Utah Theater Not Showing "Brokeback Mountain"

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2006-01-09 03:18pm

Yes, that would seem to indicate a lack of managerial discipline on the part of the owner. I continue to maintain though, that as the sole proprietor of that theatre, the owner has the right to screen what content he chooses (on the other hand, were it publically traded, he would have fiduciary duty and if he didn't like the films being shown, he would basically have to learn to deal with it).

Post by **Zaia** » 2006-01-09 06:46pm

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.

I have a bisexual friend who lived out in SLC for three years, and she knew a ton of homosexual ex-Mormons who used to live out in the suburbs like Sandy but moved to the city once they came out to their families and (most of them) were told to get out and not come back. She once told me that 25% of Utah's bisexual and gay population lives in SLC proper, presumably as a result of the aforementioned family reactions to homosexuality. If that percentage is anywhere near true, one theatre in Sandy isn't going to do much of anything, as long as movie houses in SLC are still showing the film.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-01-09 07:44pm

Zaia 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.
I have a bisexual friend who lived out in SLC for three years, and she knew a ton of homosexual ex-Mormons who used to live out in the suburbs like Sandy but moved to the city once they came out to their families and (most of them) were told to get out and not come back. She once told me that 25% of Utah's bisexual and gay population lives in SLC proper, presumably as a result of the aforementioned family reactions to homosexuality. If that percentage is anywhere near true, one theatre in Sandy isn't going to do much of anything, as long as movie houses in SLC are still showing the film.

I would agree. The further south in Salt Lake you get, the closer to Provo, the more super-Mormon the area gets.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-01-09 08:16pm

Darth Wong wrote:It also strongly suggests that the decision was made for religious reasons rather than sound business reasons.

Except that in Utah religious reasons just might be sound business reasons.

Utah was originally founded as a theocratic colony - by Mormons, for Mormons, and everyone else as second class citizens. Although absorbed into the US as a whole, it has always been, and continues to be, the state most closely controlled by religion, and by a particular religion at that.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-01-09 09:26pm

RThurmont wrote:
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.

And you seem to miss the point if you advocate that theatre owners should cater to its customers, its logically inconsistent if you suddenly bitch about someone posting a thread here which also caters to the board's 'customers' (posters).

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.

AFAIK no one here has actually denied theatre owners the right to show what they want. They just called them bigots (which may or may not be true) for that particular decision. [/quote]

FaxModem1 · Post by **FaxModem1** » 2006-01-10 06:13pm

The only theatre here in Great Falls, MT, showed posters and billboards for The Producers, Munich, and Brokeback Mountain, none of these have come here. Its one thing to not have it show, but to have the posters and billboards up for weeks and never show it is odd.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-01-11 07:57pm

For the record, they just released it here in Toronto in a lot of the major cinemas. It's been out a few weeks in two small ones, but has now been getting so much attention they widespread the showing. I went last night to see it and I have to say, it truly IS as good as the hype says.

My first apprehensions were all around this being somewhat dull considering the scene setting, maybe very dated in it's portrayal of possible homosexual feelings at the time, stereotypical bits and pieces of what some would say was propaganda or an "agenda" peppered within dramas, etc etc.

I have never seen a movie with homosexuals in it yet that made me forget they were homosexual and see them as real people first and gay as a facet. I mean I know this is the correct viewpoint, and considering I am myself gay this should be a given, but portraying on a movie screen is very dependant on the artistry of the director and I have always found other portrayals have always fallen way short.

This didn't fall even remotely short of exceptional. The storyline, the actors and the way they expressed their feelings, the interplay between all of the supporting characters, the believability in the scene setting and the era, just truly...stunning! The movie is so good I haven't been able to get it out of my mind and I'm anxious to go back and see it again. I never dreamed it would have such a profound effect on me. It touched me deeply. I can see why it's been breaking down barriers everywhere. The religious right is quite right to be scared of this film. I have never seen a more heartbreaking and empathy inducing take on being gay and dealing with the serious issues preventing two people who love each other from being together. For it to just simply be... FINE.

I strongly recommend you make it a must see film. You won't be disappointed. However you may need a hanky.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-01-11 11:50pm

Leonard Pitts, Jr. wrote an amazing column about Brokeback Mountain just a couple days ago.

I went to see Brokeback Mountain last week, mainly to prove to myself that I could.

This was after reading a New York Times piece by Larry David of Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm fame in which he wrote that, though he loves gay people and supports both gay marriage and gay divorce, he does not plan to see this critically praised movie about gay cowboys. David said he's discomfited by the idea of watching two men fall in love and fears it might make him gay by osmosis.

''Not,'' he added, ``that there's anything wrong with that.''

It strikes me that David's essay amounted to the smiley-face liberal version of what is being said more bluntly in conservative circles. 'Gay love story carries a high `ick' factor'' reads the headline of a story on the American Family Association website. It quotes a prediction that people will leave the theater vomiting.

