NationStates Jolt Archive

GLAAD Mad at Shalit's "Brokeback" Breakdown

By Sarah HallFri Jan 6, 7:44 PM ET

For the most part, the critics agree that Brokeback Mountain is one of the year's most commendable films.

Then there's Gene Shalit's point of view.

The veteran Today show critic has been taken to task by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation over his negative review of the gay cowboy western, in which he referred to Jake Gyllenhaal's character, Jack, as a "sexual predator" who "tracks Ennis down and coaxes him into sporadic trysts."

The group claimed that Shalit's statements, delivered during his "Critic's Choice" segment on Thursday's Today show, promoted "defamatory anti-gay prejudice to a national audience," and criticized NBC News for providing the eccentric critic with a platform from which to air his views.

"Shalit's bizarre characterization of Jack as a 'predator' and Ennis (Heath Ledger) as a victim reflects a fundamental lack of understanding about the central relationship in the film and about gay relationships in general," GLAAD said in a statement. "It seems highly doubtful that Shalit would similarly claim that Titanic's Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) was a 'sexual predator' because he was pursuing a romantic relationship with Rose (Kate Winslet)."

GLAAD demanded an apology from both Shalit and NBC News and urged supporters to contact the network and complain.

In addition to offering his searing analysis of the romantic relationship between the lead characters, Shalit commended Ledger's performance in Brokeback and allowed that the film had a "few dramatic peaks." He concluded that Ang Lee's much-nominated oeuvre was "wildly overpraised, but not by me."

"Shalit has every right as a film critic to criticize Brokeback Mountain," GLAAD retorted. "But his baseless branding of Jack as a 'sexual predator' merely because he is romantically interested in someone of the same sex is defamatory, ignorant and irresponsible."

The group reported on its Website that GLAAD representatives had spoken with a Today show producer, who promised to bring their concerns to Shalit's attention.

While Shalit may not be a Brokeback fan, his colleagues in critique have clamored to commend the cowboy drama.

To date, the film has been named Best Picture by the Los Angeles Film Critics Association and the New York Film Critics Circle and deemed one of the year's 10 best films by the American Film Institute and the Broadcast Film Critics Association.

The kudos don't stop there--Brokeback is up for eight Critic's Choice Awards, seven Golden Globes, a Writers Guild Award, a Producers Guild Award, a Directors Guild Award and four Screen Actors Guild Awards, to name a few. And that's before nominations for the Academy Awards are announced on Jan. 31.

The long and the short of it is that I do not see how GLAAD can actively pursue the course of a demanded apology over this comment. Shalit gave his opinion of a work, an opinion which he is paid to give. Unless he said something to the effect of, "This movie is bad because it is about a homosexual relationship," or, "I do not like this movie because it just goes to show what those gay people are really like," I cannot see how this is a defamatory statement that would warrent the attention of an activist group.

Comments?

The long and the short of it is that I do not see how GLAAD can actively pursue the course of a demanded apology over this comment. Shalit gave his opinion of a work, an opinion which he is paid to give. Unless he said something to the effect of, "This movie is bad because it is about a homosexual relationship," or, "I do not like this movie because it just goes to show what those gay people are really like," I cannot see how this is a defamatory statement that would warrent the attention of an activist group.

Comments?
Because any negative comment directed in any way toward the gay community is evidence of a deep seated homophobia, didn't you know that?

why cant they ask for a retraction? he is a prominent critic who said something that might reflect badly on the gay community, they can bring it up. no one else seems to have thought that anyone was being STALKED. (most stalking doesnt involve ending up in bed with your stalker). they were offended, its perfectly fine for them to ask that he rethink his comment.

The long and the short of it is that I do not see how GLAAD can actively pursue the course of a demanded apology over this comment. Shalit gave his opinion of a work, an opinion which he is paid to give. Unless he said something to the effect of, "This movie is bad because it is about a homosexual relationship," or, "I do not like this movie because it just goes to show what those gay people are really like," I cannot see how this is a defamatory statement that would warrent the attention of an activist group.

Comments?
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, Shalit's a moron who's reading stuff into the film that's just not there. I've seen the film--Twist's character is far from a predator. In fact, in the relationship between Twist and Ennis, Twist is the bottom. Now, as he winds up being the more financially successful of the two--the film covers a span of twenty years--he also winds up financing their trysts, but the film never shows the relationship as being anything other than mutual, so for Shalit to claim that Twist is a predator is stupid and shows a huge misreading of the film.

Now the reason that GLAAD is upset about the statement that Twist is a predator has to do with the bogus assumption put out by homophobes that being homosexual is 1) a choice and 2) a perversion that gays actively try to spread, especially among young men. Shalit, whether he intends it or not, is actively playing into that assumption and furthering it. GLAAD's purpose, much like the Anti-Defamation league, is to protect members of their community and to try to dispel harmful stereotypes, and so they're asking for this apology, and Shalit, if he's decent, ought to clarify and apologize,

why cant they ask for a retraction? he is a prominent critic who said something that might reflect badly on the gay community, they can bring it up. no one else seems to have thought that anyone was being STALKED. (most stalking doesnt involve ending up in bed with your stalker). they were offended, its perfectly fine for them to ask that he rethink his comment.
On what basis can they ask for an appology?

If they are entitled to their opinion (which they are) that his criticizm sucks, they he is entitled to his opinion that the movie sucks, no?

The critics have the right to say what they want, thats what they are paid for, but the gay community is basicaly looking out for their image portrait to the world. I dont know about you guys and gals, but if you were called a sexual predator, i dont think you would take kindly to it. Especially when jake gyllenhaal wasnt really stalking or using him as prey, they both wanted to see each other its just jake gyllenhaal's character found Ennis first, simple as that really. Basically, the critic should have payed attention to the movie more for that part but what is said and done cannot be removed.

