Utah Theater Cancels ‘Brokeback Mountain’

posted by teecee on January 9, 2006 at 4:16 am

SALT LAKE CITY, UT — A Utah movie theater has decided not to show the film “Brokeback Mountain,” according to an Associated Press report. The film was supposed to open Friday at the Megaplex at Jordan Commons.

Comments (104)

KenLayton
KenLayton on January 9, 2006 at 4:53 am

Every theater owner has the right to choose to book or not book any movie. The theater owner will book movies that will bring in the most money to his theater. In this case his customers probably would not have attended that movie and he would have lost alot of money if he would have shown it.

mhvbear
mhvbear on January 9, 2006 at 5:00 am

And customers also have the right not to support this theater or any others that he operates. Hopefully Universal will decide not to allow this chain to book any more of their products.

Ed Solero
Ed Solero on January 9, 2006 at 5:46 am

I see what Ken Layton is inferring, however. That there may have been a business rationale behind the theater manager’s decision not to book the film, rather than a motive of discrimination. Although, I supposed, one may assume that discrimination might be a root level operative here within that theater’s community. I take more umbrage at a chain of theaters (or video stores) that refuses to carry a specific title due to content on a blanket scale than I do at a single theater prudently reacting to the demands of their market. No sense in booking a film at a neighborhood cinema if no one in the neighborhood will support it anyhow.

If, on the other hand, a small group of self-righteous religious watchdogs have taken it upon themsleves to speak for the entire population of Salt Lake City and block bookings and screenings of “Brokeback Mountain” throughout the municipality, then I would criticize each theater for backing down in the face of intolerance.

grantwsmith
grantwsmith on January 9, 2006 at 5:56 am

Was “Brokeback Mountain” distributed by Universal Studios or Focus Features?

Can theater owners really choose to book or not book any movie they want? I’ve heard that the multiplexes have to carry contracts with all the major distributors and that the contracts require them to show R-rated movies and open on Sundays.

This theater is taking a lot of flak because they canceled the controversial “Brokeback Mountain” while they are continuing to show more graphic movies from major distributors. But do they really have a choice on the other films?

William
William on January 9, 2006 at 6:02 am

Focus Features is the independent film division of Universal Studios, as is Rogue Films. Theatre owners can book any film they wish too. There are other theatre locations in the Salt Lake City area showing the feature, to good business.

Mikeoaklandpark
Mikeoaklandpark on January 9, 2006 at 7:58 am

I saw Brokeback MOuntain last nioght here in Asheville,NC and thought it was done very well. heath Ledgers performance is exceptional and will win him an Oscar and othe awards. Unfortunately, the idiot American Family Association and the right wing Christian groups including the idiot in Washinton should mind there own business. If they don’t want to see a movie because of it’s content, than they should stay home and shut up. If there is a movie I don’t want to see like King Kong, I go see something else and let who wants to see go and enjoy themselves. Sorry if I got on a roll.

chconnol
chconnol on January 9, 2006 at 10:11 am

God I’m glad I live in the NY area. “Brokeback Mountain” is hardly creating a ripple of attention here. I see Brokeback Mountain folks every day so it’s nothing new or daring. That’s what diversity does: it makes one not only tolerant but nothing is a big deal.

vokoban
vokoban on January 9, 2006 at 10:26 am

I don’t know what the big deal is about this movie. I’ve seen it twice and there is more straight sex in it than gay sex. I think it’s good if a couple of theaters don’t want to show it because it only makes the media jump on it and the movie ends up getting a lot of free publicity. Those right wingers will never learn that if they just ignore it, most people won’t even hear about it in the first place.

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 9, 2006 at 1:10 pm

I am a theatre owner. In my area, a movie about homosexual cowboys would not be of interest to an overwhelming percentage of the population. Conversly, if I chose to be politically correct and show the film anyway…to prove a point, it has the potential to alienate a huge block of new moviegoers. Two of the highest grossing films in the past two years, The Chronicles of Narnia and The Passion of the Christ, were propelled to the top by the Christian community.
Hollywood is famous for changing the culture, slowly but surely, by creating movies which appeal to emotion rather than reason. The following link describes it well. View link
Finally, If you read the above posts you will note the extreme hostility shown towards “the right”. My brother happens to be Gay and I love him dearly but I must say he is an unabashed Bigot towards Christianity. Many of the people who are willing to bash Christians are the first to be offended when someone
has anything negative to say about Homosexuality.

vokoban
vokoban on January 9, 2006 at 2:01 pm

I thought the Chronicles of Narnia was great movie. I’ve read the book many times since childhood and think the veiled Christianity in it is fine because it is well written and now filmed well. I have no hostility towards right wing people. The people in the extreme on either side do damage with their antics. The fact that the group that would have problems with Brokeback mountain is the right wing crowd is simply a fact, not hostility. If you don’t think you can make money on the movie, then you shouldn’t show it. In the end, making money and keeping theaters open is what matters.

John Fink
John Fink on January 9, 2006 at 5:33 pm

YES, but they booked the film and had an agreement with Focus to show this highly successful (it has the number one per screen average in the country) and had even published showtimes for it. At that point they are doing a diservice to a movie going public by advertising something and then pulling it, it wasn’t a fluke, they had intended on showing it but got scared off. I suport the right that a theater owner has to not show a film (see the various posts that I have added to the Megaplex 17 site debating the isssue) but they should have known what the movie was and never opted to show it.

My anger over the issue comes as I am a GE shareholder and agree Universal ought to not grant a licence to show any more product at this site, give it to Cinemark or whoever else has screens in the area – they should not go back on their contractual obligation to run the film, even after they informed and misled the public by advertising showtimes for it. It’s astonishing that Megaplex doesn’t know what types of product it books, first of all and second of all that this film is controversal. The Family Stone, which is playing there, has a fairly complex storyline involving a family accepting of their queer son and his African American boyfriend yet it has caused no controversy and nor should it.

