Well, Heath Ledger is very upset with the Utah Mormons. It appears that one theater in Sandy decided not to play “Brokeback Mountain.”
In yet another Hollywood display of deep, thoughtful logical processes, Heath compares Mormons with West Virginia racists (based on one theater’s decision, of course). My search shows there is at least one other theater in Salt Lake City that is showing “Brokeback Mountain.” But anybody who lives in Utah knows that the market there does not treat R-rated fare as well as, say, New York City.
I won’t be seeing “Brokeback Mountain” for many, many reasons, but most of all because it is R-rated and because of its subject matter. Private theater owners can, of course, make their own decisions what to show (I’m not really concerned with the theater’s contractual obligations — that’s a business and legal issue irrevelevant to the discussion.)
Could it be that Latter-day Saints simply are not interested in a graphic, sexual story about gay cowboys? Could it be that many of them have followed the prophet’s warning not to watch R-rated movies? To each his own, of course, but Hollywood liberals are the least tolerant members of the species. Soon, in a display of non-judgmental tolerance, “Brokeback Mountain” will be required viewing for public junior high students in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, California and elsewhere. Controversy will only start when it is required to be shown to second graders.
I always find it sad when movie stars like Ledger attack us for haveing a different moral code than they do. Anyone who disagrees with him is a racist or immature or even hilarious.
While I don’t know if I would single out Brokeback Mountain for banning, I do think its ok for a theater not to book films for any valid reason. The fact that the film probably would not do well in Conservative Suburban Sandy, Utah doesn’t suprise me and is a valid business decision.
I assume it has to be a business decision because the Megaplex in Sandy shows numerous films that depict adultery, fornication, and violence. Many of the films celebrate fornication by the younger crowd. Certainly homosexuality is similar to other forms of immorality.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I’d have a lot more sympathy for the theatre’s decision were they not simultaneously showing Hostel, a graphic film that has been called snuff film pornography. It shows explicit homosexual acts and such entertainment as drilling out of a woman’s eye, the cutting off of limbs, and much more, all for entertrainment’s sake. Likewise, unless I’m mistaken, that same theatre showed Saw II this fall.
Some have suggested that these films, despite being worse in content, don’t have the political ramifications of Brokeback Mountain. Perhaps. But I have a harder time seeing that as justification.
Clark, it’s difficult to disagree with your logic. If I were a theater owner (not likely to ever happen), I would show very, very few R-rated movies (“Schindler’s List” and “Private Ryan” might make it, for example). But keep in mind that the main issue here is not one theater owner’s decision. It is the maligning of an entire religion based on one theater owner’s decision.
Agreed with Clark G. If Mr. Ledger were criticizing the theater for showing ‘Hostel,’ he’d be right.
I don’t know what Heath Ledger has to do with this. Everyone in Utah is *really* upset because Anne Hathaway doesn’t play a princess in this movie. Instead she plays a horrible vindictive woman. That is the real reason no-one in Utah, or any other self respecting person, would want to see this movie. 😉
(Poor Anne. She’s just so cute she can’t help but be type cast.)
Good point Clark – I think that if you are going to make a stand against the immoral fare that Hollywood promulgates every year you should not focus on a particular sin and play that note on your keyboard. If you’re going to ban movies for content you should have a consistant policy. I know this would be difficult as a business because about 30-60% of films these days have immoral content that crosses the line. If the Megaplex is showing Hostel and banned Brokeback for content that is inconsistent.
On the other hand, Brokeback does depict a more sympathetic homosexual situation and that potentially can confuse the issue for those struggling with their sexuality. I’ve worked with and had friends who didn’t know their sexual orientation and could go either way as well as LDS homosexuals who were practicing celibacy, and even men who had families and left them for other men. Homosexuality is not a simple status that fits in one lifestyle stereotype as the Gay community would have you believe.
But I have to believe this is a business decision that I can respect. If I owned a theater I would not show films that did not appeal to my clientelle if I didn’t personally support the content of those films. For some reason I don’t see Larry as a guy out promoting Homosexuality.
Perhaps Heath will be consoled by the fact that (according to one analyst) the rejection of “Brokeback…” by isolated areas of red America has virtually guaranteed it the “Best Picture” Oscar as the knee-jerk reaction from blue America.
Could it be that Latter-day Saints simply are not interested in a graphic, sexual story about gay cowboys?
Must all LDS be lumped into the same category? I, for one, AM interested in seeing Brokeback Mountain. I read the story years ago–it’s thought provoking, touching and emotionally universal. I plan to go this weekend.
That’s interesting. This same theatre is showing Hostel. I suppose violent murderous horror shows are interesting to LDS in Utah, then.
This probably is not a business decision by Larry Miller (though I obviously can’t be certain). Unfortunately “R” rated movies do as well financially in Utah as in any other state (as I recall from a news article I read a couple years ago). My guess is Brokeback does as well in Utah (if in theaters) as it does in most places in America. Unfortunately this action appears to have little to do with not wanting to portray sin (note that Hostel and other highly innappropriate movies are shown in Miller’s theaters) and more to do with a bias against homosexuality. If the question were sin Miller would not show several movies that he does.
I’ve already commented on this extensively at Our Thoughts, so I’m not really interested in rehashing everything. But I’ll just make one point, and anyone can read my defense of this point on the other thread.
I don’t believe the decision was purely content-based. Lots of movies have homosexual characters. I don’t believe that whoever briefed Mr. Miller on the film simply said, “this is about a homosexual couple,†and from that decided to cut it. As I interpreted the film, it made a strong pro-gay statement. I imagine that heavily influenced the decision.
I don’t think comparisons with Hostel are appropriate because, while I haven’t seen it, I don’t believe it tries to make you feel guilty for believing that murder is wrong.
eric
yes using your argument i can see that. but still, both are r-rated, both deal with sinful subjects. whether they are made to look good or not, the point remains, murder is wrong and so is homosexuality, and murder is considered worse than sexual sin. we aren’t told not to see films because they are potrayed as acceptable or not, we are told not to see them. and frankly, i have no desire to watch anyone having sex, hetero or homosexual. in the same vein, i have no desire to watch violence, murder or torture. all of it offends my sensibilities. no just because i am LDS, but because i am a human being. one is private, the other is horrific behaviour.
As I interpreted the film, it made a strong pro-gay statement. I imagine that heavily influenced the decision.
So homosexuality can only be seen in a bad light in order to be seen on Miller’s movie screens? Make them really flamboyant and/or evil, in order to be palatable? Yikes!
Mary, I realize that content is a primary concern for you. But it is obviously not for a theater chain which regularly shows R-rated movies. The decision may be inconsistent with you, but they’re not being inconsistent with themselves – which, I believe, is the charge being held against them, isn’t it?
Wendy, that’s correct. Major sins can only be seen in a bad light in order to be seen on Miller’s movie screens.
One theater in Utah doesn’t show BM –> “Mormons are like racists.”
Yup, that’s pretty stupid. Not a bit of logic to it.
One Australian actor says Mormons are like racists –> “Hollywood liberals are the least tolerant members of the species”
And that’s pretty d*rnn stupid, too. Logic?
“the main issue here is…the maligning of an entire religion based on one theater owner’s decision” –> But, like, maligning an entire group based on one actor’s statement is just peachy, apparently.
Wendy, that’s correct. Major sins can only be seen in a bad light in order to be seen on Miller’s movie screens
*head explodes*
My short stay at M* has been interesting to say the least. I think I’ll go over to Various Stages of Mormondom and re-read Sarah Marinara’s inspiring post to cleanse the palate so to speak. ( http://variousstagesofmormondom.blogspot.com/2005/12/what-would-angel-say-devil-wants-to.html )
Jonathan, you don’t come around M* that often, but at least we know your comments will concentrate laser-like on one subject. I could give you a list of thousands of stupid, intolerant things Hollywood liberals have said, and I could make a pretty good argument they are indeed the most intolerant people around. So, there is a fair bit of logic in my argument. But your interest is not in debate, simply in insulting the poster. Thanks again for commenting and have a nice day!
