Brokeback Mountain: It's Time to Boycott Hollywood

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

When is it reasonable to expose oneself, intentionally, to morally offensive entertainment? Reading a work for educational purposes is one thing, popular movies are another.

I think one can inform themselves quite well without knowingly exposing themselves to morally offensive material.

I don’t disagree with you Fix. One should not go to this movie or any morally offensive movie for entertainment. But “educational purposes” can be appropriately applied broadly. Novels and movies are effective ways for one to absorb themselves in the point of view of the actors. It is only by experience that one can have empathy (vs. sympathy) for another person. While the experience of viewing a movie isn’t direct, the indirect experience from a movie does aid in fostering at least a partial condition of empathy. Empathy is always a good as the understanding that is gained allows one to better practice what I call “woman at the well” ministry. If I can’t meet them where they are, they will consider me an “alien”. But if I can bridge that gap, I can be more effective.

You and I probably are not disposed to minister to those struggling with homosexuality. But we might have to. Or more likely, we might have to minister to a friend or family member victimized by adultery or fornification. I’m grateful that I’ve never had to directly experience the feelings that one must feel when victimized by adultery of a spouse. But a movie that properly describes the impact of this might give me greater capability to understand the feelings of a friend or family member who is so victimized.

As Marcus Grodi said recently on his show “Coming Home”, the Church doesn’t fear the pursuit of knowledge and understanding because it holds the fullness of Truth. Concurrently, he said that the Church doesn’t discourage the faithful in gaining knowledge or understanding so long as it is always considered through the prism of the Church’s Teachings.

So long as a viewer understands and assents to the Church’s Teaching, the Church does not prohibit a Catholic from pursuing or gaining knowledge and understanding regardless of the source, even from movies.

 

[tamccrackine]

siamesecat:

I’m guessing you didn’t see the movie but the homosexual spouse was NOT glorified, and the heterosexual spouse was certainly the victim and the one to feel bad for. Everyone felt a lot worse for the wife than for the gay man (it also wasnt as much a love story as i suspected, you didnt feel he was pining for the other man so much as trying to fight the feelings) It really wasn’t glorified, it was just a very interesting story. It didnt justify the behavior. It was not a ‘pathetic’ movie. ** Immoral according to Catholic values, yes, although not too much because it didnt really make it seem ‘ok**.’ But very well acted/directed and an interesting, engaging story? Yes.

Using that same logic, I guess abortion from a rape or incest is “not too much” of a problem.

You’re not guessing when you question if I’ve seen the movie, as I have not and as I stated, I will not waste hard earned money on a movie where homosexuality is the main theme. I am fully aware of the struggle of real people with real SSA’s, but the fact of the matter that the MSM has made this movie to glorify the gay/lesbian agenda, and simply that this movie was even made… isn’t good for people to go see. It breaks down the mentality to start accepting that this type of material is ok to view and for the very reason you stated, about evoking certain feelings, is enough for a movie such as this to be avoided.

I’m sure most people wouldn’t give a hoot if I made a statement that I’m not going to see The Exorcist because I believe that material to be true and sooo real that it worries me and scares me, therefore I refuse to spend my hard earned money on it. But no, I mention that I refuse to see a movie that promotes the gay agenda and I get questioned. Why is that? To me, Brokeback Mountain is just a subtle agenda of the subject matter to The Exorcist (meaning the former movie is just as evil as the latter, however the latter addresses those evil forces much more directly than the former)

As to the poster that claims that they like it when people that haven’t seen or read something likes to make comments on it… I agree… I find it as silly as the liberals that claim they know all about the military yet never even came close to being on a military installation or in uniform therefore want to critisize us.

 

[Ortho]

miguel:

I see movies and read books. But on principle, there are certain movies I won’t see and certain books I won’t read. Is it really necessary to drink from the sewer before concluding it’s toxic? If I pay good money to Hollywood to crank out propaganda, am I elevating the culture or tearing it down? I highly doubt an Oscar will turn around the box office on this one. It deals with a fringe subject that alot of movie goers find offensive. IMO, a balanced review (high marks for film making artistry, low marks for moral content)…

decentfilms.com/sections/reviews/2645

Brokeback
Production costs: $14 million
Marketing cost: unknown
Revenue: $35 million

I stated earlier that it was in 450 theaters. It is now in 683 theaters.

