Brokeback Mountain: It's Time to Boycott Hollywood

[Libero]

We know movies are FICTION, (even some documentaries are fiction too), but when the Fiction is about subjects that the majority of the public distastes, then it’s just a bad product. Then it shows in the box offfice reciepts.

But do you think that movies such as BB are in the majority of the publics distaste? I dont. I would say more like minority.

Box office in take is down as DVD’s are popular, the idea of cinema is wearing off people are lazy, money is scarce, students are hard up for cash and a generation of people in debt has come forth.

What people want to see is not being shown, films are becoming increasingly far stretched, and ideas are getting old.

The idea of cinema may itself be less popular nowadays.

 

[Digger71]

Riley259:

Pleas don’t see this movie. The secular left (especially) Hollywood has gone ga ga over this movie but virtually ignored The Passion of the Christ - their agenda is clear and it’s frustrating. Go see the Chronicles of Narnia instead.

Maybe Brokeback is a better film.

 

[bellesjoy]

Our family has boycotted hollywood for years! We don’t go to a movie unless it is wholesome. I guess that gives you an indication of how often we go to the movies!

Try reading, or talking or renting movies that you are know are not immoral or offensive. It isn’t that hard to do.

When this topic comes up, I’m surprised at how many people do the same as we do. It just might catch on and the moviemakers will eventually get the message. At anyrate, I know I do not contribute to the polution. Small but it works for us.

 

[Ortho]

miguel:

…still way behind on total revenue and unlikely to catch up. And Narnia is a good movie to compare it with since they came out at the same time.

Sure. It’s behind in both cost and revenue.

But it has surged past Narnia in revenue/production cost.

Narnia: 3.29
Brokeback: 3.79

 

[miguel]

Ortho:

Sure. It’s behind in both cost and revenue.

But it has surged past Narnia in revenue/production cost.

Narnia: 3.29
Brokeback: 3.79

Revenue-to-production ratio says nothing about propaganda success…only financial success. Total revenue is a better indication of propaganda success. It’s directly proportional to how many people have seen the film.

 

[Libero]

We cannot compare Narnia to BB Mountain. First off, the age limit means there will be fewer viewers.

Secondly, Narnia is a story that many of this adult generation grew up reading, thus they are bound to want to watch it. Would Lord of the Rings have got such a big audiance if it wasn’t a popular book beforehand?

Also, Narnia is not likely to insult many if any, there are alot of more “conservative” Christians who would not want to see BB Mountain, and you can virtually count out the majority of men, and also teens - very few teen guys will watch it. Thus, why BB Mountain cannot be compared to Narnia.

 

[Peace-bwu]

miguel:

It may be raking in the awards. But all that demonstrates is the bias of the award givers. Maybe I’m being premature, but this movie won’t make anywhere near what The Passion and Narnia have made. So the good news, is the propaganda will be limited to those who already believe it.

That is also my attitude. If you don’t agree with the content of the movie, don’t pay to see it. You can find out who the sponsors may be and let them know you will boycott them (if there were any) You can boycott future movie by that writer / director (Ang Lee, I think) and the best thing to do is when a GOOD movie comes out, go see it, multiple times if you want and buy the DVD or video. Money talks.

I pay no attention to the awards. Its all a bunch of hooey and celebrity worship.

 

[Actress101]

Hence the screename, I want to a professional actress.

Hollywood has always been this way. In the 20’s, when Hollywood was at it’s peak, their were many, many gay men and woman gallevanting around. Howard Hughes had many gay partners, actors and actresses had sex, it’s all like it is now. The only difference was that it was ‘hidden’ not exposed.

Hollywood may be “outspoken” about such controversial things, but that doesn’t mean it should be gone. I know many MANY Catholics (especially in my school) that watch movies for enjoyment, and that love movies (catholic movies, or regular films.).

Plus, many actresses and actors were Catholics/Christians. Jane Russel, (she was in the film “The Outlaw” directed by Howard Hughes…yes, very controversial.) was a devout christian.

Just because Hollywood is not full of Catholics, I don’t believe it is full of evil. God will take care of those who don’t believe.

 

[Ortho]

miguel:

Revenue-to-production ratio says nothing about propaganda success…only financial success. Total revenue is a better indication of propaganda success. It’s directly proportional to how many people have seen the film.

I agree revenue/production is not a measure of propoganda success. However, all movies are financed, and the folks who finance them do it to make money. That’s how they measure success. You may measure it a different way, but you didn’t pay for the production.

 

[miguel]

Ortho:

I agree revenue/production is not a measure of propoganda success. However, all movies are financed, and the folks who finance them do it to make money. That’s how they measure success.