Life’s too short.
I for one, don’t plan to spend too much of it agonizing over gay men. They’re just not a very relevant group in my sphere of interest. No more than … say … Armenians.
Doesn’t mean they aren’t nice people and all, but I just don’t have time to pay attention to everyone (even if the media says I need to pay attention to them).
So, to the homosexual crowd, I have to say: Sorry guys. I’m ignoring you until our interests happen to coincide. Nothing personal.
The article I read was that the decision was a business one, that the Theatre and the distibutor couldn’t work out the details in the contract (which is a big deal, re how many minutes of ads before the movie, how many minutes of trailers allowed, how often shown etc).
But of course the weapon on the other end is to bring in morality. Thus they get to define the argument in their own terms.
So in order to avoid hypocrisy the LDS should show all R rated movies?
No…maybe they shouldn’t show any. But then again, they’d be out of business quick wouldn’t they?
Well, personally I am not a big movie person anyway. I pick and choose enough. I find the majority boring.
Eric #14: “Wendy, that’s correct. Major sins can only be seen in a bad light in order to be seen on Miller’s movie screens.”
I think Hostel and many, many other films demonstrates that to be false. Heavens, I’d say a significant number of Hollywood films glorify major sins.
Jay (#19), do you have a link to this?
I should add, while I don’t know what films Miller’s theatre has shown, I’d be very surprised if it didn’t include fairly pro-gay films. Heaven knows there have been many.
This film is a box office bomb. Check out the stats on ticket sales. Its only running in a fraction of the theatres nation wide for the obvious reasons that nobody is really interested in it except for a few really liberal areas. Are Americans really interested in gay films with graphic scenes of gay sex? It would appear not…
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/weekend
Family oriented P and PG 13 films are starting to dominate the film market from what I read here.
As a theater owner I have to make this kind of choice every week. The choice is made on whether the movie available will make more money for me than another movie available or one that I’m already playing.
If I don’t think “First Descent” PG-13 will make money – compared with continuing to play “Dreamer” then I pass on it.
I know “Brokeback” won’t make money at my theater, I won’t play it, it’s a business choice…content, I don’t like the content at all! But there are a lot of movies I play at my theater that I don’t like the content. I play what I play because it makes money, I don’t play what I don’t play because I don’t think they will make money for me. A simple business choice shouldn’t be blown-up into something it’s not.
just use wisdom for heavens sake about movies you and your family watch.
dont judge others by the movies they watch.
use wisdom.
this is one R-rated movie I wont see. I dont see alot of R movies, (hardly any) and I always check the content, not to justify but to make sure its something I am ok with.
one I jsut saw that I would recommend for my fellow LDS is MURDERBALL.
great documentry.
Andy
From the reviews of it at http://www.imdb.com it seems as though more than a few people(most of which seemed to be homosexual) thought it wasn’t graphic enough. Kinda makes me wonder why most people are going to see the movie. It seems like many of them are going looking for pron, or similar. But instead they find a love story and are disappointed. Makes me wonder what the main interest of most mainstreem homosexual people really is.
That’s just it, Don. There were two business choices. The first choice was to show it. The second choice was to cancel the showing at virtually the last minute. Doesn’t sound to me like a very sound business practice.
Andermom,
Based on what I have read on the content, I really fail to see how people can consider this a graphic portrayal of homosexual sex. For that matter, there is a substantial amount of heterosexual sex in it as well.
Just posting to echo Clark’s comment in #2. The first thing my wife asked when we heard about this was, “Is that stupid megaplex showing Hostel?” Yup. Anyone who can maintain with a straight face that Brokeback Mountain could be more questionable than Hostel because is is more sympathetic to homosexuality really needs to reconsider their position.
Heaven forbid we LDS would take a stand against stupid films in addition to the merely immoral ones. We’d cut out 80% of cinema, but we’d be better for it.
Geoff,
I don’t get it. You say:
“But anybody who lives in Utah knows that the market there does not treat R-rated fare as well as, say, New York City.”
I am not sure that this is the case. It is very rare for a film to be pulled froma theater in Utah because of R-rated content. It might be that such films aren’t booked to begin with very often, but this hasn’t been my experience. They pretty much show the same films in Utah as they do anywhere else. More if you count Sundance.
John, while that is true, from statistics I’ve seen, family fare does much better in Utah than elsewhere. It’s true that the big R-rated blockbusters do about as good as business here as elsewhere. But I think there is a definite screw to what is successful here as opposed to elsewhere. You can see it just by what films stay in the theatres a long time as opposed to comparing what is selling on the top ten films nationwide.
Geoff, I just read what Ledger said, and I don’t think he compares UT mormons with WV racists. He seems to address them seperately.
There is nothing graphic about the homosexual sex in this movie. If you turn on the television right this minute, you’ll see more explicit sexual content on any number of soap operas than you will in this movie.
Don’t go see the movie if you don’t like the idea of men falling in love with each other. Geoff B. and those of you here sharing your decision not to see this movie are obviously not alone. Larry David wrote very eloquently of why he is choosing not to see the movie in a guest editorial in the NY Times a few days ago called “Cowboys Are My Weakness”
Disregard my earlier comment, I seem to have misread the article.
What is unclear is whether Jordan Commons was showing the movie earlier? It says that the movie started showing in Utah on December 28. Perhaps JC managament saw disappointing revenues from other theaters and decided not to run it.
Ironically, I had no desire to see this movie before this bloggernacle brouhaha. My wife will be happy since she was going have to go see it alone.
Put another $2 in Mr. Ledger’s bank account, courtesy of M*!
Elisabeth, do you like the idea of men falling in love with each other? And then marrying women instead?
It could very well be that LDS are not interested in seeing such a flick, but this is not at all an accurate description of the movie in question. This film is not particularly graphic, it’s not about sex, and it’s not even all about gay cowboys. It’s about love, family, parenthood, friendship, self respect, self preservation, choices, and consequences (among other things). Yes, sex is involved, but reductive, misinformed descriptions like the above are exactly the type thing that make LDS conservatives (and the rest of us, when we all get lumped together) sound silly and bigoted.
Now, do I think Heath would be better off keeping his mouth shut? Yes I do. And do I think his acting in the film was all it’s praised to be? Um…not really…I thought there were much better performances in the movie than his, and he’s probably being rewarded in large part for his “political” bravery, but that’s a topic for a different place and time.
Questioner: well, it’s complicated, isn’t it. Have you seen the movie? The “Brokeback Mountain” storyline reflects a reality that some people, unfortunately, have to deal with in their lives.
I’m well aware of those situations, as I have several homosexual relatives.
The question, rephrased, was whether you support and encourage men who are attracted to each other to engage in such relationships and then marry women?
I don’t fault theater owners for showing movies that are not appropriate for LDS viewers any more than I fault grocers who sell beer or 7-11s that sell cigaretts, or waitresses who sell alcohol. Or lawyers who represent guilty clients, or ER doctors who work on Sunday. These are all decisions people have to make in this world. Not once have I ever heard someone criticize a checker at a grocery store or Wal-Mart even though all these stores sell material that violates commandments we live by.
Showing a movie like BM may be sympathetic toward same-sex relationships, it may even paint religious conservatives as the villians (we’re not villians), but I think a theater owner can show a movie like that in good conscience just as much as any other controversial story. I don’t think a business should be force to sell something they don’t want to either just to make someone else feel more PC.
