Your analisis is far too simplistic. If I recall it correctly, America is more or less divided by half in blue/red states. So if awarding "Brokeback" would alienate part of the audience, not awarding it if the consensus is that It is the best film(A big If, but possible), would probably be seen by many as homophobic... Therefore alienating the "liberal" audience.

BTW, I think you need to re-read carefully the article you quote. It doesn´t say the movie is going to change the country, It says It has the potential (Big, huge difference) to challenge some people´s ideas and change the national conversation (By that, I guess the jourmalist means to put the "love" back in homosexuality, and alter the perception shared by many of gay people as vicious, etc... )And yep, I think It does have that potential. Will it achieve it? I don´t know...

In any case, you carefully selected a couple of reviews (BTW, the "Newsweek" one is not a review, but an article on the film, that is why It´s talking about the movie´s possible repercusions, instead of focusing more on the cinematographic aspects) but there are many, many more that give raves to the movie just in the terms of being, according to the reviewers, a very good/great film. I guess the Jury at the Venice Film Festival whom awarded the film with its top prize had an agenda, too. That is why only gay movies win awards, right?

Also, nobody has said "cinema is about to be changed forever". That is, as you say, bullshit, but It seems to be your bullshit. I think It has to overcome more obstacles than other films, Its BO performance remains a mistery but It´s not looking that great, and It may not win one single Oscar... but the arguments you give are pretty nonsensical. Oh, and if "Brokeback" raves make you laugh, please visit rotten tomatoes now. You´ll have a blast.

And what does "Shawshank redemption" have to do with anything? I´m lost...

I considered all movies and listed the ones I thought were most likely.

America is not divided in half, unfortunately the conservatives have much more mindshare at the moment. There are liberals that will tolerate homosexuality but not endorse it or give it their dollar. It's a battle my gay friends at the moment are very scared about because same-sex marriage laws are passing in nearly every state that it is introduced in. I do not believe, based on the general way in which the industry and buzz about this film in non-critics circles is, that this film will start this grand conversation about gay relationships.

The Newsweek article stresses a couple of points about the film. Like Ebert's early "previews" it is a review, a semi-review which addresses points. I think it's fair game, and I think my comments about it are fair. If you are talking about a "landmark" film that people are going to talk about at the watercooler then yes, I think that constitutes "changing America". Feel free to disagree with me if you will.

But the discussion that is interesting is how much does the agenda play into Brokeback Mountain's Oscar chances. Because I truly feel that Brokeback is in a long line of Oscar films that come saddled with some political drama... Munich, Good Night and Good Luck, Million Dollar Baby, The Hours, A Beautiful Mind, Black Hawk Down, Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, etc. have all been recent nominees that evoked some serious questions about the value of cinema. In looking back at the fuss caused by Million Dollar Baby's ending and Passion not being nominated at all, I can only imagine that in this country a Brokeback Mountain win (or maybe just the nomination) would cause outcry on a much larger and more passionate scale. Mostly because, in all things, America is much more concerned about sex than death apparently.

Now the question boils down to... What does Hollywood wish to achieve with the Academy Awards? They bend over backwards for ratings while awarding films that the general populace (with the exception of Lord of the Rings) don't really like. Sure, Chicago made a lot of money but it's not Finding Nemo or Spider-Man. After all... it is a business, first and foremost.

Where is the line between awarding art and awarding the better popular films (which can be art too, no doubt). If Brokeback Mountain is the best film of the year, in general (and that's a big *if* since nobody really knows at this point), does the Academy still stand by it's movie and further risk damage to their business? Does it risk alienating an even larger portion of the audience? Most will not have seen Brokeback anyway, which really isn't the point.


Shawshak Redemption is in my mind and a few of my close friends the penultimate movie about male relationships. It really doesn't get into sex or homosexuality (other than the Sisters) but it really is a movie about men who have strong personal, loving relationships.


Well... Farhenheit 9/11 got the award at Cannes last year, and Vera Drake won Venice last year.

