Ennis Vs. Aslan — Misplaced Hype?
Today I officially declare that I’m tired of the Brokeback Mountain hype. Over it. I’ve talked to too many folks who have seen it (no, not gay conservos either) who, like me, thought the film was just “okay.”
Sure it was a high-profile film because two macho A-list young straight actors play gay cowboys. But the film itself wasn’t the sweeping romantic, or tortured tough-guy epic that the hype leads you to believe. I reviewed the movie earlier and haven’t said much since, well with the exception of getting the Willies earlier this week.
But something struck me a few days ago when I read this post by DJ Drummond about the “cleansing” of Islamic terror by Hollywood. In it, DJ notes the following fact…
Well, at least they managed to avoid making [Sum Of All Fears] an action film about gay sheepherders, “Brokeback Mountain”, Oscar nominations or not, has only pulled in $97.6 Million worldwide, and does not appear to be gaining strength at the box office. For comparison, the much-snubbed ‘Narnia’ movie has already grabbed $511 Million at the box office.
Imagine you are a non-gay hating Red State American with kids. A single day hasn’t gone by where you haven’t heard about Brokeback and how wonderful a film it is. You would think to yourself, “gosh…that Brokeback must be the number one film of 2006!!!” But The Chronicles of Narnia and Brokeback were released on the same day — December 9, 2005. And yet DJ is right, Narnia has walked circles around Brokeback in terms of gross dollars at the box office — people voting with their pocketbooks.
Chronicles of Narnia worldwide gross to date:
Domestic: $285,283,677 43.4%
+ Overseas: $371,878,000 56.6%
= Worldwide: $657,161,677Brokeback Mountain worldwide gross to date:
Domestic: $67,821,000 63.5%
+ Overseas: $39,000,000 36.5%
= Worldwide: $106,821,000
Now I am not trying to diminish the impact and impressive gross of the gay cowboy film at all. A $100M film (especially with a $14M budget) is damn impressive and is considered a blockbuster last I checked. But where is the relative attention to a half-a-billion-dollar film that happens to have a Christian/family theme? And having seen both, there is no debate that Narnia is the far superior movie product than Brokeback.
It certainly shows the liberal political bias of Hollywood and the news media. If you were an average joe, wouldn’t you assume Brokeback was the $500M film? This is just my way of pointing out that it is no wonder Americans think there is some sinister “gay agenda” out there seeping into society. From their perspective, there is.
**UPDATE** - I’ve noticed the commenters discussion over the true meaning of gross revenue and its relevance to which movie is more popular. It seems pretty simple to me. If you think that the average ticket is $8-$10. Then divide the gross of BB ($106M) by $10.00 and that is 10M people. Conversely, Narnia’s $657M means that at $10.00 a ticket, 65M people have seen it.
This debate seems the same as liberals convincing themselves they’ve won the last two Presidential elections despite the actual vote count. Remember, they argued the exit polls were right and trumped the actual vote count.
Amazing.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (from GPW): We should also note that Narnia may have attracted more viewers than the 65 million people Bruce indicated in his update. This movie attracts a lot of children — and most theaters offer discounted prices for kids.
Interesting to see the figures.
Comment by Calarato — February 17, 2006 @ 9:38 am - February 17, 2006
Wow…talk about self-loathing. Lets just an Oscar to Jessica Simpson for Dukes of Hazzard because of the good-intake at the box office.
This post makes it seem like you’re embarrased that a gay-themed film is getting so much hype. This really isn’t about God-versus-the-Gays as Fox News…and now you, suggest.
Comment by Jeremy — February 17, 2006 @ 9:42 am - February 17, 2006
I notice “Brokeback” has entered the lexicon as snarky slang implying a gay relationship and/or homosexual sodomy. (e.g. “When you guys went to the bathroom together, I was imagining a ‘Brokeback’ scenario.”)
I don’t think a week goes by when a Brokeback Mountin’ joke doesn’t appear on my blog.
Comment by V the K — February 17, 2006 @ 9:58 am - February 17, 2006
I still haven’t seen Brokeback Mountain because I’m always suspicious of super-hyped up movies. Personally I prefer fun, escapist entertainment. I might be more inclined to see brokeback if someone can tell me about a scene or two in that movie that’s life-affirming and happy. I get the impression that I’d leave the theater depressed.
Comment by Dave — February 17, 2006 @ 10:09 am - February 17, 2006
I’m with Dave. You should go to the movies to be entertained, not because you feel socially obligated.
Comment by V the K — February 17, 2006 @ 10:34 am - February 17, 2006
#4 - In Brokeback, there is a strange “reversal of polarity” where the sad scenes are life-affirming, while the happy ones are creepy.
There is a wonderful scene toward the end of the movie where, after Jake Gyllenhal’s character has tragically died, Heath Ledger’s character visits the aging mother and they mutually realize that Heath’s character was the great love of her son’s life. In her own way, she approves. They never say it; it’s acted all in the eyes.
But for the overtly happy scenes:
A nice shot of them leaping off a (small) cliff naked into bracing water is really kind of creepy, because the story context is them literally running from their family responsibilities.
A scene where Jake G’s character is euphoric and singing “King of the Road” as he drives up to see Heath Ledger’s is supposed to show his happiness. But it’s creepy, because the story context is that Heath Ledger’s character was just left by his wife, and Jake G’s hasn’t even stopped to phone (to offer support, to ask if it’s a good time vis a vis Heath’s children, etc.). He has simply assumed, like an infant, that all his dreams will come true now and no one else exists or matters.
Comment by Calarato — February 17, 2006 @ 10:36 am - February 17, 2006
Jeremy (#2) — The next time, I’d suggest actually reading the entire post before you automatically hit “SEND” on your liberal talking points memo.
If your definition of self-loathing means I must love everything gay-themed with no questions asked — then I guess I must be.
I’d rather be self-loathing under that definition than a mindless gay robot with no original thought of my own.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — February 17, 2006 @ 10:57 am - February 17, 2006
Bruce, if he thinks you’re homophobic, my blog or TGC’s blog would make his head explode.
Comment by V the K — February 17, 2006 @ 11:04 am - February 17, 2006
Wow…talk about self-loathing. Lets just an Oscar to Jessica Simpson for Dukes of Hazzard because of the good-intake at the box office.
Jeremy, if you’re going to argue a point, PLEASE have the decency to make it coherent.