Finally, many of the stereotypes about Hollywood actors, gays, and even Mormons are true for the most part. Thats why the stereotypes exist. All three groups exibit intolerance for those who disagree with their point of view. As Mormons we believe in loving, but we often get offended by people like Heath (I was offended initially). President Hinckley even said we love homosexuals, we don’t condone homosexual acts but we love our brothers and sisters. Despite the central theme of the churce being love (God and fellow man) we still have a long way to go, speaking for myself of course.
Questioner: Hmmm. What does my answer to that question have to do with the movie? Have you seen the movie?
Wow, so many comments since I last signed on. Let me address a few of them.
1)Rusty (#22), here is what Ezra Taft Benson said in the April 1986 conference:
“Don’t see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic.” I count at least 10 other conference talks in which we are counseled not to see R-rated movies. As for my logic, I guess we just have a different definition of what “logic” means, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
2)Davis, (#33). I’d like to see the complete discussion. That’s the way I took it, but perhaps he was misquoted or the context is different.
3)John, (#31), I have seen stories indicating that there are fewer R-rated movies per population in Utah than in other areas. I don’t have time to find them now, but perhaps another time.
4)Elisabeth and EmilyS, I have not seen the movie, but have read numerous movie sites and reviews that call the homosexual sex graphic. If you didn’t find it so, well, you disagree with the reviewers on that issue. You may want to consider the possibility that there is a different “ick” factor for some people than others with homosexual sex.
I wouldn’t get too upset about what Heath had to say about the Mormons. He also said that West Virginians (wrong state) were lynching people in 1981 (wrong decade).
Uhm –
the main characters in Brokeback Mountain are sheepherders, not cowboys.
And (from what I’ve heard and read) the difference between “Hostel” and “Brokeback Mountain” is one tries to make you embrace a sinful lifestyle, and the other clearly condemns the sinful acts of the bad guys.
Not that I’m going to see either. I see so few movies as it is, I reserve my time for the much worthier fantasy and sci-fi genres.
Hmm – badly worded above. It shouldn’t say “embrace a sinful lifestyle.” substitute “make you approve of a sinful lifestyle” instead.
“I count at least 10 other conference talks in which we are counseled not to see R-rated movies.”
How many of them in the last ten years?
Geoff, you’ve taken Pres. Benson’s counsel out of it’s original context. It was said in a Priesthood session talk specifically geared to the Young Men. Over and over Pres. Benson said his counsel was for the young men. As you can see from the original quote, he did so in the very paragraph you only partially quoted:
He repeated the counsel later in a similar talk to the Young Women.
It also speaks against your argument that there doesn’t appear to be any mention of movies in the new True to the Faith except for pornography. You can argue that some things shown in an R-rated move are pornographic (I could even side with you to some degree in that), I suppose, but were the R-rating-as-standard policy a churchwide tenet it certainly would have been included in TTTF.
I’m not vested in any way in R-rated movies; in fact I hardly watch any movies at all. Still, there was a context to Pres. Benson’s counsel and to read it out of that context is disingenuous.
I wonder what the hundreds of thousnds of members who live outside the U.S. and without a movie rating system think when reading that quote. “What’s rated-R?”
Sorry for piling on, and adding to the threadjack.
I really, really hope this thread doesn’t turn into another “are R-rated movies okay?” thread.
Let’s start another thread on that if people want to discuss it.
Personally, I’m rather tired of the debate. AML-list has to go through it at least once a year, and the Bloggernacle at least twice a year. And the arguments are ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME WITH NO VARIATION. It is never a debate – just a series of people offering unnuance platitudes.
If I watch edited movies from Cleanflicks.com that were rated R but the offensive content is removed, is that still bad? Just kidding, maybe I’ll watch BBM when the edited version comes out just to see if Heath’s acting is that good, he certainly didn’t act well in Brother’s Grimm.
Rated-R means less to me since Cleanflicts came out, only that I may have to wait to see a movie if I really want to. Matrix, for example, was incredible.
I really, really, want to see this movie. For one thing, Heath and Jake are so hot. And I love guys in old dirty clothes (my husband doesn’t know what it does for me when he mows the lawn and comes in and takes off his shirt or he would do it more often). And the longing looks they cast each other in the trailers, I imagine if they were looking at me like that (when one gets to a certain age, it’s okay to think that, in my opinion, it’s just an old lady having fun). I certainly can’t imagine a man looking at another man like that.
I read that they did the sex scenes first because they both dreaded it and wanted to get it over with. (does it perturb anyone when I end with a preposition)
Basically, the movie is a soap opera. They do it all the time on soap operas, the love and longing, “but, we can’t be together.” “I will love you always” stuff like that. But with guys. And cowboys, at that. I don’t think the movie would be half as interesting if the gay guys were stock brokers or car salesmen.
I think, for this reason, it is probably over-rated. Sure, it was hard for them to act opposite to what they are, an achievement, but a lot of what will be called excellence is actually just the same old story with different settings.
Although, I have always wondered how it is done with homosexuals. I think about it and I can’t figure it out. How do they do sex? I have two gay friends I could ask, but from them I don’t want to know.
But I don’t want to know bad enough to go to the movie. And you know, what did they expect? They knew they were making a controversial movie. I think they love having us to complain about because if nobody shunned their movie, where would they get publicity? I think it would have been better to pretend it’s just another movie and forget about it.
I am careful about r-ratings, but I don’t let them boss my life. Like the other day, we got this movie called The Last Raid I think, with Benjamin Bratt. And that movie could have been on public TV. It was rated R. but I don’t know why.
Not by much. An Entertainment Weekly Article last year had a graph showing R-rated watching among states. Utah was nowhere near the bottom. In fact countrywide was pretty close to equal. I’m willing to bet Wedding Crashers and 40-Year-Old Virgin stayed in theaters in Utah as long as they did anywhere else (it seemed like 40-year-old was here forever).
It’s nothing close to a bomb. It was cheaply made and is bringing in an average of $11856 per theater. The number one movie this week brought in $9111 per theater. Many movies (like Big Fat Greek Wedding) start in very few theaters and expand after Oscar season. And has anyone that keeps commenting on Graphic Gay Sex back up these statements? From what I’ve read it isn’t any more graphic than any PG-13 movie, it just happens to be between two men instead of men and women. Would you be trying to prove any other R rated movie was a bomb if it had sex between a man and a woman?
The move is getting great reviews, even by conservative Utah newspapers.
This whole thing sounds like somebody got sick at teh thought of two guys kissing and decided to pull the movie. Killing gay people in movies? O.k. Cutting of limbs of living people? O.k. Dropping women in a pit full of needles? O.k. Men kissing? immoral.
Darn tags.
Oh and despite my defense of the movie I won’t be seeing it. Sappy love stories aren’t my thing, I’d rather see King Kong this weekend.
annegb,
If you don’t know how it’s done, you’re probably happier not knowing (at least, I think I would be …).
Gay male sex isn’t likely to sell well (too icky for too many people). Gay female sex however, seems to have a thriving audience (as long as said females are nice looking). Little double-standard going on here, no doubt.
Sorry for my hijacking of the comments. I listen to a Hollywood podcast every week. One week they were interviewing an executive of a studio that addressed this very issue. He said sometimes a director will add or subtract a few words to get the rating he wants. A studio may require a PG-13 movie so the director will do nothing more than change the direction a sex scene is filmed from, or drop a couple of F words. If a director has more control over a movie and thinks it will appeal to adult audiences more, he may add two or three f-words just to get the R rating he wants.