That is you belief, as you say. I do not think opening the debate is a given, but yeah, It could happen. You think It won´t, I think It could but I´m not sure. We will have to wait and see, but what I truly don´t believe is that It is as out of the question as you make it out to be.

In any case, if I say "America is divided in half", of course I don´t mean 50-50... but a good, sustantial part of the population is pro-gay rights. Fharenheit 9/11 did $120 Million and I guess we can agree It was mostly from liberals. Maybe quite a few of those liberals - and others who are not interested in politics - would want to go and check a movie they have heard is really good, regardless of the sexual orientation of the film´s main characters.

I am not saying "Brokeback mountain"=blockbuster, not at all. But the movie could make good money, and my view on American politics is not as grim as yours. Of course, you are there, I am not. But I´d like another point of view, anyone? Does anybody also think that the fact that "Brokeback" tells a gay story practicaslly condemns it to pure oblivition by mainstream America, even if It gets awards and a, say, 7 oscar nominations?



Thank you, I do. But you said that was the Newsweek review, and It wasn´t. You seemed to be bothered by the fact of reviews saying the movie was going to be a landmark, and I just pointed out that in article about the film, It´s common and logic to talk about possible repercusions. Yep, possible. Which don´t mean It´ll happen, and It is never stated in the article.

I do think "Brokeback" has the potential to change something. It is a film that could potentially win Oscars, and possibly the first ever mainstream gay love story, with an amazing pedigree by almost everyone involved. Nothing like this has been done before. And, in that sense, It is already a lansdmark event, wether It has success or not.

I thinking you are missunderstanding what "changing America" means. It doesn´t mean America is going to wake up next morning after the release of "Brokeback" thinking that now they like gay people. It means that some people may have their views challenged by the movie, and if it becomes a hit (An art-house hit, that is) those few can discuss the issue with other few... Movies can change things, you know. They don´t change countries, but they can contribute to give a step in one direction or another.



I agree with that last sentence. But you seem to imply that Oscars don´t like controversy. I am not that sure. And bear in mind that "Brokeback" is not a political film, It´s a love story. It can be used to pursue a political agenda by others (not the filmmakers) but It is not political in the sense that, I´m sure, "Munich" is. "The hours" wasn´t political either, and by the way, It won a best actress Oscar. If you consider that It didn´t win more cause It was about lesbians, I do not agree: It didn´t win Oscars cause It wasn´t a crowdpleaser and if you are not, you may need the critical consensus that "The hours" didn´t get either. And It was a cold film. But It didn´t do badly with nominations, precursors and BO for such a small, difficult film.



Yeah, but do you think Academy members are going to think that by awarding "Brokeback" they are going to have a boycott by the religious right against or their films? That is silly. People will go to check out movies they are interested in and will ignore the rest. Like always. It´s like saying that if "Brokeback" wins Best Picture, a christian will decide that for that reason, he won´t go to see "Narnia" or "Passion of the Christ 2: Revenge of the Christ". Not likely...




Huge "if", I said it too. It´s afine line, yeah. But you seem to forget that "brokeback" - judging by the reviews out already - it´s a tearjerker. It´s getting rave reviews but not as an arty film ("Far from heaven" or "The hours") but an american classic love story... so this doesn´t seem to be yout typical arty-farty film (Which I normally like) but anyway...

As I said, I don´t think awarding "Brokeback" would alienate anyone. I also think that is has more obstacles to overcome that, say, "Munich", and if Munich were to be well liked and "Brokeback" very well liked, the award would go to "Munich". As It happens normally with minorities, "Brokeback" would have to work twice as hard to get the same reward than others... but not for the reasons you claim. I think It would have more to do with personal prejudices by Academy members than an hypothetic fear of alienating middle America.

It is very difficult, yeah. But It could happen. The buzz, so far, is great.


Shawshak Redemption is in my mind and a few of my close friends the penultimate movie about male relationships. It really doesn't get into sex or homosexuality (other than the Sisters) but it really is a movie about men who have strong personal, loving relationships..[/quote]

So are you saying that "Shawshak" lost cause It was a male friendship story? Are you really serious???????? Not bad Box office, not lack of precursors, not strong competition, but a male friendship???????