But having said that, I have to confess that I vehemently disagree with Bruce’s assertion that Brokeback’s Oscar buzz reveals an agenda, given it’s laudible, yet relatively tame B.O. grosses. In fact, I would assert that this particular argument, so often stated in conservative discussions, is the height of disingenuousness, and with your kind indulgence, allow me to explain why…
To begin with, Bruce, numbers have NOTHING to do with whether or not a film receives an Oscar nomination or eventually wins, and if you look at AMPAS’s history, you’ll see this yourself. For example, look at the worldwide (intl & domestic) grosses of these five Best Picture winners:
1997 Titanic $1,835,400,000
1998 Shakespeare in Love $289,200,000
1999 American Beauty $336,000,000
2000 Gladiator $457,700,000
2001 A Beautiful Mind $312,100,000
Bruce, I see NO pattern here. Titanic did over a billion dollars, while the very next year, Shakespeare did just over 1/6th of that. In addition, while many people felt that the latter was a far better picture, everyone agrees that Miramax’s highly aggressive (and excessive) Oscar campaign allowed it to beat Spielberg’s (aka The Maestro) Saving Private Ryan.
If anything, Brokeback’s producers are doing what any competent producer would do, regardless of whether or not their film is in contention. The fact that this creates hype isn’t nearly as indicative of the agenda you and so many other conservatives point to. On the contrary, it’s about two things: making money and getting Academy votes.
Don’t be mistaken, gentlemen…while actors and directors may delude themselves into believing the films they work on are made as part of some greater, altruistic, liberal crusade, Hollywood is, at it’s wonderfully capitalist core, a business. Money is spoken here. Loudly.
Actors and directors don’t own the films they work on, and they are so very seldom responsible for their conception (thankfully). It’s the producers who make these movies a reality, and while I grant you that these same producers often want to make a statement with their work, it is the money that drives them.
I’m not sure if I got my point across, and we could debate this for days, but thanks for letting me add my two cents nonetheless.
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 17, 2006 @ 11:14 am - February 17, 2006
1997 Titanic $1,835,400,000
1998 Shakespeare in Love $289,200,000
1999 American Beauty $336,000,000
2000 Gladiator $457,700,000
2001 A Beautiful Mind $312,100,000
I see pattern 4 out of those 5 were boring, overhyped crap. Which would suggest that sucking and being over-hyped is a stronger correlator of Oscar-worthiness than BO Gross.
The best movie I saw last year was Serenity. It was brilliant, expansive, clever, witty, textured, and entertaining from beginning to end. It is also no where to be found in Oscar country.
Comment by V the K — February 17, 2006 @ 11:30 am - February 17, 2006
And, just to clarify, I regard American Beauty as the stupidest, most pretentious, wretched piece of crap movie I’ve ever seen. And that’s coming from a guy with >100 MST3K episodes on DVD. Monster a-Go-Go is a better movie than American Beauty. Hell, Hobgoblins is a better movie than American Beauty. The episode of the old Star Trek where the space brats take over the Enterprise would have been a better movie than American Beauty.
Comment by V the K — February 17, 2006 @ 11:35 am - February 17, 2006
How much of the Box office disparity comes simply from the ratings? Brokeback is R rated and Narnia is PG. I dont know much about the movie business, but I suspect PG movies tend to do better at the box office than R ones.
Let’s assume that both Brokeback and Narnia are equally good. It seems reasonable that Narnia would have better box office revenue, bacause if you are a family with kids that wants to watch a movie, you are going to watch see Narnia rather than than Brokeback.
Personally, I liked Brokeback mountain, and think that Narnia was bleh. But then again, I’ve never been fond of allegory.
Comment by Roy — February 17, 2006 @ 11:54 am - February 17, 2006
And, just to clarify, I regard American Beauty as the stupidest, most pretentious, wretched piece of crap movie I’ve ever seen.
On behalf of producers everywhere who make stupid, pretentious, wretched pieces of crap, I thank you for your support, V!
And that’s coming from a guy with >100 MST3K episodes on DVD.
What, no Harvey Birdman episodes? Philistine!
Hey, V, ya know I luv ya more than my luggage, right? I just couldn’t help myself! LOL
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 17, 2006 @ 12:10 pm - February 17, 2006
Also, I do not think that the disparity of media coverage is all that surprising, or unusual. For all its technical mastery, The Chronicles of Narnia *breaks no new ground*. The story is good, but familiar to many people — it has been around for a long time. Stage plays of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe have has fairly successful runs all around the world (that is, this is not notoriously difficult to translate to screen as opposed to, say LOTR).
On the other hand, Brokeback is a movie about something that is still pretty much taboo for a lot of people. Further, it protrays gays in a non-stereotypical manner. Plus, its two main characters are hot celebrities.
If you were part of the mainstream media, which movie would you write about?
Comment by Roy — February 17, 2006 @ 12:11 pm - February 17, 2006
The reason the media are covering the box office of Brokeback is because it is, in fact, a major story. Narnia was a $150 million production, with major studio backing, a tried-and-true literary property, and lots of Hollywood publicity. It opened in over 3,000 venues during its first weekend, and had all the earmarks of a blockbuster. Narnia would only have been newsworthy if, like Peter Jackson’s King Kong, it failed to meet box-office expectations.
In contrast, Brokeback Mountain was a $14 million arthouse offering from an independent company. The distributors sold off the foreign rights so that they could break even, and they didn’t expect the film to do much business outside of the urban-arthouse circuit (sort of like Capote or The Dying Gaul). Brokeback made news because people flocked to see it, and no one (not even the distributors) anticipated the demand. It grossed over $100,000 per screen in its first weekend of limited release, and broke the box-office top ten in mid-December while playing in only 62 venues. Under pressure from exhibitors, the film’s producers rushed to get Brokeback out of the arthouse ghetto while the buzz was still hot.
Brokeback has already been far more profitable, in terms of return on investment, than Narnia. But even more than that, the film took the entertainment establishment largely by surprise. That’s news.
Comment by Tim Hulsey — February 17, 2006 @ 12:16 pm - February 17, 2006
Tim nails it quite nicely. Break it down by the numbers, and you see that from a business standpoint, Brokeback did quite well. However, this doesn’t address the agenda that some of us conservatives see emanating from Hollywood. As I said earlier, I work here, and while liberalism is pervasive here, the driving force of the biz is money, pure and simple. While we here in the industry wish like hell we could make a film that EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET would go see, the truth is that it’ll never happen. That doesn’t mean, however, that we won’t ever stop trying.