This is why ratings are bunk in my opinion. Other than G rating, I am not comfortable letting my daughter watch anything. There are too many similarities between PG, PG-13 and R. Sometimes I’ll watch a movie and wonder how it possibly got a PG rating, other times I’ll be watching and find myself in the same situation you describe, wondering how something was possibly rated R.
Uh, sorry for the long posts, I’m a bit of a movie business geek.
I think many people would see homosexual activities that are PG-13 with heterosexuals as intrinsically being more graphic. It is one thing to see the back of a woman, even on TV, with her on a man. Quite an other when it is two men. (IMO of course)
Okay, Clark, I’m trying to picture that. I just can’t.
Seth, I know you’re right. Which is why I haven’t asked my friends.
Technically, annegb, you ended your sentence with an adverb (i.e. ‘get over with’ rather than ‘get over’).
Whoop. That was me.
Re: #48
Here are a couple quotes within the last 10 years. I find them sufficiently compelling.
Oh, brethren, please don’t sell your precious priesthood birthright for a mess of X- or R-rated pottage. -John H. Groberg, “Priesthood Power,†Ensign, May 2001
It is a concern that some of our young Latter-day Saints, as well as their parents, regularly watch R-rated and other inappropriate movies and videos. One more reason why the “devil laugheth, and his angels rejoiceâ€-Joe J. Christensen, “The Savior Is Counting on You,†Ensign, Nov. 1996
Hardly a prophet’s warning, eh AH?
LOL! Wow, I never thought I’d live to see the day where a bloggernacle thread discusses the mechanics of gay sex. Congrats, M*!!
Actually he wouldn’t have to add anything. He can simply ask for it, and it is done. You can ask for a higher rating, but must qualify for a lower one.
Tim,
I really cannot belive you. I’ve seen many PG-13 movies that were PG through and through but they throw in 1 gratuitus F-Bomb and get the 13. Maybe Directors want to use up their quota, but I believe a movie can have 3 F words and still be PG 13 (if there is nothing else offensive in the movie).
It also depends on whether the word is being used as a verb or as a noun.
No one should ever take an actor seriously. They are all line readers. If it isn’t in a script rest assured that they won’t be able to say it intelligently. Even when it is scripted they only get it 25% of the time.
You have been snarked:
http://snarkernackle.blogspot.com/2006/01/naclers-re-angered-by-hater-of-cowboy.html
Heli,
What I am saying, is if a director/producer has a movie that has been reviewed by the MPAA and it receives a PG-13 rating, and he wants it to appeal to a more mature audience, he can simply ask for and receive an R-rating, without having to add anything to the movie to make it qualify for said rating. This doesn’t work the same way if he receives an R-rating and wants a PG-13–then we would have to do some editing.
From the article: Ledger said he was not surprised a Utah cinema had banned Brokeback Mountain
Why are they using the word ‘ban’? It’s one or a few theaters deciding not to show it? How does this constitute banning? Fact is … it doesn’t, but the word ‘ban’ gains more press than if you say ‘Theater X decided not to show it’.
Didn’t even know what the content of the movie was and didn’t plan on seeing it. Now that I know, I won’t even consider seeing it … easy enough. Or am I intolerant because I choose not to support a ‘diversity’ movie … or am I banning it now?
Well, it appears my secret plot to boost M* traffic has worked once again. All you have to do is mentioned “gay stuff” and — boom! — 73 comments (make that 74 now). We even got Elisabeth to come back to M*. I’m not sure why she wasn’t attracted to Rough Stone Rolling discussions instead of this thread…
Gay male sex isn’t likely to sell well (too icky for too many people). Gay female sex however, seems to have a thriving audience (as long as said females are nice looking). Little double-standard going on here, no doubt.
I completely agree with Seth, and this boggles my mind. Mostly men (in my experience reading other threads) gripe about ‘Brokeback Mountain,’ but no one complains about films like ‘Anger Management’, or any number of films (sure, ‘Bound’, if you want to go there, but it’s not very good, had to watch it for a film course) that have lesbians making out. Granted, I know I’m comparing apples to oranges here (AM-a comedy, one of the worst films ever, BM-drama, very good), but in principle, gay men seem to be a much greater threat than lesbians and I can’t fathom why, except that lesbians are usually shown to tittilate men and therefore aren’t a threat to the ‘normal’ order of things.
(btw, I did see BM and IMHO, the heterosexual sex scenes are more graphic than the gay sex scenes, we see much more of the ladies than we do of the men. But no one seems to really care about that. Also, BM is doing a smashing job at the Broadway in Salt Lake, some of the highest grosses per theater in the nation. Obviously people in Utah are seeing this film.)
Geoff B:
I may be taking this a bit too seriously, but I’m sorry if my comments yesterday were disrespectful to you or M*. I was hesitant to participate in the thread, but I have seen the movie – and wanted to add my two cents to try to clarify some of the (what I thought to be) misconceptions about the movie by people who had never seen the movie. But then I may have crossed the line with my comment about gay sex on M* – I really was joking, but I guess my tone may have been interpreted as mocking rather than comically ironic.
I do recognize that I need to be careful in my comments at M*, because I don’t want people to think that I left M* because of any mistreatment or misunderstandings. I enjoyed blogging at M*, but it became apparent that I stuck out like a sore thumb, and I didn’t think I was adding very productively to the discussions.
Anyway, I’m next in line at our house to read “Rough Stone Rolling†(my husband is currently hogging it), but I haven’t had much to add to the discussion of the book so far.
Elisabeth, blogging and e-mails are an imperfect medium for conveying humor. That appears especially clear for me. My #74 was meant to be completely humorous. I think I understand completely why you left M*, but that does not mean I don’t miss you and wish you all the best.
If someone is saying that a film about homosexuals is not welcome in a community’s theatre, what does it say about homosexuals in the community?
“And (from what I’ve heard and read) the difference between “Hostel” and “Brokeback Mountain” is one tries to make you embrace a sinful lifestyle, and the other clearly condemns the sinful acts of the bad guys. “
How does a movie that spends two solid hours in a bath of blood, severed limbs and sex “condemn sinful acts”??? That is a huge stretch.
Scott H –
I’ll say this: Portrayal does not equal approval.
I personally will not see Hostel because I have no desire to see it. But to argue that merely because a movie portrays something automatically means it approves of it is rather odd. That leads to movies with no conflict, no evil, and hence no real plot or reason to watch.
Just admit it, Elisabeth — you left because the pay was better at BCC. It’s okay to say that. People leave for better pay all the time.
Of course, it doesn’t always work. The other day, I tried to squeeze more pay out of T&S by throwing a hissy fit and threatening to leave them and go join Ned Flanders. That was a surprisingly ineffective tactic, at least once it became clear which way the wind was blowing.
I hope that you negotiated a steady supply of chocolate donuts as part of your BCC compensation. Alas, I didn’t think to include a shpeherd pie clause in the contract when I joined T&S. I want to renegotiate my deal, and I need to find a good labor and employment attorney. Any thoughts on where I could find one?
Anne,
You probably want to go to a library and peruse a few books some time, by yourself. Less awkward than asking your friends, point blank.
Seth,
I’ve never quite figured out the reason for the double standard, but you’re quite right about it.
Rusty,
Ignoring your feelings won’t make them go away.
Ivan, while I agree, I think it clear that Hostel is a bit of an homage to the exploitation films of the 70’s that were popularized by the need for films for drive-ins and that often targeted young men. It really is designed to glorify in the violence. Whether it “condones” the violence is not really the issue. I don’t think it does. And one could even make the argument, from what I’ve read, that it is attempting to link up the exploits of arrogant Americans in the sex markets of Europe with violence and dehumanization. If so, it by most accounts fails miserably. But I think the issue is less whether it condones the violence than whether it attempts to titillate through violence.
