Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3379572" target="_blank">http://www.sltrib.com/ci_33795 72</a>
Originally Posted By Kylesmom I love Utah, beautiful state, great skiing, better racing. But I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to read BbM had been banned state-wide. NOT the most gay freindly state in the union.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy So Bareback Mountain gets banned and liberals are shocked. Ban the joys of gay sex?? How dare this happen!!!!!! Yet these same people will demand that a manger scene or a cross be ripped out of public view because it's offensive. Don't you just liberals. They are such great Americans.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> In an interview with KCPW-FM, [movie theater] owner, auto magnate and Utah Jazz owner Larry H. Miller said booking a movie like "Brokeback Mountain" was a business decision. "It's something that I have to let the market speak to some degree," Miller told Brown. "I don't think I'm qualified to be the community censor." However, Brown said Friday that Miller was unaware of the storylin of "Brokeback Mountain" - about two Wyoming cowboys who maintain a hidden romance for two decades - until Brown described it to him Thursday, less than two hours before the schedule change was announced. << Interesting, no? The theater owner has enough savvy to know how to pay lip service to the idea of letting the marketplace decide the relative worth of the film, then less than two hours after learning of the movie's content suddenly he IS qualified to act as the "community censor". And how can you be a movie theater owner and not have heard of this movie before now? Movies featuring drugs, sex, nudity, violence, torture, dismemberment and murder are just fine - a movie where two men are in love? That's offensive.
Originally Posted By kev in vegas "But I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to read BbM had been banned state-wide" It wasn't banned state wide just at this one theater. I agree that there is no reason to ban the film, i don't agree with what the film portrays, so i wont see it. Doesn't mean others can't.
Originally Posted By kev in vegas just realized what kylesmom ment,sorry, i had a brain lapse. disregard the first part of my post.
Originally Posted By woody "Movies featuring drugs, sex, nudity, violence, torture, dismemberment and murder are just fine - a movie where two men are in love? That's offensive." Hollywood makes all of these movies. That's offensive. Long Live Narnia. >>>Adams, not wanting to cancel her weekly "Mom's day out," chose to watch a movie she has already seen, "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." But she said the "Brokeback Mountain" incident may change her moveigoing habits.<<< Yes, watch more Narnia.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<Movies featuring drugs, sex, nudity, violence, torture, dismemberment and murder are just fine - a movie where two men are in love? That's offensive. >> Drugs, sex, blood and gore all sell very well. Homosexuality, still doesnt sell very well. From a purely business standpoint I wouldnt have this movie in my theatre (if other offering were better at the same time). However, I think that the owner of this theatre just doesnt like the context of the movie and didnt want to show it. Whether it be for religion or other reasons.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <"Movies featuring drugs, sex, nudity, violence, torture, dismemberment and murder are just fine - a movie where two men are in love? That's offensive." Hollywood makes all of these movies. That's offensive.> You're honestly suggesting that Hollywood not make movies featuring drugs, sex, nudity, violence, dismemberment, murder or homosexuality? For real?
Originally Posted By woody I was responding to gadzuux in adding homosexuality to the list of offenses. Hollywood can do anything it wants. Don't expect it to be shown in every theater.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss On the face of it, it's hypocitical for him to say what he did, and then pull the movie. But anyone in his position would have probably done the same thing. Why lose money purchasing a film that will likely have no audience?
Originally Posted By ecdc "But anyone in his position would have probably done the same thing. Why lose money purchasing a film that will likely have no audience?" But there's no evidence he would have lost money. I live in Salt Lake, have been to this movie theatre many times, and saw Brokeback at the Broadway theatre mentioned in the article. There hasn't been any protests, any uprising, any complaints at all about this movie. This is yet another example of someone creating a controversy that doesn't exist. The Broadway theatre actually had a midnight showing for the film that did really well, just because demand has been so high. This is hypocrisy at its worst, pure and simple. He's showing Hostel at this theatre, which surely couldn't make any more money than Brokeback. There's just no way to defend this as a "business" decision.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<On the face of it, it's hypocitical for him to say what he did, and then pull the movie. But anyone in his position would have probably done the same thing. Why lose money purchasing a film that will likely have no audience?>> I agree that the theater owner and the theater manager have the absolute right not to show the film. If one of them made a "business" decision to cancel the screenings, I think they made a bad one. The movie is making money hand over fist, even in Utah. And it sounds as though they've alienated a number of potential patrons, including those who were inconvenienced by showing up for something that had been cancelled at the last minute, and those who read about the cancellation in the newspaper article. As one interviewee noted, the film is showing on other screens. She'll see it there. Miller's actions and the attendant publicity will only help Focus Films and hurt Miller.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I will never see this film because I object to the content and theme of the show. I'm sorry - call me a bigot - but I can't stand cowboy movies!
Originally Posted By Kylesmom gee JohnS1, I guess you should avoid old episodes of Death Valley Days ;D
Originally Posted By gadzuux I saw the movie shortly after it came out, and I didn't particularly care for it. Obviously I have no problem with the "gay angle", but with other aspects of the movie. For one thing, I couldn't understand half of what heath ledger's character was saying - he mutters and mumbles and barely moves his mouth when he's talking. It's as if he were doing an overly exaggerated gary cooper. What little sex there was depicted in the movie was rough and forceful - there was no intimacy or depth. The only "joy" in the relationship happens within the first twenty minutes or so, with the rest of the film becoming a non-stop portrayal of frustration, secrets, lies betrayals, anger, and sad lonely people who's lives are ruined. One of them comes to a bad end (which is one of the oldest hollywood movie cliches about gay characters), and even this major plot turning point is treated in an off-hand, diffident manner. Violence against gays is presented as a natural and understandable outcome. If you think you won't like this movie because of the gay storyline, don't worry - your pre-conceived notions about what a tragedy it is to be gay will all be validated.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Yeah, you're right, gadzuux. What the movie SHOULD have been is a celebration (perhaps musical?) of how incredibly welcoming and affirming Wyoming and Texas were to queers in the 60's.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 I was just going to type, it was the 70's! I think the intimacy and depth was there, just not in maybe the sex scenes some of you were looking for.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I don't really care whether or not the theater show the movie. I don't even care to get into the who said what and why about the case. (Personally, I don't see R rated films at all - and I try to be careful about which PG-13 movies I see.) I do find it interesting that anytime something to do with homosexuality,or other liberal topics aren't "shown in theaters" or "taught in schools" or whatever..they are always called "Banned." "Ban," to me, means you impose upon others what they can or can't do. The theater chose not to show the movie, It's not "banned." However, by using the word "banned" it makes the theater sound like they are doing something mean or judgemental right of the bat.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<I was just going to type, it was the 70's!>> What "70's"?!? Those states are STILL places in which being gay brings the very real possibility of emotional, social, and/or physical persecution. gadzuux, you live in San Francisco, circa 2006. Gay nirvana. I understand the desire that the media present a truly balanced representation of contemporary gay people's lives, which would be a most banal collection of stories. It's not Annie Proulx' or Ang Lee's responsibility to make that happen, and it doesn't make it wrong for them to have brought us one very compelling story set in a past time in a specific location. And, FWIW, I also found the tire-iron incident to be a bit heavy-handed. Turns out, though, that it was only one character's suspicions.
