Posted by Gunther Gloop on 11/11/66 11:40

Temsonic wrote:
> I'm surprised someone such as you who very obviously likes to make up
> their own mind about films instead of listening to the herd's
> opinions would let something like the 'gay sector' or 'liberal media
> types' liking it put you off. I haven't seen it yet but I plan to,
> and it hadn't occurred to me until now that it might be considered
> 'un-hetero' of me to want to see it and I most certainly hadn't
> worried about who I might be sitting next to in the cinema. Good god,
> F-cking Amal is one of my favourite films, and I sure as hell isn't a
> teenage lesbian, I don't see why watching Brokeback Mountain would be
> any different.

I wasn't looking for anything other than some balance. I recognise that a
certain group have a vested interest in it (or that's how it's portrayed at
least). The fact that _any_ one group can like a movie does not mean it's
good or bad or worth-seeing in itself.

But I hate movies/books, etc. that deliberately preach a particular
viewpoint and show people with opposing viewpoints as stupid/ backward/
facistic/ childish/ etc. while it "teaches us all the error of our ways".

So I didn't like Pleasantville, Cider House Rules, Amelie and others mainly
for that reason. It's nothing to do with my own opinion of what they were
'preaching', or what anyone else liked or disliked about them.
I think it's wrong for "art" to have a set-viewpoint. That should be left up
to the viewer/listener to decide.

Still, if I was aware beforehand that the movies above were like that I
probably wouldn't have bothered with any of them (well maybe I'd still have
seen Amelie -of the three I most wanted to see that one). For that reason
I've avoided Chocolat (which seems like a remake of Pleasantville) and a
number of others.

My main aim in this thread was to determine if Brokeback Mountain is about
"teaching chip-on-their-shoulder rednecks that gays are good" or is it
actually a proper 3D-characters movie. Ang Lee's presence indicates it
probably _does_ have real characters, but as I said, I didn't really enjoy
much of his other movies anyway.


> Some of the reactions remind me of Y Tu Mama Tambien, which I thought
> was an astoundingly effective film, and lent to my brother-in-law
> who's not averse to subtitled films. I described it to him as being
> 'Mexican with lots of sex and social commentary' but I'd forgotten
> about the scene where the two boys get it on. He came back to me
> saying he'd really enjoyed it but didn't like a certain part - can
> you guess which bit? - and found it 'unnecessary'. Why some men get
> so uptight about this really puzzles me but there we go (suffice to
> say I'll be wary about letting him borrow any of my Almodovar films).
> It's hardly like watching gay porn, it's a love story about people.
> Porn never features love or people, it features personality-less
> bodies for sexual titillation - not that there's anything wrong with
> that in it's right place, but the two shouldn't be confused.

I really enjoyed Y Tu Mama too. Very sexy and crude and thought-provoking I
thought. Must watch again sometime. I was very surprised when the director
was 'chosen' to make that Harry Potter movie (must watch that some time too.
Probably).


> Also, I don't see why anyone should be surprised that it's been
> championed by the gay scene. It's not often that anyone makes a
> mainstream Hollywood film that doesn't either caricature gay
> characters or completely play down their sexuality - look at the flak
> Oliver Stone took regarding a historically accurate portrayal of
> Alexander as being gay, or the fact that Brad Pitt had to get upset
> about his... ahem... "cousin" in Troy.

As I said, it's not about putting down any particular group. I wanted to
hear from the 'other' group because I hadn't already.

From what I now know of Brokeback Mountain, it seems like a close comparison
might be Bridges of Madison County.
....I have yet to watch that movie too. ...It's "on the list", but not a
priority.

-Kevin.

[Back to original message]