How asinine, I think.

Yeah, says a little voice in my head, but if that's how you feel, why haven't you been to Brokeback Mountain? Well, I protest, right now I'm teaching in this tiny college town in the middle of nowhere. I'd have to drive 90 miles.

Good point, says the voice. But didn't you drive that far to see Good Night, and Good Luck? Now look, I say, and suddenly there's this wheedling tone to my voice, some of my best friends are gay. Heck, my own brother's gay. But you know, we are talking about a love story between two guys, and they might be kissing and, you know, touching and . . . stuff.

The little voice falls silent. It is a put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is silence.

So I went to see Brokeback. And I can report that it was as shattering and powerful as advertised. People were moved. Nobody threw up.

Which brings me back to that ick factor. I find myself wondering if this primeval revulsion doesn't speak less to our antipathy toward homosexuality than to our fears about masculinity. I mean, while a movie about two women in love would surely be controversial, I doubt it would present the visceral threat Brokeback Mountain does for some of us. I doubt Larry David would be scared to see it.

Indeed, the idea of women who can't keep their hands off each other is a staple of so-called men's entertainment. Visit a magazine stand if you don't believe me.

The point being, when it's women, we -- meaning straight men -- tend to find it titillating, exotic, arousing in its very forbiddance. When it's men, we -- meaning straight men and women -- tend to react as if somebody dropped a snake in the bed. Small wonder the FBI reports that while 902 men were reported victims of sexual orientation hate crimes in 2004, ''only'' 212 women were.

A PERCEIVED THREAT

We seem prone to find male homosexuality the more clear and present danger, the more urgent betrayal of some fundamental . . . something. Some will say it's -- and I will finesse this for a general audience -- the nature of man-to-man sex that some of us find off-putting. I think it's more basic than that. I think gay men threaten our very conception of masculinity.

The amazing thing about Brokeback Mountain is its willingness to make that threat, directly and overtly. These are not cute gays, funny gays, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy gays. These are cowboys, and there is no figure in American lore more iconically male. Think Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, the Marlboro Man. The cowboy is our very embodiment of male virtues.

In offering us cowboys who are gay, then, Brokeback Mountain commits heresy, but it is knowing heresy, matter-of-fact heresy. Nor is it the sex (what little there is) that makes it heretical. Rather, it's the emotion, the fact that the movie dares you to deny these men their humanity. Or their love.

Ultimately, I think, that's what the Larry Davids among us sense. And why for them, Brokeback Mountain might be the most frightening movie ever made.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2006-01-11 11:55pm

RThurmont wrote:Yes, that would seem to indicate a lack of managerial discipline on the part of the owner. I continue to maintain though, that as the sole proprietor of that theatre, the owner has the right to screen what content he chooses (on the other hand, were it publically traded, he would have fiduciary duty and if he didn't like the films being shown, he would basically have to learn to deal with it).

No one's saying he doesn't have the right to run his own establishment.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-01-12 12:05am

Rogue 9 wrote:
RThurmont wrote:Yes, that would seem to indicate a lack of managerial discipline on the part of the owner. I continue to maintain though, that as the sole proprietor of that theatre, the owner has the right to screen what content he chooses (on the other hand, were it publically traded, he would have fiduciary duty and if he didn't like the films being shown, he would basically have to learn to deal with it).
No one's saying he doesn't have the right to run his own establishment.

To continue this thought to it's end: no one is saying he doesn't have the right to run his own establishment, rather he is not immune to critism about his obvious bigotry in the way he stepped in and over-rid his managers.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2006-01-12 12:22am

Larry H. Miller has been known to miss Jazz games if they fell on a Sunday. Whether he's really that religious or just trying to uphold an imagine is another question.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-01-12 02:59am

Not to beat this to death or anything, but I just came across a quote that basically sums up exactly what I was trying to express to people as to what sums up the power of this movie. The realism.

This is from an Alabam University Newspaper (Amazingly enough).
http://www.cw.ua.edu/vnews/display.v/AR ... 603a02e5b4

"Brokeback Mountain" - Forgetting the gay aspect of the film for a second, "Brokeback Mountain" stands out simply because it's real. The whole movie, the story and especially the performances feel like they are taking place in the real world. To put it plainly, "Brokeback Mountain" is the most authentic movie I saw all year.

Also, it is a landmark for homosexuality in cinema because the gay characters in the movie do not fit any stereotype typically placed on gay people. They are depicted as being no different than any of the people around them, except that they are homosexual. Finally, the most significant thing about the film is that the themes are universal.

The film delivers its message of repression through the story of two gay men, but there is meaning for everyone who views it. Really, it's a
universal film, and that is why it is the best movie of the year. - PO