Brokeback Mountain

[OscarGuy]

If it's not Walk the Line, it could be Munich which, until this weekend, had a higher gross than BM.

I honestly doubt though that they wouldn't put a populist choice up there. Walk the Line is in unless there some big support for King Kong no one knows about.

[Sabin]

...which means that if Walk the Line is not nominated for Best Picture, there's a good chance that Brokeback Mountain will be the highest grossing film of the nominees.



Edited By Sabin on 1137985580

[filmgabber]

Oprah is doing an upcoming "Brokeback Mountain" segment with Heath Ledger, Jake Lick-him-all, Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway.

That should give the film another boost.

[Damien]

Have you seen Brokeback Mountain yet, Damien? What did you think of it?

I posted some thoughts on the picture in the Ledger-Hoffman Contest thread.

[Damien]

The results are in:

This weekend:

5. Brokeback Mountain (FOCUS)...........$7.8
Engagements:1,196

* * *

8. End of the Spear (ROCKY MOUNTAIN)....$4.7
Engagements:1,845


Brokeback's average was $6,548 and cume is
$42.1 million.

As for the faux-Christian crap, Variety said, "End of the Spear" bowed to a light $4.7 million at 1,162
theaters, putting it in eighth place. Per play average for the story of Christian missionaries in Ecuador
had a per play average of $4,055."

[anonymous1980]

Have you seen Brokeback Mountain yet, Damien? What did you think of it?

[Damien]

Media Critic James Wolcott:

The Mountain Comes to Medved
by James Wolcott

So I'm doodling down the dial, killing time until Project Runway (hated that Emmett got cut), when I espy mealy-mouthed Michael Medved on The O'Reilly Factor mealy mouthing about Brokeback Mountain.

When Brokeback was first released, Medved's stance was that it was an artfully done message/agenda movie that would evaporate upon contact, telling USA Today:

"I'm very proud that conservatives have not taken up the cudgels against Brokeback Mountain. There's a recognition that most of the people on whom they could have any influence are not going to see this movie, anyway."

Now that Brokeback is gaining cultural traction and influence, its title entering the pop lexicon, Medved has decided it's time to reach for the cudgel, or, in his case, a foam hammer that wouldn't harm a flea.

Unable to impugn the movie on the caliber of its acting, directing, etc, he's reduced to whining that the film hasn't been "honestly advertised," as if he were some consumer advocate. Medved must think moviegoers are bigger idiots than he is. He couldn't be more wrong. Nobody's a bigger idiot than he is. Except for the cranky patriarch in Boondocks (and he's a cartoon character), everybody knows that Brokeback is that "gay cowboy" movie. (And yes I know they're not technically cowboys, they're sheepherders, go away, don't bother me.) There are no recorded incidents of someone being lured into the cineplex under false pretenses and coming out Gay.

With its win at the Golden Globes, Brokeback is now projected on a stronger Oscar path, and that's what's bothering Medved and likeminded lightweights, the growth of gay acceptance. Making the same pained, turd-squeezing facial expression he always makes when relieving himself of a more-in-sorrow-than-anger sentiment [what a brilliant description of this ugly little troll] , Medved lamented that the other winners at the Globes included Philip Seymour Hoffman for Capote and Felicity Huffman for Transamerica.

What's his point? Is he saying that Hoffman (brilliant in Capote) shouldn't been nominated, or won, or both? who was better? Hoffman's main competition in the category was Brokeback's Heath Ledger, and his win wouldn't have made Medved happy either. Does Medved think that Capote's screenwriter should have erased its protagonist's sexuality from the script (never mind that it's given from less stress in the story than Capote's friendship with Harper Lee, beautifully embodied by Catherine Keener), or is he saying that the movie shouldn't have been made at all? Are gay characters only permissable if they stay on the margins of movies, and become problematic when they occupy the heart of the screen? (Because putting them at the center confers a legitimacy homosexuals don't deserve because their behavior isn't normative, according to the Gospel according to Medved.) As for Transamerica, I haven't seen it, aren't much inclined to (I'm not that keen on "road" movies apart from Paul Mazursky's Harry & Tonto), but Felicity Huffman is a proven quality as an actress, and there's no reason she shouldn't earn as much praise for playing a transsexual as Tom Wilkinson did playing a family man pursuing a sex change operation in the moving HBO film Normal.

