But yet the director chose two guys because most of the other stuff has been done before and would not spark as much controversy (and hype) as the situation he chose. Whether these are personal beliefs or just a clever trick or whatever, I am sure he went specifically for that couple, specifically for this kind of forbidden love.

So sue me, but I will categorize this a gay movie, much like I will categorize The Passion of the Christ a religious movie (and I could spin it too by saying that it's a movie about someone who despite being innocent suffers and sacrifices himself for the greater good or whatever).

I am not sure that filmmakers will deny that either, though.

I understand what you are saying Lecter, but Rod's response sums it up very well.

I'd be willing to bet that Ang Lee did not choose to film this story for any hype or controversy, just as the writer did not write the story to cause controversy...it was written as a love story, first and foremost. And that's why people are hyping it up so much...not because it's about two men, but just because it is a beautiful tale of LOVE...at least that is what I've gotten out of the stuff I've read...

But you can catagorize it however you personally please...does no harm to the quality of the film if you go into it thinking 'this is a gay movie.' If it is really as good as many say, you should end up leaving it not caring if its two men, two women, or two lab rats. :O :O :O

I haven´t seen the movie yet, so I really shouldn´t have a say in this... but when has that stopped me before?

I think what people are saying is that this is not, first and foremost, a movie about being gay. You know, the movie where the plots is actually about coming out, dealing with the family, discovering the city where you can express yourself, etc...

Those movies are specifically about the gay experience, where BBM seems to use that as a base to tell other, very diverse stuff (Or It should do, based only on my knowledge of the short story) like, for example, what it means to be a man, what some type masculinity is about and the toll It can take, about letting your love slip away out of societal pressure, about (lack off) communication, about that magic time (In this case, the time at BBM) in which everything fits just for a few seconds, and you try to get it back all your life, about fear, about how a person living in the open can also struggle everyday with societal claustrophobia...

At least in the story, you could change two guys for an interracial relationship, and everything would be basically the same... only that It has to be a same sex affair cause It conveys much more those issues of isolation and masculinity addressed above. In that sense, It´d be not a story about being guy, but about two gay guys. It makes a difference. If not, It´s like saying that "The english patient" or "The bridges of Madison county" are "straight movies".

Well, they are, aren't they?

Do you call them that?

I don't, but if you did, I would not say you are wrong.

Yeah, but you wouldn´s ask people "That english patient movie... is that a straight film"?

No. Once gay romances get into mainstream big time (in about 150 years or so) and there will be a great number of them out there, I suppose no one will be asking whether Movie X i a gay film either.

But as it is now, I consider them separate.

Ya know, at this point I don't give a crap about semantics. If you want to label it "gay" go right ahead.

I'm in the camp where the movie doesn't hit you until 10 minutes after it ends.

Ledger should be nominated for an Oscar, for sure.

Oh, awesome, so you saw it

And yes, flind semantics to the ground!


Btw, I remember Ledger being on Leno a while ago (months ago...). Leno asked him about this gay cowboy film he was doing, and the audience laughed. Ledger waited for a while and said "I'll just wait until they stop laughing at me".

Ouch. Late Night Shows usually lack this kind of seriousness, heh.

Of course you would like his answer better it seems to agree more iwth you.lol

I don't think it's AIDS, or bitchyness, or transexuals that make a gay film, even if half the "gay" movies made are about that. And I don't know, I just can't see it as a gay film.


You could go as far as to argue that at least in Ennis' case he might not even gay. He falls in love with Jack, not because he's a guy but maybe in spite of it. I won't argue that because it's not what I believe, but it's completely unimportant to the movie because regardless of wether that could be the case or not Jack is the one person Ennis truly loves.

In Titanic class difference had a lot to do with keeping Jack & Rose apart, yet I woild not call it a movie about class difference, I'd just simply say that class difference was what was used as the main obstacle in the relationship/story. Similarly, it is completely oversimplifying it to just say it's a gay movie, a movie about homosexuality...that gay cowboy movie..and it's also completely narrow-minded. It is not even a gay movie in the sense that it is directed at gay people.

