I guess it has some appeal to some people, but for the life of me, I dont know who they are.  Let him bar it (not ban, bar) From his theater.  There will be other options for people to see it.  If they really want to.

From what I had heard early on, Brokeback Mountain was taking in more per screen than any of the other movies released around the same time. It wasn't making as much overall, though, because of the limited release.

I definitely think there's an audience for it, partly because of the novelty of it, partly because of the growing acceptance of homosexual values and culture, and partly because it was (according to reviews) a well-made movie.

No one should be forced to screen it or view it, obviously. And I definitely don't consider a theater owner choosing which movies he will show "banning". That's not even remotely accurate.

I just wonder, though, if this were a movie featuring a lesbian love story, would there be the backlash there is for this one? It seems that lesbian relationships are considered titillating enough that our moral majority can set aside their anti-homosexual stance and allow it to be a non-issue. There's still so much stigma surrounding male homosexuality.

PS - When it's out on video, I will rent this one.

Let him bar it (not ban, bar) From his theater.

And I definitely don't consider a theater owner choosing which movies he will show "banning".

All right, "bar" is a better word, you are right.

It seems that lesbian relationships are considered titillating enough

You mean like at the end of "Dodgeball"? That was gratuitous and retarded. A good movie over all, but didn't need the big reveal at the end.
But then the director felt undermined during the making of that whole movie.

You mean like at the end of "Dodgeball"? That was gratuitous and retarded. A good movie over all, but didn't need the big reveal at the end.

Good example (although one of many).

I'm not too big on gratuitous and non-plot-enhancing sexuality on TV and in movies (we tried to watch The 40 Year Old Virgin, but holy crap...totally over the top) in general.

What do you think the fact that overt lesbian sexuality in the media is at worst tolerated and at best celebrated while gay male sexuality seems to be a big outrage implies?

Why do you think that is?

From what I had heard early on, Brokeback Mountain was taking in more per screen than any of the other movies released around the same time. It wasn't making as much overall, though, because of the limited release.

Quite seriously, I know the story (who does not about now), but it sounds so boring!  It is not even a chick flick (my wife does not want to see it).  More power to it for doing well.  But I dont think paying 25 bucks to watch a boring movie is worth it.  I am sure we will try to watch it when it comes to cable.  Maybe.  I have trouble falling asleep sometimes!

I hate people that aren't like me.

Grr...

Dan

No one is forcing Larry Miller to screen this film at his theater. But should they?

Force a theatre owner to screen a movie? Hell no! Are restaurant owners forced to serve certain foods? That's insane. A theatre owner is free to pick the films they want to screen. Maybe he will pass up a lot of revenue because of his choice but it is certainly his choice to make.

I am of the camp that has no interest in this movie at all. Just because it is a homosexual relationship doesn't make it a reason to go see it or not in my book. It simply doesn't interest me. I don't think people should feel pressured to see it because it is ground breaking or to support the gay rights movement. If you are interested in the story, go. If not, don't.

I rarely agree with the critics on movies so that is not a good gauge for me. I don't like to pay theatre prices and take the time to go unless it is something I have really been waiting to see that needs to be seen on the big screen to get the full experiences. Love stories, in my opinion, don't fall into that category.

And yet no one's raising an eyebrow that last weekend's biggest film ("Hostel") was an ultra-violent thriller featuring--and to much hype--graphic scenes of human torture.

I wonder if Mr. Miller made a buck off of that film or not.

The "buzz" is as telling as the "barring". Every week theater managers choose what they will and won't put on their screens. Nobody balked at all the threaters that didn't order Napolean Dynamite, Saints and Soldiers or Gunners Palace.

If the film is good, why can't they let it stand on its own merits? Apparently, if you choose not to see it, you're homophobic, if you choose not to screen it, your just censoring it.

If this film doesn't get the Best Picture and carry at least half of the other awards we are all going to assaulted with accustions of how homophobic we all still are.

Back in the 70s, Billy Crystal played the first openly gay television character. I'm sure there were some that protested it, but even in Utah I don't remember much of a problem because of it. Gay characters showed up on various movies and TV shows along the way, to little resistance. All of the sudden though, it became almost a crime to NOT have an openly gay character in the cast of a movie or TV show.

If it's not supposed to matter, why is so much money and time being spent making it matter so much?

I'd have to agree with some of the other commentators on this one. It's quite absurd that the moral majority take offence at a film that is essentially about love, while happily screening/watching ultra-violent films that glorify violence, and depict women and men in a derogatory way. There's plenty at the cinema that I might not approve of, the difference of course is that I don't feel it's my right to force anyone to live by my personal rules.

It's always worth mentioning the differing reactions around the world when trying to find the considered response. For example nobody's batted an eyelid here in the UK about Brokeback Mountain. It's just another film pitched at the popular end of arthouse. No scandal, no bans, no problem. And thus far as I look out of my window I can't see any previously heterosexual men screwing each-other as a result of this acceptance.

