Utah Theater Not Showing "Brokeback Mountain"

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-01-08 03:20pm

Utah Theater Cancels 'Brokeback Mountain'

Sun Jan 8, 10:45 AM ET

A movie theater owned by Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller abruptly changed its screening plans and decided not to show the film "Brokeback Mountain." The film, an R-rated Western gay romance story, was supposed to open Friday at the Megaplex at Jordan Commons in Sandy, a suburb of Salt Lake City. Instead it was pulled from the schedule.

A message posted at the ticket window read: "There has been a change in booking and we will not be showing 'Brokeback Mountain.' We apologize for any inconvenience."

Cal Gunderson, manager of the Jordan Commons Megaplex, declined to comment.

The film, starring Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, is about two cowboys who discover feelings for one another. The two eventually marry women but rekindle their relationship over the years.

The movie's distributor, Focus Features, said that hours before opening, the theater management "reneged on their licensing agreement," and refused to open the film.

Gayle Ruzicka, president of the conservative Utah Eagle Forum, said not showing the film set an example for the people of Utah.

"I just think (pulling the show) tells the young people especially that maybe there is something wrong with this show," she said.

Mike Thompson, executive director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah, called it disappointing.

"It's just a shame that such a beautiful and award-winning film with so much buzz about it is not being made available to a broad Utah audience because of personal bias," he said.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-08 03:25pm

Ah, tolerance in the Land of the Free. It's a beautiful, manly thing.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2006-01-08 03:55pm

Gayle Ruzicka, president of the conservative Utah Eagle Forum, said not showing the film set an example for the people of Utah.

And the example set is that Utah has a lot of intolerant fucktards in it. He nailed that one right on the head.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-01-08 04:01pm

None of the theaters in my area (Palm Bay/ Melbourne, FL) is showing it. And only one theater in Orlando is as far as I know, and it's the Enzion which shows alot of independant and art movies.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-01-08 04:34pm

I'm willing to bet that in a lot of areas where it never airs in the theatres it's going to do well in video rentals and sales.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2006-01-08 05:57pm

Do the gay cowboys eat pudding in this movie? I don't want to see it if they don't eat pudding.

Quadlok · Post by **Quadlok** » 2006-01-08 06:32pm

There was a theater up here that cancelled it too, after selling over a hundred advance tickets. I'm proud to say that the theater I'm at has put it in its largest auditorium (400+ seats).

Interestingly, we didn't show 50 Cent's stinkbomb, letting our nearest sister theater, which is in a town best known as the most likely locale in Washington to appear on Cops deal with it.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-01-08 07:35pm

Joe wrote:Do the gay cowboys eat pudding in this movie? I don't want to see it if they don't eat pudding.

I don't think the sort of pudding you are referring to was around in the period the film is set.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-01-08 07:38pm

I'm not surprised. While Salt Lake is more liberal (in Utah standards) Jordan is a little bastion of super Mormons just this side of Happy Valley.

Though Miller is a bit on the super Mormon side too, I remember he didn't even watch his own teams playoffs one year cause it was on a Sunday. *Shrug*

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-01-08 11:51pm

Knife wrote:I'm not surprised. While Salt Lake is more liberal (in Utah standards) Jordan is a little bastion of super Mormons just this side of Happy Valley.

Though Miller is a bit on the super Mormon side too, I remember he didn't even watch his own teams playoffs one year cause it was on a Sunday. *Shrug*

Curious that the team is still called the "Jazz." Isn't jazz music a problem for fundies?

Futoque · Post by **Futoque** » 2006-01-09 01:10am

Curious that the team is still called the "Jazz." Isn't jazz music a problem for fundies?

The franchise originally started in New Orleans and then later moved to Salt Lake.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-01-09 01:12am

FSTargetDrone wrote:
Knife wrote:I'm not surprised. While Salt Lake is more liberal (in Utah standards) Jordan is a little bastion of super Mormons just this side of Happy Valley.

Though Miller is a bit on the super Mormon side too, I remember he didn't even watch his own teams playoffs one year cause it was on a Sunday. *Shrug*
Curious that the team is still called the "Jazz." Isn't jazz music a problem for fundies?

Don't know about the music, but if they knew Jazz was a euphanism for sex(or so I understand), they'd probably clamp their hands on their ears and cry 'lalalalalalal'.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-01-09 02:42am

Knife wrote:
FSTargetDrone wrote:
Knife wrote:I'm not surprised. While Salt Lake is more liberal (in Utah standards) Jordan is a little bastion of super Mormons just this side of Happy Valley.

Though Miller is a bit on the super Mormon side too, I remember he didn't even watch his own teams playoffs one year cause it was on a Sunday. *Shrug*
Curious that the team is still called the "Jazz." Isn't jazz music a problem for fundies?
Don't know about the music, but if they knew Jazz was a euphanism for sex(or so I understand), they'd probably clamp their hands on their ears and cry 'lalalalalalal'.

That's what I mean. And it seems odd they'd keep the name when the team moved to a city without any sort of jazz music culture?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-01-09 02:45am

Knife wrote:Don't know about the music, but if they knew Jazz was a euphanism for sex(or so I understand), they'd probably clamp their hands on their ears and cry 'lalalalalalal'.

Well, before they were bitching about rock and roll leading people to sin and before rhythm and blues, jazz was the Music o' Sin. Ironically, I've read and heard from many a fundie who says that Rock music is the Devil, but avidly listen to Jazz.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-01-09 02:51am

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Knife wrote:Don't know about the music, but if they knew Jazz was a euphanism for sex(or so I understand), they'd probably clamp their hands on their ears and cry 'lalalalalalal'.
Well, before they were bitching about rock and roll leading people to sin and before rhythm and blues, jazz was the Music o' Sin. Ironically, I've read and heard from many a fundie who says that Rock music is the Devil, but avidly listen to Jazz.