I mean, really, what's Medved's point? That it's okay for gay-themed works to win awards as long as they don't win too many? Is there a gay-content quotient he'd find acceptable, or is it permissable for gay-accented movies to win prizes as long as they don't Flaunt Themselves at the podium?

I'm not saying Brokeback needs to be handled gingerly or reverentially, like some Ming vase. David Ehrenstein did a hilarious mockery of the movie and its sanctified aura, tossing off a great line about the first truly gay Hollywood love story being Test Pilot starring Spencer Tracy and Clark Gable. But there's a lot of straight male panic popping out in all its petty glory over Brokeback, whether it's the nervous squeaking of Mickey Kaus, the labored parodies from the right blogosphere, the teeth-chattering hate talk from the Freepers, or this classic drawing-room exchange from those two broadcast elegants, Tweety and Peckerwood:

"MATTHEWS (1/18/06): Have you gone to see it yet? I’ve seen everything else but that. I just—

IMUS: No, I haven’t seen it. Why would I want to see that?

MATTHEWS: I don’t know. No opinion on that. I haven’t seen it either, so—

IMUS: So they were—it was out when I was in New Mexico and—it doesn’t resonate with real cowboys who I know.

MATTHEWS: Yeah—

IMUS: But then, maybe there’s stuff going on on the ranch that I don’t know about. Not on my ranch, but you know—

MATTHEWS: Well, the wonderful Michael Savage, who’s on 570 in DC, who shares a station with you at least, he calls it [laughter]—what’s he call it?—he calls it Bare-back Mount-ing. That’s his name for the movie.

IMUS: Of course, Bernard calls it Fudgepack Mountain..."

If Brokeback Mountain nabs a lot of Oscar noms, be ready for Medved to crank up the volume on his crybaby knob, as he did last year against Million Dollar Baby, and to equal neglible effect. No one in Hollywood will pay him the slightest heed, but it'll get him more face-time on cable, more opportunities to do his patented pantomime of moral dismay.

[OscarGuy]

So, if it's not being seen, then why does imdb record 15,069 votes for the film with 9,543 ratings of 10 and with an average rating of 8.0?

Only 19,493 voters have seent Hollywood classic Sunset Blvd., 23,986 voted on wholesome Singin in the Rain...

Obviously it's being seen contrary to the popular Religious Wrong opinion.

Let's then contrast that to the 40,338 votes for Passion of the Christ. Sure, it has 17,231 votes of 10 or higher but it's average rating is only 7.3...

Chronicles of Narnia also has a 7.3 average with 25,662 votes with 8,111 votes of 10...It has 11,000 more votes than Brokeback and Brokeback already has more than 1,000 more 10 votes than Narnia...that should say something right there.

[anonymous1980]

Interesting link.

[OscarGuy]

I did some research on other family films...

Because of Winn Dixie - 32.6 mil
Holes - 67.4 mil
Fly Away Home - 25.1 mil
Free Willy - 77.6 mil
Beethoven - 57.1 mil
Black Stallion - 37.7 mil
My Dog Skip - 34.1 mil

Oh and those Christian films:
Passion and Chronicles are certainly above 200 mil but what about these other wide release gems:

Jonah: A Veggie Tales Movie - 25.5 mil
The Omega Code - 12.6 mil
Left Behind - 4.2 mil

How abuot those "Gay" films
Birdcage - 124 mil
Philadelphia - 77.4 mil
In & Out - 63.8 mil
The Crying Game - 62.5 mil

All of these were infinitely more popular than most Christian/family films, so I would have to say the public prefers gay stories to christian stories...at least by this writer's rationale.

[Damien]

Christian Toto clearly did not put much thought into this think piece.

"Christian Toto" -- Dorothy's dog had a born again experience?