Put an other way, one could make a pornographic moving involving adultery in which adultery isn’t condoned. That doesn’t exactly excuse the pornography.
Also note I’m not taking a huge stand on all this and condemning Miller. I just think he’d have more of a position were he not showing these films that arguably are worse than BM. But certainly it is his theatre and his right. Further a lot of the commotion is silly considering how many theatres in SLC showed various Sundance films over the years, many of which were far more political and sexual than BM. So a lot of the national press makes little sense.
It’s a wonderful movie. I think you will all be moved by it. It’s very sad, and there’s something about it that’s new. There’s even a kind of spiritual message… I think everyone should see it (adults, I mean).
Clark –
well, as I said, I haven’t seen, nor plan to see Hostel.
I can also understand how something that tries to condemn violence but is awash in it can actually promote it.
I just get tired of “it has bad stuff in it! It is therefore bad” arguments. It’s like those members who tell me playing Dungeons and Dragons is evil and satan worship. I ask why. They say “well, there are magic and demons in it aren’t there?” and I say: “well, yeah.” And then they shove their finger in my face “See! It’s evil. How can you defend it!” Heck, I know members who think the Lord of the Rings movies are evil and encourage devil-worship (I once heard several women at church complaining about the evil spirit their husbands brought into the house when they watched LoTR on TV once).
So, while I have some sympathy for the argument that a movie that condemns but is yet awash in violence can inadvertantly promote it, I have no sympathy for the argument that if the movie is violent, it approves of and endorses that violence.
(or sex or overeating or whatever).
The President of Cinemark movies (a fairly large theater chain) is LDS and I know that Cinemark is showing the film. So not all LDS are homophobic bigots like Larry Miller.
The only rational explanation for pulling the film in the fashion that it was pulled is bigotry against homosexuals and I, for one, am about fed up with the prevalence of ignorance and intolerance on this topic so often manifested by so-called followers of Christ. If it were a principled stand against showing movies with content at odds with LDS values, then certainly this theater would not be showing Hostel (as has been mentioned). If it were purely a business decision, it would have been made before entering an agreement to show the film in the first place.
Did Larry Miller’s Theaters show Birdcage (1996)?
Post #86 was not made by me. I protest the misuse of my pseudonym in this fashion.
Accompanying the assertion that this could have been a decision rooted in bigotry againsty homosexuality, there is a real possibility that Mr. Miller was contacted by church authorities suggesting that he refuse the film.
I love all the name calling.
Refusal to believe homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle = homophobia. (such an overused term).
Tolerance apparently really means “total acceptance and approval.”
M.E.-
well, those in Utah have to be careful, what with those Danites and secret cameras in public places.
Ivan the Wolfe –
Good Point. I forgot about the Boogey-Woogies. They are *scary*. I suspect a movie about those guys would be great, and rated G.
Clarvid –
and what exactly were his actions? He refused to show a movie. Oh, the horrors! People might have to go to another Movie Theatre.
Last I saw, there was no requirment Larry Miller play every movie ever released. I admit he may be in violation of some distribution contract, but heck, I’ve saw movie theatre owners praised as heroes for refusing to show “The Passion of the Christ” so I’m not seeing that point.
Yeah, I don’t really care what Larry Miller did, or what Heath said, for that matter. Go to the movie! It’s really good.
I’m most confused by the lack of commentary from Mr. Miller regarding his actions. I’m curious what the silence means. Does it mean he thinks his intentions are obvious? Does it mean he is embarrassed about his real intentions? If he were embarrassed it seems like he would quickly issue a statement to name some reason for his actions. Maybe he realized after the fact that he and his theater are inadvertenly representing the entire LDS community in SLC.
I personally think he didn’t realize that not showing the film would make such a splash. Doing the math the movie isn’t being shown on many screens anywhere 483 according to yahoo. (Compared with others showing on 2000-3500 screens) I don’t think he’s the only one not showing it at his theater but he is certainly the most famous, and has the most easy to pick on religion.
SO Clarvid,
All LDS people who oppose showing BBM are “homophobic bigots.” Sounds like you have some tolerance issues. Homosexuality is not like race in the first place. Its more like being an atheist (there is allegedly a genetic component to atheism). It is a state of mind comprised of particular beliefs. Race on the other hand does not affect actions, beliefs, or perceptions unless someone makes an issue of it.
Sexual orientation affects how someone interacts with society. It affects the propogation of the species and contribution to the growth of society. You may believe this is a good thing or bad thing, nevertheless it is different than race.
And before you go off, think about what you’re saying. Having lived in the South I know of Bigots and Mormons do not generally fit that description. Maybe you are using a hate filled word to provoke thought in an attempt to change minds but comparing someone with a group far worse rarely provokes the intended change I assume you seek. Maybe you are gay and have sufferred from Mormons who do not treat you with love. Maybe you are trolling and have picked up a few comments, put a few more notches in your sword and move on.
The word Homophobic implies fear, but believing that Homosexual acts are sinful does not comport with the concept of fear. I believe that drinking coffee is a sin, but I do not fear coffee drinkers. Nor do I dislike coffee drinkers or homosexuals. However I will not be coerced into saying these acts are not against the will of God.
I don’t think opposing a film that glorifies coffee drinking would be excessively opprobrious. Though I must admit that excluding BBM from being displayed at JC Megaplex is inconsistent with other films if that truely is the reason it was not shown.
Kaimi, you are always welcome to join me on the dark side. Counterintuitively (at least for lawyers), you’ll find that being on the dark side in blogging nets you significantly less pay. I had to eat pixels last night instead of dinner.
D.,
Well I’d like to go see the movie, of course. But Rusty just keeps avoiding my phone calls. What’s a guy to do?
Heli,
Even assuming you’re right on the whole choice thing, isn’t it possible to condemn, as bigotry, certain types of intolerance against groups of people based on their choices?
After all, I think many (most?) members would decry anti-Mormon sentiment as bigotry — and yet Mormonism is certainly a consciously chosen characteristic.
Ivan,
I think the issue is that Miller didn’t just quietly decide not to play the film. Rather, the theater deliberately flouted the fact that it withdrew the film. The theater was pandering to the conservative Mormon audience.
If they didn’t want to play it, they don’t book it, simple enough. What they did — booking the film, withdrawing it, making a big public announcement — seems to be an attempt to burnish their Mormon credentials by publicly distancing themselves from the film. If they really cared about the feelings of the more conservative Mormon audience, they wouldn’t have booked the film in the first place, rather than booking it and then seeking to make a media circus out of their subsequent decision.
Clark,
Agreed — a film can sure put a lot of objectionable content on the screen while not expressly “condoning” the conduct.
Again, this number most likely has nothing to do with the content of the movie. Most small movies start on a small amount of screens. They either hit it big and expand, or quietly go away. March of the Penguins started small and expanded, not because of content, but because it was a low-budget movie with a small marketing budget. Theaters need to make room to show Harry Potter every 15 minutes.
Ned,
I’ll happily join you on the dark side, but only if you promise to save my dying young wife from the deadly disease that is killing her, which my d*** co-bloggers won’t step in to prevent. Oh, and she’s pregnant with twins.
Well, that — or if I get to glower a lot and wear a really cool mask.
Heli,
get back in your time warp machine, and go back to whatever planet you just came from.
an atheist gene? give me a break.
what is that supposed to mean? using the same logic, body odor of all kinds, scattological and otherwise, also effect how someone interacts with society. wealth affects how someone interacts with society, including the propogation of the species and the growth of society. heterosexuality the same. in fact, there are instances where heterosexuality contributed to the demise of society, see the brothers of dinah, those are some mean heterosexuals there.