The best article on the issue is here:
View link

I don’t know of any theater that has ever had a contractual obligation to show a successful film and pulled it because of a business decission. It leads me to belive that there was potentally a threat of protest by SLC Mormons considering Larry Miller produces mormon pictures (which you might not know if you live outside of Utah).

vokoban
vokoban on January 9, 2006 at 6:09 pm

Thanks John, I didn’t know about all that. Hopefully, the community will show the theater how it feels and go see it at the other theater showing it in the area. I know there are plenty of gay Mormons, I live near West Hollywood and they seem to escape from Utah and come here, so maybe they will see the movie and prove that there is an audience. The big question I have is if the movie is playing anywhere in Wyoming.

markinthedark
markinthedark on January 9, 2006 at 9:51 pm

Here is another shining example of how the “righteous” will discriminate against a love story if it doesn’t conform to their codes of decency, yet allow allow gratuitous violence and mayhem to be shown without a problem. Is violence and killing more acceptable in today’s society? Megaplex Theatres seems to think so. They pull “Brokeback Mountain” from their theatre (clearly not a “business decision” evidenced by it’s stellar per-screen average around the country INCLUDING Salt Lake City) and yet have no problem showing “Hostel” which, according to the MPAA, features: “Brutal Scenes of Torture and Violence, Strong Sexual Content, Language and Drug Use”. What would you rather show your kids? If Jesus stepped up to the Box Office, which film would he rather see? It is not just this theatre. The MPAA has clearly been more lenient toward violence than sexual content for years. We can watch human beings be mowed down in bloody mayhem in an R-Rated (or even PG13-rated film) and yet “Henry and June” received an NC17 rating. Looking at the state of the world today, isn’t it better that the public be allowed to see a love story (albeit different and unconventional) rather than a grisly film whose sole purpose is to show carnage for a thrill? Personally, I think both should get screen time, I am just tired of the hypocrisy.

CoosBayMovieGoer
CoosBayMovieGoer on January 9, 2006 at 11:59 pm

I love the guy above commenting that “It had the highest gross per screen in the country.” When an Urban film, steeped in controversey is opened on limited screens in major urban areas (2 screens its first week), of course its going to have the highest gross per screen, because there’s only TWO places to see it in the entire country!

woody
woody on January 10, 2006 at 12:35 am

Brokeback Mountain played at 483 theatres this week and had the highest screen average of the big movies $11,856 per screen, any theatre that turns away this sort of business, is making a moral decision (political blackmail).
In the Uk this weekend, the film played to exceptionally strong screen averages even in regional theatres in small working class towns.
I dont believe in censorship, if the board of censors decide that a movie is suitable for adults to see and the market is there for the film, then the audience should be considered intelligent enough to be able to make the choice to see a movie or not, and not have this decision made for them by bigots.
Its yet another example of the political far right and religious groups unreasonable use of their power in terrorising the business community.
There was a terrific documentary on the BBC last night on how most of the hatred and intolerance in the world today comes from fanatical religious belief.

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 10, 2006 at 4:40 am

For decades Hollywood has slowly, but surely, pushed the envelope on the Horror/Slasher genre. Over time films had to become more and more titilating to hold an audiences attention. They throw in a little emotion and BAM…we’re hooked.
Now, Hollywood wants us to accept Homosexual behavior as normal. How about making a movie about gay cowboys and use that good old Hollywood magic and get us emotionally attached to them. What a nice and wonderful movie.
A majority of the general public believe that killing people and cutting up their bodies is bad behavior and wrong.
A majority of the general public believe that two men engaging in sodomy is bad behavior and wrong.
I would consider myself religious right. It seems like every time someone in the above posts describes me it is in a negative light.
Since so many writers seem to know me and my beliefs/positions, would someone who paints me with such a wide brush enlighten me on what stands I should take on various issues and what is your basis
for knowing so much about me?

vokoban
vokoban on January 10, 2006 at 5:40 am

This movie has no agenda that says this is normal behavior. It’s simply a story. Is what the majority thinks is ‘normal’ the only thing that should be produced? That sounds really exciting! One of the greatest books and movies of the last century in my opinion is Lolita. It certainly is not normal, and it certainly doesn’t make me want to go out and rape teenage girls. If you don’t like certain subjects, don’t watch them. Other people might be interested, so you might consider that they have the intelligence to choose for themselves. Nobody is forcing you to watch something that doesn’t interest you.

Mikeoaklandpark
Mikeoaklandpark on January 10, 2006 at 7:57 am

JNjeisen
The issue witht he religous right is that if it is something that they don’t beleive in it is there choice, but it is none of there business to tell theaters and others what to see. As Vokoban said nobody is forcing them to watch this movie. I have been raised Catholic all my life and they can take some right wing stances on tings and I am sure they may on this movie, but believe me I will be very vocal to them about my feelings and it will not be polite. I think there are good and bad in all races, religous beliefs and sexual orientation. When Brokeback Mountain wins all the other major awards, it will be becuase of artistic talent not subject matter. I am a big movie fan and The Lord Of The Rings to me was junk, but the fact that Hollywood saw fit to award it all the Oscars it did was because they saw something in it that I didn’t. The 3 Lord Of The Rings movies were not my cup of tea, but there were more who felt differently. When I saw Brokeback Mountain Sunday night, 90 % of the audiance was straight couples. The straight population outnumbers the gay population and they sure seem to love this movie and are supporting it.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on January 10, 2006 at 8:49 am

Since Salt Lake City and Larry Miller are so progressive and the Megaplex already showed the very gay CHICKEN LITTLE and RENT then must must only assume the obvious.

Larry Miller and SLC hate cowboys!
Boycott westerns! Boycott westerns!

Roger Katz
Roger Katz on January 10, 2006 at 11:56 am

“A majority of the general public believe that two men engaging in sodomy is bad behavior and wrong.”

I have no desire to see “Brokeback Mountain,” but I can’t let that above comment go. I would say that is absolutely false. It is more like a tiny minority of conservative Christians that think the behavior is bad and wrong. The majority of the public don’t care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 10, 2006 at 12:35 pm

Roger, I would respectfully disagree with your statements. An overwhelming majority of Christians believe sodomy is a sin.(66%) Furthermore, there is much concern in the gay community over the recent trend in poll numbers which show 57% of the general population thinks sodomy is wrong and the number is climbing.

vokoban
vokoban on January 10, 2006 at 1:07 pm

Where did you get those figures, from Pat Robertson? Don’t start spouting off statistics if you aren’t going to back them up. Secondly, what makes you so in tune with the ‘gay community’ that you can go around telling others what is concerning the ‘gay community’?

Ken Roe
Ken Roe on January 10, 2006 at 1:23 pm

“Now, Hollywood wants us to accept Homosexual behavour as normal”

May I point out that Homosexual behavour has been a ‘normal’ trait of human behavour for many thousands of years. It IS normal, no question about it.