[The Original BJ]

Factor in polling on public perceptions about homosexuality, and the gap is even wider. Thumbing one’s nose at a majority of the country doesn’t seem like a wise business model.

What an obnoxious warping of facts. The majority of the country SUPPORTS some type of recognition for same-sex couples, and is even more supportive of anti-discrimination laws. What a crock of b.s.

Also, his "picture Saturday night" scenario is a joke. I liked Brokeback Mountain and Good Night, and Good Luck, but if I were advising a family who wanted to attend the movies together I would of course encourage them to see Narnia before those two films. Young kids probably shouldn't see Good Night and they certainly shouldn't see Brokeback. But the argument that somehow Narnia is morally superior because it has made more money is inane. Family films ALWAYS make more money because they appeal to a wider audience. Why can't people just let films like Brokeback and Good Night exist alongside Narnia? Are these people really THAT worried that homosexual romances and biographies of '50s journalists are going to replace family-friendly blockbusters at the multiplexes? Give me a break.

And what exactly is so conservative about Junebug, Hustle & Flow, and Crash?

And, quite frankly, it's pretty darn easy to argue that there IS a large underserved market for films like Brokeback Mountain and Good Night, and Good Luck, particularly when those films have done as well at the box-office (relatively speaking) as they have, particularly Brokeback.

Christian Toto clearly did not put much thought into this think piece.

[flipp525]

Not all conservatives are raving lunatics with closed minds.

See criddic, it's really hard when the conservative right (btw, The Unification Church has spent over $1 billion establishing The Washington Times and subsidising its losses) does the same thing by lumping all liberals into one big whining mess (as well as lumping a whole bunch of movies together regardless of the fact that they are totally different) such as this article suceeds in doing. This one's for you.

The Fringe Connection, a think piece by Christian Toto
The Washington Times
January 20, 2006

A perfect politically correct storm is gathering over La La Land as awards season reaches gale force intensity.

A pair of films illuminating the homosexual and transgendered lifestyles, “Brokeback Mountain” and “Transamerica,” appear mortal locks for Oscar nominations after securing a total of five Golden Globe awards last weekend. Two movies – “Good Night, and Good Luck” and “Syriana” – co-starring liberal lenser George Clooney (Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor for “Syriana”) are almost as certain to nab nominations. The left’s favorite comic Jon Stewart, will serve as Oscar emcee this year.

Even a novice weatherman could forecast the outcome – a downpour of socially conscious speeches come Oscar night and more than a few thunderbolts hurled down at the Bush administration.

Michael Moore’s incoherent rant against the president after winning the 2003 Oscar for Best Documentary for “Bowling for Columbine” might seem quaint by the time the March 5 Oscar telecast signs off.

It’s Hollywood’s way of praising itself for being on the right, or rather correct, side of the day’s social issues.

Last time we checked, the nation was split down the middle between states red and blue. Factor in polling on public perceptions about homosexuality, and the gap is even wider. Thumbing one’s nose at a majority of the country doesn’t seem like a wise business model.

All year long, the movie industry has been searching for reasons why ticket sales keep dropping.

They’ve blamed DVDs, chatty moviegoers and stale remakes – everything except the fact that many of their films either alienate or ignore entire swaths of the country.

An industry known for its ability to Xerox a hit when it sees one – expect a rash of sensitive movies depicting alternative lifestyles in “Brokeback’s” wake – still hasn’t seen fit to clone 2004’s wildly successful “The Passion of the Christ”.

The best television could muster is NBC’s new drama “The Book of Daniel,” a series which takes great pleasure in making its religious figures ripe for ridicule.

It all goes back to “Brokeback Mountain,” a film which has delighted social progressives, made some conservatives twitch and left us with memorable lines like, “I wish I knew how to quit you.”

Its per-screen average remains impressive so far, although clearly carefully calculated. But it’s hard to recall another movie which garnered as much free and almost uniformly positive, press as it has.

We’re all for the Hollywood and critical establishments heralding artistic merit over box office tallies. But is aesthetic merit really the only – or even the main – criterion of judgment underlying the award season accolades raining down on the “Brokebacks” and “Syrianas”?