It didn´t work that bad for "Midnight cowboy before, though, and that movie did have a real sexual subtext...


Well... Farhenheit 9/11 got the award at Cannes last year, and Vera Drake won Venice last year.[/quote]

Please re-read your post. I didn´t say that "Brokeback" was going to win anything cause It was awarded the Golden Lion. It´s just that you implied that there was an agenda behind the good reviews for the film, and I stated that then, the Venice jury must have the same agenda, too. Does it?

In any case, talking about Festival awards as precursors is tricky. All those movies you mention won top prizes and nothing at the Oscars (although having been introduced in the best Documentary category, Fharenheit would have won, and "Vera" did amazing for such a small, british film) but, for example, "The pianist" didn´t do that bad after winning at Cannes...

No, I think you are implying what you think I think changing America means.


No, they don't really. Movies do not fundamentally change anything, which is why I find this whole notion absurd.


The Oscars invite controversy, but they don't want the backlash. It's the yin and yang of rewarding art and commerce.


The Hours was weak on it's lesbian angle, and wasn't really herealded as a big gay epic. I agree with your assessment of it, which is why it's not a good comparison.


And nowhere have I said that Brokeback Mountain wouldn't be nominated.


Hollywood thinks that some 10 year old downloading a bootlegged copy of Serenity is contributing to the downfall of profits. So no, I do not think it's silly. Those producers, actors, directors and craftspeople ARE businesspeople concerned with their way of life.

In fact, I think exects at Disney, in particular would be concerned with something like this (BTW, since you are being so fucking nit-picky, nowhere did I say boycott).


What is more likely to happen is that the Oscars lose even more viewership and that the box office has a limited time of depression (even more than this year). In an extreme scenario, the Oscars aren't really even thought of as impactful any more and those movies that get released and get nominations... which all seem to do well at the Box Office, lose even more ground being that people don't trust the nominated movies to be movies they would want to see.


See, now, that's just *silly*.


No, the Newsweek or Village Voice argument said that it was one of the first notable movies "not just about gay relationships but strong male relationships", which it clearly isn't.


Dar, the problem is not my post, the problem is the way you are interpreting it.


The Venice Jury *could* have an agenda, we don't know. The Cannes jury certainly could be considered guity of awarding Farhenheit 9/11. The members could have overlooked "better" films because this *good* film (that as you said, is just a love story) just happened to be a heavy duty political issue (globally, I might add) or an opinion on said political issue that they strongly agree with.

I do think there is an agenda behind many of the reviews for the film. I think there is an agenda for people on this very website to push it. To be perfectly honest, reading reviews for Brokeback Mountain from *certain* press (like the Village Voice) is like getting reviews for The Passion of the Christ from the 700 Club.

I want to know what the non-gay, non-liberal oriented, more moderate critics think. Sorry Rex Reed!

Let us not forget, in talking about the nature of this film, that the ONLY reason why it is of any interest to anybody is because it is about two gay men.


The Pianist also had an agenda

You hit the nail on the head Roo.

Joaquin Phoenix has best dude in teh bag

Don't you know how they're going to react anyway?

I think he meant someone who is comletely neutral to the debate whatsoever.

Hard to merit someone with that kind fo judgement!

No. In fact other than the recent RT reviews (which are positive to very positive for the most part) I haven't heard anything from the critics that I usually look for. If (for example) Ebert and Roeper do an early show next week with Brokeback, then great.

I don't know how the critics are going to react at all to Brokeback, Munich, Geisha, Kong, New World.


Why?

Village Voice is a very liberal newspaper with a very liberal audience that sells a certain kind of review. Why should I go to it for a good opinion on the movie? Any movie (which I don't!)?

I actually expect most of the mainstream newspapers and critics to like it, I just don't know by how much.

The "by how much", is what I'm looking for here, is Raffiki right and this is a major contendor? Or is it just an otherwise interesting best picture nominee. That's what's interesting to me.

What are we discussing/arguing now I don't understand?

The films merits alone?
It's BP nomination chances?
It's BP win chances?
Or its Best Actor nod/win chances?


