quote:What was being told was a story of intense, surprising, forbidden love, and the tragedy of how the participants failed to resolve it. I don't think that one kind of forbidden love is so extremely unique that it cannot be analogized to another kind of forbidden love.
To quote Dagonee, "Good thing that's not what I was arguing."
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I disagree with the proposition that one kind of love has nothing in common with other kinds of love.
I think the reason it resonates with people is because of the irreconcilable, forbidden love part of the story, not because the two leads are both men.
If it succeeds as a story, it lives or dies on the basis of the resonance of that romance. As a story, it will neither fail nor succeed because the leads are gay.
I think the reason it is more powerful now than Legends of the Fall is is because there really isn't any major obstacle for two heterosexual adults to get together. Romantic comedies are generally lame because the writers have to invent reasons for the lovers to not get together, and considering how easy it is to get divorced nowadays, there isn't any good reason why two adults who want to, can't. Could the same movie be just as powerful if the leads were male and female and there was a strong, unbreakable reason for them not to get together that would last as long? I think so - but I can't think of a reason.
Any obstacle not based on a wacky misunderstanding generally just takes a decision to resolve. Just as, when it comes down to it, the reason this story turned out the way it did was because one person refused to take the action that would resolve it.
Brokeback Mountain taking place with male and female leads in an age where people still get stoned for adultery could be the same story.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No, I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I disagree with the proposition that one kind of love has nothing in common with other kinds of love.
OK. With whom are you disagreeing then? This started with a presumed rebuttal to my first post in this thread and I have suggested nothing of the kind.
quote: Brokeback Mountain taking place with male and female leads in an age where people still get stoned for adultery could be the same story.
You and I clearly have different ideas of what constitutes the "same story". Perhaps you could come up with a viable story between a man and a woman that we might agree is essentially the "same story", but simply setting it back in an even more puritanical time would not do it. For starters, the reasons a man and a woman would not get together with each other, but choose to start families with others instead of with the one they love are fundamentally different than the reasons two men would choose to do so. Has there even ever been a time or place in history where the love between an unrelated man and woman of the same class was a forbidden love? Was there ever at time where the very fact of the hetero-sexual attraction itself even if not acted on brought society's condemnation and even self loathing to the participants? Do you think the difference between societal disapproval of the situation two lovers find themselves in is the same as societal disapproval of the very nature of the attraction itself?
Read this review and then tell me you honestly believe it is "the same story" as Legends of the Fall or any other heterosexual love story, for that matter, and I'll drop my complaint.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Has there even ever been a time or place in history where the love between an unrelated man and woman of the same class was a forbidden love?
When one of them is married. When one is dying. When one is Muslim and the other is Hindu. When one is an avowed celibate priest. When they are soldiers and their countries are fighting against each other. When their families are historically fueding. When they are both spies. When one is a giant ape!! There are dozens of reasons, ranging from the poingnant to the ridiculous. There are forbidden love stories plastered across history and literature. It was not invented by Oscar Wilde.
I have read the short story, and yes, I honestly believe it has much in common with Legends of the Fall. It's not the exact same story (it's a different movie!), but it is more similar than dissimilar.
From your link:
quote:It is the story of a time and place where two men are forced to deny the only great passion either one will ever feel. Their tragedy is universal. It could be about two women, or lovers from different religious or ethnic groups -- any "forbidden" love.
posted
"Married" is a completely different obstacle than being same sex. Loving someone who is dying is not "forbidden" in the least. In fact nearly any story involving it, the love is considered "noble". Different religions, political affiliations, or species would be covered in my qualification of "the same class". Even in the priest and fueding families stories, it isn't the nature of the love itself that is forbidden, it is the acting on it. Yes, there are "forbidden love stories plastered across history. . . " Again you jab me (with "It was not invented by Oscar Wilde") with insinuations that I'm arguing gay love is some how more tragic or more drama worthy than any other kind of love in the world. Now I'm torn between granting the courtesy of assuming you've actually read what I wrote before responding and assuming that you're not lying when you say you're not arguing just to argue, since I have specifically stated I am not asserting any such thing. Never mind. You win. A story is a story is a story. If you can find the slimmest point wherein two elements intersect then they're basically the same thing. (Is that how the rhetoric works? I'm new at it.)
Edit to respond to your edit: Yes, the TRAGEDY is universal. The tragedy is an element of the story, not the story itself.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think you do a great disservice to religion and marriage by saying they are not true obstacles. If it helps to convince you, I can say that I do not believe that either betraying one's spouse or betraying God is noble.
Maybe we are looking at it differently. I've read the short story. I think it is a gay love story - a love story first. It is also a finely developed character sketch of a man crippled by inability to reconcile hisself with himself. Both of those stories do not need to be about someone gay in order to be told.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to be honest, I am upset, and it don't think it's entirely because this particular subject is personal with me. Though admittedly it is personal and I am therefore more likely less able to argue it dispassionately.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you do a great disservice to religion and marriage by saying they are not true obstacles.