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own. mormons are not all bigots, neither are they immune from being such. it sounds to me like you are a bigot if you are intolerant of any opinion differing from yours as it relates to homosexuality. dont shy from it brother. given your convictions, you may choose to wear the union label proudly. but get yourself some thick skin if you are going to be so convicted.
given your disdain for homosexuality, i read your suggestion that clarvid may be gay as a sharp jab. not so cool.
later helimonster.
Kaimi –
from what I understand Miller was not pandering to the Mormon audience, he decided to cancel the movie, but not in time to change the advertising. It seems we should assume a more charitable motivation: Tell those who want to see the movie not to come here because we ain’t showing it, despite what our advertising does.
Whatever happened to Hanlon’s razor. Many commentators are assuming malice or cynical motives on Miller’s part. Why not assume misunderstandings or at least ineptness?
Heli,
I truly hope that your post is sarcastic in nature and that you are someone posing, in the words of the great Dunamis, as a “crazed hyper-Mormon.” Otherwise, if your words are written without irony and can’t be taken at face value, then I must say I have not witnessed such an impressive display of ignorance on parade in many a moon. Your attitude, and the attitudes of others who may be classed your intellectual bedfellows, is what has led me to re-evaluate my association with the Church of Jesus Chrost of Latter-day Saints after many years of faithful, devoted membership. I am sure you meant to insult me with your assertion that I might be gay. Sorry to disappoint; I do not see that as an insult. Perhaps your worldview is so narrow as to foreclose any other possible explanation for why someone would not endorse the demonization of an entire class of our fellow human beings. Perhaps one would only sympathize with those who are offended by Larry Miller’s action if one is gay. I feel for anyone such as you, on whom the Lord was so unfortunately parsimonious in the bestowal of intellectual gifts. I wish you as much happiness as you may be able to achieve wallowing in the pigsty of ignorance in which you find yourself and it is my most insincere wish that you may be ever free of the evil influences of homosexuals and coffee-drinkers, some of whom have, it is rumored to every right-thinking person’s dismay and horror, even been sighted in the very shadows of the Wasatch Mountains.
Hmm –
this thread isn’t really about Larry Miller and Brokeback Mountain.
Instead, it’s about who’s morally superior in the gay debate. Odd (or not) how that tends to happen.
Where in my post did I in any way express distain for homsexuality? Because I belive homosexual acts are against the will of God? I compared this with drinking coffee, does that not suggest that I don’t view homosexuals with distain, or do you think I distain coffee drinkers like certain members of my family? I explicitly said in my post I do not dislike homsexuals and in a previous post I said we are commanded to love homosexuals. I never stated that I was morally superior and I certainly did not mean my comment about Clarvid as a jab. I know that just as Mormons feel under attack at times, gays feel the same way and often react with anger just as I and other humans do. Clarvid are you just trolling? Not once did I insult you and if you are gay, welcome to the club of sinners like the rest of us. Oh, did you think Mormons aren’t sinners? We all are, news flash!
On the other hand the comments about getting in a time machine or that I must be sarcastic if I believe my religion is offensive. The characterization of all orthodox religious Mormons, Muslims, Jews, and Christians as bigots is ridiculous. Each orthodox group believes homosexual acts are against the will of God. That is not to say we hate, fear, or distain homosexuals. Do you really think that I hate coffee drinkers? Did you read my entire post?
Clarvid I’m sorry I’m sooo ignorant (sarcasm), please explain any specific instance where my ignorance was displayed in context. Don’t attack me attack my arguments, please address any of the assertions I made. You say that I am a sarcastic, “crazed hyper-Mormon,” ignorant, offensive, insulting, narrowminded, stupid, and wallowing in a pigsty of ignorance. Either you are trolling, you are the intolerant one, or you are sarcastic.
I can say based on your post that you, my good man, are a hypocrite, you claim that I demonize and entire class of society, which I didn’t unless you think I also demonized coffee drinkers, give me a break. You are the one that demonized and entire religion as bigots (with a few exceptions). You don’t know me, nor how I treat anyone. Please disclose any of my remarks that demonize an entire class of fellow humans. Are you really relying on the sin aspect? Do you think I don’t sin? Or that I view sinners with distain? Before you go throwing insults around ask a question or two, at least attempt to direct an argument at an assertion I made. Mabye take that giant chip off your shoulder and try for a moment to understand what I wrote.
I was only able to find one substantive argument in your post. I will address it to say that I sympathize with those who are offended by Larry Millers action and I’m not gay. I can understand why people are offended, but that doesn’t justify the “demonization of an entire class of fellow humans” So that argument doesn’t bear much weight. If you reread your post you may find that every sentance is an insult directed at me except that one.
If you reread my post you will see it is almost entirely comprised of assertions and arguments that can be addressed without attacking the author. If they are wrong I would be glad to know it. If I am wrong I will admit it (again sarcasm).
(just kiddint I will admit it)
Finally, please explain exactly how me and my intellectual bedfellows caused you to re-evaluate your membership? I certainly would not want offend you with my ignorance so educate me by addressing specific assertions I made, please don’t just insult me for another paragraph.
Sorry for the long post and for taking the insult personally. I know I shouldn’t be thin skinned if I’m going to assert such controversial arguments. I apologize for anything that is directed at you personally Clarvid.
That’s just exactly part of my point. It’s a small movie, that isn’t being shown all over the place like Harry Potter is. I’m guessing that because it is a smaller film, he (shortsightedly) didn’t think removing it would cause the uproar that it has caused.
Antiheli
I apologize to you also because your post was full of substance and I only addressed part of it. First I want to reiterate I neither meant to suggest that Clarvid was gay nor that if he was that would be an insult. I only was seeking to understand why he was so full of vitrole, and I should not have done so out loud. Since Clarvid is a member, saying his sexuality might be the reason for his anger can easily be seen as an insult and I apologize again.
Second I explicitly said that homosexuality is not good or bad, but clearly different than race. I agree that numerous factors affect how people interact with society, but none of the factors you listed are the same as race. I compared orientation with atheism because: 1) both homosexuality and atheists allegedly may be associated with a gene; some scientists believe genes affect what people believe and why they believe. 2) They are also both beliefs or mental states that inform decisions and practices. If someone is homosexual they will act differently, unlike a racial difference which will not affect a persons actions. I probably should have compared sexual orientation to culture or some less potentially offensive mental state because many apparently find atheists offensive (I don’t).
Third I never said I was intolerant of others opinions. Please cite one place I was intolerant of others opinions. I may disagree and state why I disagree, but I certainly respect your opinion as well as Clarvids and anyone who disagrees with me.
Finally, why do my posts spark personal reaponses? I try not to attack someone personally and I realize that suggesting Clarvid might be gay as one possibility for his enthusiasm for this subject could be construed as an insult, though I seriously didn’t mean it as an insult. However, I was insulted at least 3 times by you and 10 times by Clarvid with personal attacks about my character. I’m not thin skinned, usually, but I believe that respecting conflicting ideas is what makes this country great. When you attack me personally its because you don’t want to hear or address what I have to say.
Oh and you’re certainly right that heterosexuals are responsible for far more evil on this planet than homosexuals (because of their numbers). I wouldn’t even attempt to comtemplate evil on a per capita basis (and I don’t mean that as sarcasm or an insult, just that such an attempt would be as inaccurate as it would be futile).
Kaimi,
The double standard isn’t too hard to pinpoint.
Guys tend to be more visually oriented in this area than women. So suggestive images have a bit more impact on a guy than a girl (although women are being taught in the past 10 years to artificially act more like the guys in this respect).
Essentially, for a lot of guys, two women is just more of a good thing.