Some people see the movie and think for themselves. Other people let someone else think for them. It’s a choice.

 

[miguel]

Ortho:

Brokeback
Production costs: $14 million
Marketing cost: unknown
Revenue: $35 million

I stated earlier that it was in 450 theaters. It is now in 683 theaters…

The Passion and Narnia are in the hundreds of millions…at least an order of magnitude higher in profits…and an order of magnitude more paying customers. Brokeback’ll never catch 'em, pardner.

Ortho:

Some people see the movie and think for themselves. Other people let someone else think for them. It’s a choice.

Some people eat junk food. And some people submit to Hollywood brainwashing.

 

[OhioBob]

Ortho:

Some people see the movie and think for themselves. Other people let someone else think for them. It’s a choice.

Some people think for themselves before seeing the movie and decide that it is not something worth seeing. I don’t have to stick a fork in my eye to know that I’m not going to enjoy the experience.

I have no desire to see the movie because I have thought about it and choose not to spend my money on it. Others can do whatever they want. If they read reviews and other information and make a decision based upon that information I don’t see that as “letting other people think for them”.

Although from the trailer you would never imagine that the “love story” depicted is a homosexual relationship. They only show majestic landscapes, cowboys and family shots of them with their wives and kids. Not much truth in advertising.

 

[rlg94086]

OhioBob…you have it all wrong. You can’t trust critics, friends, relatives or trailers. You need to see a movie to make up your mind about it. That’s why I watch every movie hollywood releases, regardless of what others have to say.

It reminds me of an old Cheech and Chong skit (sorry, I know it’s crude humor, but it gets the point accross - paraphrased, of course):

Chong: What’s that?
Cheech: Looks like dog poop.
Chong: Smell it. …Smell like dog poop?
Cheech: Smells like dog poop.
Chong: Touch it. …Feel like dog poop?
Cheech: Feels like dog poop.

Chong: Glad we didn’t step in it.

OhioBob:

Some people think for themselves before seeing the movie and decide that it is not something worth seeing. I don’t have to stick a fork in my eye to know that I’m not going to enjoy the experience.

I have no desire to see the movie because I have thought about it and choose not to spend my money on it. Others can do whatever they want. If they read reviews and other information and make a decision based upon that information I don’t see that as “letting other people think for them”.

Although from the trailer you would never imagine that the “love story” depicted is a homosexual relationship. They only show majestic landscapes, cowboys and family shots of them with their wives and kids. Not much truth in advertising.

 

[Jennifer123]

Penny Plain:

Can I still go to LA or Santa Monica?

Didn’t Hollywood also give us movies like we approve of, like Narnia and THE Passion of THE Christ? If we’re going to boycott, maybe we should target our boycott at the companies that made and distributed the thing we object to?

Or maybe we could just, you know, not go see it. Not watch the Oscars and Golden Globes and shows like that where it’s praised.

“Hollywood” does good things, too. Why throw out the baby with the bathwater?

I totally agree. I used to enjoy Hollywood and the awards shows, but it’s so blatant a propaganda machine now. I told my husband that Brokeback Mountain would lead the Golden Globes, and turns out I was right. I no longer watch these awards shows, and am selective about which movies I see now. Even the comedies aren’t as enjoyable to me anymore because even then there is usually a barrage of “cheeky” and subtle political critique, making fun of Conservatives or Christians, and I’m getting tired of being the butt of the joke.
I heard that the Globes telecast was one of the highest rated shows of its history, no doubt a source of comfort to the Hollywood types that will see it as validation. I just think people turned in to see if Brokebacl Mountain would win, as a source of curiousity and controversy. I wish we’d get tired of controversy!!
I think a boycott of movies with blatantly offensive content is wise, but I think that with the fracturing of Christian opinion, it may be a losing battle. Hope I’m wrong!!

 

[Ortho]

miguel:

The Passion and Narnia are in the hundreds of millions…at least an order of magnitude higher in profits…and an order of magnitude more paying customers. Brokeback’ll never catch 'em, pardner.
Some people eat junk food. And some people submit to Hollywood brainwashing.

