criterionforum.org

Now who's quick to generalize and judge, David.

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, many straight women think they have the magic power to make a straight man even straighter, while those who don't or won't bend to their will are either divorced or left behind.

I agree Kinjitsu. It should also be pointed out that many straight women enjoy gay male pornography of both the hard and softcore sort -- just the way straight men like to watch faux lesbian porn.

A major fan base for Queer As Folk was straight women. Then there's the "slash fiction" phenomenon, in which straight women write hard and softcore porn fantasies involving the Star Trek characters.

Brokeback Mountain is clearly designed to feed into this.

Why is it that we have to give names to everything and everyone?

Gee, I don't know, perhaps it's because if we didn't, language wouldn't exist. And I assume we would all have to live like dumb brutes otherwise.

Let me get this straight, you want to (I assume) speak and use language, and refer to things by their names (else why would you use a forum), but do not want to have any name or description for yourself? You wish, it seems, to be exempt from language so you can both be something and not be something. That is, presumably, exist as something tangible and unique, but at the same time be a nameless, amorphous non-entity devoid of descriptive qualities. Yet you cannot be both a clearly defined entity and a fuzzy shade; you cannot use and desire language while simultaneously declare it worth tossing away. In short, the whole thing deforms into paradox. There is also I think a cliche about eating cake that fits here.

And I do not subscribe to the idea that language is a conspiracy to demote people; it is in fact rather arbitrary.

David Ehrenstein wrote:just the way straight men like to watch faux lesbian porn.

Don't fuck with my illusions. Just don't.

Woah there guys! This is all getting way out of hand. Now we're making generalizations about straight men, straight women, gay men and gay women? Come on people! This is a movie we're talking about here that happens to feature a story involving two men in a love affair. It's supposedly a good movie at that. It won at Venice, and that in my book is enough to get me at least a little interested. I respect Ang Lee as a filmmaker... not as a 'straight' filmmaker or as a 'gay' filmmaker, but as a filmmaker, and as such I will see his movie. A movie is a movie. People were making valid points when they spoke of how a gay filmmaker might sometimes offer a more nuanced perspective about being gay, but has anyone considered that this film may not be about being gay in the first place? "Brokeback Mountain" has toted itself as a love story... gay or otherwise. Ang Lee never pretended to make a movie that was about the gay experience so why are we blaming him for not doing it?

People were making valid points when they spoke of how a gay filmmaker might sometimes offer a more nuanced perspective about being gay, but has anyone considered that this film may not be about being gay in the first place? "Brokeback Mountain" has toted itself as a love story... gay or otherwise. Ang Lee never pretended to make a movie that was about the gay experience so why are we blaming him for not doing it?

What's the weather like on your planet? On this one we've got (among many other things) the Catholic Church prohibiting gay pirests (lotsa luck with that one!) and Fundie fanatics demanding that the Ford Motor Company stop advertising in The Advocate as selling cars to gay people "destroys the family."

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, I'm not sure what you mean (forgive me!). Keep in mind I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain yet so it's hard for me to say anything more about it. I would think that both films are utterly different in their intentions. Brokeback Mountain seems like an old-fashioned love story between two people who happens to be guys. I'm all up for it . When was the last time we had an old-fashioned, simple love story between two guys without the kinks, trannies, hustlers, clubbing, etc?

EDIT: Well my grandma is 83 years old. The tranny fucking an old guy in the ass in Wild Side is definitely way too much for her.. even my two gay friends (in their 20s!) were taken back by this scene! The sex being so raw in this film is the main factor why I couldn't imagine my grandma watching it (and that has nothing to do with being gay). I would imagine the sex in Brokeback (if there is any) is more lovemaking, romantic, gentle, etc.

Cachorro. Here in the US, its titled Bear Cub. The DVD from Netflix arrived here yesterday so I will be checking it out very soon. Will report back.

If I had to watch BEAR CUB vs. BROKEBACK, Ang Lee would easily take the cake. Almodovar-lite that just fizzles at the end versus a very well-done if old-fashioned love story? The latter, please.

Michael, knowing a bit of your taste, I have a feeling you'll love BROKEBACK. Just bring tissues in advance

Well one usually brings tissues to gay movies. . .

Bruce LaBruce told me to warn the audiences to bring tissues while watching RASPBERRY REICH

What's the weather like on your planet? On this one we've got (among many other things) the Catholic Church prohibiting gay pirests (lotsa luck with that one!) and Fundie fanatics demanding that the Ford Motor Company stop advertising in The Advocate as selling cars to gay people "destroys the family."