But I should also point out, that I’ve heard women remark that they aren’t half as creeped out by male homosexuality as they are by female homosexuality.
So the double standard seems to be only in entertainment values and not in human acceptance?
this is absolutely untrue. this is urban legendary. just plain untrue, untrue, untrue.
women and men are equally stimulated by pornography.
Kaimi,
I don’t think they were looking for attention at all. In fact, I think the motive was just the opposite – to avoid negative attention they thought might come.
The story in brief: Thursday, the day before the film was scheduled to start, Larry Miller had no idea what the movie was or anything about it. He was in an interview Thursday and the interviewer asked him about his theaters showing a potentially controversial film. A couple hours later, the film was cancelled. They probably thought they were barely escaping a big scandal at the last moment, and it backfired on them. I believe the public announcement was made by the media.
FYI, I only made one post with this pseudonym. (#75)
I was traveling yesterday evening and hadn’t looked at this board since I made that post yesterday. Either I accidentally stole someone else’s name (I’ve used it elsewhere on the bloggernacle, but never here), or someone else is posing as me. Just so you know.
For anybody who’s interested, the flap made the front page of IMDb.com today: “Brokeback”: The Scourge of Latter Day ‘Plaints.
eric, you are implying that the reaction was fast and directly rellated to the movie topic, homosexuality.
I agree its millers right to make any business decision he wants and accept the risks and consequences, whatever they may be.
one of the consequences is being percieved, rightly or wrongly, that he is unfriendly to homosexual media and possibly critical of homosexuals. it is in many ways just a business decision, or a consumer decision, on the part of producers and movie consumers to draw that conclusion.
I say that he made the right decision. The stalwart faithful LDS find homosexual behavior sinful and sympathetic protrayals of it offensive.
The comments above I am comfortable making in a talk on Sunday or in a SS class or YM meeting. In fact I have heard similar things recently in Stake conference. I find the comments in favor of the film to be far far out of the mainstream of LDS opinion. Go check the Ensign or Romans 6 if you disagree. Or maybe check the BYU honor code or perhaps the baptisimal interview checklist.
Larry should copme out and say that he finds homosexual sin offensive and get it over with. There is value in being honest.
well good for you if you would feel comfortable with such an expression. it is after all, your own expression.
if it was said in stake conference then at least one other person shares your views. though i agree it is many more.
if it was in the ensign then at least one other man in a white shirt shares your views. though i agree many others not only share that mans view but do so because of that man.
i doubt romans 6 mentions brokeback mountain or theaters. but i suspect you are not alone in your interpretation or acceptance of romans 6 as accurate, true and endorsed by god.
the byu honor code? seriously, you dont even accept the journal of discourses as pure doctrine or perfect counsel. the honor code is a control mechanism for a subscribed group of consumers. irrelevant. though b. bell, you are right that those that invented the code and those that adhere to it as a life guide or as a “while i am at byu guide” would likely agree with you.
the baptismal interview checklist? whaaaaa? is there anything in there about portrayal of homosexuality? there is a question about whether one has participated. its an added bonus to the standard questions. if you have any experience with that process you know that interviewees either have no experiences with homosexuality or if they do, the district leader calls the mission president on the phone and the mission president asks the district leader if the person repented and the district leader says yes and the district leader tells the interviewee that homosexuality is evil but if they repented they can still be baptised because the mission president said so. its a silly contrived process and a silly basis for larry miller to have made a business decision. especially in light of the fact that few converts stay active and by their actions and their feet declare their conviction to anything that is in the baptismal interview. thanks for the laugh.
oh, i forgot to add the possibility that the interviewee would just flat out lie in the interview. that was much more common in my mission and among people that were baptised in units where i was the wml.
“I’ll say this: Portrayal does not equal approval.”
My response goes in line with Clark’s in 82: Portrayal without approval (or disapproval) is often more sinister than portrayal with approval, when the end object is to capitalize on the voyeurism for profit. The love of money truly is the root of all evil.
While I applaud Larry Miller’s desire to stand by his conviction, this certainly isn’t the only example of his inconsistent application of a skewed ethical code. Consider way back when to when the Jazz were in the playoffs, and so much was made about his refusal to attend playoff games on Sunday. So, he can’t watch games on Sunday, but he is willing to pay his players, take money from his fans, and sell beer on Sunday? Just as long as he doesn’t watch?
Jack, I don’t think anyone knows exactly what went on. But I assume he talked to people who ran the theater, people who had seen the movie and could confirm that showing it could possibly raise some controversy in Utah.
Scott, I think you create a slippery slope. What matters is what we do ourselves. If we start being concerned about remotely related things, then we could go on a great deal about what companies we support, etc.
Portrayal still doesn’t equal approval.
But everyone who was quick to back Clark and shoot me down apparently failed to read my follow up comments, apparently.
I’ll put it this way: Portraying something does not equal approving of it. However, it is possible to portray evil, condemn it, and still have the evil come across as the more attractive and/or powerful force. Or its possible that the work of art dwells so much on the evil that any condemnation of the evil comes across as tacked on and/pr perfunctory.
It is also possible for the audience to miss the point, the artist to do the job ineptly or in bad faith, and so on.
For example, Alan Moore’s comic book “Watchmen” was designed to show the violent implications of super heroes. It was clearly a condemnation of violence. Anyone who reads it and thinks it glories in its constant parade of violence is missing the point. Yet a lot of readers did miss the point. Alan Moore has lamented too many readers came away from Watchmen thinking “cool! Now we can have more blood gore and sex in out super hero comics.” That doesn’t mean its celebratory of its violence.
I haven’t seen Hostel – and I won’t. I have no taste for that type of movie. However, in discussing it with fellow grad students who have seen it, I get the idea that while it is drenched in blood, it does not intend the audience go “Yeah! More blood and guts! Violence is cool and an morally correct lifestyle.” Instead, you are meant to be horrified that this type of violence might actually occur in real life.
Whereas Brokeback Mountain seems clearly designed to say “Aw, how sad that these two gay men didn’t live in a society that would approve of their union. Gay relationships are morally correct and even desireable.”
To me, there seems to be a world of difference between the two movies. Hostel uses sin to shock you, whereas Brokeback Mountain uses sin in order to get you to approve of it.
I agree with Ivan’s observation in post #104. So much of the whole debate has turned into a “I’m more tolerant than you are” contest. When did Tolerance become the most desired of all Virtues?
Is Larry Miller a bigot? I don’t think so. I would be very surprised if he didn’t have at least one openly gay employee in any of his businesses. We already know that several of his highest-paid employees are minorities.
Are these guys in the move heroes? An ongoing, intentional betrayal of wife and children? I don’t think so.
Kaimi, are you crazy? I would never ask my friends point blank. Like I said, from them I don’t want to know. They would probably love to tell me too, just to see me turn green.
It’s just a curious thing, like what’s going on with Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.
I don’t want to know about gay sex bad enough to ask my friends. I’m weird, from strangers, okay, but from people I know, I don’t even want to know about my heterosexual friends sex life. I just do not.
Re #110,
Oh yeah?
Says who?
Seth, I think #10 makes a good point. It wouldn’t bother me near as much to watch a murder, ie In Cold Blood, etc., as it would to watch two guys kissing. I don’t understand it, but there it is.
Actually, I am the sort who fast forwards over all kissing. I’m just uncomfortable with it, like a little kid who covers their face and goes ewwww.
I bowed out early in the debate, due to my very intolerant and unChrist-like feelings of wanting to kick some very, very, heterosexual @sses, but I came across this quote from Kai T. Erikson’s book Wayward Puritans:
American communities have always defined themselves in terms of who doesn’t belong in them. The deviant, whether religious, political, or sexual, has always needed to be identified from among the existing population, then exterminated or expelled. The expunged have tended to found their own little territories, which in turn establish their identities by driving out the unorthodox-who have to be invented if they don’t already exist.