He's obviously an ignorant fool. However, he has every right to be ignorant fool and every right to display his ignorance and foolishness to the world, if he likes. If I were GLAAD, I wouldn't bother with him. He's just TV loudmouth with a chip on his shoulder and/or a bad understanding of the movie.

On what basis can they ask for an appology?

If they are entitled to their opinion (which they are) that his criticizm sucks, they he is entitled to his opinion that the movie sucks, no?
thats why.

he is free to say what his opinion is, they are free to disagree with it and ask for an apology.

as a gentleman, he probably should rethink his analysis of the movie. as a critic he should not be forced to.

Saying it's a bad film is fine, as is misreading totally the nature of a relationship within it. The bloke got it wrong, and assuming it's an honest bout of ignorance, should acknowledge that he's mistaken when and if he realises it; should in no way be compelled to.

If GLAAD can show he misread the relationship out of something other than making an honest mistake, then they have every right to demand a formal apology. What's this Shalit guy like on matters gay generally?

The fact that Shalit, mainstream enough to be on TV with Katie Couric, is the lone voice of non-praise for the film ought to be enough for GLAAD to just let him go. Were there a swell of critics who saw it that way, there might be an issue. But when one and only one person is dissenting as per his right, that pretty much makes the case for the film's worthiness. GLAAD is making a mountian out of a moron -- but that's what minority watchdog groups tend to do...bark a lot.

The critics have the right to say what they want, thats what they are paid for, but the gay community is basicaly looking out for their image portrait to the world. I dont know about you guys and gals, but if you were called a sexual predator, i dont think you would take kindly to it. Especially when jake gyllenhaal wasnt really stalking or using him as prey, they both wanted to see each other its just jake gyllenhaal's character found Ennis first, simple as that really. Basically, the critic should have payed attention to the movie more for that part but what is said and done cannot be removed.


but if gene shalit called me a sexual predator i just wouldn't care because it's gene shalit.

*shrug*

If they want his opinion, they'll tell him what it is?

Seriously, if that's what he saw, that's what he saw. He has a right to say that he thinks the character is a sexual predator. It's not as if he said, "Gay movies are evil, gay characters are evil, they should all burn in hell," or some other nonsense.

Gene Shalit called and earlier movie, "The Birdcage" "the funniest movie you'll see this year", so I doubt it's an Anti-Homosexual Agenda(tm).

Personally I have nothing against being labelled a sexual predator. It's actually quite a lot of fun to pursue men. Sure, it may not be so challenging at times, as men are whores, but it's still very much fun. And if for wanting to fuck their brains out, I am a sexual predator, then so be it. I can wear that label as a badge of honour.

Personally I have nothing against being labelled a sexual predator. It's actually quite a lot of fun to pursue men. Sure, it may not be so challenging at times, as men are whores, but it's still very much fun. And if for wanting to fuck their brains out, I am a sexual predator, then so be it. I can wear that label as a badge of honour.
Fass, I admire you.

That being said, That moron certainly wasn't paying attention during the scene where they fuck in the tent. Ennis certainly doesn't seem like he's being raped or engaging in unwanted intercourse as he fucks the brains out of Jack. If fucking the brains out of someone amounts to being "forced into intercourse with a sexual predator", I wish I knew more sexual predators like that. Especially if they look like Jake Gyllenhaall.

Fass, I admire you.

That being said, That moron certainly wasn't paying attention during the scene where they fuck in the tent. Ennis certainly doesn't seem like he's being raped or engaging in unwanted intercourse as he fucks the brains out of Jack. If fucking the brains out of someone amounts to being "forced into intercourse with a sexual predator", I wish I knew more sexual predators like that. Especially if they look like Jake Gyllenhaall.

Tell it like it is. It would make life so much better if these were the sexual predators our mom's warned us about - I'd take candy from them any day! :)

Fass, I admire you.

That being said, That moron certainly wasn't paying attention during the scene where they fuck in the tent. Ennis certainly doesn't seem like he's being raped or engaging in unwanted intercourse as he fucks the brains out of Jack. If fucking the brains out of someone amounts to being "forced into intercourse with a sexual predator", I wish I knew more sexual predators like that. Especially if they look like Jake Gyllenhaall.
Precisely. I mean, when I saw that review, I wondered if maybe Shalit had seen the porn version instead of the studio release, because there's no reasonable way to conclude that Twist is a predator.

And for those of you jumping down GLAAD's throat about asking for the apology, you have to remember that even today, there's a vocal minority in the US who claims that simply being gay makes you a predator, especially on children. GLAAD's purpose is to help dispel those myths, and their job is made that much more difficult when a person with the visibility that Shalit has furthers them, whether intentionally or unintentionally. They have to demand an apology here, even if they don't get one, because otherwise they're not standing up for their constituents.

Is Shalit anti-gay? Probably not. As Katganistan pointed out above, he raved about The Birdcage (although one could examine whether or not he simply feels gay stories are okay as long as they're humorous, a la the old minstrel shows), but whether he intended to or not, he pushed the idea of gay=predator out into the mainstream.

The long and the short of it is that I do not see how GLAAD can actively pursue the course of a demanded apology over this comment. Shalit gave his opinion of a work, an opinion which he is paid to give. Unless he said something to the effect of, "This movie is bad because it is about a homosexual relationship," or, "I do not like this movie because it just goes to show what those gay people are really like," I cannot see how this is a defamatory statement that would warrent the attention of an activist group.

Comments?

You need to understand these liberal groups have a constitutional right to say whatever they want even if it defames other people or groups. However, no one has a constitutional right to say whatever they want about these liberal groups unless it agrees with the liberal groups philosophy. They are a bunch of hypocrites. :eek:

*shrug*

If they want his opinion, they'll tell him what it is?

Seriously, if that's what he saw, that's what he saw. He has a right to say that he thinks the character is a sexual predator. It's not as if he said, "Gay movies are evil, gay characters are evil, they should all burn in hell," or some other nonsense.