The problem with this is it implies the desire make cinema into a medium of social and political reform, a forum for propaganda. If so, that cheapens the art form and makes its function, and moreover the standards by which it is judged, determined entirely on how well it represents a particular social or political view. It removes proper focus from formal and artistic considerations entirely. Not only is this a horribly banal ideal for the form, but it ensures that no film will live past, say, fifteen years. In short, it's no fun.

For example Eisenstein--the political overtones of, say, Battleship Potemkin are now near meaningless to film viewers. It is only the idiosyncratic and highly developed formal devices that ensures both its high quality and survival. Which is to say, it survives and is praised only because it happened to be the project of a filmmaker as much concerned with art as with party politics. Its aesthetics are, rightly, what it is judged on. It's politics are analysed only insofar as it aids that end.

The problem with this is it implies the desire make cinema into a medium of social and political reform, a forum for propaganda.

Any reference to social context constitutes "propaganda"?

If so, that cheapens the art form and makes its function, and moreover the standards by which it is judged, determined entirely on how well it represents a particular social or political view. It removes proper focus from formal and artistic considerations entirely.

Translation: SHUT UP FAG!!!!

Damn, you're paranoid.

You should really fire that translator. He/she seems to just call people homophobic whenever a decent point is raised that they don't want to address. They also seem to go a bit overboard with the punctuation.

David Ehrenstein wrote:What's the weather like on your planet? On this one we've got (among many other things) the Catholic Church prohibiting gay pirests (lotsa luck with that one!) and Fundie fanatics demanding that the Ford Motor Company stop advertising in The Advocate as selling cars to gay people "destroys the family."

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.

The thing is when you make a movie that's a love story and it happens to chronicle a relationship between two men rather than the usual heterosexual relationship between a woman and a man, there are those (like you) who want to make it political. First of all, that cheapens the art form, making it serve only a social function (as was aforementioned... please don't call me homophobic thank you : ) I'm sorry but it doesn't have to be political, and it's not copping out or backing down to the establishment if it decides not to be. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, Ang Lee probably never intended to make a statement about the gay experience or in any way to explore the nuances of the issues surrounding homophobia in our culture today. He probably just wanted to make a good movie, about what he called "a great American love story". So just don't go see it if you want something political, but don't attack him for choosing to do something diffferent. End of story. It's completely uncalled for that you start flaming people like that.

Mr_sausage wrote:The problem with this is it implies the desire make cinema into a medium of social and political reform, a forum for propaganda. If so, that cheapens the art form and makes its function, and moreover the standards by which it is judged, determined entirely on how well it represents a particular social or political view. It removes proper focus from formal and artistic considerations entirely. Not only is this a horribly banal ideal for the form, but it ensures that no film will live past, say, fifteen years. In short, it's no fun.

For example Eisenstein--the political overtones of, say, Battleship Potemkin are now near meaningless to film viewers. It is only the idiosyncratic and highly developed formal devices that ensures both its high quality and survival. Which is to say, it survives and is praised only because it happened to be the project of a filmmaker as much concerned with art as with party politics. Its aesthetics are, rightly, what it is judged on. It's politics are analysed only insofar as it aids that end.

I would suggest that this was always the case with POTEMKIN. It is what it is today because of the reverence for which it was held in Germany France and the rest of the west. It is now and was then seen as a mostly historical drama concerning the first, failed, attempt at revolution, rather than a subversive call to (then) present-day revolution in the west. These films were successfully exported because their (often very thin) plotlines concerned simple narratives of human suffering iterated in mostly human, not political, terms. Starving oppressed souls are simply shown regaining dignity in human terms-- there's never a lecture on the details of bolshevik theory or a rah rah rah for the theories of collectvism. Eisenstien was an ambitious man quite interested in a dialog with the west, and he designed his films to be palatable therein.

As with any other extreme form of constructivist or formalist style, the means are always primary-- that is, the thing to be seen-- as opposed to the story/content. That to me is the most 'subversive' thing about these films, particularly those of Dovzhenko & Eisenstein-- that they managed to subvert the content/message to their own atomically unique and exaggerated styles... this during the height of the Stalin era, undistracted by war, when the message was supposed to be everything. They pushed the propaganda mostly aside to send up rocket flares of genius for the cinemas of Berlin, Paris, London, NYC...

The thing is when you make a movie that's a love story and it happens to chronicle a relationship between two men rather than the usual heterosexual relationship between a woman and a man, there are those (like you) who want to make it political.