Am I to presume the figures of 66% and 57% are for the U.S.A. or parts of it? Where in some States, to Love in a certain kind of way is illegal and will mean imprisonment or worse. What kind of ‘normal’, ‘loving’ so called Christian' behavour is that all about? Those precentage figures quoted are certainly not in that proportion in more tolerant countries like the U.K. where we now have legalised same sex civil partnerships. I am so proud to feel ‘normal’, along with other accepted normal human beings in my free thinking and loving country.

markinthedark
markinthedark on January 10, 2006 at 1:36 pm

Never thought this site would get so political!

vokoban
vokoban on January 10, 2006 at 3:03 pm

An exteme position on either side of this topic is detrimental to the spirit of this website. I realize that the gamut of users is a broad scope from right-wing godchasers to left-wing homos (I can use that word, I’m as gay as a jaybird), but the true beauty of movies is that there is a movie for everyone, EVERYONE!. What a boring world it would be if all movies had to be about ‘normal’ people or ‘normal’ situations. Although some theaters were originally built for stage performance, most existing today were built for the sole purpose of people enjoying movies. We have mobility, we can get up and leave if we don’t like the movie. Some of us will even get our admission money back. There is no risk here. If the theater in Utah had already booked Brokeback Mountain and then withdrew because of a few complaints, then I believe they are sad and weak. If they decided before that this wasn’t going to make money from their neighborhood and declined, then I think that is their prerogative. I would like to find a theater that was showing John Waters, Bette Davis, and pre-code Stanwyck movies. I know that won’t happen, but I certainly wouldn’t cause a big stink because another theater was only showing movies that had premiered on the Lifetime Channel.

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 10, 2006 at 3:55 pm

I am sorry if the numbers I cite go against your desire to have homosexuality considered an acceptable behavior. The General Public figures came from George Gallop. The Christian statistics came from The Barna Group.
Two men having sex is not normal. It is unbelievable that I even have to say that. Even the non-christian Darwinian view of evolution falls apart with homosexuality. Yes, I agree that a small percentage of humans were homosexuals throughout history, this does not make the behavior normal. It simply means they fell prey to their sinful temptations.
My brother is Gay and happens to be very active in the Gay community. He is 54 years old and has been HIV positive for three years. He is a lonely man who will never know the blessings of
children and family. He is surrounded by “friends” who have broken families and divorce. Many of his friends have already died prematurly. No, I will never accept homosexuality as normal when it is going to take the life of my brother. I also resent the efforts of Hollywood and apparently the British who want to make destroying lives normal, all in the name of love???

Ed Solero
Ed Solero on January 10, 2006 at 5:59 pm

Hey listen… the non Christian Darwinian view of evolution also falls apart with oral sex and masturbation as well as with heterosexual anal intercourse. Anyway… we seem to have some people here who are entrenched in their views on either side of the equation. Let’s agree to disagree and call a truce before this devolves into a regrettable exchange of hurtful words.

Ed Solero
Ed Solero on January 10, 2006 at 5:59 pm

And who hasn’t fallen prey to a sinful temptation every now and again?

John Fink
John Fink on January 10, 2006 at 6:00 pm

What does any of this have to do with theatrical exhibition.

vokoban
vokoban on January 10, 2006 at 7:23 pm

I agree with John, but at least the truth came out. It’s personal issues that bring forth the fire and brimstone. Peace out.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on January 10, 2006 at 9:51 pm

Forget the gay issue. It is wrong for a theatre to moralize content. They should let the public make that choice based on ratings and reviews. By banning this film this cinema should now be forced to justify showing HOSTEL, and all the other sex and violence Hollywood epics it has shown. That is the price you pay for entering the slippery slope of moral hypocrisy. If this had happened on the coasts we wouldn’t be so suspicious of religious fascism. It is happening just were we suspected the apex of American stupidity might lie.

chconnol
chconnol on January 11, 2006 at 4:22 am

The very gay “Chicken Little”! Yes, this movie was truly horrible but I was amazed at the gay subtext and it’s not my imagination or anyone else’s. The obvious was the pig’s love of Streisand and how he became energized at the end to “I Will Survive”. Others have commented on Chicken Littles Daddy issues and such as well.

Jomace
Jomace on January 11, 2006 at 4:27 am

Who cares what Utah thinks? Remember when the Mormon Tabernacle Choir recorded the pop song “You’re Having My Baby”? (Or was that a George Carlin joke?) Nevertheless, a screenplay by Larry McMurtry based on a brilliantly dense and complex story by Annie Proulx, is nothing to ignore. (The story is in a collection of Wyoming stories by Annie titled “Close Range.” Those offended by activity on the big screen, might yet gain something valuable from “Brokeback Mountain” and the other beautifully crafted stories in the collection. She refers to the cowboy couple as “a pair of deuces going nowhere.” What’s wrong with that?

Grow up, Utah, or not. Who, I repeat, cares?

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 11, 2006 at 4:48 am

For being the “apex of American Stupidity”, Utah faired pretty well in the 2000 census. Compared to California, it has a much higher graduation rate, a much lower divorce rate and lower unemployment.
If I were looking to raise a family, which believe it or not really happens, looks like I choose stupid.

vokoban
vokoban on January 11, 2006 at 4:57 am

Let’s try to keep this on the issue at hand….what’s next, a discussion of the famous secret Mormon underwear?

Roger Katz
Roger Katz on January 11, 2006 at 2:57 pm

“Furthermore, there is much concern in the gay community over the recent trend in poll numbers which show 57% of the general population thinks sodomy is wrong and the number is climbing.”

Not to beat a dead horse, but those numbers are older than dirt. A 1998 University of Chicago study showed 58% opposed yo same sex behavior. A 2005 Boston Globe nationwide poll showed 41% opposed, so the number is falling not rising. Also, 41% still seems awfully high. I would’ve gussed about 10% to 15% were opposed to it. I think older generations are skewing the numbers as more than half of those between the ages of 18 and 34 support same sex marriage.

Anyway, this is my last word on the matter as it is a subject I truly don’t care about. I just don’t like to see misinformation spread by people with prejudice.

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 11, 2006 at 5:24 pm

“I just don’t like to see misinformation spread by people with prejudice”
Statements like that force me to defend myself. I am truly sorry for continuing this thread but I will not allow a statement to attack my character without responding.
Below are the COMPLETE results to the poll question conducted by the Boston Globe on May 9, 2005.
Question: What about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex?
41%-Always Wrong
35%-Never Wrong
15%-Don’t know
8%-only Sometimes
2%-Almost always wrong
I think it is safe to say that the Boston Globe is a Pro Gay,
Liberal newspaper. Even in the article accompanying the poll they
admit a similar poll conducted by another major show much different numbers but the questions were asked differently.
Just think what would have happened to me if I tried to use a “Focus on the Family” poll. It would have set off a firestorm if indignation. Look at those numbers and you can easily see that a majority of Americans believe same sex sexual relations are wrong.
Furthermore, anyone over 35 should be offended by your “skewing the numbers” comment. Is it possible that when this group was under 35 they held more liberal views and because they lived life and gained experience their views became more conservative. I happen to respect the views of those older than myself. When I need advice on important life issues I probably wont go to an enlightened 21 year old.