As far as the film goes.... I don't expect there to be a gigantic split like there was with Passion of the Christ, but I do believe it will be hard to find someone who isn't really pro-gay rights to give the film a glowing review.

I think it has very reasonable BP Oscar nomination chances. If the reviews keep up the current streak, then it should be a pretty large contender for a nod. I don't even think we need that high of a mark on the tomatometer... if the important critics (most of them) give it glowing reviews, it should be set.

I think the film has close to no chance of winning if it's nominated for Best Picture.
If both this and Walk the Line are nominated for Best Picture, then I think they'll play the role of Ray/Neverland of last year. sitting pretty with their nods with no chance of winning. (And I'm nto comparing Ray to Walk the Line... just happens that if they make the short list they'll rank as the bottom 2 much like Ray/Neverland did last year).

Then again, since what most predictions are pointing as the front-runners (Munich and Memoirs) haven't even been released, my above statement could have no merit at all until we see how audiences and critics warm up to that duo!


And Best Actor.....
I don't think there's any that he'll get nominated.
If the film's not nominated, I agree with whoever said his winning chances may have increased, but still I only see Ledger taking votes away from either Hoffman and Phenoix but not nearly enough to win.

Actually comparing Ray to Walk the Line is not off at all. I mean the reviews are similar, the audiences' reactions are similar from what I perceive and the IMDB grade of Walk the Line is already exactly the same as Ray's (7.9/10).

Brokeback Mountain...I think the reviews will be stronger than Neverland's, but the smaller box-office and the niché-theme of the movie will equal it out. So I agree here as well.

No.


Maybe.


Mostly this.

No, I think you are implying what you think I think changing America means.

No, I think you are implying that I missunderstand what you think that changing America means and... hmmm... forget it. Why don´t you tell me what you think that means and we get it done?

In any case, you were the first one implying what you thuoght those reviewers actually means by "changing America", so...

No, they don't really. Movies do not fundamentally change anything, which is why I find this whole notion absurd.

That is, well absurd. Cause some movies have changed me and shaped some of my views on life. Go figure.

I don´t know about countries, or the world. But movies definitely change people. Or, as Susan Sarandon put it: "We are the guardians of the dreams".

The Oscars invite controversy, but they don't want the backlash. It's the yin and yang of rewarding art and commerce.

Reasoning behind that? Or is Shawshank an example of how they avoid controversy? You know, those longing glances between Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman...

The Hours was weak on it's lesbian angle, and wasn't really herealded as a big gay epic. I agree with your assessment of it, which is why it's not a good comparison.

Word. You were the one who brought up "The hours", by the way. And if it´s so weak in its lesbian angle, why did you call it "political drama"? Me puzzled.

And nowhere have I said that Brokeback Mountain wouldn't be nominated.

And nowhere I said you have said that. I was stating that "The hours" (Political drama, remember?) was colder and, for the look of it right now, worse reviewed (we´ll see about that very soon) and did quite well.

Hollywood thinks that some 10 year old downloading a bootlegged copy of Serenity is contributing to the downfall of profits. So no, I do not think it's silly. Those producers, actors, directors and craftspeople ARE businesspeople concerned with their way of life.

In fact, I think exects at Disney, in particular would be concerned with something like this (BTW, since you are being so fucking nit-picky, nowhere did I say boycott).

If you are comparing piracy with Oscars awarding "Brokeback mountain", you lost me there.

And you said that such potential Oscars could be bad for bussiness... what others ways could be bad for it that not paying to see Hollywood films: bad box office? Either It is a boycott, or the religious right just will go to see the movies they are interested in and will not go to see the rest... like they do know. What difference would "Brokeback" make, then?

What is more likely to happen is that the Oscars lose even more viewership and that the box office has a limited time of depression (even more than this year). In an extreme scenario, the Oscars aren't really even thought of as impactful any more and those movies that get released and get nominations... which all seem to do well at the Box Office, lose even more ground being that people don't trust the nominated movies to be movies they would want to see.

