View Full Version : Brokeback Mountain

January 23rd, 2006, 10:21 AM
It finally opened here in Italy. Whew. I was amazed... it´s nice to see a big Hollywood film (even if it isn´t really a big Hollywood film, it sure reads that way) with a complex character like Ennis LaMar. This kind of film has been rare since the mid-70´s. What a beautifully written screenplay. Heath Ledger reminded me of John Voight /Bruce Dern /Jack Nicholson in their younger years.

On opening day in Naples, you could get in half-price if you told the box-office you were gay.

Of course everybody said they were gay.

Viva l´Italia!

January 23rd, 2006, 01:41 PM
Is it playing in a dubbed version or in original English language version?

TLOZ Link5
January 23rd, 2006, 01:53 PM
I'm surprised in particular about the muted response that it's gotten from the right. From what I've seen, there's been very little criticism worth noting as of yet.

January 23rd, 2006, 03:19 PM
I think they must be satisfied by the unhappy ending - especially how the pretty young thing finds a violent end after all his "sinning." I think they look to Ennis as a pretty good role model for living a homo life.

January 23rd, 2006, 03:22 PM
Bush was asked today during a Q&A following a speech at Kansas State University:

Audience member: "As a rancher, and knowing you're a rancher, I was wondering what you thought of "Brokeback Mountain"?"

Bush: "I haven't seen it ... ummm ... I haven't seen it ... errr ... I haven't seen it."

January 23rd, 2006, 04:18 PM
The film cost $14M to make and has grossed $42M to date. That's a hit.

January 23rd, 2006, 06:37 PM
The film cost $14M to make and has grossed $42M to date. That's a hit.

Yeah, definitely demonstrated that there's a market out there for quality gay media. Now if they could just live happily ever after...

January 23rd, 2006, 09:12 PM

Mon Jan 23 2006 17:09:44 ET

President Bush has so far skipped BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN -- the Hollywood hit about two homosexual cowboys.

During a Q&A session at Kansas State University today, a student asked Bush: "I was just wanting to get your opinion on BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN if you'd seen it yet."

The crowd laughed softly before the student said loudly: "You would love it! You should check it out."

"I haven't seen it," Bush said flatly. "I'd be glad to talk about ranching, but I haven't seen the movie," he said to laughter. "I've heard about it."

The president waited a second or two, then said, according to a transcript: "I hope you go -- (laughter) -- you know -- (laughter) -- I hope you go back to the ranch and the farm, is what I was about to say. I haven't seen it. (Laughter, applause.)"

January 23rd, 2006, 09:50 PM
Questions for Bush-Brokeback Mountain


Questions for Bush-Brokeback Mountain (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/23.html#a6831)

Are you a rancher?

(Update): Someone asked him about Brokeback Mountain (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/).

Q: You're a rancher, a lot of us here in Kansas are ranchers-I just wanted to get your opinion on Brokeback Mountain, if you'd seen it yet?

Bush: I hadn't seen it--I hope you go back to the ranch and the farms...

Video (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bush-Brokeback.wmv)-WMP Video (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bush-Brokeback.mov)-QT

What is that supposed to mean? He was definitely uncomfortable responding to that one.

January 27th, 2006, 11:58 AM
Mining 'Brokeback Mountain'

To Make Hit, Studio Wooed
Women, Weighed Venues;
New York's Microclimates

January 27, 2006

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113832222206557666-uVZ7ChbWaqLVSsF5WZVEcvI95Tg_20070126.html?mod=blog s

Despite the cracks about gay cowboys on late-night TV and chin-stroking about whether it would play in Peoria, "Brokeback Mountain" is poised to be not just one of the most praised films of the 2005 Oscar class -- it will become one of the most profitable movies of the year, and a mainstream one at that.

How did "Brokeback" break out? By surgically targeting where the movie would play in its initial release; selling it as a romance for women rather than a controversial gay-bashing tale; and opting out of the culture wars rather than engaging them.

"I'm more proud of what we didn't do with this film, as opposed to what we did do," says James Schamus, co-president of Focus Features, explaining the contrarian marketing and distribution strategy behind the $14 million film.

"Brokeback," which expanded into 1,196 theaters last weekend and has now grossed $43.8 million at the box office, is filling seats across the country, and last week passed Steven Spielberg's $70 million-budget "Munich" (a drama about Palestinian terrorists) even in the heart of the heartland. "Brokeback" is "doing quite well," says Debby Brehn, vice president of Douglas Theatres in Lincoln, Neb., where "Brokeback" ticket sales are running 3-to-1 against those for "Munich" since "Brokeback" opened Jan. 6. "I wouldn't say people are not seeing it because of its homosexual content," she says.

Aside from the $28 million-budget Johnny Cash biopic "Walk the Line," which has passed $100 million at the U.S. box office since opening Nov. 18, "Brokeback" looks on the way to becoming more profitable than other Oscar contenders, such as "Crash" (box office, $53.4 million), and "Good Night, and Good Luck" (box office, $24.9 million). Each of those films had budgets of just $7.5 million.

One of the most difficult challenges for Hollywood marketers is how to "cross over" a film that normally would appeal only to a narrow audience. A story about two ranch hands who fall in love, "Brokeback" would seem to appeal mostly to a gay and art-movie audience. Getting pigeonholed by a potentially divisive label can ruin a marketing campaign and doom a movie at the box office. It happened to the 1999 critically acclaimed drama "Boys Don't Cry," which won Hilary Swank an Oscar for Best Actress for her role as a Nebraskan girl who lived as a boy. Dogged by its image as a movie about a teenage transgender tragedy, it made only $11.5 million at the U.S. box office and never won a mainstream audience.

At the outset, Focus executives wanted to keep "Brokeback" from becoming a target in the culture wars, which could have overtaken their marketing message -- that it's a romance, not a "gay cowboy movie." Focus did market the film to the gay community but hasn't used it to push the cause of gay rights. "We will never turn the release of the film into a political circus act -- ever," says David Brooks, the studio's president of marketing.

Indeed, movies with gay themes or issues have rarely been a happy experience for Hollywood. Of 176 movies identified as such by BoxOfficeMojo.com, which analyzes box-office statistics and trends, only one movie with a predominantly gay theme has ever earned more than $100 million at the U.S. box office: the 1996 comedy "The Birdcage," which starred Robin Williams.

To try to beat the odds against a gay-themed film succeeding, Focus chose an unusual strategy when it came to placing "Brokeback" in its first theaters in New York and Los Angeles, says Jack Foley, president of distribution at Focus. Like microclimates in Napa Valley that can produce dramatically different wines, neighborhoods in Manhattan can draw entirely different audiences: Chelsea attracts gay viewers, the Village students, the Lincoln Center-area affluent boomers. Word of mouth from a Manhattan opening can determine with what audience a film succeeds or fails.

Normally, "Brokeback" would have opened in downtown theaters in the SoHo-East Village areas -- typical for an art-house film. Instead, on its opening weekend Dec. 9, Mr. Foley placed "Brokeback" into a megaplex in Chelsea, another uptown at Lincoln Center, and only one near Greenwich Village. "I didn't want New York to say this is an art-house film," says Mr. Foley. "I wanted a mix of voices talking about it to defeat it being called 'a gay cowboy movie.' "

Targeting Female Viewers

At the same time, Focus has been marketing "Brokeback" as an epic romance aimed at women. The movie's poster advertises that "Love is a Force of Nature," and the movie's trailer shows seven shots of tender romantic and happy moments between Mr. Ledger's and Jake Gyllenhaal's characters and their respective wives and families. By comparison, only three shots in the trailer show husband-wife confrontations over the gay affair. (Focus executives say the marketing materials are the same nationwide.)

The studio also carefully selected the movies to which it attached the promotional trailer for "Brokeback," with the idea of targeting female viewers, Mr. Brooks says. One was "Flightplan," with Jodie Foster, whose fan base is heavily female. Another was the Charlize Theron drama "North Country," since its theme -- women confronting bias at a Minnesota mine -- had a strong female appeal.

And as the weeks pass, the demographics of the "Brokeback" audience have shifted. Gays turned out for the first weekend, with 60% of the audience male and 40% female. But in the next three weeks, women responded to marketing and the audience flipped to 60% female and 40% male. Now, as the media attention intensifies in the wake of the film's wins at the Golden Globes, heterosexual men are going to the film on their own and the women are sliding back down to the mid-50 percentile, Mr. Brooks says.

Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113832222206557666-uVZ7ChbWaqLVSsF5WZVEcvI95Tg_20070126.html?mod=blog s#)

TLOZ Link5
February 10th, 2006, 04:13 PM
Saw the movie last night. Loved it.

February 10th, 2006, 05:13 PM
A little off-topic, but (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/opinion/10savage.html?ei=5070&en=507150a0039feb0e&ex=1140238800&emc=eta1&pagewanted=print)...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)

February 10, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Ex-Gay Cowboys


FIRST, a little of that full disclosure stuff: I have not actually seen "Brokeback Mountain" or "End of the Spear," both of which I'm going to discuss here.

But since when did not seeing a film prevent anyone from sharing his or her strong opinions about it? Before the posters for "Brokeback Mountain" were even printed, everyone from the blogger Mickey Kaus to the Concerned Women for America to gay men all over the country had already said a lot about the film. (Their opinions were, respectively, con, con and pro.)

So, let's get to it: Remember when straight actors who played gay were the ones taking a professional risk? Those days are over. Shortly after Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, both straight, received Oscar nominations for playing gay cowboys in "Brokeback Mountain," conservative Christians were upset when they learned that a gay actor, Chad Allen, was playing a straight missionary in "End of the Spear."

"End of the Spear" tells what happened after five American missionaries were murdered in 1956 by a tribe in Ecuador. Instead of seeking retribution, the missionaries' families reached out to the tribe, forgave the killers and eventually converted them to Christianity. An evangelical film company, Every Tribe Entertainment, brought the story to the screen. In a glowing review, Marcus Yoars, a film critic for Focus on the Family, noted that the "martyrdom" of the slain missionaries has "inspired thousands if not millions of Christians." But after conservatives took a closer look at the cast list, the protests began. Many felt Chad Allen's presence in the film negated any positive message.

The pastors claim they're worried about what will happen when their children rush home from the movies, Google Chad Allen's name, and discover that he's a "gay activist." ("Gay activist" is a term evangelicals apply to any homosexual who isn't a gay doormat.) They needn't be too concerned. Straight boys who have unsupervised access to the Internet aren't Googling the names of middle-aged male actors gay or straight — not when Paris Hilton's sex tapes are still out there.

Frankly, I can't help but be perplexed by the criticisms of Mr. Allen from the Christian right. After all, isn't playing straight what evangelicals have been urging gay men to do.

That's precisely what Jack and Ennis attempt to do in "Brokeback Mountain" — at least, according to people I know who have actually seen the film. These gay cowboys try, as best they can, to quit one another. They marry women, start families. But their wives are crushed when they realize their husbands don't, and can't, ever really love them. "Brokeback Mountain" makes clear that it would have been better for all concerned if Jack and Ennis had lived in a world where they could simply be together.

That world didn't exist when Jack and Ennis were pitching tents together, but it does now — even in the American West. Today, the tiny and stable percentage of men who are gay are free to live openly, and those who want to settle down and start families can do so without having to deceive some poor, unsuspecting woman.

Straight audiences are watching and loving "Brokeback Mountain" — that's troubling to evangelical Christians who have invested a decade and millions of dollars promoting the notion that gay men can be converted to heterosexuality, or become "ex-gay." It is, they insist, an ex-gay movement, although I've never met a gay man who was moved to join it.

This "movement" demands more from gay men than simply playing straight. Once a man can really pass as ex-gay — once he's got some Dockers, an expired gym membership and a bad haircut — he's supposed to become, in effect, an ex-gay missionary, reaching out to the hostile gay tribes in such inhospitable places as Chelsea and West Hollywood.
What should really trouble evangelicals, however, is this: even if every gay man became ex-gay tomorrow, there still wouldn't be an ex-lesbian tomboy out there for every ex-gay cowboy. Instead, millions of straight women would wake up one morning to discover that they had married a Jack or an Ennis. Restaurant hostesses and receptionists at hair salons would be especially vulnerable.

Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals really believe that gay men can go straight. If they don't think Chad Allen can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes, do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren't actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one?

Evangelical Christians seem sincere in their desire to help build healthy, lasting marriages. Well, if that's their goal, encouraging gay men to enter into straight marriages is a peculiar strategy. Every straight marriage that includes a gay husband is one Web-browser-history check away from an ugly divorce.

If anything, supporters of traditional marriage should want gay men out of the heterosexual marriage market entirely. And the best way to do that is to see that we're safely married off — to each other, not to your daughters. Let gay actors like Chad Allen only play it straight in the movies.

Dan Savage is the editor of The Stranger, a Seattle newsweekly.

Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

February 13th, 2006, 12:29 AM
UAE bans Brokeback Mountain

By Afkar Abdullah
Khaleej Times
9 February 2006


SHARJAH — The Ministry of Culture and Information will not allow the screening of the Hollywood film Brokeback Mountain in the UAE because of scenes involving homosexuals.

Brokeback Mountain is a film which has nothing positive about it. The portrayal of the sexual behaviour of its main character is offensive to eastern societies, particularly Muslims and the Arabs since Islam forbids abnormal behaviors like homosexuality, said Dr Abdullah Al Amiri, Chairman of the Committee of Financial, Economical and Industrial Affairs of Sharjah Consultative Council yesterday.

“The film will upset the people of this culture and tradition,” he said, explaining that there were scenes showing two men romantically inclined to each other.

The decision of the Ministry of Information was hailed by the members of the Sharjah Consultative Council during the meeting yesterday. The members thanked the ministry for its efforts in protecting the society from unethical and immoral practices.

Speaking to Khaleej Times, an official from the Ministry of Information said that the rules and regulations of the censor section at the ministry did not allow “these kinds of movies to be screened in the country.” The censorship department is making great efforts to review all the movies before it allows its screening in the theatres in the country. This kind of movies will destroy the values and morals of the society, he explained
Despite criticism, the controversial movie was named ‘Best Picture’ at the 17th Annual Producers Guild of America (PGA) awards on January 22, 2006.

© 2005 Khaleej Times All Rights Reserved.

TLOZ Link5
February 13th, 2006, 02:16 PM
Yes, homosexuality is bad, but pederasty was widely practiced and accepted; and the company of beautiful youths, forever young, is promised to the faithful in paradise along with the 72 virgins.


TLOZ Link5
February 13th, 2006, 02:25 PM
I just had to post this...


And this:


February 13th, 2006, 03:34 PM
I have not seen it, but it does not look to be an Oscar Calibur picture in the classical sense.

I don't think it looks like a bad movie, but it just seems to be one that takes advantage of an uncomfortable social situation and makes it into a movie that is supposed to say something, but it really does not.

There have been many movies like this in the past. I just hope that hollywood does not do the same thing and vote for the issue rather than what is really in the film.

February 13th, 2006, 05:21 PM
^You haven't seen the movie and yet you feel the need to comment on its content.

February 13th, 2006, 05:49 PM
I have not seen it, but it does not look to be an Oscar Calibur picture in the classical sense.
What exactly is the classical sense?

it just seems to be one that takes advantage of an uncomfortable social situation and makes it into a movie that is supposed to say something, but it really does not.
I don't think there's much quesiton that is does indeed say something.

There have been many movies like this in the past. I just hope that hollywood does not do the same thing and vote for the issue rather than what is really in the film.
I think one of the major causes of hype is that there hasn't ever been a movie quite like this before. Do you have a certain film in mind?

In my opinion the quality of the filmmaking is solid - the only technical issue that distracted me was some bad/visible aging make-up. I have have far more criticisms of the content (representation, plot points, naked women). So yeah, you should see it before forming such a specific opinion.

February 13th, 2006, 07:49 PM
Har har (the vids)

Ennis + Jack have started an avalanche!!

February 13th, 2006, 07:58 PM
In my opinion the quality of the filmmaking is solid - the only technical issue that distracted me was some bad/visible aging make-up.
I think it's a great screenplay, fantastic performances by all and terrific direction / cinematography, beautiful score -- but the aging make-up was typical bad Hollywood.

That won't stop it from winning awards.

Think back to Jennifer Connolly in "A Beautiful Mind" -- truly the worst aging make-up EVER.

But she took home the Oscar :confused:

February 13th, 2006, 08:38 PM
I saw this movie and it was just too sad at the end. Good film.

February 13th, 2006, 08:49 PM
I have not seen it....

....but it does not look to be....

...I don't think it looks like...

...it just seems to be...

...a movie that is supposed to say something, but it really does not....

You just seem too smart to post something like this.

February 14th, 2006, 05:13 AM
Ugh... that ageing make-up. Jake Gyllenhaal with that moustache looked like Lucy hiding from Ricky.