I agree that’s how they measure financial success. I don’t agree that financial success is the only criterion of success. The people who made this film have an agenda beyond making money. Most people realize this. In general, those who support the agenda will make the effort to see it. Those who don’t will avoid it. Total revenue compared to other films, or the average film, is a measure of the agenda’s popular acceptance. But even among people who see the film, they can’t assume 100% acceptance.

 

[Liberalsaved]

It was beautiful film. I’d say don’t judge it without seeing it, but that’s a foreign concept here.

 

[jebojora]

Why was it beautiful? What did you like about it?

 

[Liberalsaved]

jebojora:

Why was it beautiful? What did you like about it?

I’ll go through it bit by bit.

First, the sheer artistry of it. As a writer who is very Bradbury-ish, great cimematography appeals to me, and while I would have to look up the name, the person responsible for it in Brokeback is on a par with Alan Ball (American Beauty, Road to Perdition, Jarhead). The scenery is not only haunting, that feeling continues once they leave Brokeback, which lends the feeling that the scenery itself is a character. When Ennis visits Jack’s boyhood home, we get a definite sense of how his surroundings were like a person in his life.

Then there is the fact that if this film is meant to spread a gay agenda, then Jarhead must be a military recruitment film. If I were gay, there are a few scenes here that might actually cause me to hide in the theater seat. The film is about secrets and the effect they can have on us, and I understand why this specific backdrop is chosen; it’s a way to tell the story that hasn’t been utilized before. I do it all the time, my basic motto being, why would I want to tell a story someone else has already told? It’s a waste of time and effort, when it’s an accomplishment for most writers to make a small amount of headway; writing is a lot harder than it looks to an outside observer.

And lastly, the acting just screams awards. Ledger and Gyllenhaal, who were impressive in Monster’s Ball and Jarhead respectively, bring such depth to the screen that unless you’re really trying to do so, you’ll never think of these men as “gay men”, but as humans being, who are like you in every way except that they are gay. The performances of Williams and Hathaway as the wives was nuanced and interesting where it could have been cliched and overwrote with needless “hollywood” emotion.

Ang Lee is a great filmmaker. He got me interested in Asian cinema with Crouching Tiger, and he made a rampaging green comic monster interesting and deep. Here he has made another classic film, I’d argue his best yet. It’s as simple as that, really.

 

[goofyjim]

I haven’t see this movie and don’t care to but I also don’t join in too many boycotts. I will watch movies on my own decisions.

 

[jebojora]

Liberalsaved:

I’ll go through it bit by bit.

First, the sheer artistry of it. As a writer who is very Bradbury-ish, great cimematography appeals to me, and while I would have to look up the name, the person responsible for it in Brokeback is on a par with Alan Ball (American Beauty, Road to Perdition, Jarhead). The scenery is not only haunting, that feeling continues once they leave Brokeback, which lends the feeling that the scenery itself is a character. When Ennis visits Jack’s boyhood home, we get a definite sense of how his surroundings were like a person in his life.

Then there is the fact that if this film is meant to spread a gay agenda, then Jarhead must be a military recruitment film. If I were gay, there are a few scenes here that might actually cause me to hide in the theater seat. The film is about secrets and the effect they can have on us, and I understand why this specific backdrop is chosen; it’s a way to tell the story that hasn’t been utilized before. I do it all the time, my basic motto being, why would I want to tell a story someone else has already told? It’s a waste of time and effort, when it’s an accomplishment for most writers to make a small amount of headway; writing is a lot harder than it looks to an outside observer.

And lastly, the acting just screams awards. Ledger and Gyllenhaal, who were impressive in Monster’s Ball and Jarhead respectively, bring such depth to the screen that unless you’re really trying to do so, you’ll never think of these men as “gay men”, but as humans being, who are like you in every way except that they are gay. The performances of Williams and Hathaway as the wives was nuanced and interesting where it could have been cliched and overwrote with needless “hollywood” emotion.

Ang Lee is a great filmmaker. He got me interested in Asian cinema with Crouching Tiger, and he made a rampaging green comic monster interesting and deep. Here he has made another classic film, I’d argue his best yet. It’s as simple as that, really.

You covered it very well and it’s obvious that you have an appreciation of good cinema.

People are different on the issues of what is worth putting up with in order to see a good movie. My sister would never see Saving Private Ryan or Schindler’s List because of the disturbing subject matter. She just says she doesn’t need to see it becasue she knows it will upset her and she already knows that war is violent and that people were tortured and mistreated. She doesn’t need a movie to remind her.