If so, where’s the love for films like “Junebug,” “Crash” and “Hustle and Flow,” the little movie that proved a two-bit pimp could dig his way out of the moral sewer of his own creation?

These indie movies were at least as thoughtful, original and artfully made as “Brokeback,” “Transamerica” and “Syriana”. Not to mention considerably more entertaining.

What they weren’t was as tendentious, as ideologically sound from the perspective of political Hollywood. They matched – or exceeded – the Globe winner in merit. Where they failed to match them was in message discipline.

Critics and public alike can and will argue the merits of all these films. As it happens, I admired “Brokeback Mountain,” a story told with depth and nuance. Reviews for “Transamerica” have been mixed but no one will deny star and “Desperate Housewife” Felicity Huffman has arrived.

But love these films or hate ‘em, it’s hard to argue that there’s a large underserved market out there clamoring for more transgressive sex melodramas.

Picture this: It’s a Saturday night and the family wants to catch a feature. Would they opt for a film about a homosexual love affair gone sour (“Brokeback Mountain”), a hectoring history lesson on journalism’s ills (“Good Night, and Good Luck”) or a rollicking adventure where good squares off against evil (“The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”)?

It’s a no-brainer, and one reason “Chronicles” has raked in $264 million so far and counting.

Hollywood is entitled to make any kind of film it want to. What it’s not entitled to do is regularly write off half the potential market for its product and then kvetch that ticket sales keep falling.

[/end article]

******************************************************************************************

Funny how the writer of this ‘article’ fails to mention that these so-called “alienating films” are actually the ones that are bringing the box office out of its year-long slump. Why exactly are ‘entire swaths’ of red states running to see Brokeback Mountain, a movie that has apparently ignored and alienated them? This just doesn’t even make any sense.

Also, you’ve just gotta love how he warns the reader of Brokeback-like movies in the future while simultaneously pleading to heavens, “Why aren’t there more ‘Passion’ films? Why? Why? Why?”

The “Narnia” pimping is just out of control, too. I think that the parents of that little nuclear family would be better served treating their children to a night of lessons in tolerance and the importance of being honest with yourself.

He also acts like "The Book of Daniel" represents the entire new programming on television this season. Hasn't it been on for only like two weeks? God, get over it.

And "Crash", "Junebug", and "Hustle and Flow" have hardly been ignored by the awards circuit or the American public.

[OscarGuy]

Spoken like the mascot of the Raving Conservatives with Closed Minds League.

You could have sufficiently said what you did without taking beef out on Weisz or Clooney. The reason these films are gaining popularity is partially based on the quality of the work but also based on the accurate reflection of modern society. The Cosntant Gardener and (though I haven't seen it) Syriana take on aspects of the true corruption behind the world. They are popular with audiences and with critics because of the quality of work AND the message they send. The Constant Gardener would not be as popular this season had it not been for its message. It's the story, the MESSAGE, that makes most films great. To dismiss those creations by saying that it's only the quality of work that brings in the audiences is a disservice to the films.

[criddic3]

I'm not all that surprised. Quality trumps almost anything else in Oscar season, when audiences begin to get curious about the most critically lauded films.

The movie is not simply popular for its supposedly controversial themes, but I believe because it is actually a really good movie. Once people get past the notion of the main idea of the relationship in the film, it's not hard to see it purely as a love story and appreciate the film on its own terms.

Despite all that, liberals ought not to pat themselves on the back too much. I hear Rachel Weisz and George Clooney talking to reporters about how this was a great year for ideas because, they imply, they pose critical questions about todays American government and espouse views contrary to the ones they think conservatives have. I think this is the wrong argument.

This year was a good one for movies because many were well-made, not because they had a singular viewpoint. You can showcase your beliefs all you want and still make a bad movie. People respond to quality. Clooney has done well in good movies, so he should be recognized for it. That doesn't mean everyone who sees or likes his movies agrees with his political opinions.

My point is that I don't think it's really quite the way Hollywood presents this country in terms of how people view the issue of gay love or other topics. Not all conservatives are raving lunatics with closed minds.