Great film though.

LOL: "I have not seen it, but it does not look to be an Oscar Calibur picture in the classical sense."

Larry McMurty only wrote the screen plays to "Hud", "The Last Picture Show" and "Terms of Endearment" ...and also won the Pulitzer for "Lonesome Dove".

Sounds like "in the classical sense" to me.

February 14th, 2006, 08:25 AM
'Brokeback Mountain' as epithet

Basketball fans asked to stop yelling it at opponents

Feb 12, 12:35 AM


Fans of No. 5 Gonzaga (http://www.gonzaga.edu/) have been asked to stop yelling "Brokeback Mountain" at opposing players.

The reference to the recent movie about gay cowboys was chanted by some fans during Monday's game against Saint Mary's, and is apparently intended to suggest an opposing player is gay.

The chants were the subject of several classroom discussions over the past week, and the faculty advisers for the Kennel Club booster group urged students this week to avoid "inappropriate chants" during the Bulldogs' Saturday game against Stanford, which was nationally televised on ESPN.

"We implore the students of the Kennel Club to show the nation this weekend what makes Gonzaga different," Kennel Club advisers David Lindsay and Aaron Hill wrote in a letter in the student newspaper, the Bulletin. "We challenge the students of the Kennel Club to exhibit the class, the creativeness and the competitive drive that has become a foundation of this great university."

Mark Alfino, a professor of philosophy at Gonzaga, said the matter had been widely discussed by faculty and students.

"Many faculty members have brought up the discussion in their classes," he said. "They find none of the students have been comfortable with the chant, and that's a good sign."

Ryan Olson, the president of Helping Educate Regarding Orientation (http://barney.gonzaga.edu/~hero/mission.htm), a gay-straight alliance on campus, said the chants are just the latest incident that shows GU is struggling to make gays and lesbians welcome on campus.

In a letter to the Bulletin, the HERO membership wrote, "This is not even remotely the first time that Kennel Club chanters have chanted homophobic phrases at basketball games."

"A lot of people in the Kennel Club say it wasn't them" that chanted "Brokeback Mountain," Olson said. "But there's something to be said about apathy as well. Students didn't stop people from saying it."

In Friday's Bulletin, senior Callie Monroe wrote a column (http://www.gonzagabulletin.com/media/paper375/news/2006/02/10/Opinion/Letter.To.The.Editor.brokeback.Mountain.Chant.Disr espectful-1608723.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.gonzagabulletin.com) calling the chants a case of "outright discrimination."

"Imagine yourself as a homosexual individual in the midst of your peers, classmates and friends during this 'Brokeback Mountain' cheer," Monroe wrote. "I simply do not understand how a student body claiming to live by Jesuit principles of acceptance and respect for all can allow an incident like this to happen and remain silent."

© 2006 | A Unite Media Publication

February 14th, 2006, 08:29 AM
'Brokeback Mountain' chant disrespectful

Letter to the Editor

By: Callie Monroe (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/)
Gonzaga Bulletin

http://www.gonzagabulletin.com/media/paper375/news/2006/02/10/Opinion/Letter.To.The.Editor.brokeback.Mountain.Chant.Disr espectful-1608723.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.gonzagabulletin.com

When one of my roommates stormed into our house ranting about Dr. Diggs' infamous speech regarding the medical affects of homosexuality last semester, I knew I needed to speak out. However, I am a procrastinator by nature, and my letter (although crafted beautifully in my mind) never made it into print.

I watched the St. Mary's game on ESPN2 Monday night and did not have a second thought about it until one of my professors dropped a bombshell. At the beginning of class, he wrote the words "Brokeback Mountain" on the board and asked my classmates if we knew why this could be a topic of conversation in today's class. A few of my classmates raised their hands, and I soon learned of the fiasco that took place during Monday night's game.

Apparently, a picture of one of the other team's players kissing another guy had been apprehended from the Internet, made into fliers, and handed out to members of the Kennel Club. This was followed by the student section heckling the player by cheering "Brokeback Mountain." The cheer in itself does not anger me (as the movie was simply a love story, and an excellent one at that), however the context and intent of the cheer was immature and unnecessary.

I wish words could convey the embarrassment, disappointment, anger and confusion I feel right now. Although I was not present in this audience, I know not all members of the student section participated in this cheer and many may (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) not have been aware of the cheer's implications. To these fans, I applaud your ability to resist joining the rest of the crowd and I pity you for the anger and embarrassment many of you probably held in during those moments.

To those members of the student body who participated in the cheer, I'd like to offer a situation to explain my outrage at this blatant disregard of acceptance and respect for all. Imagine yourself as a homosexual individual in the midst of your peers, classmates and friends during this "Brokeback Mountain" cheer. Imagine looking around at the jeering faces, your friends reveling in their victorious cries. My guess is that if you were this person, you would feel just as our fellow classmate Michael Gleason did after Diggs' speech: "I am not welcome at Gonzaga - or at least, I no longer feel so" (Gonzaga Bulletin, Opinion Column, Nov. 4, 2005).

Although I realize that this cheer was intended to throw off the St. Mary's player's game, the line must be drawn. I simply do not understand how a student body claiming to live by Jesuit principles of acceptance and respect for all can allow an incident like this to happen and remain silent. I know many students, like myself, that are completely appalled that an event like this took place at Gonzaga. I can only hope that we will speak out and take action to let other students and the administration know that allowing this type of outright discrimination to happen at Gonzaga is embarrassing, immature, disrespectful and completely unacceptable.

Callie Monroe is a senior at Gonzaga.

February 14th, 2006, 08:41 AM
Here is what got this going ...

College Repugs bring anti-gay speaker to Gonzaga

Sunday, October 30, 2005

http://www.pamspaulding.com/graphics/DanBrutocao.jpg http://www.pamspaulding.com/graphics/diggs.jpg
Dan Brutocao of the Gonzaga University College Republicans
signed up Dr. John Diggs (http://drjohndiggsmd.ambassadoragency.com/client_profile.cfm/cid/1109?categories_id=14) to spew junk science.

Sweet. The Washington-state institution also rejected recent requests to allow a Planned Parenthood speaker and a production of "The Vagina Monologues" to the school, so clearly it's up for the controversy. From the Gonzaga Bulletin (http://www.gonzagabulletin.com/media/paper375/news/2005/10/28/News/homoSex.Talk.Spurs.Controversy-1037238.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.gonzagabulletin.com):

The College Republicans brought Dr. John Diggs to campus Tuesday. Diggs presented a controversial speech titled "The Medical Effects of Homo-Sex" to a packed Jundt Auditorium.

...Based on the planned topic for the speech, the College Republicans were not given University approval and therefore could not advertise the event. To gain University approval, however, the College Republicans were given the option to have Diggs change the title and topic of the speech to be more universal, covering the harmful affects of all human sexuality as it pertains to penetrative anal intercourse and promiscuity.

Dan Brutocao, president of the College Republicans, decided not to change the topic of the speech, reasoning that Diggs would be more knowledgeable on the speech he had already prepared. After talking to Diggs, Brutocao decided to change the title from "The Medical Effects of Homosexuality" to "The Medical Effects of Homo-Sex," because according to Brutocao, the term homosexuality denotes a person, whereas homo-sex refers specifically to the acts involved, which was more pertinent to the lecture.

Diggs' 75-minute lecture Tuesday night outlined the negative effects of homosexuality as it pertains to both society and the individual. Key points from his speech included the assertion that homosexuality is defined by two "inarguable" characteristics: promiscuity and penetrative anal intercourse. Diggs also said homosexuality was strongly responsible for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), particularly HIV, in both gay and straight circles.

Rod Aminian, president of Helping Educate Regarding Orientation (HERO), said Diggs' lecture went beyond the discussion of sex. "Dr. Diggs is an ideologue of vulgar proportions," Aminian said. "He stretched fact, used dodgy nomenclature and used every token anti-gay byline in the lexicon of anti-gay bylines."

Items that Aminian took particular issue with centered on Diggs' statements on promiscuity, especially the assertion "that gay men are not out for love and companionship, just pure, unabashed sex," Aminian said. Aminian also cast doubt on the validity of Diggs' points, specifically a statistic Diggs cited from a 1978 study claiming 28 percent of gay males had more than 1,000 sexual partners in their lifetime. Diggs has also written some other outlandish things (http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2001/july%202001/791su.htm) about homosexuality. In 2001, he railed on the work of then-Surgeon General David Satcher, using the whole "parts don't fit" and gays inherently suffer from mental disease. This is what the College Republicans are embracing:

One of the most egregious assertions made by the Surgeon General is that "Sexual orientation is usually determined by adolescence, if not earlier, and there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed." First, real people know this not to be the case.