I’m in a weird place here. I’m a queer conservative, yet everytime the subject of Hollywood comes up, I find myself “a man without a country,” such is the lack of respect my fellow conservatives have for my town & my vocation. However, without trying to sound pretentious, I had the pleasure of meeting Mel Gibson last year at a luncheon in Culver City. When I asked him about how he reconciles his beliefs (spiritually & politically) with those of the industry in which we work, he said, “All I ever really set out to do is make the film I believe in. I love what I do, but if I tried to make movies that other people will love exclusively, I’d blow it higher than a kite.”
Well said. The libs out here loathe my beliefs, and my fellow conservatives loathe my industry. All I can really do, therefore, is stay true to my vision, market the hell out of it, and hope a ton of people wanna go see it.
After all, there IS no such thing as a communist producer, is there?
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 17, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - February 17, 2006
If I were forced to choose one movie or the other to watch, I would have watched Narnia. I liked both, but having seen both movies, I want to see Brokeback again but I don’t particularly want to see Narnia again. They’re two very different movies and I don’t know if it’s fair to compare apples to oranges. BB was “artsy”. It was released in far fewer theaters forcing people to go to a bit more trouble if they wanted to see it. Narnia was a retelling of a classical theme and somewhat straightforward and it’s budget alone indicates it’s for a broader market. BB was complex and cerebral. It was particularly good for the smaller audience that wants that kind of movie, at least compared to other movies like it.
It was creepy at times, and I think that’s ok. It was a creepy situation. The whole premise was about the mess created by this intense pressure to conform to something that’s unnatural for these two men. I think it was kind of daring to show how imperfect they were, like the times when they were being selfish and irresponsible in pursuit of a little time together. I’m conservative and a big proponent of personal responsibility so it bothered me, but it seemed real.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — February 17, 2006 @ 12:42 pm - February 17, 2006
No, Bruce…its how you argued it, not that you didn’t like the movie. As far as my “liberal talking points memo.” I love how people on here automatically lable you a liberal whenever you disagree with the CW on here. I have lots of comments agreeing with you, and as I conservative I can disagree on things like this.
Comment by Jeremy — February 17, 2006 @ 12:44 pm - February 17, 2006
Eric. That was well put.
Is it true that in Hollywood, the difference between a liberal and a conservative, is a series that makes it to syndication?
Comment by hank — February 17, 2006 @ 12:53 pm - February 17, 2006
#16 - “After all, there IS no such thing as a communist producer, is there?”
It’s long been known that all media are powerful influences on the public. It was Joseph Stalin who said “If I could control the media I’d control the world”.
When we have nuts like George Soros and others funding far left media outlets like Moveon.org and Air America let’s not be so niave as to dismiss the possibility of a liberal agenda in at least some of Hollywood film making.
Comment by Dave — February 17, 2006 @ 12:54 pm - February 17, 2006
“And having seen both, there is no debate that Narnia is the far superior movie product than Brokeback.”
Do you have an opinion on the artistic merits of the short story?
Comment by anon — February 17, 2006 @ 12:58 pm - February 17, 2006
Vera thought Mark Steyn, in this weeks National Review (“Phoney Baloney: That’s what George Clooney and the rest of the Oscar crowd have served up”), hit the nail on the head:
“Go back to USA Today’s approving list of Hollywood’s willingness to “broach the tough issues”: “Brokeback and Capote for their portrayal of gay characters; Crash for its examination of racial tension . . .” That might have been “bold” “courageous” movie-making half-a-century ago. Ever seen the Dirk Bogarde film Victim? He plays a respectable married barrister whose latest case threatens to expose his homosexuality. That was 1961, when homosexuality was illegal in the United Kingdom and Bogarde was the British movie industry’s matinee idol and every schoolgirl’s pinup: That’s brave. Doing it at a time when your typical conservative politician gets denounced as “homophobic” because he’s only in favor of civil unions is just an exercise in moral self-congratulation.”
Ouch!
Vera doesn’t think Mr. Steyn will be attending this year’s “Vanity Fair Oscar Party”.
Vera has always had a crush on Dirk Bogarde, regardless.
Comment by Vera Charles — February 17, 2006 @ 12:59 pm - February 17, 2006
#15
Very on point. But If I had a choice, I would have rather had a piece of My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
It remains the zenith in niche, WOM profitability.
Nia Vardalos who?
=
Comment by chandler in hollywood — February 17, 2006 @ 1:13 pm - February 17, 2006
Eric and Tim have pretty much summed it up. But I’ll add a last two cents. The audiences for both movies are very different. The comparison is simply unfair.
The comparison would be unfair even if Brokeback didn’t have any gay story line at all. You can’t compare a serious drama with what is a youth-oriented movie and expect that the audiences and revenue are going to be in any way similar.
And I’m sorry Bruce but your commentary just really begs the question, does the hype about this movie bother you because its about gay people? I just can’t see you getting as worked up over this if it had been a straight drama getting all the hype instead.
The idea of the self-loathing gay person is a stereotype, but it does have basis in fact.
The prejudices toward gay people in our culture are very deep. They have been made almost instinctual over time.
It’s the “ick” factor about homosexuality that I’m talking about.
Gay and lesbian people also have these negative feelings about homosexuality. And they don’t vanish in a puff of smoke once you come out.
For some people, it remains with them their entire lives.
That probably describes the two characters in the Brokeback film. (I haven’t seen the movie so I’m going on hearsay).
I can’t speak for lesbians, but I know that for gay men, it has a lot to do with being secure with yourself as a man. You grow up being told that gay men are not “real men”, so you do everything you can to “act straight”. But for some men, both gay and straight, thats not an option. They just are effeminate.
So a question for Bruce:
If you were having a party with friends both gay and straight, would you be comfortable if there was a very effeminate gay man there?
Would the way he speaks, the way he acts, the way he looks, with feminine mannerisms, bother you?
If the answer is “yes”, then you still have more internal work to do. Because you are still afraid, deep inside, of being a sissy. You are still prejudiced.
And BTW, my answer to the question would be “yes”. Its just something that is very difficult to deal with. But it must be faced.
Because there is no difference in moral worth between a “straight acting” man and an effeminate one. And you cannot say “gay is OK” without also saying “effeminate men are OK”. They go together, because the prejudice faced by each comes from exactly the same place. The loathing of one is the loathing of the other.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 17, 2006 @ 1:44 pm - February 17, 2006
Good post Bruce! I’ve been amazed at the number of gay-authored sites where the guys are gushing over the “fact” that Brokeback has been so well received (critically) and the people are flocking to the ticket booth to support gays & the liberal gay social agenda of unequivocal, unconditional acceptance –which of course, isn’t necessarily a valid conclusion.