You said a movie in which the main theme is two men getting it on ...is a gay movie. That's what you don't get. It's not the main theme of the movie. It is what's used to develop the main theme (like Titanic, class difference) of the movie. An impossible love. Love gained and lost. The yearning human beings are capable of for someone else in a similar situation. The things you do to cope with that. THAT'S the main theme of the movie. And that's not a gay theme, it's universal.

So... how many of the nearly-90 posts are reviews? Three? Four?

Hmmm. I reviewed it already, and I think I mentioned there and in the BB thread in foreign/indie, but I feel differently about this than everyone else here. I do think Lee intended for it to be about homosexuality. I think trying to make it some universal love story strips the movie of its most poignant point: That societal sexual repression hurts everyone, not just the two lovers.

We like to sit here and think that denying of cursing, or not even acknowledging, homosexuality only has repercussions for gay people. Just like dumb arguements that the Civil Rights movement, or feminist movements only affected blacks and women, when in fact it effects everyone around them, and society in general. I think that was Ang Lee's main point, and to deny that he was speaking about suppression, repression, and violence against the gay community is doing Brokeback Mountain a grave disservice.

Mhm.

It's a gay-themed flick.

Ok my review is up:

http://www.worldofkj.com/reviews/Schade/brokeback.php

I have yet to read Jeff's review and I won't have time now, damn work, but I had the fortunate pleasure of reading Galia's review.

Galia.... I was astonished by your review. Just about exactly what I have thought of the film. SO well crafted and written.

It is an exceptionally well made movie. The Fs are funny because its like giving Spielberg an F for WOTW. People may not like it, and BBM may not resonate with them. Some may find it too paced, etc, but c'mon, its not F quality. Its too well crafted in every aspect, technically. I could see people giving it a C or something, but below that just gets silly.

Ang Lee has done many movies I like. I'm not a big fan of martial arts, everyone knows, but I certainly put his Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon well above all the other recent movies I've seen. I loved his Sense and Sensibility, and I really really loved Eat Drink Man Woman, and The Wedding Banquet.

Anyways, I hope it expands enough so that many people get to see it.

I hope enough people will see it too. I'll catch it this weekend.

The # of A's have doubled the # of F's, after both had 7 votes last week, and in the mean time, real reviews from KJers have shown up, so that's a good trend.

I agree. I like to buck the stereotype that because I'm gay I should instantly like it. To me, it wasn't even the fact that it was about a same-sex relationship. To me, really that had no bearing on whether I liked the film or not, rather it was just the resonating quality in it that I picked out. To me, as I mention in my review, the utter simplicity of it allowed it to soar beyond any movie I've seen in a long time.

These reviews are very encouraging! It's nice to hear them from "normal" people and not just critics. I particularly enjoyed reading Jeff's review. Nice review.

I am sort of worried, because my 'best friend in the whole world' Sarah, said she really disliked the film. And we have incredibly similar tastes in film, and her and I are extremely vocal in our support of homosexuals and their rights, etc. What I mean is that she went in wanting to love the film since she fully supported the story and Ang Lee for making the film. Anyways, she went over all of her problems with the film, but I won't bore you with that.

I'm just really looking forward to Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams. Great acting (and I mean really great, great acting that you come by once in a blue moon) is an absolute thrill to watch on screen, and these two just have the vibe for me.

PEACE, Mike.

I was gonna go see this considering people have been liking it alot and has been getting ALOT of awards buzz... but then I learned it was a gay film... and I cried a little... maybe even died a little... then had wild sex with my girlfriend to prove that I'm not gay for wanting to see a gay movie... and now that I've proven I'm not gay... time to see this movie... wish me luck...

Thanks Mike.

YAY I'm "normal."

So why is this movie rated "R"? Is it worthy of an R or is it bc of subject matter? In Canada it's only rated 14A.