Gene Shalit called and earlier movie, "The Birdcage" "the funniest movie you'll see this year", so I doubt it's an Anti-Homosexual Agenda(tm).
As Katganistan pointed out above, he raved about The Birdcage (although one could examine whether or not he simply feels gay stories are okay as long as they're humorous, a la the old minstrel shows)
This is the relevant point about the defense, as raving about The Birdcage doesn't in anyway relieve him of the burdon of stereotyping gays. It does say that he likes his gays broadly drawn and harmlessly cartoonish. That any 'real' story of thier love becomes predetorial. A more complete survey of gay themed movies would be required.

But as Nazz points out, intent is not the whole point, but rather implication. GLAAD has tp call out the implication because it is one they are actively working against.

You need to understand these liberal groups have a constitutional right to say whatever they want even if it defames other people or groups. However, no one has a constitutional right to say whatever they want about these liberal groups unless it agrees with the liberal groups philosophy. They are a bunch of hypocrites. :eek:
Tell you what--why don't you try, just once, adding to the conversation instead of simply spouting off your pathetic little "liberals are bad, waah waah waah" crap?

You need to understand these liberal groups have a constitutional right to say whatever they want even if it defames other people or groups. However, no one has a constitutional right to say whatever they want about these liberal groups unless it agrees with the liberal groups philosophy. They are a bunch of hypocrites. :eek:
Please point to where they are making a legal challenge to Shalit's right to say what he said.

Alternatatively, please point to where we are constitutionally protected from criticism for the things we say.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, Shalit's a moron who's reading stuff into the film that's just not there. I've seen the film--Twist's character is far from a predator. In fact, in the relationship between Twist and Ennis, Twist is the bottom. Now, as he winds up being the more financially successful of the two--the film covers a span of twenty years--he also winds up financing their trysts, but the film never shows the relationship as being anything other than mutual, so for Shalit to claim that Twist is a predator is stupid and shows a huge misreading of the film.

Now the reason that GLAAD is upset about the statement that Twist is a predator has to do with the bogus assumption put out by homophobes that being homosexual is 1) a choice and 2) a perversion that gays actively try to spread, especially among young men. Shalit, whether he intends it or not, is actively playing into that assumption and furthering it. GLAAD's purpose, much like the Anti-Defamation league, is to protect members of their community and to try to dispel harmful stereotypes, and so they're asking for this apology, and Shalit, if he's decent, ought to clarify and apologize,

Shalit's opinion aside, I find it altogether odd that the rest of Hollywood is talking about this film as though it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and the microwave oven.

I've seen it, and I didn't think it was more than mediocre. Am I missing something, or is Hollywood pushing this film because it deals with homosexuality?

I dont know, hollywood, is hollywood, they never really know whats going on. Especially when minds are filled with botox, and men think with their dicks, i just dont know anymore. If hollywood was actually important and had people who can think in it, i mean...the actors/actresses who were smart talked about the movie, i might listen...but cmon...its gene shalit, who really cares??

I've seen it, and I didn't think it was more than mediocre. Am I missing something, or is Hollywood pushing this film because it deals with homosexuality?

Or, more likely, because they think it's good. Other people can like things you don't like, you know.

I still want someone else who has seen the movie to tell me why they thought it was more than mediocre.

I want to know why the critics are so enamored with the film.

Or, more likely, because they think it's good. Other people can like things you don't like, you know.
I didn't see any acting or plot that made it seem "good" to me.

I still want someone else who has seen the movie to tell me why they thought it was more than mediocre.

I want to know why the critics are so enamored with the film.
Couldn't you kill both birds by reading their reviews?

I didn't see any acting or plot that made it seem "good" to me.

So? That means it's not good? I don't particularly find the Godfather films to be all that and a bag of chips - should I jump to some conclusion about the Mafia controlled Hollywood pushing them because of an Italian agenda, just like you're jumping to the Gay Mafia controlled Hollywood pushing this film because of a gay agenda?

Couldn't you kill both birds by reading their reviews?

That makes too much sense.

So? That means it's not good? I don't particularly find the Godfather films to be all that and a bag of chips - should I jump to some conclusion about the Mafia controlled Hollywood pushing them because of an Italian agenda, just like you're jumping to the Gay Mafia controlled Hollywood pushing this film because of a gay agenda?



*runs from the Gay Mafia*

The long and the short of it is that I do not see how GLAAD can actively pursue the course of a demanded apology over this comment. Shalit gave his opinion of a work, an opinion which he is paid to give. Unless he said something to the effect of, "This movie is bad because it is about a homosexual relationship," or, "I do not like this movie because it just goes to show what those gay people are really like," I cannot see how this is a defamatory statement that would warrent the attention of an activist group.

Comments?
"Freedom of speech" sometimes extends only to those who agree with the current politicially correct postion.

So? That means it's not good? I don't particularly find the Godfather films to be all that and a bag of chips - should I jump to some conclusion about the Mafia controlled Hollywood pushing them because of an Italian agenda, just like you're jumping to the Gay Mafia controlled Hollywood pushing this film because of a gay agenda?

Did I once say "gay mafia"?

No, I'm saying "Hollywood" - gay and non-gay. The people who think they know what's good for us.

I've found that most reviews of most movies are bullshit, plain and simple. And when everyone jumps on the bandwagon to hype a film that virtually no one is seeing, I'm even more suspicious as to whether or not they're bullshitting me.

I've seen it, and I found it intolerably boring and inanely acted.

"Freedom of speech" sometimes extends only to those who agree with the current politicially correct postion.
Shame on you, you know better, but we'll go through it again since you're selective-

Please point to where they are making a legal challenge to Shalit's right to say what he said.

Alternatatively, please point to where we are constitutionally protected from criticism for the things we say.

*runs from the Gay Mafia*
I wish I could enlist in the gay mafia.