In a way, those posts remind me of Sally Field (please, no “s”) at the Oscars gushing “You love me. You really love ME.” And about as vacuous.
Thanks for putting the money myth numbers to the truth. They love us, they really do!
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 17, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - February 17, 2006
“And, just to clarify, I regard American Beauty as the stupidest, most pretentious, wretched piece of crap movie I’ve ever seen.”
V,
That shows how relative the value of a movie is to the audience watching it is. You have obviously never been maried to a woman; married guys have told me how that movie told their lives done to the, well, almost last detail. That’s why it’s idle to compare movies against one standard as far as the importance or value of the story.
The same goes for the simple entertainment value of a movie. Ang Lee does great landscape movies, and BBM was great in that regard, and I find movies like that entertaining for just that much of a reason.
Comment by Jim — February 17, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - February 17, 2006
God. I am a horrible human being. I haven’t seen either one!
Comment by sonicfrog — February 17, 2006 @ 2:53 pm - February 17, 2006
Never (#28) — Isn’t marriage the most conforming move of all?
Comment by GayPatriot — February 17, 2006 @ 3:13 pm - February 17, 2006
Gryph (#24) — Enough of the psychoanalysis, bro. The answer to your question from me, it turns out, is NO. In fact I HAVE been in situations you describe with members of my family there as well. *SHOCKING!*
Get off the Freudian kick. You throw out the “self-loathing” label as easily as you do “Bush lied.” It is as old and tired as liberals’ ideas about governing America….if they had any.
Comment by GayPatriot — February 17, 2006 @ 3:16 pm - February 17, 2006
Well it bothers me because it glorifies adultery, and implies that gay people get a pass and don’t need to be failthful to their spouses — and anybody who buys into that is not ready for marriage.
That, and BB is nothing more than a chick flick — though I’d rather see it again than Titanic.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 17, 2006 @ 3:25 pm - February 17, 2006
GP said:
Never (#28) — Isn’t marriage the most conforming move of all?
Yeah. Our 10 year anniversary is coming up in July. We have talked about going on a cruise or something, but will probably be on the couch at home drinkin’ a good bottle of wine and watching “Battlestar Galactica” or something from Netflix. Life is great!
Comment by sonicfrog — February 17, 2006 @ 3:53 pm - February 17, 2006
So if Brokeback had been a movie about straight cowboys you still would be having a this little hissy fit?
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 17, 2006 @ 4:06 pm - February 17, 2006
#5
That’s what I was trying to say in that post a while back. Can’t look for it now though.
One of TGCpartner’s reasons for going to see Brokeback was because he wanted to give some money to a gay film. He was actually interested in seeing it do well, which is unusual since he usually doesn’t care for that aspect of a film.
It seemed to me that one of his reasons for seeing it was because something told him he should. He’s seen it 3 times now and I haven’t seen it yet. I suppose I will when it’s out on DVD. As far as Oscars go, I couldn’t care less. I gave up on caring when I kept seeing miserable pieces of insipid crap getting trophies while good movies went by the wayside.
Re: Titanic
I sorta liked it, even though the love story screwed it up. As a history buff, I kept looking at the background to see how the ship looked, how the people dressed, etc. I was far more interested (and choked up) in seeing what it was probably like when she broke up and sank than I was when Jack broke up and sank.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 17, 2006 @ 4:18 pm - February 17, 2006
Bruce, Dan, do you have an opinion on the artistic merits of the short story?
Comment by anon — February 17, 2006 @ 4:53 pm - February 17, 2006
I haven’t read the book. I would like to.
Comment by GayPatriot — February 17, 2006 @ 5:19 pm - February 17, 2006
it wouldn’t be quite so bad, because it wouldn’t be sending the message that morals do not apply to gay people — and that gay people are not ready for the responsibility of marriage.
But only slighty less so. It’s still nothing but another boring chick flick.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 17, 2006 @ 5:42 pm - February 17, 2006
#14 - No offense, but the specific criteria you offer on Brokeback’s behalf all apply to Philadelphia. That was, what, 1994? By those criteria, Brokeback’s “been done… yawn”.
Comment by Calarato — February 17, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - February 17, 2006
Tim Hulsey has got it right, and it bears repeating: the wonder of Brokeback Mountain’s sales is that it outperformed many ‘blockbuster’-type movies (e.g., Kong) with a miniscule number of theaters. That is amazing.
And it was a incredible movie, too.
Weird too, to see how many critics think that the leading characters weren’t “really” gay…
Comment by blog responder — February 17, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - February 17, 2006
#15 - Reads like a news release from the people trying to promote Brokeback.
#24 - Gryph, you say you have issues about effeminate men, and I must agree, because of the way you have obsessed over the “moral worth of effeminate men” in comment 24.
“…you cannot say “gay is OK” without also saying “effeminate men are OK”. They go together…”
No they don’t, sorry. There are effeminate heterosexual men. But who’s saying effeminate men (gay or straight) aren’t OK to begin with, in this discussion? I searched the thread for mentions of male effeminacy as an issue; it appears you’ve brought it up out of thin air.
Long story short, the question of a guy’s gender mannerims is trivial and not necessarily or inherently related to his sexuality, or to this discussion.
“there is no difference in moral worth between a “straight acting” man and an effeminate one…”
So trivially and obviously true that again I must ask: who has even brought up this issue? Where did you get this as a concern? Where is it coming from (in you)?
#31 - Agree.
Comment by Calarato — February 17, 2006 @ 6:48 pm - February 17, 2006
#33 - And now, a valid point that a blog author originally made about Brokeback’s box office vs. Narnia’s, is a “hissy fit”?
Gryph is majorly freaked out today (though not the first time, as I know from my recent “encounter” with His Ugliness).
Comment by Calarato — February 17, 2006 @ 6:53 pm - February 17, 2006
#40 - A movie’s box office receipts reflect the level of audience demand for that movie, regardless of theaters. The receipts are what they are. There is no “amazing story” in that; it’s necessarily true of every movie. And it just happens that Brokeback has done $106m, and Narnia $657m.
“miniscule” number of theaters? absurd statement
Comment by Calarato — February 17, 2006 @ 7:01 pm - February 17, 2006
#13 — I was just trying to convey that I hate the film American Beauty with the same white-hot intensity with which David Gregory hates Dick Cheney.
Comment by V the K — February 17, 2006 @ 7:07 pm - February 17, 2006
“It certainly shows the liberal political bias of Hollywood and the news media. If you were an average joe, wouldn’t you assume Brokeback was the $500M film? This is just my way of pointing out that it is no wonder Americans think there is some sinister ‘gay agenda’ out there seeping into society. From their perspective, there is.”