Thousands of people who used to practice homosexuality have told their personal stories to offer hope to those trapped in a self-destructive activity. Second, the periodic brouhaha over the discovery of a “gay gene” is always followed by much quieter retractions. No scientist confirms the presence of a “gay gene.” Third, people are not homosexual; they perform homosexual acts. We humans are male or female; “gays” do not have different “equipment.” Satcher blames those opposed to homosexuality for the high rates of mental disease found among those practicing homosexuality. To come to this conclusion, he must ignore similar high rates of mental disease, including suicide, documented among practitioners in societies which have come to embrace homosexuality. Lastly, he ignores the fact that most “anti-gay violence” is perpetrated by “gays” in domestic violence settings. The Surgeon General's statement erroneously leads people to believe they are trapped.

February 14th, 2006, 09:20 AM
^You haven't seen the movie and yet you feel the need to comment on its content.


February 14th, 2006, 09:26 AM

Yeah, I made the mistake replying to you Ryan.

I should know better by now.

February 14th, 2006, 09:37 AM
Larry McMurty only wrote the screen plays to "Hud", "The Last Picture Show" and "Terms of Endearment" ...and also won the Pulitzer for "Lonesome Dove".

Sounds like "in the classical sense" to me.

So you are saying that just because someone wrote it means it has to be Oscar calibur?

Would this film hold up 20 years from now if there was less tension on this issue? I don't know.

What is your opinion? How much do you think it relies on current emotions rather than the subject of the film itself?

February 14th, 2006, 09:47 AM
OK, you picked three "luke-warm" reviews to come to your conclusion.

Check out Rotten Tomatoes, which has comprehensive coverage of reviews: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/brokeback_mountain/

BBM has a postive rating of 85%

Reviews counted: 203
Fresh: 173 Rotten: 30
Average Rating (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/pages/faq#avgrating): 8.1/10

February 14th, 2006, 09:50 AM
The gay "issue" is of course important and the core of the film.

But more to the point is the utter lack of ANY recent US film that gets to the heart of a "romantic" relationship as strongly as BBM.


February 14th, 2006, 09:56 AM
OK, you picked three "luke-warm" reviews to come to your conclusion.

Check out Rotten Tomatoes, which has comprehensive coverage of reviews: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/brokeback_mountain/

BBM has a postive rating of 85%

Reviews counted: 203
Fresh: 173 Rotten: 30
Average Rating (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/pages/faq#avgrating): 8.1/10

No, I also picked out what I heard from friends and message boards, but they would not hold any weight here.

The ones I picked out express what I am thinking Loft. I know it was cherrypicking, but how would picking out a review that contradicted my sentiments make it so my point would have any more merit? ;)

The question still comes back, if the issue was not as politically sensitive now, would it be as good a movie? Remember Philadelphia? They said that it was really good, but lacked something because the whole AIDS issue was not as hot by the time the movie came out.

Are we dealing with something similar here, but just with better timing?

February 14th, 2006, 09:57 AM
The gay "issue" is of course important and the core of the film.

But more to the point is the utter lack of ANY recent US film that gets to the heart of a "romantic" relationship as strongly as BBM.


So the lack of others saying anything about it makes it better because it does?

I think that deserves merit, but does it deserve an oscar?

February 14th, 2006, 10:25 AM
I think that deserves merit, but does it deserve an oscar?
This is a near-impossible question, as Oscar's are often NOT given to the film that exhibits the best film-making, but given to the film that best succeeds in wooing the small number of Academy Members who vote.

Oscar's at one time MAYBE were about craft, but no more -- now they are purely a marketing tool.

Which is one reason the telecast has become so deadly dull in the last 15 years. You can feel it in almost every acceptance speech and presentation -- everyone has the awareness that they are "working". This has also creeped over to the Golden Globes, which used to be hilarious and low-brow, but is now just another night to hawk their wares.

I'm giving this years Academy Awards show one last chance -- hoping that Jon Stewart will keep it breathing -- and if it fails to give me the thrill of old am considering swearing off in the future.

February 14th, 2006, 10:27 AM
You've posted your opinions in numerous posts, yet incredibly, have not seen the movie. No one is going to take you seriously until you do.

The film has survived its hype and overwrought controversy, and emerged as a worthy Oscar nomination.

I understand the meaning of a classic film, one that defines an era or genre, but a classical sense film?

February 14th, 2006, 10:29 AM

In trying to explain your idea of a worthy Oscar contender "in the classical sense" you write: "The classical sense like Audry and Hepburn".

Uh.... what exactly does that mean?

In the "Audrey ´n Kathrine" as in "Hepburn" classical sense? Ninja: I hate to break this to you, but those gals are dead ...along with Cary Grant and whole slew of others. Oh my, what WILL Oscar do?


A list of politically-correct critic-stooges duped by "Heath ´n Jake":

Boston Society of Film Critics: Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee)

Central Ohio Film Critics Association: Top 10 Films, Best Lead Performance (Heath Ledger), Best Screenplay

Chicago Film Critics Association: Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana), Best Score (Gustavo Santaolalla)

Critics' Choice Award: Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams)

Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association: Top 10 Films, Best Picture, Best
Director (Ang Lee), Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana),
Best Cinematography (Roberto Prieto)

Directors Guild of America Awards: Director of the Year Award - Theatrical
Motion Picture (Ang Lee)

European Film Awards: Best Director (Ang Lee)

Florida Film Critics Circle: Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana), Cinematography (Roberto Prieto)

Golden Globe Awards Best Motion Picture - Drama, Best Director - Motion Picture (Ang Lee), Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana), Best Song (Gustavo Santaolalla and Bernie Taupin, "A Love That Will Never Grow Old")

Iowa Film Critics: Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee)

Las Vegas Film Critics Society: Best Picture, Best Actor (Heath Ledger), Best Director (Ang Lee)

London Film Critics Circle: Best Film and Best Director of the Year

Los Angeles Film Critics Association:Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee)

National Board of Review: Top 10 Films, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Supporting Actor (Jake Gyllenhaal)

National Public Radio: Bob Mondello's Top Films for 2005

New York Film Critics Circle: Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Actor (Heath Ledger)

Online Film Critics Society: Best Adapted Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana), Best Score (Gustavo Santaolalla)

Phoenix Film Critics Society: Top Ten Films, Best Performance by an Actor in a Lead Role (Heath Ledger), Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role (Jake Gyllenhaal), Best Performance by an Actress in a
Supporting Role (Michelle Williams), Best Screenplay adapted from another medium, Best Cinematography

Producer's Guild Awards: Producer of the Year Award - Theatrical Motion Picture Awards: Outstanding Motion Picture, Drama, Outstanding Director (Ang Lee), Outstanding Film Editing (Geraldine Peroni and Dylan Tichenor),
Outstanding Original Song (Gustavo Santaolalla and Bernie Taupin, for the song "A Love That Will Never Grow Old")

Southeastern Film Critics Association: Top 10 Films, Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Adapted Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)

St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association: Best Picture, Best Actor (Heath Ledger), Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)

The 62nd Venice International Film Festival: "Golden Lion" for Best Film
Writers Guild of America Awards: Best Adapted Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)

Directors Guild of America: Best Director (Ang Lee)

Utah Film Critics: Best Film, Best Director (Ang Lee)


American Cinema Editors:** Best Edited Feature Film - Drama

BAFTA Awards: Best Picture, Best Actor (Heath Ledger), Best Supporting Actor (Jake Gyllenhaal), Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams), Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Adapted Screenplay (Larry McMurty and Diana Ossana)

Broadcast Film Critics Association: Best Actor (Heath Ledger), Best Supporting Actor (Jake Gyllenhaal), Best Writer (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana), Best Song (Emmylou Harris, for the song "A Love That Will Never Grow Old"), Best Composer (Gustavo Santaolalla)

Central Ohio Film Critics Association: (1st Runner-up) Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Ensemble Cast, Best Formal Design

Chicago Film Critics Association: Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Actor (Heath Ledger), Best Supporting Actor (Jake Gyllenhaal), Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams)

Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association (1st Runner-up) Best Actor (Heath Ledger), (2nd Runner-up) Best Supporting Actor (Jake Gyllenhaal), (1st Runner-up) Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams)

European Film Awards: Screen International Award (Ang Lee)

