Why did 'Brokeback' lose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

I realize this is part of human nature but, when we were quite obviously used as a tool to make the movie company money, im wondering how any more times this is going to have to happen before the 'community' starts to realize we are, generally speaking, being used a puppets in nothing more than a marketing scheme that worked well for the people who instigated it.

---

OK, Lee, but how is this different from ANY movie made by Hollywood? Do you think that anybody would have gone to see, say, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days or Failure to Launch or any movie that is marketed toward the straight community if they featured balding, older actors? To me, this argument doesn't hold up, because what you're talking about has nothing at all to do with Brokeback being a gay-themed movie, but has a lot more to do with Hollywood practices in general.

When Making Love was made, it featured two actors who were considered to be among the sexiest of their day, Michael Ontkean and Harry Hamlin. But I seriously doubt that any of the studio executives involved in that or in Brokeback said, "OK, since this movie is about the gays, we gotta make sure that we give America the hottest gays on the planet, 'cuz everyone knows we only cast ugly people in straight-themed movies."

??????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Right, it was essentially marketed well to the gay community however, i think rather than the hype hurting the movie itself, it actually hurt the gay community more, once again it portrayed us a community of individuals that, if promised half naked men, flock to something like rabid dogs on heat.

The only reason the hype / marketing spin for Brokeback worked was because the gay community was used in a stereotypical fashion as sex crazed men and women out to further our own need to see 'gay' flashed all over the big screen along with the chance of seeing the two lead actors in the nude.

If Brokeback had starred say 2 middle aged guys, slightly balding and slightly overweight in the lead roles, i highly doubt it would have done as well as it has at the box office because, the gay community wouldnt have been all that interested in seeing 2 average looking guys on the big screen.

---

Well, for one thing there wasn't nearly enough nekkid guys there, at least not to my taste ;) Seriously, I went to see this movie only recently, following all the media hype. I don't recall anyone in the media, at least here in Israel, mentioning anything about this being a movie "for gays" or appreciated specifically by gays. If anything they all went on about how this was a universal love story, the generic theme of unrequieted love, and how any sensitive person, no matter what sex or sexual preferences will love this movie.

You also need to take into account the historical and social background in the story. When you're talking about two gay men in cowboy land during the 1960's, it means love that can't be fulfilled and carried out openly, pretty much by defintion. So, yes, in that respect I knew what the theme would be and actually had little expectations of stormy love scenes and lots of skin, I
was looking forward to some emotional probing and it was there. I liked the fact that there was more implied in that respect than discussed. Left more for me as a viewer to think about and see how this connects to my own life and history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tigermom

You also need to take into account the historical and social background in the story. When you're talking about two gay men in cowboy land during the 1960's, it means love that can't be fulfilled and carried out openly, pretty much by defintion. So, yes, in that respect I knew what the theme would be and actually had little expectations of stormy love scenes and lots of skin, I
was looking forward to some emotional probing and it was there. I liked the fact that there was more implied in that respect than discussed. Left more for me as a viewer to think about and see how this connects to my own life and history.

---

Smart lady you are. Will you be my mom, too? :)

I think it's funny that many in the gay community are attacking the film for "not being gay enough." Looking back over the history of the community's problems with mainstream films featuring gay characters, one of the things often said was, "Why does it always have to be about sex?" This has been a cry from the community in general when it came/comes to gay rights. "Being gay is about a LOT more than having sex." Films depicting gay characters as being promiscuous were flogged for perpetuating the notion that we are all wanton sluts.

So along comes Brokeback, a movie that not only dashes the stereotype of the promiscuous gay man, but also one that places the emphasis on the very thing we've been saying is the most important aspect of our lives: love, not sex. What's more, it treats the gay relationship just as honorably as any other love story featuring straight characters. And the gay community shits all over it, saying it A) doesn't show enough sex, B) spends too much time dealing with the characters' LIVES instead of their sex lives, and C) features good looking actors portraying the roles -- as if that is any different than the casting process for any straight-themed movie. (I wonder how Titanic would have done at the box office if it had featured, say, Steve Buscemi and Kathy Bates as the lovers.)

Just goes to show that with the gay community, you just can't win for losing. :)

do you think we'll be seeing more big-budget (or at least medium-budget) gay movies - or cowboy movies - in the near future?