Wow–apologizing for people who believe in a “sinister ‘gay agenda’ out there seeping into society” — when what’s merely gone on is that a (comparatively) small movie, shown in only a few theaters, did far, far better than could have been expected–whereas Narnia, an action movie based on an extremely popular children book series, did very well, exactly as everyone would have expected, and so, apparently, people payed more attention to the unexpected thing than the expected thing. That’s a ‘gay conspiracy’?
Comment by blog responder — February 17, 2006 @ 7:09 pm - February 17, 2006
Dave wrote: “I still haven’t seen Brokeback Mountain because I’m always suspicious of super-hyped up movies. Personally I prefer fun, escapist entertainment. I might be more inclined to see brokeback if someone can tell me about a scene or two in that movie that’s life-affirming and happy. I get the impression that I’d leave the theater depressed.”
Well, you better not go see The Passion of the Christ, then…!
Comment by blog responder — February 17, 2006 @ 7:13 pm - February 17, 2006
Vera Charles wrote: ‘“Go back to USA Today’s approving list of Hollywood’s willingness to “broach the tough issues”: “Brokeback and Capote for their portrayal of gay characters; Crash for its examination of racial tension . . .” That might have been “bold” “courageous” movie-making half-a-century ago.’
Hmmm–given that everything’s OK nowadays and all problems for gays are solved, it’s good to know that nothing like Brokeback Mountain would ever happen today…
Partner’s death ends happy life on ranch:
2 decades together mean nothing in Oklahoma law
Indystar December 31, 2005
Oi vey, Vera.
Comment by blog responder — February 17, 2006 @ 7:19 pm - February 17, 2006
Calarato wrote: “‘miniscule’ number of theaters? absurd statement.”
Well, I meant, in comparison to the number of theaters in which Narnia was shown, since that was the original context for the discussion. Comparatively miniscule. It should have been obvious, but it wasn’t. My bad, I guess…
Comment by blog responder — February 17, 2006 @ 7:27 pm - February 17, 2006
rightwingprof writes that the movie “glorifies adultery” — I certainly did not come away from the movie thinking that adultery was a good idea, nor did it appear to be the message of the movie. Rather, their adultery seemed to be the only way (admittedly dishonest and flawed) they could see each other without being murdered–and even then, one of them was still beaten to death. I guess you missed that part, and you thought if they just got married to each other in front of everyone nothing would have happened to them? An interesting interpretation of the film, to say the least.
Comment by blog responder — February 17, 2006 @ 7:33 pm - February 17, 2006
#48
Did you bother to read the rest of Vera’s post?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 17, 2006 @ 7:50 pm - February 17, 2006
“I haven’t read the book. I would like to.”
Well, let us know after you’ve read it. I would be very surprised if Dan hasn’t read it.
Comment by anon — February 17, 2006 @ 7:53 pm - February 17, 2006
ThatGayConservative asks, “Did you bother to read the rest of Vera’s post?”
Do you mean the part where she didn’t repudiate what she said in the beginning? Maybe I missed an attribution or something, but my understanding was that she agreed with everything she quoted: “Ouch,” she approvingly said of the remarks she quoted… But maybe I missed something; let me know.
Comment by blog responder — February 17, 2006 @ 8:08 pm - February 17, 2006
I think it speaks well for BB that different people have such different and strong reactions to it. I found it very sad all around. And thoughtful. I have heard other reactions from “boring” to “it promotes bareback sex”. At least people are talking about it. I have read the novella, and for me the film captured its essence perfectly. Prolux is quite a writer. In fact, I’m reading The Shipping News right now.
Comment by hank — February 17, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - February 17, 2006
Gryph is majorly freaked out today (though not the first time, as I know from my recent “encounter” with His Ugliness).
Well look! Yet another personal attack by Calarato. How novel. Yawn.
You really should stop being so obsessed with everything I write. Even I don’t place as much importance on my comments as you apparently do.
As far as me moving off topic. Oh. Well.
Like thats never happened on a blog before.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 17, 2006 @ 9:56 pm - February 17, 2006
I read and comment on your spew in precisely 1 thread, and that’s “obsessed”. Hah hah.
Obviously, Mr. Nasty wants to play tit-for-tat again! And he does it poorly as ever!
Goodbye now, Griffie.
Comment by Calarato — February 17, 2006 @ 11:10 pm - February 17, 2006
P.S. - Try responding to the substance of what I said, next time! (Yes, S-U-B-S-T-A-N-C-E)
Comment by Calarato — February 17, 2006 @ 11:13 pm - February 17, 2006
I think the argument can be made that Narnia was slighted, but not neccessarily by Brokeback-there are more than one or two movies nominated, and I haven’t known anyone who saw Munich rave about what a good movie it was (I admit I haven’t seen that one either, but I also admit that Munich didn’t even pique my interest enough to want to pay any amount of money to watch).
I think the major area Narnia was slighted was that the actress who played the White Witch was not given a nomination. She did an incredible job acting her part, and I don’t see how she didn’t warrant a nomination.
Comment by just me — February 17, 2006 @ 11:21 pm - February 17, 2006
bruce & cal - ignore gryphs dumb remarks
Comment by greek_chorus — February 18, 2006 @ 12:05 am - February 18, 2006
-I notice “Brokeback” has entered the lexicon as snarky slang implying a gay relationship and/or homosexual sodomy. (e.g. “When you guys went to the bathroom together, I was imagining a ‘Brokeback’ scenario.”)
I don’t think a week goes by when a Brokeback Mountin’ joke doesn’t appear on my blog. -
I thought you had been making jokes about the film on here for months.
Some straight people are always looking for a reason to get away with anti-gay comments. If they think they can hide them under a ‘joke’, they will be even happier to do it. And of course some gay people will defend them. I’m sure someone will tell me about how gays are to blame for those idiots at Gonzaga University who yell ‘BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN’ at the opposing basketball team to try to rattle them with the old ‘gay’ smear.
As soon as I found out that the major producer/backer behind Narnia had given money in 1992 to block Colorado cities from enacting gay rights laws (not even giving cities the option to decide for themselves), I lost interest in seeing the film. I can’t help laughing at the idea that Narnia is a victim of the liberal media. These types of films play the victim card to the hilt - victim of the liberals, victim of Hollywood, victim of gays, even as they rake in hundreds of millions of dollars.