I’ve seen many well done films, great acting, beautiful cinemaphotography, deep and thought provoking subject matter. But I don’t see every movie that comes out. I don’t see the “obviously” teen-engineered movies, I don’t go to see the Austin Power’s stuff, I tend not to be too interested in war movies, or violent movies…my husband likes those types though.

As far as Brokeback mountain goes…I feel the same way. I do not need to go see a movie to help me grasp that people are people and some are gay. I have a gay sister-in-law. Believe me…I know she’s a person just like me.

The gay agenda isn’t that they are people just like us…but that their lifestyle, which includes a very unnatural sexual perversion, is normal…just like the sexual lifestyle of a heterosexual. Even though this movie focuses on secrets and very human feelings and emotions…the subliminal message is…homosexuality is a normal state, just not yet accepted by society. They don’t need to make it the “story” they just need to make a story around it so that people don’t even notice that they are being wooed into this acceptance. The best way to do this is have a touching, human story, with likeable characters that you identify with. Have them be gay but not offensively gay so that we really like them and want them to be happy. Then feel bad that they cannot have what they want…even though their true desire is a sin against God.

I’m sure the movie is beautiful and touching. Well acted and well photographed. The basic “romance novel” story…love found, love lost, love found again but only after the lovers have married others and now can’t have each other. In this case society is not accepting because they are the same sex, but in other romance novels it may be different classes or different religions that keep the lovers apart. Not really a “new” story line. The new part is that the true lovers that we root for are two men.

Utlimately, as the movie goers are having feelings for these men, they come to realize that they are just human beings…with needs, desires, and they deserve true love just like everyone else. And that is the agenda that is being followed. The gay benefit is to become more normal in the eyes of society. The more we see homosexuals as misunderstood victims of a unenlightened society, the more likely we are to accept their behavior as normal.

 

[Liberalsaved]

jebojora:

The gay agenda isn’t that they are people just like us…but that their lifestyle, which includes a very unnatural sexual perversion, is normal…just like the sexual lifestyle of a heterosexual. Even though this movie focuses on secrets and very human feelings and emotions…the subliminal message is…homosexuality is a normal state, just not yet accepted by society. They don’t need to make it the “story” they just need to make a story around it so that people don’t even notice that they are being wooed into this acceptance. The best way to do this is have a touching, human story, with likeable characters that you identify with. Have them be gay but not offensively gay so that we really like them and want them to be happy. Then feel bad that they cannot have what they want…even though their true desire is a sin against God.

Well, we all know where I stand on gay rights, so I won’t beat that dead horse. But I think you should see it if you think they are trying to appeal with likeable characters. A likeable character is Willy Wonka; all of the central characters in this film, even the daughter, as well as all of the supporting cast, are not heroes and not strictly likeable. Ennis is withdrawn and gets angry and violent easily, at things you and I might not lift an eyebrow at. And Jack’s excesses have nothing to do with a specific sex-related thing; he just takes things too far in general. The women are sympathetic, but there are times when I wanted to grab them and say “Maybe if you weren’t on his case all the time he might be more open with you”.

Some things happen to the two main characters in this film that I won’t describe, but suffice it to say that if it were propaganda in any way it would scream more “Don’t be gay” than “be gay”.

 

[miguel]

Liberalsaved:

…Then there is the fact that if this film is meant to spread a gay agenda, then Jarhead must be a military recruitment film. If I were gay, there are a few scenes here that might actually cause me to hide in the theater seat. The film is about secrets and the effect they can have on us, and I understand why this specific backdrop is chosen; it’s a way to tell the story that hasn’t been utilized before. I do it all the time, my basic motto being, why would I want to tell a story someone else has already told?

And lastly, the acting just screams awards. Ledger and Gyllenhaal, who were impressive in Monster’s Ball and Jarhead respectively, bring such depth to the screen that unless you’re really trying to do so, you’ll never think of these men as “gay men”, but as humans being, who are like you in every way except that they are gay…

It has an agenda. It attempts to portray the human misery that results from society’s non-acceptance of certain lifestyles. The misery is intended to stir up compassion and hopefully a change in attitude.

The portrayal of gays “as human beings who are like you in every way except that they are gay” is all part of this. That gays are human beings is not in dispute. They they are like the rest of us in every way is. The notorious promiscuity and unhealthy sexual practices of gays make them quite different. I have not seen the film, but my understanding is that aspect was not portrayed…not exactly honest. But then again, they don’t want to portray the real dark side…it could turn people off.

And Hollywood paying homage to that lifestyle at the Oscars is a form of idolatry if you ask me.

 

[Liberalsaved]

miguel:

It has an agenda. It attempts to portray the human misery that results from society’s non-acceptance of certain lifestyles. The misery is intended to stir up compassion and hopefully a change in attitude.