And I wonder what happens when they find out about its origins??

Sin!!!

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2006-01-09 05:29am

What is apparently not grasped here is that this is a private theatre. The management of that theatre has, and should have, the right to select which films are shown in it. In my somewhat cynical opinion, this business decision was not made based on any idealogical principles, but rather on shrewd financial grounds, namely:

1. The local market obviously would not support a film such as this being shown, as a substantial portion of Utah's population is highly conservative and not comfortable with films of this sort, thus, in all probability screening it in that market would not be profitable.

2. Screening the film, in addition to being a potential drain on profitability, might alienate some customers, causing further damage to the profitability of the business longer-term.

If I owned a theatre in that region, I would make the same decision. Likewise, if I owned a theatre in West Hollywood or San Francisco, I would probably air it on 5 screens (however, quite frankly, I'm glad I don't own any theatres-that's a shit business these days). I don't give a fuck who if you're gay, straight, bisexual or if you have wild sex with your computer nightly, I just want your money.

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2006-01-09 05:31am

Oh and by the way, are we now to see a topic posted in this forum every time a theatre in Hicksville or East Upchuck decides not to screen a particular film due to its controversial subject? This just doesn't strike me as being a newsworthy event at all...

Post by **Gandalf** » 2006-01-09 08:57am

RThurmont wrote:What is apparently not grasped here is that this is a private theatre. The management of that theatre has, and should have, the right to select which films are shown in it. In my somewhat cynical opinion, this business decision was not made based on any idealogical principles, but rather on shrewd financial grounds, namely:

1. The local market obviously would not support a film such as this being shown, as a substantial portion of Utah's population is highly conservative and not comfortable with films of this sort, thus, in all probability screening it in that market would not be profitable.

If that were the case, wouldn't he have just refused to order the film in the first place, as opposed to some eleventh hour cancellation?

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-01-09 10:27am

RThurmont wrote:Oh and by the way, are we now to see a topic posted in this forum every time a theatre in Hicksville or East Upchuck decides not to screen a particular film due to its controversial subject? This just doesn't strike me as being a newsworthy event at all...

Something which is controversial is not newsworthy?

What is apparently not grasped here is that this is a private board. The management of this messageboard has, and should have, the right to select which posts are locked. In my somewhat cynical opinion, this decision was not made based on any idealogical principles, but rather on shrewd social grounds, namely:

1. The board members obviously would support a thread such as this being shown, as a substantial portion of SD.net's population is highly liberal and quite comfortable with threads of this sort, thus, in all probability posting such a thread would generate further posts and hence conversation..

2. Posting the thread, in addition to being a potential source of discussion, might alienate some members (namely intolerant morons), causing further discussion and fun when these morons are inevitably mocked.

If I ran a message board catering to liberals, I would make the same decision. Likewise, if I owned a messageboard catering to fundies or Ku Klux Klan members, I would probably lock it right away.

I don't give a fuck who if you're gay, straight, bisexual or if you have wild sex with your computer nightly, I just want your money

So why do you assume those theatre owners made the decision based on your same reasoning? In other words, why do you suspect is more financial rather than ideologically driven, especially since you think running a theatre isn't a good financial decision in the first place?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-01-09 11:51am

"Don't make us go back to our liberal city home with tales of hatred and bigotry from in the heart of Utah!"
-Jay, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2006-01-09 12:16pm

You know you are too much of a military-phile when you read that thread title and think "Why do I care if the French aren't showing that movie?"

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-01-09 12:43pm

Chardok wrote:You know you are too much of a military-phile when you read that thread title and think "Why do I care if the French aren't showing that movie?"

If you look at a title of a thread and your first inclination is the military codename for a beach in a war that was over 60 years ago rather than a state in your own country, you might be a military-phile, yes.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2006-01-09 02:00pm

I think it was a combination of Utah and theater. Was thinking theater of combat....all that jazz. Ugh.

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2006-01-09 03:08pm

Gandalf wrote:

If that were the case, wouldn't he have just refused to order the film in the first place, as opposed to some eleventh hour cancellation?

Well if they did in fact do a 180 like that, then the manager of that theatre is a dipshit. He should have done his market research ahead of time before wasting that kind of money. The problem with making 180s like this in terms of marketing decisions is that you risk alienating multiple consumer groups. Ford, with its recent 360 on removing ads for some of its brands from some gay publications (quite possibly justified by business strategy), managed to alienate both the far-right AFA and the gay and lesbian community, and this theatre, at the very least, does run the risk of alienating the local gay demographic. It would have been much smarter just to not order the motherfucker to begin with, than to order it and then put out notices to the effect that you lack the balls to screen it.

In response to Mr. Friendly Guy's moronic rewording of my post, I'll point out that hundreds of theatres and other media outlets make content decisions such as this on a day to day basis. Obsessing over it is a waste of time, and I find it equally annoying regardless of whether its fundie fuckwits or obsessed liberals as the guilty party.

Without wishing to create a strawman, my adversion to this stems from my belief that ultimately it is the right of the owner of a media outlet to exercise editorial discretion, and the thought of theatre owners or other media providers being compelled to carry or not carry content (potentially detrimental to the financial health of their business or not) is horrific.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-01-09 03:14pm

According to the Guardian, the owner of the theatre chain is a devout Mormon who prides himself on a "hands on" approach to business. That, in conjunction with the last-minute change of heart, certainly raises the suspicion that he personally intervened and overruled the decisions of the managers in his organization who had originally green-lighted the show. It also strongly suggests that the decision was made for religious reasons rather than sound business reasons.