Every time a film or television series or political victory occurs for gays, I feel like gays are supposed to feel guilty and be put in their place. I expect this from some straight people (they think they are now more free to be openly hostile because we ‘won’ with a successful movie), but why some gay people think we should feel ashamed about this movie is a puzzle to me. I guess gays are so arrogant now that we have total domination of the world.
rightwingprof, this film has one man murdered because of his homosexuality, and the other man’s life is destroyed. I’m not sure how this is celebrating adultery. If you want to see a real celebration of adultery you should watch Same Time Next Year.
Comment by Carl — February 18, 2006 @ 12:30 am - February 18, 2006
I’d also like to know where these non-gay hating red states live where they hear about BBM *every day*. I haven’t heard very much about the film in the past few weeks or the past month. If people are bombarded with this movie they are probably seeking out the movie.
We must have a very low opinion of red staters if we think they are these meek creatures who are being terrified by daily bombardments of Brokeback Mountain. If that is the worst thing in their lives, then they have nothing to worry about.
Comment by Carl — February 18, 2006 @ 12:35 am - February 18, 2006
amount of money made from a movie does not measure how good a movie is. i havent seen brokeback mountain, but i have seen the chronicles of narnia: the lion the witch and the wardrobe. I thought that it was a mediocre fantasy movie pushed by the good marketing skills of the christian media(dont deny it… they are good marketers). I’m don’t intend to convince poeple any way towards which movie is better- im pointing out the frivolosity of this blog post.
Comment by jacob — February 18, 2006 @ 1:24 am - February 18, 2006
A point of interest to me is the fact that Brokeback is the only movie, ever listed in Boxofficemojo, that list 55 out of 70 days as Estimates. I would assume that after all this time someone would let them know what the actual figures were. Estimates are used for the weekends, and the actuals figures are put up on Mon or Tue.
Comment by Don — February 18, 2006 @ 1:42 am - February 18, 2006
Aren’t the arguments about the grosses skewed? The films don’t share the same amount of screens. What’s the per screen take? A fairer comparison?
Comment by Thumbs — February 18, 2006 @ 4:00 am - February 18, 2006
Well of course Narnia had a greater theatrical release, and was rated so more could see it.Where Brokeback willt take off is in DVD sales. Many people who would not have been able to see it at their local theater, or who did not want to be seen viewing it, will buy or rent the DVD.
Viewing it is a personal thing, many older gays,especially from rural areas will appreciate it more,than the younger trendy urban,meth freaks, who probably expected another soft core porn,action or another Will and Grace.
Comment by Stephen Reeves — February 18, 2006 @ 7:58 am - February 18, 2006
And right there, you excuse the adultery. You give them a pass.
You don’t get a pass. When you get married, you stay faithful to your spouse, no matter who else you may be attracted to. The fact that you don’t understand that is the best argument against gay marriage.
You don’t take it seriously. You’re not ready for it.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 18, 2006 @ 8:31 am - February 18, 2006
Few thoughts –
BlogResponder - Brokeback was not a *great* movie. It was good, I liked it and I have said that!… but it certainly wasn’t “great.” I think other films up for Best Picture are much more deserving. Of course, they gave it to Million Dollar Baby over The Aviator and Neverland so go figure.
Comment by GayPatriot — February 18, 2006 @ 9:59 am - February 18, 2006
#62 - Interesting.
I’m not YET one of the “older gays, especially from rural areas”, and I honestly don’t consider Brokeback a very good movie.
So, I must then be one of “the younger trendy urban,meth freaks, who probably expected another soft core porn,action or another Will and Grace”, right?
Because there are ONLY 2 alternatives, right? (You know, kind of like when other people think the only 2 sexualities are “heterosexual” and “abnormal”?
)
———————-
My thumbnail review of BBM: It was sort of okay… beautiful scenery… distastefully un-heroic lead characters… Amazing performance from Heath Ledger… shaky one from Jake; his Oscar nom. is a mystery.
Comment by Calarato — February 18, 2006 @ 11:44 am - February 18, 2006
Bruce, re: your Update… Things could be even a little bit worse for Brokeback.
Most people I know who have seen Narnia are kids / families who saw it once each (and will get the DVD). So 65m people seems likely.
Most of the people I know who have seen Brokeback are gays who have seen it at least 2 times; some 3 or more. (I saw it twice, to make sure I really gave it a chance.) Plus some lesbians and straight women. Overall, 10M people seems high; perhaps more like 6-7M?
Comment by Calarato — February 18, 2006 @ 12:06 pm - February 18, 2006
The only “impact” is in the liberal areas where the movie is preaching to the choir. IOW, there’s nothing to diminish.
They made this movie in 1982. And as awful as it was, it was better than Brokeback Mountain.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 18, 2006 @ 12:12 pm - February 18, 2006
The producers of Brokeback had an agenda probably just like the producers of Syrania and Good Night and Good Luck. Not much of a crime. Why does the gay community have to be above such crass things a making a statement AND making money. All our stuff doesnt have to be artsey crap. Brokeback in my mind doesnt have to be anything more than Will and Grace or Queer as folk. Groundbreaking and helping Gays to breakthru this shhhhhh “they’re gay” , American demeanor. Instead of screaming “we’re here, we’re queer get over it.” I like this approach better. I found the film to be good, it moved you and you could relate to many of the characters not just the two leads. It left most all feeling sad at the end…good God , I dont look for a Sound of Music moment every time I visit the theatre. How d you feel at the end of Munich?
Comment by Gene — February 18, 2006 @ 12:29 pm - February 18, 2006
#66 Pussy Patriot……Hate to say it guy but when i saw Brokeback twice , didnt see many straight liberal couples there. I can telll the libs cos they are usually the ones wearing the I HATE BUSH, PARDON OSAMA t shirts. If the 20% of the population of the US who say they are Liberals would support this film, it would have made huge money by now. But again Libs talk the talk and dont walk the walk.
Comment by Gene — February 18, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - February 18, 2006
#70 - The two times I saw it, there were a lot of female pairs, and the rest gay men.
I assume that some of the female pairs were lesbians, and the others were straight female friends. As at least one straight chick said about Brokeback, “What’s not to like? It’s a chick flick with all hot guys.”
Comment by Calarato — February 18, 2006 @ 12:39 pm - February 18, 2006
P.S. Pussy is always “learning here” all kinds of things that aren’t so, or that are irrelevant and make no sense; I wouldn’t bother with him/her/it.
In my case, (1) I am no Republican and never have been, (2) I am just engaging in a discussion, about a movie whose over-hype makes no sense to me! that’s really it!