Did I once say "gay mafia"?

No, I'm saying "Hollywood" - gay and non-gay. The people who think they know what's good for us.

I've found that most reviews of most movies are bullshit, plain and simple. And when everyone jumps on the bandwagon to hype a film that virtually no one is seeing, I'm even more suspicious as to whether or not they're bullshitting me.

I've seen it, and I found it intolerably boring and inanely acted.
that's why I really don't put much weight on critics reviews.

Did I once say "gay mafia"?

No, I'm saying "Hollywood" - gay and non-gay. The people who think they know what's good for us.
$10 billion a year gives them a degree of confidence. If you don't go see what they make, they'll make something different.

I've found that most reviews of most movies are bullshit, plain and simple. And when everyone jumps on the bandwagon to hype a film that virtually no one is seeing, I'm even more suspicious as to whether or not they're bullshitting me.

I've seen it, and I found it intolerably boring and inanely acted.
"I can't be convinced, convince me!" Yeah, that seems worth it...

I wish I could enlist in the gay mafia.


what would the iniation be?

what would the iniation be?
I don't know, but I sure as hell hope it involves lots of Jake-Gylenhaal-looking sexual predators!

$10 billion a year gives them a degree of confidence. If you don't go see what they make, they'll make something different.


Notice the recent spate of films - Syriana, Good Night and Good Luck, and Brokeback....

Films that barely have an audience, and yet are hyped hard by Hollywood critics.

They're not making what people want to see - they're making what they want to make, and they wish that everyone would stampede to the theater to see it.

Did I once say "gay mafia"?

No, that was my construction. You made an allusion to this being pushed because of an agenda.

No, I'm saying "Hollywood" - gay and non-gay. The people who think they know what's good for us.

Straw man, and also does not detract from the baselessness of the inference.

I've found that most reviews of most movies are bullshit, plain and simple. And when everyone jumps on the bandwagon to hype a film that virtually no one is seeing, I'm even more suspicious as to whether or not they're bullshitting me.

I've seen it, and I found it intolerably boring and inanely acted.

So you don't really want to be convinced. You just want to allude to some conspiracy because you cannot concieve of someone liking something you didn't.

Notice the recent spate of films - Syriana, Good Night and Good Luck, and Brokeback....

Films that barely have an audience, and yet are hyped hard by Hollywood critics.

They're not making what people want to see - they're making what they want to make, and they wish that everyone would stampede to the theater to see it.
Brokeback has seen record sales here in Quebec.

Y'know, some of us actually welcome a nice change of pace from all those big-budget, needlessly violent and plot-contrived megaproductions. Brokeback was great because it depicts accurately real life (historical) drama. No need for flashy explosions, or endless gunfights. I'm not saying we should switch and only produce/view realistic movies, but I enjoy a varied plate, and hollywood had been giving very few of those over the last few years.

Notice the recent spate of films - Syriana, Good Night and Good Luck, and Brokeback....

Well, not all films can be Blackhawk Downs and Independance Days, fellating the US military and self-aggrandising US nationalism. Oh, drats, those were Hollywood films, too...

Films that barely have an audience, and yet are hyped hard by Hollywood critics.

Brokeback seems to be having quite the audience.

They're not making what people want to see - they're making what they want to make, and they wish that everyone would stampede to the theater to see it.

Yup. You don't like them so others can't like them either.

Did I read something about the gays controlling Hollywood? I guess the Jews sold it.

They're not making what people want to see - they're making what they want to make, and they wish that everyone would stampede to the theater to see it.
Thank [insert generic deity here] they aren't. Otherwise we'd have American Idol the Movie and She's All That Part II.

Brokeback has seen record sales here in Quebec.

Not, apparently, in the US.

Thank [insert generic deity here] they aren't. Otherwise we'd have American Idol the Movie and She's All That Part II.
*shudders*

Did I read something about the gays controlling Hollywood? I guess the Jews sold it.

They're atheist, gay Jews.

Did I read something about the gays controlling Hollywood? I guess the Jews sold it.


Thank [insert generic deity here] they aren't. Otherwise we'd have American Idol the Movie and She's All That Part II.

they already have an american idol movie

from justin to kelly or something.

I thought Gene Shalit died years ago. What is he, now - 75? 80?

Has anyone really given a damn what that walrus-moustached fool with the amusing speech impediment has had to say about a movie for the last twenty-five years?

This reeks of hucksterism.

Notice the recent spate of films - Syriana, Good Night and Good Luck, and Brokeback....

Films that barely have an audience, and yet are hyped hard by Hollywood critics.

They're not making what people want to see - they're making what they want to make, and they wish that everyone would stampede to the theater to see it.
Crazy artists, being artistic now and then instead of pandering. How dare they?

And, contrary to what you claim, it seems that they are doing quite well-
Brokeback Mountain (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=brokebackmountain.htm) has increased viewership on every weekend with the exception of Christmas, already earning $2 million more than it cost to make, and increasing its viewership last weekend by 154%. In a four week run that started off with only 5 screens and still climbing at this point it seems that this film is well on its way to being a success that plenty of people are seeing.

Goodnight and Good Luck (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=goodnightandgoodluck.htm) has made over three times its budget. And after 13 weeks had a 139% (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=goodnightandgoodluck.htm) reversal. Prior to that had had a decent run for a $7 million dollar movie, and on less than 700 screens, a pittance of screens, really.

Syriana (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=syriana.htm), while taking an initial dip after the first week, is on the rise to the tune of 64%. Clearly the most expensive of the three, it has yet to make its money back but seems on track to do just that. And still with a third of the screens of larger movies like Narnia or King Kong.

Further, Brokeback Mountain is managing $13,455 per screen-compare that to King Kongs $6,666 (here (http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/))

Seems like they are indeed making movies that people want to see. Just not you. But then there are plenty of other options for you...

i actually really want to see both goodnight and luck and syriana.