How many words are you going to put in my mouth in this single arguement? This is primarily the reason I am upset. It is something you are too smart not to know you are doing and the primary reason I think you are just argueing to score debate points rather than to actually discuss anything of value.
quote:If it helps to convince you, I can say that I do not believe that either betraying one's spouse or betraying God is noble.
I have no idea why you might think this would "help convince" me or what you are trying to convince me of. The only time I mentioned "noble" love, was in relation to loving one who is dying.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I am not scoring points. And I'm not being flip.
You keep saying it is fundamentally different, but I don't buy the reasons you have given. As far as I can see, you are saying that in those obstacles, love is still supported as a higher value and therefore forbidden artificially. Is that right?
I'm saying that I don't think that marriage or religion is an artificial taboo. I think that kind of forbidden love is honestly forbidden, and if the people involved let it happen or act on it, they are acting less honorably than if they do not. How is my belief about those obstacles different from society's belief about the two leads of Brokeback Mountain?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine, and were you willing to argue the reasons I've given - to show me that you have actually read and given the slightest consideration to my point of view rather than the fictional point of view you have repeatedly implied I am argueing, then we might have a productive discussion. As it is, though, I am increasingly upset at your (albeit percieved) glibness and apparent disregard for what I am saying in favor of some fiction you can better argue against.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to respond in about an hour just to give us both time to stop editing what we've written.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just hate living in a country where sexual orientation and sex itself is more offensive to people then violent movies.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't watch violent scenes either. Braveheart was basically pointless to me, and I covered my eyes during the fight scenes in The Chronicles of Narnia.
But it's possible that wasn't directed at me.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The part of this that I think is bad business is that it was cancelled a few hours before opening, instead of just not being selected when the theater was making up schedules in the first place. When I feel like going to a movie (especially opening weekend) I check the movie times online the day before. I'd be pretty ticked if I showed up at the theater that said they were playing something and then they weren't. Especially if it was a relatively small film that wasn't being shown everywhere to start with.
posted
I think the fact it's a gay love story entirely changes the dynamics. Whatever we choose to say, men are different from women, and a romance between two men is very different from one between women. So yes, there is a clear distinction. And it is important: I'd say "boy meets boy" is a completely separate plot type from "boy meets girl". Or, for that matter, "girl meets girl".
That doesn't mean straight audiences can't relate to it. A good film allows you to relate to a role in life that's alien to you.
Posts: 767 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd argue that the cowboy setting adds another layer to the story. No other setting in the American mythological canon conveys an equivilent sense of lonliness and isolation. I don't see that you could have a forbidden love story told in this setting that involved a man and a woman that was comparable to one involving a man and a man.
There may be only seven basic stories, but there are worlds...or rather entire universes...of differences in the tellings of these stories.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I just hate living in a country where sexual orientation and sex itself is more offensive to people then violent movies.
Which country has tastes more aligned with yours? Because I think this country is pretty darn permissive about most stuff.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is one theater not showing one movie really that big of a deal? I mean is this item really that newsworthy?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You keep saying it is fundamentally different, but I don't buy the reasons you have given. As far as I can see, you are saying that in those obstacles, love is still supported as a higher value and therefore forbidden artificially. Is that right?
No. That is not right. I do not believe that love is still supported as a "higher value" at all. But at the very least it is understood and accepted as a natural feeling that would be just fine if all those other obstacles (artificial or otherwise) were removed. That is decidedly not the case between two men. There are very few love situations that are not fundamentally changed when the love is between two men, even in societies where homosexuality has been more accepted than in ours. In other words, if the man were not a priest, it would be fine for him to act on his love of that woman. Take away the war between their countries, it is just fine for him and her to get together. Or to make it clearer, no one faults the priest because he finds a woman attractive as long as he doesn't act on it. Marriage isn't an artificial taboo, but it is widely known that attraction itself does not recognize the taboo. It's widely accepted as natural that in many circumstances feelings can and will pop up between men and women who are not available. The taboo isn't in having the feelings, it is in acting on them.
quote:How is my belief about those obstacles different from society's belief about the two leads of Brokeback Mountain?
The fundamental difference is that the love between two men itself is considered taboo whether they act on it or not. The very idea of the attraction is widely considered perverse. Male lovers not only have to contend with acting in opposition to their desires or not, but also in dealing with feelings they are told are in their very nature perverse, or evil, or somehow pathological. The story of Brokeback Mountain (the movie) would not even exist if it were between a man and a woman. They would meet and fall in love and probably get married, all other things being equal. You could not make a plausible story by swapping genders with a character alone. You would have to introduce some other obstacle that would make them forgo desires that otherwise would be considered fine to act upon. For the two men in Brokeback Mountain, there is no "otherwise".