Comment by Calarato — February 18, 2006 @ 12:41 pm - February 18, 2006
This conversation makes me think of a bunch of church ladies discussing music. Try to say you don’t “like” a particular song or a composer because they “just aren’t very good” or “impossible to sing” and you get a stern look down that church lady nose and a “talking to” about how it’s the words that matter and doesn’t that song have a lovely message.
Still, comparing Narnia to Brokeback isn’t quite comparing like things, is it?
I haven’t seen either yet. I hope I can catch Narnia before it’s out of the theater. I don’t intend to see Brokeback for the same reason that you’d have to pay me serious bucks to sit through Bridges of Madison County.
Comment by Synova — February 18, 2006 @ 4:01 pm - February 18, 2006
so in other words, brokeback falls into the same category as sideways, more hype than actual substance - guess i’ll wait for the video tape
Comment by ralph — February 18, 2006 @ 4:12 pm - February 18, 2006
Dan, what did you think of the short story?
Comment by anon — February 18, 2006 @ 5:20 pm - February 18, 2006
rightwingprof writes:
[rightwingprof:] And right there, you excuse the adultery. You give them a pass.
You don’t get a pass. When you get married, you stay faithful to your spouse, no matter who else you may be attracted to. The fact that you don’t understand that is the best argument against gay marriage.
You don’t take it seriously. You’re not ready for it.
I never excused it — I said (you even quote the very passage) it was “dishonest and flawed” — I simply pointed out that their deceit took place in a context where honesty meant death. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that I do excuse it, all right? — this would mean I am excusing adultery, whereas you seem to feel the adultery is somehow worse than the murder…! My God, man! Who exactly is making excuses here? Two people in the story are murdered for their sexual orientation, and yet, for you, apparently, the real crime was that two adulterers were presented in a portrait which did not deny their humanity, or something. You still seem to think they could have just waltzed into each others arms without being beaten to death, somehow. You see the adultery but completely breeze by the murderous, brutal, oppressive world they found themselves in.
Is your next post going to rail about how the amoral The Sound of Music smears Catholic nuns and teaches children treachery because of the way the nuns are shown helping the von Trapps escape in the final scenes? True enough, the nuns admit to their superior that they have “sinned,” but the movie seems to forgive them… and in a family movie, of all places! Thanks be to God that they can watch Narnia instead of that relativistic tripe… (I would not be surprised.)
Comment by blog responder, resurrected — February 18, 2006 @ 9:42 pm - February 18, 2006
rightwingprof’s comment,
also seems to completely overlook the fact that, if gay marriage were treated like any other marriage (male+female, Catholic+Protestant, white+African American, etc.), then the only motivation for adultery shown in the movie (namely, the murderous oppression of homosexuals) would be eliminated! And that’s an argument for gay marriage.
I suppose the fact that blacks and whites had to hide their love for each other in the past would be, for you, the “best argument” against abolishing slavery? So much for moral values…
Comment by blog responder, resurrected — February 18, 2006 @ 9:54 pm - February 18, 2006
I suppose the fact that blacks and whites had to hide their love for each other in the past would be, for you, the “best argument” against abolishing slavery? So much for moral values…
I think we have our winning idiotic non-sequitur of the week.
Comment by V the K — February 18, 2006 @ 11:53 pm - February 18, 2006
-
Most people I know who have seen Narnia are kids / families who saw it once each (and will get the DVD). So 65m people seems likely.-
I wonder how many of those kids even wanted to see Narnia, and how many were taken by their parents because of churches which repeatedly told them that this was a pure film, a film they HAD to see. Of course it’s only the BBM producers that have this supposed agenda. The Narnia producers had none at all, I’m sure. Or maybe their agenda is lauded because they aren’t gay.
-The only “impact” is in the liberal areas where the movie is preaching to the choir. IOW, there’s nothing to diminish.-
If the movie had had no impact, there wouldn’t be so much effort by GP and others to diminish any success the film has had, and to prop up supposedly hugely important films like Narnia. Those of you who repeatedly talk about how meaningless the film was give the film far more credibility than you realize.
Comment by Carl — February 19, 2006 @ 12:09 am - February 19, 2006
Carl,
Bruce made a simple and valid observation about the box office numbers of 2 movies. One was Brokeback, which Bruce actually likes - though he questions its over-ype, as do many, including me.
That’s what’s going on here.
To speak of it as GP attempting to “diminish” one film or “prop up” another is silly, vastly overestimates his power in the world, and makes you look touchy.
For my part, I honestly found Jake G’s performance unpersuasive (in fact, scenery-chewing in some places). That’s one individual’s perception (after seeing BBM twice to give Jake a chance) and opinion. No other agenda. I haven’t even seen Narnia.
Comment by Calarato — February 19, 2006 @ 12:37 am - February 19, 2006
Psychobabbe. And the crucial distinction between BBM and Narnia is that the latter had a moral message.
Nobody put a gun to the guy’s head and forced him to marry and have a family. When he did that, he sealed an oath. Had neither character been married, the whole message of the film would have been different, and I wouldn’t have had a problem with it (other than the fact that it is just one more tediously boring chick flick).
Comment by rightwingprof — February 19, 2006 @ 8:43 am - February 19, 2006
“Nobody put a gun to the guy’s head and forced him to marry and have a family.”
That is one of the points this movie makes. Society, at that time, did put a “gun” to his head.
“Hd neither character been married…” Well, that’s not the movie they made.
Comment by hank — February 19, 2006 @ 10:13 am - February 19, 2006
-
Bruce made a simple and valid observation about the box office numbers of 2 movies.-
There was also a great deal of talk about how the media’s hype of BBM shows their liberal bias and all kinds of sympathy for the poor red state folks who just have to hear about this film (presumably they don’t have the ability to put down a paper or turn off their TV or computer).
-
Psychobabbe. And the crucial distinction between BBM and Narnia is that the latter had a moral message.-
Latter is in the eye of the beholder. I think the “message” was generic spiritual psychobabble designed to exploit the Passion of the Christ audience. Nothing truly meaningful or Christian.
BBM had a very moral message. The message was that enteringa marriage under false pretenses is wrong. The message is that hurting yourself and your family will cost you everything, even up to your life. I find that far more moral than people walking through a wardrobe and talking to a lion.
Comment by Carl — February 19, 2006 @ 10:25 am - February 19, 2006
#83
Exactly. So do I.
Comment by hank — February 19, 2006 @ 11:11 am - February 19, 2006
That’s utter crap. We are not little robots. He chose of his own free will to get married. That sealed it.
