*** Official BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Vickie_M]

Saying that Jack is a sexual predator is so obviously untrue to anyone who's seen the film that I'd guess the only reason he said it was to give homophobes and bigots something to latch onto. He is spreading lies. It is defamatory, ignorant and irresponsible. GLAAD is absolutely correct to demand an apology.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I agree Shalit is wrong. It's certainly not the first time, and won't be the last. But make no mistake...GLAAD is making the claim to get their name in a newspaper. My guess is they were waiting for a major critic to jump on any element of BBM that could be construed as homosexual.

They didn't get a major critic...they got Shalit.

He didn't make any direct critique of being gay from what I read. He took a boneheaded interpretation, for certain.

But good old GLAAD, just like other groups, were in such a rush to be offended and get that in the media, that this was their story.

I loved BBM. I fully support what GLAAD is trying to accomplish (which is a personal opinion/decision). But this is a chickenshit whine.

As if Shalit matters anyway.

 

[Vickie_M]

Shalit does matter when his lies are heard by millions of people.

So GLAAD shouldn't say anything when such an outrageous lie has been heard by millions of people, otherwise they're grandstanding for publicity? Oy. I can't believe we're in 2006.

 

[Quentin]

Oh, it's 2006 alright...and the PC police are running the show... :

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Vickie...they aren't lies. They are a bad review, and I read them ALL THE TIME. It's a crappy interpretation, but YOU CAN'T BE THE THOUGHT POLICE, as GLAAD is trying to do. Shalit has every right to dick the review up. Unless he specifically said "Jack is a predator, like all gay men/people/etc.", then he has every right to say his review. He won't be quoted on the box cover, but so what. Do you really want the people who ONLY listen to Shalit seeing the film, or on your side, anyway?

I remember 10 years ago, they made a huge stink over the gay prince in Braveheart. I guess in Hollywood, every gay character has to be a saint. They can't be as flawed as every straight character. That's progess :rolleyes

Vickie, I love you and your posts I understand the frustration, but not the personal attacks on a blank like Shalit. And don't believe the GLAAD hype. They are thrilled with the story, I am sure.

 

[Vickie_M]

So blatant lies are OK, but complaining about them are "PC" (read: not to be taken seriously). Well, I wondered how they were going to negatively campaign, now I know. Spread lies, and cry "PC!" when they're challenged. How sick.

 

[Kyle_D]

Poland has a good write-up on the Shalit situation that I happen to agree with.



People misinterpret movies all the time, and yes, as the Brokeback DVD thread has shown on this forum, there are people in this country who just can't accept people who are different then them. However, to shut them up or tell them they can't say that gets them far more riled up than simply engaging them in honest debate and explaining to them and others why they are wrong. When you do that, usually they just make themselves look like idiots, as Shalit has done.

 

[Bradley Newton]

Shalit's son is gay and they have a wonderful relationship. And having said that, his take on the Jack Twist character is just insane. It's time to stop reviewing films when you can't understand and comprehend the films you are seeing.

 

[Nick C.]

Salt Lake City Theater De-Books Brokeback, Supposedly "Business Decision" Despite Record Receipts

 

[Robert Ringwald]

Very true what they wrote about Titanic. lol You could say the same about Forrest Gump.

I think it's less homophobic and more idiotic. He clearly didn't understand the film...

 

[David Williams]

Brokeback has finally opened in Tulsa (yesterday) and I hope to see it soon.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Shalit happens.

 

[Vickie_M]

Responding to Jon's post, I wrote this up then posted it elsewhere when it looked like Jon's post had disappeared. I'm so confused. Anyway...


Of course, I don't think it's overrated at all. I've seen it twice and will see it again, very soon. After my husband and I saw it the first time, there were scenes that stayed with me and that I wanted to see again, such as the vistas, Ennis returning to the tent and Jack's tender embrace, the look on Ennis's face when he sees Jack again after 4 years (it's a look of pure joy), the scene where Jack finally stands up to his father-in-law and the slight smile on Lureen's face, and Ennis buttoning up the shirt and straighening the postcard, among others (no, not the sex scene). After seeing it the second time it became my favorite movie of the year. Seeing it more than once let me notice little glances, bits of dialogue, and pieces of music that I hadn't seen/heard/noticed the first time, and became an even richer experience to me. It's so beautiful, so tragic, so poetic.

Forgetting the subject matter completely, this movie generally wouldn't appeal to those who don't like slow, quiet, understated movies. Even for those who do, with all the awards and attention, it's easy to sit there and demand "Ok, now be brilliant like they said!" and when it doesn't seem so on the first viewing, it's easy to feel underwhelmed. This movie is so subtle that it almost requires a second viewing to understand why it's getting so much acclaim. It's not only the subject matter. The writing, the acting, the directing, the scenery, the atmosphere, everything works together to make it more than just a tragic love story, and far more than just a story about two guys who get it on. It's a work of pure art. I suppose some might consider it odd to want to see a tragic love story over and over, but no one would think it weird if I were watching Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet over and over (which I have). Obviously the two movies have little in common, but they're both tragic love stories which is why I used it as a comparison.

