criterionforum.org

Eno's - what a laugh. Those pics of Brian really tickled me pink, mikeohhh!
For those of us who love our gay films actually gay, I watched Jarman's Edward II last night. I'd forgotten how great that movie is. I'm glad Image put it on DVD, but it's a pity that Criterion didn't hop on it. I would loved to have seen Chris Hobbs or Simon Fisher Turner interviewed as supplements to the disc. But anyway, it was so beautiful and radically personal that it really warmed my heart. I love the closing shot with those words that Waddington says so hauntingly.

Anyone else have anything to say about Brokeback Mountain? Say it now or this thread gets closed. And wouldn't that be a terrible shame?

A great shame! I'm never gonna watch it, I've developed a strong dislike for films "everyone" has got to see, since I dont know when. I can't imagine there's more to say about this friggin' movie that hasn't been said already.

Randy Quaid is now suing Focus Features for profits from the film, claiming that they knowingly bargained his salary down and cut him out of backend compensation by saying it was a "low-buget" film, when they always it was going to have big budget expenses and marketing.

Quaid may have been hoodwinked, but his assertion that his role in the film (what was it? all of about ten minutes?) was integral to the film's success is laughable as is his claims he spent months preparing for the role.

Wait a minute, Randy Quaid's "usual" per film salary is SEVEN FIGURES???? PLUS A SHARE OF GROSS PROFITS????

sendit.com's subject bar advertising Brokeback Mountain in their most recent advertising mailer:
"Where Men Are Men and Sheep Are Nervous"--imagine if amazon.com tried to pull off that one? or better yet, Walmart.

That's brilliant.

All right, I finally saw this. I avoided much of this thread until now, not wanting to 'spoil' the movie.

Anyway, it's kind of nice watching this now when all the hype, backlash, and award season publicity has come and gone.

I haven't read all of Mr. Ehrenstein's comments, but I think this film will be a landmark the way "Gentleman's Agreement" or "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?" are landmarks today. Neither of those films seem shocking or particularly enlightening 40-60 years later...the acclaim that greeted them decades ago secured their places as Oscar clip fodder, but I don't see many people turning to either for a lesson in anti-semitism or interracial marriage.

I actually liked this quite a bit, but moreso as a 'straightforward' story of forbidden love. Ang Lee seemed to pitch this as just that in all of his media appearances - a "beautiful love story," not as a political statement.

"Tasteful" seems to be a popular description, but the beginning is a bit boring and there's kind of a blandness to the style - I wasn't expecting anything stylized like Lee's last two pictures, but visually, it was a little too staid. But Ledger and Williams were very good, and even though part of the cast wasn't all that good, I think the acting was enough to carry this story.

Having said that, I'm still bugged by a few things. There's something unsatisfying about Ennis and Jack's heterosexual activities - that is, I wish they explored that more. I have friends who are gay, but they're from a younger generation and I don't think any of them ever had a heterosexual relationship, so they haven't been able to give me any insight on this.

I mean, granted, you can say they've been forced by the social order to engage in a heterosexual relationship, and they 'gave' us explanations (Ennis's marriage has no life in it, etc.) but I really wanted something a little more...I don't know, profound? More about what they're thinking/feeling? So maybe Ennis didn't discover his homosexuality until Jack came along...still, when it came, how does Ennis make himself go on with his relationship and marry Alma (or whatever her name is)? I feel like the picture was trying to sell them as a homosexuals trying to conform, not as a truly bisexual people.

Maybe Ennis is really confused: a person who doesn't want to admit being queer, someone who tells himself he's just in love with this one particular man (he doesn't pursue any other men, he dates a woman later on...). I guess that works, but again, there's still something unsatisfactory about the hetero "relationships" here, in terms of how they were able to happen, if not succeed.

Regardless, the story alone is brutal and sad...its innovations may be restricted to mainstream cinema (in which case, they're about as innovative as, say, the Carpenters), but I can still dig it.

Randy Quaid appears to have settled the lawsuit.....with himself....

Randy Quaid Drops Suit Against 'Brokeback' Producers

Randy Quaid, who had accused Focus Features of duping him into appearing in Brokeback Mountain for a fraction of his regular salary, said Tuesday that he had dropped his lawsuit against the company after it agreed to pay him an unspecified bonus. Six weeks ago, Quaid maintained that he had agreed to take the role in the movie because studio execs had described it as an arthouse film that had little chance at the box office. It has thus far earned $160 million worldwide. On Tuesday Focus indicated that it was bewildered by Quaid's latest statement, saying that it had "never negotiated, offered or agreed to any settlement with Mr. Quaid or his attorneys, but we are happy to put this behind us, and do wish Mr. Quaid all the best."

Even though she wishes she had never written the story in the first place, it's now being adapted for the New York Opera.

Italian broadcasters RAI TV cut the gay content out of the film, which begs the question why they even bothered to air the film at all.

<--

An opera has born. World premiere in Madrid !!! tomorrow (pink city, yes, but with this dreadful Government, and the Royal family situation… who will appear?).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/2 ... _hp_ref=tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://cultura.elpais.com/cultura/2014/ ... 00840.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;