No, the message was since marriage is about nothing more than who you want to screw, you get a pass. Marriage isn’t about one person, nor is it about who you love. Marriage is about raising a family. Commitment. Responsibility. Why he got married is irrelevant. Once he’s married, that’s it.
And he chose to get married. Society didn’t have a damn thing to do with it.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 19, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - February 19, 2006
OK, well it’s a new day… how’s the following, for diminishng? But note, my agenda, as always, is to acknowledge the truth (not to prop up or diminish, per se, any person or dumb Hollywood movie).
The subtle/hidden message of Brokeback (not what it intended) is that to be gay, is to flee from one’s chosen word and responsibilities.
Evidence:
Jack/Ennis’ first affair - they neglect their duties under their freely given word to their employer, badly enough to have real consequences (no small number of dead and lost sheep).
Note: They didn’t have to; even in the constructed circumstances of the story, they could have balanced things out better. They simply chose not to.
Jack/Ennis’ second affair: They break both of their freely given word to their wives, to have no others before their wives; as well as their duties to their children.
Note: RWP is right that nobody held a gun to either Jack or Ennis’ head to get married. Even in that homophobic era, either one could have chosen to be a permanently single range cowboy, a “confirmed bachelor” as it was known and called and (somewhat) respected, back in those days.
Moreover, Jack in particular has not the slightest thought even for his own kid (except as a pawn in pissing contests with his nasty father-in-law), much less Ennis’ kids. Jack wouldn’t hesitate to completely abandon his kid at the first word from Ennis. That’s morally wrong.
So again, the message hidden in the story’s events (not words) is that gays can’t handle grownup family responsibilities, and should not be expected or asked to.
I am of two minds about that. On the one hand, I know it to be a false message for some gays. On the other hand, I know it to be a true message in regard to some other gays.
And I think that explains part of Brokeback’s appeal. A lot of gays who have essentially no grownup responsibilities and don’t desire any, can gaze at the movie and feel “validated” (or whatever) from their personal philosophy being enacted on the big screen… as something implicitly worth gazing at, with glorious scenery and actors, etc.
Comment by Calarato — February 19, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - February 19, 2006
Ugh. Why the fuck does the Washington Blade carry this blog on their website? It’s unfortunate enough we have to read news articles about chrisitan conservatives trashing our community, now we have to read blogs by our own trashing our community too?
Comment by Anonymous — February 19, 2006 @ 1:50 pm - February 19, 2006
So, Carl… you think those little kidlings are dragged kicking and screaming to watch a boring movie do you?
The church ladies are saying “it’s got a lovely Christian message… it’s sinful to complain that it’s dull” and “the fact that you want to see Madagascar again, instead, is proof of your spiritual immaturity.” Yes? No?
While Narnia may get a big ole stamp of approval from the religious community the allegory is so obscure that children and most adults would be unaware of it if they weren’t told. I’ve not yet met one young person who, when asked, shrugged and said, “Yeah, I guess it was okay.” To a person (and including my 13 year old) they said, “It’s a great movie, you have *got* to see it! I really liked so-and-so…” etc.
Now, it may not be your thing, just like a whole sub-set of movies are not my thing. Yet, from the moment it opened the criticism aimed at Narnia seemed to object to the “manly” Christianity portrayed. This columnist and that seemed alarmed that the huge audiences were inevitable and the message so unpalatable. It would appeal to the great unwashed masses, and wasn’t that a pity. There was never any chance of Narnia winning a bunch of awards and the quality of the movie and universality of the story was irrelevant to that.
Narnia should be compared to family movies. Brokeback should be compared to doomed lovers movies. Neither one should be given a pass because of the “lovely message.”
It’s nice that Brokeback got so much critical acclaim. It’s too bad that Narnia won’t, can’t, and never could.
Comment by Synova — February 19, 2006 @ 2:31 pm - February 19, 2006
#87 Close your eyes really tight and put your fingers in your ears… now, after me… LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA
If the Blade won’t protect you, that’s all you need to do.
Comment by Synova — February 19, 2006 @ 2:36 pm - February 19, 2006
“It’s nice that Brokeback got so much critical acclaim”… if, and where, the acclaim was merited. Brokeback has been over-hyped beyond that point where the acclaim begins to exceed the merit.
Comment by Calarato — February 19, 2006 @ 2:41 pm - February 19, 2006
86: Both of these characters attempt to follow certain christian/conservative mantra. They both attempt to follow “normal” lives by marrying / having children in an attempt to be “normal” This is instilled more into the Ennis character as he witnessed the body of a gay rancher (dead at the possible of hands of Ennis’ own father). Be normal or die was the lesson there.
As far as a responsibility, both characters are shown to be caring fathers, even if it’s not what they wanted in life. In Jack’s case, he remains married til the day he dies. You’re flat out wrong about the relationship with his son: He tries to get his son special tutoring because he has problems at school. (This issue is extended in the original story-Jack tries everything to get his son extra help in school, yet it is Lureen who actively denies the problem with her son exists and won’t let the kid get any help). Also, note that it’s the father-in-law who treats the kid as a pawn - saying that the baby only looks like “his grandpa” and using the kid to attack Jack’s manhood, indicating the kid will only become a real man if he’s allowed to watch football.
In Ennis’ case, it is his wife initiates the divorce, not him. (However, I don’t deny he doesn’t have bagloads of faults - just like all of us do)
My validation of this film comes not from my own experiences as a single gay man. It comes from the thousands of responses sent to Annie Proulx and the filmmakers which indicate that this story is not fiction - they say that it is their story. Had they not felt the need to follow society and do as it demands, they would have been happier people and (more importantly) had not hurt those they cared for by entering into loveless marriages. All of these people talk about how strong family/church are in the fabric of the lives of people who live in the rural west and how they weren’t surprised that situations like this story existed. Even though I’m a single gay out man, I have no reason to disbelieve their statements and firmly believe that the environment can contribute strongly to people’s decisions.
You talk about that whole confirmed bachelor stuff. You conveniently ignore the fact that these confirmed bachelors are generally men of some kind of means (usually financial) and are able to sustain themselves on their own. It’s very clear that Jack and Ennis are dirt poor (esp Ennis). Relying on the community fabric is essential to their existence.
I guess it’s great that you and other people out there have never experienced emotional conflict in your life. bravo. Let’s drop the holier than thou attitude, shall we? I suspect that everyone has in their life made at least one bad decision in their lives and, hopefully, learns something from it. Look at Ennis; in his last meeting wit