Brokeback Mountain won and it just seemed so ordinary- Page 6

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 10:54pm

Yeah, nobody in BIRDCAGE has a d--k (or workable a-s) that he actually uses (or lips, tongue ... or even hands for that matter).

It's all about a kind of creepy co-dependent marriage, with one high maitenance drama queen being "handled" by a butch(er) long-suffering "straight(er)" husband. Let me be blunter: It's hard to fathom Robin spitting on his hand to half-ass (!) woo Nathan in the sack. They are so past all that icky grunt n'grind stuff, and instead chat, incessently, about matters of decor, style, fem and butch. Guess who's comin' to din-din, queer eye style.

Oh, they're cute and lovable and an effin' HOOT!, sure, but they also represent the sort of kitsch, piano bar view of gay people -- perpetual show tunes, too much French provencial furniture, make-up worn in daylight, thickly applied hair product, and pastel wardrobes that make them look like Paul Lynde in his casket. But please, you righteous defenders of their "fun(er)" lifestyle -- does anybody sweat n'(still) get off regularly in the versions of this story? Jerry Herman's, or Mike Nichols'? They're sexless clones of suburban hetero yups: gential-less middle age gay minstrals who exist merely to provide fabulosity in a dreary world.

Updated On: 1/17/06 at 10:54 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 10:58pm

Now Auggie, you're somebody I disagree with on this topic and somebody I love. I don't disrespect you for having a different opinion from mine, NOR DO YOU CALL MY DIFFERING OPINION OF YOURS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

Anyway, back to The Birdcage. If you get to say most married couples have sex less than Jake and Heath did I get to say to this:

It's all about a kind of creepy co-dependent marriage, with one high maitenance drama queen being "handled" by a butch(er) long-suffering "straight(er)" husband.

Yes, and your point is?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:03pm

When is negativity anything BUT counterproductive? You passed the line of dissent into negativity. Robbie's posts aren't counterproductive.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:07pm

I've been wondering: did anybody make a fuss when GODS AND MONSTERS (one of my favs) came out, since it ends with James Whale committing suicide in a swimming pool, while Brendan Fraser's straight character gets to settle contently into a life with wife and kids, having been enriched by his friendship with the dead homo?

It was a highly acclaimed film, nabbing a nomination for Best Picture Drama at the Golden Globes and winning an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay. And I don't remember one peep of criticism from within the gay community about the tragic ending. Was it because the movie was written and directed by gay Bill Condon, starring gay Ian McKellen?

Updated On: 1/17/06 at 11:07 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:08pm

Ah yes, YOU get to decide that. You have to see how guilty you are of the very things you accuse me of. You get to decide what is discussion and and what is negativity. You frickin took criticism of Mafrickindonna personally.

Personally, just speaking for myself, I am personally just plain sick of you Jerby.

And most importantly, now that you have resorted to the last vestige of the BWW scoundrel, "Many people feel _____," I am now, to quote Bar Bush, "through with you."

BW, I loved Gods + Monsters because the story was there on the screen and it was gorgeously told.

Updated On: 1/17/06 at 11:08 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:09pm

Back at ya, Namo. Ditto. Oh, how I do go on, I know. And on. I know, like Albin himself. (Though I actually liked "Paul Lynde in his casket.." if I may quote myself.) As Ruth Gordon says in Harold and Maude, "consistency isn't really a human trait." Amen, Minnie Castevet. Guilty!

My point? Did I have one? Well--Oh yeah, point--maybe it's: repressed cowboys, decadent drag queens, can't we all git in one big velvet tent and jus' get along, even if we either f--k without lube OR sing "What I Did For Love", teary and exposed as we try to accomplish either task? Partner girlfriend, Ain't there room fer spurs and sequins? Do we haveta be s'darned biased, as I was in another of my excessive posts?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:10pm

Shut up! My chin just quivered at the very thought of "What I Did For Love."

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:16pm

I think my biggest problem was I was disappointed with the film. I just didn't enjoy it as a film (a medium that I'm starting to realize that I don't really love anyway...but cast me in something and I'll sell the f*ck out!).

The politics and the execution of the film go hand in hand for me, so it's a bit tough to seperate them. But there certainly is a sense that my artistic objections should be tempered for the political impact this film may or may not make. Now...I may suck c*ck with the best of them (I was legendary at CRUNCH on 42nd Street), but first and foremost, I'm an actor...and a director...and a writer. It's my religion. It's my purpose. It ties my wonderful relationship as to what aspect of my life is most vital. I simply cannot set aside any artistic qualms I have to go along with the group.

As for GODS & MONSTERS, he doesn't kill himself because he's gay. He kills himself and he's gay. The two aren't connected. Plus...character and plot are just far better delineated in that film than BM.

Updated On: 1/17/06 at 11:16 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:17pm

No, you completely miss the point!

It's not about Madonna or Brokeback. I don't care what you think of them. I care that because YOU decide that they are not worthy, you do everything you can to **** on those who do. It could have been about anything--a play or a book. Namo decides it's crap, so he makes it his mission to make sure everyone who likes it is just as miserable as he is.

And if I really gave a damn what people thought, I wouldn't be so outspoken in my opinions. The people I care about respect our differences. They act like adults.

This is clearly not a function you possess. Though at one time you did. Who changed?

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:21pm

I'm just asking because I wonder if gay people here would be so split on BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN if it had been directed by Gus Van Sant (who was originally attached to the project). Would it still be accused of being "a gay movie for straight audiences"?

I brought this up in another thread, and Namo said that scenario is irrelevant, since it would be a different film, etc. -- but I don't think so. Van Sant would be working off the same screenplay by McMurtry and Ossana, the same story with which Namo and others have a problem. So it is an issue of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN having been made by people outside the gay "community"?