I think that difference is pretty fundamental.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tante, The "permissiveness" of our society is rooted in it's prudishness. The uproar over Janet Jackson's bare nipple is directly related to the tittilation people got out of "OMG, a nipple!!!!". There's not that much difference between the American public's fascination with sex and its disgust with it. It's almost the same thing and just as unhealthy in either form.
For myself, I'd prefer that sex (while still being important) not be such a big deal, as either a postive or a negative.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't fair to say that it isn't the same story becuase another obstacle would have to be created. Of course another obstacle would have to be created, or else there would be no story at all. That's what I meant earlier about few love stories being about happy relationships that never had any deterents. It's bad for drama.
I don't believe that "the course of true love never did run smooth." Sometimes it does. That doesn't mean it isn't true love - it just means it would be a really boring movie.
I can think of exceptions to this:
quote:But at the very least it is understood and accepted as a natural feeling that would be just fine if all those other obstacles (artificial or otherwise) were removed.
, but I can't think of any that won't make you mad.
I think what you are saying that it is different because in order for what they want to be okay, they would have to be other people entirely. Yes, I can think of other situations that fit that description, but none that you won't be offended by or else dismiss offhand.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Is one theater not showing one movie really that big of a deal? I mean is this item really that newsworthy?
I don't think so, considering other theaters in the same area are showing it, so no one is deprived by the action. However, having sat in many a movie alone or with only two other people in the audience, and having witnessed many films showing automatically to completely empty houses, I simply can't believe that the consideration was economics alone except insofar as it is in reaction to a threatened or feared backlash by other patrons opposed to the subject matter of the movie.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the movie opened in a limited release, overall gross isn't a good indicator. With independent films like this, the best indicator is per screen daily gross.
This past weekend, Brokeback Mountain had a per screen average gross of $11,904 (in its fifth week). The next closest to it was Hostel ($9,157) in its opening weekend. Not a fair comparison. Perhaps a better comparison is movies at a similar stage of their runs. Narnia's per screen average was $4,390 (also in week 5) and was number two (behind Hostel) in total weekly revenue.
Another theatre in Salt Lake showed Brokeback Mountain and posted the 9th highest per screen gross. Still think it was economics?
quote:It isn't fair to say that it isn't the same story becuase another obstacle would have to be created.
I don't feel that it is unfair in the least. I feel that this particular obstacle is significantly different enough that to change it changes the fundamental nature of the story. To water the story down to "two people with a forbidden love", while making it easier to compare it to a million other stories, also makes discussion of the story itself meaningless. The forbidden love between a man and his brother's wife is a very different taboo from the forbidden love between two un-attached, adult males.
quote:I think what you are saying that it is different because in order for what they want to be okay, they would have to be other people entirely.
I don't think it's as easy as that. If they are other people does that make what they want OK, or does it simply make them want something else that is already OK?
Again, nowhere have I said that similarities can't be drawn between certain aspects of Brokeback Mountain and any number of other stories. What I have said, and continue to maintain, is that replacing either male role with a female would make the story fundamentally a different one.
Sure, if you state the plot in a simplistic enough way you can get it to fit a loose category, but "Forbidden love" is not a story. "Boy meets Girl" (to paraphrase Black Mage) is a story, but it isn't the same story as "Boy meets Boy".
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if you knew anything about the movie booking business, you'd realize that this had to be a moral decision and not a financial one. This could cost him a lot more than a few customers. But, I'm willing to bet there won't be much retaliation because it's Utah. If this happened in NYC, I bet the theater owner would be out of business.
And just FYI, per screen, Brokeback is making more money than any other currently in theaters.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Spang, I was typing when you posted and I didn't see your post. But yeah, what you said.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
This film has been selling out screens like crazy in limited release. Salt Lake City is not a conservative demographic; we elect liberal Mayors. We are Democrats. The majority of Salt-Lakers are non-LDS.
Fahrenhet 911 *killed* here. And Brokeback Mountain is selling out shows all day long in the two theaters where it's playing.
It will cost Larry H. Miller money to do what he did. It will cost him money in future business dealings with Focus Features, lost revenues. (I have to wonder what they're doing. Are they leaving a theater sitting empty right now because they don't have a film booked into it?) And it will cost him money because he undoubtedly will still have to pay for the booking.
And unfortunately it cost Focus Features quite a bit of money, also. It cost them several thousand dollars to strike that print, and ship it to new the theater. Hopefully the print is still in good shape after the Larry H. Miller threadmonkeys had their hands on it.
They didn't pull it until hours before it was set to start. Which means:
It was viewed by the theater's staff a day or two earlier.