Mike (saps)
Mike (saps) on January 11, 2006 at 10:07 pm

Glad to see so many regular contributors adding thrir thoughtful comments here, unlike jnjeisen, who seems to have an agenda, movie theater owner or not. He (she?) hasn’t even commented on one theater at this site. And then uses info from the world net daily, one of the most out-there far right websites, to make his confused points. (Real life and nature itself just aren’t normal enough for him.)

Economically, every theatre that has played BBM has done extrememly well, so jn’s original arguments are a bit weak.

And so what that he loves his gay brother, the loneliest soul in town. Maybe if he did more than just “love” him (love the sinner, hate the sin?) and actually accepted and supported him, perhaps his brother’s self-esteem wouldn’t be so miserable and maybe he could have had a decent life. I know plenty of gay people with loving, supportive family, friends, partners, and yes, children. (And don’t 50% of “straight” marriages end in divorce anyway?)

It seems to me that jn should actually see Brokeback Mountain; it is a heartbreakingly sad indictment of the closet, and how such repression harms not only those in the closet, but the family, friends and loved ones of those suffering people. It truly is an eye-opener.

One last thing: civil rights in this country are not won by opinion polls. If so, we’d still have citizens forced to the back of the bus, women tied to the kitchen, bans on interracial marriage and contraception, and, yes, good men and women forced to deny themselves the right to live and love with those they choose.

And P.S. What theater does jn own? I’d love to visit its page here on Cinema Treasures.

vokoban
vokoban on January 12, 2006 at 3:32 am

Very well put saps. I was getting a little nauseated after jnjeisen’s last blathering litany. You handled it with a bit more finesse than what I had planned. I wouldn’t hold your breath on finding out which theater the poor, wretched creature owns.

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 12, 2006 at 4:50 am

I hope the casual reader of these posts will go back, re-read the posts and notice which side on this issue is respectful and which side resorts to personal attacks. If I offended anyone, even by unintended inferences, than I sincerely apologize.
I added comment ot this thread only to say that I thought (and still do) playing Brokeback would be a mistake in MY market.

vokoban
vokoban on January 12, 2006 at 5:29 am

‘I added comment ot this thread only to say that I thought (and still do) playing Brokeback would be a mistake in MY market.’

Valid point. Every person’s opinion should be heard. However, you went on to start a debate filled with silly statistics, religious overtones, bigotry, and nothing really to do with the issue at hand. This is about whether that theater in Utah should or should not have pulled Brokeback Mountain, not whether a majority of Americans think that gay sex is ‘normal’. You even brought your personal family problems into the mix and showed your simple-minded true colors. By the way…..what theater is it that you own?

Thanks jnjeisen. Apology accepted.

Cary41
Cary41 on January 12, 2006 at 7:20 am

Vokoban-
“poor, wretched creature”…..You just proved jnjeisen’s point in an earlier post by calling him a name. Way to go, I’m noticing this as a trend. It seems like people on the “right” will give their opinion and do it in a polite and professional manner, but those that aren’t so “right” almost ALWAYS eventually resort to name calling.

vokoban
vokoban on January 12, 2006 at 7:43 am

Luckily, I’m not really concerned with proving or disproving his point. Does he have a point, at this point? It seems to have been lost somewhere in his sermon. I’m not trying to uphold some high and mighty opinion of myself on here. Just giving my opinion. This isn’t a beauty contest and I’m not trying to win favor with you or anyone else’s opinion of what an upstanding left wing homosexual should be. It is heartwarming, however, to know that I don’t have to be worried about being called a name by someone on the ‘right’, as you say.

melders
melders on January 12, 2006 at 8:38 am

I would just like to add a comment about Jn’s lonely brother. I know many elderly people with family that are very lonely because that family no longer cares. That really has nothing to do with being gay or not. Also so many of his freinds are from broken families and divorce because they where forced to stay in the closet and get married because that was what they where told was right.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on January 12, 2006 at 8:42 am

“No, I will never accept homosexuality as normal when it is going to take the life of my brother.”

Jnj, since this will be the first ever recorded case of death by homosexuality, I think we all know what name to call this.

Your brother has a good reason to hate Christians with you as a voice box and Megaplex to justify your sick lifestyle.

ryancm
ryancm on January 12, 2006 at 10:35 am

Enough already. Every theatre should play ALL films and let the individual decide if he or she wants to see it. PERIOD.

godsmonster
godsmonster on January 12, 2006 at 10:49 am

My dearest Scary Eisentwat. The words “poor wretched creature” are not more than kind, loving words when you take into account the numerous of vicious assaults that we homos are forced to endure on a re-occurring basis. I’m sorry to inform you, but we face constant eternal damnations from the fanatic right. This Devine Right points an accusing fingerâ€"never to save us really, but merely to save themselves, as if the finger making the judgment calls will distract god from their own sins. Jngayson shouldn’t jump on here with his high and almighty sword to spew his “I’m-OK-you’re-NOT-OK” drivel and not expect to be pitied for a poor wretched creature. Anybody who makes his brother an example of everything wrong with people is pretty wretched in my opinion. Regarding the topic at hand, out of all the people I know who have seen “Brokeback Mountain,” be they gay, lesbian, straight male or female, only one person had a problem with this movie. I know a closeted gay man who found this to be the most ghastly movie ever made. Not surprisingly it was much too close to home. Why else would a subject matter be so upsetting? Maybe jngayson isn’t referring to gay a brother at all—-WHOOP there it is!

Luv,
Me

PS: If the Right-Wing elite stand inside the White Pearly Gates, then douse my underoos in diesel fuel and show me the way down.

ryancm
ryancm on January 12, 2006 at 11:26 am

I have to agree. Those who protest the most——-those are the ones!!

Cary41
Cary41 on January 12, 2006 at 11:56 am

Keep talkin boys…you argue in support of my positions better than I do.

godsmonster
godsmonster on January 12, 2006 at 12:15 pm

I love flippin' a switch with numerous positions myself my dear Scary one. But alas…I favor my hidden dragon much more than your crazy monkey.

Luv,
Me

Ken Roe
Ken Roe on January 12, 2006 at 12:45 pm

Here in the UK, in the London suburb of Notting Hill we have a very famous old cinema named the Coronet /theaters/1463/

It still operates screening new releases, but here is the difference, it is now owned, operated and programmed by the Kensington Temple Church…..and guess what…..the current attraction is “Broke Back Mountain”.

Yes, we really do have a free thinking open society here in the UK. Now WAKE UP AMERICA!

vokoban
vokoban on January 12, 2006 at 2:02 pm

I know nothing about it, yet, but I wonder if the original Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner had a similar response across this country (USA) from all of the ‘normal’ people.