Crazy artists, being artistic now and then instead of pandering. How dare they?

And, contrary to what you claim, it seems that they are doing quite well-
Brokeback Mountain (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=brokebackmountain.htm) has increased viewership on every weekend with the exception of Christmas, already earning $2 million more than it cost to make, and increasing its viewership last weekend by 154%. In a four week run that started off with only 5 screens and still climbing at this point it seems that this film is well on its way to being a success that plenty of people are seeing.

Goodnight and Good Luck (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=goodnightandgoodluck.htm) has made over three times its budget. And after 13 weeks had a 139% (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=goodnightandgoodluck.htm) reversal. Prior to that had had a decent run for a $7 million dollar movie, and on less than 700 screens, a pittance of screens, really.

Syriana (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=syriana.htm), while taking an initial dip after the first week, is on the rise to the tune of 64%. Clearly the most expensive of the three, it has yet to make its money back but seems on track to do just that. And still with a third of the screens of larger movies like Narnia or King Kong.

Further, Brokeback Mountain is managing $13,455 per screen-compare that to King Kongs $6,666 (here (http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/))

Seems like they are indeed making movies that people want to see. Just not you. But then there are plenty of other options for you...

Nice ownage. Golf claps to you.

Tell you what--why don't you try, just once, adding to the conversation instead of simply spouting off your pathetic little "liberals are bad, waah waah waah" crap?

Liberals are good. Without them, there would be nothing to debate. Besides, I never said they were bad, I said they are hypocrites.

And, contrary to what you claim, it seems that they are doing quite well-

Doesn't mean they are "doing well" if they are making a certain amount per screen.

You have to count the total number of seats sold. You know - gross ticket sales.

Any one of those films is anemic at best in those terms.

I've seen it, and I didn't think it was more than mediocre. Am I missing something, or is Hollywood pushing this film because it deals with homosexuality?

Probably.

Doesn't mean they are "doing well" if they are making a certain amount per screen.

You have to count the total number of seats sold. You know - gross ticket sales.

Any one of those films is anemic at best in those terms.
Wait, are you serious? If they are selling out the houses they are in (as would have to be the case in Brokeback's case) that's not an indicator that they are doing well? Good thing you don't run a film company.

Gross ticket sales are effected by screens-of the three Syriana is on the most amount of screens at @1000, a third of movies like King Kong. And in all three cases each weekend increases the number of screens because unlike you, exhibitors do look at per screen averages because that gives them an indicator of how many butts they can expect to put in a theater.

If a movie is in 100,000 screens (impossible, but play along) and sells one or two tickets to every screen it will do well overall for one weekend, but after that all 100,000 of those exhibitors will dump the movie for ones with a better per screen average.

I honestly don't think you thought what you said through. Go ahead, give it a second.

So the sense I'm getting is that it's okay to see capering stereotypes like in La Cage Aux Folles but it's not okay to see a love story between consenting adults.


Grow the fuck up, already.

Pig-ignorant pobuckers.

So the sense I'm getting is that it's okay to see capering stereotypes like in La Cage Aux Folles but it's not okay to see a love story between consenting adults.


Grow the fuck up, already.

Pig-ignorant pobuckers.
actually, the thread is about one critic's not so favorable review of the movie.

the fact that the movie that Shalit gave the bad review on is about homosexuality is making the GLAAD group angry.

oh, and the total sales doesn't mean anything, you need to subtract the cost of the movie, then you'll see if it's making money.

and according to some statistics,
Yahoo (http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/weekend/) after 4 weeks, the movie is holding at #13

there are other films that have been out as long but are higher in ranking as well as Box office cash.
Harry Potter (7 wks)
Narina (4 Wks)
Memoirs of a Geisha (4 Wks)
Syrianna (6 wks)

so it can also be GLAAD might be blaming the movie's poor showing as a result of the 'bad' review.... but that's just speculation.

so it can also be GLAAD might be blaming the movie's poor showing as a result of the 'bad' review.... but that's just speculation.

Cannot think of a name already dealt with this. Where is the comparison between how much money per seat it's making? Number 13 for a film that is not available in that many theatres is impressive. What is also impressive is it's per theatre growth.

And where did GLAAD even mention its showing?

actually, the thread is about one critic's not so favorable review of the movie.

the fact that the movie that Shalit gave the bad review on is about homosexuality is making the GLAAD group angry.

oh, and the total sales doesn't mean anything, you need to subtract the cost of the movie, then you'll see if it's making money.

and according to some statistics,
Yahoo (http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/weekend/) after 4 weeks, the movie is holding at #13

there are other films that have been out as long but are higher in ranking as well as Box office cash.
Harry Potter (7 wks)
Narina (4 Wks)
Memoirs of a Geisha (4 Wks)
Syrianna (6 wks)

so it can also be GLAAD might be blaming the movie's poor showing as a result of the 'bad' review.... but that's just speculation.
Well, follow the links and read the post. All the movies mentioned save Syrianna have made thier money back. And again, you have to take into account # of screens that they are being shown on. No matter how you slice it, $13,455 per screen is amazing. It means that people are going out of thier way to see the movie, regardless of the number of screens. If I where an exhibitor I'd want the movie thats going to make me $13,455 vs the one that will make me $6,666 (though preferably I'd want both)

So the movies are a success, or on track to be. Insisting that they're a failure by comparing them to 'blockbuster' style movies like Harry Potter or Narnia is down right ridiculous.

Wait, are you serious? If they are selling out the houses they are in (as would have to be the case in Brokeback's case) that's not an indicator that they are doing well? Good thing you don't run a film company.

Gross ticket sales are effected by screens-of the three Syriana is on the most amount of screens at @1000, a third of movies like King Kong. And in all three cases each weekend increases the number of screens because unlike you, exhibitors do look at per screen averages because that gives them an indicator of how many butts they can expect to put in a theater.

