Bareback Mountain- Page 10

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 1:46pm

Which community? The gay community or BWW?

Updated On: 1/9/06 at 01:46 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 2:01pm

Both! But, I meant BWW.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 2:53pm

I condemn negativity and nastiness. Maybe that is ironic, but I tend to fight fire with fire.
Still, but you keep condemning some of us for going on about it. If you're really above it or over it, then simply stop commenting.

I can comprehend people loving a work of art and wanting to obsess over it, but I have trouble comprehending why people would obsess over something they didn't like.
Knowing that you are someone heavily involved in the arts, I just find this statement a little hard to believe. Indeed, isn't it more beneficial to examine why something didn't speak to you than to examine why something did?

It just seems a waste of time
At the end of the day, BWW is simply a message board. No matter what's being discussed, it ain't rocket science and we ain't changing the world. The anti-Brokeback posts are no more or less valid than the pro-Brokeback posts.

We've slowly gone from being a community that respects each other to a community that lies waiting to pounce on people and be nasty. Sad.
I think the respect and harmony come easier when the agreement is more widespread (Wicked posts bad, Sondheim good) than in cases like Brokeback (and for that matter, the Rent movie0, where there is a clear divide in board opinion.

I don't believe I've attacked anyone personally, but so far I've been accused of acting like a dick, being a masochist, and told that I only want happy gay movies (the last being particularly untrue, and there's not a shred of evidence on this board to support that accusation). I haven't taken these personally, just as pro-Brokebacker shouldn't take a thread of cheers and mocking of a film so personally.

Updated On: 1/9/06 at 02:53 PM

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 2:55pm

Indeed, isn't it more beneficial to examine why something didn't speak to you than to examine why something did?

I don't know about more but I think it's certainly as beneficial.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 3:06pm

'I don't know about more but I think it's certainly as beneficial.'

I agree with that...but here (and I suppose everywhere), those who are not affected seem to be expected to have more detailed responses. Few question, 'I love it...it moved me.' But everyone needs to know the reason why someone doesn't like something. And that's ok. I don't mind examining those things.

As for 'happy' gay films...that's just not true, for me at least. I just saw MYSTERIOUS SKIN last night and was deeply affected. Perhaps because I felt the hustler character was really quite well defined. I still can't help but feel that the structure of BBM doesn't allow one to truly know the characters or the love they share. And because of that, I still can't escape the notion that people find the characters to be so 'positive' simply because urban, urbane gays.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 3:10pm

Few question, 'I love it...it moved me.'

I like to question people who just say that about something and have nothing else to contribute. Along with proclaiming someone the BEST and not saying why, you know? It's an empty opinion.

And as for Mysterious Skin, I was absolutely taken aback (and thrilled) that the ending from the book was preserved intact. But that's a whole different thread.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 3:12pm

i disagree that bww is a community in wait of a reason to pounce (particularly ironic you use that phrase oh jerby queen of the pouncers).

is anybody but me hearing echoes of harvey korman?

bww has always been a place of deep divisions and deep alliances. it just happens that on this subject some folks who traditionally agree on most things are disagreeing. some have a little trouble dealing with that fact.

i'm more troubled by the idea that if someone doesn't like something that they should not speak of it more than once...but if that idea goes into practice, can i apply that to dubya and congress and the gop as a whole? man wouldn't that be fun?

and kringas, you ignorant sl*t, i attack thee, i attack, thee, i attack thee, and then i throw dog poop on your shoes.

for the record, i didn't care for brokeback mountain. loved heath's performance, loved seeing michelle's boobs, but it didn't move me.

Updated On: 1/9/06 at 03:12 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 3:13pm

I've never read the book. It was faithful?

I just thought it was really quite wonderful and challenging and hot and disturbing and...well...very Araki! I've not been a huge fan of some of his work (I thought THE LIVING END was actually silly), but this really got to me!

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 3:18pm

It's a very faithful adaptation, robbie, you should totally read it. If you can't stomach reading a film tie in cover, I have a copy from when it first came out....

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 3:20pm

Oooh...bring it back here with ya! I'll borrow...and you can 'borrow' something of mine!