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on January 13, 2006 at 1:32 am

In November 1985, Sack Theatres chairman Alan Friedberg gave into pressure from Catholic extremists and cancelled a premiere of Jean-Luc Godard’s Hail, Mary. The movie had been scheduled to open at Sack’s Paris Cinema in Boston’s Back Bay.

After Sack pulled out, the movie instead opened across the river at the Orson Welles Cinema in Cambridge. The theatre was picketed, but the shows went on as scheduled.

One difference betweeen this situation and the one in Utah: Sack announced the cancellation five days before the premiere was to occur. This was enough time for the Orson Welles to pick up the film and premiere it on the originally scheduled date. In fact, the Welles had previously bid on the film but had lost it to Sack.

(sorry to post this in two different places, but the discussion is going on in both)

KenLayton
KenLayton on January 13, 2006 at 5:49 am

jnjeisen is indeed a theater operator. As I said in a previous posting, ALL theater owners, be they independently owned or chain-owned are free to book or not book any film. If that owner feels that the local customers would not see it then why book something that would lose money?

There is a Mormon-owned theater about 90 miles from me way out in the sticks that does not show any “R” rated movies—-period. Their local community does not like movies with sex, violence, crude language, etc. That theater is still open and business is fine.

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on January 13, 2006 at 5:56 am

And the second-run theatre nearest to me elected not to pick up The Passion of the Christ when it became available. The owner of the theatre simply did not want to show this movie, even though it would have done a fair amount of business there. This was perfectly within his rights. But of course, he didn’t advertise the movie and then pull it.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on January 13, 2006 at 9:00 am

I don’t think anyone could argue those points. Some markets just don’t work with some films and some movies have no second run life. This is a mainstream theatre, a mainstream film, and a relatively major American City we are talking about. If the Megaplex passed on NINE SONGS, THE SQUID AND THE WHALE or even LATTER DAYS no one would have commented. Those films have a hard time at the multiplex outside of certain upmarket areas. This film is selling out in El Paso, Texas. Are we to understand El Paso is more sophisticated than SLC?

John Fink
John Fink on January 13, 2006 at 10:15 am

The fact that is offensive is they passed after it had been booked. Nine Songs is a diffrent case – presumably it could be banned as a community standard (it has actual graphic sex). I wouldn’t expect Megaplex to play that movie but this one is a.– a hit, b.-crossing into the mainstream and c.-had showtimes advertised. To say all of SLC or Utah is uncultured is unfair (remember Utah houses the most important film festival to independent cinema!) What is so offensive is it was censored after it was booked and it was considred a busness decission. It’s dumb that it has been blown out of context here with religious attacks and attacks on Utah – any attack should be directed at and only at Larry Miller.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on January 13, 2006 at 11:09 am

Vokoban,
I did a little research into “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”.

From the New York Times, March 7, 1968
“Police armed with riot equipment moved into a section of Hamilton (Ohio) tonight and quelled an outbreak by young Negroes who shattered store windows. Police said the outbreak was apparently the aftermath of picketing here earlier at the Main Theater by 10 members of the United Klans of America.”

From Director Stanley Kramer also in the NYT.
“The primary objection to “Guess who…” was the fact that the film was made in the first place…The problem isn’t the south at all: except for the smaller communities. It’s in the North, the site of the big city ghetto. And the film has been doing smashing business everywhere including Atlanta, New Orleans, and all points south…the seeds of the next revolution are planted during this one.”

No theatre seems to have been lame enough to ban “Guess who…”

I can only find one case where a Stanley Kramer film was banned. That was BLESS THE BEASTS & CHILDREN. That was at …wait for it… Brigham Young University, Salt Lake City. That film was banned for being “too real for our people”
(NYT Aug 12, 1971)

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on January 13, 2006 at 11:17 am

Brigham Young University is not located in Salt Lake City.

vokoban
vokoban on January 13, 2006 at 11:31 am

Interesting. I guess I’m a bit confused on what “too real for our people” means.

stevenj
stevenj on January 14, 2006 at 8:27 am

Remember all the Catholics and Christians that picketed The Last Temptation of Christ? Most had not even seen the film. I doubt the above exhibitor has seen Brokeback. I’m guessing he/she is afraid that his/her patrons will see themselves in Brokeback. Yes, as representing the intollerant of our society, those that think death or murder is acceptable to someone who is homosexual. For me, the book and the movie are an indictment of the closet. 1963 or 2006, it doesn’t matter, when people are nurtured and supported there is love and people can be themselves, proudly. Gay and bisexual people DO NOT deserve “the tire iron”. Most religions teach that homosexuality is “wrong”. Throughtout my adult life I’ve often wondered why these alleged normal people so easily kill each other over politics and money, then run around attacking others for who they love.
I haven’t read of any other theatre owners refusing to show this film so apparently jnjeisen has distinguished him/her self as the only person in America wanting to censor this beautiful film.

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 14, 2006 at 3:20 pm

It is interesting to watch everyone assign motives to me. Here is something to ponder (right now I wonder how many casual observers to this post are cringing because I’m going to get the boys fired up again after they finally settled down)…Is it possible that members of the Gay community have isolated themselves so much that they don’t really know the world outside of the homosexual culture and because of this they only assign bad motives to those of us who disagree with their lifestyle? This was the case with my brother. He is a talented, loving, caring, generous person who is gay. After our parents died in 1983, he moved and became active in the gay community and fell out of touch with the rest of the family. It wasn’t that we didn’t accept him…for years we couldn’t even find him. In 2003, thanks to the internet, we found him and arranged a family get together for Thanksgiving. Part of finding him was also discovering that he was a gay activist. This made for a couple of very interesting and memorable days. I think I can accurately say that the biggest shock came not from us coming face-to-face with his homosexuality, it came from the stereotype of Christians my brother brought with him. He was sure that he understood how all Christians viewed him and he was truly a Bigot in that respect. It was really fun to have him get to know and understand us and see us in a way he had never considered…kind, compassionate, loving, and understanding. It was easier for him to believe we were the kind of Christians his community made us out to be…Hypocritical, judgemental, self righteous and if I forgot anything you can refer to the above posts to find more.
I think ultimately this issue revolves around Homosexuality vs. Christianity. The Bible states clearly in five places that homosexual behavior is sin. Leviticus 18:22; 20:13, Romans 1:26,27
1 Corinthians 6:9,10 and 1 Timothy 1:9&10. Sexual lust and fantasy, both homosexual and heterosexual, are sinful according to God’s Word.
Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God simply cannot accept the sin which usually accompanies
homosexuality. This DOES NOT give them the right to mistreat the homosexual in any way. Unfortunately, people—Christians included— don’t always treat others the way they, themselves, would want to be treated… see above posts…

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on January 14, 2006 at 11:36 pm

jn, re-read your posts and open your mind. You have condemned your brother to death although he is still alive, have blamed homosexuality on his disease, and preached approval for the banning of a film due to a gay subject. It is this hateful intolerance that we and your brother see and you seem unable to. Have you no sense of decency?