And Passion and Narnia will never catch Titanic. So what? Brokeback is already a financial success. It has a very good chance of having a higher rate of return than Narnia.

Some people are smart enough to deal with Hollywood and they see the movies. Those who aren’t know their own limitations.

 

[Ortho]

OhioBob:

Some people think for themselves before seeing the movie and decide that it is not something worth seeing. I don’t have to stick a fork in my eye to know that I’m not going to enjoy the experience.

I have no desire to see the movie because I have thought about it and choose not to spend my money on it. Others can do whatever they want. If they read reviews and other information and make a decision based upon that information I don’t see that as “letting other people think for them”.

Although from the trailer you would never imagine that the “love story” depicted is a homosexual relationship. They only show majestic landscapes, cowboys and family shots of them with their wives and kids. Not much truth in advertising.

So, how do you know the trailer is wrong? How do you know what it is really about? Seen it?

 

[OhioBob]

Ortho:

So, how do you know the trailer is wrong? How do you know what it is really about? Seen it?

Nope. Wouldn’t waste my time given what I’ve learned about it from reviews and interviews with the people who made it. I don’t need to know all the particulars to know what the themes are and to know whether it is a movie I want to see.

How about you? Do you really need to experience something to know whether or not it is worth your time and money? Is your time and money so valueless that you would throw them away without considering in advance what you might be getting in return?

 

[Jennifer123]

Ortho:

So, how do you know the trailer is wrong? How do you know what it is really about? Seen it?

Happens all the time. My husband and I saw the trailer for “The Family Stone”, it looked like a funny movie, and were surpised that one of the major characters involved a gay brother, which was never mentioned in the trailer. BTW - the movie was a typical Hollywood “morality tale” where the gay brother, who was also hearing impaired, is also the most well-adjusted person in the family and the person objecting to the lifestyle was portrayed as a mean, small-minded bigot. It was pretty preachy. Another hope for a good time at the movies dashed.

 

[siamesecat]

tamccrackine:

Using that same logic, I guess abortion from a rape or incest is “not too much” of a problem.

You’re not guessing when you question if I’ve seen the movie, as I have not and as I stated, I will not waste hard earned money on a movie where homosexuality is the main theme. I am fully aware of the struggle of real people with real SSA’s, but the fact of the matter that the MSM has made this movie to glorify the gay/lesbian agenda, and simply that this movie was even made… isn’t good for people to go see. It breaks down the mentality to start accepting that this type of material is ok to view and for the very reason you stated, about evoking certain feelings, is enough for a movie such as this to be avoided.

I’m sure most people wouldn’t give a hoot if I made a statement that I’m not going to see The Exorcist because I believe that material to be true and sooo real that it worries me and scares me, therefore I refuse to spend my hard earned money on it. But no, I mention that I refuse to see a movie that promotes the gay agenda and I get questioned. Why is that? To me, Brokeback Mountain is just a subtle agenda of the subject matter to The Exorcist (meaning the former movie is just as evil as the latter, however the latter addresses those evil forces much more directly than the former)

As to the poster that claims that they like it when people that haven’t seen or read something likes to make comments on it… I agree… I find it as silly as the liberals that claim they know all about the military yet never even came close to being on a military installation or in uniform therefore want to critisize us.

I dont know where you got this logic. I said the movie did not glorify homosexuality, saying it was necessarily right, so it isnt blatantly against the church teachings. I dont know how that related to your analogy. I did not feel it had an agenda or really glorified it. If I see one happy gay couple, it doesnt make me believe that all gay relationships are great. This particular couple did not have an especially supportive relationship, it was more sexual, and the way they treated their families did not make me ‘side’ with them . It was a good movie, but i was sympathizing with the wives and children more than them. I understand your objections to the movie and im not trying to make you see it, I just wanted to explain that the movie does not glorify homosexuality as everyone says.

 

[miguel]

Ortho:

Brokeback is already a financial success.

Not really, by Hollywood standards. It is in the black at the moment…unless the ideologues end up wasting all their marketing bucks on it instead of films with higher profit potential like Munich. Are they that stupid? Well, old Mel tried to get them to invest in The Passion. They didn’t, and boy did they miss out on a whole lotta dough. But that’s a good thing. At least that dough wasn’t churned back into their propaganda machine.