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 3:23pm

Hot.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 3:26pm

Papa, you filthy breeder, you've already more than once expressed your disdain for me on this board. Can't you follow the example of Jerby and just let once be enough?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 3:45pm

Well, allow me to clarify. I think criticism is valid and needed. But it hasn't been much criticism--it's been nastiness and childish harping. And that is what all of my comments above refer to.

I actually have quite enjoyed when Namo and robbie and others have posted eloquent criticisms of this film. And, I believe that that appreciation was noted.

And, papa, I have acknowledged that I (hypocritically?) don't have the same standard for criticism and even nastiness for politics that I do art. But, I also feel that they are deeply different beasts. And, Bush isn't a 2 hour problem. He has been a 5 year abomination.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 3:48pm

You mean you didn't love Ann Hathaway's boobs too, papa? I'm disappointed.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 3:48pm

And, Kringas, and everyone: I would hope these debates aren't being taken personal, or rather to affect friendship. I think our friendship, Kringas, has proven to be cool enough to handle the most heated of debates. And my masochist comment was a joke--that you should have gotten!

Papa and I can tear each other limb from limb and then laugh about it in PMs.

[DG]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 3:57pm

"Papa and I can tear each other limb from limb"

Will there be video?

[BroadwayFantastic!]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 4:05pm

I agree with BobbyBubby but I think the main message isn't so much being gay and having sex with another man, but the fact that it was unheard of in the South in the 60s. Yes people should probably be more considerate to the issue but they should also understand the message and how important it really is. If it were about a man and a woman, it would still send the same message about love. Because the movie is about love. It was meant to leave people with the message that love of any kind is frightening and difficult and strong. Not leave images of guys ramming each other in a tent.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 4:13pm

If it were about a man and woman, it would have been called Same Time, Next Year.

And Jerby, there's a difference between being a sub and being a mascochist but, as they say, that's a whole other thread (one that would be quickly deleted). And I've taken none of this personally. It's been at times enlightening and often amusing. I'm glad to see you're not taking it personally, either.

Updated On: 1/9/06 at 04:13 PM

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 4:16pm

If it were about a man and a woman, each would have left their respective spouses without much thought and the film would have been 10 minutes long.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 4:28pm

As much as I love that people are getting a universal meaning from the film and the sense that this is a tragic love story, let's be very clear:

This film IS about homophobia and how it contricts people's lives. That's what Proulx has said in a nutshell.

The time period and location are even irrelevant as these events and characters exist today all over this country. But Proulx chooses to write about Wyoming and chose the setting as it was particularly an optionless time period.

[pattifan2]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 4:55pm

Totally agree, Jerby. But what is making this film speak to so many people is that at its centre is the story of two people who are the love of each others' lives but who cannot be together for so many reasons. Whether these reasons are gender, race, religion etc it is precisely that which makes this a universal story and relevant to so many people.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 4:58pm

I can buy that--the R&J "we can't be together".

I guess this film works on many levels. Somehow none of those levels hit some of our fellow posters...

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 6:39pm

pcb, i've had a thing for michelle's boobs since killer joe.

jerby, since all art political, isn't a discussion of art in fact a discussion of politics?

kringas, i have reported your abuse to the moderators and will be filing suit in district court in manhattan in early february, just as soon as i can stop crying.

is wyoming the south?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 6:57pm

Hmmmmm. You MAY have made a hell of a point there, papa, but I still see a distinction. I guess the lines blur towards the center--documentaries like F 9/11.

Tiz a puzzlement.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/9/06 at 7:13pm

Dear Papa-

To quote one of my favorite singers, Miss Effie Melody White (she had a minor hit in the 1970s and was originally the lead signer in a little group that went on to be known as Deena Jones and the Dreams), "You're lying. You're lying. I've never been so thin."

I shall dismiss your threats of a lawsuit, because I know they are but a mere smokescreen to cover up the fact that you have steered this thread so far away from BM's message. That message is not one of love. It's not one of Michelle William's breasts. It is simply thus - That no matter how you slice it, it's oddly jarring when a female child is called "junior." Am I right?

Cordially,
Kringas

**Fun Fact** Joan Crawford's daughter Christina (who wrote the book of lies and trash known as Mommie Dearest) was actually originally named Joan Crawford, Jr. And I think it's jarring in that case, too.

Updated On: 1/12/06 at 07:13 PM