I think it's an instant classic and I can't wait to see it again.

The other thing that angered me about what Shalit said (besides being a lie that panders to the worst homophobic and bigoted instincts, stereotypes and fears) is that it changes the whole dynamic of the film. It turns the film from a tragic love story to a sexual predator/victim movie. If it were that, I wouldn't have gone to see it and I wouldn't have seen it more than once (or want to go again). That's a completely different movie altogether.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

But it doesn't change a thing about the film. It's a review, outside of the film itself. The film is completely unchanged by his review.

It's not a lie, it's an interpretation. I read incorrect reviews of quite a few of my favorite films, from Black Hawk Down to Moulin Rouge to the Matrix sequels. Reviewers that were flat out W-R-O-N-G. But they weren't lying. They incorrectly perceived the film. A lie is a mistruth that even the speaker knows. Unless we know Shalit feels differently about the film, or even has the motive to lie, then saying he is lying is irresponsible and biased. That's why I keep replying. There are scenes that support Shalit's theory. There are. Unfortunately for him, there are scenes that disprove his theory, and quite a few of them. But that does not mean he lied.

 

[Michael Reuben]

That's an excellent description of a process that, every year, affects one or more highly praised films. Something like it happened with Sideways last year. When people talk about an awards-season backlash, this is usually the dynamic to which they're referring.

M.

 

[Quentin]

I agree. IF you wait to see the film until after you've heard so much about it and praise upon praise has been heaped upon it. But, this is pretty much what can happen to ANY movie you go into with expectations too high.

Luckily for me, I rarely experience awards-season backlash because I see most of the films prior to all the hype. I loved SIDEWAYS before most people knew about it, and I disliked BROKEBACK before it became the Oscar favorite. Of course, there are some movies that are so good they can overcome the hype - like MILLION DOLLAR BABY.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Not at all. I think it's a wonderful film and a tragic love story and some really good performances.

 

[Robert Anthony]

Not only Utah. Washington State has apparently joined in as well.

This IS 2006, isn't it?

 

[Sean Laughter]

I had almost the completely opposite experience of Quentin - sort of. I saw "Sideways" well after the hype, but I had never even heard of the movie - somehow avoided it on here by some chance apparently - so I wasn't really influenced one way or the other and I absolutely loathe "Sideways," by far one of the worst films I've ever seen. I'd heard M$B hype before seeing it, but I hated "Mystic River" with a passion, so I went into this latest Eastwood film rather reserved (though I like his stuff as a general rule) and while I found M$B satisfying it felt very manipulative and almost too sentimental to me, so it didn't really hit me emotionally like it did other people.

In any case, I got to see Brokeback twice in the past two weeks, the first time when I was visiting San Diego which was in a pretty filled auditorium on a Sunday (it had been there for a few weeks I think so obviously the crowds were smaller), and then I saw it last night back home in Richmond, VA. The place was SWARMING!!! Thank goodness I used Fandango! There wasn't a seat left in the house.

After seeing it the first time it was somewhat fun to know where all the "shocking" moments were that you knew would probably get audience reaction and the audience didn't fail. Something I experienced here in Richmond that I didn't in San Diego though was when they showed Jack getting attacked there were at least ten people that yelled out in what sounded almost like physical pain. That was startling to me.

I love this film to death, though it's obvious it's to certain tastes. Two of my other gay friends didn't really like the film, feeling it was boring, but I think you really have to appreciate understated, quiet films like this to like it regardless of sexuality. It doesn't go for larger-than-life in anything, which to some people I suppose makes it a pointless exercise, but it doesn't to me as I'm a fan of very understated theater too. I'm just amazingly impressed when something can be so understated and yet so riveting at the same time.

Seeing it the second time the final encounter on the mountain definately hit me the hardest, knowing better what was coming. I'd read the story before seeing it the first time, but only once and a while back, so while I knew Jack died it didn't really register at that moment as I watched until it actually happened in the film - at which point, between the phone call and the journey to Jack's parent's house I was a weeping mess.

However, the second time during the last encounter on the mountain I was in tears just seeing their final encounter, seeing Ennis finally break down, and hear the desperate love in Jack's words to him, knowing it would be the last time and that Ennis wouldn't make the decision he should make until later when faced with the same situation concerning his daughter.

 

[Jon Martin]

I went into it with an open mind and just had some problems with it. I wasn't expecting brilliance, just a good movie. It was a good movie, just not a great one, for me at least.