The portrayal of gays “as human beings who are like you in every way except that they are gay” is all part of this. That gays are human beings is not in dispute. They they are like the rest of us in every way is. The notorious promiscuity and unhealthy sexual practices of gays make them quite different. I have not seen the film, but my understanding is that aspect was not portrayed…not exactly honest. But then again, they don’t want to portray the real dark side…it could turn people off.

And Hollywood paying homage to that lifestyle at the Oscars is a form of idolatry if you ask me.

Please don’t be ignorant. Being gay does not install promiscuity or a tendency towards promiscuity in any way that being heterosexual does not.

 

[mlchance]

Liberalsaved:

Please don’t be ignorant.

Ad hominem. Ironic. Aren’t you the same person who was whining in this thread about people calling each other names?

Liberalsaved:

Being gay does not install promiscuity or a tendency towards promiscuity in any way that being heterosexual does not.

Exactly wrong. Homosexuals are a quantum leap more promiscuous than heterosexuals, especially when discussing male homosexuals. Homosexuality is objectively disordered, and an honest survey of the data bears this out.

In terms of comparision, homosexuals as a group exhibit much higher rates of sexual promiscuity, drug abuse, mental illness, domestic violence, and child abuse than do heterosexuals as a group.

For example, one study entitled “Homosexual Parents” from Adolescence 31 (1996) showed that rates of sexual molestation by homosexual parents occured in 29% of the case studies, compared to only 0.6% by heterosexual parents.

Male-on-male sexual abuse of children accounts for about one-third of instances, even though heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals in the general population by about 20-to-1. The book The Gay Report (Summit Books, 1979) reported data that showed 73% of adult homosexuals surveyed had had sex with adolescent boys. A study in Behavior Research and Therapy found that male pedophiles who preferred male victims were sexually attracted to males of all ages. W. D. Erickson reported in Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1998) that 86% of male pedophiles against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

Even among homosexual couples who describe themselves as being in a “committed” relationship, only about 4% of said couples are monogamous, and this was only among homosexual couples who had been together less than five years. After five years, the number of monogamous homosexual couples dropped to zero (see The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Prentice-Hall, 1984).

This stands in sharp contrast to heterosexual couples. According to the Journal of Sex Research in a study published in 1997, 77% of married men and 88% of married women remain monogamous. The Social Organization of Sexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1994) determined that 75% of husbands and 85% of wives never had sexual relations outside marriage.

Even in countries were same-sex “marriage” is legal, the problems of homosexual promiscuity do not vanish. The journal AIDS (in 2003) published a study of homosexual men in the Netherlands that reported homosexual men in a “committed” relationship still acquired an average of eight additional sexual partners annually.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Clonereject1138]

miguel:

It has an agenda. It attempts to portray the human misery that results from society’s non-acceptance of certain lifestyles. The misery is intended to stir up compassion and hopefully a change in attitude.

The portrayal of gays “as human beings who are like you in every way except that they are gay” is all part of this. That gays are human beings is not in dispute. They they are like the rest of us in every way is. The notorious promiscuity and unhealthy sexual practices of gays make them quite different. I have not seen the film, but my understanding is that aspect was not portrayed…not exactly honest. But then again, they don’t want to portray the real dark side…it could turn people off.

And Hollywood paying homage to that lifestyle at the Oscars is a form of idolatry if you ask me.

Ah ha hahahahaha!!!

Oh, goodness… That was good…

Now, are we SURE they are humans? I mean to say, inside, they KNOW what they’re doing is wrong, that they are wrong, that they are abominations, affronts to God’s perfect creation, dirrect insults to God! They are constantly at war with themselves, always in a internal mental battle between their conciense, and their perverted diseased flesh. Yes, its a disease. AID is a cold compared to it. AIDs isnt a sin. Better crippled in body than corrupted in mind. Now, theres a Niel Young song “we had mother nature on the run, in the 1970s”. Geuss what? Mother Nature hit back, and hard. God warned us not to put up with them, and whamoo! Right in the zenith of our corruption, he struck us down with a plauge of tremendous proportions. Now, I diagnose them with schitzphrenia, my recomendation, Forcable Treatment.

Thats why the KGB was Sooooooo delighted when they met a gay. Their own battle in their head made them PERFECT targets to be recruited.

They are the enemy of God and the enemy of Mankind. They are a threat that, if allowed to continue, will spread until it engulfs every aspect of our lives. Their existince is dragging us to hell. Comrades, suffer not the abomination! Convert em or…convert em, on way or the other.

And about em suffering from mental illness. Homosexuality IS an ilness. Sadley, we preverted Americans took it of the psychiatrice bullletin of mental disorders.