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 15, 2006 at 4:15 am

Al, My brother condemned himself with his decision to be an active participant in a lifestyle he himself knew better than most was extremely risky. As for hateful intolerance, please do not lump my brother in with you when you get out your wide brush and start painting. My brother discovered that it was his ignorance towards Christians that made HIM intolerant. I simply believe it is more compassionate to speak out against a behavior which prematurely takes the lives of some of our greatest men (and women),instead of sticking my head in the sand and denying that the behavior is the root cause. Finally, I never advocated banning this film. I repeat for the third time, I simply made a decision, as I must every week, that this film would not benefit my theatre in MY market.

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on January 15, 2006 at 4:23 am

This discussion has gone far afield from the original news item, which was about a theatre owner cancelling an advertised booking on opening day.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on January 15, 2006 at 4:38 am

I disagree. This discussion is about censorship in American today and the 1950’s style atmosphere of hate and religious supremacy. Of course a theatre owner can do as he or she pleases. The justification is what worries me. There was equal outrage (not in these pages) when theatres refused to show FAHRENHEIT 911 and THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. I would question the motivation of any theatre owner who censors a movie then starts bible thumping to justify their oppressive decision.

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 15, 2006 at 5:00 am

Al, for the forth time, due to the fact I happen to live and own a theatre in an area that does not have a substantial gay community to support it, I will not play Brokeback. It is an old and worn out tactic to claim censorship when it is economics 101.

John Fink
John Fink on January 15, 2006 at 5:25 am

Would you ever book a movie, advertise show times and then pull it even after you entered into a contract to show it because you found the content to be offensive? In a way that is doing a disservice to your audience by falsely advertising a picture.

And how would you even define morals- would you play a film that’s pornographic in terms of violence like Hostel because you think it’ll be a hit? Or a movie like Britney Spear’s Crossroads which is an evil tool designed to teach teen and pre-teen girls everywhere the one person to lose your virginity to is a dangerous looking older guy because he drives a nice car, and the film also grabbles with the abortion issue? Did you show that movie?

I’m Catholic and heterosexual, as well as a shareholder in GE and am disgusted by Larry Miller’s business practices in this situation. I feel Universal should pull all of his product, including his print of King Kong; we should be out of the business of Megaplex 17. If he were a bigger chain, like an AMC or a Regal the issue would be dangerous, if both AMC and Regal found the film offensive you’d be blocked from a good share of the market.

I wonder what he did with that extra screen, letting a theater go dark for a week is probably a good movie from an economics 101. If anything Miller created a demand for it at near-by theaters, calling attention to it. I think when people go to the movies they have some understanding of what a certain movie is, you don’t wonder into a film without any clue of what you’re getting in to.

vokoban
vokoban on January 15, 2006 at 6:00 am

Boredom is a rare emotion for me. It’s not a pleasant emotion. Somehow it has reared its ugly head in this discussion and since I legally and morally cannot continue a discussion with a person who doesn’t realize the difference between ‘forth’ and ‘fourth’, I must bow out and retire. Some will be saddened, some will be relieved, some just won’t care. For my last dig at jnjeisen, I will quote from the great and glorious Carol Burnett show….“Eunice, you have cobwebs in the windmills of your mind; you’re playing with a warped puck.”

“Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.” H.G. Wells

“Theologians are all alike, of whatever religion or country they may be; their aim is always to wield despotic authority over men’s consciences; they therefore persecute all of us who have the temerity to tell the truth.”
Frederick the Great, letter to Voltaire, 1736

“The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.” Havelock Ellis

“Too much of a good thing is simply wonderful.” Mae West

FIN

Mike (saps)
Mike (saps) on January 15, 2006 at 9:12 pm

The vast majority of the audiences for this film seem to be straight. Economics 101 indeed.

godsmonster
godsmonster on January 17, 2006 at 7:01 am

Jnjeisen…you remind me of a very young Scrappy Doo.

Quit holding YOUR “market” accountable for YOUR morals…

You talk about your “gay brother” like a teenager talks to a “friend” at the STD clinic.

Closets are for clothes. Come onnn OUT!!!

Luv,
Me

stevenj
stevenj on January 17, 2006 at 7:10 am

According to an AP story today Brokeback placed 9th in last weekend’s ticket sales but still has the highest per screen average at $10,330 per screen and is still going strong in every market it is playing in, despite it’s gay theme. Last night it won 4 Golden Globes including best picture, director, screenplay and song.
Wondering if jn’s theatre will show Transamerica (Felicity Huffman-Best Actress Golden Globe) – about a transexual or Copote (Phillip S Hoffman-Best Actor Golden Globe) about an openly gay writer??

Mikeoaklandpark
Mikeoaklandpark on January 17, 2006 at 11:42 am

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN REIGNS at the Golden Globes. Interesting, it is still inlimited release and was still in the top 10 ( number 9). Steven Spielbergs Muncih is in wide release and number 11

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 17, 2006 at 6:13 pm

Impressive…Now the 83rd highest grossing movie released in 2005.

John Fink
John Fink on January 17, 2006 at 7:03 pm

It will be impressive considering that it’ll be nominated for Oscars and will probably go on to gross over $70M – much more impressive than Hoodwinked (the number one movie in America) or In The Mix considering the hurdles it had to over come to get there. Sorry, but can be considered a hit, after all it has taken in more than doubled its production budget, not many movies can actually claim this. Obviously there is a market for this picture, even in markets where indie film is rare (let alone films with homosexual subtext, but this is an A-list picture with stars, not a limited-apeal queer movie from Strand Releasing). If the film does $100M can you honestly say there is no market for it in a certain part of this country? If a film made $100M and I thought it offended my morals I think I’d be interested in seeing it just to understand why it did so well and why it caught on. I feel insulted by Napeoplon Dynomite and can’t understand why it caught on, but it did. Considering what it is 83rd is impressive – after all it’s still platforming out. If its nominated for enough Oscars it will be playing at every 6-plex in the country.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on January 17, 2006 at 9:40 pm

Yes jnj, I understand what you means. After all, only gays will see BROKEBACK and only Jews will see MUNICH and only African Americans will see GLORY ROAD and only Hobbits saw THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 18, 2006 at 4:57 am

I am so excited to watch this movie climb the list. I bet in a week or two it will surpass “The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl”

godsmonster
godsmonster on January 18, 2006 at 7:26 am

I take it back jn…you’re not Scrappy Doo. You’re more like Boo Boo Bear.

ryancm
ryancm on January 18, 2006 at 10:42 am

Hey, JN
Would you like BROKEBACK to flop, or are you open minded to good biz and people who want to see an adult film that’s a little…shall we say…different??