It's not a question of "those (like [me])" who "want to make it political." It IS politcal. Making a gay love story in this place and time is HUGELY political. Have you ever heard of the Christian Coalition? have you eever heard of the Republican Party? Are you aware of the fact that gays are being executed in Iran on an almost dail basis? Do you bother to read the news at all?

First of all, that cheapens the art form, making it serve only a social function (as was aforementioned... please don't call me homophobic thank you : )

I call 'em as I see 'em. Your softcore stance in which speaking of that which most deeply affects my life "cheapens art" is vomit-provoking.

I'm sorry but it doesn't have to be political, and it's not copping out or backing down to the establishment if it decides not to be.

And just who makes the decision?

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, Ang Lee probably never intended to make a statement about the gay experience or in any way to explore the nuances of the issues surrounding homophobia in our culture today.

Reminding me of nothing so much as the opening line of The Wild Bunch. "I know what you meant to do -- it's what you did that I don't like!"

It's completely uncalled for that you start flaming people like that.

Oh yes it is!

David, you sound very angry. Lighten up a bit please. Relax.

Yeah, I read the news about gay boys being lynched in Iran and that killed me so much. There were numerous pictures showing the boys on the Internet and that left me depressed for days. It was so frustrating that there was not much I could do about it except spreading the news to every one I knew in the world since there was not much (if there was any) media coverage on that sickening butchery here in the US unfortunately.

I totally understand that it is a political thing...whatever it takes for the mainstream to watch a gay love story coming from Hollywood, playing at the multiplexes.. At least it gets people talking over the dinner tables at home? Don't you see an accomplishment of any sort in that? All I know that I want to see Brokeback because a) I really like some of Annie Proulx's short stories b) it seems to be a very well-made old-fashioned love story-weepie epic (just perfect for viewing after a day of Christmas shopping) c) Ang Lee is a good director and I trust him d) the guys are very irresisible looking e) it's a nice break (escape) from the depressing gay politics in various kinds of media that I read daily.

David, you sound very angry. Lighten up a bit please. Relax.

Uh, no.

I totally understand that it is a political thing...whatever it takes for the mainstream to watch a gay love story coming from Hollywood, playing at the multiplexes.. At least it gets people talking over the dinner tables at home? Don't you see an accomplishment of any sort in that?

Well now we're getting down to cases. I don't.

If dinner table discussions are foreclosed in advance by the insistence that any mention of socio-political context "cheapens art" then the work in question is an impediment rather than an advance.

I happen to think this is the case, as the insistence on seeing Brokeback as "unprecedented" in "crossover" terms and this so good "it's not reallya gay film at all" is where the rubber hits the road.

To begin with Proulx'z story makes no sense whatsoever, save as an ideological cudgle. The Heterosexual Dictatorship (Christopher Isherwood's useful term) is under attack, and therefore requires a device to maintain its power and disremember history. Brokeback is quite useful in this regard in that it's the polar oppisite of Maurice. It's insistence that its lovers couldn't possibly have broken away from their circumstances and live together is belied by actual gay history, detailing countless instances proving otherwise. (See the writings of Jonathan Ned Katz, Jim Kepner and a host of others.)

Are any of the film's champions even so much as slightly aware of gay history? I'll wager they're not. They know Stonewall, Matthew Shepherd, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and Liza Minnelli. Period.

All I know that I want to see Brokeback

Go right ahead. I'd be the lastperson in the world to try and stop you.
Bring a box of Kleenex.

And after all this bitching, you haven't even seen the movie. Of course, you'll say that you don't have to.

Annie Mall wrote:And after all this bitching, you haven't even seen the movie. Of course, you'll say that you don't have to.

Um, how did you come to this conclusion? The film has screened for critics already and I'm pretty sure Ehrenstein would have already attended a screening in order to write about it for Huffington's blog. I assume he will also write a review for whatever publication he's now writing for (New Yorker is it?). I think you're confusing the two Davids involved in this discussion. Hare stated he'll rent the film later next year. Just based on how Ehrenstein has been discussing the film, it appears as though he has viewed the film.

Of course I saw the movie. That's why I wrote about it at Arianna's.

I don't write for The New Yorker. They have Anthony Lane and David Denby.

Currently I'm searching for a publication interested in"an opposing view"on the film as the consensus is that it's "So good it's not gay."

Ebert and Stupid were hawking this line just the other day on their show.

Ok, my wrong, sorry. Anyway, I really want to see this movie no matter what. Michael, shall we go together?