When movie theaters get new movies, they have to be built-up and pre-screened by the management to make sure there are no problems with the print. So what most likely happened is, upon viewing it, management said to themselves, "We're not showing this," because they found it personally offensive.
That's just a guess.
But it absolutely, 100% without a doubt was not a busines decision. If it was a business decision, they wouldn't have booked the movie in the first place.
These people are showing some bombs, folks. Blood Rayne, anyone?
Whereas Brokeback Mountain was awarded best film of the year by the film critics in Utah.
That doesn't preclude it from being economic. Let's say a substantial group of frequent moviegoers (say families from the area) threatened to boycott the theater. The amount of lost revenue from Chronicles of Narnia and King Kong might make up the revenue differential between Brokeback and whatever was shown in its place. And if I read you right, Brokeback was having a relatively (to the national average) poor showing at another Utah theater. Placing 9th in SLC, while placing 1st nationally might indicate a weak market for the film. Screen time in that market might more economically be given to more showings of something with a better per screen average.
That being said, I'm with Mandy (?) in that the decision was probably affected by both economic and personal considerations.
And in response to Kayla, I think the decision in Utah is likely to win him customers rather than the other way around. It certainly isn't NYC.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To water the story down to "two people with a forbidden love"
Why do you think it would be watering down? I don't agree that this kind of forbidden love is more intense than any other possible kind of forbidden love.
quote:If they are other people does that make what they want OK, or does it simply make them want something else that is already OK?
If they are other people, this is no longer their story. Because they are other people. It is a story where the love is impossible with who they are.
Since Denver is mentioned is a possibility, that which makes it impossible is as much the character of Ennis as anything else.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What was being told was a story of intense, surprising, forbidden love, and the tragedy of how the participants failed to resolve it. I don't think that one kind of forbidden love is so extremely unique that it cannot be analogized to another kind of forbidden love.
To quote Dagonee, "Good thing that's not what I was arguing."
When I went back to look at what you quoted, I got cross-eyed and thought you had posted "What was being told was a story..."
Needless to say I was confused until I figured out my mistake.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senjo, if groups of moviegoers were threatening to boycott the theater (which is preposterous), there would have been just as much news and uproar as there has been about the cancellation.
quote:a threatened or feared backlash by other patrons opposed to the subject matter of the movie.
This is still economics.
Did you not read my post, or did you leave out the "except insofar as" part on purpose to serve your rebuttal. Your answer will reveal whether my frustration with you today is because of your inattention or because of your deliberate mis-representation of my point of view. You've done this repeatedly throughout this discussion. I think it is at best disrespectful and at worst insidiously dishonest. I hesitate to type this because I dislike getting personal on a public forum and for the most part I like you. But sometimes your posts frustrate me to the very core and invariably it is when you utilize this sort of oblique mis-statement of an arguement, for whatever reason you do it.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm not, and repeatedly accusing me of not dealing in good faith is pissing me off.
You are just going to have to deal that someone intelligent can understand you and still disagree. I'm done. *furious*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: And in response to Kayla, I think the decision in Utah is likely to win him customers rather than the other way around. It certainly isn't NYC.
Not if the bookers blackball him and he can't get a movie in the theater.
Like I said, if you knew anything about how movies actually get into a theater, you'd realize that the studios are basically a monopoly.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so we're clear, this is what Karl said, with my bolding:
quote:I simply can't believe that the consideration was economics alone except insofar as it is in reaction to a threatened or feared backlash by other patrons opposed to the subject matter of the movie.
posted
kat, You haven't been treating Karl or Karl's argument with much respect. The "This is still economics." is a good example of what you've been doing.
I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but Karl's got plenty of reason to not expect good faith from you, in terms of you actually trying to understand what he is trying to say.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps they are not objecting to and pulling the movie because the characters are gay, but because the two main characters cheat on their wives? Why would the gay community support this film? Simply because the characters are gay and played by well known actors? That seems a bit silly to me that the gay community supports a film simply because it portrays a homosexual relationship. I have to believe that people who are gay have morals, so why support a movie which promotes homosexuals as lacking morals and willing to betray their significant other because of a sexual desire?
If the movie switched one of the men with a woman it would still be a movie about cheating on a spouse and I imagine the people in Utah would object to that as well.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This movie, I find less offensive than say, Million Dollar Baby, but I do respect the theater owner's right not to show it. Whatever his reasons are, he has the right as a business owner to make decisions about what is shown in his cineplex. Now, if there are repurcussions for breaking a contract agreement, then he should have to suffer those and if the public is upset by his actions they certainly can show it by refusing to patronize his business in the future.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Disney will be glad to hear it. "Pixar, you are ours, no matter what you do. Mwahaaaaaahaaa! PREPARE TO UNLEASH 'NEMO SWIMS AGAIN!'"![[Frown]](frown.gif)