If a movie is in 100,000 screens (impossible, but play along) and sells one or two tickets to every screen it will do well overall for one weekend, but after that all 100,000 of those exhibitors will dump the movie for ones with a better per screen average.

I honestly don't think you thought what you said through. Go ahead, give it a second.


The theaters also look at how long the movie has been running when they decide how many screens to dedicate to each movie. They get next to no money for movies shown on their premiere weekend, but the percentage of each ticket that the theater keeps increases with the number of weeks that the movie has been in theaters. Thats why you see so many screens that are only half filled for movies that premiered several months ago.

Syriana was confusing as hell, but still well worth seeing. I havent seen brokeback yet, but all my friends that saw it said it was too long and boring.

Cannot think of a name already dealt with this. Where is the comparison between how much money per seat it's making? Number 13 for a film that is not available in that many theatres is impressive. What is also impressive is it's per theatre growth.
true, but the real telling is how much money the movie ultimatly brings in. reguardless of how many theatres it's in.

the theatre's decide what films to show as well as the studio decides if it's a limited release or not.

if the movie makes enough to break even, then it's doing good. if it brings in a profit, then it's doing great.

for the movie's kudos, it is appearing in more theatres while films like Harry Potter is loosing theatres as the weeks go by.

Me, I'll probably pass on this movie, not a big fan of cowboy flicks.

It's interesting to note that if some of you ran movie companies, you would have let someone else make $77,437,223 domestic (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=marchofthepenguins.htm) on March of the Penguins. Or $241,438,208 on My Big Fat Greek Wedding (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=mybigfatgreekwedding.htm).

Doesn't mean they are "doing well" if they are making a certain amount per screen.

You have to count the total number of seats sold. You know - gross ticket sales.

Any one of those films is anemic at best in those terms.
So, you think the number of screens on which they're projected have no influence on the gross number of tickets sold?

Allow me to disagree. And, here in Quebec, it's selling remarkably well. I'm inclined to think that its sales might be held back by the reluctance of some neighbourhoods to project it. If there's no movie theather with Brokeback on its movie list in AverageVille, RedState, USA, it's unlikely many of its citizen are going to view it, even if they wanted to.

It's interesting to note that if some of you ran movie companies, you would have let someone else make $77,437,223 domestic (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=marchofthepenguins.htm) on March of the Penguins. Or $241,438,208 on My Big Fat Greek Wedding (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=mybigfatgreekwedding.htm).

77 is nothing compared to 241. March of the Penguins is obviously a failure.

Here I was thinking making movies was about story-telling. Silly me, I should have realized it's really all about successful marketing strategies and product tie-ins.

:rolleyes:

Here I was thinking making movies was about story-telling. Silly me, I should have realized it's really all about successful marketing strategies and product tie-ins.

:rolleyes:

Star Wars I - III can't possibly have sucked. They made so much money! Britney Spears must make such good music, she sells so many records!

Star Wars I - III can't possibly have sucked. They made so much money! Britney Spears must make such good music, she sells so many records!
Brain.... hurts..... internal.... bleeding.... overwhelming urge to be a fanboy.... rising...

Brain.... hurts..... internal.... bleeding.... overwhelming urge to be a fanboy.... rising...
This is overkill, dude. You should have left out "overwhelming". I know Fass is cool but pace yourself.

Brain.... hurts..... internal.... bleeding.... overwhelming urge to be a fanboy.... rising...

You like Britney and Star Wars? :eek:

Brokeback Mountain also has the tenth highest (http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/theateravg.htm?page=THTRAVG&p=.htm) weekend average, and the only one on the top ten to be live action and not a 'family' movie.
Here I was thinking making movies was about story-telling. Silly me, I should have realized it's really all about successful marketing strategies and product tie-ins.
I'd like to think it is. And I'd like to think that the numbers I keep posting reflect the error of the statement "No one wants to see these films," which is really what it was about.

I should point out at this point that I do not rate anythings value on how many people dig it (in either direction, I'm not going to hate something because it's popular any more than I am going to dig it because it is.) This just followed out of a conversation which you can track.

I have no intention of seeing Brokeback Mountain. Not because of anything to do with homosexuality. I hate cowboy movies. I hate artistic independent films that try to broaden my horizons. I like comedies and action/adventures with nice safe plots and over=the-top special effects. :)

Seriously, though. Some movies are controversial just for the sake of controversy. I'm not going to see Munich either. You never really know whether the movie sucks or not because you're too caught up in the message.

Bu every time I think about that movie, I hear Cartman fom South Park in my head going, "I hate independent films. They're always about gay cowboy eating pudding!"

So I have to ask.... um....

Do they eat pudding? :D

You like Britney and Star Wars? :eek:
Watches his sarcasm fly waaaaaaay over Fass' head.

Notice the recent spate of films - Syriana, Good Night and Good Luck, and Brokeback....

Films that barely have an audience, and yet are hyped hard by Hollywood critics.

They're not making what people want to see - they're making what they want to make, and they wish that everyone would stampede to the theater to see it.

Cannot think of a name has dealt with this above, so I'll just add a few things.

These films can only be said to "barely have an audience" when compared to the big block busters. Even the best running art house movie will still earn a total that will look pitiful next to "Dumb and Dumber 5". Does that mean these films shouldn't be made? Hell no.

Of course they make want they want to make - "they" being the odd director between thousands of mainstream colleagues who only and continually make "what people want to see". There's enough people stampeding into their block busters - they're not gonna starve. And you're certainly not going to run out of films you can watch, just because there's a handful ones you don't like. Face it, the films you mentioned are still very much the exception, not the rule, unfortunately.

And they're not "hyped hard by Hollywood critics" (what's a Hollywood critic anyway?) - they're getting positive reviews from critics all over the country because they're good. Which is why they tend to get nominated for awards while Jennifer Aniston's latest flick doesn't. Easy.