GLAAD Media Awards: Outstanding Film - Wide Release

Golden Globe Awards: Best Actor - Motion Picture Drama (Heath Ledger), Best Supporting Actress - Motion Picture (Michelle Williams), Best Original Score

Gotham Awards: Best Picture, Best Ensemble Cast

Independent Spirit Awards: Best Feature, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Male Lead (Heath Ledger), Best Supporting Female (Michelle Williams)

Los Angeles Film Critics Association: (1st Runner-up) Best Actor (Heath Ledger)

National Board of Review: (1st Runner-up) Best Picture, Best Actor (Heath Ledger)

National Society of Film Critics: (2nd Runner-up) Best Actor (Heath Ledger)

Online Film Critics Society: Best Picture, Best Actor (Heath Ledger), Best Supporting Actor (Jake Gyllenhaal), Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams), Best Director (Ang Lee)

Screen Actors Guild: Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role (Heath Ledger), Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role (Jake Gyllenhaal), Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role (Michelle Williams), Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture

Southeastern Film Critics Association: (1st Runner-up) Best Actor (Heath Ledger), (1st Runner-up) Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams)

February 14th, 2006, 10:35 AM
This is a near-impossible question, as Oscar's are often NOT given to the film that exhibits the best film-making, but given to the film that best succeeds in wooing the small number of Academy Members who vote.

Oscar's at one time MAYBE were about craft, but no more -- now they are purely a marketing tool.

I think that is what I was trying to get you guys to hear when I was making these statements.

I don't have an issue about gay rights or anything like that, or if the movie is bad or not, but more along the lines of what colored glasses is it being viewed under.

There were more than a few awards that Ihave looked at as being awarded more to movies that somehow just did not deserve it. they were good, but they were not exemplary.

Which is one reason the telecast has become so deadly dull in the last 15 years. You can feel it in almost every acceptance speech and presentation -- everyone has the awareness that they are "working". This has also creeped over to the Golden Globes, which used to be hilarious and low-brow, but is now just another night to hawk their wares.

My sentiments exactly. If I hear that a movie has ## golden globe NOMINATIONS I usually start yelling at the TV... ;)

I'm giving this years Academy Awards show one last chance -- hoping that Jon Stewart will keep it breathing -- and if it fails to give me the thrill of old am considering swearing off in the future.

So I guess I am in the same boat here. I am more concerned that movies are winning because of the lack of actual creedence of the judging panel on the "Acadamy" than the merit of this movie in particular.

I have seen many movies in the past 10 years or so that have won based more on the message someone wanted to send as part of the acadamy rather than the message the movie was trying to send itself.

It has become more a tool of the industry than an actual gague of a movies merit.

February 14th, 2006, 10:39 AM
No point.....

February 14th, 2006, 10:52 AM
While I wouldn't recommend poting on a news event without reading the article, judgements can be made on underlying issues.

How can you judge a movie without seeing it?

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

February 14th, 2006, 10:58 AM
"Oscar's at one time MAYBE were about craft, but no more -- now they are purely a marketing tool."

Simply not true.

Oscar winners have included things like:

"The Greatest Show on Earth" , "Gigi" and "My Fair Lady" (with Audrey Hepburn lyp-syncing and doing her fashion model poses). These films won out over ( respectively) : "High Noon", " The Defiant Ones" and "Dr. Strangelove".

Other nominees for best picture have included God-awful films like: "The King and I", "The Ten Commandments", "The Music Man", "Hello, Dolly!", "Fiddler on the Roof", and "The Towering Inferno".

Now, what were you guys saying?

February 14th, 2006, 10:58 AM
The classical sense like Audry and Hepburn. Like movies that had more to them than an attractive actress growing a unibrow and calling that great.
To start, Audrey Hepburn was one person. Have you seen her films? A lot of them were just pulp with, um a pretty actress. Maybe you're talking about Spencer Tracy & Katherine Hepburn? Some were good, some were just the same characters rehashed because they made lots of money.

It's an interesting argument to say that filmmaking is past its prime. Care to elaborate in detail?

Ones were we did not have to rely so much on box office returns to determine what was good or bad.
So you're trying to argue that there was a time when the film world was less commercial? Or just that the oscars went to less commercial films? Again, I'd ask that you cite some examples. Seems to me that non-commercial filmmaking has only grown stronger as alternative funding sources and audiences have grown.

That what, being gay 30 years ago was tough?

Especially in rural america? My heart bleeds man. But is the movie itself better or worse because of this? COuld it have been as good without this subject matter? If not, it is relying on political situation in order to promote a blah plot.
I know that you like the attention so I'll save the angry rant.

I am bad with names... I am sure there are more than a few movies of this type that have gone to Cannes and the like.
Try googling. I'd really like to know which films you're referring to.

but sometimes the reason something has not been done has not been for fear of reprisal, but more for fear of negligable box office receipts.
Um, duh? The commercial success of this film has disproved those fears. It's a well made film about a gay love story that was not the commercial failure conventional wisdom thought it would be. It is one thing that a quality film like this was made and another thing that it has been so well received by audiences.

Stephanie Zacharek is contrarian to attract attention to herself (this isn't the first time I've read her quibbles about a popular film... Feels to me like high school kids who say they hate something just because too many people like it). Reviews of the film have been exceptionally positive. Challenging film making about challenging subject matter is never universally acclaimed.

A lot of the negative reviews I've read focus on the reviewer's trouble getting engaged with the plot - not understanding the characters' motivations. I'd chalk most of that up to homophobia - they are either ignorant of the subject or refusing to sympathize with the characters.

I know you well enough to recognizing your petty trolling, Ninjahedge. You don't have to prove your manli-ness by trashing a popular gay movie. (None of us can tell you're uncomfortable with the gay cowboys anyway).

February 14th, 2006, 11:21 AM
Ninja -

You have really obliged yourself to go out and SEE this movie. Or, is it possible that you think going to see this is like going to see gay porn in public? That you may somehow be considered "gay" by society at large just for going and possible being seen in the theater? An explanation along those lines I could actually understand, even if I did disagree with them. But, critiques of a film that you haven't seen just fall flat.

February 14th, 2006, 11:58 AM
Just making waves....

February 14th, 2006, 12:04 PM
Ninja -

BR man, I know you like to argue, but what's the point?

If you and I start at it the thread will be 10 pages of crap... ;)

February 14th, 2006, 12:10 PM

Ryan, I already know that replying to you once you get like this will only go nowhere, so I guess I am already there.

"We're on a road to nowhere"

February 14th, 2006, 12:59 PM
"Oscar's at one time MAYBE were about craft, but no more -- now they are purely a marketing tool."

Simply not true.

I was referring to a period back in the ice-age, pre-1955 say.

There was another period of great American film-making -- mid-60s to mid70s -- not all the films of course ("Dr. Doolittle" -- oy!!). But that was a period when film-makers were able to make films with content and style and were not as controlled by the studios. Those films were made on low budgets, which insured a greater degree of freedom. The studios knew that the film-makers were on to something -- and hoped to earn some $$ off the creativity and agreed to distribution (always the trickiest partof the film business for an independent producer).

Then in the mid-70s came "JAWS" / "Star Wars' and everything pretty much changed.

This years "Best Picture" nominees evidence something of a change from past years: 4 of the 5 Best Picture nominees are "low budget" films -- in fact very LOW considering that the average studio film now costs $50M +: "Brokeback Mountain" ($14M), "Capote" ($7M), "Crash" ($6.5M), "Good Night, and Good Luck" ($7M); only "Munich" is a big budget film, coming in at $70M.

IMO opinion there is not a "great" film among those 5 -- but all are solid and honest creations -- and good movies.

February 14th, 2006, 01:16 PM
Oh, as for the Audry and Hep, I was thinking of fliks like His Girl Friday and the like. (Not necessarily Audrey or Hepburn...)

Not Oscar material there, but so much more DIALOG!

And I was also thinking of Film Noir, not Pulp (sorry for the crossover)


Movies like The Asphalt Jungle that can even be watched today.

As for my impression of the academy, I thought there was a time when it tried to hold itself to a higher standard, and maybe it did. You look at some of the classic films that come through as a "4 time academy award winner" and most of them are pretty notable.

But then again, you rarely hear of the ones that won, but were really just the popular choice of the time. The ones that stick are the ones that have some substance behind them.... for the most part.

As for todays academy, I stopped watching about 5 years ago, but I get plenty of news about it over every channel for weeks following it, and even more from the film ads on TV and print. Some like Rwanda may indeed be worth the praise, but others like Unforgiven (which I liked) did not (Sorry Clint.).