If that doesn’t resonate with a Latter-day Saint, I don’t know what does. Have a nice day!
Thanks for contributing Wendy. I need a good kicking once in a while, but your quote seems to be an extremely cynical view of the world. To say that communities are “defined” by who they exclude is as intolerant as the behavior Kai intends to describe.
When I think of New York I think of Catholics,not who they exclude. It is certainly true that Mormons were excluded and moved to Utah where they build communities that are supposed to be strong in their values. But I don’t define Bountiful Utah by its exclusion of adult bookstores or strip clubs.
Having lived in Bountiful I inquired with a restaraunt chain why they did not have a location in Bountiful. They replied that a study showed that Bountiful residents do not consume enough alcohol to justify a restaraunt. The people don’t exterminate or expel people who drink, but they move to a place where the community reflects their values, just like most major cities have cultural areas like China town, Indie town, Irish sections, jewish areas, and so on. That doesn’t mean all these people expel or exterminate others, they simply move to a place they feel more comfortable.
All I’m saying is Mr. Erikson implies an intent to exclude when most of the time it appears to be like Adam Smith’s invisble hand. We even encourage diverse communities, but given the choice people move into communities they perceive to reflect themselves.
I equated the quote with LDS history in Missouri and surrounding areas and their eventual move to Utah, due to intolerance of the Saints’ religious, political and sexual practices. Then Mormons forming their own society and doing similar things as their tormenters, but your point is well taken Heli.
Maybe read the quote again in the context in which I placed it.
Thanks Wendy, I agree that Mormons formed their own very close society, but generally I don’t think we behave like our tormentors. Very few lynchings and the cost of tar and feathers has never gone up in Utah due to overuse.
I’ll definitely agree that tolerance is a challenge. As was stated above, what does it mean to be tolerant? Personally I think I’m very tolerant, I treat people of all types as similar as I can. Having been around a significant number of people who don’t share my beliefs I chose to see people as what they can be if possible.
One of my first experiences with intolerance was after discovering a friend that I played with as a kid had grown up in the chuch before we moved in the ward, but his mother had committed adultery and did not feel welcome at church. Hence her kids didn’t go to church, at the time it seemed to make sense. As I grew up and studied the gospel more it really bothered me when I read about the saviour’s interaction with the adulterous woman who advised that the one without sin throw the first stone. I was later told that the woman made some attempts to come to church but the other women saw her as a threat to their marriage (get serious) and were rude or at least short with her.
Everyone is welcome at church as it is our goal to make them feel welcome, this does not mean calling sin a lifestyle, but it also means we should be especially sympathetic to the lost sheep.
Is it just me, or is Heath Ledger obfuscating the real point*?
* – That he’s a no-talent hack who can’t carry a movie and it’s all the Mormons’ fault? He hasn’t been convincing in a role since “Ten Things I Hate About You”, and that was only because Julia Stiles was there to make Mr. Ledger look talented.
[Oh, and BTW, my wife disagrees with me on the talent bit.]
Hey, if Heath wants to spend his energy ranting and raving about some disservice done to him, a movie star with more money than God, I don’t care. I’m so disillusioned, he can say whatever he wants. Poor Larry. He has too many audiences to please. Can’t we all just get along?
I dont think right now they care one bit.
It got very well in the Golden globes and I’m sure that it will win many Oscars, so in thier mind little backwards Utah can go to he**.
I’m sure it will be rented through netflix and at other video stores in Utah.
I wont see it though, not rally interested in cowboys.
I’m not going to watch “Bareback Mountain” (as it’s come to be known). I’m not the only person with absolutely no interest in propaganda films. There are several theaters showing it here SLC and I haven’t heard of any long lines, so the demand isn’t high enough that it would be any advantage to anyone to have it in yet another theater.
What a deal! Larry gets to be more moral than Heath Bar, he gets to not have a theater or two with low attendance (it’s not like Star Wars, that people are going to see 20 times), and he gets all of this free advertising.
The thing is only on 685 screens nationwide, and it’s dropping like a rock. All the gays have seen it and they are running out of PC crowd who haven’t seen it.
Sorry for the comment to correct some of the wrong data that has been flying around this thread.
First, Brokeback Mountain is #2 for per theater gross. This last weekend it brought in over $6000 per theater that it played at. The only movie to do better is Underworld Evolution, which brought in $8000 per theater.
Second, Sorry to HIMSELF who posted above, but Brokeback is on over 1100 screens nationwide right now.
Third, for everyone to say that this was a business decision is retarded. Larry H. Miller was the one who gave the call to pull the film. His film buyer was out of town, in Hawaii when this happened. I’m not against him pulling the film, but I agree with others if he pulls the film he should pull others that have immoral values.
Why can it not be a business decision. On the four-day New Year’s frame, Brokeback Mountain earned $46,300 at the Broadway (in Salt Lake), landing among the top nationwide per-screen averages that weekend. For the weekend ending Jan. 8, the movie took in $18,823 there, still No. 1 in the complex, after Focus added the Century 16 and Cinemark 24 on the next Friday.
At the Century 16, Brokeback Mountain was also No. 1 with $12,741 and at the Cinemark 24, it made $7,056. All these figures were HIGHER than the national average! Yes, Sandy is a different demographic, but even the Megaplex will tell you…their theater is the premier theater line for all of the Salt Lake Valley.
If it was a business decision, it was the worst…if it was a moral decision, seems like they are the most inconsistent moral decision makers.
I was thinking this morning about that movie Horse Whisperer and the romance in it. The romance part was sort of boring. The only thing interesting in Brokeback Mountain is the fact that they’re gay. I am so tempted to watch just to see how one man expresses his love to another man because it’s so foreign to me.
But as a movie, as a story, it’s sort of boring. Like Bridges of Madison County. The fact that these are guys is its only redeeming factor in terms of plot. I suppose that’s original, but still, been there, done that.
Like I said, if these guys were stock brokers in New York, it would be really boring.
Brokeback still hasn’t done well as Farenheit 9/11.
It’s doing well, but like Farenheit 9/11 it’s only connecting with its core demographic and “red state” America is basically ignoring it.
“Red state” America isn’t ignoring Ivan Wolfe! Did you not read my earlier comment. A UTAH theater had the highest opening day average for Brokeback Mountain.
Utah was second in “red-state” voting after Idaho. People are seeing it in Utah for sure. It is making money in Utah. “Red-State” America is NOT ignoring it.
I haven’t seen the movie, don’t plan on it. I just hate the ignorance that the “moral” right throws out to prove a point. Open your eyes!
T. Jordan:
Notice I put Red State in quote marks thus: “red state”
yes, people in red states are seeing it. People in red states saw Farenheit 9/11.
But when we say “red state” we tend to mean conservative, Republican, religous. Those people did not see Farenheit 9/11 and they aren’t seeing Brokeback. Farenheit 9/11 did not connect with the “Heart of America” and neither is Brokeback.
However, it’s just a film. Too many people somehow are trying to read this as somesort of leftward drift among Americans, and it ain’t true. People were sure Farenheit 9/11 would help Bush loose in 2004, and that didn’t happen.
Brokeback will likely make 75 or 80 million (still far less than Farenheit 9/11’s approx. 120 million) do well in the awards show, be a big hit among its targert demographic, and make little impact on “red” America.
I’ll happily join you on the dark side, but only if you promise to save my dying young wife from the deadly disease that is killing her,
I’m assuming you are cracking a Star Wars joke and not talking about a real problem?