Yes, BO matters for Oscar. In equal conditions, the movie with better BO profits will most likely win... but not always, as you know. BOx office is really important for them, but not the only factor at all, specially if the five nominated films turn out to be not so succesful money-wise. See the year "Braveheart" won, for a better example: Only one blockbuster (Apollo 13) that didn´t win. In other years, like 1997, the only blockbuster, "Jerry Maguire", lost.

Hollywood would always like Oscar winner films to be a fucking money machine... but sometimes It is not that way. Last year, no best picture nominated movie had grossed $100M before Oscar night, I think.

See, now, that's just *silly*.

See, now, that´s just not silly, but hey, again, opinions, assholes...

BBM can alienate people that will not go to see it. But thinking there will be a general alienation of the american audience if BBM wins best film is... preposterous, to say the least. Now, apparently for you movies don´t change people, but awards alienate them. Woa.

No, the Newsweek or Village Voice argument said that it was one of the first notable movies "not just about gay relationships but strong male relationships", which it clearly isn't.

How do you know? Have you seen it?

I took the time to re-read the Newsweek article - It doesn´t say that. Guess what? "The village voice" doesn´t either! Now, where did you get that from???? (And before you say I nitpick, you put that line as directly quoted, so...)

In any case, I´m happy to report that Variety, Hollywood reporter, Screen Daily, Premiere and Empire seem to be on the agenda, too. Cause you seem to think (Maybe I got it wrong) that every good review from this movie comes from an "agenda". Just curious, what makes you think that a negative review doesn´t have an agenda, too? Maybe you need to make a list of agenda-less reviewers, or something...

Dar, the problem is not my post, the problem is the way you are interpreting it.

No, It´s not. Opinions, assholes... you know the song.

The Venice Jury *could* have an agenda, we don't know.

Paranoia! Conspiracy! Damn, is there anybody who doesn´t have an agenda, according to you?

The Cannes jury certainly could be considered guilty of awarding Farhenheit 9/11. The members could have overlooked "better" films because this *good* film (that as you said, is just a love story)

Now, wait, wait... stop there... are you saying that a film is JUST a love story? Implying that because of that It may have less merits than other films? Eeeeehhh?

I do think there is an agenda behind many of the reviews for the film. I think there is an agenda for people on this very website to push it. To be perfectly honest, reading reviews for Brokeback Mountain from *certain* press (like the Village Voice) is like getting reviews for The Passion of the Christ from the 700 Club.

Hehe... Yep, It´s true. We all bring our personal passions and biases. Media do too. But then again, can I bring my unbiased reviews from Variety, HR, Premiere, etc...?

I want to know what the non-gay, non-liberal oriented, more moderate critics think. Sorry Rex Reed!

And I want examples!

Let us not forget, in talking about the nature of this film, that the ONLY reason why it is of any interest to anybody is because it is about two gay men.

Now, that is the silliest point ever. Let´s see... So, If I want to see "The bridges of Madison County" is only cause it´s about a straight relationship?

Let´s see... in both cases, may it be cause I liked the book that originated the movie? Or cause I like the actors involved? Or the pedigree directors that IMO already has very interesting movies? Or cause the reviews are good?

No, you are right, It´s just cause they are gay. That is why "Latter days" swept the Oscars and got amazing reviews by the "agenda guys". Isn´t it?

Or, and, by the way, hope you tell those who were to see "Elizabethtown" that they were only interested in it cause It was about a man and a woman. Sounds goofy, uh?

The Pianist also had an agenda

hehe... great. Does that mean that then "Brokeback" can win adapted screenplay, director and actor too? (j/k)

This is actually an interesting discussion, but to be honest, I still don´t know what is the point of it. If you are trying to say "I believe the Brokeback hype when I see it, or read reviews I believe are not biased", fine and dandy to me. But who are those reviewers?

If It´s Ebert, I think he has talking about the movie next friday. Others, just let me know. We just have to wait and see (or read).

See, I do think that a BP win it´s very difficult... but not for the reasons you state. So maybe we agree, for different reasons, if that makes any sense...

Hmmm, let me be blunt and just straight out say that BM won't win simply because it is a movie about a love story between two gay cowboys.