So whatever. Bring the subject back to the flik, I am doing some house cleaning.

February 14th, 2006, 01:40 PM
Ryan, I already know that replying to you once you get like this will only go nowhere, so I guess I am already there.

"We're on a road to nowhere"

I think I'm on a road to somewhere.

February 14th, 2006, 01:43 PM
I think I'm on a road to somewhere.

Well we know where we’re goin’
But we don’t know where we’ve been
And we know what we’re knowin’
But we can’t say what we’ve seen
And we’re not little children
And we know what we want
And the future is certain
Give us time to work it out.......

February 14th, 2006, 01:51 PM
Are you sober?

February 14th, 2006, 02:06 PM
Are you sober?

Is that a requirement for posting here?

February 14th, 2006, 02:12 PM
^ Hope not ...

February 15th, 2006, 12:47 PM
Another key reason that awards shows have beocme so dull for the viewer ...

Presenters / Numinees show up just to get the goodies; their appearance on-air is the price they have to pay:

Celebrity Freebies: A Force Irresistible?

By SHARON WAXMAN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=SHARON WAXMAN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=SHARON WAXMAN&inline=nyt-per)
NY Times
Feb. 15, 2006


LOS ANGELES — Lash Fary, one of Hollywood's sultans of swag, remembers the first time he called a company and suggested that it pay him for the privilege of providing its products to celebrities, free.

Executives were confused. "The hard part was convincing companies, six and seven years ago, that they should give their products away to rich people and pay us for the privilege of doing so," Mr. Fary said. He was speaking in the gifting lounge for the Grammy Awards, just one red-carpeted stretch beyond the stage at the Staples Center, where performers rehearsed, before being lavished with skin creams, fruit-infused vodka, a Gibson guitar and a $3,500 coupon for party planning.

Today it's all different, Mr. Fary, 34, explained. Now companies vie for the opportunity to be included in what he calls his "interactive gifting suite," where they have a face-to-face opportunity to press their wares on the rich and famous, in the hope that the celebrity will be seen with their items and set a trend.

Mr. Fary's fee for providing that opportunity: $20,000. For a more modest $6,000, he was willing to include a company's product in the gift baskets that went to presenters and performers in this year's Grammys (estimated value: $54,000).

In this Hollywood awards season, the piles of free stuff being handed to celebrities — nominees, award presenters, performers and members of their entourages — is escalating, and the number of Mr. Fary's competitors is growing, too.

Originally conceived at the Academy Awards in 1989 as a way to thank actors for presenting awards at the Oscars, the gift basket has in recent years outgrown its origins to become a marketing juggernaut in its own right, in some cases all but overtaking the events themselves.

Even celebrities seem somewhat mystified by the trend. Gwyneth Paltrow (http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=54871&inline=nyt-per), for instance, expressed surprise on the red carpet of the Golden Globes at having received a cruise to Antarctica and Tasmania in her gift basket. (Estimated value: $22,000.)

The gift phenomenon may create some unexpected problems for the organizations that sponsor them. At a recent board meeting of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which presents the Golden Globes, members fretted about what to do with their extra gift bags, valued at $62,000 each.

On the advice of its tax lawyer, the association decided that "none of the leftover bags may be given to any member, board or otherwise, or his family," according to the meeting notes. Lee Sheppard, a contributing editor to the tax journal Tax Notes, said that celebrities would do well to pay attention to the tax implications. "Queen Latifah (http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=40714&inline=nyt-per) is not getting a gift; Queen Latifah is getting income," Ms. Sheppard said, speaking hypothetically of the star. "And the company is having a deduction for a form of advertising. Tax law does not recognize this as a gift." Michael Harris, president of Paragon Business Management, who manages entertainment clients like the reality show star Jesse James, said, "If it's a fee for service, if you get this when you show up to do something, there would be taxable exposure." But the issue is complicated, he added, because of the varying values that might be placed on a gift. "The I.R.S.'s appetite to enforce this type of transaction would depend on the perceived value," Mr. Harris said.

Mindful of the risks of losing the public focus on movies, the Oscars have so far been careful to resist adding a "giveaway lounge" to the bonus of the basket at the awards. "That's a rather unusual setup, and that's not the way we do it," said Leslie Unger, spokeswoman for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which presents the awards.

But the academy cannot stop Mr. Fary from delivering his own fabulous consolation prize to the Oscar losers in the main acting categories.

Scheduled for delivery a day after the March 5 telecast, it will include a three-night stay at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas, a coupon for Lasik eye surgery and a set of high-thread-count bed linens. (The academy does not permit companies to reveal their participation in the official gift basket until the end of the month, but it is similarly extravagant.)

At other events the "gifting experience," as it is now called, becomes more lavish every year. At the Screen Actors Guild awards last month, winners and presenters went directly from their televised moment behind the podium to a retreat behind the stage.

Don Cheadle (http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=12587&inline=nyt-per), nominated as best supporting actor for "Crash," (http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/titlelist.html?v_idlist=141124;154287;144336;13635 0;301205;130143;11393;147887&inline=nyt_ttl) came backstage during the telecast to collect a pearl, multistrand bracelet from an exclusive Los Angeles boutique and a trip for five nights to a Bora Bora resort. While those companies may not have gotten any marketing bang from those gifts, a presenter, Terrence Howard (http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=33528&inline=nyt-per), did allow his picture to be taken with a LeVian watch he had just received.

"For that company, that's a homerun," said Karen Wood, the president of "Backstage Creations," who organized the SAG lounge and has helped fuel the phenomenon in the past five years. "Celebrities are very discerning. If they like a product, it translates to the public as trendsetting. Buzz starts building around that type of interaction."

Maybe, or maybe not. For every success story of an actor posing with a watch, a dozen other companies see their products disappear into limousines, never to be glimpsed in public again. And in the case of the highest-priced items — the trip to Antarctica, the party planning offer — only 5 percent to 10 percent are ever redeemed by the celebrity, Ms. Wood and others in her line of work say.

But whether or not the gifts actually generate buzz, nearly every award show now includes them as part of the event, making the first two months of the year a freebie bonanza for the anointed few. In addition to SAG, the Directors Guild of America, the Grammys, the Independent Spirit Awards and the Golden Globes all have their own luxury baskets worth tens of thousands of dollars. Companies at the Grammy gifting lounge said the steep fee for participation was worthwhile. "We're a small company, so this is a significant investment for us," Marla Allen, the wholesale distributor of Forticelle skin care, said, standing beside her display in the lounge. "But this gives us exposure to cross into the retail market."

Across the tent, a marketing consultant was handing out guitars by Gibson, the well-known American company, at $3,000 an instrument.

"This is the first time they're giving guitars," Mr. Fary said. "Usually it's a duffel bag." But Gibson didn't really have a choice, he explained; another company had contacted Mr. Fary offering to give guitars, and Gibson — which had priority as a partner in the Grammys' charity, MusiCares — matched the offer.

Strumming a model designed by U2's guitarist, The Edge, the Gibson consultant Ron Maldonado reeled off his list of eligible giftees: Mariah Carey (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/mariah_carey/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Carlos Santana, Kelly Clarkson, Jamie Foxx (http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=24604&inline=nyt-per). Also Teri Hatcher, Ellen DeGeneres (http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=17737&inline=nyt-per) and Leslie Moonves (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/leslie_moonves/index.html?inline=nyt-per), co-president of Viacom.

Teri Hatcher? "If she sits on my lap she gets two," he grinned.

Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

February 15th, 2006, 03:20 PM
http://i.today.reuters.com/images/reuters.gif (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=musicNews&storyID=2006-02-15T172018Z_01_N15209036_RTRIDST_0_MUSIC-LEISURE-COWBOYS-DC.XML)
Country icon Willie Nelson sings gay cowboy song
Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:21 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - It turns out the makers of "Brokeback Mountain" are not the only ones who think "Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other" -- country music icon Willie Nelson has recorded a song with that title.

With lyrics like "What did you think all them saddles and boots was about?" the song may raise the hackles of those who see cowboys as the iconic American heterosexual male.

The song was written more than 20 years ago by songwriter Ned Sublette but was largely unknown until Nelson, who contributed a song to the "Brokeback Mountain" soundtrack, decided to release it this week for download on iTunes.

"The song's been in the closet for 20 years," Nelson said in a statement. "The timing's right for it to come out."

Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain," the story of two ranch hands in Wyoming who fall in love, has won a string of awards and is a front-runner for the best film Oscar next month.

Nelson, whose hits include "Always on My Mind" and "My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys," sings in the new song: "A small town don't like it when a cowboy has feelings for men," and "I believe to my soul that inside every man there's the feminine."

Another verse goes as follows: "The cowboy may brag about things that he's done with his woman. But the ones who brag loudest are the ones who are most likely queer."

The Dallas Morning News said the song had a personal connection for Nelson because his longtime tour manager, David Anderson, revealed his homosexuality to Nelson two years ago.

February 15th, 2006, 05:47 PM
I wonder how he "revealed" it.....

Anderson: Willie, I'm gay.

Nelson: That's nice Dave, now please pull up your pants. Thanks.

February 24th, 2006, 11:14 AM
And then there were Dick and George ...

February 26th, 2006, 10:27 PM
Gay cowboys embraced by redneck country

Andrew Sullivan
The Sunday Times
February 26, 2006


http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gifLast December, when the movie Brokeback Mountain nudged nervously onto the cultural radar screen in the US, the consensus was broad and wide. This movie was one step too far. It was yet another example of Hollywood’s liberal bias. It wouldn’t sell in the heartland.

“They’re not going to go see the gay cowboys in Montana. I’m sorry. They’re not going to do it,” opined cable television’s chief windbag Bill O’Reilly on December 20.

The liberal blogger Mickey Kaus wrote around the same time: “I’m highly sceptical that a movie about gay cowhands, however good, will find a large mainstream audience. I’ll go see it, but I don’t want to go see it . . . When the film’s national box office fails to live up to its hype and to the record attendance at a few early screenings, prepare to be subjected to a tedious round of guilt-tripping and chin- scratching.”

The Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer made a new year’s prediction about Oscar night: “Brokeback Mountain will have been seen in the theatres by 18 people — but the right 18 — and will win the Academy Award.”

Something odd happened between the elite’s assessment of the heartland and the heartland’s assessment of Brokeback Mountain. No, it’s no The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe. But of all the Oscar nominees it has racked up by far the biggest domestic grosses so far: more than $70m at the last count (compared with, say, $22m for the superb Capote). And that’s before the potential Oscar boost. More interestingly, it’s done remarkably well in the middle of the red states.

O’Reilly’s Montana? In the 85-year-old cinema in Missoula, Montana, the owner told the media: “It’s been super every night since we started showing it.” The movie did even better in Billings, a more conservative city in the state.

According to Variety magazine, some of the strongest audiences have been in Tulsa, Oklahoma, El Paso, Texas, Des Moines, Iowa and Lubbock, Texas. Lubbock is the place George W Bush calls his spiritual home and may well be the site for his presidential library. Greenwich Village it ain’t.

What happened? There are various theories. Brilliant marketing pitched the movie as a love story and a western, two genres well ingrained in middle American tastes. Women dragged nervous husbands and boyfriends to see a film where the women could enjoy long, languorous views of Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, and the men could admire the scenery.

Blue state liberals felt it some kind of social duty to see the film. Gays and lesbians flocked. The media hyped the “gay cowboy” movie and it generated more and more publicity, and thereby curiosity and thereby tickets.

The iconic phrase uttered by Gyllenhaal — “I wish I knew how to quit you” — has become part of the popular culture. The cover of last week’s New Yorker had a parody of the now-famous poster, with Bush and Dick Cheney as the cowboys and Cheney blowing some steam off the top of his rifle.

Everyone seems to have an opinion about the film, especially those who haven’t seen it. My own view is that Brokeback has done well primarily because it’s an excellent film. It has a compelling story, two astonishing performances from Ledger and Michelle Williams, and an elegant screenplay from the great western writer Larry McMurtry.

I still don’t think the movie is in the same class as the brilliantly compressed short story by Annie Proulx on which it’s based. But it’s still way better than most films now offered by Hollywood, and it’s a little depressing that we have to ask why a decent number of people would not want to see a rare example of Hollywood excellence.

As for the gay sex, it’s barely in the movie, and the least convincing part of it. Compared with the sex and violence usually served up by Hollywood films, Brokeback is Jackanory. But there is something, perhaps, that explains the interest beyond mere artistic skill.

The past two decades have seen a huge shift in how homosexual people are viewed in the West. Where once they were identified entirely by sex, now more and more recognise that the central homosexual experience is the central heterosexual experience: love — maddening, humiliating, sustaining love.

That’s what the marriage debate has meant and why the marriage movement, even where it has failed to achieve its immediate goals, has already achieved its long-term ambition: to humanise gay people, to tell the full, human truth about them.

And that truth includes the red states. The one thing you can say about the homosexual minority is that, unlike any other, it is not geographically limited and never has been. Red states produce as many gay kids as blue ones; and yet the heartland gay experience has rarely been portrayed and explored.

In America this is particularly odd, since the greatest gay writer in its history, Walt Whitman, was a man of the heartland. And you only have to read about the early years of Abraham Lincoln’s life to see that same-sex love and friendship was integral to the making of America, especially in its wildernesses and frontiers. You see that today even in the American gay vote, a third of which routinely backs Republicans.

Brokeback, in other words, is not just a good movie, but a genuinely new one that tells a genuinely old story. It shows how gay men in America have families and have always had families. It shows them among themselves and among women. It shows them, above all, as men.

For the first time it reveals that homosexuality and masculinity are not necessarily in conflict, and that masculinity, even the suppressed, inarticulate masculinity of the American frontier, is not incompatible with love. It provides a story to help people better understand the turbulent social change around them and the history they never previously recorded. That is what great art always does: it reveals the truth we are too scared to see and the future we already, beneath all our denial, understand.

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gifCopyright 2006 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,549,00.html)Times Newspapers Ltd.

March 1st, 2006, 11:29 AM
On the other hand ...

S.D. school distances self from 'Brokeback' actress

By Lee Grant
March 1, 2006

Full Story: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20060301-9999-1n1michelle.html

Carla Williams raised a daughter her way – a comfortable North County home, elementary and middle school at Solana Beach's Santa Fe Christian where, according to its credo, “the Bible is the standard upon which the educational program is based,” and acting classes at the “family entertainment”-oriented Christian Youth Theater.


JOHN GASTALDO / Union-Tribune
Carla Williams is the proud mother of actress Michelle Williams,
who got her start in Christian Youth Theater productions.
Michelle is featured on a poster for "Annie."

By the time her precociously talented daughter reached ninth grade, Williams was driving her north on Interstate 5 to Hollywood nearly every day for auditions.

Now, Michelle Williams is 25, a mom herself and an Academy Award nominee in the supporting actress category for “Brokeback Mountain,” which earned eight Oscar nods in all. The ceremony will be broadcast at 5 p.m. Sunday on KGTV/Channel 10.

A provocative film about two cowboys in Wyoming whose friendship becomes a romance, “Brokeback Mountain” is a long way from the rigorous religious precepts of Santa Fe Christian and the G-rated productions of “The Sound of Music” at CYT. Nevertheless, Carla Williams is ecstatic about her daughter's success: “She's sweet, she has a heart, I'm so proud of her.”

Not so proud is Santa Fe Christian headmaster Jim Hopson. “We don't want to have anything to do with her in relation to that movie,” said Hopson, who turned down a request from a Union-Tribune reporter to visit the school and chat with students about the movies and one of their own being up for an Academy Award.

“Michelle doesn't represent the values of this institution. We would not approve of her movies and TV shows (including the teen drama “Dawson's Creek”). We'd not like to be tied to 'Brokeback Mountain.'

“I hope we offered her something in life. But she made the kinds of choices of which we wouldn't approve. 'Brokeback Mountain' basically promotes a lifestyle we don't promote. It's not the word of God.”

Carla Williams was nestled in an office at Christian Community Theater's headquarters in El Cajon (CYT is a component of CCT) with her friends Sheryl and Paul Russell, who founded the organization 25 years ago. They listened quietly as Hopson's words were read to them.


Focus Features
Michelle Williams received an Oscar nod for her work
in "Brokeback Mountain."
“He never knew her,” said Williams, with a lovingly assembled
scrapbook of Michelle in front of her.
“For some people, 'Brokeback Mountain' is difficult.
He has the right to his opinion.”

Some Santa Fe Christian staff and faculty members, Williams said, have called to congratulate her and Michelle. One longtime school employee told her, “You tell Michelle how much I love her.”

Carla Williams can deal with her daughter's critics. “I know her heart, her kind soul,” she said. “Nothing she's done as an actress has bothered me.”

