Brokeback Mountain?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Brokeback Mountain?
27
Mon, 01-16-2006 - 7:27pm

The awards show coming up tonight has got me to thinking...

How many of the guys out there (boardies, spouses, boyfriends) are just dying to see a movie about a couple of gay cowboys (sheepherders, actually)?

Look, I am not at all homophobic - some of my best friends including a brother and two brothers-in-law are gay - but I have a difficult time understanding how this movie can be getting such incredible ratings when I just don't imagine that guys are lining up at theaters to see it.

Your thoughts? Is it all just Hollywood hype, or what?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-24-2005
Fri, 01-27-2006 - 4:41pm

Have you seen it? Some friends who've seen it say it's getting the attention because it's the first film to bring a relationship between 2 gays into the mainstream.

Ang Lee is thought of as one of the premier film directors of our time now. So I'm certain it has some redeeming values. I'm curious to see it just because it's an Ang Lee film. Never seen one of his before.

When a film (or whatever) gets this much 'buzz,' I'm sometimes curious as to why, and will sometimes see it for that reason alone. It can help me learn about society's current values a little more, hopefully.

I'll likely see it in the next week or so and will post my 'reaction' at that time.




Edited 1/27/2006 4:58 pm ET by mr_e_steubing
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-24-2005
Fri, 01-27-2006 - 4:52pm
Interesting use of words, 'very heterosexual.' What's the distinction between heterosexual and very heterosexual?


Edited 1/27/2006 5:00 pm ET by mr_e_steubing
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Sat, 01-28-2006 - 8:29am

>> When a film (or whatever) gets this much 'buzz,' I'm sometimes curious as to why, and will sometimes see it for that reason alone. <<

A few years ago, one of the big studios released a "major" film with emormous pre-release hype/publicity by way of ads and entertainment-type TV shows (E!, etc). The hype worked; the film did quite well at the box office - for a week or so. However, nearly everyone who saw it complained that it was pretty bad and - after a few weeks - you began to hear about people actually walking out of the theater in mid-film.

The hype-sters did their job. Hollywood knew the film was a dog but they also knew that they could turn it into a money-maker with the right advertising campaign.

People today don't understand the difference between a "blockbuster" of the past (the 50's and 60's) vs today. In earlier times, a movie was released to the theaters and tended to stay in theaters until it had worn out it's welcome. A popular movie (that is, one which was actually enjoyed by the movie-goers) might stay in first-run theaters for several months and many people would return to see it 3, 4, or more times. The total box office for a "good" film typically started out small and then continued to build over a period of many weeks and months as word-of-mouth ("You should go see this film!" "C'mon, let's go see that John Wayne film again!") spread. Compare this to today's mode: films are released with lots of hype, do most of their business in the first two weeks after release, and then disappear from theaters shortly after. The studios claim another "blockbuster" even as many movie-goers are complaining about wasting their $10 on a so-so film.

My reason for starting this thread was based on just that scenario: the pre-release hype was reaching annoying proportions. Why? Could it be that Hollywood knew that the film itself would not draw in audiences? Could it be that Hollywood realized that a film about gay cowboys would cause a large percentage of movie-goers to look elsewhere for this weeks entertainment? Come to think of it, did anyone else notice how the Hollywood hype machine did it's best to skirt around the film's premise, never really mentioning that "this is a film about two male cowboys who find love (with each other) out on the range"?

As to the recent awards - ah, the awards...

Golden Globes: Awarded by The Hollywood Foriegn Press Association (hfpa.org). According to thier website, "The Hollywood Foreign Press Association was founded more than 60 years ago by a group of Los Angeles-based journalists working for overseas publications." Tell me again why I should be influenced by thier opinion of a film?

Oscars: It is common knowledge (and often written about) that the Oscars have become highly politicized within the film industry and that awards are won as much through artful manipulation and coercion as anything else. Consider as well that it is movie industry insiders (performers, producers, directors, etc) who actually do the voting. One would be hard-pressed to find a single group in the US with a more decidedly liberal slant than this one.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-24-2005
Sat, 01-28-2006 - 2:24pm

Jeez.

I used the word 'buzz,' perhaps incorrectly, to mean an impression that I manifested through having my 'feelers' out there in general.

I don't have a TV in my house and really only listen to NPR on the radio, so I rarely see ads for films other than the previews at actual films, which I seldom see. I think that my intuition in this case is based upon several non-commercial sources: the knowledge that Ang Lee was the director; from a discussion with a couple friends who'd seen it; and from a review I read in a local independent newspaper.

Yeah, movie tickets are waaayyy too costly these days. Not to mention concession stand prices!

Cheers

E

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2004
Sat, 01-28-2006 - 6:37pm

Its getting awards because it is CRITICALLY acclaimed. that means that 20 or so critics (international and domestic) nominated the picture for its merits. I thought it was very boring. I am not a homophobe and didnt have a problem watching the movie, but I was bored because I never got into the characters, their families, or anything else. For me it was like watching the history of hate crimes against gays in America on the History Channel, (although I am sure I would have liked that program much more than brokeback).

Why did i want to see it? I thought it was going to be a MOVING tale about two people who loved each other and couldnt be together due to outside circumstances, like for instance, pride and prejudice, romeo and juliet, countless others etc. I can see why many others would want to see it based on the premise of the movie. Many like the movie, and that is probably why critics liked it as well.

You are right though, guys generally dont like romances, and this romance would be one of those movies guys would shy away from. It isnt that they are homophobes, they are just not interested in the films content.

Historically speaking the highest grossing films hardly ever win the most awards, so the notion of drawing crowds doesnt apply here. When Lord of the Rings won all those awards, some people were pissed off. Usually it isnt the amount of movie goers but the quality of the ART of film making, not the business of it.

I will close by saying this. Some critics evaluate the ART of the film based on whether it is revolutionary, socially important, etc., and not necessarily if it is entertaining or polished.




Edited 1/28/2006 7:02 pm ET by curiousgeroge
Avatar for katmandoo2001
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 01-30-2006 - 4:20pm

My DH and I often disagree with the critics, though, as many theater goers do.

Rather, we make our decision on what to see based on the recommendations of friends/family, critiques of regular movie goers, along with the objective critic's remarks. Plus, the actors and who's directing plays a big part in the decision as well. We don't simply go to a movie because it's hyped by the press, etc. though. I don't think too many people do.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-26-2004
Mon, 01-30-2006 - 8:03pm

Haven't seen it yet, but I'm looking forward to it. I think it's hot to watch two guys together.

Now...hopefully this will start a trend....and then I'll get to see two heterosexual men making out on stage like Madonna/Aguliera/Spears did!

Imagination is more important than knowledge." (Albert Einstein )

Pages