Ortho:

Some people are smart enough to deal with Hollywood and they see the movies. Those who aren’t know their own limitations.

Yeah…my limit is my stomach…gotta be able to keep that popcorn down.

 

[miguel]

Jennifer123:

Happens all the time. My husband and I saw the trailer for “The Family Stone”, it looked like a funny movie, and were surpised that one of the major characters involved a gay brother, which was never mentioned in the trailer. BTW - the movie was a typical Hollywood “morality tale” where the gay brother, who was also hearing impaired, is also the most well-adjusted person in the family and the person objecting to the lifestyle was portrayed as a mean, small-minded bigot. It was pretty preachy. Another hope for a good time at the movies dashed.

Typical…and a good example of what I mean by propaganda…of course the person objecting to the lifestyle is portrayed as a bigot. Well my family saw this without me and before I had a chance to check it out…must discuss at dinner.

 

[BlindSheep]

Ortho:

Some people are smart enough to deal with Hollywood and they see the movies.

Real subtle. Are you in advertising?

 

[Ortho]

OhioBob:

Nope. Wouldn’t waste my time given what I’ve learned about it from reviews and interviews with the people who made it. I don’t need to know all the particulars to know what the themes are and to know whether it is a movie I want to see.

How about you? Do you really need to experience something to know whether or not it is worth your time and money? Is your time and money so valueless that you would throw them away without considering in advance what you might be getting in return?

The best information I can have as to the worth of a movie is to see it myself. If I don’t see it, I can only be aware of what others think of it.

It’s interesting that the people posting who have seen the movie describe different themes than the people who haven’t seen it.

So, since it has become a cultural phenomena, I’ll investigate myself. Then whenever the subject arises, which is very often, I’ll know what I’m talking about.

What I will be getting in return for seeing Brokeback is firsthand information and satisfaction of my curiosity. After seeing it, I can base my recommendations on what I think, rather than let someone else think for me.

I followed the same process with the Passion. I found it to be neither a great spiritual experience nor a anti-semitic polemic. I did my own thinking about the movie.

 

[Ortho]

Jennifer123:

Happens all the time. My husband and I saw the trailer for “The Family Stone”, it looked like a funny movie, and were surpised that one of the major characters involved a gay brother, which was never mentioned in the trailer. BTW - the movie was a typical Hollywood “morality tale” where the gay brother, who was also hearing impaired, is also the most well-adjusted person in the family and the person objecting to the lifestyle was portrayed as a mean, small-minded bigot. It was pretty preachy. Another hope for a good time at the movies dashed.

If you actually saw the movie, that’s the best way to know if the trailer is wrong.

I wonder how people who have not seen the movie know.

 

[Ortho]

miguel:

Not really, by Hollywood standards. It is in the black at the moment…unless the ideologues end up wasting all their marketing bucks on it instead of films with higher profit potential like Munich. Are they that stupid? Well, old Mel tried to get them to invest in The Passion. They didn’t, and boy did they miss out on a whole lotta dough. But that’s a good thing. At least that dough wasn’t churned back into their propaganda machine.
Yeah…my limit is my stomach…gotta be able to keep that popcorn down.

What are the Hollywood standards for financial succes of a movie?

Is Narnia a financial success? If so, by what standard do you judge it? Narnia revenues are 3.25 times production costs.

Brokeback revenues are 2.5 times production costs. If Brokeback revenues grow to 3.25 times production costs, will it be a success?

 

[Ortho]

BlindSheep:

Real subtle. Are you in advertising?

Subtle? I don’t think so? Do you?

 

[OhioBob]

Ortho:

If you actually saw the movie, that’s the best way to know if the trailer is wrong.

I wonder how people who have not seen the movie know.

Gee, I can’t imagine. Maybe they read the trade press. Maybe they have friends who have seen the movie. Maybe they have visited the web site.

I said that the trailer of BM did not show any images or include any language that would imply that homosexuality played any role in the plot of the movie. The significant role of those themes was discussed ad nauseum in interviews with the cast and executive staff as well as mainstream media reviews of the film. Having worked in advertising, I found the absence of such allusions in the trailer to be less than forthcoming.