Nobody forces you to go see "Syriana" instead of "Deuce Bigalow - European Gigolo", so don't pretend the little art house fair that's there is being shoved down your throat. Feel free to ignore it, if you wish, just as I ignore the brainless block busters. And believe me, that's a lot harder for me than for you.

Do they eat pudding? :D
I guess this depends on what kind of pudding you have in mind.

Watches his sarcasm fly waaaaaaay over Fass' head.

That wasn't sarcasm. That was horror fiction. If it was fiction... I'll continue to suspect you secretly desire Britney for at least a few days, now.

I guess this depends on what kind of pudding you have in mind.

*has a filthy mind, so expects expectations to be fulfilled*

That wasn't sarcasm. That was horror fiction. If it was fiction... I'll continue to suspect you secretly desire Britney for at least a few days, now.

Me? Desire Britney?

Need I remind you I'm a 15 on Kinsey's scale? Not even your gayness can match mine, and I will not rest until I have proved it to all NS General!

Britney. Pshaw! I'n not the gay boy who said he was attracted to boobies. You are.

Me? Desire Britney?

No, it's much worse than that. You desire what you percieve to be her musical "talent."

Need I remind you I'm a 15 on Kinsey's scale? Not even your gayness can match mine, and I will not rest until I have proved it to all NS General!

Well, you have quite the job ahead of you if you wish to be gayer than I, seeing as Kinsey never even made a scale that fit me.

Britney. Pshaw! I'n not the gay boy who said he was attracted to boobies. You are.

I'm not a gay boy, period. I'm a gay man. You've some catching up to do.

I'll admit there was a remixed tune I once heard, purported to be by another female singer, that I found toe-tappable. And it turned out to be Ms. Spears. I felt... sullied... by the revelation.

No, it's much worse than that. You desire what you percieve to be her musical "talent."

Or lack thereof.



Well, you have quite the job ahead of you if you wish to be gayer than I, seeing as Kinsey never even made a scale that fit me.

I feel the need to point that his scale stopped at 6, and that you probably would be somwhere near 5, boobies-curious that you are.



I'm not a gay boy, period. I'm a gay man. You've some catching up to do.

No offense, but you're a fossil once you turn over 25 in the gay world. Face it, you're out-of-date, and us newer models are taking over now.

this thread sure took an ugly turn.

No offense, but you're a fossil once you turn over 25 in the gay world. Face it, you're out-of-date, and us newer models are taking over now.

Such luck I'm not over 25 (jake Gyllenhaal is, by the by), and, well, who do you think it is that gets to have their way with you newer models? Seniority has many perks. :)

Friday, January 6, 2006
Gay Cowboy Film Buzz

Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee's controversial gay cowboy film, is generating Oscar buzz. What do you think?

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/wdyt_photo4.article.jpg
Kelly Neese,
Waitress
"I'm not sure I understand what all the hubbub is about. Wait, one of them isn't black, is he?"

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/wdyt_photo2.article.jpg
Gary Alexander,
Systems Analyst
"It's just sick, really. I'm taking my family to the movie where the lady cock-teases that gorilla."

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/wdyt_photo6.article.jpg
Sean Byrne,
Saucier
"I'm sorry, but you couldn't pay me to see a movie about love."

The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/44238)

The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/44238)
Nice. :D

Why is everyone upset about a movie about men who cheat on their wives with old lovers? How many of the people who laud this movie would curse it if it glorified hetro infidelity?

Why is everyone upset about a movie about men who cheat on their wives with old lovers? How many of the people who laud this movie would curse it if it glorified hetro infidelity?
What, like Bridges of Madison County?

GLAAD is frankly smoking crack over this, considering Shallit is the sole mainstream voice that doesn't take well to Brokeback Mountain.

Then again they're probably more sensitive to his "predatorial" comment, which plays to the common myth that all homosexuals are inherent child molestors too.

What, like Bridges of Madison County?

Never saw it. Was Clint eastwood married in that one?

GLAAD is frankly smoking crack over this, considering Shallit is the sole mainstream voice that doesn't take well to Brokeback Mountain.

Then again they're probably more sensitive to his "predatorial" comment, which plays to the common myth that all homosexuals are inherent child molestors too.

Yea, the predator comment was a bit over the edge... Say you don't like the movie and be done with it. You don't have to make a statement like that...

GLAAD is frankly smoking crack over this, considering Shallit is the sole mainstream voice that doesn't take well to Brokeback Mountain.

Then again they're probably more sensitive to his "predatorial" comment, which plays to the common myth that all homosexuals are inherent child molestors too.
That's their only problem with it. They're not complaining about Salon.com's (http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2005/12/09/brokeback/index_np.html) bad review-
Brokeback Mountain takse great pains to be a compassionate love story; but the filmmaking itself, self-consciously restrained and desiccated, is inert and inexpressive.", or Time Magazines (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1132840,00.html) bad review-
"For all its brave beginnings and real achievements -- its assault on western mythology, its discovery of a subversive sexual honesty in an unexpected locale -- Brokeback Mountain finally fails to fully engage our emotions." or the New York Observer (in this case the link leads to a review of The Matador)-
"I was never moved or even overly excited by what I finally witnessed on the screen, though I have no quarrel with the superlatives heaped upon the film by most of my colleagues."
or the other bad reviews (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/brokeback_mountain/), they are not insisting that one like the movie-rather that they not regard homosexuals in consentual relationships as 'predators.'

Never saw it. Was Clint eastwood married in that one?
Meryl Streep was, and had an affair with National Geographic photographer Eastwood. The story is told through the children discovering diaries and letters.

Meryl Streep was, and had an affair with National Geographic photographer Eastwood. The story is told through the children discovering diaries and letters.