© Copyright 2006 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

March 1st, 2006, 12:34 PM
I was just getting used to black cowboys.

Now it's gay cowboys.

What's next....clown cowboys?

March 1st, 2006, 12:35 PM

Because rodeo clowns feel more at home with balloon animals

March 1st, 2006, 01:18 PM
Interesting how things like Church and God can be interchanged so liberally.

God has never said he does not approve of the Gay lifestyle, the Church has, but you know how it goes..... :P

As for the flik in the midwest? It is peobably getting a lot more viewership even in areas that object to its subject matter just the same way they will slow down and stare at an auto wreck. Not directly comparing the two, but people have a desire to see things that are somehow forbidden.

It will never be a "Titanic", but the media attension and political fervor it has generated has guaranteed it a good showing at the box office.

Oh, and the fact that it did not stink helped too... ;)

March 4th, 2006, 06:26 PM
Gore Vidal on 'Capote,' 'Brokeback Mountain' --
and Why 'Match Point' Is the Best Picture of 2005

Vidal photo: Zuade Kaufman / Illustration: Karen Spector
Prize-winning novelist, essayist, playwright and screenwriter
Gore Vidal sat down with Truthdig’s Sheerly Avni on March 2
in the living room of his home in Hollywood.
He spoke candidly about America’s prudishness, his admiration
for Ang Lee, and Truman Capote’s Proust complex.

By Sheerly Avni (http://www.truthdig.com/about/staff/31)
Mar. 3, 2006


http://www.truthdig.com/images/icon_audio.gif (http://www.truthdig.com/report/audio/20060303_gore_vidal_sex_oscars/)Click here for audio of the expanded version of this interview. (http://www.truthdig.com/report/audio/20060303_gore_vidal_sex_oscars/)

Sheerly Avni: Let’s start with “Brokeback Mountain.”

Gore Vidal: I liked it, I’m a great fan of Ang Lee. He did the best Civil War movie ever made, called “The Devil Rides Outside.” And it was really, really good. Lee had an extraordinary feeling, for somebody from Taiwan, for the American Civil War. It was just fascinating. So I was eager to see the movie about the two sheepherders, actually is what they are, they’re not cowboys.

You can see there’s not a cow in the movie, just a lot of sheep. You can see how the two sheepherders might get tired of the sheep and begin to look to each other, as a kind of variation on a theme. I liked it, I thought it was quite moving, obviously thematically it’s important to do a picture like that about two ordinary men, seized at a time in which all this is forbidden and so on.

It would have been nice, at the same time, if…it would have been better had they started with Kinsey, which was practically erased by the Academy, to which, alas, I belong. I thought that was a terrible error, because it was the best movie of last year, and informative and instructive: You learned a lot about the nature of human sexuality, that there isn’t just one good team and one bad team and one healthy team and one sick team. It’s not that at all.

Sex is a continuum. You go through different phases along life’s way … and if you don’t, you’ve been sort of cheated.

If this film were to win an Oscar, would it be a step forward in tolerance?
How important is Hollywood in this equation?

Well, it never has been, and I don’t see why it should be suddenly now. That it was made at all and that it was made so honestly and so well is a good thing, better than to make a mess out of it, or not try at all….

Look, homophobia is fed into every child in the United States at birth. It is unrelenting, it never lets up. They asked a whole raft of high school boys across the country a couple years ago, one of those polls about what they would most like to be in life, and what … they would hate to be, and so forth, and what they would most hate to be was homosexual.

There wasn’t anyone, not one, who just skipped the question. They all said “oh no, that’s the worst thing you could be.”

To get over that training, that’s generation after generation. And it has not done the character of our nation much good. And that’s why we are a joke to the rest of the world, because we carry on about sexual matters everyone else has forgotten about.

Mitterrand had his mistress at his deathbed, no problem.

No problem. And the events that befell poor President Clinton were all done because he wanted healthcare for everyone in the country, so you get him on dalliance with Monica in the White House. A matter of no importance at all—and no one’s business at all, except his. And that was interesting because that was the impeachment of a president for something that he had done, which was fibbing about—did he know her in the biblical sense. So they say, “That’s perjury, we don’t want a liar for president.” Look what we’ve got now; we don’t get the truth—ever. This was all cooked up to destroy the most intelligent politician in the history of the United States. And like a fool, he agreed to answer the questions. If I were he I would have ordered Starr out of the White House, and said, “If you come back I’ll have you arrested.”

It’s as simple as that. And he would have won anyway, as it was proved. There are times that you must stand up and your private life is private and public life is public.

So will this movie change anything? I think it might give some people a little more heart that what they’re doing is not so unusual. It is traditional, it is biologically correct; mammals have been performing same-sexual acts ever since the first mammal was created. I was not present, alas, at the time, but mammals do behave like that and to say they don’t or to try to frighten them as all those schoolboys have been frightened … well that kind of indoctrination is awful, it makes us seem like a very stupid country to other people, with stupid laws. People are in prison for having done “unnatural acts” as they call it.

Who is to say what is an unnatural act if it is natural for a person to —“Oh, but then you’re in favor of murder!” They go straight from sex to murder so quickly, just as they do in print. Sex and violence! Sex-and-violence! This is the only place on Earth that the two things are one word: sexandviolence! Well, sex has nothing to do with violence unless it’s rape, and then we have other laws to take care of that.

May we ask you about “Capote”?

Oh, Capote. [Sighs.] I spent half a century trying to avoid him, in life, and now suddenly I’m surrounded by him.

He was a pathological liar. He couldn’t tell the truth about anything, and he’d make it up as he went along. He always wore dark glasses, and his eyes would drop behind the dark glasses, and he would seem to be looking down at his nose, and then as he got more and more frenzied—the lies really very frenzied, they were orgasmic—you would start to see the eyes begin to roll up to see if you’d fallen for what he was saying.

And it was always about famous people, some he’d barely heard of before. I remember he told me once “I’m the American Proust.”

So I said, “So who’s your Mme Verdurin?”


He had not heard of one of Proust’s principle characters. He was confidently illiterate. It’s highly suitable that he would become iconic, because he didn’t know anything, and never told the truth. Doesn’t he fit in the age of Bush?

Did you find the movie to be an accurate reflection of his personality?

Well no, but it wasn’t supposed to be. It was a good movie, and they touched upon his treachery towards the two boys. He wants them to swing, because if they don’t he can’t finish his book and if he hasn’t finished his book, he’s in trouble.

Kenneth Tynan, a great critic of that period, did an attack on “In Cold Blood.” It ran in The Observer in London. The headline was “For Cold Cash,” which was about the right tone, and that was pretty much the tone of the movie. The movie is quite brave about showing somebody who did not have any redeeming characteristics, nor did they pretend he had.

And how about the book itself?

Oh, I couldn’t read it. I read a bit of it in The New Yorker and thought; I’m not interested in murders, and pointless ones at that! I don’t know what excitement he got out of it. Obviously some voyeuristic aspect of himself was well served by contemplating it.

In the film he had a frightening way of being able to create an empathetic connection with whomever he was trying to seduce at the time. Did he have that in real life as well?

Yes, he was a very astute flatterer.

Doesn’t sound like it worked so well on you.

No, it didn’t. We were always linked, my first bestselling novel was in 1948 and his was also published in 1948. He was a year older than—I was 23, he was 24. And there we were, our names were forever linked on the bestseller list, and he started saying things about me, which people were delighted to hear.

But I just avoided him for years…. You know, there is a second Capote movie coming up, and I’m in it. I’m being played by quite a good British actor—Rupert Everett. I ran into him recently, and he told me he was playing me, and so I said well, have a good time, and he said, “You know I’ve been complaining it’s such a small part.”

I said, “Because I avoided Capote!” [Laughs.]

And finally, which film do you think should win?

“Match Point” [which was not nominated]. I loved it. Woody Allen was the best filmmaker who was presented to us, and it’s one of his best movies. It’s realism. Life is mostly luck! And the protagonist is a lucky guy. The fact that he’s a bad guy is neither here nor there. Bad guys do very well too.

It’s a very cold, dissecting movie. There’s not a lot of love there.

I don’t go to movies for love, do you?

[I]Part II of this interview coming the week of Mar. 6

Copyright © 2006 Truthdig, L.L.C.

March 31st, 2006, 10:01 AM
Jack's Truck sells for $60,100 on eBay ...

eBay_Listing (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=4625292939&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT)

1950 GMC : half-ton

Winning bid:US $60,100.00