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 18, 2006 at 12:33 pm

Hey, Ron
Thanks for being polite. I am not in favor of banning or censorship in regards to Brokeback. My reason for posting the above figures is to counter to spin from others who seem to think this is the next Titanic.
I knew Jack Foley from Focus when he worked for Columbia as a branch manager. I respect the outstanding job he did with Brokeback…First week only at a few theatres in heavily gay communities…generate good press for the high screen average, then a little wider and a little wider until the massive buzz causes hetero America to go. Brilliant. Also, it dosn’t hurt that it is a well made film by a world class director.

Do I want Brokeback to fail? I’m not sure. If the general public sees this movie and notices the destructive nature of this lifestyle, It serves a good purpose. If we listen to the spin we will hear how most of the problems in the homosexual community come from religious bigotry. To this I say, read the above posts with an objective mind and tell me who is behaving as a bigot with things like namecalling, false accusations, stereotyping etc.
Just watch the responses to this post. I really bring out the worst in out fellow theatre lovers.

stevenj
stevenj on January 18, 2006 at 2:12 pm

Destructive nature???? Why is it destructive for 2 men to love each other? If you read the papers, watch the news,listen to the news you’ll hear the “heterosexual news”. Because 99% of it is about heterosexuals. War in Iraq, sad ethics in Washington, a 45% divorce rate among heterosexuals and warring religions is DESTRUCTIVE. You do realize that AIDS is a heterosexual disease on this planet don’t you?? (you’ve blamed your own brother’s sexual orientation on a virus – no wonder he did’t want to be around you for so long). Finally, the most destructive things that happen in this movie are caused by heterosexuals – a murder victim Ennis' father makes him look at and Jack’s murder. The fact that these 2 men could not be themselves, live happy lives together is because heterosexuals like you and your religion work very hard to make that not happen. I’m 56 years old and out of the closet for 37 of those years and you “Christians” have tried relentlessly to keep us down one way or the other since we all started coming out of the closet in the late 60’s. What’s wrong with you people?

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 18, 2006 at 3:17 pm

The casual reader is going to think I posted the above post(signed by stevenj) under an assumed name just to make myself look good. Please steven, try to come up with an original idea, the old rhetoric being repeated over and over again won’t make it true…it is still old rhetoric.
“Whats wrong with you people?”….and I’m the Bigot?

godsmonster
godsmonster on January 18, 2006 at 5:41 pm

You’re not a bigot jn. You’re Pooh Bear. And I do mean pooh pooh.

Luv,
Me

John Fink
John Fink on January 18, 2006 at 6:08 pm

The more postings I read and respond to I think I wonder if we’ve proved an important point or have abused this message board for attacks. I think that the fundamental importance of site like Cinema Treasures is that it studies the evolution and history of cinema exhibition. What this message board has proved is that hurdles still exist to films, but one breakout film can change that. Brokeback Mountain is a modest hit when put up against King Kong and War of the Worlds as jnjeisen contends. His theater is currently showing The Ringer, which has made less money than Brokeback Mountain.

While Brokeback Mountain is it a commercial film it’s subjected to attacks. The film, to me, doesn’t glorify homosexuality â€" it’s simply a good love story. I always find it ironic that those that attack certain films are the ones that never see them. Context is an important consideration when addressing any work of art â€" you may be offended by a lyric in a song but without the context it sits in the meaning cannot really be understood. On the surface The Ringer it appears may be making fun of the mentally retarded, it doesn’t- but someone who watches commercials casually may think the film is mean spirited. (The Ringer isn’t, it nicely develops all of its characters)

Brokeback Mountain says these things happen. If it was the story of an interracial heterosexual couple it would only be the target of the Klan. (I wonder if Focus will come under heat the way Miramax was for having an anti-Catholic agenda with Priests, Dogma, and The Magdalene Sisters because there next film is a romantic comedy about an interracial couple, Something New). I doubt this film will “convert” anyone to homosexuality; it didn’t convert me or any of the other people I know who have seen it. On those grounds I don’t think it’s controversial, it may take you beyond your comfort zone a bit (I’m not saying it’s an easy film to watch) but it’s certainly a good one for intelligent audiences hungry for bold entertainment.

Yet, if anything these posts conclude that topics are still taboo. In the South, pre-Civil Rights it used to be scenes in which African Americans weren’t portrayed as slaves. Theater owners don’t have the right to omit scenes from a print now, thankfully. The fact this film is so controversial is stupid to me. For better or worse Brokeback Mountain has become a landmark, not just in American pop culture, but also in the study of cinema exhibition. Noting that most of the posts here are valid, I still have no idea what this ‘Pooh Bear’ business is, nor why people its poster godsmonster has only chose to post on this issue. The core of the debate, however is valid and from this thread you get a sense of how cinemas are programmed â€" what its owners think will be successful and what won’t. Sadly I think the audiences’ intelligence is underestimated, I’m able to put aside personal politics and see a film that I disagree with because I’m always interested in hearing a viewpoint I’m not politically comfortable with. I don’t think it’s a sin to admit Brokeback Mountain is a good film that people want to see.

Jnjeisen runs a twin screen second run theater. I don’t know what type of product he books but I’m willing to assume that Brokeback Mountain isn’t the type of film he’d typically play unless it won the Oscar for Best Picture (even then he wouldn’t, we know). This is not because of the film’s sexual politics but because the film is a word of mouth film, not one that is booked on 2000+ screens it’s first weekend.
When a first run 17-plex doesn’t show a movie that’s been widely successful it’s not only a bad business decision but also one that is one based on homophobia. Strange personal attacks aside this has been a valuable debate on the issue proving that movies can still be controversial, debated, and shocking, even in this day and age of instant access to pornography online and uncensored satellite radio. Knowing this I’m prepared to conclude that films that are mature, honest, and frank are in danger of being considered controversial no matter how desensitized we become.

melders
melders on January 18, 2006 at 8:21 pm

To say the a homosexual lifestyle is destructive is stupid. It is definetly not the only lifestyle that is destructive. I am suprised to find out that Jn’s theater is showing “The Ringer”. If you want to see a destructive lifestyle, just look at Johnny Knoxville. How many teenagers have died trying to recreate his stunts? I don’t think that any theater should be forced to show a movie. I do have a problem though with people who say that they don’t like “Brokeback Mountain” because it might promote a “destructive lifestyle”. Do these people say we shouldn’t show Titanic because it shows pre-marital sex? Kate and Jack’s relationship also destroyed a marriage, remember?