Ah well no I'd not see that as something typical to be offended by. A woman cheating on her husband is considered laudable nowadays. Or a homosexual being homosexual even if he is cheating on a wife with another man also cheating on his wife. But a man cheating on his wife with another woman. That is now offensive. not because infidelity is considered offensive so much as being a hetrosexual man....

That's their only problem with it. They're not complaining about Salon.com's (http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2005/12/09/brokeback/index_np.html) bad review-
, or Time Magazines (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1132840,00.html) bad review-
or the New York Observer (in this case the link leads to a review of The Matador)-

or the other bad reviews (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/brokeback_mountain/), they are not insisting that one like the movie-rather that they not regard homosexuals in consentual relationships as 'predators.'That's the key, as we've been saying all along.

That's the key, as we've been saying all along.
You'd think it would have gotten through by now. Starting to see why Pete Seeger wanted a hammer....

Ah well no I'd not see that as something typical to be offended by. A woman cheating on her husband is considered laudable nowadays. Or a homosexual being homosexual even if he is cheating on a wife with another man also cheating on his wife. But a man cheating on his wife with another woman. That is now offensive. not because infidelity is considered offensive so much as being a hetrosexual man....
Like Dr. Zhivago?

Nowadays.

Nowadays.
Girl with the Pearl Earing?

Never heard of it. Then again I'm not immersed in popular culture but I do read the movie reveiws in the weekeys and they even cover independant films still have'nt heard of it. Of course everyone loved 'First Wives Club' would we applaud a movie about the wives of the lead characters from BrokeBack getting revenge on them?

Never heard of it. Then again I'm not immersed in popular culture but I do read the movie reveiws in the weekeys and they even cover independant films still have'nt heard of it. Of course everyone loved 'First Wives Club' would we applaud a movie about the wives of the lead characters from BrokeBack getting revenge on them?
It had Scarlett Johansson in it, it was all the rage-supposed to be breathtakingly beautiful in its cinematography. But you keep moving the goalposts, so it's too tiring to keep up...

It had Scarlett Johansson in it, it was all the rage-supposed to be breathtakingly beautiful in its cinematography. But you keep moving the goalposts, so it's too tiring to keep up...

Well perhaps I am being too coy. My point that I was hinting at is that BrokeBack is lauded by many not because it is a good film but because it is a mainstream film about homosexuals. This is considered more improtant and ethically right than the fact that it is a film about men who cheat on the wives who have devoted thamselves to them. I find this amusing.

Well perhaps I am being too coy. My point that I was hinting at is that BrokeBack is lauded by many not because it is a good film but because it is a mainstream film about homosexuals. This is considered more improtant and ethically right than the fact that it is a film about men who cheat on the wives who have devoted thamselves to them. I find this amusing.


Let's just say that I've seen Brokeback, and I've seen Memoirs of a Geisha, and Memoirs is a much better movie - better story, better acting, better on many levels - but since it's not about homosexuality, it's not getting the critical acclaim that Brokeback is getting.

Let's just say that I've seen Brokeback, and I've seen Memoirs of a Geisha, and Memoirs is a much better movie - better story, better acting, better on many levels - but since it's not about homosexuality, it's not getting the critical acclaim that Brokeback is getting.
In order for this conclusion to be true, only homosexually themed movies would ever recieve critical praise.

Looking at the reviews I don't see a desire for the geisha's to be gay, but rather a concern that the movie is all style and no substance-
"It's not a movie...it's a fashion show!"
-- Sean Burns, PHILADELPHIA WEEKLY

"Memoirs of a Geisha, the big-screen adaptation of Arthur Golden's best-selling novel, has a lesson to teach: Designing a movie isn't the same as directing one."
-- Robert Denerstein, DENVER ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS

"I object to the movie not on sociological grounds but because I suspect a real geisha house floated on currents deeper and more subtle than the broad melodrama on display here."
-- Roger Ebert, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES

"There is spectacle enough in Marshall’s movie -- rows of geisha trainees aligned in formation like Rockettes, acres of low, cedar-and-bamboo buildings with mountains in the distance -- but nothing that comes close to lyricism."
-- David Denby, NEW YORKER

"Its commercial compromises cripple it as a movie."
-- Ty Burr, BOSTON GLOBE
It seems that its weakness isn't that isn't gay enough, but that it is pandering.

In order for this conclusion to be true, only homosexually themed movies would ever recieve critical praise.


You're making my case for me. Look at the critics' response to the two movies.

I've seen both movies myself, and feel that Brokeback wasn't worth the 8 bucks I paid to see it.

You're making my case for me. Look at the critics' response to the two movies.

I've seen both movies myself, and feel that Brokeback wasn't worth the 8 bucks I paid to see it.
None of those reviews indicate a desire for a gayer theme. Nor is it true that only gay themed movies recieve praise. It seems that they have substanative complaints, not that he movie isn't 'gay enough.' Your point remains unmade.

Rather the pattern indicates that you like your movies to be more heavy handed.

None of those reviews indicate a desire for a gayer theme. Nor is it true that only gay themed movies recieve praise. It seems that they have substanative complaints, not that he movie isn't 'gay enough.' Your point remains unmade.

Rather the pattern indicates that you like your movies to be more heavy handed.

No, they're not going to come out and say, "well, it would have been better if the geishas were actually crossdressing men".

There isn't one thing about Brokeback in terms of acting or plot or even subtlety that makes it worthy of the acclaim it's getting. Not even remotely.

It's just politically incorrect to say it's a boring movie with lame acting.

No, they're not going to come out and say, "well, it would have been better if the geishas were actually crossdressing men".

There isn't one thing about Brokeback in terms of acting or plot or even subtlety that makes it worthy of the acclaim it's getting. Not even remotely.

It's just politically incorrect to say it's a boring movie with lame acting.

Still sticking with that inability to understand other people like things you don't like? Didn't we go through this already? You think it's a bad movie and it must be a conspiracy that other people don't share that view. We get it.