Updated On: 1/17/06 at 11:21 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:26pm

Look, I don't know who you think I think I am, but to me I learned all I need to know when you mentioned "DARING" to defy me. WTF? I really couldn't give less of a ****. Seriously. Do what you gotta do, say what you gotta say. But you're just projecting all over the place. Miserable as I am? Please.

At this point I am finding you annoying as hell. That's all. Defy away. But find somebody else to focus on. Because the past couple of months you've been annoying me the way a persistent gnat annoys me. And if that means YOU get to decide what behavior is adult or not, fine. And to paraphrase you, if I really gave a damn what you think of me, I would actually be miserable.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:26pm

It's interesting. I can't answer the question because, frankly, I don't know what that film would look like. The sex scenes surely might be different. Moments of intimacy might be filmed very differently. I have no idea. It could be a very different film, especially since Van Sant's aesthetic is different from Lee's. Lee's sense of the epic is impressive and is visible in all of his later films...Van Sant focuses on the small details (LOVED ELEPHANT!), which could lead to a very different film with very different performances.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:28pm

C'mon, you guys are starting to copy and re-post old posts. That's cheating.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:29pm

It's interesting. I can't answer the question because, frankly, I don't know what that film would look like. The sex scenes surely might be different. Moments of intimacy might be filmed very differently. I have no idea. It could be a very different film, especially since Van Sant's aesthetic is different from Lee's. Lee's sense of the epic is impressive and is visible in all of his later films...Van Sant focuses on the small details (LOVED ELEPHANT!), which could lead to a very different film with very different performances.

I can't IMAGINE what you're talking about Auggie!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:29pm

And the funny thing is Van Sant's stock in trade is the emotionally stunted male. But I do think if he had directed it and not the fundamentally conservative Mr. Lee, there would be no talk of the movie's bravery. Even if it DID look a lot like it does now. And it wouldn't receive half the accolades it is now. And half the people raving about it would say they wouldn't even bother to see it since they haven't seen any Van Sant movies since the one with Nicole Kidman.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:33pm

Why? Because then all the heteros couldn't get together and pat each other on the back for GETTING IT!

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:37pm

I really don't know why you keep calling Ang Lee's work "fundamentally conservative." I think that's a laughable assessment -- his films are all told from a liberal/progressive perspective (yes, even THE ICE STORM, which we've argued about -- have you read the much angrier novel?). I'd even call Ang Lee Hollywood's humanist director. His diverse oeuvre is unified by the theme of the individual being repressed by social obligation. So stop being silly.

Updated On: 1/17/06 at 11:37 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:40pm

robbie (i mean namo...ever seen 'em together? anybody? anybody?), do you mean conservative in the political sense, or in a more general sense of the word divorced from my beloved gw and the paleocons?

Updated On: 1/17/06 at 11:40 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:40pm

I'm sorry. I can't be responsible for having to go read the source material all the time with these Ang Lee films. I just see the movies and I respond to them as I respond to them and I call them as I see them. Nooooo, I have not read the angrier novel of The Ice Storm. Noooooo, I have not read the Proulx short story and at this time I feel confident declaring that I would not read that short story short of a gun being held to my head forcing the issue. I don't caaaaaaaaaaaare that nothing was shown in the movie or that the sex scene made no sense even though it was exactly like the short story. Good!

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:42pm

Then please point out the films you found "fundamentally conservative," because I'm at a loss for finding such a quality in ANY of Ang Lee's work (quite the opposite, in fact).

Updated On: 1/17/06 at 11:42 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:43pm

Alas, I didn't use the 'c' word.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:46pm

i realize that looking back and made the appropriate correction.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:48pm

though I do feel that there was very little of the humanist point of view BW is talking about in the film THE ICE STORM. It, too me, was a very bleak indictment of a time and a mindset that was peculiarly American.

And before you ask me to explain that, I'm off to bed. Perhaps I'll be clearer head tomorrow after I sleep off the yummy red wine.

Wait...am I at www.corinescorner.com?

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:53pm

LOL, goodnight robbie. For me, the humanism of THE ICE STORM came from the overall compassion and non-judgment that enveloped the film (sorry for the vagueness, but it's hard to describe the specific tone), particularly in the second-to-last scene when the boy's body is carried in. The social tragedy and sense of fatalism (the encroaching ice storm) is treated with sympathy, not indignant condemnation. I see THE ICE STORM as a precursor to Ball/Mendes' AMERICAN BEAUTY.

Updated On: 1/17/06 at 11:53 PM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 1/17/06 at 11:59pm

I can't believe I read this entire thread. My brain has turned to mush. I'll admit that when it turned into a two person war I started skimming though.

I'm curious, RobbieJ. Earlier you made the following comments:

"Here, [Love is] violent, scary, forbidden and, ultimately, the source for all that is wrong in their lives. But never once is the 'love' portrayed as, well, loving."

I dunno, RobbieJ. First off, I feel that way about love all the time. It's an *gasp* ambivalent emotion. That moment when Ennis sees Jack again after Brokeback not only was one of the few moments in the film I was profoundly moved, but also a clear expression of love. You also say:

"I was about to put in all caps ALL ART IS POLITICAL..."

Could you expand on that?

I think people bring a lot to the table with this movie, when it's merely the story of a self hating and unsympathetic man. Is it an incredibly flawed movie? Yes. Frankly, I could care less about the social-political implications (which a lot of people are taking as explications) as I'm pretty sure it's meant to be a character study.

On a different topic, Jerby, as far as romantic comedies go, weren't you severely disappointed that Love, Actually portrayed not one homosexual love story? Yes, there is one in the cut scenes, but it really pisses me off. I'm not saying there has to be a token gay love story, but come on. Give me a token gay love story :)