It seems as if those that take exception to depicting homosexual relationships believe that one can choose to be gay after weighing up the pros and cons. That if enough positive images of gay people are produced it will convince heterosexuals to 'give it a go'. Most intelligent people realise this is absurd. I must be bombarded with 1000 positive images of heterosexual life a day, but it hasn't been able to 'cure' me yet.

No one is forcing Larry Miller to screen this film at his theater. But should they?

Force a theatre owner to screen a movie? Hell no!

Absolutely agree. When I reread the question this morning, I realized that it might read backwards. My question was pointed the other direction: should people pressure theater owners, either personally or through the media, to run movies to which they are morally opposed? And my answer is also "Hell no!" It's their business, their money to be made or not made.

And yet no one's raising an eyebrow that last weekend's biggest film ("Hostel") was an ultra-violent thriller featuring--and to much hype--graphic scenes of human torture.

It's quite absurd that the moral majority take offence at a film that is essentially about love, while happily screening/watching ultra-violent films that glorify violence, and depict women and men in a derogatory way

I agree with you to a point, Pixelnurse. The film here in question is "essentially about love", gay love, and it's something that I personally don't wish to see. Apparently Mr. Miller agrees, as he felt it was inappropriate for his theater. "Hostel", "Saw" and their ilk (there's that word again: ilk) are movies about hideous torture, and I don't want to see them either. They are all in the "bad influence" camp, as far as I'm concerned. I know a few movie houses that will not show any rated R films, though of course they are the mom & pop movie places that you can find here and there, not the big multiplex chains. They are in it for the money.

I wonder if Mr. Miller made a buck off of that film or not.

Good question. It's all or nothing, huh? Okay, let's see... From Yahoo Movies,
Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons
Hostel
Rated R, 1 hr 35 min
Showtimes: (11:00am), (1:15), (5:40), 8:00, 10:20
Yes, Mr. Miller did.

If the film is good, why can't they let it stand on its own merits?

Brokeback Mtn is in the category of "don't want to see". Not due to its homosexuality, or whether or not I am a homophobe (I am not, FTR). It's just that I don't like westerns in general and it wouldn't appeal to me even without the gay element in it. The homosexual part is just another reason why I don't want to see it.

I definitely think there's an audience for it, partly because of the novelty of it, partly because of the growing acceptance of homosexual values and culture, and partly because it was (according to reviews) a well-made movie.

Michael Medved rated it VERY favorably, although he cautioned his listeners about the "pup tent" scene.

Frankly, I don't like films that are filled with explicit sexual behaviour. If I'm not a participant, it loses its appeal...lol. We know what goes on behind closed doors, let's make a good story that is watchable, shall we?

One of Medved's comments about this movie was that he objected to the way the movie was being propagandized, as a great "romeo and romeo" love story. And yet, in all of this, the reviewers miss entirely the fact that families are broken over their relationship. By extolling the Heath Ledger/Jake Gyllenhaal relationship, they are in essence extolling the virtues of broken families.

Frankly, I have a big problem with the homosexual propaganda movement. A HUGE problem, actually. I want a movie that tells a story, not sets an agenda. While most movies have some sort of agenda (Narnia, for instance), the agenda should be secondary to the storyline (my opinion). In "Brokeback Mountain", it's not. It's just that simple.

I won't be seeing this movie. It just doesn't appeal to me, frankly, and I see no purpose in wasting my money. But don't let my opinion stop you from seeing it, because my opinion is just that.

ADD: I am VERY insulted by the media pundits who would imply that not wanting to see this movie implies that you are some sort of "homophobe" (a word, by the way, that should be removed from our vocabulary). It is, in essence, using guilt to try to sell this movie and is completely intellectually dishonest, as well as reinforcing the view that those who are marketting this movie have a distinct agenda that runs contrary to my own beliefs.

By extolling the Heath Ledger/Jake Gyllenhaal relationship, they are in essence extolling the virtues of broken families.

Yes, apparently both men go on to marry and have children, yet cannot tear themselves away from the love they once knew... apparently in a pup tent.

explicit sexual behaviour

One huge strike against it. Male-male or male-female, I don't go to movies to get tittilated.

not wanting to see this movie implies that you are some sort of "homophobe"

I am not a homophobe. I am a prude.

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.

That's something else that bothers me: who says that Jordan Commons Megaplex is the only movie theater in all of Salt Lake City? How come people who are bound and determined to see "Brokeback Mtn" can't drive another five minutes to the next megaplex? I happen to know SLC and Sandy kinda well, and I know that there is another megaplex at Southtowne Mall, right on the freeway, within ten minutes' driving time, tops.

Miller's not doing anyone a disservice by pulling the movie from his theater. If this hypothetical viewer is going to see it, he or she is going to see it.