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on January 19, 2006 at 1:24 am

Lots of movies show ‘destructive lifestyles’. Take, for instance, Walk the Line. Drunknenness, drug abuse, adultery (the last of which seems to get implicit approval from the film-makers). It’s still a great film.

ryancm
ryancm on January 19, 2006 at 5:22 am

Any exhibitor should play any movie, regardless of his or own personal taste. After all, show business is just that…a “business"
If a film is making money and some kind of noteriety, it should surley be booked. I hate the grizzly, slasher gore movies, but I’d book these films as they are money makers, especially in their first weeks. Again, this ia a "business”. Also, as a non gay person I’d rather my friends and grown children see BROKEBACK than those horrid horror and slasher films. Neither kind of film, however, is going to make people stalkers, murderers, and in the case of BROKEBACK, homosexuals. You are what you are…period. So book the damn films and get on with the “business” end of it !!!

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on January 19, 2006 at 5:46 am

Any exhibitor should play any movie?

No, any exhibitor should choose what movies he or she thinks will appeal to his or her local market. There are always more movies available to be shown than there are places to show them, so any booking involves a conscious choice.

ryancm
ryancm on January 19, 2006 at 7:56 am

I would like to clarify my comment. They should play any movie that is a money maker, regardless of it’s content. They should also feel free NOT to book a loser, regardless of it’s content. A persons moral likes or dislikes of judgements should not enter into booking a film. If BROKEBACK was a loser and had horrible notices, no I would not book it. But for THAT reason, not because of what it’s about. Am I clear on this?

jnjeisen
jnjeisen on January 19, 2006 at 8:39 am

Do you book a theatre? Are you kidding me…“regardless of content”. The short term gain from playing some movies may not be worth the long term loss created by that decision. IN MY MARKET, it is not worth playing Brokeback, or Farenheit, or any other movie with a controversy attached because of the overall harm it could cause big movies like Narnia or Passion, or even smaller ones like “End of the Spear”. If money is the only criteria for playing a movie, we are all in serious trouble.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on January 19, 2006 at 9:10 am

We play all films we can get our hands on. The public votes them out by not buying tickets. To decide for them would be bad business because audiences always surprise you. For those who think that it is unfair to suggest Salt Lake City has an anti-gay bias, the story below shows that the mayor thinks it does.

http://kutv.com/local/local_story_018113841.html

John Fink
John Fink on January 19, 2006 at 9:28 am

Bassicly Jnjeisen your saying your customers aren’t smart and would boycott your cinema because you showed a controversal movie? I was offended by Get Rich or Die Trying but I didn’t boycott any theater showing it. People aren’t dumb – if your customers knew how insulting you were to their intelligence essentally calling them backwards, they wouldn’t spend a dime in your theater even if you are offering popcorn, soda and a movie ticket for five bucks.

ryancm
ryancm on January 19, 2006 at 11:13 am

to Jnjetsen. For your info, yes I booked Theatres in California for over 20 years….to great success I might add. A friend of mine is still booking independent Theatres accross the country and he as or will (when prints become available) book BROKEBACK..everywhere…as he does all films that are popular and profitable. I think you are living in the stone age. It’s dollars and cents my friend. If it sells tickets (which means good concessions as well) .. book it even if your totally against what ever the film is about. You cannot censor the public. They will do it themselves with no help from you.

markinthedark
markinthedark on January 19, 2006 at 11:25 am

on IMDB today: “ ‘Brokeback’ Reaches Top of the Mountain

http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-01-19/

To sum it up: it was the #1 film not only per screen but in receipts on Tuesday after the Golden Globes.

stevenj
stevenj on January 19, 2006 at 3:16 pm

Don’t worry jn, I don’t think any reader, casual or otherwise, will have any trouble distinguihing my thoughts from yours.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on January 22, 2006 at 11:27 am

The non-profit grant funded Windsor Theatre in Hampton, Iowa seems to have stopped accepting suggestions from its patrons.
Hmmm.

Mikeoaklandpark
Mikeoaklandpark on January 31, 2006 at 7:49 am

Brokeback Mountain leads the Oscar nominations. I will say this. If I was an acadamy voter I would vote Ang Lee, best director, but my best picture vote would go to Crash. In my opinion it was one of the best films last year. It deserved the cast ensamble it won at the SAG awards Sunday. I am gay and loved Brokeback, but feel that Crash really was the best film of 2005. It also deals with racism, but in a different way.

ryancm
ryancm on January 31, 2006 at 8:27 am

Gee, I think CRASH is over rated. Story was too contrived and all that happening in the course of two nights with the same people involved seemed a bit much. A little too coincedental for my taste. Good acting though. I’m NOT gay, but BROKEBACK should win.

Mikeoaklandpark
Mikeoaklandpark on February 3, 2006 at 1:53 am

Hey all, I am changing my mind on my above post.After seeing Brokeback Mountain again last night at a theater where I could actually hear the dialouge, it is the best picture of the year. I missed so much the first time seeing it at this independant theater in Asheville. It has moved to Regal/UA and the picture and sound was great.

Mike (saps)
Mike (saps) on February 3, 2006 at 7:52 pm

>>Do I want Brokeback to fail? I’m not sure. If the general public sees this movie and notices the destructive nature of this lifestyle…

This could only have been written by someone who has not seen the movie and has no idea what it’s really about.

Mikeoaklandpark
Mikeoaklandpark on February 8, 2006 at 7:50 am

Saps
The gay lifestyle is not destructive. What is destructive is homophobia in this country. Based on the time frame 63-83, this culd have been a heterosexual story about an interracial couple who would have probibly done the same thing.

ghamilton
ghamilton on May 7, 2006 at 9:26 am

I have avoided this particular blog for many reasons.The silly comments from all sides defy rationality.The real story isn’t even mentioned really.It is the personality and character of Larry Miller.There should be a movie made about his real American life,where he came from,what he has built and his sometimes odd behavior.He is such a unique charcter.There has been little or no mention of the area the theater in question is located.The SL valley is very diverse from area to area.Give some the right to do what they want.I don’t want to get into it-BUT the intolerance for traditional values by the homosexual activists is something you won’t read about in the NYT.

Mike (saps)
Mike (saps) on May 7, 2006 at 11:54 am

More fodder for the flame war:
To some people, anyone out of the closet is a “homosexual activist.” Those same people won’t admit that gay people come from traditional families and usually support traditional values. What is the fight for gay marriage but a demand for stability and tradition? Or that the point of Brokeback Mountain is that staying in the closet is an intolerable and suffocating way of life? I find that many gay people are intolerant of intolerance. And ghamilton unwittingly supports this position: “Give [people] the right to do what they want.” What could be more traditional than that?

You must login before making a comment.

New Comment