' in such a discussion. The infamous Cannibal Holocaust thread, which I ended up mangling to my regret (my opinions, statements and questions were badly throught out and presented) springs to mind.
Stories - Novels; Plays; Films - about Love will, more often than not, will fail to be emotionally satisfying if they are templated, simplified or are not presented within a unique context. Breakback Mountain sounded intriguing when I initially read about it before the hype, but after reading the various thoughts and descriptions here, my interest in seeing the film has waned. Had I been in better health, I would have went to see it by now, but my main reasons for losing interst is that the story sounds all-too familiar, really. Of course, to the majority of film-goers (non-cinephiles?) the fact that ain't about a 'Guy and a Girl' but about a Guy and a Guy has a 'dangerous', 'risky' quality to it. But I don't find such characters at all dangerous or risky. I am hoping that the characters in the story are, in themselves interesting. I would never go to see a movie merely because one or more of the characters was a homosexual, lesbian, etc. It's like watching The Defiant Ones in 2006 and finding Joker and Noah interesting and their situation suspenseful and ultimately rewarding, regardless of the 'race' angle that the film had/has and that made it a 'unique' film in its day. Will Brokeback Mountain still be a rewarding experience in 10, 20, 30 or 50 years time?
To most hetro movie-goers, the homo aspect is like a gimmick - ot perhaps the 'hook' that pulls them in. Curiosty always gets the better of people, especiallly when sex is involved! Will it do any harm? No, I doubt it. People will generally either like the film or feel indifferent about it. To conservative types, it may still be a 'controversial' film, but they already have their opinions and agendas. As do power-players in Hollywood. I really don't know how an anti-homosexual film could be made today that would effectively alter the thinking of audience members. A mainstream pro-homo movie would also be a challenge quite frankly and if that it was the agenda of the screeenwriters, Ang Lee, the studio or marketing people, then they are misguided fools.
If the question is: Do heterosexuals want to see movies primarily about gay romance, then I would tentatively answer: No, they do not. Most men don't want to see movies about hetro romance! To their loss, presumably. So why has Brokeback Mountain been such a financial success? Well, I'll be in a better position to answer that million-dollar Q when I have actually experienced the film, but I would guess that it is because interesting has been generated in the film through advertising, word of mouth and also that it sure to be a well-made film by a superb filmmaker and that it features two actors whose stars are in ascendence. If an individual deems the film to "'great" or "crap", is, as always not really worth getting in a tizz over, though.
As for me, I'll watch any film that strikes me as appearing interesting, challenging, unusual, etc. If a character in a story draws my interest and I can sympathize/empathize with them or get angry at them for the right reasons, then I will be better off. But if the character's only extra dimension is that they are gay, then what am I watching for? I hope that Brokeback Mountain's leads have more going for them than that.
Just off the phone with a reporter for New York magazine who's doing a story about "how different communities (conservative, gay, etc.) are reacting to Brokeback Mountain." Larry Gross (of Contested Closets fame) had reccomended me as the gay rep. She was quite hip -- cracking up when I compared Brokeback's visuals to Leave Her to Heaven, and noting that Jake was going to get a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination because he played the Bottom.
I told her I wished. I represented the gay community as most of them have acted as if the film were a cross between an Act of Congress declaring their gayness valid, and the ressurrection of Judy Garland.
Michael wrote:mr. sausage, I was asking you what you meant by that before taking it in the wrong way but you're right that I shouldn't have said those last few words. Last night by the time I read your post I was very overwhelmed by you know what that I was not in the mood to be nice to anyone. But thanks for clarifying that for me.
It's no problem. It was more baffling than insulting, anyway.
Thanks for taking up my recommendation!