I'm talking about people referencing this movie when gay marriage comes into being (which IMO, is bound to happen) or similar social movement. I don't think it will become a notable landmark in the movement of gay rights in this country. Comparison: For all the ink spilled on The Passion of the Christ it really didn't... do anything.


I do think the Newsweek article/review was angling for that, yes.


Well, all I have to say is that no film that can be released can ever have impact on my life and no films that I live my life around. I'm talking about the way I interperet the world, political opinions or outlook. I guess I just view them as stories and entertainment that augment life in aspects. I know of no one who is impacted such.

I will say that maybe you have something there. Some kid will go see Brokeback and figure since popular actors can be in a gay movie that he can come out of the closet. Maybe the impact does exist for this film on a personal scale.

Not nationally though.


Because it is the nature of awarding art. It is the nature of the Oscars. You can see it in politics, you can see it in the 50 million dollar Oscar campaigns. It's a factor of every award show. We don't actually think the American Music Awards awards the "best in music" do we?


Shawshank wasn't about controversy, it just represented "another film" that dealt with male relationships. You are the one who mistook the line and it was clarified.


If I called it a political drama, that's wrong. If I said it had an agenda, then yeah.


I'm saying that Hollywood is a business, and the Oscars promote that business (which they do, no question).


I think the word "boycott" is strong, because I don't see it happening as directly (although some are likely to bring it up). I see it as part of the falling off of Box Office Receipts. I see the warning signs like Universal chiefs and Disney losing money as a pull away from films like Brokeback Mountain and towards more appealing pictures.

I'm saying that the Oscars do not exist in a vacuum, and that they care about their falling ratings and the effect they have on films.


Yup not always.


Braveheart is an interesting film, because if I remember correctly it made like $30 million more because of the awards season (it was released in May). It definately benefitted from the awards buzz and is a prime example of the power of the Oscars (it was re-released in February the following year).


It definately helped Million Dollar to cross 100 and maybe The Aviator for that last push, and Ray on DVD was pretty big. Even Sideways landed at 70 million thanks in large part to it's Oscar (and pre-Oscar awards) buzz.


The Passion of the Christ alienated me, but didn't change me. It didn't change what I thought about Christians. It was just a movie.


No no no, I'm saying it's not "one of the first". I have no idea of the actual quality of the film.


I will have to apologize. I read it in another article, somewhere, and now I can't find the link. So I'll have to withdraw that.


Because, frankly, I think that there are some newspapers (like my own local The Stranger) that do not have trustworthy reviewers and will damn some films and not others for their political content. That's why I do not read the Village Voice.


That wasn't the selling point of the film. The selling point of that film was a sappy drama and a popular book and lots of weeping . The selling point, the point of interest of Brokeback Mountain is the homosexual relationship (and it's high production value with notable actors... sorry Latter Days).


Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Ebert & Roper, New York Times, LA Times, etc. To me, these are the folks that matter (biased or not). There are some independents I go to as well.

Maybe. I'm not really asking for agreement.

Bascially what I'm trying to discuss is... "does the homosexual angle of Brokeback Mountain create a problem for Hollywood if it chooses to award or nominate it". I'm still leaning towards yes, but maybe backing off my extreme stance a bit.

My take: Yes, It creates a problem. But not cause they are scared of the repercusions, but because they may be scared themselves at the subject matter.

Hmmm. Do you think it would manifest itself stronger in the nomination stage or the voting stage? Of the remaining people do you think enough would (theoretically) have passion for the film to make it one of their 3 choices?

You know..I don't think it will happen, but I saw Hustle & Flow yesterday and I think Terrence Howard deservs at least a nom for that.

Unfortunately, that's a stretch, as of now. Of all categories, at least Best Actor seems pretty strong this time.

It's not out of the question; he's certainly an underdog and creating alot of inside buzz and industry cred. He is the breakthrough actor if the year and I actually think there is more than a decent chance of him surprising in the Lead category instead of splitting the supporting with another Crasher.

I peg Howard for a supporting nom (likely for Crash)

Still debating even after pheonix locked it up